The Whole World is Watching

"The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching!"

This chant became famous (or infamous, depending on which side of the story you were on) during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, in which demonstrators clashed with the police, resulting in violent upheaval. In an unprecedented moment, anti-war action was televised and for the first time, Americans (and even the world) saw what was going on around them. (Useless Trivia Moment: this chant came from a Bob Dylan song "When the Ship Comes In", remembering, of course, that the Weather Underground also took its name from a Bob Dylan Song, "Subterranean Homesick Blues").

Of course, I am not really discussing protests in this post (although, I could because daily throughout the world, even in America there is a protest of some sort), so I want you to realize that I prefaced my intended dialogue with this opening to discuss what it really means when the "whole world is watching".

The truth behind the words is often that even though the world is watching, the world is not necessarily willing or able to get involved. Let's be honest, this day and age, we know what is going on in the world around us. We have an unprecedented ability to ascertain certain knowledge, via a variety of media sources, which puts us at an advantage to our ancestors. We can, at a moment's notice, have the entire world at our fingertips.

Given this advantage, one might assume that it would make us more likely to both understand and even intervene in the world around us. If it's broke, we should be the one to fix it, right? It's our world, we need to take responsibility for it, right? (Disclaimer: by our world, I mean that it is owned by the population of the world, not by America, just for clarification).

The truth of the matter is that we do not do so. We may know what is going on, but we have a certain reluctance to want to get involved. The bystander effect* offers some insight into the phenomenon, but can we apply this to entire countries? 

America, for it's part has always been an isolationist state. While it has been known to stick it's nose into conflict, generally speaking the people of the United States do not want to go around poking their noses where they don't belong (I'm paraphrasing, of course). Before WWI, Woodrow Wilson was able to run on a platform of "He Kept Us Out of War". America, as you know, then resumed it's isolationist attitude until December 7, 1941. During his address following Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said that the Japanese empire had "awakened a sleeping giant". (Just an FYI, in case you missed it, Pearl Harbor opened the door for FDR to intervene in Europe and take on Hitler's plan for extermination). America, for it's past endeavors, has boasted in it's isolationism.

Now, of course, there have been some exceptions since the WWII era-- the Korean War, Vietnam, meddling in the Iranian- Iraqi Conflict, assisting Afghanistan when they were invaded by Russia, two wars in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the list could continue. That being said, as demonstrated by my opening statement, the popularity for these actions has not always been stellar. Americans for their part in the world, want to remain isolationist. They want to focus on problems at home and let abroad fix itself.

But, what happens when incidents arise in which someone should act? We know that the Holocaust was one such incident, but what about others. For this I want to highlight one such instance as a warning of caution for why we should be careful in letting the bystander effect dictate foreign policy. What I am speaking about of course, is the Bosnian Civil War (also called the Serbian Civil War, the Yugoslav Wars, etc.), which ran from 1991-1995. During this civil war-- a war in which the whole world was watching as it unfolded every night on television-- an estimated hundred thousand people were killed via systematic massacre, or genocide (Srebrenica, for example), via sniper fire (Sarajevo, etc.), or taken hostage, while millions more were displaced from their homes. With all of these atrocities being televised, it may come as a shock to realize that it took approximately 3 years for outside forces to intervene on behalf of the victims. It has taken many more years for these war criminals to be brought to justice.

So, why is this important now? Because once again, we have a conflict playing out on our televisions (now on our computer screens as well) and we continue to do nothing. I am, of course, talking about the conflict in Syria. With bombings, allegations of genocide and other war crimes being thrown around on a daily basis, it's a wonder as to why we have not done more to bring an end to the violence. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Syrians need us (we are not American liberators to be greeted with flowers, candy and a ticker tape parade), but that the world, in a collective action should do more to investigate these allegations and stop any war crimes, making sure that they bring those who may be responsible to justice. It is not enough for the world to be watching, the world must some how learn to act, in order to save lives. After all, if we were in a similar situation, wouldn't we want someone to do the same?

*Bystander effect: a psychological phenomenon in which those who are watching do not intervene in situations because they feel that it is not their responsibility to get involved, that others may do it for them, or have a greater responsibility, or that if others are not getting involved, then they will some how be penalized for doing so.

Think Twice: Reflections on the Kandahar Massacre

On March 11th, 17 Afghan civilians were gunned down in their homes, while they slept in their beds. No one was spared. Men, women and children were massacred at will, without discrimination. The perpetrator of these atrocities? U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, a 38 year old from Norwood, Ohio.

In the weeks that have passed, the United States government has apologized for the heinous crimes a member of our armed forces has committed, as it should. They cut a check for $50,000 for each relative slain (cause that's somehow suppose to make them feel better?). They promised to seek justice for the victims. Case closed, right? Of course not. Two things in particular concern me about this incident. 

First, new information is being released internationally that suggests that there is more to this story than one rogue officer losing it in the middle of the night. A couple things that are coming out of this late breaking version of events is that there are reports that the U.S. was alerted by Afghan soldiers about an American soldier who was leaving the base, acting suspicious and could be up to no good (they were alerted more than once and Bales left, came back and left again, without anyone doing anything to stop him). Secondly, eye witness accounts suggest that Bales may not have been acting alone. Children who are interviewed often refer to American soldierS (notice the S) who participated in the massacre.

You can go anywhere and hear this news, but if you follow this link, you'll get a transcript of one of the victims' accounts: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1637849/%27US-alerted-over-Bales-behaviour%27

My second concern is that there are too many instances of atrocities committed by our armed forces have come to light since this round of wars began in 2001. One is one too many, but to have several very serious incidents, shows an unfortunate pattern.

The three major instances (before this one) that I am thinking of are:

1. Abu Ghraib (not in Afghanistan, but as with most Americans, in my mind, this multifront war is one in the same.) I don't really need to explain this one, because EVERYONE knows this story.

2. SS- Scout Snipers- Basic information here: a sniper group working inside of Afghanistan used the SS symbol (Uh, that's a WWII, German, Hitler reference, for those of you who slept through your history classes). For more information: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/exclusive-marines-nazi-flag-whistleblower-talks

3. Soldiers urinating on dead Taliban fighters (once again, a reference you won't even need to google, because you've heard it before).

These were the big three, until Staff Sergeant Bales went for a walk.

As with most Americans, I do spend a great deal of time worried about the U.S. image overseas. I could blame George Bush for the way the world sees us, but the truth is, our reputation has been a long time coming. We spend so much time "defending the world" and "defending ourselves" that we tend to lose certain inalienable truths in translation.

This was not the first time a U.S. soldier lost his sanity and massacred civilians in the middle of a war. I am, of course, referring to the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War, in which U.S. soldiers of Charlie company massacred hundreds of My Lai residents, including women, children, babies, the elderly, etc. The only assumed difference between these two actions is the number of victims and the number of accused perpetrators.

My greatest concern with the mission being lost in translation is that if we continue down the current course of destructive behavior, our reputation will be the least of our worries. This type of behavior shows a disintegration of true American values and ideals and poses a greater threat to our nation than any terrorist plot. It is imperative that we get down to the truth of what happened in Kandahar Province, that we hold all those involved accountable and that we make provisions to make sure that it does not happen again. We need to teach tolerance and only allow those who are of sound mind to enter combat.

Once again, I caution you to realize that this is not an inherent truth of the armed forces. I am not blaming the armed forces as a whole and I believe that the majority of the men and women who serve are upstanding citizens answering their nation's call admirably. I will say that these events mentioned above concern me, as they should concern not only members of the armed forces, but all Americans.

We cannot truly know what was going through Staff Sgt. Bales' head. Is he legally insane? Possibly. Could there be more like him? Definitely. And we need to find those individuals and get them the help they need before tragedy strikes.

The New Emmett Till?

So, it's been while since my last post. As I told my sister this morning, I've been lacking the motivation necessary to sit and write. Not lacking the topics, just lacking the urge to put my thoughts out there. That changes today.

This story is true. If you haven't heard it already, you might want to change your cable or internet provider. You might want to renew your lease with civilization and crawl out from underneath the rock in which you live.

The story I'm talking about, of course, is that of the murder of Trayvon Martin. Yes, I know, it's awfully loaded of me to call it a murder right out of the gate, but hey, if I can't be honest to myself and the world on my own blog, then well, where's that rock of yours? Move over.

Why does my opinion on this matter? Because, I live in Seminole County, Florida. Check your maps, that's where this whole thing took place. As a taxpayer of this community, I have the right to demand justice for the sons and daughters of MY community.

First, the facts (for you cave dwellers):

On February 26th, 2012, 17 year old Trayvon Martin was walking home from a convenience store (Arizona tea and skittles in hand, wearing the now infamous hoodie). George Zimmerman, a resident of this community, saw Trayvon and made the decision to end his life. These are the only facts that we know, aside from a few eye witness statements (which I frequently disregard, because as an aspiring Sociologist, I know that humans see what they want to see). 

The rest of the blanks, those on either side of the argument consistently fill in with whatever they choose. That's fine. We see this all the time. I, for one, have gotten so used to reading in between the lines, that I do it automatically (sometimes when there is nothing to see).

Here's my conjecture. I say conjecture, because I, unlike everyone else, am willing to admit that I was not present the night that Trayvon died. George Zimmerman saw Trayvon, assumed the worst, fulfilling every stereotype about young black men in America (one perpetuated by every race, not just whites), let a racism that is still deeply embedded in American culture get the best of him and he pulled the trigger. On George Zimmerman's 9-1-1 call, he tells the dispatcher that Trayvon was "walking around looking at all the houses". Of course, the last time I did that, no one called me suspicious, or called the police, but who am I to assume anything on that one. After the dispatcher tells him not to pursue Trayvon, Zimmerman does so anyway. The end result is the death of a 17 year old. 

As this story continues to unfold, I am forever reminded of another story that shook America to its core nearly 57 years ago. The story I am referring to is, of course, that of 14 year old Emmett Till. On August 28th, 1955, Emmett Till, a Chicago native, visiting relatives in Mississippi, was beaten to death and disposed of in the Tallahatchie River. His crime? Whistling at a pretty white woman. Trayvon's crime? Looking at pretty houses.

Both of these stories are tragic, both could have been prevented and both have yet to see justice. Emmett Till's murders were acquitted of their crime and Trayvon's murderer has yet to even see the inside of a jail cell. Now, we could blame the law for Zimmerman walking,  but to be honest, the law in this case is being misused to undermine justice and to avoid having the discussion. By the discussion, I mean the one where we discuss where civil rights stand, right now, actually in this country. 

I don't want to get into a debate on Florida's stand your ground law, but I will say this: this law doesn't apply here. No where in the law does it say that you have the right to pursue, apprehend, or pull the trigger when your life is NOT in danger (hint: if you're having to pursue, your life IS NOT in danger). Zimmerman's life was not in danger. As one of my friends said, "What was Trayvon gonna do, make him taste the rainbow?". Seriously, what was a 17 year old, even one who played football and probably lifted weights, gonna do against a 28 year old man? Especially, when Zimmerman even told the dispatcher that Trayvon was "getting away". Zimmerman was adamant that Trayvon was not going to get away. And, unfortunately, Zimmerman made good on his promise.

What have we learned from all this? So far, nothing. We will not learn from this until Zimmerman is arrested and convicted for his crimes. I whole heartedly believe that. I am reminded of a quote from the movie Ghosts of Mississippi: "No man is above the law... When that kind of murder happens, no matter who the victim, no matter what their race, there is a gaping wound laid open on society as a whole. Justice has sometimes been referred to the soothing balm to be applied to the wounds inflicted on society, but when there is no justice, those wounds can never be cleansed". This applies here. We need to see justice prevail. We need to let society heal.

Now, I should mention, for those of you who have never been to the south, that racism is not rampant. Not every white person in the south is a racist and it should be noted that most of Central Florida is outraged by this situation. I for one, have not met someone around here who actually defends Zimmerman. What this situation does show us is that we have spent so much time sweeping racism under the rug, so afraid to talk about it for so long, so afraid that discussing race is seeing race and seeing race is racist, that now we have found ourselves in the midst of  an emblazoned battle in which race and race relations has to be discussed. Wouldn't it have been easier to discuss it openly, to embrace our differences in order to understand them better and remove the racial xenophobia? Perhaps.

This topic could go on forever. In fact, it seems like it has, but I won't dwell on it for the sake of dwelling. If there is one thought that I would like to leave you with, it's the following: there is one thing that we can all agree on coming out of this situation-- love your children. Treat your neighbor's child like you would your own. Love everyone for who they are: black/white/Hispanic/ etc., gay/ straight/ other. Learn to celebrate the differences, get to know the differences and embrace them. 

Separation of Church and State: You Can't Have it Both Ways

Remember when you were a kid and your mother told you that "you can't have it both ways" (often cited as "you can't have your cake and eat it too)? Of course you do, because it's one of those cliche sayings that made you angry. Kind of like "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" and "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?", or my least favorite "God only gives you what you can handle". We hate these sayings. Some of us hate them with a passion (and by some I mean me). Why do we hate them? Because they are horribly true and we don't like our parents to be right (no matter how old we get).

So, let's go back to the original statement that irks us all so, "you can't have it both ways", which brings me to my point of the day...  Either we want a nation that separates the church and the government, or we don't. We can't have it both ways. Once the connection is made and the partnership is formed, there is no going back. 

For years, churches, including the Catholic Church has been doing business with the government and in a BIG way. First, the church gets tax breaks from the government (in return they provide services to citizens that the government cannot provide adequately). In addition, the church and the state in many cases have voucher programs that help the church educate students (in return the state, although they could, does not dictate what the schools taught regarding religion). These are just two of the ways that the two are intertwined. 

Now, let's be honest with ourselves. The Federal Government has had this uncanny ability to force states, businesses and individuals alike to do their will. It started with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (see Gibbons v. Ogden, which allowed the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce, which it interestingly enough managed to do a lot, even if it wasn't really interstate commerce) and it expanded from there. Nowadays, the Federal Government uses the power of the purse (withholds funding) to get us to pass everything from drinking ages to seat belt laws. Essentially, the government telling others what to do is not all that unusual.

This brings us to the current battle. President Obama has spent a great deal of time fighting for health insurance companies to cover the cost of contraceptives for women who need them, as many companies either do not pay for them, or do not cover the complete cost. Considering the alarming rate of women who have children they cannot afford, the lack of financial stability of the economy and the host of illnesses birth control helps, most people would support this measure, right?

The truth of the matter is, that the measure would call for even those organizations with religious affiliations to provide birth control free of charge. The problem with this is that many religious organizations do not allow the use of birth control in the modern sense, but advocate natural family planning. So, many religious leaders are suggesting that their rights are being violated (in a nutshell). 

Here's the problem: the Church itself (and here, I can adequately lump all of Christianity together) does not support abortion. Okay, I get it. Fine. We can agree, at the very least, why you feel the way you do. But, that being said, why would you not support a measure that prevents the unwanted pregnancy to begin with? And, many Catholics actually support the use of birth control and some even use it. (Now, here we could insert a whole discussion about the Right to Life Acts creeping up all over the South, but I won't). 

What I will say is this: Conservatives (which is all so often synonymous with the religious right) loves to insert themselves in moral debate when it comes to issues like gay marriage, or abortion. They love to talk about us doing right and that this is a sin or that is an abomination. This is when they are okay with ignoring the dichotomy that is supposed to separate our country's government from those who lead us religiously.

Now, we could go back to the days in which the Church got nothing from the government, but let's be honest, doing so wouldn't work out for anybody, not even atheists (believe it or not). Or, the church can make an exception. Here's the thing about people. Just because something is available, doesn't mean that people will take advantage of it. I could drink and do drugs, everyday, easily, but I don't. Why? Because I am a moral human being, granted autonomy in order for me to make my own decisions. Isn't this enough. The job as a religious leader is to teach and guide, not terrify and stonewall. Religious leaders should simply trust that their congregation will make the decisions that they've guided them to make.

In the end, we are really in this together. We can't have it both ways wanting the two to be separate when it's convenient for us and together when we feel the need. It's imperative that we as a nation make decisions that will benefit the whole of society. Asking insurance companies to pay for something that deters a variety of social problems and is used more often than not in preventative care is something that we must do as a nation. Do those who disagree with it for religious reasons have to use them? No, of course not. Do we ask that this measure be supported for those who need to use them for one reason or another? Yes and it is the duty of an American to support it for that reason alone.

President Roseanna Barr? Implications of Third Party Candidacy

Earlier this week, Roseanne Barr announced via twitter that she would be running for President of the United States on the Green Party ticket. Seriously. She did. Now, get past the theatrics of the announcement and understand the greater implications of a Third Party candidate (which by the way, we have every year, but they don't usually get enough votes to gain notoriety).

Now, let's be honest. Third party candidates do not win U.S. Presidential elections. To be honest, they typically do not win on a national stage at all. Through some metamorphosis of American politics, or perhaps sheer dumb luck, the American system of government is generally run by two parties. Most people agree that this limits the possibilities. Many advocate that we have a multiple party system, or a no party system. The truth of the matter is, in a world ruled by majorities, it is incredibly impossible for a multiple party system to work. 

The result of such an election would usually lead to either a series of run off elections, or someone becoming president who did not get the majority of the vote (happens all the time anyway because of the electoral college, but that's another post on another day). This makes it incredibly unfeasible and unlikely.

So, why have third party candidates at all?

Here's what third party candidates can do: set the tone for the election. Outside of the hooting and hollering of a campaign debate, third party candidates can respond to the front runners and are even in position to ask questions, or make statements forcing the front runner candidates to take a stance on a particular issue. This often becomes crucial. Not because the third party candidate will some how overpower the campaign trail, but because in many instances the answers will change the dynamics of the campaign and maybe even sway some voters.

In addition, if the third party candidate gains any level of traction, they will likely steal votes away from one of the front runners. Now, I know it's a bit far back for any of you to have voted in the election, but the election of 1860 gives us a prime example of how this can happen. In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln (R) won the election with just 40% of the vote, beating out Stephen Douglas (D) who had about 30% of the vote. Do the math: that's only 70% of the vote!! What happened to the other 30%? The Southern Democrat and Constitutional Union Parties took the rest of the vote. Southern Dems made up 18% of the vote, which when combined with Douglas' would have been 48% of the vote and a loss for Abraham Lincoln. This would have changed the course of American History entirely.

While it is clear that having third party candidates can allow for the free flow of discourse and perhaps for argument's sake an interesting level of candidness among the candidates. It becomes put up or shut up, which can make the race refreshing. On the other hand, it can have an adverse effect. We know that a party divided will implode and will certainly fail. While this will likely be a good thing for the incumbent, it's bad for the idea of politics and of the best candidate always prevailing (not referring to Obama, Romney, or Gingrich being the best candidate here, just speaking in general about all elections). This becomes a dangerous game to play. My recommendation? When the third candidate gets to a point in the election (and can admit to themselves that defeat is imminent), they should concede the election and throw their support behind the candidate that most resembles their views and will likely provide their supporters with the proper guidance and leadership.

While I will not be voting for Roseanne Barr, I do applaud her for her bold effort to change the dialogue and shake up the game.

The State of the Union 2012

Well, it took me a moment to decide to write on the State of the Union. Mostly because I wanted to absorb the information before I started to pick it apart. Of course, it was not the only reason I decided to wait. By the time I heard the Republican response to the SOTU, I was livid. So angry, in fact, that I called my best friend to rant about the nonsense. Don't get me wrong, I liked the SOTU. I think it had a lot of ideas with a lot of potential, given the right circumstances, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. First, we must discuss the key points of the SOTU. 


The first section of the SOTU that I'd like to discuss is the one that resonated with me the most-- Education. Now, you may remember from my earlier post that I regard education as being the cornerstone of America. Without the free flow of ideas and the passing of information, we cannot begin to be the advanced society that we claim to be. Obama's Education section had a couple of key points: "education should not be a luxury", colleges that receive Federal funding should be forced to keep costs low, a proposed new law that would insist that students remain in school until the age of 18, teachers should be given adequate pay and should be rewarded for actually teaching, etc.


I completely agree that education should not be a luxury. The truth of the matter is that the majority of college students cannot afford college. Many drop out because of costs, but most accrue insane amounts of debt. Costs of an education at a private university are virtually unattainable, while even those at public universities are astronomical. The costs continue to rise each year and universities continue to give out just enough in scholarship money to get you there before revealing the truth that your education is going to cost you a fortune. And, as if this problem weren't bad enough, we have a whole host of Americans who will not even have the opportunity to experience college at all because they never graduate high school, as part of a combination of poor teaching and poor parenting.


But, how could all of this happen? Could we actually lower costs of schools through the Federal Government? Yes. As with most laws, if you tie the bill to funding they have no choice but to comply. The thought of keeping costs low would work, as long as Congress manages to take the concept seriously. Raising the drop out of high school age to 18 is a little bit different. Now, don't get me wrong, I think it would be great for the age to be raised (especially because I know so many people who made the life altering decision at 16 to drop out of school, when they couldn't possibly understand the consequences of the action). The problem with the policy is enforcement. While you can raise the age legally, you will never be able to enforce it. Those students who want to drop out will simply not go. Try to hold them and their parents accountable and they'll claim homeschooling. The truth of the matter is raising the drop out age is not going to fix the problem. We need to find out why students drop out.


The second part of the SOTU that should have resonated with any American was the creation of the Financial Crimes Unit, which would basically allow for holding Wall Street accountable. Let's be honest, if there is one thing that we can all agree on, it's that our current financial crisis was created by corporate greed. Obama stressed that all Americans should be playing on a level playing field. Wall Street has spent a great deal of time making sure that this doesn't happen. The creation of this unit would ensure that those who habitually break laws are held accountable. My favorite part of the wall street discussion? Proposing that Congress can no longer make laws governing businesses in which they have a financial stake. It's a step in moving money out of politics. Of course, my concern with this is that Congress will never allow this to happen. They are too happy making sure they have money in their pockets while the rest of America struggles.


Next up? Clean Energy. Now, assuming you read my Keystone Pipeline installment, you know how I feel about this already. It appears as though President Obama feels the same way. We should not sacrifice our nation for a quick fix to our nation's energy problems. We should be focusing our efforts on developing every clean energy source possible. Problem: Washington doesn't want to. Don't believe me? Just look at Gingrich and Romney attack Obama's rejection of the Keystone Pipeline provision. Congress doesn't want clean air, clean energy, clean drinking water, etc. because they can't make nearly enough money off of it. Those of us who want these things are called radicals and socialists, hippies and crazies. My question: when did wanting to breathe easier and drink water that wasn't poisonous qualify you as being crazy? 


The last section (not the last section of the SOTU, but the last section I intend to talk about) that particularly hit home for me was the section on immigration reform. I don't know if it has something to do with my current quest to understand my lineage, or that I know immigrants and I know people who want to be immigrants, but have been denied by the U.S. government, but I have a special place in my heart for the immigration issue. For one, I recognize that I am the descendant of both Irish and English immigrants. Secondly, my best friend's husband recently received his citizenship (and is very excited that his first Presidential election is nearing). Last, but not least, a very, very dear friend of mine is in the exact same situation that Obama was discussing. Obama mentioned the anomaly that America has created in that we allow individuals to become educated here and then after they graduate, we send them packing. Doesn't it make sense to allow those who are educated and can become productive members of society the opportunity to stay in this country and become U.S. citizens? Now, I recognize that Obama's section on immigration included more than that, but the truth of the matter is, it mainly spoke to an underlying issue. We are so quick to want to lock people out of this country for whatever reason that we fail to realize that we are denying this country the principles in which it was founded. We are preventing amazing Americans from being American.


Regardless of how you feel about the SOTU address, regardless of whether or not you think it was empty promises, or the kick-off to Obama's campaign, you cannot deny certain truths. Obama's right in his analysis of everything from immigration, to taxes, to education, to the environment. The problem with the SOTU is that the President does not have the power to change the country. He has to work in conjunction with Congress to make things happen. When Congress avoids working, or stonewalls every possible plan for America, it becomes next to impossible for any of these policies to actually be actualized. Many people who saw the SOTU criticized Obama because he hasn't been successful in overcoming the challenges of his presidency and he hasn't been able to put many of the policies he has suggested in past SOTUs into place. That being said, who is really to blame for that? Obama? or Congress?

Keystone Pipeline

I was watching television late last night, which ironically enough, I do shortly before I go to sleep on most nights and I came across the most entertaining commercial ever. Yeah, I like the one with the piggy Maxwell, going weeeeeee wee wee weeeee, too, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a commerical in support of America's oil and essentially in so many words the Keystone Pipeline. (I tried to find the commercial on youtube, but I couldn't find it. I'm guessing it's that new. If I find it, you will be the first to know).


Don't know what the Keystone Pipeline is? Well, then, you're probably right up there with most Americans. The truth of the matter is a hot button issue is mounting ever so quietly as the GOP makes fools of themselves and Obama tries to hold onto his hat. The issue, which was "inadvertently" voted on recently (embedded deep inside a payroll tax bill) was recently blocked by President Obama.


I would argue that this is the best Obama has done for this country, but I'll let you decide that for yourself.


What is the Keystone pipeline? Essentially, the Keystone Pipeline is a proposed pipeline that would allow for the free flow of oil from Canada, through the heart of America, ending in Houston, TX. The problem with it is that it would bring some of the dirtiest crude oil straight through our backyard.


(Want to see the map? go to http://www.transcanada.com/keystone_pipeline_map.html)


Republicans... Yeah, the good 'ole GOP has spent a great deal of their time blasting President Obama for blocking the initiative, saying that he's a job killer and that this would be a good boost to the economy.. Blah, blah, blah. The truth is actually much different. Would it create jobs? Yeah, of course. Would it create lots of jobs? A considerable amount. Is it worth it? No. The Keystone Pipeline would not only pose a threat to the environment, but to the people who live in the areas that the pipeline would be laid. It is dirty oil. It is going through the backyard where your children play. It has a high chance of poisoning the ground water, health of particular people/ regions, etc. (not to mention the risk to people, wildlife, etc. if there was an oil spill... remember those?) Who could possibly support this initiative?


The answer is: someone who wants a quick fix. People who want to temporarily solve two problems: energy and jobs. Now, I'm all for solving these problems, but I want real solutions. Call me crazy, call me rogue, call me what you will, but I would prefer to stitch a wound before I wrap it in gauze. 


Jobs- You want to create jobs? Stop assuming the government is there just to sit pretty and be a figure head. I know, I know, no one wants to admit we need government, but whether you like it or not, our government is what binds us. It serves a purpose, fulfills a need. Yes, it takes money from us sometimes to fill those needs, but it still has a purpose. The way to create more jobs is to focus on internal improvements. It's not a new idea. FDR thought of it once (during a time we fondly call the Great Depression). We cannot rely on the private sector to create jobs all by itself (we have not seen nearly the growth necessary to pull us out of the economic slump) and it is time the public sector get involved. It's about funneling the right amount of resources into the right place to spur the right improvements at the right time.


Energy- I tweeted not that long ago that we should have used the sun for our powering needs and waited to use oil when the sun burns out (yeah, that's supposed to happen at some point, if you don't believe me, call NASA). Now, it was meant as a joke, but it's not that funny. The truth of the matter is that we cannot continue to consume our natural resources without some unintended consequences. We need to develop other forms of energy. I do not want to sound like one of those environmentalist types. My air conditioner is running right now (don't hate, I live in Florida and it's hot). I'm merely saying that putting pipes into the ground to drain dirty oil, spilling oil in the Gulf of Mexico (yeah, I'm talking to you, BP), nuclear power plants that can have a melt down at any moment (Do I need to mention names here?) and all other forms of energy that are unclean and unsafe should be our last resort. Why can't we take five minutes and try some of those cleaner forms of energy? What's the harm?


Keystone is a bad idea. No matter how you view it. It is a way for big oil to dig their grubby little hands into our backyards and risk the youth of America for temporary dividends. Remember to call your Congress person to voice your opinion on Keystone... Or, use the number posted by The American Petroleum Institute to tell President Obama- 202-456-1111

Land of the Free?

Throughout our whole lives, Americans have been presented with a motto "land of the free, home of the brave". I can remember songs, when I was a kid that said things like "I'm proud to be an American, because at least I know I'm free". Of course, I always assumed that we should be proud to be an American for other reasons, but whatever. These songs reflected American resilience, determination and ability. Of course, this was at a time in which none of these things came into question. The truth about America, though is much different.


One fateful day, a day that will live in infamy, a day that is forever printed in our minds to the point where we can all remember where we were and what we were doing-- September 11th, 2001. I can remember in the days and weeks that followed, a renewed spirit, a passion for country and fellow countrymen unlike any I had ever seen. But, as with everything, there are two sides to every coin. There was unity and there was division. The unity happened for those who believed in their country, felt blindsided in the attack and felt at one with those who lost their lives, or their loved ones. The division occurred between those who felt that fervor and those who experienced the wrath.


It started between Americans and the enemy: Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden and anyone else who was determined to shatter America. However, the unfortunate truth about waging war against a concept (i.e. terrorism) is that you become unable to identify the enemy. What was a particular group eventually turns into more and more people losing their civil liberties.


Now, we've seen it all before. During wartime, it is not all that unique for people to lose some rights and privileges. Lincoln curtailed civil liberties and rights during the Civil War (even suspended the writ of habeas corpus). FDR did the same during WWII (internment of Japanese Americans, for one). The Cold War saw its share of  curtailment of these same rights (McCarthyism, illegal wiretapping, etc.). During the 1960s, an extreme period of lawlessness and disorder erupted, leaving the people in the same boat that they are now. So, what makes this moment different?


The truth of the matter is, this very moment is much scarier. Why? Because the constriction of civil liberties and civil rights is codified into law with the checks and balances of the U.S. political system failing to prevent the rights of American citizens from being destroyed. It started with the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and has been furthered by the NDAA and SOPA. Americans can be subjected to assassinations, unlawful indefinite detention (without the constitutional protection of the writ of habeas corpus), searches, seizures and wiretapping without a warrant, etc. In essence, the Bill of Rights, which has stood relatively intact, in fact, expanded upon on many occasions, since 1787 has been thrown out the window.


We have had U.S. cities be occupied by the military, individuals arrested with little or no cause for exercising their basic political rights and police brutality that is matched only by that seen during the 1960s protest movements. We have people, right now, in this country, being arrested for using sidewalk chalk, feeding the homeless, trespassing in a public park, etc. and all of it was made possible by the laws you see before you. What was passed in an attempt to combat terrorism (which has little or no hope in actually doing so) has now become a weapon of mass destruction designed to keep dissidents of the U.S. government, big business and the intertwining of the two from making unprecedented progress to better the quality of life throughout the world. These laws, designed to protect you, are actually setting the stage to prevent Americans from doing what Americans do.


The truth about America is that in this very moment, it looks nothing like America. We continue to focus on engagement and democracy abroad, but can we truly spread democracy like a domino, if we fail to maintain our humble ability to respect the natural rights of citizens? Can we talk of the ineptitude of leaders all over the globe if our leaders fail to advocate for their constituents? Can we remain the land of the free without repealing these acts and avoiding the passage of others like them?


The answer to all of these questions is "no". I want to return to the America that I saw when I was a child. I realize, however, that this is not possible, so I will have to settle for coming out the better end better, stronger, more resilient and more determined to get back to the basics of what we do best. Celebrating civil liberties and civil rights and protecting both majority rule and minority rights.

A Secret Mission?

I love a good conspiracy theory. Not the crazy ones that no one could believe, but the ones that seem so real that you just have to give it a second look.


Recently, I stumbled upon an article about an Iranian nuclear scientist who was recently killed. A few days later, the rest of the world stumbled upon it and now it's all over the news.


The basics: three Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed in explosions and a fourth came awfully close. To clarify, these explosions did not take place in a lab. Which means they either all have the worst luck ever, or someone is actively seeking this group of people out for assassination.


Let's be honest about a couple of things: first, there is a pretty extensive list of people who would want to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear; second, the United States is on that list (as are all of it's allies); third, all of this may mean nothing given the volatile state of the region and the world (everyone's a suspect).


The truth of the matter is that we may never know who is actually behind the killings. Hell, we didn't even know about them until the 3rd death and the 4th attempt (I guess you can't call it a pattern until there are 3 victims, eh, serial killers?). That being said, although many have discredited the theory, the U.S. government remains the prime suspect.


Why wouldn't they be? We know that we are the target of Iran (there are others, of course, but still). We know that we cannot afford to go to war with Iran (Iraq broke us, Afghanistan continues to break us and let's face it, we're broke). We know that the world cannot withstand a nuclear war. Let's face it, we've been fearing it since 1945. War is no longer fun when a small bomb has the magnitude to wipe us out completely. We're pretty good at going to war. We don't always win, but we sure will try. But, wait, does our opponent have nukes? Well, maybe we'll try diplomacy first. But, what if it doesn't work? NOW, we have a problem!


We want to avoid this particular outcome at all costs. We don't want to fight a war on our soil. Aside from the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, aside from the War of 1812, the American Revolution, etc. (in other words, in a really long time), we don't fight wars (with foreigners) on our own soil. WWI and WWII never made it to America. Neither did the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Iran would be an opponent who could bring the war to our backyard. This changes everything.


Did the U.S. assassinate Iran's nuclear scientists? My guess is that they probably didn't. First, bombs are not precise enough to ensure the death of a specific person (Hitler evaded them more than once). Second, they allow for additional casualties. Third, there are cheaper and easier ways to kill one person at a time.


This is, of course, my opinion and not an exact science. It is entirely possible, just not probable. The truth: we will never know.

Doomsday Clock Moves to 5 Minutes to Midnight

This week, scientists moved the Doomsday clock forward to 5 minutes to midnight. It's the closest we've been to midnight in 5 years (If you need any more information on the Doomsday clock, please see my introductory post). Scientists got together and discussed the risks and threats of our current situation. I say situation because they discuss politics, environmental changes and economics.


Now, you know that economically we're in the midst of colossal chaos. Markets, while they continue to fluctuate, have not seen enough positive indicators to suggest that we have left the recession. Unemployment rate is still high (acknowledging, of course, that for some it's even worse) and we are not seeing the level of economic growth we should. This is a global financial crisis. What happens when economic crisis seems unbearable? People begin to turn to atypical and nontraditional methods of having their basic needs met. Think: economic upheaval is one of the necessary conditions that historians point to for allowing Hitler's brand of politics to take over. You do not want droves of people in a variety of countries feeling like they have nothing left to lose.


Politically (perhaps because politics and economics feed off of each other) the world is experiencing a great deal of turmoil as well. While there are a number of countries who arguably are better after having their revolutions, there are those who can quietly slip into the abyss. The popular vote in Egypt, for example, has recently proven this true, with an extreme turnout for Islamist parties. Want another example? Iraq, fresh off of the U.S. troop withdrawal, has already experience corruption at the highest levels and continuing violence. When people experience violence on that level, they have a tendency to divert to old ways of maintaining order. Sometimes, people will even do so if it means they have to trade in some of their rights in order to secure that safety (see NDAA and U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act).


Environmentally? Well this is practically a complete joke. We continue to ignore the effects of global warming. Hell, a whole part of the American population denies it's existence. We continue to burn fossil fuels. We continue to litter and pollute. We focus on cutting down trees to build highways, so people do not have to sit in traffic, instead of preserving our natural resources. All of these things are spurring along dangerous weather, which is making it harder to protect things like nuclear power plants (see Japan). 


In addition to all of these things, we have nuclear technologies falling into the wrong hands all the time. We have nuclear materials not being secured and some that cannot even be accounted for.


Our situation is extremely volatile right now and the only way to change it is to implement sweeping, ambitious social change. Doing so will likely calm all three aspects down simultaneously (again, they are all intertwined). I once discussed the history of the American left and why it has not had a lasting impact in America (referring to Communism and Socialism, in particular). Other nations have Socialist parties, for example, why don't we? Because when the situation arises, Presidents, the Supreme Court, Congresspeople and robber barons all let just enough social change to take place to appease the moderates and discredit the more extreme members of the revolutionary movement. Today, it is necessary that we move past those boundaries, dismiss the labels and do what is right for the people, our country and ultimately, the world.


Want more information on the Doomsday clock and it's recent time change? Visit: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/10/us/doomsday-clock/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

No Child Left Behind?

It was once prime legislation, set to be the building blocks of a new era in which public schools in this country would have to be brought up to par. We as Americans were no longer going to have to tolerate perpetuating a cycle of ignorance and illiteracy. The No Child Left Behind Act turns 10 today and it's less than a happy birthday.


The truth of the matter is that although today parents have more options than ever on schooling their children (assuming pecuniary accessibility), however,  the actual options are surprisingly bleak. For those who rely on a public school education to mold their child's young mind, the reality of it is mind boggling. 


Now, don't get me wrong, I am the product of a public school education. In fact, I attended so many public schools in Jefferson Parish, LA that your head would spin. My experience, though, ended 10 years ago, as public education began it's decline. It's also different in that I attended honors classes, instead of regular education classes. The difference, I can assure you, is impeccable.*****


I cannot begin to try and explain what's going on in every school, but I have a few observations. First, the high school that I graduated from, which was not that great of a school when I attended it, has clearly declined further. Since my graduation, it has been turned into a magnet school (in an effort to boost test scores, no doubt) and it still does not have the proper test scores needed to stay afloat (now, I know what you're thinking: Test Scores?, why should it matter. I argue: have you taken these tests? I have. They measure your ability to read, write and do basic math. If these students can't pass these tests, we have major problems).


I then turn my attention to the only people in my lives that attend public school-- my nephews. Now, my biggest concern here is that I have learned they don't take every subject everyday. In other words, today you have science, tomorrow you have art, etc. Perhaps not in that order, but you get the idea. Now, in a world where we can no longer compete on a global level with academia and innovation, can we accept anything less than each student being schooled in each subject everyday? In elementary school, you are given the building blocks to help you succeed in junior high, high school and eventually college, so why wouldn't we want this? They do not go to school from early morning to late afternoon like we did. They do not have the same curriculum we did. They do not have the same knowledgeable teachers we did (not taking anything necessarily away from today's teachers, many of them are great, but too many are not).


I would imagine that it is not too far fetched to assume that this travesty is going on in classrooms all across the nation. The truth of the matter is, we created this. The No Child Left Behind Act, in theory, was a great idea. The major problem: funding. Americans, God bless them, hate taxes. Taxes are required for a government to run. Sorry, folks, it's a known fact, you have to put money in to get services out. Since we don't like taxes, we don't have funding and our public schools are sub-par.


So, how can we get the most out of our money? Well, that may be more simple than you think. It does not start with getting rid of standardized testing. I know, I know some of you say, "teachers are teaching the test" instead of teaching. To that I would argue, I had to take standardized testing and am no worse for doing so. Besides, the reality of it is, if you're teaching our kids, they can pass the test. See it as a perk. We need to make it easier for the best and the brightest minds to become teachers. 


Currently, if you don't have a teaching degree, you must pass an exam. Fine. It's important to make sure that candidates know their subject matter. How can you make it easier? Take away the expensive fees to take the exam. Set up a system in which recent college grads can teach in the immediate years following school (like the military and the peace corp do) with loan forgiveness programs (this cannot happen if it costs so much to get certified, or if it has so much red tape to it). These people will be temporary teachers. Let them teach for 3 years without certification, only by passing a free exam. If they would like to continue to teach, you get certified. Create a manner in which you can get them into the classroom quickly. Teach for America tries many of these tactics, but are bogged down by the system's requirements. Doing these things will increase the number of qualified candidates and decrease teacher burnout. And who is more optimistic than a recent college grad?


The other option would be to increase funding to schools. The truth of the matter is that no legislation can be effective without the proper funding. We need to put education first. It's the cornerstone of America and it is the only thing that can lead us into the future. We need to rely on individuals weeding themselves out of the public school system and out of college, instead of the current system which naturally reduces individuals capability of achieving higher education. It is imperative that we do so now, in order to catch up to the curve of a global market that is passing us by.


*****My argument was now, as it was back then, that students who attend honors classes and students who attend regular education classes are groomed differently to fulfill different functions in society. In other words, those who are placed in honors classes are specifically tailored to attend college, whereas those who are not are groomed to get jobs. This does not mean that students cannot step outside those bounds, just that it becomes an easier adjustment, the success rate is greater. As I had a few regular education classes (due to scheduling conflicts), I saw the differences in teaching styles and classroom dynamics. This does not apply to private schools, or maybe even schools that I did not attend. This is a mere observation of my own personal experience.


Want more on the state of our schools? Check out this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/examples-of-slavery-in-school-worksheet_n_1192512.html?ref=mostpopular

It will blow your mind.

"Have the Youth Given Up on Obama?"

Now, we all know that if it weren't for the youth vote in the 2008 election, Obama may not have made it into office. For those of you who hate him, "You're Welcome". Now, that I have probably angered some with my less than wry rhetoric, I look to the question that was posed to me. 


I'll be the first to defend President Obama. He took over the helm at a time when government bailouts were mainstream, war was a fact of life and social problems were percolating throughout all of society. The nation was and continues to be divided. He united some of us, if only for a moment, while he strengthened the resolve of others. Regardless of what we'd hoped he would do, regardless of what we think he had the power to do, Obama has made a decent amount of progress. Most of this progress, however, has been silently made. Look under the headlines and in between the political ads and you can find it quietly, tucked away: success.


(If you really need a list of what he has done, here's the most comprehensive list I can find, you can fact check it all you'd like: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Things-Obama-has-done/457458970505 )


Now, I'd be the first to admit, I thought Obama would do more for this country. Of course, I now realize, like so many of you, that I was duped by the promises of the campaign trail. Let's be honest with ourselves, time and time again we accept the promises of politicians campaigning as though it's written in stone. The truth- no one can actually keep every campaign promise, even if they want to. The system is set up to prevent one man (or woman) from changing it drastically and in such a short period of time. It's our delusion that demands it be so. 


It wasn't that long ago that I was angry at Obama. I believe it was during the debates on healthcare, or maybe even the ones on the budget, I thought "Gosh, command control! Don't let individuals impede progress". I got so angry at how little movement was being made. It was a bit like watching ants spend all day trying to move a potato chip.


And then, one day late at night, I was watching television (as I do late at night, insomnia, as it were) and I saw this interview of Morgan Freeman (yes, the voice of God himself.. and God, if you're viewing this post: if your voice doesn't sound like Morgan Freeman's, would you mind disguising it before I get there?) and the same question was asked of him "Are you disappointed in Obama?" and he replied that he wasn't because Obama made it clear when he took office that he was going to be President for all Americans, not just the ones who voted him into office. To this, I thought, "Wow". It all makes sense. If he were trying to be the president of all Americans then he would have to respect the people that Americans put into office. Even if they weren't advocating in the best interest of the American people, even if they were acting childish, even if logic would insist that they smacked with a ruler.


So, back to the previous question posed. No, I have not given up on Obama. Obama has done more positive things for this country in 4 years, than Bush did in 8. I only hope that he is given the opportunity to actualize more of this campaign promises and that politics as usual doesn't prevent it.

Withdrawal of U.S. Troops From Iraq

Now, I know I appear to be a couple of weeks late on this topic, but the truth of the matter is that I am right on time. We all knew the moment would come, that American troops would be leaving behind the battlefields across the Middle East. After all, they can't stay there forever and who would want them to. The question has always been about timing. 


After spending nearly 9 years in Iraq, after spending billions of dollars rebuilding a nation that has lacked major internal infrastructure improvements since the 1970s (by the way, this is why the rebuilding of Iraq has taken so long. Saddam loved his money, but didn't spend very much of it on his people), we come to a moment in which most of the troops have left Iraq with mainly contractors and diplomats staying behind. Most of those troops will return home for a few and then be rerouted to Afghanistan. Now that we know what's going to happen with the troops, the question remains of what is going to happen to Iraq.


Since the troop withdrawal, Iraqis have seen an influx in sectarian violence. Suicide bombings continue. Roadside bombs continue. The war continues. Now, we're all hoping that the Iraqis can handle this on their own. They, after all, have had extensive training and all the "perks" that come with nation building. The truth of the matter is, the chances are there that the city will delve into peril, continuing to fight one another trying to claw their way to the top. We are essentially right back where we started. Now, I'm hoping I'm wrong on this and the truth of the matter is that it was bound to happen sometime (the U.S. couldn't occupy Iraq forever), but it remains to be seen whether or not democracy will stand alone in Iraq.


I am reminded of a quote (one in which my friend Courtney will squeal about) from the movie Lions for Lambs in which a fake Senator  (played by Tom Cruise) tells a reporter (played by Meryl Streep) on the topic of withdrawing troops from combat too soon that "when we are forced to go back in a couple of years, we will be faced against a shattered Iraq, a hopeless Afghanistan and a nuclear Iran. How many troops are we going to need then? I guarantee you will be adding some zeros."


I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


For more information see: 


http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/05/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

and

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinion/hayden-iraq-troops/index.html

Iowa Caucus

Well, I was bound to get into the nitty gritty of U.S. politics at some point and so here goes.


The Iowa Caucus graced us with its presence yesterday, kicking off the Republican primary season. Of course, you know that the Caucus/Primary purpose is to gear the GOP up for the Republican National Convention in which the world will know who will be next in line to run against President Obama.


Not to give away the ending for those of you who weren't up at the wee hours of this morning when the final votes were tallied, but the results were as follows:


Mitt Romney     24.6% or 30,015 votes
Rick Santorum   24.5% or 26,219 votes
Ron Paul          21.4% or 26,219 votes
Newt Gingrich   13.3% or 16,251 votes
Rick Perry         10.3% or 12,604 votes
                                                   *Source AP


Here's what this tells us:


1.Republicans are once again divided on who they are going to vote for. Conservatives and moderates are voting differently and they are doing so in a big way.


2. Many Republicans are backing a candidate that they want to be President instead of the one that they think can actually win the presidency. (Be honest with yourself, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann and so many others don't stand a chance at actually winning the presidency).


3. 30,000 people were either moderate enough to vote for Romney, or smart enough to realize their candidate doesn't stand a chance.


4. If Conservative and Moderate Republicans don't get on the same page, the Republican party could lose big. Divided parties never win, unless the supporters of one group move over to the other side. This won't happen here. Why? Take Ron Paul for example. He'll likely just run as an Independent if he doesn't win the nomination. Which will allow for votes to be taken out of the hands of the Republicans, with the Democrat vote remaining unchanged. You do the math.


My opinion: if you want to even pretend to mount an actual race against President Obama, you need to listen to your more moderate voters. Why? Because the truth of the matter is that moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats actually have very little differences between them. I know, I know, Democrats and Republicans, something in common? Actually, they do. Believe it or not, the actual distinction is not Democrat or Republican, but liberal, moderate, or conservative. The way we align ourselves politically have nothing to do with actual beliefs. With this in mind, Republicans must vote for someone who can appeal to conservatives and moderates, if they are going to campaign well. Liberals are a lost cause. We're voting for Obama. 

We Are the 99%?

So, I came across this link today and I was wondering what people think.


http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3


For those of you who don't want to take the time to read the article in its entirety, the article is basically discussing how Americans as a group make up half of the world's richest 1%. Comparatively speaking, it only takes $34,000 a year (individual) or $136,000 (family of 4) to be considered among the world's richest 1%.


Now, let me just say, I, single, graduate degree in hand, make less that $34,000 a year and I know no family of four who makes more than $136,000. So, by definition, I am still a member of the world's 99% population. Pretty sad to realize that as an over-educated resident of the RICHEST NATION ON THE PLANET, I am still considered poor (I'll argue middle class on a world stage, poor on a U.S. one).


That being said, I am not here to talk about me. I want to talk about the concept of the 99% on a global standpoint.


Whether you agree with the concept of the OWS protests, or the thought of being a 99%er yourself, you have to admit that there are a couple of things that everyone can agree is on point.


1st- The thought of living on $1,225 a year, regardless of where you live is amazing. It should be said, because I know you're thinking it, that it's obviously easier to live on that in some places than others. In the U.S., regardless of where you live, it's not even remotely possible to live on that. The cost of living is just too high. To compare, ask yourself: can the person live in their current society and have the basic necessities of live (shelter, food, etc.) on their current income. When the answer is no, I'd argue that the person is a 99%er. Now, anyone can live outside their means and "feel poor" or "feel broke", but that's not what I mean. I'm referring to those who work to obtain income, but still manage to find themselves unable to provide themselves with basic necessities.


2nd- Those who are "Occupying" usually fall within the bounds of the 99% globally, all of them fall within the bounds of being the 99% nationally and all of them agree that both nationally and internationally, resources and economic wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, which is denying the majority basic human rights. Agree with them or not, this is what they believe.


3rd- Why is the 99% protest different in the U.S.? Because those who are in the U.S. are close to the system that made this world a world of the haves and have nots. Corporate greed, whether your a liberal or a conservative is a staple in American business. It's not all business, but there are those that you know and hate that clearly define what it means to be greedy. Americans see people who work for multi-billion dollar corporations 40 hours a week, or more and still can't make ends meet. Now, these people are not being greedy. They don't expect that the local sales clerk make extreme amounts of money, but let's face it, a person who is hardworking should at least make enough money to sustain life. If you don't think this to be true, then you clearly have never worked a hard day's work a day in your life.


I'm not going to sit here and tell you that a redistribution of wealth is the way to go. I will say this, until the lower and middle classes of the world, not just the U.S., the world, can manage to have their basic human needs met, the struggle and even the quest for revolution will continue.


Now, I could go on forever about the 99%, poverty, global economic crisis, etc, but I won't. For now, I'll leave you with this one final thought. Can you sit by while children all across the world, including this country are starving and allow the rich to get richer?

The Concept of this Blog

The concept of this blog is simple. I will discuss whatever comes to mind. It may be what is on your mind. It may be the opposite of what is on your mind. It may make you angry, it may be mindless, it may make you think. I'm one of those people who will look at the world across the spectrum and discuss just about anything.


I will say this. The majority of what concerns me these days has a lot to do with the title of the blog you have stumbled upon. The phrase minutes to midnight, not just being the name of a Linkin Park album, but one that refers to the doomsday clock introduced in the late 1940s to show how close the world was to nuclear disaster, with the hands of the clock switching back and forth depending upon current events. For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis (October 1962), the clock moved closer to midnight. (For more information on the  doomsday clock you can visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock). (Yes, a wikipedia link. Usually, I wouldn't, but I can assure you that the information is accurate enough for these purposes)


For clarification: No, I am not one of those people who is sounding an alarm about the thought of doomsday being near. This does not necessarily mean that I think nuclear holocaust is upon us (Although, Iran, I am watching you). Instead, I intend to focus on the current state of the world. I intend to discuss current events that are shaking our planet to it's core. Actually and metaphorically.


I know what you're thinking. Another political blog? Why listen to some random person sitting on their sofa in the middle of nowhere, contemplating the world around them? My intention is not to persuade you any particular side (although, I am extremely liberal by my own admission). Instead, I hope that something that I say will make you think; will push your cognitive abilities beyond their limits and to begin a process of civil discourse. It's the only way we can move forward.


For those of you who stumble upon this blog and have read this far, thank you for humoring me. If you like what I have to say, please feel free to share with your friends and family. There will be more to come and hopefully, we can have some interesting conversations.


Best Wishes.

Iran

Yeah... I'm gonna dive right in! The truth of the matter is, tensions are mounting in the Strait of Hormuz. For those of you who slept through Geography in High School, it's the gateway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman (right there between the UAE, Oman and Iran). It is essentially a gateway in and out of the Middle East, especially if you intend to import or export oil and/ or natural gas. That's all you need to know, right?

Okay, so now you know where it is, you know why it's important and now, here's what's going on:

In the past couple of weeks, Iran has shown some of it's military aggression. Iran tested it's might, if you will, by performing military exercises in the Strait and the Gulf of Oman to show that it can deal with U.S. warships should the need arise. They even launched a long range weapon during the mission. More recently, Iran warned the U.S. not to return a warship to the Persian Gulf.

Now, I'd hate to be one of those people who is contemplating what it would mean if we went to war with Iran, but I can't help myself, so I'm gonna throw some stuff around.

While many still insist that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, I would argue that they aren't that hard to get a hold of. (Those of you who saw Rachael Maddow's Day of Destruction, you know that at any given moment, nuclear weapons could become compromised and can fall into the wrong hands; those of you who didn't see it, you may want to look for it). And, let's face it, Iran has been dancing around this technology for years. They will work toward it and they will find it, especially if they enter a war with the U.S. If they find it, they will not hesitate to use it.

So, what's the big deal? We have nukes, too right? (Duh, you don't want someone who will use that technology to be in a war with you... If you think you do, google Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it might change your mind). The truth of the matter is, there are other factors to consider.

At any given moment, Iran could have as many as 1 million active military personnel (between the Armed Forces, Army, Navy and Air Force). I should mention the following: Iran has a population of over 77 million people. About 70% of them are between the ages of 15 and 65, meaning that it is likely that they could be called upon to assist. This is not to be naive enough to assume that all of those people will be called upon, but just to say that they are there. 

I know what you're thinking: In the U.S., we can beat those numbers and in a way, you're right. According to the 2010 Census, the U.S. has an estimated 308 million residents.

Let's assume for 5 seconds that someone would be bold enough to reinstate a draft (which would be political suicide, so it's likely to never happen, but humor me). I would argue 37% would be ruled out of a draft because of age (under 18 and over 65 excluded) and 50% would be ruled out because of gender (assuming the draft would exclude women, I'm not assuming for any other reason than precedent).While the U.S.have possibly over 1.5 million active military personnel and another 1 million or so on reserve, those forces are currently detained in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq (yes, still in Iraq), plus a host of other places that most people aren't even thinking about.

History tells us you can't fight a multiple front war. If you would like to argue against that, you should ask Hitler and Napoleon how it worked for them. The truth of the matter is that being militaristic for the simple sake of walking tall and carrying a big stick usually doesn't help when you're surrounded.

What will happen with Iran? Who knows? I do know that it's something to watch and the clock appears to be going closer to midnight.

More to come on Iran, you can bet on it.