In January 2003, President Bush met with a group of people including three Iraqi Americans to discuss the likely political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein (Avard). In the course of this meeting it became apparent that Bush had no understanding of the differences between the three major demographic divisions within Iraq: the Sunni, the Shiite, and the Kurds (Galbraith). Two months later America was in a war with Iraq. The shoddy conduct in which Bush led the country into, and waged the war with Iraq (post-invasion Iraqi unemployment of 60% (Wright, Knickmeyer), disbanding of the Iraqi National Army (Slocombe), etc.) is just one illustration of why it is preferable to have a president who is analytical and deliberative but less politically accomplished than one like Bush, who acts, however effectively, on gut reactions.
It’s always nice when politicians have military experience. And John McCain should be applauded for his–though there is some controversy over whether or not he was a little too cooperative with the guards in the Vietnamese prison camp. But, more to the point, politicians should not be judged solely on whether or not they’ve had military experience. What their positions are on issues and who influences them matter a great deal more and despite media portrayal, John McCain totally blows on the issues.
John McCain wants to outlaw abortions, he doesn’t want the minimum wage increase, he’s a staunch supporter of the death penalty, John McCain wants the Ten Commandments on display at public schools, He’ll only fund the abstinence only sex education that study after study has shown doesn’t work, He wants to privatize social security, He’s supports redirecting public education funds to voucher programs, His support for sound fiscal policy has taken a back seat to securing tax cuts for the rich, He supports the Patriot Act provisions that abridge constitutional civil liberties, he voted no on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025, and he supports allowing religious facilities run state welfare programs.
Recently, I read an article that discussed a statement made by the widow of the recently deceased Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who said that her husbands death was a result of Osama Bin Laden trading Zarqawis whereabouts to the US for prolonged amnesty. I thought: “Well that’s interesting, but I feel that Zarqawi’s widow’s credibility is dubious.”
This evening; however, I read an article in the New York Times. It reported that the CIA has closed down its decade-old division dedicated to finding Osama Bin Laden, which seems to support the claims of Zarqawi’s widow.
A while back, my high school hosted Law Day. Law Day is a day where seniors spend 3 hours rotating between various guest speakers whose occupations deal with the law in some way.
My favorite speaker was a professor at George Mason University by the name of Hawke. He specialized in the foundations of America especially the constitution and its underpinnings.
It was all very enthralling. He talked about the relationship between political culture and our rights—how when rights are eroded it is difficult to maintain them because it changes the political culture on which rights are protected.
I’d like to emphasize before I get into this how much I hate white people.
That being said, I think it’s important to understand that people aren’t inherently bad. Criminals aren’t born criminals etc..
The way I, and a large portion of the psychological community, see it, people are products of two things commonly referred to as nature and nurture. There’s a certain degree to which genetics (nature) plays a role in determining personality and mannerisms, but I think there is a larger degree to which a person’s environment (nurture), affects development.
I don’t like executive orders in principal because it sets an easily abused exercise of power—one man being able to order an executive branch agency to do whatever he wants. What’s worse is it subverts legislative action in a way that consolidates power into the hands of one man, which is very disconcerting. We don’t live in a monarchy. We aren’t electing dictators. We’re electing presidents who are governed by laws. They’re subject to checks and balances.
On the other hand Lincoln was jolly righteous in freeing the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation and so was Truman when he desegregated the military. It certainly provides a way to take actions quickly which is what needed to be done in Lincoln’s and Truman’s positions.
Think of a billion oranges, or of a trillion dollar bills. It is tough even to conceive or to fully appreciate of quantities so large. Humans find it difficult to understand such enormous sums simply because most of us lack the terms to comprehend them. But try. Try to perhaps imagine something besides oranges or currency. Try to imagine humans….
In the past year alone, three million humans died of a disease worldwide (Holbrooke). This disease is known as AIDS, or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (”Automatic, systematic.”). Every day, 12,000 new people get infected, and, perhaps worse, 90% of them will not even know that they have been infected until 2013 (Holbrooke). Just in America, an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 24-27% of them undiagnosed and unaware of their HIV infection (”Basic Statistics”). This can safely be called a pandemic of the worst variety, and there is no cure.
Google Images has a policy where search results can be filtered due to content. This ensures that if a user doesnt want to be subjected to pornographic material they don’t have to be. For some reason, that option has not been extended to google video. I don’t understand why that is. I think it’s fine that people not want to see adult material in their search results, but it is selective exposure on the part of google to not allow people the option to upload material of their choosing and to then place restrict search. This sets a very scary precedent. What if someday google becomes an enormous internet monopoly (as I suspect might be the case) and someone makes a search for information regarding a politician. Will google implement selective exposure of politicians they like? Perhaps this is an idle apprehention. But a brother just wants his Gooogornographic video;)
As I’ve grown up in America, I’ve noticed that there is a minimal, but present, religious undertone in public institutions. I, as one who considers his religion to be atheism, resent these undertones in principle, but feel that these are trivial aberrations from secularism. I don’t think religion has infiltrated public institutions to such a degree that it requires legal or revolutionary action. However, I am not the slightest bit averse to undercutting the defenses of publicly established religion with my pen.
Ms. Morgan Linski in her December 9th article in the Oakton Outlook argues that secular activists—or, as Linski calls them, “radical leftists”—are somehow deviating from the constitution by “twisting the meaning of the first amendment.” My goal in this article is to debunk her assessment in what I hope is a gentlemanly manner.
Stumble Up
Facebook
