Recently at the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush reprimanded Burma for the way they oppress their citizens. That's right Burma. Burma, Burma, Burma. If that sounds strange to you in light of recent news reports about protests in that country, it is because that country has officially been called Myanmar for the past 18 years, but this information apparently did not get around to Mr. Bush. Its OK though, one of these days he will pick up a newspaper, find out that Y2K didn't happen, realize that the war with Iraq ended in 1991, and see that people are officially done with hearing 9/11 as an excuse. In all seriousness though, it is possible that Bush was making a statement of not recognizing the military leadership in place in Myanmar (the U.S. officially does not recognize the name Myanmar) but you would think that he might still use the name that is accepted by the United Nations at a United Nations General Assembly. Personally, I like the idea of ignorant Bush more, but I'm getting off topic.
So the basic problem in Myanmar that people are being abused (and have been for many years) and persecuted by the military government. The direct quote from President Bush was that "Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear. Basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship are severely restricted . Ethnic minorities are persecuted, forced child labour, human trafficking and rape are common." I don't know about the rest of you, but that sounds pretty bad to me. So how should we, America, the leaders of the free world, respond to this world offense? According to article, it should be done by tightening "economic sanctions against the regime's leaders and their financial supporters, and widen a visa ban on those responsible for human rights abuses, and extend it to family members." Come on guys. Are you serious? I think we all know theres only one good way to go about this. Run in there with guns blazing. Just bust a cap in those oppressive military leaders. *GAT GAT GAT GAT*. I mean it works every time, just take a look around. Afghanistan? Iraq? Delicious! When it really comes down to it, is this situation that different? If we truly have a responsibility to protect the people of the world, shouldn't we be on our way into Myanmar already?
For the article on this event visit:
http://tinyurl.com/28snlf
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Obama vs. Taxes
Sorry if this post isn't as interesting or humorous as the last one, but I just got back from the football game (Tucker is a bulldozer at left guard. Pancake city!) and it's late.
On Tuesday the popular Barack Obama revealed that he plans to shift the tax burden from the poor the rich, as stated in this L.A. Times article: http://tinyurl.com/2mcj7w. As well as revealing his plans for tax cut repeals from the rich, Obama gave some ideas for cutting taxes or giving certain tax relief to the poor elderly, among many other people. I find it interesting that he reveals his plans to do this after revealing some parts of his plans for national healthcare as well. It seemed sketchy as it was how much money he planned on squeezing out of the current system for future healthcare, so he was really heavily relying on the money from repealing the wealthy's tax cuts already. Sure he will be making the less wealthy more happy, but in the end with tax relief for those people the result will probably not be a very big gain in the national budget.
Obama has centered much of his campaign over being the 'Washington outsider.' While he mostly uses this to separate himself from that manly 'Washington insider,' Hillary Clinton, I think that this move really shows how much of an outsider he is. Everybody knows that Obama is a fundraising machine, but it would be pretty absurd to think that every penny comes from fifty dollar donations from Jenny and Joe down the street. Nor is he running a lemonade stand (though Obama brand lemonade would be absolutely GENIOUS!). Fact is, a good chunk of that money probably came from corporations, or the very wealthy, the evil special interest groups; you know the people that would get mad at these kind of changes in the taxing system. Obama might find out that dealing with these people might be just a little difficult, as they expect something back for their support.
For the record, I'm not an Obama trasher. In fact, I sorta like the guy. But it gets tiring hearing the same stuff every year, it's not like you expect a guy to come out and say he'll tax the poor more heavily. Honestly, if some dude with balls came out and said, "Yep. I plan taxing the hell out of the poor and letting the fat cats live it up with tax cuts," I might vote for him just to see the change. I mean really that's what ends up happening anyways, so why try to hide it by giving these speeches?
On Tuesday the popular Barack Obama revealed that he plans to shift the tax burden from the poor the rich, as stated in this L.A. Times article: http://tinyurl.com/2mcj7w. As well as revealing his plans for tax cut repeals from the rich, Obama gave some ideas for cutting taxes or giving certain tax relief to the poor elderly, among many other people. I find it interesting that he reveals his plans to do this after revealing some parts of his plans for national healthcare as well. It seemed sketchy as it was how much money he planned on squeezing out of the current system for future healthcare, so he was really heavily relying on the money from repealing the wealthy's tax cuts already. Sure he will be making the less wealthy more happy, but in the end with tax relief for those people the result will probably not be a very big gain in the national budget.
Obama has centered much of his campaign over being the 'Washington outsider.' While he mostly uses this to separate himself from that manly 'Washington insider,' Hillary Clinton, I think that this move really shows how much of an outsider he is. Everybody knows that Obama is a fundraising machine, but it would be pretty absurd to think that every penny comes from fifty dollar donations from Jenny and Joe down the street. Nor is he running a lemonade stand (though Obama brand lemonade would be absolutely GENIOUS!). Fact is, a good chunk of that money probably came from corporations, or the very wealthy, the evil special interest groups; you know the people that would get mad at these kind of changes in the taxing system. Obama might find out that dealing with these people might be just a little difficult, as they expect something back for their support.
For the record, I'm not an Obama trasher. In fact, I sorta like the guy. But it gets tiring hearing the same stuff every year, it's not like you expect a guy to come out and say he'll tax the poor more heavily. Honestly, if some dude with balls came out and said, "Yep. I plan taxing the hell out of the poor and letting the fat cats live it up with tax cuts," I might vote for him just to see the change. I mean really that's what ends up happening anyways, so why try to hide it by giving these speeches?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The dawn of a new age of blogging
Alright it's the first post here so let's get this party started off right... I don't know what song that was (or any other words) but I'm pretty sure it was pretty lame either way. In any case, first post, start off strong with nice grammar and capitalization and all that good stuff that I'm sure I'll slip out of within a couple of weeks. In any case, prepare for all your blogging preconceptions to be shattered (unless your preconception was that this blog will be comprised of 100% pure awesome, in which case you would be correct. no blog from concentrate.) and for your mind to be boggled by the unique yet poignant observations made in this blog. This blog will be everything you dreamed of - and more! Just give it time, I have to wait until some weekday afternoon when I'm really bored to make it look cool and the such.
On to the writing! While the event I'll tell you about in a second hasn't really broken the municipal threshold yet, the arguments that surround it have and for all the accusations being made this could make it all the way to the Supreme Court.
The article this post is loosely based off appeared in the Op-Ed section of the LAT, under the title of "Thong politics" (yeah, now you're excited) and was written by Jill Fields, though some of the big questions posed were asked by her. If you want to read it, here's a link to the article http://tinyurl.com/3bz98d. I don't remember exactly how long that link holds up but I'm pretty sure it lasts for over a month, so hopefully that's sufficient. Anyway, here is the gist of the event: recently some Louisiana towns have passed laws that prohibit the showing of any undergarments in public, and similar measures are being considered in Georgia, New Jersey, and Connecticut. That's right ladies and gentlemen, it's NOT just the South, so it can't be THAT crazy of an idea. Essentially the law is meant to stop the sometimes extreme sagging of pants that has become seemingly commonplace and the oh so popular "Hey everybody! I'm wearing a thong! Oh you don't believe me? Don't worry, as soon as my backside is to you the entire world will know because I'm an attention whore who needs the whole world to look at me!" look (yeah that's what that look is called. don't question) that my female counterparts seem to enjoy so much.
A lot of people are opposed to this law for a variety of reasons. The ACLU argues that this law is violating the 1st Amendment rights guaranteed to all Americans, many detractors in the South say that it is unfairly targeting the black youth of the area as they are the ones that primarily prescribe to the saggy pants fad, and other people think that enforcing a city-wide "dress code" is just absolutely preposterous. I tend to agree with all of these people, but I have a different question that I think is just a little bit more important. Do the city legislators in these respective cities honestly have nothing better to do than create a dress code for their youth? Especially in the South, shouldn't these people be figuring out how to keep these mostly black kids out of gangs and crime, the usual problem areas for this demographic, rather than dictating what kind of jeans they can wear? Maybe if they spent this time improving on their school system they wouldn't be ranked 55th out of 50 every year in education, though I'm not exactly standing on top of Mt. Olympus here writing from California. Furthermore, it needs to be determined exactly how far these people plan on taking this. What they are doing with this law is widening the boundaries of what can be classified as "indecent exposure," but the line is much more fuzzy than it was before. Really, what is more "indecent:" an 18 year old guy whose boxers you can see, or an 18 year old girl who is wearing a pink bra under a white shirt? Essentially you can see it just as well as if she hadn't been wearing a shirt at all, but due to the fact that she has that see-through white shirt on she can't be busted. And for that matter, would you have to classify a push-up bra or a visible panty line as being "indecent?" Because as of right now they aren't, and that seems mighty unfair to the guys.
Let's face it, kids don't want to do what their parents tell them. In fact, they want to do the exact opposite. And what better outlet is there to rebel than their clothing? It isn't the government's job to control the social outcomes that are based off our inherent rebellious nature. I really do hope that this gets challenged to the point where it makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, so it can be shot down once and for all as discriminatory against both young blacks and males (the young black males have it harsh) and as a violation of our civil liberties so that it can never come up again. Although really, who would be surprised to see it upheld 5-4 with the deciding vote being that of the Grim Reaper himself, Antonin Scalia? I know I wouldn't. Well I just wrote more than I ever expected to, so hats off to you if you actually read that whole thing.
On to the writing! While the event I'll tell you about in a second hasn't really broken the municipal threshold yet, the arguments that surround it have and for all the accusations being made this could make it all the way to the Supreme Court.
The article this post is loosely based off appeared in the Op-Ed section of the LAT, under the title of "Thong politics" (yeah, now you're excited) and was written by Jill Fields, though some of the big questions posed were asked by her. If you want to read it, here's a link to the article http://tinyurl.com/3bz98d. I don't remember exactly how long that link holds up but I'm pretty sure it lasts for over a month, so hopefully that's sufficient. Anyway, here is the gist of the event: recently some Louisiana towns have passed laws that prohibit the showing of any undergarments in public, and similar measures are being considered in Georgia, New Jersey, and Connecticut. That's right ladies and gentlemen, it's NOT just the South, so it can't be THAT crazy of an idea. Essentially the law is meant to stop the sometimes extreme sagging of pants that has become seemingly commonplace and the oh so popular "Hey everybody! I'm wearing a thong! Oh you don't believe me? Don't worry, as soon as my backside is to you the entire world will know because I'm an attention whore who needs the whole world to look at me!" look (yeah that's what that look is called. don't question) that my female counterparts seem to enjoy so much.
A lot of people are opposed to this law for a variety of reasons. The ACLU argues that this law is violating the 1st Amendment rights guaranteed to all Americans, many detractors in the South say that it is unfairly targeting the black youth of the area as they are the ones that primarily prescribe to the saggy pants fad, and other people think that enforcing a city-wide "dress code" is just absolutely preposterous. I tend to agree with all of these people, but I have a different question that I think is just a little bit more important. Do the city legislators in these respective cities honestly have nothing better to do than create a dress code for their youth? Especially in the South, shouldn't these people be figuring out how to keep these mostly black kids out of gangs and crime, the usual problem areas for this demographic, rather than dictating what kind of jeans they can wear? Maybe if they spent this time improving on their school system they wouldn't be ranked 55th out of 50 every year in education, though I'm not exactly standing on top of Mt. Olympus here writing from California. Furthermore, it needs to be determined exactly how far these people plan on taking this. What they are doing with this law is widening the boundaries of what can be classified as "indecent exposure," but the line is much more fuzzy than it was before. Really, what is more "indecent:" an 18 year old guy whose boxers you can see, or an 18 year old girl who is wearing a pink bra under a white shirt? Essentially you can see it just as well as if she hadn't been wearing a shirt at all, but due to the fact that she has that see-through white shirt on she can't be busted. And for that matter, would you have to classify a push-up bra or a visible panty line as being "indecent?" Because as of right now they aren't, and that seems mighty unfair to the guys.
Let's face it, kids don't want to do what their parents tell them. In fact, they want to do the exact opposite. And what better outlet is there to rebel than their clothing? It isn't the government's job to control the social outcomes that are based off our inherent rebellious nature. I really do hope that this gets challenged to the point where it makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, so it can be shot down once and for all as discriminatory against both young blacks and males (the young black males have it harsh) and as a violation of our civil liberties so that it can never come up again. Although really, who would be surprised to see it upheld 5-4 with the deciding vote being that of the Grim Reaper himself, Antonin Scalia? I know I wouldn't. Well I just wrote more than I ever expected to, so hats off to you if you actually read that whole thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)