Posts
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Privatizing the Military
I know this really has not been in the news much recently but since I'm nearly done reading Blackwater I thought I would talk about it. Having read 90% of that book, I have come to the conclusion that contracting out military responsibilities to private companies is one of the most dangerous threats to the military, and maybe even the nation itself. These "private security companies" have WAY too much influence and power. A company that has military grade weapons, training, billions of dollars, and the ability to influence foreign policy is something that should worry all of us. A company like that is capable of doing anything if it doesn't get what it wants, including, in extreme circumstances, using their forces against the government. Mercenary forces, which is exactly what security contractors are, have absolutely no place in the military, war zones, or patrolling US cities after hurricanes.
Also I feel that having them deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is an insult to our active duty military personnel who are there because they were ordered to go, and who are doing the exact same thing as security contractors for FAR LESS money. Is the notion that the lives of private contractors are worth more, which means far higher salaries, than the everyday hero in the Army who is on the ground fighting the same people as contractors, but with a far lower salary, a good one to be sending to those guys who are in the military? It should be the complete opposite! Our soldiers should be getting paid far better than ANY security contractor! Every person who went to work for security companies who are now in Iraq had a choice and knew what they were getting into, and they can quit at anytime. The enlisted soldier though MUST go where he/she is ordered and MUST complete his/her duty no matter how they feel about the orders they are given because if they don't they can be court martialed and/or dishonorably discharged. Recruiting and reenlistment are also casualties because why go into or stay in the military when you can make far more money in the private sector doing the exact same thing. Now tell me who is making the bigger sacrifice and thus deserves to be paid and supported as they should be.
Blackwater is a very interesting read, and I recommend people read it. It does knock the current administration, however, it was under this administration that companies like Blackwater were able to thrive so much and so fast. It also talks about what I mentioned with respect to patrolling in US cities.
Also I feel that having them deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is an insult to our active duty military personnel who are there because they were ordered to go, and who are doing the exact same thing as security contractors for FAR LESS money. Is the notion that the lives of private contractors are worth more, which means far higher salaries, than the everyday hero in the Army who is on the ground fighting the same people as contractors, but with a far lower salary, a good one to be sending to those guys who are in the military? It should be the complete opposite! Our soldiers should be getting paid far better than ANY security contractor! Every person who went to work for security companies who are now in Iraq had a choice and knew what they were getting into, and they can quit at anytime. The enlisted soldier though MUST go where he/she is ordered and MUST complete his/her duty no matter how they feel about the orders they are given because if they don't they can be court martialed and/or dishonorably discharged. Recruiting and reenlistment are also casualties because why go into or stay in the military when you can make far more money in the private sector doing the exact same thing. Now tell me who is making the bigger sacrifice and thus deserves to be paid and supported as they should be.
Blackwater is a very interesting read, and I recommend people read it. It does knock the current administration, however, it was under this administration that companies like Blackwater were able to thrive so much and so fast. It also talks about what I mentioned with respect to patrolling in US cities.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A hidden foe for renewable energy?
I had an interesting thought today about a reason why so many companies are unwilling to devote more money to renewable energies and it has to do with money. Now I'm not talking about start up/building costs, or amount of energy produced; but rather profits. Could one of the real reasons many companies hate putting money into renewable energy sources such as wind and solar be one of the very reasons renewable energy is so appealing? Cheap energy is cheap.
In order for a coal or gas plant to run, the raw materials have to be bought, and the energy companies pass that cost, along with their own "add-on costs" (aka profits), onto the consumer (if you don't think thats the case then you have a pretty naive view of businesses). When it comes to renewable solar and wind energy, however, there is no raw materials to buy and thus it makes it harder for companies to mask their profits as "add-on costs". Aside from the initial costs to build, which every type of energy has, the only additional cost comes from regular maintenance because sun and wind are free to access. The middle men (energy companies) can't very easily jack up prices when everyone knows, you don't have to have a company mine the sun or drill the wind. Suddenly the middle men lose most of their power and as a result lose profits. Thus they aren't as willing to rapidly advance using renewable energy.
Also, with a little investment, anyone can capture renewable energy at their own homes and mostly, or completely, bypass the energy companies. An average everyday person can easily go and buy their own solar cells, and wind turbines to put on their homes and as a result reduce, or reverse (go from paying the company for energy to being paid by putting unused power back on the grid), their energy bill. A person can't do that with coal or natural gas so they are forced to buy coal or natural gas produced energy from the energy companies.
That being said, I do think that eventually when natural gas, coal, and oil run out (and they most definitely will); these companies will be forced to take lower profits by using renewable energy.
In order for a coal or gas plant to run, the raw materials have to be bought, and the energy companies pass that cost, along with their own "add-on costs" (aka profits), onto the consumer (if you don't think thats the case then you have a pretty naive view of businesses). When it comes to renewable solar and wind energy, however, there is no raw materials to buy and thus it makes it harder for companies to mask their profits as "add-on costs". Aside from the initial costs to build, which every type of energy has, the only additional cost comes from regular maintenance because sun and wind are free to access. The middle men (energy companies) can't very easily jack up prices when everyone knows, you don't have to have a company mine the sun or drill the wind. Suddenly the middle men lose most of their power and as a result lose profits. Thus they aren't as willing to rapidly advance using renewable energy.
Also, with a little investment, anyone can capture renewable energy at their own homes and mostly, or completely, bypass the energy companies. An average everyday person can easily go and buy their own solar cells, and wind turbines to put on their homes and as a result reduce, or reverse (go from paying the company for energy to being paid by putting unused power back on the grid), their energy bill. A person can't do that with coal or natural gas so they are forced to buy coal or natural gas produced energy from the energy companies.
That being said, I do think that eventually when natural gas, coal, and oil run out (and they most definitely will); these companies will be forced to take lower profits by using renewable energy.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Grades for voting on Vets Issues
This is from the Iraq and Afgahnistan Veterans of America (which is non-profit) and they went through and graded every congressmember and senator. I know this is just one vets organization's view but it is rather interesting. This is just a highlight list I looked up, but I also added the link to the whole report which talks about how they grade and whatnot. When you click on the links for the members I have listed, there will be a tab labeled "votes" in the same box as the members' picture, so you can see what they voted on.
Full report: http://www.veteranreportcard.org/reportcard.pdf
Senate Democrats
Obama: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/3181&lvl=C&chamber=S
Biden: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/696&lvl=C&chamber=S
Webb: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/51210&lvl=C&chamber=S
Clinton: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/10902&lvl=C&chamber=S
Reid: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/370&lvl=C&chamber=S
Senate Republicans
Hatch: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/586&lvl=C&chamber=S
Bennet: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/587&lvl=C&chamber=S
McCain: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/192&lvl=C&chamber=S
Hagel: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/365&lvl=C&chamber=S
Lugar: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/234&lvl=C&chamber=S
Senate Independents
Lieberman: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/688&lvl=C&chamber=S
House Republicans
Bishop: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/130762&lvl=C&chamber=H
Cannon: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/590&lvl=C&chamber=H
Paul: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/567&lvl=C&chamber=H
Boehner: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/466&lvl=C&chamber=H
Porter: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/6778&lvl=C&chamber=H
House Democrats
Matheson: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/10412&lvl=C&chamber=H
Murtha: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/511&lvl=C&chamber=H
Frank: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/302&lvl=C&chamber=H
Moore: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/260&lvl=C&chamber=H
Pastor: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/225&lvl=C&chamber=H
Full report: http://www.veteranreportca
Senate Democrats
Obama: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Biden: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Webb: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Clinton: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Reid: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Senate Republicans
Hatch: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Bennet: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
McCain: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Hagel: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Lugar: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Senate Independents
Lieberman: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
House Republicans
Bishop: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Cannon: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Paul: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Boehner: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Porter: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
House Democrats
Matheson: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Murtha: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Frank: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Moore: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Pastor: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Challenge of Our Generation?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
I had a bit of an epiphany tonight, that I find rather troubling. It comes after having been reading BLACKWATER by Jeremy Scahill, which partly talks about the neoconservative ideal of “spreading democracy” through the use of force.
For whatever reason I started to think about the Cold War, especially between the 1950s and 1970s. I realized that maybe the Cold War hasn’t really ended, rather just merely changed form. During the Cold War, one of the Soviet Union’s main goals was to expand its communist ideals (which they believed were “right”) throughout the world by force or otherwise. Of course the Western World opposed their idea and did all that they could (relying on BOTH U.S. hard and soft power) to prevent the S.U. from doing it.
Now that this idea of “spreading democracy” by force has taken hold of right-wing politics, and become the main U.S. foreign policy, many nations now vehemently oppose us. It seems as if the United States has adopted a very Soviet Union-like position in the world of today. I mean can one truly say that there is NO comparison between the Soviet ideal of expanding communism and the ideal of “spreading democracy” by force? I honestly don’t believe that you can. More often than not, forcing beliefs, or political systems, on others is a very bad idea and can often have major consequences, such as the utter collapse of the Soviet Union.
“Spreading democracy” by force is a complete contradiction in terms! The core of democracy is the ideal that people CHOOSE their own governments in their own time, and on their own terms, or put simply self-determination. By forcing a country, such as by the use of war, to become a democracy, isn’t a true democracy at all! For example, the citizens of the 13 Colonies, were never forced to break away from the British Empire and establish a wholly new nation and government. They CHOSE to do it! If you look around the world, the most stable, longest lasting, and most successful countries are ones where the people have chosen their own government. As opposed to countries where force is used to grab power, rather than the people freely choosing the government, such as many countries in Africa and which are considered “failed states”. I do admit that force was used in World War II to topple the Nazis and Axis Powers, and that those countries have succeeded as democracies. But the entire world helped ensure that those countries were put back onto stable feet with policies, such as the Marshall Plan, which don’t really have any modern counterparts.
I truly hope that this idea of “spreading democracy” by force ends, and ends soon because I fear that if it doesn’t the position of the U.S. in the world could be forever drastically altered. I do believe that democracy IS the best form of government, and that eventually it will be in practiced in every country, but it MUST be the PEOPLE to choose their country’s government! Democracy comes with many responsibilities, as we all know, but if it is forced upon people in a country who aren’t ready, or don’t know how, to handle those responsibilities then that country is likely to fail or at least have severe set backs. This country showed time and patience with itself when it was first formed, and so we must be willing to do the same for other countries.
I had a bit of an epiphany tonight, that I find rather troubling. It comes after having been reading BLACKWATER by Jeremy Scahill, which partly talks about the neoconservative ideal of “spreading democracy” through the use of force.
For whatever reason I started to think about the Cold War, especially between the 1950s and 1970s. I realized that maybe the Cold War hasn’t really ended, rather just merely changed form. During the Cold War, one of the Soviet Union’s main goals was to expand its communist ideals (which they believed were “right”) throughout the world by force or otherwise. Of course the Western World opposed their idea and did all that they could (relying on BOTH U.S. hard and soft power) to prevent the S.U. from doing it.
Now that this idea of “spreading democracy” by force has taken hold of right-wing politics, and become the main U.S. foreign policy, many nations now vehemently oppose us. It seems as if the United States has adopted a very Soviet Union-like position in the world of today. I mean can one truly say that there is NO comparison between the Soviet ideal of expanding communism and the ideal of “spreading democracy” by force? I honestly don’t believe that you can. More often than not, forcing beliefs, or political systems, on others is a very bad idea and can often have major consequences, such as the utter collapse of the Soviet Union.
“Spreading democracy” by force is a complete contradiction in terms! The core of democracy is the ideal that people CHOOSE their own governments in their own time, and on their own terms, or put simply self-determination. By forcing a country, such as by the use of war, to become a democracy, isn’t a true democracy at all! For example, the citizens of the 13 Colonies, were never forced to break away from the British Empire and establish a wholly new nation and government. They CHOSE to do it! If you look around the world, the most stable, longest lasting, and most successful countries are ones where the people have chosen their own government. As opposed to countries where force is used to grab power, rather than the people freely choosing the government, such as many countries in Africa and which are considered “failed states”. I do admit that force was used in World War II to topple the Nazis and Axis Powers, and that those countries have succeeded as democracies. But the entire world helped ensure that those countries were put back onto stable feet with policies, such as the Marshall Plan, which don’t really have any modern counterparts.
I truly hope that this idea of “spreading democracy” by force ends, and ends soon because I fear that if it doesn’t the position of the U.S. in the world could be forever drastically altered. I do believe that democracy IS the best form of government, and that eventually it will be in practiced in every country, but it MUST be the PEOPLE to choose their country’s government! Democracy comes with many responsibilities, as we all know, but if it is forced upon people in a country who aren’t ready, or don’t know how, to handle those responsibilities then that country is likely to fail or at least have severe set backs. This country showed time and patience with itself when it was first formed, and so we must be willing to do the same for other countries.
$700 Billion
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Ok just a few thoughts on this proposed $700 billion bail-out. First off, this CANNOT be rushed to a vote! With this much money involved, money that has to be borrowed from other countries I might add, Congress simply CANNOT push something though without looking at it closely and deliberately. ALL of this money must be monitored and the companies who it buys must be monitored. THERE MUST BE OVERSIGHT! The CEOs and other heads of these companies MUST NOT be allowed to walk away with billions made from companies they have run into the ground (ie no golden parachuets period). 6 months ago Bear Sterns failed and yet nothing was done. Yes things are bad BUT if they are that bad then why wasn't something done sooner? I'm no expert but what I do know is that when bills are pushed through without proper thought and time to evaluate (ie Patriot Act, Authorization to invade Iraq, etc), even when there are obvious flaws, it is a very bad thing. Flaws are NEVER fixed later on and with this much money involved, passing a bad bill will cripple us. Lastly all of this bailing will mean absolutely NOTHING if the regulations are REINSTATED to stop this from happening again. The Great Depression, Savings and Loan collapse, and the present state ALL were caused in part by deregulationing, or completely lacking regulations, companies and agencies that NEED to be regulated.
Ok just a few thoughts on this proposed $700 billion bail-out. First off, this CANNOT be rushed to a vote! With this much money involved, money that has to be borrowed from other countries I might add, Congress simply CANNOT push something though without looking at it closely and deliberately. ALL of this money must be monitored and the companies who it buys must be monitored. THERE MUST BE OVERSIGHT! The CEOs and other heads of these companies MUST NOT be allowed to walk away with billions made from companies they have run into the ground (ie no golden parachuets period). 6 months ago Bear Sterns failed and yet nothing was done. Yes things are bad BUT if they are that bad then why wasn't something done sooner? I'm no expert but what I do know is that when bills are pushed through without proper thought and time to evaluate (ie Patriot Act, Authorization to invade Iraq, etc), even when there are obvious flaws, it is a very bad thing. Flaws are NEVER fixed later on and with this much money involved, passing a bad bill will cripple us. Lastly all of this bailing will mean absolutely NOTHING if the regulations are REINSTATED to stop this from happening again. The Great Depression, Savings and Loan collapse, and the present state ALL were caused in part by deregulationing, or completely lacking regulations, companies and agencies that NEED to be regulated.
What the hell?!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The McCain campaign needs to back the hell out of the investigation in Alaska over the firing of the state's public safety commissioner! How in the hell can you talk about holding the government accountable and all the other shit you are talking about when you can't keep your damn hands off of such an investigation?!?! The fact that you have the governor of Alaska nominated as VP makes it even more important to stay the hell out of it! Explain to me how in the hell Gov. Palin agrees with having the investigation, saying "hold me accountable", and then suddenly once she becomes the VP nomine for McCain its suddenly bad and being "hijacked" by Democrats. Give me a god damn break! For one thing its a bipartisian investigation, approved 14-0, so how in the hell can it be "hijacked" by the Democrats in Alaska? Seems to me like its being hijacked by the McCain campaign to protect their VP. If she did nothing wrong at all then why the fuck is she not even going to meet with the investigator now? Why are the people subpoenaed for the investigation refusing to testify if they have notthing to hide???? Sounds like her position has become "hold me accountable" but if its potentailly damaging to me its a witch hunt by Democrats even though I did nothing wrong.
If the shoe was on the other foot would the Democrats seriously be able to get away with this? I highly doubt it. In fact if you will recall, one of the charges against Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial was obstruction of justice, and REFUSING TO TESTIFY IS EXACTLY THAT! By refusing to testify at a trial, investigation, or anything similar, especially when subpoenaed, you are obstructing justice! No if ands or buts. SARAH PALIN IF YOU REALLY WANT TO ACT LIKE A VP NOMINE THEN GET YOUR ASS IN GEAR AND DO WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY AGREED TO DO AND THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN NEEDS TO BUTT THE HELL OUT OF IT OR THEY ARE ALSO GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/530493.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
The McCain campaign needs to back the hell out of the investigation in Alaska over the firing of the state's public safety commissioner! How in the hell can you talk about holding the government accountable and all the other shit you are talking about when you can't keep your damn hands off of such an investigation?!?! The fact that you have the governor of Alaska nominated as VP makes it even more important to stay the hell out of it! Explain to me how in the hell Gov. Palin agrees with having the investigation, saying "hold me accountable", and then suddenly once she becomes the VP nomine for McCain its suddenly bad and being "hijacked" by Democrats. Give me a god damn break! For one thing its a bipartisian investigation, approved 14-0, so how in the hell can it be "hijacked" by the Democrats in Alaska? Seems to me like its being hijacked by the McCain campaign to protect their VP. If she did nothing wrong at all then why the fuck is she not even going to meet with the investigator now? Why are the people subpoenaed for the investigation refusing to testify if they have notthing to hide???? Sounds like her position has become "hold me accountable" but if its potentailly damaging to me its a witch hunt by Democrats even though I did nothing wrong.
If the shoe was on the other foot would the Democrats seriously be able to get away with this? I highly doubt it. In fact if you will recall, one of the charges against Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial was obstruction of justice, and REFUSING TO TESTIFY IS EXACTLY THAT! By refusing to testify at a trial, investigation, or anything similar, especially when subpoenaed, you are obstructing justice! No if ands or buts. SARAH PALIN IF YOU REALLY WANT TO ACT LIKE A VP NOMINE THEN GET YOUR ASS IN GEAR AND DO WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY AGREED TO DO AND THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN NEEDS TO BUTT THE HELL OUT OF IT OR THEY ARE ALSO GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
http://www.adn.com/palin/s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
No End In Sight
Friday, September 12, 2008
Its long but I highly suggest you watch it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZd5X6k3HhM
Its long but I highly suggest you watch it
http://www.youtube.com/wat
To the Honorable Senior Senator from Arizona
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Honorable Senator McCain,
Given the course your campaign has taken recently I felt compelled to speak up. You see, in case you have forgotten, in a presidential election, or any election really, people vote on ISSUES not BULL SHIT. By bull shit I mean attacking Obama's patriotism, calling him "sexist" with the "lipstick on a pig" comment, etc. If you can't seem to run a campaign on ISSUES then get your fat ass out of the presidential race! If you really put "country first" than get your damn campaign back on the god damn issues! Thank you.
Honorable Senator McCain,
Given the course your campaign has taken recently I felt compelled to speak up. You see, in case you have forgotten, in a presidential election, or any election really, people vote on ISSUES not BULL SHIT. By bull shit I mean attacking Obama's patriotism, calling him "sexist" with the "lipstick on a pig" comment, etc. If you can't seem to run a campaign on ISSUES then get your fat ass out of the presidential race! If you really put "country first" than get your damn campaign back on the god damn issues! Thank you.
Gas Prices (yes again)
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Ok, the Governor’s office released a statement about gas prices in Utah today and I’m even more pissed about it than I was before. His statement just basically said that yes Utah has high gas prices but they move up and down with the market and had some graphs to show the point. Anyone else feel there should be a whole other part to his statement??? Like maybe tell us something we DON’T know already or even a half assed promise to “investigate” the matter. But no, all we get is some lame ass color coded graphs. The “explanations” from the oil companies are just as pathetic.
Supposedly our prices are high because the gas stations are trying to get a bigger profit margin and that’s why prices haven’t come down. Well I happen to know for a fact after working at a gas station, that the stations don’t set their prices at all! Each night, or every other night, the station gets a fax from the company who they get their gas from TELLING them what to se the prices at the next day. The station has nothing to do with the price what-so-ever! Sure they get a small portion of the profit off of gas but most of a station’s revenue comes from selling snacks, drinks, and the like. Besides if the stations are supposedly keeping the price high for profit then why are prices dropping elsewhere? Wouldn’t it make good business sense for other stations in other states to try the same thing? But oh wait, it gets better.
According to Tesoro, Utah has “unique seasonal and geographic influences” that come into play with gas prices such as “cyclical demand” and being “somewhat isolated” by the Rocky, Wasatch, and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges. Are you seriously shitting me? I mean come on! For one thing if it was so bad here, then why in the hell do we have FOUR refineries here (each owned by different companies, Tesoro being one), and why in the hell has the refinery that Tesoro currently owns been in operation since 1908??? Obviously we can’t be THAT isolated (we only have 3 major freeways going through the state not to mention a good number of rail lines). If mountains and being landlocked is such an issue then why do ALL of the states around us have LESS expensive gas, even the ones who don’t have a SINGLE refinery? As for “cyclical demand”, what state DOESN’T have demand that changes? Our demand has DROPPED (in Utah and nationwide) and yet the price hasn’t budged here but it has dropped everywhere else.
Tesoro also mentions taxes being an issue that is keeping the price high, big surprise. If taxes are part of the problem then why the hell is California’s average price per gallon (4.21) only 6 cents more than Utah’s average (4.15) when California pays 32 MORE cents per gallon in gas tax than we do? Apparently gas taxes can’t be a huge culprit in prices, even though I admit they do affect it somewhat.
I am sick and tired of all this bull shit. I am personally insulted by not only the oil companies but by the Governor’s office as well. I would much rather here the god damn truth about gas prices and why oil companies such as Exxon-Mobile are posting record busting profits the get this half-assed made up bull shit! They want to rap us at the pump, fine I, and I’m sure many others, will keeping voting people out of office in Congress and the White House until they regulate the business, but DON’T put this bull shit in front of us! DON’T insult not only mine but every other person’s intelligence by telling us all this horse shit! A four year old could come up with a better lie!
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=3945672
http://www.utah.gov/governor/news_media/article.html?article=1857
http://www.tsocorp.com/stellent/groups/corpcomm/documents/tsocorp_documents/slcfuel.pdf
http://www.api.org/policy/tax/stateexcise/index.cfm
http://www.api.org/policy/tax/stateexcise/upload/2008_159_GAS_MAP_JULY_34421.pdf
Ok, the Governor’s office released a statement about gas prices in Utah today and I’m even more pissed about it than I was before. His statement just basically said that yes Utah has high gas prices but they move up and down with the market and had some graphs to show the point. Anyone else feel there should be a whole other part to his statement??? Like maybe tell us something we DON’T know already or even a half assed promise to “investigate” the matter. But no, all we get is some lame ass color coded graphs. The “explanations” from the oil companies are just as pathetic.
Supposedly our prices are high because the gas stations are trying to get a bigger profit margin and that’s why prices haven’t come down. Well I happen to know for a fact after working at a gas station, that the stations don’t set their prices at all! Each night, or every other night, the station gets a fax from the company who they get their gas from TELLING them what to se the prices at the next day. The station has nothing to do with the price what-so-ever! Sure they get a small portion of the profit off of gas but most of a station’s revenue comes from selling snacks, drinks, and the like. Besides if the stations are supposedly keeping the price high for profit then why are prices dropping elsewhere? Wouldn’t it make good business sense for other stations in other states to try the same thing? But oh wait, it gets better.
According to Tesoro, Utah has “unique seasonal and geographic influences” that come into play with gas prices such as “cyclical demand” and being “somewhat isolated” by the Rocky, Wasatch, and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges. Are you seriously shitting me? I mean come on! For one thing if it was so bad here, then why in the hell do we have FOUR refineries here (each owned by different companies, Tesoro being one), and why in the hell has the refinery that Tesoro currently owns been in operation since 1908??? Obviously we can’t be THAT isolated (we only have 3 major freeways going through the state not to mention a good number of rail lines). If mountains and being landlocked is such an issue then why do ALL of the states around us have LESS expensive gas, even the ones who don’t have a SINGLE refinery? As for “cyclical demand”, what state DOESN’T have demand that changes? Our demand has DROPPED (in Utah and nationwide) and yet the price hasn’t budged here but it has dropped everywhere else.
Tesoro also mentions taxes being an issue that is keeping the price high, big surprise. If taxes are part of the problem then why the hell is California’s average price per gallon (4.21) only 6 cents more than Utah’s average (4.15) when California pays 32 MORE cents per gallon in gas tax than we do? Apparently gas taxes can’t be a huge culprit in prices, even though I admit they do affect it somewhat.
I am sick and tired of all this bull shit. I am personally insulted by not only the oil companies but by the Governor’s office as well. I would much rather here the god damn truth about gas prices and why oil companies such as Exxon-Mobile are posting record busting profits the get this half-assed made up bull shit! They want to rap us at the pump, fine I, and I’m sure many others, will keeping voting people out of office in Congress and the White House until they regulate the business, but DON’T put this bull shit in front of us! DON’T insult not only mine but every other person’s intelligence by telling us all this horse shit! A four year old could come up with a better lie!
http://www.ksl.com/index.p
http://www.utah.gov/govern
http://www.tsocorp.com/ste
http://www.api.org/policy/
http://www.api.org/policy/
Mind-full
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Once again I find myself wide awake in the early morning hours, which has been the story of the week. Its funny how much running into an old teacher and friend can do. I mean I have off and on wondered how in the hell I left school but there was just something about saying it to one of my favorite teachers and seeing/hearing her reaction to the news first hand. It was like a combination of shock and disappointment and I don't know which was more disconcerting to me. I feel like an ass for letting someone down who I know wants me to succeed and devotes her life to helping everyone who goes through her class succeed. It makes me wonder how many other people I have let down in the same way all because I can't seem to pull my head oit of my ass and choose a stupid major.
I just don't know what has happened to me. Was it losing my scholarship? Being in a class with a pompous professor who seemed to think the best way for everyone to learn was to ask at least one question every class regardless of the possibility of missing lecture points because you are too busy trying not to forget your question before she actually called on you? Did I just burn myself out when I chose to make sure a friend knew someone was always there and that she got out of her situation safely (which I will NEVER regret doing)? I've been out of high school for four years and what do I have to show for it? Just a pile of credits without enough in one area to be able to graduate! I just don't know where to start. Taking the career test might help but iunno. I get so pissed at myself when I see everyone else succeed while I'm still stuck in the muck on the side of the road. What the hell has snapped inside of me since high school? What has everyone else seemed to gain that I have lost? I have ideas that I think could help change the world in which we live and yet I have no idea how to put them into action. I seem so close to the point in life where I can break out into the world and make a difference but at the same time I seem to be so very far from reaching that turning point. I know that really only I hold the answers to my own questions but at the end of the day I don't know how the hell to dig them out of myself and get to where I want to be.
Once again I find myself wide awake in the early morning hours, which has been the story of the week. Its funny how much running into an old teacher and friend can do. I mean I have off and on wondered how in the hell I left school but there was just something about saying it to one of my favorite teachers and seeing/hearing her reaction to the news first hand. It was like a combination of shock and disappointment and I don't know which was more disconcerting to me. I feel like an ass for letting someone down who I know wants me to succeed and devotes her life to helping everyone who goes through her class succeed. It makes me wonder how many other people I have let down in the same way all because I can't seem to pull my head oit of my ass and choose a stupid major.
I just don't know what has happened to me. Was it losing my scholarship? Being in a class with a pompous professor who seemed to think the best way for everyone to learn was to ask at least one question every class regardless of the possibility of missing lecture points because you are too busy trying not to forget your question before she actually called on you? Did I just burn myself out when I chose to make sure a friend knew someone was always there and that she got out of her situation safely (which I will NEVER regret doing)? I've been out of high school for four years and what do I have to show for it? Just a pile of credits without enough in one area to be able to graduate! I just don't know where to start. Taking the career test might help but iunno. I get so pissed at myself when I see everyone else succeed while I'm still stuck in the muck on the side of the road. What the hell has snapped inside of me since high school? What has everyone else seemed to gain that I have lost? I have ideas that I think could help change the world in which we live and yet I have no idea how to put them into action. I seem so close to the point in life where I can break out into the world and make a difference but at the same time I seem to be so very far from reaching that turning point. I know that really only I hold the answers to my own questions but at the end of the day I don't know how the hell to dig them out of myself and get to where I want to be.
Gas prices
Monday, June 30, 2008
For the past few weeks I have heard all of these ways to help ease the pain at the pump. Things ranging from a gas tax "holiday" to off-shore oil drilling along the continental shelf. Now I have already talked about the gas tax thing, and with off shore drilling it wouldnt help things NOW and would only be a very temporary solution. I got to thinking that there IS something that could be done to affect gas prices AND demand all at once.
The President of the United States has the authority to issue executive decisions/orders that take effect immediately (invasion of Iraq, airstrikes, the early days of the US involvment in the Kosovo War). Now my idea involves two executive orders. One of these would put a restriction on the maximum amount that we can be charged per gallon of gas, say at $3.00. The other would require that ALL U.S. automakers begin to make at least 2 hybrids and begin production on them immediately. Now I know some people will say this is overreaching of the government and I admit it is a desperate measure but these are desperate times and only drastic measures will make any real impact NOW. The automakers won't make major changes until they ABSOLUTELY have too and oil companies won't cut their prices in a million years. Every U.S. automaker has the technology to make a hybrid and all it would take is a few modifications to an existing design. For example, rather than completely design new cars, Ford could take the focus and taurus (their best fuel milage vehicles) and convert them into hybrids by just adding batteries, electric motor, and the associated wiring. They save money by not paying a desing team to make a whole new car, and they drastically icrease the appeal of their vehicles.
Now what is so hard about that?
For the past few weeks I have heard all of these ways to help ease the pain at the pump. Things ranging from a gas tax "holiday" to off-shore oil drilling along the continental shelf. Now I have already talked about the gas tax thing, and with off shore drilling it wouldnt help things NOW and would only be a very temporary solution. I got to thinking that there IS something that could be done to affect gas prices AND demand all at once.
The President of the United States has the authority to issue executive decisions/orders that take effect immediately (invasion of Iraq, airstrikes, the early days of the US involvment in the Kosovo War). Now my idea involves two executive orders. One of these would put a restriction on the maximum amount that we can be charged per gallon of gas, say at $3.00. The other would require that ALL U.S. automakers begin to make at least 2 hybrids and begin production on them immediately. Now I know some people will say this is overreaching of the government and I admit it is a desperate measure but these are desperate times and only drastic measures will make any real impact NOW. The automakers won't make major changes until they ABSOLUTELY have too and oil companies won't cut their prices in a million years. Every U.S. automaker has the technology to make a hybrid and all it would take is a few modifications to an existing design. For example, rather than completely design new cars, Ford could take the focus and taurus (their best fuel milage vehicles) and convert them into hybrids by just adding batteries, electric motor, and the associated wiring. They save money by not paying a desing team to make a whole new car, and they drastically icrease the appeal of their vehicles.
Now what is so hard about that?
Update
Saturday, May 24, 2008
On a previous blog I talked about the new GI Bill. Well the final votes from both houses of Congress are in. I can't believe it but John McCain didn't even bother to show up to vote and I'm ashamed to say that both of Utah's Senators and all three Congressmen voted against it! How in the hell can you claim you support the troops and veterans but the Democrats don't and then turn around and NOT EVEN VOTE, much less vote against something that HELPS veterans?! The icing on the cake is McCain's response to Obama's criticism of his no vote. McCain said that he won't listen to anything Obama says about veterans issues because he never served in the military. Ummm....what kind of shitty answer is that?! Thats like saying no one can criticize politicians (or anything else) unless you are or have been one! Not to mention McCain didn't even say why he thought his campaign events were more important than a vote on veterans benefits. But he still supports the troops.....*cough* bull shit *cough*
On a previous blog I talked about the new GI Bill. Well the final votes from both houses of Congress are in. I can't believe it but John McCain didn't even bother to show up to vote and I'm ashamed to say that both of Utah's Senators and all three Congressmen voted against it! How in the hell can you claim you support the troops and veterans but the Democrats don't and then turn around and NOT EVEN VOTE, much less vote against something that HELPS veterans?! The icing on the cake is McCain's response to Obama's criticism of his no vote. McCain said that he won't listen to anything Obama says about veterans issues because he never served in the military. Ummm....what kind of shitty answer is that?! Thats like saying no one can criticize politicians (or anything else) unless you are or have been one! Not to mention McCain didn't even say why he thought his campaign events were more important than a vote on veterans benefits. But he still supports the troops.....*cough* bull shit *cough*
Environmentalists and high gas
Saturday, May 24, 2008
I find it interesting that so many people are so eager to blame environmentalists, at least partly, for our high gas prices because when you think about it more indepth it really makes no sense.
One argument I have heard is that because of environmental regulations, partly pushed through by the environmental lobby, the costs of building a new refinery (or any other type of energy producing facility) is now simply too expensive. I say bull shit. Look at how many products and production facilities have regulations. For example, in the vehicle industry every vehicle that is produced MUST have seatbelts and MUST pass numerous other safety ratings. Have they caused vehicle prices to skyrocket? No, inflation is the biggest cause of that (the good type of inflation by the way). Safety regulations in the mining industry and every other industry haven’t caused their costs to skyrocket. In fact they have probably SAVED money in terms of reduced medical costs from on the job injuries.
Another I have heard is that because environmental regs won’t let oil drilling be allowed in certain areas unless they can be proven low environmental impact, or simply because areas are in national parks/monuments. Again this is a bull shit argument and you need look no farther than the logging industry. The government has restricted where, when, and how logging can take place and yet lumber hasn’t shot up in price the way oil has. In fact without these regulations the industry could easily log themselves out of work until new trees were planted and grew enough to be cut. What good is clear cutting when you can rapidly cut yourself out of work with the practice?
Now back to the heart of the matter. I feel that the BIGGEST reason no new refineries have been built in the U.S. for over 30 years is simply a matter of profit. Oil companies aren’t stupid and they know that if they increase refining capacity then they risk lowering their profits because of an abundance of refined oil (gasoline, diesel, etc). If the cost to build a refinery was the same price today as it was in say 1960, would the oil companies build new ones? I highly doubt it, even if it was cheaper. They are recording record profits and are going to do as little as possible to keep it that way. Not building new refineries and saying “it’s too expensive because of environmental regulations” is the easiest way to do it.
One last, and somewhat related point, is that regardless of your views on global warming, no one should be against improving our air and reducing emissions. We all breathe the same air and we all should do everything we can to keep it as clean and natural as possible. It’s no different than your wife or mom saying clean up your room, house, etc. Yes it can get annoying but what would it look like if you didn’t? Clothes, trash, and all other shit would just continue to accumulate and make that room or house impossible to live in if it didn’t get clean. So why would we want the house we all share to get that shitty? The sooner we clean up, the better we all will be.
I find it interesting that so many people are so eager to blame environmentalists, at least partly, for our high gas prices because when you think about it more indepth it really makes no sense.
One argument I have heard is that because of environmental regulations, partly pushed through by the environmental lobby, the costs of building a new refinery (or any other type of energy producing facility) is now simply too expensive. I say bull shit. Look at how many products and production facilities have regulations. For example, in the vehicle industry every vehicle that is produced MUST have seatbelts and MUST pass numerous other safety ratings. Have they caused vehicle prices to skyrocket? No, inflation is the biggest cause of that (the good type of inflation by the way). Safety regulations in the mining industry and every other industry haven’t caused their costs to skyrocket. In fact they have probably SAVED money in terms of reduced medical costs from on the job injuries.
Another I have heard is that because environmental regs won’t let oil drilling be allowed in certain areas unless they can be proven low environmental impact, or simply because areas are in national parks/monuments. Again this is a bull shit argument and you need look no farther than the logging industry. The government has restricted where, when, and how logging can take place and yet lumber hasn’t shot up in price the way oil has. In fact without these regulations the industry could easily log themselves out of work until new trees were planted and grew enough to be cut. What good is clear cutting when you can rapidly cut yourself out of work with the practice?
Now back to the heart of the matter. I feel that the BIGGEST reason no new refineries have been built in the U.S. for over 30 years is simply a matter of profit. Oil companies aren’t stupid and they know that if they increase refining capacity then they risk lowering their profits because of an abundance of refined oil (gasoline, diesel, etc). If the cost to build a refinery was the same price today as it was in say 1960, would the oil companies build new ones? I highly doubt it, even if it was cheaper. They are recording record profits and are going to do as little as possible to keep it that way. Not building new refineries and saying “it’s too expensive because of environmental regulations” is the easiest way to do it.
One last, and somewhat related point, is that regardless of your views on global warming, no one should be against improving our air and reducing emissions. We all breathe the same air and we all should do everything we can to keep it as clean and natural as possible. It’s no different than your wife or mom saying clean up your room, house, etc. Yes it can get annoying but what would it look like if you didn’t? Clothes, trash, and all other shit would just continue to accumulate and make that room or house impossible to live in if it didn’t get clean. So why would we want the house we all share to get that shitty? The sooner we clean up, the better we all will be.
Knock, knock. Anyone home?
Monday, May 5, 2008
I just love how some politicians like to pander to people. John McCain and Hilary Clinton both have said they would "suspend" the federal gas tax during the summer if elected in an attempt to lower gas prices. Take even a second to dig into it and both their plans become laughable.
First off, HELLO, the federal gas tax is only a tax gouging 18 cents! How in the hell is the going to dramatically reduces gas prices? It won't. Plus whats to stop the oil companies from simply pocketing that added 18 cents rather than reduce the price of gas? Absolutely nothing.
Secondly, the gas tax is what the governent uses to maintain our roads and bridges, and with John McCain's plan of suspension then we WON'T be funding our roadways during PEAK construction time (May through August), or the funds will be budgeted away from other projects throughout the year to compensate. Am I the only one who sees a slight problem here? Its hard enough to get money for road projects as it is, and with this we will see a lot more bridge collapses and roads desperately needing repair.
With Hilary Clinton's plan, she would make the oil companies pay the 18 cents for all of us during the summer (May though August). Now this sounds good at first listen but nothing is going to stop the companies from passing that 18 cent cost on to the rest of us, which I would bet money they would do. So her plan could actually INCREASE gas prices. If her plan is so good then how come they have not found a SINGLE economist who agrees with them? I guess she is too busy "dodging sniper fire" or "mispeaking from being tired" to get the hint.
Now if you will excuse me I'm off reduce carbon emissions by cutting down all the trees in the country
I just love how some politicians like to pander to people. John McCain and Hilary Clinton both have said they would "suspend" the federal gas tax during the summer if elected in an attempt to lower gas prices. Take even a second to dig into it and both their plans become laughable.
First off, HELLO, the federal gas tax is only a tax gouging 18 cents! How in the hell is the going to dramatically reduces gas prices? It won't. Plus whats to stop the oil companies from simply pocketing that added 18 cents rather than reduce the price of gas? Absolutely nothing.
Secondly, the gas tax is what the governent uses to maintain our roads and bridges, and with John McCain's plan of suspension then we WON'T be funding our roadways during PEAK construction time (May through August), or the funds will be budgeted away from other projects throughout the year to compensate. Am I the only one who sees a slight problem here? Its hard enough to get money for road projects as it is, and with this we will see a lot more bridge collapses and roads desperately needing repair.
With Hilary Clinton's plan, she would make the oil companies pay the 18 cents for all of us during the summer (May though August). Now this sounds good at first listen but nothing is going to stop the companies from passing that 18 cent cost on to the rest of us, which I would bet money they would do. So her plan could actually INCREASE gas prices. If her plan is so good then how come they have not found a SINGLE economist who agrees with them? I guess she is too busy "dodging sniper fire" or "mispeaking from being tired" to get the hint.
Now if you will excuse me I'm off reduce carbon emissions by cutting down all the trees in the country
Obama and McCain
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Ok in this vent I have two issues, one involves Senator Barack Obama and the other Senator John McCain.
I think this continuing story about Sen. Obama's former pastor is pointless. I mean who has never heard someone else say something that he/she doesn't like? Only a person living under a rock alone. I think Obama showed a lot of morality when he DID NOT throw Rev Wright under the bus for his comments (the ones before this past weekend) because it showed Obama may disagree with a person but he is not so anal and hard headed that he will never listen to that person's opinions again. That being said I think what his former paster did this past weekend was completely out of line and throws Obama's compassion back into his face with a "thanks but no thanks" note. But here is my biggest beef with this whole damn thing. If Obama (or any person going for elected office) was either agnostic or an atheist, he would have no chance in hell of getting elected in this country no matter how perfect and prestine his history/record was. He is damned for having this paster but damned if he has none at all. Also what about all the controversial pasters who have endorsed (some of which he has sought out) Senator McCain? Not one damn word has attacked McCain for having their support. Can you say double standard? I mean give me a break!
I also have a beef with Sen. McCain. There is currently a new GI Bill making its way through the US House and US Senate which greatly improves upon the benefits soliders can recieve with the bill. Well, Senator John "I support the troops and the Democrats don't" McCain DOES NOT support this new GI Bill. Neither does President Bush. HELLO!? ANYONE HOME?! How can you claim to support the troops and yet NOT support a bill which helps them go to college and improve their education? Better education means better workers AND soliders. We are the country we are today because the soliders who fought in WWII, Korea, and all the other wars were able to go to school with the GI Bill and better themselves and the world. So how in the hell can you not support that but claim to support the troops!?
Ok in this vent I have two issues, one involves Senator Barack Obama and the other Senator John McCain.
I think this continuing story about Sen. Obama's former pastor is pointless. I mean who has never heard someone else say something that he/she doesn't like? Only a person living under a rock alone. I think Obama showed a lot of morality when he DID NOT throw Rev Wright under the bus for his comments (the ones before this past weekend) because it showed Obama may disagree with a person but he is not so anal and hard headed that he will never listen to that person's opinions again. That being said I think what his former paster did this past weekend was completely out of line and throws Obama's compassion back into his face with a "thanks but no thanks" note. But here is my biggest beef with this whole damn thing. If Obama (or any person going for elected office) was either agnostic or an atheist, he would have no chance in hell of getting elected in this country no matter how perfect and prestine his history/record was. He is damned for having this paster but damned if he has none at all. Also what about all the controversial pasters who have endorsed (some of which he has sought out) Senator McCain? Not one damn word has attacked McCain for having their support. Can you say double standard? I mean give me a break!
I also have a beef with Sen. McCain. There is currently a new GI Bill making its way through the US House and US Senate which greatly improves upon the benefits soliders can recieve with the bill. Well, Senator John "I support the troops and the Democrats don't" McCain DOES NOT support this new GI Bill. Neither does President Bush. HELLO!? ANYONE HOME?! How can you claim to support the troops and yet NOT support a bill which helps them go to college and improve their education? Better education means better workers AND soliders. We are the country we are today because the soliders who fought in WWII, Korea, and all the other wars were able to go to school with the GI Bill and better themselves and the world. So how in the hell can you not support that but claim to support the troops!?
Florida and Michigan
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Just a quick blog since the Democratic delegates from Florida and Michigan are in the news again and whether or not they should be seated at the National Convention.
How I see it is that both states broke the DNC rules by moving their primaries ahead of Feb 5 therefore they should not be allowed to be seated at the convention. The rules should not be changed in the middle of the game. Now if they do decide to seat them I have three ideas as to how they should allow them to be seated so that they limit how much the states impact the race. Since they shouldn't be allowed to act as "king makers" at the convention after breaking the rules.
1) Give one candidate all of Florida's delegates and give the other all of Michigan's delegates. Maybe do a coin toss or something to determine who got which state.
2) Split the delegates in both states and award each candidate an equal share. The delegates get to be seated at the convention but won't drastically swing the delegate count to one candidate or the other.
3) Award the delegates in each state proportionally to each candidate's nation standing in the overall delegate count. In otherwords give the front runner slightly more delegates than the runner up.
To me these are the best solutions to this problem should the delegates from Florida and Michigan be seated. The previous election results are flawed since in Michigan only Clinton was on the ballot and in Florida niether candidate had the opportunity to campaign. Holding new elections is too costly and drastically raises the chances of election fraud especially when the money to hold new elections would most likely NOT come from the states. Privately funded elections? I think not.
Just a quick blog since the Democratic delegates from Florida and Michigan are in the news again and whether or not they should be seated at the National Convention.
How I see it is that both states broke the DNC rules by moving their primaries ahead of Feb 5 therefore they should not be allowed to be seated at the convention. The rules should not be changed in the middle of the game. Now if they do decide to seat them I have three ideas as to how they should allow them to be seated so that they limit how much the states impact the race. Since they shouldn't be allowed to act as "king makers" at the convention after breaking the rules.
1) Give one candidate all of Florida's delegates and give the other all of Michigan's delegates. Maybe do a coin toss or something to determine who got which state.
2) Split the delegates in both states and award each candidate an equal share. The delegates get to be seated at the convention but won't drastically swing the delegate count to one candidate or the other.
3) Award the delegates in each state proportionally to each candidate's nation standing in the overall delegate count. In otherwords give the front runner slightly more delegates than the runner up.
To me these are the best solutions to this problem should the delegates from Florida and Michigan be seated. The previous election results are flawed since in Michigan only Clinton was on the ballot and in Florida niether candidate had the opportunity to campaign. Holding new elections is too costly and drastically raises the chances of election fraud especially when the money to hold new elections would most likely NOT come from the states. Privately funded elections? I think not.
Obama
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Great speech and speaks for itself
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23691239#23691239
If the link doesnt work here is the transcript from MSNBC
PHILADELPHIA - "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."
Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations. Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.
This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.
On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters….And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American. Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper. In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.
Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins."
- Senator Barack Obama
Great speech and speaks for itself
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/i
If the link doesnt work here is the transcript from MSNBC
PHILADELPHIA - "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."
Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations. Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.
This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.
On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters….And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American. Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.
This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper. In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.
Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins."
- Senator Barack Obama
Economy
Sunday, March 16, 2008
I know I will probably take some heat for some of this but I really don't care. I'm gonna give my two cents on this economy.
For those who don't know, there is currently strong debate as to whether or not this country has entered an economic recession or simply has a hit a “bump” in the road. The president has said that it is merely a “bump”, that people shouldn’t worry, and that the rebate checks will help smooth things out. I however strongly disagree (big surprise huh) and think that the economy is already in the beginning of a recession with a clueless government at the helm. The government is not the only one to blame. I think there are three main factors: debt, inflation, and ignorance. All of which tie together and have combined to bring us into this recession.
Debt –
This country and its consumers have been borrowing themselves to death. Not only has the government (the government is a consumer) been recording record deficits but average people have been relying too heavily on credit cards and continually buying what they can’t afford. The mortgage crisis is a perfect example of this. Thousands of people got mortgages on houses they KNEW they couldn’t afford, especially if the rate on their loans drastically increased. Interest rates did increase and suddenly those people had house payments they could no longer afford causing rampant foreclosures. This in turn caused lenders to lose money and in some cases to go belly-up (the Fed has already had to bail out one investment bank). So now more people get into debt and the cycle just feeds on itself.
The government’s deficit spending is also adds fuel to the fire because it has been borrowing money from other countries to make up the difference between its revenues and actual funding needs. The more they borrow, the greater the risk to lenders that it won’t be repaid which in turn lowers the value of currency. Lower currency value means goods become more expensive which leads to more debt. Again the cycle feeds upon itself.
The only way to stop this damaging accumulation of debt is to stop spending that which we don’t have. Taxes must be increased, spending must decrease, or a combination of both. The average consumer needs to stop buying what they can’t afford to pay back. People should ONLY have as many kids as they can comfortably afford and only have them when you are in a financial position to afford having any. Don’t go having six kids when you KNOW you probably can only afford two of them. Start giving less, or nothing, to your religion until you are no longer strapped for cash. Why give money away when you can use it to pay your debts down faster? If you can drive less and in more efficient vehicles.
Inflation –
Inflation is another reason that this country is in a recession. Now some inflation is ok but when you have rapidly rising inflation, as we do now, it is a sign of economic problems. The Federal Reserve’s current plan to stop a recession is to throw more money at the problem. More money in the system means more people can earn more money and buy more goods. The problem is that when you add larger and larger amounts of money into the system without enough security to back that money up (such as gold) you cause inflation to rise. Higher inflation means that a dollar buys less and less. Less buying power means a lower value currency which leads again to more debt. So by increasing the amount of money can cause more problems than it actually solves.
Ignorance –
I feel that ignorance has caused a lot of the problems we now face. For far too long people have not thought about the dangers of having so much debt that they can’t pay off. Fiscal responsibility has been completely ignored by the public and the government and now we are paying for it. Ignorance from a president who can’t seem the fathom that the only way to pay for a war is to raise taxes! An ignorant government not recognizing and acting on early warning signs of trouble. Ignorant people not knowing that making sacrifices here and there and budgeting (even in the simplest of terms) will save them grief and money in the long term.
All of these factors have brought us to where we are now. How long and how bad the recession becomes is up to us, the people and the government. If we don’t make some drastic changes things are going to worsen as time goes on. Debts must be paid down, spending brought into line with available revenues, and taxes raised.
I know I will probably take some heat for some of this but I really don't care. I'm gonna give my two cents on this economy.
For those who don't know, there is currently strong debate as to whether or not this country has entered an economic recession or simply has a hit a “bump” in the road. The president has said that it is merely a “bump”, that people shouldn’t worry, and that the rebate checks will help smooth things out. I however strongly disagree (big surprise huh) and think that the economy is already in the beginning of a recession with a clueless government at the helm. The government is not the only one to blame. I think there are three main factors: debt, inflation, and ignorance. All of which tie together and have combined to bring us into this recession.
Debt –
This country and its consumers have been borrowing themselves to death. Not only has the government (the government is a consumer) been recording record deficits but average people have been relying too heavily on credit cards and continually buying what they can’t afford. The mortgage crisis is a perfect example of this. Thousands of people got mortgages on houses they KNEW they couldn’t afford, especially if the rate on their loans drastically increased. Interest rates did increase and suddenly those people had house payments they could no longer afford causing rampant foreclosures. This in turn caused lenders to lose money and in some cases to go belly-up (the Fed has already had to bail out one investment bank). So now more people get into debt and the cycle just feeds on itself.
The government’s deficit spending is also adds fuel to the fire because it has been borrowing money from other countries to make up the difference between its revenues and actual funding needs. The more they borrow, the greater the risk to lenders that it won’t be repaid which in turn lowers the value of currency. Lower currency value means goods become more expensive which leads to more debt. Again the cycle feeds upon itself.
The only way to stop this damaging accumulation of debt is to stop spending that which we don’t have. Taxes must be increased, spending must decrease, or a combination of both. The average consumer needs to stop buying what they can’t afford to pay back. People should ONLY have as many kids as they can comfortably afford and only have them when you are in a financial position to afford having any. Don’t go having six kids when you KNOW you probably can only afford two of them. Start giving less, or nothing, to your religion until you are no longer strapped for cash. Why give money away when you can use it to pay your debts down faster? If you can drive less and in more efficient vehicles.
Inflation –
Inflation is another reason that this country is in a recession. Now some inflation is ok but when you have rapidly rising inflation, as we do now, it is a sign of economic problems. The Federal Reserve’s current plan to stop a recession is to throw more money at the problem. More money in the system means more people can earn more money and buy more goods. The problem is that when you add larger and larger amounts of money into the system without enough security to back that money up (such as gold) you cause inflation to rise. Higher inflation means that a dollar buys less and less. Less buying power means a lower value currency which leads again to more debt. So by increasing the amount of money can cause more problems than it actually solves.
Ignorance –
I feel that ignorance has caused a lot of the problems we now face. For far too long people have not thought about the dangers of having so much debt that they can’t pay off. Fiscal responsibility has been completely ignored by the public and the government and now we are paying for it. Ignorance from a president who can’t seem the fathom that the only way to pay for a war is to raise taxes! An ignorant government not recognizing and acting on early warning signs of trouble. Ignorant people not knowing that making sacrifices here and there and budgeting (even in the simplest of terms) will save them grief and money in the long term.
All of these factors have brought us to where we are now. How long and how bad the recession becomes is up to us, the people and the government. If we don’t make some drastic changes things are going to worsen as time goes on. Debts must be paid down, spending brought into line with available revenues, and taxes raised.
Two things...
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
First off I want the Boeing Company to grow the hell up! I'm tired of hearing them piss and moan because the contract to build the new Air Force tanker was awarded to Northrop-Grumman. ITS PART OF THE BUSINESS!!! Obviously the Boeing version did not meet all the requirements that the Air Force wanted it to meet otherwise Boeing would have gotten the contract. Despite it being an Airbus plane (Airbus is owned by EADS who is part of Northrop), the work will mostly be done in the US and not overseas. Airbus's are bigger and more efficient so it doesn't take a genius to see why they won the contract. Also the argument that it wont be American made is bull shit. It will be maintained, militarized, etc IN the US. Plus not even Boeing makes a 100% made in the USA aircraft! It has components in its aircraft that are made overseas! Grow up Boeing and quit crying because you didn't get a contract you thought would just be handed to you!
On another note this Governor Spitzer in NY annoys me. How in the hell is a prostitution crime vital to "national security" and thus requires wire-taps to be used? Are these the "big bad guys" who we could only find by warrantless wire-taps? Does the FBI not have anything better to do than use wire-taps for a pathetic case like this? I thought wire-taps were going to be used for the sole purpose of gathering intelligence so that "we can hit them there before they get us here" and the President wonders why Congress didn't renew that bill (thank god). Whatever
First off I want the Boeing Company to grow the hell up! I'm tired of hearing them piss and moan because the contract to build the new Air Force tanker was awarded to Northrop-Grumman. ITS PART OF THE BUSINESS!!! Obviously the Boeing version did not meet all the requirements that the Air Force wanted it to meet otherwise Boeing would have gotten the contract. Despite it being an Airbus plane (Airbus is owned by EADS who is part of Northrop), the work will mostly be done in the US and not overseas. Airbus's are bigger and more efficient so it doesn't take a genius to see why they won the contract. Also the argument that it wont be American made is bull shit. It will be maintained, militarized, etc IN the US. Plus not even Boeing makes a 100% made in the USA aircraft! It has components in its aircraft that are made overseas! Grow up Boeing and quit crying because you didn't get a contract you thought would just be handed to you!
On another note this Governor Spitzer in NY annoys me. How in the hell is a prostitution crime vital to "national security" and thus requires wire-taps to be used? Are these the "big bad guys" who we could only find by warrantless wire-taps? Does the FBI not have anything better to do than use wire-taps for a pathetic case like this? I thought wire-taps were going to be used for the sole purpose of gathering intelligence so that "we can hit them there before they get us here" and the President wonders why Congress didn't renew that bill (thank god). Whatever
Only in Utah...
Monday, March 10, 2008
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2824025
Ok...how many times does this have to happen before people get it through their thick skulls?? LOCK YOUR DAMN DOORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Im sorry but the only time your doors should be unlocked (even just one) is if you live in a damn ghost town in the middle of inaccessible wilderness! This is the second time in a week that this has happened. Do parents need to be taught "stranger danger" now??? Do banks leave the back door to their vaults open??? Not hardly. Even if you do feel safe use your damn common sense people!
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=14
Ok...how many times does this have to happen before people get it through their thick skulls?? LOCK YOUR DAMN DOORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Im sorry but the only time your doors should be unlocked (even just one) is if you live in a damn ghost town in the middle of inaccessible wilderness! This is the second time in a week that this has happened. Do parents need to be taught "stranger danger" now??? Do banks leave the back door to their vaults open??? Not hardly. Even if you do feel safe use your damn common sense people!
This is insane
Friday, February 29, 2008
Check out this article in the Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8397486
Who in the hell came up with this as an idea to promote "motivation"? Even if half of what the suit claims turns out to be true what kind of idiot would even have such dumb ass ideas, much less do them to his/her employees? Do they think its some kind of game? How in the hell can you compare trying to breath to work????? Does Ivan IV (aka Ivan the Terrible) run this dumb ass company?
Check out this article in the Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/news
Who in the hell came up with this as an idea to promote "motivation"? Even if half of what the suit claims turns out to be true what kind of idiot would even have such dumb ass ideas, much less do them to his/her employees? Do they think its some kind of game? How in the hell can you compare trying to breath to work????? Does Ivan IV (aka Ivan the Terrible) run this dumb ass company?
Liquor laws
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Utah State Senate passed something very stupid today and may make Utah's liquor laws even more asinine. The bill that I am talking about does two things: one it bans wine coolers and other malt drinks to the state run liquor stores (and thus can conviently also charge higher taxes on them), and two increases a standard shot from an ounce to an ounce and a half. Where should I begin...
Ok first off, as I have said before, sending wine coolers and whatnot into the state liquor stores wont make one damn difference in underage drinking. It doesn't stop people over 21 buying it for underage friends, or raiding it from their parents, or even from buying it without being carded. It just makes it more inconvient for those of us who do drink them (both residents and visitors) and allows the state to tax them at a higher rate. If you make something harder to get you make it more appealing to those who can't get it plain and simple.
Secondly this increase in shot size makes no sense especially when coupled with the malt beverage thing. Last time I checked an ounce and a half is MORE THAN an ounce. We can't buy low alcohol malt beverages in a grocery or convience store but we can get drunk FASTER by going to a restuarant or bar and getting a shot or mixed drink? So what if it also bans "side cars" (extra shots you can pour into a drink) it is still and INCREASE in the alcohol in a drink. A drink that has two shots of alcohol (same or different) mixed into them would go from two to three ounces of alcohol. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was a sudden spike in DUI's if this is signed into law, and even less if they would be too stupid to figure out why.
Whatever. Anyone want to find me I will be getting quickly smashed at Applebees. Cheers!
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2732813
The Utah State Senate passed something very stupid today and may make Utah's liquor laws even more asinine. The bill that I am talking about does two things: one it bans wine coolers and other malt drinks to the state run liquor stores (and thus can conviently also charge higher taxes on them), and two increases a standard shot from an ounce to an ounce and a half. Where should I begin...
Ok first off, as I have said before, sending wine coolers and whatnot into the state liquor stores wont make one damn difference in underage drinking. It doesn't stop people over 21 buying it for underage friends, or raiding it from their parents, or even from buying it without being carded. It just makes it more inconvient for those of us who do drink them (both residents and visitors) and allows the state to tax them at a higher rate. If you make something harder to get you make it more appealing to those who can't get it plain and simple.
Secondly this increase in shot size makes no sense especially when coupled with the malt beverage thing. Last time I checked an ounce and a half is MORE THAN an ounce. We can't buy low alcohol malt beverages in a grocery or convience store but we can get drunk FASTER by going to a restuarant or bar and getting a shot or mixed drink? So what if it also bans "side cars" (extra shots you can pour into a drink) it is still and INCREASE in the alcohol in a drink. A drink that has two shots of alcohol (same or different) mixed into them would go from two to three ounces of alcohol. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was a sudden spike in DUI's if this is signed into law, and even less if they would be too stupid to figure out why.
Whatever. Anyone want to find me I will be getting quickly smashed at Applebees. Cheers!
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=14
Getting sick of...
Sunday, February 24, 2008
I am getting sick and tired of all this bull shit. For years I have heard “Bush has made us safer since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001” and I am sick of it. Yes I admit that we have not had a terrorist attack on American soil since that day, but I don’t feel that that is all because of the policies of this administration. What pisses me off even more is the blame that seems to get shoved onto the preceding administration (the Clinton administration). Even from members of my own family (including extended) have made such accusations. To me there is not enough evidence to place all “blame” of 9/11 on the Clinton or Bush administration. If anything the “blame” of an attack on American soil rests with who is in the White House at the time of the attack. I mean everything else that goes wrong or right in any administration usually gets credited TO that administration. My point is this, in 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic terrorists and yet the Clinton administration did not turn around and “blame” the former Bush and Reagan administrations for not doing enough to prevent the attack. Nor, to my knowledge, was that current administration “blamed”. They didn’t pass tons of laws allowing the government to invade a person’s privacy, invade a country, etc and YET we went eight years without another foreign terrorist attack on American soil. The three other major attacks that did occur during that time (Oklahoma City 1995, Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta 1996, and Columbine 1999) were committed by U.S. citizens and even then the government didn’t start passing laws to invade our freedoms.
That’s all my rambling and whatnot for the night.
I am getting sick and tired of all this bull shit. For years I have heard “Bush has made us safer since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001” and I am sick of it. Yes I admit that we have not had a terrorist attack on American soil since that day, but I don’t feel that that is all because of the policies of this administration. What pisses me off even more is the blame that seems to get shoved onto the preceding administration (the Clinton administration). Even from members of my own family (including extended) have made such accusations. To me there is not enough evidence to place all “blame” of 9/11 on the Clinton or Bush administration. If anything the “blame” of an attack on American soil rests with who is in the White House at the time of the attack. I mean everything else that goes wrong or right in any administration usually gets credited TO that administration. My point is this, in 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic terrorists and yet the Clinton administration did not turn around and “blame” the former Bush and Reagan administrations for not doing enough to prevent the attack. Nor, to my knowledge, was that current administration “blamed”. They didn’t pass tons of laws allowing the government to invade a person’s privacy, invade a country, etc and YET we went eight years without another foreign terrorist attack on American soil. The three other major attacks that did occur during that time (Oklahoma City 1995, Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta 1996, and Columbine 1999) were committed by U.S. citizens and even then the government didn’t start passing laws to invade our freedoms.
That’s all my rambling and whatnot for the night.
3 vents
Thursday, February 14, 2008
I have three things I need to vent about (again lol). So here we go
The first one is about this Northern Illinois University shooting. Once again the administration "alerted" students via a post on the university's website. Hello people! Students are not on the university site 24/7. Is it so hard to find a faster way of alterting a student body about danger? A simple and effective way would be to use sirens, just like a tornado warning. They can all be linked to a central location, and the horns located on various buildings, so that by a simple call and flick of a switch the entire campus is instantly notified of danger. Its cheap and every student can be easily educated as to what to do when the horns sound. Whats so complicated about that?
Next I have a beef to pick in Utah County, to be specific what happened today after snow forced the closure of S.R. 92 last night. Apparently through last night and today towing companies were told to tow all the abandoned vehicles on the stretch of road that was closed due to heavy snow so that it could be plowed. Well those who left their cars snowed in and where in turn towed, now have to PAY a towing fee to get their car back. WTF?! People were told they could not go back and get their car and now they are forced to pay money to get it back. Anyone else see and issue with this? What were these people supposed to do, stay in their cars all night? I have no problem with them towing the cars to be able to plow the road but dont turn around and force people to pay $200 to get it back.
http://www.ksl.com/index.php/index.php?nid=148&sid=2663165
Finally to the Republican members of the US House of Representatives. Today they staged a walk-out because the Democrats refuse to pass the wire-tapping bill with the immunity for the telecomms. How old are these people?? A walk-out does jack shit when Congress is in session. If you have issues with something you VOTE against it, not just walk out. Come on, a Jr High student knows better than that. Walking out doesnt stop a vote from taking place, it simply promises what you dont want passed WILL be passed because you arent there to vote AGAINST it. I have said how I feel about this bill before, but even if I supported it I still would be pissed about the Republicans just walking out.
Alright I'm done
I have three things I need to vent about (again lol). So here we go
The first one is about this Northern Illinois University shooting. Once again the administration "alerted" students via a post on the university's website. Hello people! Students are not on the university site 24/7. Is it so hard to find a faster way of alterting a student body about danger? A simple and effective way would be to use sirens, just like a tornado warning. They can all be linked to a central location, and the horns located on various buildings, so that by a simple call and flick of a switch the entire campus is instantly notified of danger. Its cheap and every student can be easily educated as to what to do when the horns sound. Whats so complicated about that?
Next I have a beef to pick in Utah County, to be specific what happened today after snow forced the closure of S.R. 92 last night. Apparently through last night and today towing companies were told to tow all the abandoned vehicles on the stretch of road that was closed due to heavy snow so that it could be plowed. Well those who left their cars snowed in and where in turn towed, now have to PAY a towing fee to get their car back. WTF?! People were told they could not go back and get their car and now they are forced to pay money to get it back. Anyone else see and issue with this? What were these people supposed to do, stay in their cars all night? I have no problem with them towing the cars to be able to plow the road but dont turn around and force people to pay $200 to get it back.
http://www.ksl.com/index.p
Finally to the Republican members of the US House of Representatives. Today they staged a walk-out because the Democrats refuse to pass the wire-tapping bill with the immunity for the telecomms. How old are these people?? A walk-out does jack shit when Congress is in session. If you have issues with something you VOTE against it, not just walk out. Come on, a Jr High student knows better than that. Walking out doesnt stop a vote from taking place, it simply promises what you dont want passed WILL be passed because you arent there to vote AGAINST it. I have said how I feel about this bill before, but even if I supported it I still would be pissed about the Republicans just walking out.
Alright I'm done
US Senate Idiots
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Well once again the Senate Democrats proved that most are just a bunch of pushovers. For those who havent heard, the US Senate passed a bill which would allow the continuing use of warrentless wiretapping with immunity for all telecomm industries to "help in the war on terror". Now...if what they have done is perfect legal then why the hell do you need immunity???? A dumb ass knows you dont ask for that unless you have or plan to do something illegal! Whats worse is that the Dems had the power to block the bill and DIDNT. At least the House of Representatives are a little more on the ball, the bill the are considering doesnt give the telecomms immunity. According to the President, however, if the House doesnt pass the Senate bill then it will greatly increase our "danger". Hmm...the President using fear to get his way, isnt that the definition of terrorism? On a similar note, Hilary Clinton failed to even vote on this measure despite being close enough to take a few minutes out of her campaign to vote against it. Obama and McCain both found time to vote on it. Funny how Clinton brags about experience, Obama not knowing how to vote, blah blah blah, can't take time out of her campaign to vote on a very important bill.
Woo hoo two venting blogs in one day
Well once again the Senate Democrats proved that most are just a bunch of pushovers. For those who havent heard, the US Senate passed a bill which would allow the continuing use of warrentless wiretapping with immunity for all telecomm industries to "help in the war on terror". Now...if what they have done is perfect legal then why the hell do you need immunity???? A dumb ass knows you dont ask for that unless you have or plan to do something illegal! Whats worse is that the Dems had the power to block the bill and DIDNT. At least the House of Representatives are a little more on the ball, the bill the are considering doesnt give the telecomms immunity. According to the President, however, if the House doesnt pass the Senate bill then it will greatly increase our "danger". Hmm...the President using fear to get his way, isnt that the definition of terrorism? On a similar note, Hilary Clinton failed to even vote on this measure despite being close enough to take a few minutes out of her campaign to vote against it. Obama and McCain both found time to vote on it. Funny how Clinton brags about experience, Obama not knowing how to vote, blah blah blah, can't take time out of her campaign to vote on a very important bill.
Woo hoo two venting blogs in one day
Stupid stupid Stern
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
David Stern is as out of touch with NBA fans as President Bush is with the American people I think. Stern is apparently going to annouce this weekend that he has a plan to create 5 regular NBA franchises in Europe over the next 10 years. Now normally I would say go for it except for one glaring thing, the Eastern Conference. Stern needs to pull his head back into the U.S. market and try and figure out why and how to fix the pathetically weaker Eastern Conference. In the East, the last 3 playoff seeds have LOSING records, as opposed to a 10 team (all with winning records) battle royale for all 8 playoff spots in the West. How can he boast the NBA being a successful league when half of it is playing at the D-League level??
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ian_thomsen/02/13/international.expansion/index.html
David Stern is as out of touch with NBA fans as President Bush is with the American people I think. Stern is apparently going to annouce this weekend that he has a plan to create 5 regular NBA franchises in Europe over the next 10 years. Now normally I would say go for it except for one glaring thing, the Eastern Conference. Stern needs to pull his head back into the U.S. market and try and figure out why and how to fix the pathetically weaker Eastern Conference. In the East, the last 3 playoff seeds have LOSING records, as opposed to a 10 team (all with winning records) battle royale for all 8 playoff spots in the West. How can he boast the NBA being a successful league when half of it is playing at the D-League level??
http://sportsillustrated.c
hmm...hippocracy?
Friday, December 7, 2007
So Thursday was Romney’s “big” speech about religion in which he attempted to do the same thing John Kennedy did during the 1960 presidential election. Both wanted to tell voters how their religion would not control the White House and that because we have the freedom, a person’s religion shouldn’t matter. That this country was built on tolerance for all views and beliefs
Well this where is where Romney dived and I have issues with. First off he stated that “freedom needs religion and religion needs freedom” ummm….excuse me? Does that mean that if you aren’t religious you can’t be free? What about if you aren’t part of the dominate religion? What about people who have different beliefs such as polytheistic or newer/smaller monotheistic ones? The last I checked the United States is not a theocracy. The other thing he said I cringed at was his attack on secularists who think religion has no place in government.
According to him if you don’t talk about god or preach or whatever, then you can’t run for any office. So me being agnostic I have no place in a government by the people and for the people? By that logic does he think that John McCain should never have been elected a U.S. Senator, much less be running for president? McCain is a Baptist (if I remember right) but during his campaigns he doesn’t make it the focus and by that I mean he doesn’t really mention it much, or sit and pander to certain groups. I would suggest Mr. Romney take a look at something called the establishment clause and the declaration that no religious test will be given to hold any office in the U.S. Constitution if he is going to consider that line of reasoning.
But I digress; this speech was about religious tolerance so even though he attacked me I can’t attack him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CchMtS3odDQ
So Thursday was Romney’s “big” speech about religion in which he attempted to do the same thing John Kennedy did during the 1960 presidential election. Both wanted to tell voters how their religion would not control the White House and that because we have the freedom, a person’s religion shouldn’t matter. That this country was built on tolerance for all views and beliefs
Well this where is where Romney dived and I have issues with. First off he stated that “freedom needs religion and religion needs freedom” ummm….excuse me? Does that mean that if you aren’t religious you can’t be free? What about if you aren’t part of the dominate religion? What about people who have different beliefs such as polytheistic or newer/smaller monotheistic ones? The last I checked the United States is not a theocracy. The other thing he said I cringed at was his attack on secularists who think religion has no place in government.
According to him if you don’t talk about god or preach or whatever, then you can’t run for any office. So me being agnostic I have no place in a government by the people and for the people? By that logic does he think that John McCain should never have been elected a U.S. Senator, much less be running for president? McCain is a Baptist (if I remember right) but during his campaigns he doesn’t make it the focus and by that I mean he doesn’t really mention it much, or sit and pander to certain groups. I would suggest Mr. Romney take a look at something called the establishment clause and the declaration that no religious test will be given to hold any office in the U.S. Constitution if he is going to consider that line of reasoning.
But I digress; this speech was about religious tolerance so even though he attacked me I can’t attack him.
http://www.youtube.com/wat
School vouchers
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Well the vote on school vouchers is next week so I thought I would give my two cents. When I first heard about the idea I was for school vouchers, however, after doing some reading and hearing both sides I have decided to change my mind.
First off I find the way the voucher amount is determined is rather stupid. A family of 2 (including parents) with a family income of $30,000 a year will get $2,750 per student in voucher money. That part I have no issue with, its with family sizes 4 and above where my issues are. Families 4 and above at $30,000 family income get a $3,000 voucer per student. Why do the bigger families get more money per student? If you make it beneficial to have more kids then you are still going to create overcrowding issues even in private schools. If this is supposed to be effective then it should be $3,000 per student if the family income is at $30,000 regardless if that family has 1 kid or 20.
My other issue is that there is no upper limit to who can recieve voucher money. Even a family with an icome of $80,000 gets $500 to $1,000 per student (again depend on how big the family is). I'm sorry but if you are making that much money you don't need to recieve voucher money because you should be able to afford sending your kid(s) to a private school if you wish without it. That $500-$1,000 could easily be more valuable to the lower income families. Without an upper limit on who can recieve vouchers you cheat the people who really need them.
Anyways thats just my take on the facts and why I will vote against them
Well the vote on school vouchers is next week so I thought I would give my two cents. When I first heard about the idea I was for school vouchers, however, after doing some reading and hearing both sides I have decided to change my mind.
First off I find the way the voucher amount is determined is rather stupid. A family of 2 (including parents) with a family income of $30,000 a year will get $2,750 per student in voucher money. That part I have no issue with, its with family sizes 4 and above where my issues are. Families 4 and above at $30,000 family income get a $3,000 voucer per student. Why do the bigger families get more money per student? If you make it beneficial to have more kids then you are still going to create overcrowding issues even in private schools. If this is supposed to be effective then it should be $3,000 per student if the family income is at $30,000 regardless if that family has 1 kid or 20.
My other issue is that there is no upper limit to who can recieve voucher money. Even a family with an icome of $80,000 gets $500 to $1,000 per student (again depend on how big the family is). I'm sorry but if you are making that much money you don't need to recieve voucher money because you should be able to afford sending your kid(s) to a private school if you wish without it. That $500-$1,000 could easily be more valuable to the lower income families. Without an upper limit on who can recieve vouchers you cheat the people who really need them.
Anyways thats just my take on the facts and why I will vote against them
Resolutions
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Ok I have to burn yet again lol.
This resolution recently passed in Congress about condemning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is just asinine. In some ways its a self fulfilling prophecy. We call them "evil" which pisses them off and makes them posture. We then in turn posture back. There is only one way this ends, and that’s an attack by one side or the other. We are making another Cold War only this time its with the Middle East and Iran instead of Russia. Another way to look at it is crusading in the 21st century. Its once again Christian extremists versus Muslim extremists in the Middle East. Neither side is in the right! Both are violating their "holy books" by waging war and saying "we are the best not you".
Another recent resolution called the Ottoman Turks' actions against Armenian Christians as genocide. It was almost 100 years ago! Why does this have any merit in today's world? I mean if the Congress is going to hold a vote to call that genocide then why stop there? I believe that the Crusades, our treatment of Native Americans, slavery, etc were ALL genocide. Not to mention everything that is going on in Africa. You can pass all the resolutions you want but it won't change the past. What needs to happen is PREVENTING it from happening to begin with which IS possible to do.
Ok I have to burn yet again lol.
This resolution recently passed in Congress about condemning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is just asinine. In some ways its a self fulfilling prophecy. We call them "evil" which pisses them off and makes them posture. We then in turn posture back. There is only one way this ends, and that’s an attack by one side or the other. We are making another Cold War only this time its with the Middle East and Iran instead of Russia. Another way to look at it is crusading in the 21st century. Its once again Christian extremists versus Muslim extremists in the Middle East. Neither side is in the right! Both are violating their "holy books" by waging war and saying "we are the best not you".
Another recent resolution called the Ottoman Turks' actions against Armenian Christians as genocide. It was almost 100 years ago! Why does this have any merit in today's world? I mean if the Congress is going to hold a vote to call that genocide then why stop there? I believe that the Crusades, our treatment of Native Americans, slavery, etc were ALL genocide. Not to mention everything that is going on in Africa. You can pass all the resolutions you want but it won't change the past. What needs to happen is PREVENTING it from happening to begin with which IS possible to do.
Ugh
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Ok some of the things I am gonna talk about are old news I know but I have kept my mouth shut long enough.
First off. What kind of country are we becoming when we insult people who we have asked to come speak? For those who don't know, Columbia University's President basically insulted the President of Iran on Monday when he introduced him to the crowd waiting to hear what Iran's pres had to say. Now the last time I checked if you ask someone, no matter who it is, to come speak you DO NOT insult them. No matter how much you disagree with them, if you invite that person, you show them courtesy. No wonder a lot of the world think the U.S. is populated by ass holes. Who in the hell are we to demand respect and attention when we can't even show respect to a simple college guest speaker? Call me old fashioned but I feel if you want respect you have to give it first! There are times when you call people out on their position and views but when you introduce them as INVITED guests is not the time. That is for afterwards during questions or whatever. I admit I detest Iran's pres and his radical views as most people do but that doesn't mean I would ever invite him, or anyone else, to come speak and then when I introduce them say that they are a son of a bitch and they can take whatever they are gonna say and shove it up their ass. The second I do that, I become no better than the ones I can't stand.
Secondly. All wars are policies of governments and as such a policy should be defended and/or promoted by POLITICIANS and not military leaders. If the President of the United States wants to defend his policies then a members of HIS staff and the State Department should have been testifying before Congress and NOT General Petraeus. His job is overseeing and commanding the troops in Iraq, not posing for cameras. Which leads into my last thing.
Thirdly. Explain to me why all of a sudden an ad questioning, or attacking however you want to see it, a member of the Armed Services is a "disgusting" (as the President put it) thing to do. I personally didn't care for the phrasing of it but I respect that organization's right to publish it. From what I remember, the President didn't find anything wrong with the ads attacking Sen. Kerry in the 2004 election campaign or for that matter how Carl Rove (and others) during Bush's 2000 campaign used Sen. McCain's war record against him. Then you have Rush Limbaugh agreeing with a caller that we have "phony soldiers" who come back from Iraq and criticize the war. Both Kerry and McCain at least FOUGHT in Vietnam rather than play the system as Bush did. Even so all 3 did serve their country. But going back to the ad. Is the President saying that its ok to attack/question former members of the military about their service and patriotism when it allows political gain but not active members to try and achieve the same goal? Funny how a CONSERVATIVE publication also attacked/questioned Petraeus's report and yet no one has said a word about it (I apologize but I can't remember the name of the publication).
One final thought (I mean it this time lol). Can someone please pull Rush Limbaugh's head from his ass. It was this week I believe that R.L. was agreeing with a caller that we have "phony soldiers" who come back from Iraq and criticize the war. If you serve you serve plain and simple and they have the same right to criticize as we do. I can somewhat understand not liking the active duty people to, however, it seems that it is the Reservists that are taking most of the heat. As long as they aren't on active duty they can do and say whatever they want. I can't imagine how anyone could call any soldier "phony". Whether you agree with them or not they have bled for this country and know better than anyone the conditions over there.
That is all for this tirade
By the way, links for those interested:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/john-mccain-2000-the-swi_b_30654.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-records_x.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ (I will post the transcripits of the video if/when they put them up)
Ok some of the things I am gonna talk about are old news I know but I have kept my mouth shut long enough.
First off. What kind of country are we becoming when we insult people who we have asked to come speak? For those who don't know, Columbia University's President basically insulted the President of Iran on Monday when he introduced him to the crowd waiting to hear what Iran's pres had to say. Now the last time I checked if you ask someone, no matter who it is, to come speak you DO NOT insult them. No matter how much you disagree with them, if you invite that person, you show them courtesy. No wonder a lot of the world think the U.S. is populated by ass holes. Who in the hell are we to demand respect and attention when we can't even show respect to a simple college guest speaker? Call me old fashioned but I feel if you want respect you have to give it first! There are times when you call people out on their position and views but when you introduce them as INVITED guests is not the time. That is for afterwards during questions or whatever. I admit I detest Iran's pres and his radical views as most people do but that doesn't mean I would ever invite him, or anyone else, to come speak and then when I introduce them say that they are a son of a bitch and they can take whatever they are gonna say and shove it up their ass. The second I do that, I become no better than the ones I can't stand.
Secondly. All wars are policies of governments and as such a policy should be defended and/or promoted by POLITICIANS and not military leaders. If the President of the United States wants to defend his policies then a members of HIS staff and the State Department should have been testifying before Congress and NOT General Petraeus. His job is overseeing and commanding the troops in Iraq, not posing for cameras. Which leads into my last thing.
Thirdly. Explain to me why all of a sudden an ad questioning, or attacking however you want to see it, a member of the Armed Services is a "disgusting" (as the President put it) thing to do. I personally didn't care for the phrasing of it but I respect that organization's right to publish it. From what I remember, the President didn't find anything wrong with the ads attacking Sen. Kerry in the 2004 election campaign or for that matter how Carl Rove (and others) during Bush's 2000 campaign used Sen. McCain's war record against him. Then you have Rush Limbaugh agreeing with a caller that we have "phony soldiers" who come back from Iraq and criticize the war. Both Kerry and McCain at least FOUGHT in Vietnam rather than play the system as Bush did. Even so all 3 did serve their country. But going back to the ad. Is the President saying that its ok to attack/question former members of the military about their service and patriotism when it allows political gain but not active members to try and achieve the same goal? Funny how a CONSERVATIVE publication also attacked/questioned Petraeus's report and yet no one has said a word about it (I apologize but I can't remember the name of the publication).
One final thought (I mean it this time lol). Can someone please pull Rush Limbaugh's head from his ass. It was this week I believe that R.L. was agreeing with a caller that we have "phony soldiers" who come back from Iraq and criticize the war. If you serve you serve plain and simple and they have the same right to criticize as we do. I can somewhat understand not liking the active duty people to, however, it seems that it is the Reservists that are taking most of the heat. As long as they aren't on active duty they can do and say whatever they want. I can't imagine how anyone could call any soldier "phony". Whether you agree with them or not they have bled for this country and know better than anyone the conditions over there.
That is all for this tirade
By the way, links for those interested:
http://www.huffingtonpost.
http://www.usatoday.com/ne
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/i
Pres Speach
Thursday, September 13, 2007
I noticed a curious thing during the president's speach tonight. If you change 3 simple words from Iran, Iraq, and terrorists to Russia, Vietnam, and communism; we suddenly find ourselves in the late 60's early 70's. Hmmm...interesting. Someone also needs to clue the president in on the fact that the reason Al Queda was formed was because of our presence in Saudi Arabia. By making it so that we have an open-ended presence there plays right into their hands.
I noticed a curious thing during the president's speach tonight. If you change 3 simple words from Iran, Iraq, and terrorists to Russia, Vietnam, and communism; we suddenly find ourselves in the late 60's early 70's. Hmmm...interesting. Someone also needs to clue the president in on the fact that the reason Al Queda was formed was because of our presence in Saudi Arabia. By making it so that we have an open-ended presence there plays right into their hands.
Fear....kinda long
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Fear….Its a funny thing how one simple word can control every human being so easily. How a four letter word that is neither taboo nor offensive can completely dominate each and every one of out lives. When a person points a gun at another it is not the gun that causes a response, it’s the knowledge that the gun can kill which creates the fear of it. Yet I ask myself why so many people fear death. I mean if any/all religions are true and there is some sort of afterlife of bliss then why fear the end?
To me it seems one of three things. First is that even the most devote religious person can’t prove one hundred percent, even to themselves, that they will have an eternity of bliss. If people believe so strongly in an afterlife then why isn’t there epic numbers of people dying? Why spend so much time and money trying to cheat death? If people fear “sinning” or whatnot then to me it seems obvious that you would want to spend as little time “on Earth” as you possibly could. I also feel, continuing along religious lines, that deep down every person of faith questions and is unsure of whether or not their religion is the “the true faith.” If they end up being wrong then they really have nothing to fall back on. Of course there is the unknown. No one has ever come back to tell everyone what the other side is like and that causes many people unease. It’s the one corner they can’t see around.
It is this overwhelming fear of death that gives people such as terrorists and dictators so much power. All the weapons in the world mean nothing if the person or group being threatened by them have no fear of what they can do. Or at the very least have learned to control and/or channel the fear so it no longer controls their lives. This is very evident in today’s world. We have all this security to keep us “safe” and in some cases the feeling of need to have this security has drastically changed our lives. All because we fear that we will be attacked and killed. A terrorist is effective and “wins” when we throw everything we used to cherish away in order to feel “secure.” People will continue to act a certain way towards you when they know they are having an effect on you. If it works it continues to be used. For example, if you remove the teeth and claws of a grizzly bear or a lion, are they the same fearsome predator they were before? No, they aren’t. Now, I will be the first to admit that even “harmless” a bear or a lion is still a powerful animal and could probably still do some harm but its not nearly as effective as before. In the same way, security is an important thing to have, even if it’s the simple security of having a fire while camping. There comes a point however where you can have too much of a good thing. For example, a small fire is nice but you wouldn’t want to be near an entire forest that was ablaze. At some point we have to overcome our fears and say that enough is enough. We can have all the security in the world but it will not protect us forever against an individual, or group, who have a set of ideals and are willing to die for them. If anything, too much security can leave us even more vulnerable than we were before.
Now after saying all of that, fear is also a very important tool. It keeps us cautious, vigilant, and alive. Anyone who claims to be “fearless” or “invincible” is: a) lying, and b) a total dumb ass. People who throw caution to the wind are asking for trouble.
Fear….Its a funny thing how one simple word can control every human being so easily. How a four letter word that is neither taboo nor offensive can completely dominate each and every one of out lives. When a person points a gun at another it is not the gun that causes a response, it’s the knowledge that the gun can kill which creates the fear of it. Yet I ask myself why so many people fear death. I mean if any/all religions are true and there is some sort of afterlife of bliss then why fear the end?
To me it seems one of three things. First is that even the most devote religious person can’t prove one hundred percent, even to themselves, that they will have an eternity of bliss. If people believe so strongly in an afterlife then why isn’t there epic numbers of people dying? Why spend so much time and money trying to cheat death? If people fear “sinning” or whatnot then to me it seems obvious that you would want to spend as little time “on Earth” as you possibly could. I also feel, continuing along religious lines, that deep down every person of faith questions and is unsure of whether or not their religion is the “the true faith.” If they end up being wrong then they really have nothing to fall back on. Of course there is the unknown. No one has ever come back to tell everyone what the other side is like and that causes many people unease. It’s the one corner they can’t see around.
It is this overwhelming fear of death that gives people such as terrorists and dictators so much power. All the weapons in the world mean nothing if the person or group being threatened by them have no fear of what they can do. Or at the very least have learned to control and/or channel the fear so it no longer controls their lives. This is very evident in today’s world. We have all this security to keep us “safe” and in some cases the feeling of need to have this security has drastically changed our lives. All because we fear that we will be attacked and killed. A terrorist is effective and “wins” when we throw everything we used to cherish away in order to feel “secure.” People will continue to act a certain way towards you when they know they are having an effect on you. If it works it continues to be used. For example, if you remove the teeth and claws of a grizzly bear or a lion, are they the same fearsome predator they were before? No, they aren’t. Now, I will be the first to admit that even “harmless” a bear or a lion is still a powerful animal and could probably still do some harm but its not nearly as effective as before. In the same way, security is an important thing to have, even if it’s the simple security of having a fire while camping. There comes a point however where you can have too much of a good thing. For example, a small fire is nice but you wouldn’t want to be near an entire forest that was ablaze. At some point we have to overcome our fears and say that enough is enough. We can have all the security in the world but it will not protect us forever against an individual, or group, who have a set of ideals and are willing to die for them. If anything, too much security can leave us even more vulnerable than we were before.
Now after saying all of that, fear is also a very important tool. It keeps us cautious, vigilant, and alive. Anyone who claims to be “fearless” or “invincible” is: a) lying, and b) a total dumb ass. People who throw caution to the wind are asking for trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
