Sunday, May 18, 2008
Bush can ride down an oil-slide to Hell
President Bush has "successfully" negotiated an increase in oil production from the Saudi's. Wow, as if the amount of available oil actually had anything to do with the prices right now. If we removed all forms of investment from the oil industry, and left the supply and demand to actual oil consumption, prices wouldn't be nearly as high, nor would they fluctuate as often. Since the start of the Iraq War in 2003, the cost of oil has risen from around $20 a barrel to near $130. Has the demand and use of oil risen by more than 6 times in the last 5 years? Not even close. But because investors control the prices through financial markets, they can use any event they want to justify price changes, making money out of thin air for themselves, while most people get screwed at the pump. To top it off, many of the American companies that benefit most from the price increases are closely connected to the Bush administration, and will be more than willing to provide huge stock option plans when Bush and Cheney "kindly" offer their advice as directors. Gee, it sure is a shame that those stocks will be worth so much because of foreign policy conduct over the last 8 years that has given the market an excuse to manipulate prices. I can see Bush and Cheney donating all of the profit from their stocks to enviromental projects, or using their wealth to open up non-profit health care clinics in inner-city ghetto's where health conditions can resemble the third world. Next time there is an incident of violence somewhere in the world, look for the Wall Street Journal to report that scared investors have changed their trading strategies with crude oil, leading to another price increase. Did a bomb that killed 20 people in a market actually do anything to affect oil production or use? No, and the fact that violent chaotic things happen everyday in oil producing nations has always been, and always will be the case. Hopefully our next President can be more concerned about bettering our country and the world, as less concerned with satisfying investors.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Specter's an Idiot
Arlen Specter, a long time Senator from Pennsylvania, wants a special investigation into the Patriots taping scandal. The NFL has viewed all of the tapes related to the scandal, they took away a first-round draft pick from the Patriots, they fined the team and the coach, and they are now moving forward. Specter is making a mockery of his government position, wasting time and tax payer money for attention. With all of the problems and needs our country has, why should the government waste any time and money on a very minor problem that the NFL has already taken care of? Specter is noted for being a die-hard Pittsburgh Steelers fan, making this somewhat personal, but more than that, he is just grand-standing and looking for attention. Whether it is Congressional investigations of steroids in baseball, or taping signals in football, the Senate has no business involving itself.
Considering that Congress has an approval rating of around 20%, and considering the plethora of problems they have failed to solve, it is mind boggling that any of Specter's colleagues would support his ridiculous treasure hunt. The country is facing a recession, the mortgage crisis is nowhere near being resolved, the war in Iraq still has no end in sight, health care is becoming more expensive and less accessible every day, America's image abroad is at an all-time low, questions about torture and the behavior exhibited at Guantanamo--these are issues Congress should investigate and attempt to fix. Worrying about the NFL and the taping of defensive hand signals? Are you kidding me!? Specter is ridiculous, and his behavior is more worthy of impeachment than anything President Clinton did. The citizens of Pennsylvania should elect a replacement and put serious pressure on Specter to stop wasting their money, and if they continue to support him, it is an indictment of them and our political system that places an enormous advantage in the hands of incumbents. The media should help as well by ignoring Specter; give him no publicity, don't publish anything he says, don't have him as a guest on any news network, just completely black ball him. Specter gets my vote as the dumbest politician in Washington.
Considering that Congress has an approval rating of around 20%, and considering the plethora of problems they have failed to solve, it is mind boggling that any of Specter's colleagues would support his ridiculous treasure hunt. The country is facing a recession, the mortgage crisis is nowhere near being resolved, the war in Iraq still has no end in sight, health care is becoming more expensive and less accessible every day, America's image abroad is at an all-time low, questions about torture and the behavior exhibited at Guantanamo--these are issues Congress should investigate and attempt to fix. Worrying about the NFL and the taping of defensive hand signals? Are you kidding me!? Specter is ridiculous, and his behavior is more worthy of impeachment than anything President Clinton did. The citizens of Pennsylvania should elect a replacement and put serious pressure on Specter to stop wasting their money, and if they continue to support him, it is an indictment of them and our political system that places an enormous advantage in the hands of incumbents. The media should help as well by ignoring Specter; give him no publicity, don't publish anything he says, don't have him as a guest on any news network, just completely black ball him. Specter gets my vote as the dumbest politician in Washington.
NBA Playoff update
Last night the Jazz lost to the Lakers, giving the Lakers a 3-2 lead in the series. The Jazz actually played quite well, they just couldn't make the big plays down the stretch, most notably giving up and offensive rebound in the final minute that gave the Lakers a 5 point lead. Losing on the road to the Lakers isn't so bad, but considering Kobe was hampered by a bad back, and considering that if a game 7 is played, it will be in L.A. with a healthier Kobe, this loss really hurts. The Jazz had a tie game with a few minutes to go, and not closing it out will ultimately cost them the series and end their season. They made the Western Conference Finals last year--with a much easier path--so this season will all the more disappointing, regressing from a year ago even though they are a better team this year. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Lakers win game 6 in Utah--Kobe has a killer instinct like Jordan did--and if they do lose, I don't see them losing game 7 at home unless Kobe can't even suit up for the game.
Turning to the Celtics/Cavs series, Boston continued to play chameleon, winning at home to take a 3-2 series lead and improve to 7-0 at home this postseason. With game 6 in Cleveland, the Celtics need to turn their 0-5 road record into a 1-5 record, not because they wouldn't win a game 7 at home, but because they can't go into a series against the Pistons without a road playoff win. With the biggest turnaround in one season in NBA history, the Celtics aren't looking for moral victories like just making the Eastern Conference Finals, they are looking to win the Championship. Prior to the playoffs, I thought they would win it all, or worst case scenario, make the Finals and lose to the West--now, I don't see them beating the Pistons even if they finish off Cleveland on the road. Boston's deficiencies have shown up in the playoffs--a lack of athleticism, and little depth. With three superstars, it is surprising that they can't score at will, but none of the big 3 is overly athletic--Garnett is in a big man sense--making it imperative that they shoot well from the field, something that is hard to do with the intensified postseason defense they face.
As for the Hornets/Spurs series, I still don't see the Spurs losing the series. They have won 4 championships in the last 9 years, they are the defending champs, and they seem to catch the breaks and make the plays when they absolutely have to. I would love to see the Hornets win because I hate the Spurs--the ideal match up would be the Jazz vs. the Hornets, with Paul going against Williams, and New Orleans new team facing its old team--but I don't see that match up happening. Even if the Hornets knock off the Spurs, I don't see the Lakers losing, but a Hornets/Lakers match up would be pretty cool, with the MVP, Kobe, going against the runner up, Chris Paul.
Turning to the Celtics/Cavs series, Boston continued to play chameleon, winning at home to take a 3-2 series lead and improve to 7-0 at home this postseason. With game 6 in Cleveland, the Celtics need to turn their 0-5 road record into a 1-5 record, not because they wouldn't win a game 7 at home, but because they can't go into a series against the Pistons without a road playoff win. With the biggest turnaround in one season in NBA history, the Celtics aren't looking for moral victories like just making the Eastern Conference Finals, they are looking to win the Championship. Prior to the playoffs, I thought they would win it all, or worst case scenario, make the Finals and lose to the West--now, I don't see them beating the Pistons even if they finish off Cleveland on the road. Boston's deficiencies have shown up in the playoffs--a lack of athleticism, and little depth. With three superstars, it is surprising that they can't score at will, but none of the big 3 is overly athletic--Garnett is in a big man sense--making it imperative that they shoot well from the field, something that is hard to do with the intensified postseason defense they face.
As for the Hornets/Spurs series, I still don't see the Spurs losing the series. They have won 4 championships in the last 9 years, they are the defending champs, and they seem to catch the breaks and make the plays when they absolutely have to. I would love to see the Hornets win because I hate the Spurs--the ideal match up would be the Jazz vs. the Hornets, with Paul going against Williams, and New Orleans new team facing its old team--but I don't see that match up happening. Even if the Hornets knock off the Spurs, I don't see the Lakers losing, but a Hornets/Lakers match up would be pretty cool, with the MVP, Kobe, going against the runner up, Chris Paul.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Liberty of Conscience
I'm think I might be in the blogging "zone". This will be my second post in the last 24 hours, a feat that deserves special recognition. I am currently reading a book titled Liberty of Conscience, by Martha Nussbaum. It is a book about America's religious tradition and the need to protect that tradition. I haven't finished the book yet so I may add or edit this blog as I move through the book, but her basic argument is that those who are overly hostile to religion and those that are over zealous about religion are hurting America and its tradition of religious equality. Issues of State and Church are part of our daily news, and they are hotly debated by those on differing sides of the issue. Should prayer be allowed in school? Should the ten commandments be allowed to display in public buildings like a court house? Should we have In God We Trust on our coins and One Nation Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance? Obviously, any answer to these questions is subjective in nature--even though I think my opinion on the matter is correct--but in spite of said subjectivity, we need clearly defined objectives for any rule or law around such questions.
Nussbaum--who happens to be very religious--argues that any form of religion, from symbols to statements, should not be part of the public sphere. She says that when the ten commandments are posted in a courthouse, it is an unspoken statement of support for Christianity, creating an in-group and an out-group, alienating non-Christians. When the government added the words one nation under God to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's, it was move directed at amplifying the differences between Christian America and the Atheist Soviet Union. Many mistakenly believe that those words have been part of the Pledge from the very beginning, but they were added for political reasons, not religious ones. The Constitution doesn't mention God or Creator anywhere, and this is for a reason. The creators of the Constitution had come from Europe, where State support of religion had led to corruption and oppression, something our nations founders felt necessary to avoid. Philosophers like Locke, Kant, John Rawls, and Nussbaum make compelling arguments for a complete WALL between State and religion.
Nussbaum frequently cites the example of Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. He was a very religious person, but he believed every single human being deserves the liberty of conscience--that is, the sacred right of trying to find the meaning of this life. He happened to be far ahead of his time, as he accepted all kinds of people in Rhode Island, even making laws that prohibited the acquisition of Indian land. Williams became a good friend to the the Indians of Rhode Island, treating them as equals, even though he considered their beliefs to be erroneous, he respect their liberty of conscience. Nussbaum argues that we need to regain the respect for this liberty of conscience, avoiding a silent caste system created by religion. As more and more people migrate to the United States from Asian countries--where many religions aren't monotheistic--even the mention of the protection of a single God can be alienating. Atheists are viewed in a more negative light than any other group of Americans--which is baffling, considering many atheists are extremely active in the promotion of human rights and equality for all--but due to the fact that their liberty of conscience has led them to believe differently, they are viewed in a very negative way.
Nussbaum holds positions in the University of Chicago's Law School, Divinity School, and Philosophy department, with Masters and Doctoral degrees from Harvard. It is refreshing to see a brilliant, religious person argue for the equal treatment of those with different beliefs. I completely agree with her argument that allowing the liberty of conscience in individuals is necessary, and prohibiting any form of State sponsorship is imperative for liberty of conscience to be truly protected. The role of government is to protect our basic rights, not to institute moral laws and not to subtly establish religious preference. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in political philosophy and I believe that anyone--from the most hard-core Mormon to the most hard-core atheist--would find this book convincing.
Nussbaum--who happens to be very religious--argues that any form of religion, from symbols to statements, should not be part of the public sphere. She says that when the ten commandments are posted in a courthouse, it is an unspoken statement of support for Christianity, creating an in-group and an out-group, alienating non-Christians. When the government added the words one nation under God to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's, it was move directed at amplifying the differences between Christian America and the Atheist Soviet Union. Many mistakenly believe that those words have been part of the Pledge from the very beginning, but they were added for political reasons, not religious ones. The Constitution doesn't mention God or Creator anywhere, and this is for a reason. The creators of the Constitution had come from Europe, where State support of religion had led to corruption and oppression, something our nations founders felt necessary to avoid. Philosophers like Locke, Kant, John Rawls, and Nussbaum make compelling arguments for a complete WALL between State and religion.
Nussbaum frequently cites the example of Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. He was a very religious person, but he believed every single human being deserves the liberty of conscience--that is, the sacred right of trying to find the meaning of this life. He happened to be far ahead of his time, as he accepted all kinds of people in Rhode Island, even making laws that prohibited the acquisition of Indian land. Williams became a good friend to the the Indians of Rhode Island, treating them as equals, even though he considered their beliefs to be erroneous, he respect their liberty of conscience. Nussbaum argues that we need to regain the respect for this liberty of conscience, avoiding a silent caste system created by religion. As more and more people migrate to the United States from Asian countries--where many religions aren't monotheistic--even the mention of the protection of a single God can be alienating. Atheists are viewed in a more negative light than any other group of Americans--which is baffling, considering many atheists are extremely active in the promotion of human rights and equality for all--but due to the fact that their liberty of conscience has led them to believe differently, they are viewed in a very negative way.
Nussbaum holds positions in the University of Chicago's Law School, Divinity School, and Philosophy department, with Masters and Doctoral degrees from Harvard. It is refreshing to see a brilliant, religious person argue for the equal treatment of those with different beliefs. I completely agree with her argument that allowing the liberty of conscience in individuals is necessary, and prohibiting any form of State sponsorship is imperative for liberty of conscience to be truly protected. The role of government is to protect our basic rights, not to institute moral laws and not to subtly establish religious preference. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in political philosophy and I believe that anyone--from the most hard-core Mormon to the most hard-core atheist--would find this book convincing.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Finally, and hopefully not too late
It appears like Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee for President. After the longest primary campaign in the history of presidential politics, the selection of our next President isn't that far off. The Democrats began this campaign with a tremendous advantage due to Bush's enormous blunders over the last 8 years, but as their campaign has become more and more vitriolic, their advantage has begun to dwindle. McCain has had it relatively easy the last few months, comfortably ripping both candidates, while the Democrats rip each other instead of responding to McCain.
In spite of McCain's comfortable last few months, most national polls still give Obama a small advantage in the general election, but the enormous discontent with the Republicans has waned somewhat, making this general election more unpredictable. McCain has been able to flip-flop on all sorts of issues the last few months, and hopefully with some attention, those changes of heart will be called what they are--political pandering, not sincere changes that are better for the country. Ultimately, I see Obama beating McCain and becoming our next President--something that will be great for our country and it will put a leader in office who has the intelligence and the people skills to help repair our damaged relations with the rest of the world.
Obama may lack years of experience in Washington like McCain, but his intelligence and wisdom will play a greater role in how he governs than any amount of experience could. As we have seen so clearly from President Bush, choosing the right people to help run an administration is the most important thing a President can do. If Bush had chosen to rely on Colin Powell instead of Cheney and Rumsfeld, he may be viewed as a great President instead of a pathetic one. Obama may be trendy, and he may be garnering votes because of the emotion he inspires in people, but he has shown good judgement throughout he short political career. The fact that he picked the right people to help him run a campaign that was good enough to defeat the Clinton machine shows high levels of wisdom in choosing good people to work with.
Electing a black man to be our President is an enormous event and one that would have seemed unimaginable 50 years ago, even 20, but it should provide a path for healing the racial tensions that are still very existant in this country. So hopefully, Obama's nomination by the Democrats isn't too late and he gets the chance to be our next President.
In spite of McCain's comfortable last few months, most national polls still give Obama a small advantage in the general election, but the enormous discontent with the Republicans has waned somewhat, making this general election more unpredictable. McCain has been able to flip-flop on all sorts of issues the last few months, and hopefully with some attention, those changes of heart will be called what they are--political pandering, not sincere changes that are better for the country. Ultimately, I see Obama beating McCain and becoming our next President--something that will be great for our country and it will put a leader in office who has the intelligence and the people skills to help repair our damaged relations with the rest of the world.
Obama may lack years of experience in Washington like McCain, but his intelligence and wisdom will play a greater role in how he governs than any amount of experience could. As we have seen so clearly from President Bush, choosing the right people to help run an administration is the most important thing a President can do. If Bush had chosen to rely on Colin Powell instead of Cheney and Rumsfeld, he may be viewed as a great President instead of a pathetic one. Obama may be trendy, and he may be garnering votes because of the emotion he inspires in people, but he has shown good judgement throughout he short political career. The fact that he picked the right people to help him run a campaign that was good enough to defeat the Clinton machine shows high levels of wisdom in choosing good people to work with.
Electing a black man to be our President is an enormous event and one that would have seemed unimaginable 50 years ago, even 20, but it should provide a path for healing the racial tensions that are still very existant in this country. So hopefully, Obama's nomination by the Democrats isn't too late and he gets the chance to be our next President.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Global Warming, angry sports God's, or...?
The Boston Celtics play the Atlanta Hawks in a game 7 today. This series was supposed to go 4 games, maybe 5 if Kevin Garnett died, but not 7 games. The game is in Boston, and Boston is 3-0 in game 7's vs. the Hawks, so I think the Celtics will win, but the fact that they could lose today and be eliminated in the first round by the Hawks is crazy. What if one of Boston's big 3 gets hurt? or what if the Hawks play their best game of the season? if either one of these scenarios happens, the Celtics will probably lose, and then they can have the joy of being on the wrong side of the biggest upset in NBA playoff history.
I know that global warming is supposed to change the weather in crazy ways, but it must effect sports as well. That seems to be the only explanation for the Celtics collapse, or maybe the Patriots cheating scandal angered the sports God's so much that all the New England teams will face a curse for years to come. The Pats blew the Super Bowl, Boston doesn't look good, and the Red Sox are doing okay but some of their big stars are under performing or seriously injured, meaning the run of dominance is over unless New Englanders can find a way to appease the angry sports God's. In spite of my general dislike for Boston sports teams, I find myself rooting for the Celtics because Danny Ainge is the architect of the team, and the resurrection of his reputation is gone if the the Celtics lose the series. He went from reviled to loved in one season after pulling off some huge trades that led the Celtics to the biggest single season turn around in NBA history, but that is all pointless if they don't make the NBA finals, or at least the Eastern Conference finals. Anyway, I'm out of theories, go Celtics, and I am out (think Jim Rome).
I know that global warming is supposed to change the weather in crazy ways, but it must effect sports as well. That seems to be the only explanation for the Celtics collapse, or maybe the Patriots cheating scandal angered the sports God's so much that all the New England teams will face a curse for years to come. The Pats blew the Super Bowl, Boston doesn't look good, and the Red Sox are doing okay but some of their big stars are under performing or seriously injured, meaning the run of dominance is over unless New Englanders can find a way to appease the angry sports God's. In spite of my general dislike for Boston sports teams, I find myself rooting for the Celtics because Danny Ainge is the architect of the team, and the resurrection of his reputation is gone if the the Celtics lose the series. He went from reviled to loved in one season after pulling off some huge trades that led the Celtics to the biggest single season turn around in NBA history, but that is all pointless if they don't make the NBA finals, or at least the Eastern Conference finals. Anyway, I'm out of theories, go Celtics, and I am out (think Jim Rome).
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
School Sucks...kind of
I keep saying how much I hate school and how excited I am to finish my last final tomorrow. However, now that school is out for the summer I am going to have to find a crappy job, and after about 2 days of that, I'm going to have a hankerin for homework. Stacy has been cool enough to make all the money so I can finish school sometime before I'm 40, but she's going to be out of commission because she's having a baby (weak excuse)--meaning I get to tout my almost political science degree skills to potential employers who only want to know how well I can clean a toilet, give someone change
School and the MTC are really similar--when I was in the MTC I hated it after about two days of 12 straight hours in class learning portugese, but when it came time to leave and actually go out and work, I got nervous. I got nervous for a reason, trying to talk to real Brazilians--not MTC teachers trying to act like a tough investigator--would actually matter. I didn't miscalculate, I walked like 10 miles my first day, I couldn't understand anything, and my companion was lame. It will be just like that when I eventually graduate, I'll go work for some lame employer and wish that I could just go back to school. Oh well, I guess I get instant gratification with a crappy summer job--7 bucks an hour--whereas with school, I keep telling myself that someday someone will actually pay me instead of me getting raped by the bookstore and the registrar....the end.
School and the MTC are really similar--when I was in the MTC I hated it after about two days of 12 straight hours in class learning portugese, but when it came time to leave and actually go out and work, I got nervous. I got nervous for a reason, trying to talk to real Brazilians--not MTC teachers trying to act like a tough investigator--would actually matter. I didn't miscalculate, I walked like 10 miles my first day, I couldn't understand anything, and my companion was lame. It will be just like that when I eventually graduate, I'll go work for some lame employer and wish that I could just go back to school. Oh well, I guess I get instant gratification with a crappy summer job--7 bucks an hour--whereas with school, I keep telling myself that someday someone will actually pay me instead of me getting raped by the bookstore and the registrar....the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)