Dearest listeners. Today the American government is faced with a colossal deficit of approximately 13 trillion dollars. Economists fear that we are at the tipping point at which the revenue earned by the government will not be able to even pay off the interest on the innumerable loans the government has taken out over the course of its 234-year lifespan.
But we are faced with a dilemma. Politicians being politicians, they refuse to raise taxes, citing that the problem does not come from the amount of revenue the government earns from its annual harvests in April. To begin with, though, the tax code is fraught with loopholes and complications. It needs to be cleaned in more ways than one. I do believe that the process of raising taxes as one's wealth rises is worthless. It makes it not as profitable to raise one's social status. A major tenet of American culture is that anyone can make it anywhere. Raising your taxes as you earn more is counter to this principle. Therefore, this should be removed from the tax code, instead replacing it with a flat tax of, for example, 30%. Its both fair and simple.
However, let us return to the fact that taxes apparently shouldn't be raised under any circumstances, no matter what. It's a political no-no, and that's idiotic. Taxes ebb and flow with the state of the country's deficit, and they cannot just be lowered and lowered and lowered. We have come across a plain example of the Machiavellian paradox.
Niccoló Machiavelli, an Italian humanist philosopher of the Renaissance, developed many theories of governance in his writings. In one of these, he states that a ruler should not always simply appease the masses, but do what is best for the state. If a ruler always pleases his people, when it comes time to make changes that will harm each person individually, but benefit the state as a whole, they will be incredibly resistant. This is what is occurring in not only the United States, but also other nations as they react to their deficits and aging populations. The populace is screaming against the reforms because they will take away government handouts (or in the United State's case, low taxes) that they have considered essential rights. It's time for everyone to man up, tighten their belts, and prepare to not be political fools. The United Kingdom has done this successfully. We can too.
If there's anything I've learned about politics, it's that it's mostly about opinions. If you have an opinion on an issue, then you can argue about it, and, thus, can be a politician. My views come from a scientific standpoint; one may say the scientists' views. Through this, I came up with the simple name "Raw Political Science." You don't necessarily have to agree with me to read this, and I'd prefer if you didn't agree. Please comment. If you disagree, present your argument politely. Enjoy.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Nuclear Power
Hello dear listeners. I have just read that the New START Treaty, a vital treaty to reduce nuclear arms, is due for vote in the next few weeks. The Republican party, which had mostly opposed the treaty, has seen the views of its electorate, and decided to split. The more conservative Republicans continue to oppose the treaty, citing that it would lower America's ability to respond to threats and lower the danger of Mutually Assured Destruction. These are invalid points. We (we meaning the entire global community) currently have enough nuclear arms to annihilate every country on the planet three times over. The decreasing of our supplies of nuclear weapons from roughly 2,200 to 1,500 is a task for the safety of the global community. I certainly don't want to be killed in World War III. Because, as Einstein said, "I don't know how World War III will be fought, but I know how the Fourth World War will be: rocks!"
Now the question is how to correctly utilize the stocks of enriched uranium and plutonium that each nuclear weapon contains. I do not know if this is on the table, but I think that this fissile material should be used to fuel a new era in the construction of nuclear power plants. We can derive great stores of clean energy, provide plenty of jobs, and solve our nuclear crisis by simply utilizing the fuel for a better use. If this action is not taken, this hazardous material will probably end up in a military storage facility, the vast stores of energy it contains useless. That is not the path I would like to take.
Let's take out three birds with one stone. Let's switch to nuclear power.
Now the question is how to correctly utilize the stocks of enriched uranium and plutonium that each nuclear weapon contains. I do not know if this is on the table, but I think that this fissile material should be used to fuel a new era in the construction of nuclear power plants. We can derive great stores of clean energy, provide plenty of jobs, and solve our nuclear crisis by simply utilizing the fuel for a better use. If this action is not taken, this hazardous material will probably end up in a military storage facility, the vast stores of energy it contains useless. That is not the path I would like to take.
Let's take out three birds with one stone. Let's switch to nuclear power.
Friday, December 10, 2010
An Update on Current Affairs
Hello to my four current followers. In the past few months a myriad of different events have occured, mostly negative. The world has become a much rockier place, and I am frightened for several reasons.
To start, the complete reversal of the United States House of Representatives to the Republican Party. I am not so much scared of the political ideas they will implement, as on some I agree with them, but I am mortified by the possibilty of the repeal of many environmental standards.
I think that an explanation of my name is in order as of now, as it helps explain why I feel so strongly liberal about environmental issues. Nudibranchs are a specific family of sea slugs in the order Ophistobranchia. The name, translated from its roots, means naked gills or naked lungs. Their gills, unlike most marine gastropods, are outside of their bodies in protrusions called cerata. Because of their vulnerability, they ingest poisonous sponges, cnidarians, and other toxic marine life. They are my personal favorite creature.
However, the oceans are overtaxed and being destroyed by pollution. All animals, not just nudibranchs, are vulnerable. With thousands, if not millions, of scientific papers related to the destruction of the environment, how can the Republicans possibly deny any more that we need to change our habits?
The scientific community is raging at the views of the Republican party. While we will never prove that humans are directly causing global warming, we are certainly increasing the effect, they argue. For example: it is a well known fact that the combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide and water, along with other chemicals. Modern technology does help us remove some of the more harmful ones. However, we also know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. So if about 200,000,000 cars are producing carbon dioxide almost every day, how is it disputable that humans are not affecting, if not directly causing, climate change?
There is further proof that because of the effects of the Industrial Revolution, the number of droughts, flash floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters related to climate change have been increased exponentially. It is unreasonable, if not just crazy, to argue that we, as the only form of sapient life on Earth, should not try to stop this.
However, the Republicans argue that implementing environmental laws will cost the nation jobs. While most likely, and unfortunately, this is true, that is increasing the threat of a disaster of global proportions. The longer we wait to stop climate change, the more we are going to have to do to either A. prevent life loss, or B. reverse the effects. We have to act now. Not ten years from now, not twenty years from now. Now. Otherwise, the effects will be too great to stop.
As I have said in a previous post, a trillion or two is worth preventing the end of the world.
Moving to other affairs, we have the budget defficit, which Congress is failing at as usual. The solution to this problem is going to have to involve a raise in taxes for everyone, not just the "rich."
Note that I put quotes around the word rich. That is on purpose. The definition of rich seems to be, for the average American, millionaires and billionaires. Unfortunately, the tax bracket including millionaires and billionaires also includes people who just became successful, i.e. small business owners. We need to separate the succesful from the wealthy before we start raising taxes on the "rich." It's unfair to group people that live completely different lives into the same group. Confusing millionaires with small business owners is just as
bad as equating the middle-class with the lower-class.
However, I have to agree with Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernankey that now really isn't the time to raise taxes to cover the deficit. However, we do need to stop "kicking the can down the road." So maybe it is time to deal with the monster in the closet of the deficit. But to prevent damge to the enconomy, taxes should niether be raised nor lowered. Instead, the code should be cleaned up.
I don't remember which Senator said this, but in a speech to the Detroit Economic Conference, a Republican Senator talked about how the tax code works in short. It was staggering. The number of things a person can be taxed on is appalling, and the number of loopholes in the law is surely inumerable. Before we start raising, lowering, or changing any part of the numeral parts of the tax code, we should make it effectively and fairly make revenue.
I will not talk about Don't Ask, Don't Tell in length, as I believe it's unimportant. All I think is that it should be changed to Don't Ask, Don't Care.
Thank you for listening. Tell your friends, please, and if you listen but haven't subscribed, please do. I'd like to know you care.
To start, the complete reversal of the United States House of Representatives to the Republican Party. I am not so much scared of the political ideas they will implement, as on some I agree with them, but I am mortified by the possibilty of the repeal of many environmental standards.
I think that an explanation of my name is in order as of now, as it helps explain why I feel so strongly liberal about environmental issues. Nudibranchs are a specific family of sea slugs in the order Ophistobranchia. The name, translated from its roots, means naked gills or naked lungs. Their gills, unlike most marine gastropods, are outside of their bodies in protrusions called cerata. Because of their vulnerability, they ingest poisonous sponges, cnidarians, and other toxic marine life. They are my personal favorite creature.
However, the oceans are overtaxed and being destroyed by pollution. All animals, not just nudibranchs, are vulnerable. With thousands, if not millions, of scientific papers related to the destruction of the environment, how can the Republicans possibly deny any more that we need to change our habits?
The scientific community is raging at the views of the Republican party. While we will never prove that humans are directly causing global warming, we are certainly increasing the effect, they argue. For example: it is a well known fact that the combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide and water, along with other chemicals. Modern technology does help us remove some of the more harmful ones. However, we also know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. So if about 200,000,000 cars are producing carbon dioxide almost every day, how is it disputable that humans are not affecting, if not directly causing, climate change?
There is further proof that because of the effects of the Industrial Revolution, the number of droughts, flash floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters related to climate change have been increased exponentially. It is unreasonable, if not just crazy, to argue that we, as the only form of sapient life on Earth, should not try to stop this.
However, the Republicans argue that implementing environmental laws will cost the nation jobs. While most likely, and unfortunately, this is true, that is increasing the threat of a disaster of global proportions. The longer we wait to stop climate change, the more we are going to have to do to either A. prevent life loss, or B. reverse the effects. We have to act now. Not ten years from now, not twenty years from now. Now. Otherwise, the effects will be too great to stop.
As I have said in a previous post, a trillion or two is worth preventing the end of the world.
Moving to other affairs, we have the budget defficit, which Congress is failing at as usual. The solution to this problem is going to have to involve a raise in taxes for everyone, not just the "rich."
Note that I put quotes around the word rich. That is on purpose. The definition of rich seems to be, for the average American, millionaires and billionaires. Unfortunately, the tax bracket including millionaires and billionaires also includes people who just became successful, i.e. small business owners. We need to separate the succesful from the wealthy before we start raising taxes on the "rich." It's unfair to group people that live completely different lives into the same group. Confusing millionaires with small business owners is just as
bad as equating the middle-class with the lower-class.
However, I have to agree with Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernankey that now really isn't the time to raise taxes to cover the deficit. However, we do need to stop "kicking the can down the road." So maybe it is time to deal with the monster in the closet of the deficit. But to prevent damge to the enconomy, taxes should niether be raised nor lowered. Instead, the code should be cleaned up.
I don't remember which Senator said this, but in a speech to the Detroit Economic Conference, a Republican Senator talked about how the tax code works in short. It was staggering. The number of things a person can be taxed on is appalling, and the number of loopholes in the law is surely inumerable. Before we start raising, lowering, or changing any part of the numeral parts of the tax code, we should make it effectively and fairly make revenue.
I will not talk about Don't Ask, Don't Tell in length, as I believe it's unimportant. All I think is that it should be changed to Don't Ask, Don't Care.
Thank you for listening. Tell your friends, please, and if you listen but haven't subscribed, please do. I'd like to know you care.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Democrat v. Republican and Why It Isn't Working
We have a bipartisan system. Our constitution states that each side is meant to represent the opposite points of view for each issue. Unfortunately, modern issues are too complex to allow for just one solution.
Let's begin with our struggling economy. The Democrats propose raising taxes on the rich. Let's define the term "rich," though. "Rich" in the modern sense means anyone who earns over $250,000 per year. That probably makes up about 4% of that tax bracket, which makes up only 5% of the U.S. population. Most of those people are doctors, lawyers, and small business owners who worked through extra years at college and work arguably more stressful jobs. The people who deserve taxation are people who earn over $1,000,000 per year, a so-called "millionaire's tax." In fact, before the 1950s, only millionaires paid income tax. Simply put, a solution to taxation may be a removal of the income tax, as 95% of the revenue comes from the top 1% of wealth.
However, lowering taxes may not be a solution right now. That's what the Republicans want. Arguably, lower taxes could stimulate the economy, but to me, it seems like a cheap election ploy. The goal of every politician today is to get reelected. Some politicians have been in the House or Senate for over 30 years. Therefore, I think its logical to amend the constitution so that politicians can only be elected once, and receive no salary. Being a politician should be about getting things done, not getting a cushy job because you have enough money to spoil the opposition with possibly bogus campaign adds. I'm pointing fingers at both sides, because almost all politicians are wealthy enough to make adds and run for office. Which is why I think that political parties should fund the races. Everyone gets $100,000 to run for office; if you don't win, you can't say it was because you didn't spend enough money. Furthermore, adds should be limited to support, not criticism of other candidates.
Despite this, I think the bipartisan system is really ineffectual. In the end, it becomes a brawl between two opposing armies who will just try to defeat the other by any means necessary. Just look at the recent health care bill. A full year was spent on it basically because the Republicans just kept saying no, no, no. That's a pointless waste of time for both sides. In that time, the Republicans should have come up with an effective response that could have favored what they support: strong defense, low taxes, and small government. Also, some things end up just being political games. Bills that could help the environment become worthless because they allow oil companies to continue to have free reign through our already overtaxed oceans or start to gain ground in fragile areas of the northern tundra. That is why I propose that the party system be completely disbanded, or independent parties be allowed to enter the House and Senate. There are more than one perspective on every issue. Let's have those perspectives heard.
Let's begin with our struggling economy. The Democrats propose raising taxes on the rich. Let's define the term "rich," though. "Rich" in the modern sense means anyone who earns over $250,000 per year. That probably makes up about 4% of that tax bracket, which makes up only 5% of the U.S. population. Most of those people are doctors, lawyers, and small business owners who worked through extra years at college and work arguably more stressful jobs. The people who deserve taxation are people who earn over $1,000,000 per year, a so-called "millionaire's tax." In fact, before the 1950s, only millionaires paid income tax. Simply put, a solution to taxation may be a removal of the income tax, as 95% of the revenue comes from the top 1% of wealth.
However, lowering taxes may not be a solution right now. That's what the Republicans want. Arguably, lower taxes could stimulate the economy, but to me, it seems like a cheap election ploy. The goal of every politician today is to get reelected. Some politicians have been in the House or Senate for over 30 years. Therefore, I think its logical to amend the constitution so that politicians can only be elected once, and receive no salary. Being a politician should be about getting things done, not getting a cushy job because you have enough money to spoil the opposition with possibly bogus campaign adds. I'm pointing fingers at both sides, because almost all politicians are wealthy enough to make adds and run for office. Which is why I think that political parties should fund the races. Everyone gets $100,000 to run for office; if you don't win, you can't say it was because you didn't spend enough money. Furthermore, adds should be limited to support, not criticism of other candidates.
Despite this, I think the bipartisan system is really ineffectual. In the end, it becomes a brawl between two opposing armies who will just try to defeat the other by any means necessary. Just look at the recent health care bill. A full year was spent on it basically because the Republicans just kept saying no, no, no. That's a pointless waste of time for both sides. In that time, the Republicans should have come up with an effective response that could have favored what they support: strong defense, low taxes, and small government. Also, some things end up just being political games. Bills that could help the environment become worthless because they allow oil companies to continue to have free reign through our already overtaxed oceans or start to gain ground in fragile areas of the northern tundra. That is why I propose that the party system be completely disbanded, or independent parties be allowed to enter the House and Senate. There are more than one perspective on every issue. Let's have those perspectives heard.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
It's A Conspiracy I Tell You!
Conspiracy is always a common part of political blogging. Whether you agree with the idea that government should have the right to hide things from the people or not, the fact is governments do hide a lot of things in their back closets. While none of the following ideas are confirmed to be true, I do believe its time for our government to stop keeping things in the shadows.
To start with, the torture of supposed terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Though the proceedings there have never truly been corroborated by the United States government, it is hard to deny the evidence of leaked camera videos. While the argument rages over whether or not the prisoners deserve rights granted by the constitution, here is my belief that I stand by.
Though the rights given by the constitution are not natural or physical (i.e. no law of science can prevent something against the constitution from occurring), the constitution is still a binding document on all U.S. soil. The constitution states that prisoners have a right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers, and that people have guaranteed unalienable rights, including a right to not be inflicted cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, the actions at Guantanamo Bay are illegal and unconstitutional, even if the prisoners are suspected terrorists.
Eventually, even actions of national security become medieval witch hunts.
Secondly, and feel free to dismiss this as the craziest and most idiotic idea ever posted on this blog, the idea that the United States Military is hiding secret alien technology. Simply put, we are not in the Cold War anymore. Let's reveal what happened, so that the annoying conspiracists can be silenced once and for all. No more "UFO Hunters" on the History Channel, please. However, if what the conspiracists are saying is true, then the public deserves that knowledge for the advancement of human civilization. If we can spread to other planets or even other star systems, than we have solved so many environmental problems.
Actually, these are the only two conspiracies I really care about. Any others are probably preposterous rumors with very little background, or something made up to stop a political party that eventually became a common truth. Like the fact that Christopher Columbus discovered America first, even though Viking settlers, at least, had definitely colonized Newfoundland in the early 1300s. Seriously, some things people tell are completely insane. What matters is that the government is hiding things and should not. We have a right to know.
To start with, the torture of supposed terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Though the proceedings there have never truly been corroborated by the United States government, it is hard to deny the evidence of leaked camera videos. While the argument rages over whether or not the prisoners deserve rights granted by the constitution, here is my belief that I stand by.
Though the rights given by the constitution are not natural or physical (i.e. no law of science can prevent something against the constitution from occurring), the constitution is still a binding document on all U.S. soil. The constitution states that prisoners have a right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers, and that people have guaranteed unalienable rights, including a right to not be inflicted cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, the actions at Guantanamo Bay are illegal and unconstitutional, even if the prisoners are suspected terrorists.
Eventually, even actions of national security become medieval witch hunts.
Secondly, and feel free to dismiss this as the craziest and most idiotic idea ever posted on this blog, the idea that the United States Military is hiding secret alien technology. Simply put, we are not in the Cold War anymore. Let's reveal what happened, so that the annoying conspiracists can be silenced once and for all. No more "UFO Hunters" on the History Channel, please. However, if what the conspiracists are saying is true, then the public deserves that knowledge for the advancement of human civilization. If we can spread to other planets or even other star systems, than we have solved so many environmental problems.
Actually, these are the only two conspiracies I really care about. Any others are probably preposterous rumors with very little background, or something made up to stop a political party that eventually became a common truth. Like the fact that Christopher Columbus discovered America first, even though Viking settlers, at least, had definitely colonized Newfoundland in the early 1300s. Seriously, some things people tell are completely insane. What matters is that the government is hiding things and should not. We have a right to know.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Foreign Relations
Sorry I've been gone. But I'm back.
Today we discuss relations with several key members of current events. In order, these will be:
China
Russia
The Middle East
Mexico and Central and South America
Africa
Let's begin.
China
As the most rapidly growing economy and a direct opponent to American political and economic philosophy, it is likely that a war between China and the US may occur. The factors involved in this are how long the US plans to rely on China as a trading partner and source of cheap labor. While I am not a proponent of anti-globalization, I do agree that mega-corporations take advantage of China and other East Asian countries as a source of inexpensive labor. While not necessarily "criminal," it is something that should be made part of a collection of laws that I am calling "The Business Moral Code." The point of this would be to force businesses to comply with things that should just be common sense; for another example besides cheap labor, food companies regularly produce meat that is only marginally above edible. I think this should be a crime.
China is important for other reasons as well. As a major importer of oil, it regularly helps fund the Middle East. Requirements for China to begin going green could stop this cash flow, and, through this, terrorism, which is funded mostly by wealthy Middle Eastern oil barons.
However, I also believe pressure should be put on China to become a more democratic nation. I believe many of these problems could be solved if the People's Republic actually becomes a republic.
Russia
Many people seem to ignore Russia these days. Former superpower it may be, it still has an impressive armed and political force. The thousands of almost unguarded nuclear weapons also pose a threat to international security.
The tension between the US and Russia will continue to exist until political relations are strengthened.
Furthermore, if China or Russia declare war on the US, the other is likely to follow suit. Therefore, strengthening political ties could prevent a Third World War.
However, most important are the nukes. A terrorist or terrorist organization in the hands of a nuclear weapon will have no qualms about using it on a city. While President Obama has met with the Russian administration and succeeded in an agreement to significantly decrease the number of nuclear weapons, they should be made rid of entirely or put under international control by, per se, the UN.
Similar to China, political alliance with America may help increase democracy and economic growth in Russia. Therefore, there could be benefits for both sides.
The Middle East
A war stricken dessert rich in resources and corruption aptly describes the Middle East. Centuries of culture have bred proud zealots of religion. All based on a sludgy black liquid.
Countries of interest: Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
Iran is a difficult issue. While many say that war should be declared on this nation, I say not until we can obtain a significant coalition of forces for an assault. Until then, politicians must prevent the use of an nuclear weapon on Israel. However, I do think that it may be inevitable that an assault on Iran will occur. The question is: do we have the money or the resources to attack? Certainly not now.
Israel must continue to be an ally of the United States under the protection of the United States. If the alliance disappears, Israel will be completely annihilated by the combined forces of Iran, the Palestinians, and Hezbolah. However, I must note that my views do come from mostly being a Jew. While I do not think that Israel is dealing with the situation correctly, I do think that US alliance is the only thing stopping Iran from launching its nuclear weapons.
Saudi Arabia and the other oil countries are major blocks in environmental reform, along with the companies that drill there. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that Saudi Arabians fund terrorist organizations. Stopping the use of oil will eliminate these organizations life blood.
Mexico and Central and South America
Mexico: let's help them get their economy running. We can stop illegal immigration by making life in Mexico better for those living there.
Cuba: If we can let China get away with being communist, we can let them get away with it too.
All of South America: Stop drug trafficking. Maybe it's impossible, but the starting point is to let everyone there earn a better life.
Africa
The birthplace of mankind is now one of the worst places to be. Poverty stricken corrupt countries are the norm. With genocide and civil war everywhere, is it possible to save Africa? I think that increased power to the UN could help save our heritage and the majestic splendor that is Africa.
Key issues to deal with: Genocide in Darfur, Sudan; Civil War in the Democratic Republic of Congo; Child Soldiers and Workers; Poverty.
Let's get Africa on track.
So that's my feelings on foreign relations. Please comment and subscribe. Why do I want subscribers? So that you'll know when I post.
Today we discuss relations with several key members of current events. In order, these will be:
China
Russia
The Middle East
Mexico and Central and South America
Africa
Let's begin.
China
As the most rapidly growing economy and a direct opponent to American political and economic philosophy, it is likely that a war between China and the US may occur. The factors involved in this are how long the US plans to rely on China as a trading partner and source of cheap labor. While I am not a proponent of anti-globalization, I do agree that mega-corporations take advantage of China and other East Asian countries as a source of inexpensive labor. While not necessarily "criminal," it is something that should be made part of a collection of laws that I am calling "The Business Moral Code." The point of this would be to force businesses to comply with things that should just be common sense; for another example besides cheap labor, food companies regularly produce meat that is only marginally above edible. I think this should be a crime.
China is important for other reasons as well. As a major importer of oil, it regularly helps fund the Middle East. Requirements for China to begin going green could stop this cash flow, and, through this, terrorism, which is funded mostly by wealthy Middle Eastern oil barons.
However, I also believe pressure should be put on China to become a more democratic nation. I believe many of these problems could be solved if the People's Republic actually becomes a republic.
Russia
Many people seem to ignore Russia these days. Former superpower it may be, it still has an impressive armed and political force. The thousands of almost unguarded nuclear weapons also pose a threat to international security.
The tension between the US and Russia will continue to exist until political relations are strengthened.
Furthermore, if China or Russia declare war on the US, the other is likely to follow suit. Therefore, strengthening political ties could prevent a Third World War.
However, most important are the nukes. A terrorist or terrorist organization in the hands of a nuclear weapon will have no qualms about using it on a city. While President Obama has met with the Russian administration and succeeded in an agreement to significantly decrease the number of nuclear weapons, they should be made rid of entirely or put under international control by, per se, the UN.
Similar to China, political alliance with America may help increase democracy and economic growth in Russia. Therefore, there could be benefits for both sides.
The Middle East
A war stricken dessert rich in resources and corruption aptly describes the Middle East. Centuries of culture have bred proud zealots of religion. All based on a sludgy black liquid.
Countries of interest: Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
Iran is a difficult issue. While many say that war should be declared on this nation, I say not until we can obtain a significant coalition of forces for an assault. Until then, politicians must prevent the use of an nuclear weapon on Israel. However, I do think that it may be inevitable that an assault on Iran will occur. The question is: do we have the money or the resources to attack? Certainly not now.
Israel must continue to be an ally of the United States under the protection of the United States. If the alliance disappears, Israel will be completely annihilated by the combined forces of Iran, the Palestinians, and Hezbolah. However, I must note that my views do come from mostly being a Jew. While I do not think that Israel is dealing with the situation correctly, I do think that US alliance is the only thing stopping Iran from launching its nuclear weapons.
Saudi Arabia and the other oil countries are major blocks in environmental reform, along with the companies that drill there. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that Saudi Arabians fund terrorist organizations. Stopping the use of oil will eliminate these organizations life blood.
Mexico and Central and South America
Mexico: let's help them get their economy running. We can stop illegal immigration by making life in Mexico better for those living there.
Cuba: If we can let China get away with being communist, we can let them get away with it too.
All of South America: Stop drug trafficking. Maybe it's impossible, but the starting point is to let everyone there earn a better life.
Africa
The birthplace of mankind is now one of the worst places to be. Poverty stricken corrupt countries are the norm. With genocide and civil war everywhere, is it possible to save Africa? I think that increased power to the UN could help save our heritage and the majestic splendor that is Africa.
Key issues to deal with: Genocide in Darfur, Sudan; Civil War in the Democratic Republic of Congo; Child Soldiers and Workers; Poverty.
Let's get Africa on track.
So that's my feelings on foreign relations. Please comment and subscribe. Why do I want subscribers? So that you'll know when I post.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Another Important Thing
Heard about it. Found it. Haven't used it yet, but we'll see.
http://wikileaks.org/
http://wikileaks.org/
What I Hate Particularly About the US Governement
Yeah, by this time I've gone over governmental reform three times. However, none of the other issues can be solved without fixing the problems with our government. To help explain when I'll finally support Mr. Obama, Mark Fiore, political cartoonist.
Added to that growth comment, they also need to grow brains.
All that I completely support. No more lobbying unless the public has as much power as industry. Democrats: step up to the plate to defend your ideas. Republicans: stop being idiots and do your research. I too believe it's not the time for health care reform.
We have environmental issues that are much more pressing! If we don't stop polluting we're all doomed!
Added to that growth comment, they also need to grow brains.
All that I completely support. No more lobbying unless the public has as much power as industry. Democrats: step up to the plate to defend your ideas. Republicans: stop being idiots and do your research. I too believe it's not the time for health care reform.
We have environmental issues that are much more pressing! If we don't stop polluting we're all doomed!
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The Environment and The Economy
As a major supporter of "the environment first," I may return to the environment a few times. By "the environment first," I mean that environmental issues are the most pressing and important issues because they will effect everyone. As the most politically and economically powerful nation on the planet, it is our duty to make sure we stand out as a role model on environmental policy. Sadly, we do not even approach this standard.
An unfortunate fact of American government is that the wealthy control much of the actual decision making. Though a poor man has as much voting decision as Bill Gates, what the candidate running for office will undoubtedly be wealthy enough to actually run for office. As stated previously, this is a grievous flaw that must be changed. However, money also brings power in the form of lobbying government. A general citizen cannot simply approach their local senator or congressperson. They must visit them in their office, possibly in Washington. The average citizen may not know who his or her congressperson/senators are, and cannot possibly reach them easily. But a certain class of citizens can.
Wealthy CEOs, chairmen, businessman, presidents, and et cetera. The majority of economic politics today is shaped by corporations. And here lies the threat to the environment.
Economics 101 teaches the law of the market system. If I need widgets, and Corporation X sells widgets for $10, then I believe that a widget is worth more than ten bucks, and Corporation X believes it's worth less than ten bucks. However, the market system cannot prevent if these widgets cause toxins to enter the ocean. And preventing these toxins from entering the ocean would raise the price of widgets, causing the consumer to believe widgets are worth less than ten bucks, and possibly not purchase widgets from Corporation X. In real terms, this means corporations do not wish to prevent harm to the environment because it would change their bottom line, or remove their business all together. As stated in previous posts, a billion dollars is worth saving the world. The loss of your job or company is worth saving the world, as well.
But which companies are blocking environmental reform the most? The same ones that cause it. They go by the names of Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, and many others. The major oil companies, the most powerful organizations in the world, are pleading for their utter survival. And politicians are buying it.
Disgusting. Utterly disgusting.
It's time to make sure the only ones who make government decisions aren't politicians and corporate lobbyists. United States senators and congresspersons should offer easy to access sites to post possible laws and issues. A good webmaster can make sure no death threats or hate mail is posted.
That's enough criticism. Since their power is going to be removed anyway, let's get a possible glimpse of what that could look like.
I personally support the idea of gradual conversion. Alternative energy sources (i.e. nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal) should be brought up to 50%. After this point, fossil fuel sources should be dropped, gradually, about 5%-10% per year, to 0. As this occurs, alternatives should raised to 100%. The process should take approximately 20 years (10 for the first 50% rise, 10 for the next 50% rise). Similar ideas could be performed with vehicles.
Hopefully, these ideas will be put into effect. It's time for change.
An unfortunate fact of American government is that the wealthy control much of the actual decision making. Though a poor man has as much voting decision as Bill Gates, what the candidate running for office will undoubtedly be wealthy enough to actually run for office. As stated previously, this is a grievous flaw that must be changed. However, money also brings power in the form of lobbying government. A general citizen cannot simply approach their local senator or congressperson. They must visit them in their office, possibly in Washington. The average citizen may not know who his or her congressperson/senators are, and cannot possibly reach them easily. But a certain class of citizens can.
Wealthy CEOs, chairmen, businessman, presidents, and et cetera. The majority of economic politics today is shaped by corporations. And here lies the threat to the environment.
Economics 101 teaches the law of the market system. If I need widgets, and Corporation X sells widgets for $10, then I believe that a widget is worth more than ten bucks, and Corporation X believes it's worth less than ten bucks. However, the market system cannot prevent if these widgets cause toxins to enter the ocean. And preventing these toxins from entering the ocean would raise the price of widgets, causing the consumer to believe widgets are worth less than ten bucks, and possibly not purchase widgets from Corporation X. In real terms, this means corporations do not wish to prevent harm to the environment because it would change their bottom line, or remove their business all together. As stated in previous posts, a billion dollars is worth saving the world. The loss of your job or company is worth saving the world, as well.
But which companies are blocking environmental reform the most? The same ones that cause it. They go by the names of Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, and many others. The major oil companies, the most powerful organizations in the world, are pleading for their utter survival. And politicians are buying it.
Disgusting. Utterly disgusting.
It's time to make sure the only ones who make government decisions aren't politicians and corporate lobbyists. United States senators and congresspersons should offer easy to access sites to post possible laws and issues. A good webmaster can make sure no death threats or hate mail is posted.
That's enough criticism. Since their power is going to be removed anyway, let's get a possible glimpse of what that could look like.
I personally support the idea of gradual conversion. Alternative energy sources (i.e. nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal) should be brought up to 50%. After this point, fossil fuel sources should be dropped, gradually, about 5%-10% per year, to 0. As this occurs, alternatives should raised to 100%. The process should take approximately 20 years (10 for the first 50% rise, 10 for the next 50% rise). Similar ideas could be performed with vehicles.
Hopefully, these ideas will be put into effect. It's time for change.
Friday, August 6, 2010
The Issue That I Don't Understand Why It's Such a Big Deal But I'm Eventually Going to Have to Cover Because It's So Important
Namely, President Obama's Health Care Reform. Why this has become such a huge turning point actually isn't a huge mystery, I realize, as the Republican party preaches that it is the first step towards socialism. To the risk of losing my few possibly Republican readers, let me state this: socialism isn't the worst thing that could possibly happen. The role of government is to protect the rights of the people. If socialism best protects these rights, then government is effective. Furthermore, most of Europe is socialist, as many know; though taxes are increased, people enjoy free health care and education. The ability to afford one's health and education leads to a higher standard of living, and most people of Europe enjoy the benefits they receive. Simply put, socialism, like democracy, may be the popular form of government for the modern era.
However, I do oppose Obama's health care reforms, on the grounds that it does not effectively solve the use of predesignated conditions (please correct me if I am using the wrong term). The point of denying those with predesignated conditions was to prevent this scenario:
Little Johnny breaks his leg. The parents can't afford the payment, so they order health insurance. Because there are no restrictions on predesignated conditions, the parents pay for the treatment, then cancel the insurance.
Insurance is to ensure that you will be able to pay for treatment when the need arises, not on demand. I fear that Obamacare would open the floodgates to millions of these scenarios. Therefore, removal of predesignated conditions should not be included in the reform. However, there is stark contrast between the Little Johnny scenario and the following.
Big Bill is perfectly healthy, and decides he has enough money to afford health insurance. However, as the insurance agency checks his conditions, he is diagnosed with diabetes. Therefore, his insurance is cancelled.
The legislation must allow for people who were perfectly healthy when they ordered insurance to obtain their insurance even if diagnosed with an illness during the screening process.
Despite my opposition to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, I do agree that there should be some form of government provided health care as an option for citizens who cannot afford traditional insurance.
Also in agreement with the AHCAA, doctors should receive more of the money paid for by non-insured patients than they are now (right now, the amount close to 0%; this should be raised to at least 40%).
I do not believe that these type of reforms are required in a 3,000 page bill. However, what surprises me most is that debate is continuing at what health care reform should be. If Congress cannot make a consensus based on both sides of the debate, the entire reform should be dropped like a hot pan. Much more important issues should be faced before health care, like the environment.
Don't fear socialism. Fear communism and oligarchies. If you ever believe the government is amassing too much power, it is your constitutional right to oppose the government. The sign of a free society is the ability to oppose the government without being thrown in jail. Socialism is still a free society.
Following a political party isn't the right idea, unless you agree with them on every single issue. Make your own decisions. Be independent. Don't follow the crowd.
As I explained before, health care should have been on the back burner. We have much more important things to deal with.
However, I do oppose Obama's health care reforms, on the grounds that it does not effectively solve the use of predesignated conditions (please correct me if I am using the wrong term). The point of denying those with predesignated conditions was to prevent this scenario:
Little Johnny breaks his leg. The parents can't afford the payment, so they order health insurance. Because there are no restrictions on predesignated conditions, the parents pay for the treatment, then cancel the insurance.
Insurance is to ensure that you will be able to pay for treatment when the need arises, not on demand. I fear that Obamacare would open the floodgates to millions of these scenarios. Therefore, removal of predesignated conditions should not be included in the reform. However, there is stark contrast between the Little Johnny scenario and the following.
Big Bill is perfectly healthy, and decides he has enough money to afford health insurance. However, as the insurance agency checks his conditions, he is diagnosed with diabetes. Therefore, his insurance is cancelled.
The legislation must allow for people who were perfectly healthy when they ordered insurance to obtain their insurance even if diagnosed with an illness during the screening process.
Despite my opposition to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, I do agree that there should be some form of government provided health care as an option for citizens who cannot afford traditional insurance.
Also in agreement with the AHCAA, doctors should receive more of the money paid for by non-insured patients than they are now (right now, the amount close to 0%; this should be raised to at least 40%).
I do not believe that these type of reforms are required in a 3,000 page bill. However, what surprises me most is that debate is continuing at what health care reform should be. If Congress cannot make a consensus based on both sides of the debate, the entire reform should be dropped like a hot pan. Much more important issues should be faced before health care, like the environment.
Don't fear socialism. Fear communism and oligarchies. If you ever believe the government is amassing too much power, it is your constitutional right to oppose the government. The sign of a free society is the ability to oppose the government without being thrown in jail. Socialism is still a free society.
Following a political party isn't the right idea, unless you agree with them on every single issue. Make your own decisions. Be independent. Don't follow the crowd.
As I explained before, health care should have been on the back burner. We have much more important things to deal with.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Immigration
Possibly the most controversial issue of our time is what to do with the thousands of illegal immigrants streaming across our borders. Most likely, this is because of the thousands of options possible to change the situation. With such a complex issue, no one is right. The simplest solution: make our legal immigration system more efficient.
The immigration system in the modern United States is, like many systems, outdated. It is imperative that we increase its efficiency before confronting illegal immigration. In my opinion, to become a U.S. citizen, people should be required to (in steps):
1. Apply for registration.
2. Have lived (i.e. owned property) and worked in the U.S. for at least one month.
3. Pass the mandatory background check.
4. Learn English.
Hopefully, this would cause immigration to be a smoother process. The background check will rule out undesirables.
If you are wondering why this post is short (my one subscriber), it is because I believe that immigration is a rather minor issue. I am hoping that Barrack Obama places the environment over immigration in his reform agenda, due to the recent oil spill.
Friday, July 9, 2010
The Issues in Review
I'm not perfect. If so, then I wouldn't have forgotten these important tidbits from the last three posts. I plan to do this continually to add new items, every four posts (not counting the first).
The Environment:
Most of the paradoxes only occur when everyone performs those certain activities. The reason why local foods is a paradox is because the countries that produce the non-local grapes and etc. would revert to slash-and-burn farming if their livelihood were suddenly taken away. However, recycling and buying fluorescent lightbulbs is something I high recommend. If possible, attach solar panels or a wind turbine somewhere on your house. Try to help any way you can, without causing paradoxes. In other words, think deeply about the consequences of your actions.
Government and the Economy:
Lawyers should be a governmental service. Big business should be robbed of the advantage of having armies of lawyers. Furthermore, people in non-legislative agencies (CIA, USDA, etc.) should be non-partisan and unbiased. No USDA employees should work for businesses they formerly worked for. In other words, the United States must not become a corporatocracy. Even more simply, business should be completely separate from government.
The voting age should be lowered to 14. I don't really care if my guy doesn't win the election; I just want a chance to actually decide governmental policy.
Senators and representatives should also be much more approachable (i.e. via email and telephone). It is horribly unfair that businesses can lobby and bribe officials into their point of view. Why can't I?
National Security:
The United States must not turn into a police state. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. No one should be constantly suspected to be a terrorist, and the benefit of the doubt must always be given.
Also, I feel anger at the stupid people who would ruin the reputation of an entire society through their selfish acts. Islam is not a religion promoting self-destruction (I'm Jewish). It is unfair to discriminate against Muslims because of the stupidity of extremists.
-The Inspective Nudibranch (AKA Ian Fries)
P.S. Pegasus Class of 2010 please find me. That means you Tiana, Douglas, and Louisa! Mr. Conti can't be my only follower. I crave intelligent conversation
The Environment:
Most of the paradoxes only occur when everyone performs those certain activities. The reason why local foods is a paradox is because the countries that produce the non-local grapes and etc. would revert to slash-and-burn farming if their livelihood were suddenly taken away. However, recycling and buying fluorescent lightbulbs is something I high recommend. If possible, attach solar panels or a wind turbine somewhere on your house. Try to help any way you can, without causing paradoxes. In other words, think deeply about the consequences of your actions.
Government and the Economy:
Lawyers should be a governmental service. Big business should be robbed of the advantage of having armies of lawyers. Furthermore, people in non-legislative agencies (CIA, USDA, etc.) should be non-partisan and unbiased. No USDA employees should work for businesses they formerly worked for. In other words, the United States must not become a corporatocracy. Even more simply, business should be completely separate from government.
The voting age should be lowered to 14. I don't really care if my guy doesn't win the election; I just want a chance to actually decide governmental policy.
Senators and representatives should also be much more approachable (i.e. via email and telephone). It is horribly unfair that businesses can lobby and bribe officials into their point of view. Why can't I?
National Security:
The United States must not turn into a police state. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. No one should be constantly suspected to be a terrorist, and the benefit of the doubt must always be given.
Also, I feel anger at the stupid people who would ruin the reputation of an entire society through their selfish acts. Islam is not a religion promoting self-destruction (I'm Jewish). It is unfair to discriminate against Muslims because of the stupidity of extremists.
-The Inspective Nudibranch (AKA Ian Fries)
P.S. Pegasus Class of 2010 please find me. That means you Tiana, Douglas, and Louisa! Mr. Conti can't be my only follower. I crave intelligent conversation
Friday, July 2, 2010
National Security
We live in a world more akin to a roulette wheel than anything else. Everything has probability, and nothing more so than the chance of a terrorist attack. How we protect ourselves is a major issue in the United States.
However, it should be noted that if you can design a security system, someone can beat it. There are most likely billions of ways to get past a security checkpoint at an airport. No matter how much money we spend on security, there will always be some nut who can break through the system.
Before we consult security, though, we must explain exactly what the goal of terrorism is. Terrorism is designed to cause terror; if every time some extremist decides that he can put M80s in the Times Square (yes, I am referring to the event earlier this year) to frighten America, we have lost the "War on Terror." Importantly, though, the man who tried to blow up Times Square simply wanted to prove a point. Therefore, American government should be more open to suggestion from the common people.
Security also costs valuable money. Al-Qaeda's stated goal is to ruin the United States financially. Through two wars and the constant increase of security, they are succeeding. Furthermore, increasing security takes away from personal rights. The most insulting thing the government can do to you, in my opinion, is to always assume you are a criminal. Not only is this unfair, it goes against the constitutional right that you maintain innocence until proven guilty. I feel that airport security does this to me. I have no desire to blow up a plane, and I don't believe I ever will. Furthermore, just because some idiot tried to travel by plane with a bomb in his shoe shouldn't mean everyone must take off their shoes when they go through security, and the same idea for water bottles, and so on.
What can the United States, then, do to improve security? First of all, find every flaw (i.e. every person mistaken for a terrorist) in security. The security system should be 99.99% accurate. No one who isn't a terrorist should be not allowed to fly. To prevent another underware bomber incident, international security agencies must maintain contact to prevent black-listed men and women from flying. Overall, security needs a huge update in technology.
However, it should be noted that if you can design a security system, someone can beat it. There are most likely billions of ways to get past a security checkpoint at an airport. No matter how much money we spend on security, there will always be some nut who can break through the system.
Before we consult security, though, we must explain exactly what the goal of terrorism is. Terrorism is designed to cause terror; if every time some extremist decides that he can put M80s in the Times Square (yes, I am referring to the event earlier this year) to frighten America, we have lost the "War on Terror." Importantly, though, the man who tried to blow up Times Square simply wanted to prove a point. Therefore, American government should be more open to suggestion from the common people.
Security also costs valuable money. Al-Qaeda's stated goal is to ruin the United States financially. Through two wars and the constant increase of security, they are succeeding. Furthermore, increasing security takes away from personal rights. The most insulting thing the government can do to you, in my opinion, is to always assume you are a criminal. Not only is this unfair, it goes against the constitutional right that you maintain innocence until proven guilty. I feel that airport security does this to me. I have no desire to blow up a plane, and I don't believe I ever will. Furthermore, just because some idiot tried to travel by plane with a bomb in his shoe shouldn't mean everyone must take off their shoes when they go through security, and the same idea for water bottles, and so on.
What can the United States, then, do to improve security? First of all, find every flaw (i.e. every person mistaken for a terrorist) in security. The security system should be 99.99% accurate. No one who isn't a terrorist should be not allowed to fly. To prevent another underware bomber incident, international security agencies must maintain contact to prevent black-listed men and women from flying. Overall, security needs a huge update in technology.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Government and the Economy
In the modern world, the governments and economies of nations are greatly linked. To explain one is to explain the other, in a sense. Nowhere is this more true than in the United States. The major divider between the Democrats and the Republicans is how the economy should be regulated. Democrats call for increased regulation, Republicans do not. Unfortunately, money is also the most powerful thing holding men and women to office. I hope that many conditions within our economy and government can be rectified.
Our economic system needs to have regulation from the government only so that it will respond to the threats of the time. Our electrical grids and computer, for example, our incredibly weak to terrorist attacks. If one intelligent man can sink the entire power supply, surely companies will respond. However, most companies would flat out refuse to update software, on the grounds that it would cost exorbitant amounts of money. This would cause a breach in national security. Therefore, government needs to take command of business when threats become certain.
However, though government should prevent business from causing crises, other than that it should leave business completely alone. If the banks know that the government can bail them out when their stock falls low, then they will continue use unethical processes. Businesses should know that government cannot form even a last case scenario.
Though I can easily criticize most of the economy, government works smoothly and effectively for the most part. The United States has excellent governmental procedure, in my opinion, though legislation should pass bills requiring less debate on vital issues (i.e. climate change, not health care). However, it appears that money has become a major stimulus in government, and not just in the form of bribery. Government officials should earn only meager salaries; though their work creates much stress in their lives, money would promote staying in office for the pay alone. Money breeds corruption, stupidity, and callousness in government, from my point of view. Furthermore, to open position in government to more people, the government should provide a budget for campaigning to anyone wishing to participate in an election and lower the voting age to fourteen. More common people could then participate in our republic.
I believe that many of our governmental and economical problems could be rectified if the Senate implicates these ideas. We must remove the oligarchal structure that forms our government and economy and remove corruption and motivation for self-gain alone.
Our economic system needs to have regulation from the government only so that it will respond to the threats of the time. Our electrical grids and computer, for example, our incredibly weak to terrorist attacks. If one intelligent man can sink the entire power supply, surely companies will respond. However, most companies would flat out refuse to update software, on the grounds that it would cost exorbitant amounts of money. This would cause a breach in national security. Therefore, government needs to take command of business when threats become certain.
However, though government should prevent business from causing crises, other than that it should leave business completely alone. If the banks know that the government can bail them out when their stock falls low, then they will continue use unethical processes. Businesses should know that government cannot form even a last case scenario.
Though I can easily criticize most of the economy, government works smoothly and effectively for the most part. The United States has excellent governmental procedure, in my opinion, though legislation should pass bills requiring less debate on vital issues (i.e. climate change, not health care). However, it appears that money has become a major stimulus in government, and not just in the form of bribery. Government officials should earn only meager salaries; though their work creates much stress in their lives, money would promote staying in office for the pay alone. Money breeds corruption, stupidity, and callousness in government, from my point of view. Furthermore, to open position in government to more people, the government should provide a budget for campaigning to anyone wishing to participate in an election and lower the voting age to fourteen. More common people could then participate in our republic.
I believe that many of our governmental and economical problems could be rectified if the Senate implicates these ideas. We must remove the oligarchal structure that forms our government and economy and remove corruption and motivation for self-gain alone.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
The Environment
Almost every modern human understands that the ecosystem of our planet is in destruction. We have over taxed what our planet can hold since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This status quo was determined by the ignorance of our forefathers, which must be solved today.
Unfortunately, it also seems that some people wish to put off solutions to my generation. In further misfortune, some people today offend all intelligent children of the world by stating that we are supposed to solve all the world's problems when we grow up. It is wrong to believe that corporate executives can relax because their children will clean up the environment. Action has to be taken now, before consequences render Earth uninhabitable. Wall-E is not where I personally want to end up.
However, some simply put aside environmental catastrophe as a myth. This is not money wasted stupidly. It's the complete and utter revitalization of a dying planet. I think a billion or two is worth the survival of the human race.
How can we stop the rage of global climate change and other stresses on the planet? We must outdate processes that are detrimental to the Earth's ecosystem. That means the complete shut down of coal and oil fired power plants. Instead, nuclear technology should be advanced. A single nuclear power plant can provide energy for aircraft carriers, which are akin to mobile towns. If nuclear power is used so widely in the military world, why not use it to energize the United States? If the obsession with nuclear safety causes fear, let the public know that only 8 accidents (including Chernobyl) have occurred in the history of the use of nuclear power. Therefore, nuclear power is a clean and safe alternative to coal and oil.
However, while the funds for nuclear power plants are assembled, humanity should hold itself over with sustainable technologies that fit the environment. Solar, wind, and tidal power should be used where each would be most efficient, and can be continued to be used in the case of a disappearance of uranium fuel.
For the modern era, hybrids should become the standard vehicle, until the further development of hydrogen fuel cell or nuclear powered vehicles. Eventually, nuclear fusion should replace fission reactors when technology becomes feasible.
However (and this may be the most un-environmental statement I make to fanatics), eco-activism is not a viable solution. Many of its quick-solving ideas fall apart under close examination. For example, plastic reusable containers require soap made from oil by-products, which can pollute the ocean. Therefore, using a reusable plastic container for lunch may have worse consequences than solutions. Advanced technology can remove these paradoxes. Therefore, governments must put aside large amounts of resources for the development of green technology.
Eco-activists do have a few things correct, however. Using fluorescent light bulbs and buying organic (not locally grown; local growing can cause paradoxes) food provide very intelligent solutions that should be implemented on a grander scale.
This article would be incomplete without an assessment of the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. All I can say is that BP needs smarter engineers. A plug could seriously just be a concrete block pumped down in to the crack. We don't need massive, two-story, billion-dollar structures that don't end up working. As Albert Einstein stated, "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
Unfortunately, it also seems that some people wish to put off solutions to my generation. In further misfortune, some people today offend all intelligent children of the world by stating that we are supposed to solve all the world's problems when we grow up. It is wrong to believe that corporate executives can relax because their children will clean up the environment. Action has to be taken now, before consequences render Earth uninhabitable. Wall-E is not where I personally want to end up.
However, some simply put aside environmental catastrophe as a myth. This is not money wasted stupidly. It's the complete and utter revitalization of a dying planet. I think a billion or two is worth the survival of the human race.
How can we stop the rage of global climate change and other stresses on the planet? We must outdate processes that are detrimental to the Earth's ecosystem. That means the complete shut down of coal and oil fired power plants. Instead, nuclear technology should be advanced. A single nuclear power plant can provide energy for aircraft carriers, which are akin to mobile towns. If nuclear power is used so widely in the military world, why not use it to energize the United States? If the obsession with nuclear safety causes fear, let the public know that only 8 accidents (including Chernobyl) have occurred in the history of the use of nuclear power. Therefore, nuclear power is a clean and safe alternative to coal and oil.
However, while the funds for nuclear power plants are assembled, humanity should hold itself over with sustainable technologies that fit the environment. Solar, wind, and tidal power should be used where each would be most efficient, and can be continued to be used in the case of a disappearance of uranium fuel.
For the modern era, hybrids should become the standard vehicle, until the further development of hydrogen fuel cell or nuclear powered vehicles. Eventually, nuclear fusion should replace fission reactors when technology becomes feasible.
However (and this may be the most un-environmental statement I make to fanatics), eco-activism is not a viable solution. Many of its quick-solving ideas fall apart under close examination. For example, plastic reusable containers require soap made from oil by-products, which can pollute the ocean. Therefore, using a reusable plastic container for lunch may have worse consequences than solutions. Advanced technology can remove these paradoxes. Therefore, governments must put aside large amounts of resources for the development of green technology.
Eco-activists do have a few things correct, however. Using fluorescent light bulbs and buying organic (not locally grown; local growing can cause paradoxes) food provide very intelligent solutions that should be implemented on a grander scale.
This article would be incomplete without an assessment of the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. All I can say is that BP needs smarter engineers. A plug could seriously just be a concrete block pumped down in to the crack. We don't need massive, two-story, billion-dollar structures that don't end up working. As Albert Einstein stated, "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
Friday, June 11, 2010
Education
If not for education, my blogs today may not sound nearly as intelligent as they are. I am grateful for my education, particularly because I go to an excellent school. However, the education system as a whole is horribly flawed in America, and most people know this. The faults lie in many places.
First of all, and most importantly, is the failure of the school system to attract those of the lower class. This creates the cycle of poverty that leads to the rise of gangs and other delinquent organizations. The overall mindset is that of short-term gratification: a lower-class adolescent can make $300 selling drugs, or can go to school and make nothing. However, this is not just the school system's fault. Because their parents are not around, these teenagers have no reason to see benefit in going to school. Thus, the cycle of poverty continues.
Secondly, several failed attempts have occurred in the school system to help those academically challenged. The Bush Administration's No Child Left Behind Act is a colossal failure, as I have experienced. It is a meager attempt. Currently, teachers teach so as that students can complete standardized tests, work minimally, and be uncreative. This could only create a society of mechanical drones suitable for factory labor. I left the public school system because it had become so boring and dull that I could no longer be challenged. By leaving the intelligent as outcasts, the system promotes bullying and hostility towards those who excel in school. As stated, acts to solve education have been mammoth wastes of time and money.
Thirdly, parental interference has wrecked student performance. Because of so-called "helicopter parenting," students have become lazier while homework has increased. Many adults would remember obtaining jobs during high school, a feat that is now nearly impossible due to increased homework loads on the behalf of parents insisting that their children be prepared for college. Unfortunately, because these parents do their children's homework for them, students are still unprepared for college stresses. The government cannot solve this; it must be a general societal change. Parents must cease to "oversee" projects and "help" with homework just to see their children excel by way of an overall meaningless number. When parents help cheat, that is exactly what a grade means.
Finally, teachers as a whole are not as successful as they were before. In my opinion, this only means that teacher standards need to be adjusted to prevent student boredom. School should be interesting. Children hate school because it takes away time for them to do things they would rather do, especially by doling out homework. If a child hates school, then he or she probably will pay less attention and therefore suffer poorer grades. Capturing attention and causing interest should be one of the main things schools look for in teachers.
There are a few more things that I would like to say about the school system as a whole, but they may be offensive to the few followers I have. If you would like to hear these caustic comments, I would like a general consensus from my followers. I will attach them to my next blog.
- The Inspective Nudibranch
P.S. My internet address is www.rawpoliticalscience.blogspot.com for anyone who wishes to share this blog. It's an old title I thought of using.
First of all, and most importantly, is the failure of the school system to attract those of the lower class. This creates the cycle of poverty that leads to the rise of gangs and other delinquent organizations. The overall mindset is that of short-term gratification: a lower-class adolescent can make $300 selling drugs, or can go to school and make nothing. However, this is not just the school system's fault. Because their parents are not around, these teenagers have no reason to see benefit in going to school. Thus, the cycle of poverty continues.
Secondly, several failed attempts have occurred in the school system to help those academically challenged. The Bush Administration's No Child Left Behind Act is a colossal failure, as I have experienced. It is a meager attempt. Currently, teachers teach so as that students can complete standardized tests, work minimally, and be uncreative. This could only create a society of mechanical drones suitable for factory labor. I left the public school system because it had become so boring and dull that I could no longer be challenged. By leaving the intelligent as outcasts, the system promotes bullying and hostility towards those who excel in school. As stated, acts to solve education have been mammoth wastes of time and money.
Thirdly, parental interference has wrecked student performance. Because of so-called "helicopter parenting," students have become lazier while homework has increased. Many adults would remember obtaining jobs during high school, a feat that is now nearly impossible due to increased homework loads on the behalf of parents insisting that their children be prepared for college. Unfortunately, because these parents do their children's homework for them, students are still unprepared for college stresses. The government cannot solve this; it must be a general societal change. Parents must cease to "oversee" projects and "help" with homework just to see their children excel by way of an overall meaningless number. When parents help cheat, that is exactly what a grade means.
Finally, teachers as a whole are not as successful as they were before. In my opinion, this only means that teacher standards need to be adjusted to prevent student boredom. School should be interesting. Children hate school because it takes away time for them to do things they would rather do, especially by doling out homework. If a child hates school, then he or she probably will pay less attention and therefore suffer poorer grades. Capturing attention and causing interest should be one of the main things schools look for in teachers.
There are a few more things that I would like to say about the school system as a whole, but they may be offensive to the few followers I have. If you would like to hear these caustic comments, I would like a general consensus from my followers. I will attach them to my next blog.
- The Inspective Nudibranch
P.S. My internet address is www.rawpoliticalscience.blogspot.com for anyone who wishes to share this blog. It's an old title I thought of using.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
The Ominous Beginning
The world is a fairly troubled place right now. Terrorism, corrupt political states, and many other woes wrack the planet. But before we get to those troubles, let us examine what is good about the world.
1. Little Imperialism
The imperialistic age has pretty much ended. We find pride in our nations and may be nationalistic, but no nation (except, unfortunately, the U.S.) controls large portions of territory outside their own boundaries for large personal profit or the threatening of other nations.
2. Republics Rule!
The most powerful nations on the planet (e.g. the U.S., Germany, Great Britain, France, Russia) are all democratic republics. That means that most of the power on the planet is concentrated in states run by incorruptly elected officials. Hurray!
3. The System Works
Most of the world's systems (economic, educational, etc.) work fairly well. They need only slight tweaking.
4. People Care
Exactly what it means. There are people on earth who care about each other and society.
5. People Live
People have the longest life spans so far. That can only be expected to increase. We can cure almost any disease, and have the ability to inoculate ourselves against major diseases. No more polio, no more tetanus, no more hepatitis. All through one quick shot.
In short, the world's a better place to be than 150 years ago.
Over the course of this blog, I will examine many issues plaguing society. Comments are appreciated, hate mail is not. Criticism is appreciated, outright hate for my ideas because they go against political doctrines is not.
Also, this is not an "I hate America" thing. I don't hate America; there are problems that most politicians would agree need to be solved. Tying to that, many problems will be American based.
After I run out of things to rant on, I will open a forum to discussion and possibly bringing up other issues. Nothing that has only one side; things that have many different ways of solving. Thanks.
- The Inspective Nudibranch
(P.S. Those who know me will understand the name.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)