Confession

Most of these articles were written when I was 13 years old. I cannot say that I still agree with everything I previously written. I'll try and update my opinions later. No promises, I've been very busy lately.

And From The Abyss

I know I have not posted in a long time, but I have two essays coming up, on genocide, and the hamas.

On Terror

Freedom Fighters

In the light of recent terror attacks, many have begun to reconsider whether we should stay in Iraq, whether the war on terror is worth fighting. Is it worth fighting? Maybe these are not terrorists but simply freedom fighters, perhaps they are simply fighting to repel foreign occupiers and establish home rule over there country. Perhaps they are fighting evil imperialistic crusaders who wish to impose upon themselves evil foreign institutions. So instead of fighting the insurgents, let’s leave. They can have Iraq, no more blood for oil and so forth. If we leave then the insurgents will stop terrorism, lay down there arms, and then develop the country. As for the oil, we need to develop our economy so that we don’t need to rely on former oil anyway, we might as well bite the bullet now that later.

But then of course, you realize that what the insurgents want is not for the Americans to leave. What they wish for is the establishment of a totalitarian theocracy, where gays are stoned, where woman where burkas, and where the word of god is the true source of law. Democracy is not a western institution; any barriers to an active functional multiparty democratic government do not lie in being Islamic; as many Americans seem to think. The obscure precedent for this statement lies in the easily forgotten Lebanese civil war; in 1987 Lebanon was at the height of its civil war, most of the country was under control of militia’s, sectarian violence was commonplace, and it was bad enough to make Iraq look like a walk in the park. This war was met with a massive Syrian invasion of Lebanon, 5 years later in 1992 the civil war over. A free and fair election was held and by 1997 Lebanon was among the richest and freest nations in the region, with an active multiparty democracy. There are free and regular elections in Yemen, Palestine, Kuwait, Lebanon, Bahrain and Turkey; these nations are overwhelmingly Arab and Islamic, yet they have a working democracy (they may not “hate freedom” as a certain someone once put it). In this light it is conceivable that Iraqs could become a stable country with a stable democracy despite the fact that Iraq is currently a terrorist hellhole where the blood of civilian’s flows down the streets and sectarian violence is commonplace. It could be argued that if we were to keep our troops there for 10 years they might become a rather peaceful multiparty democracy. Though I will admit that right now given Iraq’s current state this statement sounds not only wrong, but downright delusional.


If we left Iraq tomorrow, what would happen? The government of Iraq would quickly be crushed and overthrown; the Iraqi security forces would split into sectarian lines and fight amongst themselves, until a massive civil war breaks out, after the war Islamic fiefdom would emerge (quite frankly they would be far worse off). As an alternative prediction one might say that they can do as they wish citing the fact that because the demographics of Iran are similar to that of Iraq, Iraq would quickly emerge as a new young Iran clone. This might inspire Islamist rebellions across the Middle East. If it doesn’t then Iraq would still become an exporter of terrorism and instability to other nations around the world, and it would likely become a new Afghanistan. Soon they will send terrorists into Saudi Arabia and Syria and Lebanon and Palestine in an attempt to bring them down. Soon they will attack oil fields, and cripple the world economy with super spikes to unheard of levels of the price of oil. Maybe we see the political downfall of some of the secular totalitarian regimes such as Syria and Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia is mostly secular), but this is doubtful. What is much more likely is either full-scale regional war or devastating war. Like the Iran-Iraq war before it, hundreds of thousands would die, and chemical weapons may see the light of day as Iraq really builds and then uses WMDs against there enemy’s. Oh, and the terrorists will hate the US.

Regardless of whose fault it is, for once the Middle East is moving in the right direction. Education is up, prosperity is up, civil freedom is up, and violence is down (slightly). While both the left and the right would like to take credit, chances are it came from al-jazeera and the advent of the internet and the availability of satellite TV. But despite this, as anyone who watches African politics would know, war or any kind of armed disturbance at all erases years or even decades of progress. Leaving Iraq right now might set back the Middle East by years; at the very least, it would not help the region at all. We cannot expect troops to leave in a year; we still have troops in Korea after 50 years, in Japan and Germany1 after 60, in the Philippines after 105. Massive amounts of troops for long periods make a region peaceful and prosperous, from the occupation of Europe after World War II, to East Asia after the Korean War. If we stay long enough, then one day we might be able to tout the Middle East as an example.

Calling Islamic terrorists freedom fighters is ironic in many ways. What are they fighting for? Are they fighting for freedom from the evil western concept of freedom? To call them freedom fighters would imply that they are fighting for freedoms or rights of some kind, yet what they fight for is for theocracy, for the rule of god, for the dismantling of gay and woman’s rights. They fight so that they can repress their fellow man. The terrorists might have a legitimate grievance, perhaps they have been treated heavy-handedly, perhaps we have killed their civilians, perhaps we have treated them badly over the last 500 years. Nevertheless, that does not give them the moral authority to blow up towers full of children and parents. It does not give them the moral authority to blow up helpless commuters on subways as they try to get to work so they can feed there kids. If they want an armed struggle, then they shouldn’t attack ambulances, they attack tanks. They shouldn’t destroy oil pipelines or construction workers, they should attack foot soldiers. If they hate Britain’s involvement with Iraq, than launch an attack on Tony Blair, not some poor single working mom on the British metro. We have a responsibility to bring justice to these people who have been murdered. It may be hard not to cower back into your own country and ignore the rest of the world, but in the end, we must continue fighting and keep our resolve to fight loathe as I am to admit it we can’t leave(not that I was all for going in the first place). We took it upon ourselves to go and destroy the reigning government, leaving now would make the deaths that have taken place worthless, we now have a responsibility to Iraq and ourselves to stay I can only hope that the imminent deaths do not happen for naught.

The Group Of Eight

We are rapidly approaching the G-8 conference in Gleneagles, Scotland. The main items on the agenda will most likely be the creation of a new convention of climate change and an international database for pedophiles. The most covered and celebrated item on the agenda is poverty reduction to the third world, primarily through debt reduction, but possibly through the sale of IMF gold reserves. The G-8 is the grouping of eight of the world's leading industrialized democratic nations whose goal is essentially to construct common policy and create nice photo-ops; some conservatives have referred to them as a “unofficial world government".

After the 1973 energy crisis and subsequent economic turmoil, it became clear that industrialized nations of the world needed to construct unified economic policy. This was impossible at the time due to The Cold War and its trademark ideological bickering. This led to the establishment in 1975 of the G-6. The G-6 was composed of France, West Germany, Italy, the USA, the UK, and Japan. The next year the G-6 became the G-7 with the admission of Canada. The admission of The Russian Federation as a limited member followed the break-up of the USSR in 1991, however their attendance was restricted to political meetings after the main procedures had commenced. In 1996, The Russian Federation received near-full membership to the G-7 as a reward for their neutrality on the expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe. This has lead to the establishment of the modern G-8 with the member states of France, The Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the USA, the UK, Japan, Canada, and partial membership of The Russian Federation; The European Union also attends to accompany its member states. The nations of the G-8+5 (Brazil, South Africa, China, and Mexico along with the rest of the G-8) attend a briefer meeting of economic ministers.

G-8 Expansion

The member nations of the G-8 constitute 13.4% of the population with over 860 million people; despite such a low share of the population, they own 51.7 percent of the world’s wealth. The structure of the G-8 still shows evidence of its cold war political roots. While they are supposed to represent the world’s industrial democracies, they markedly fail to do so.

India is the most dramatic example of this. India is the world’s largest democracy, possessing a larger population then the entire G-8 combined. Meanwhile, they have a larger economy then every G-8 nation except for the US and Japan. This is suspicious in the context that India was the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) during The Cold War, India and other third world nations created NAM mainly to oppose the NATO’s influence during The Cold War¹. India also possesses one of the fastest growing economies in the world. It is among the most important economies in the world, and has extremely close economic and political² ties to the member states of the G-8. Their admission into the G-8 would allow for valuable political and economic coordination with the rest of the G-8 that could only result in increased prosperity for all involved.

Brazil is another example of a nation left out for legacy political reasons. Brazil has an economy larger then G-8 nation Canada, and a population larger then every nation except for America, it is one of the largest multiparty democracies in the world, and now might get a security counsel seat³. Like India, Brazil was and in some ways continues to be a thorn in America’s side, with its disagreements on reproductive and drug rights, and its centre-left government. Brazil has valuable expertise in renewable energy and biomass conversion that would prove helpful to the G-8.

There are further additions to the G-8 that would help reflect the power structure of 2005. South Korea possesses a GDP around the same size as G-8 member state Canada and a higher population then some member states⁴ of the G-8. It is a now a major technology exporter with large influence in the global cell phone and automobile markets, it is widely regarded as a bastion of democracy to Asia. Australia would make a great candidate for the G-8. It is a model economy that has gone 30 years without a recession and the only democracy ever to achieve full employment. It is a large raw material exporter, with important strategic uranium reserves. Because of its high trade and extremely successful American style democracy, it would be a model member of the G-8. Spain or the Netherlands should be given admission the G-8+5 along with Israel or Turkey. Taiwan would make an excellent member, as a leading industrialized democracy with a large manufacturing base and a booming tech industry. However, this is very unlikely due to political realities with China.

This article will be updated and expanded as the G-8 develops and plans are unveiled.

One: I suggest further reading on the NAM at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

Two: Ties between G-8 countries and India often get military, considering its strategic location and convenience for a logistical base against either the Middle East or China, and recently as a base for aid to the 2004-tsunami victims.

Three: it is notable that 4 of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council (China, The Russian Federation, The USA, The UK, and France) are in the G-8, while the proposed new seats (India, Japan, Brazil, and Germany) would give two further seats to the G-8. Note India’s proposed seat.

Four: South Korea has a larger population then Canada.

Patriotism

To those readers outside the USA, or perhaps those who preside under a rock, today is the day Americans celebrate their independence. We have gone a long way in the last 2 and a half centuries, from a small insignificant backwater nation, to the possessor of near world hegemony. Our military was once harassed and nearly defeated by North African pirates, now we spend more then nearly every military in the world combined while having troops on every continent.

On America’s anniversary, let us remember our past but also look forward at our future. Face a world where a massive piece of the population lives in either crushing poverty or brutal autocracy. The world faces a problem of permanent climate change. Instead of appealing to patriotism, let us remember that the Iraqi’s and the Chinese and the French are human beings too. Remember that we as a whole share the same problems and face the same challenges. May we remember that the largest problems we face are too large to be confronted by just one nation, even America.

The War Over Change

The battle between liberals and conservatives is an eternal one found repeated throughout history. In fact, it has been the root cause of many conflicts. In 1688 history pitted King James II against his own daughter*1, in 1868 the samurai against the Meiji, and in 1861 the confederacy against the United States of America. Throughout history, there have been technical innovations that threaten the status quo, and throughout history, the status quo has fought back. The civil war of America was simply another manifestation of the basic war over change.

Slavery in pre-industrial society was found in nearly every society, before the institution of industrialism, there simply was no economic alternative to widespread slavery*2. This was especially pronounced in the new world. Without the pillars of capitalism that barely existed in Europe and surely were nonexistent in the new world, wage labor was a useless concept. Wages can only be used to buy goods, which in those times were mostly made in one's own household. Because of this, the best way to run a plantation was with slaves under the threat of force. While this by no means justifies cruelty, it must be looked at as a pragmatic reality. some slave owners at the time saw the fundamental issues and felt feelings of Casual brutality along with the idea that slavery was a necessary evil to be phased out as soon as possible.

However, with the dawn of the industrial revolution the reality changed drastically. Now that there was a large industrial base to produce goods, the pillars of capitalism were propped up. Because of this free market capitalist wageworker based agriculture was not only was feasible but actually economically more profitable; this was because leaving them to find there own food and housing destroys an expense and because competition for jobs lowers wages (though that carries a note of cruelty this is after all capitalism). Now that the institution of slavery was not only unnecessary but also wasteful, there suddenly sprung up a large organized movement for abolition; at this point slavery stopped being a necessary evil and became the undertaking of frivolous old bastards too set in their ways to do what was both right and economically sound. The abolitionists really represented, or at least were propped up by the new order of free-market capitalism.

Instead of the south giving in to the facts and accommodating the coming torrent of the future, they instead followed suite as all dying traditions do and resisted change at all costs. There was a large system with a lot of money at stake when it came to slavery, and those that profit off it were not to let it die.

Suddenly the south changed its view of slavery from “a necessary evil” to “our god-given right and responsibility from the lord”. As the south deluded itself and stubbornly fought change, the march of change continued with its inevitable stride. Eventually their ways evolved into a double think. They begin to realize their loss was inevitable, as are the tides. Counter-intuitively, but not surprisingly, this resulted in knee-jerk nationalism and jingoism. This culminated when the south succeeded from union and led to a bitter long war that was one of the bloodiest wars of the century.

Therefore, the civil war was simply the expression of an age-old conflict, the conflict that has repeated itself in the past, persists in the present and will continue to do so in the future. Whenever there is change there is always going to be people who attempt to stop it. I digress to be clear; slavery was not the only cause at stake what was really happening was the south resisting the transition from religious slow static near-serfdom, to fast chaotic secular free-market capitalism. Even today, seven score and a year after the end of the conflict, there are still after echoes of the war against change coming from the south this transition is not and may never be complete.

*1: It is considered by some to be more of a coup d'état –Glorious Revolution-

*2: A third of the population of pre-Christian era Rome was slaves

The New Pentagon Papers

In my last essay I mentioned the memo that was leaked in the British press. The memo that conclusively proves that George Bush was not "misinformed" or had bad intelligence, but that he actually manufactured evidence and purposely lied to the American people. Before you write me off as a liberal nut, I want to emphasize that the British government essentially confirmed this leak; it has been proven in black and white on American stationary with a SECRET stamp. When a intelligence official brought up that their informant "curveball" was unreliable and probably lying about Iraq’s WMDs, his superior emailed him "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the powers that be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about.”. This is not anecdotal either, this is all in black and white, proven that it happened. For more details, I strongly suggest looking at the google news report to get unbiased coverage from 793 different media outlets around the world on this horrible situation.

This leak conclusively proves that George Bush lied to America, that he purposely manufactured evidence, that he intimidated analysts and foreign governments. This was not "overzealous intelligent agencies"; this proves that he knew he was lying when he addressed congress and the American people. He has committed an impeachable offense. Now there is enough evidence to present to a court, this makes the case against George Bush for impeachment very strong, or as George Tenet would say, "slam dunk".

The people of America have been categorically lied to. The lies of our administration have resulted in the death of 1600 hundred American soldiers, a large hit to our economy, and over a billion dollars a week worth of national debt. It rallied the terrorists against us, raised oil prices, and squandered the diplomatic good will created toward us after 9/11, we are now placed lower the North Korea in international opinion polls. However, this is not what angers me; a president is free to make unpopular decisions. However, when our president lied to us, he directly and purposely lied about making these unpopular decisions. George Bush is no different from Richard Nixon and far worse then Bill Clinton. When those people lied, there were not any long-term negative geopolitical consequences.

However, before we put this man to stake, it is important to note that he is not the first president to lie about a war. And definitely not the first time such a lie has had long-term geopolitical consequences. Perhaps the biggest example would be FDR lying before the election of 1940, where he campaigned that the US was not to be involved in any foreign wars, while secretly forging a pact with the UK. The gulf of Tonkin crisis by Johnson, the overthrowing of the Iranian democratic regime by Eisenhower, and the contra affair by Reagan. In either case, he is at the mercy of congress. Good luck bush.

As You Enjoy Your Soda

Today nearly everyone in the nation has the day off. Families are racing to Miami and Vegas, hotels are bustling with business, and teens are mating like rabbits. but before you take advantage of your little day off, as you head off to your date, while you wade at the beach and hit on the attractive life guard, as you drink your soda without a care in the world, I ask of you one thing. Consider the cost of your soda. Think of the several tons of corpses, the thousands of gallons of blood shed, the tears of widows that fills buckets. That, not $2.90, is the true cost of your soda. Today is not the day of Joanna’s party, it is not the day of the trip to Vegas, and it is not the last day to cram in before your finals. Today is the day where we remember and honor the fallen, those who died to protect our way of life. These words are often thrown around without comprehension of there meaning. What it really means is that these men died to protect our right to the pursuit of happiness, so that teenagers can continue flirting, so that students can cram for their finals, so that Joanna can throw her party, and of course, so we can drink our soda.

-David Moshe Shor

The American Pravda

Today Senator John Conyers and 88 other congressmen signed a letter to George bush. The contents of the letter were on a media leak in England, the leak was a bunch of communications in early 2002 that conclusively proved that George bush and Tony Blair have been planning the Iraq war for quite some time, saying things like "A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.", these are deeply disturbing allegations that will have profound geopolitical impact. There’s only one problem: Americans don’t know it exists. Why is this so, why is the populace ignorant of this? The reason is because CNN didn’t report it, and before you denounce the liberal media let me remind you that neither did FOX, MSNBC, CBS, or NBC. It isn’t even on NPR. In fact, the way that I found it was on the BBC and Al-Jazeera. The Leak was front-page news in the foreign media, from the BBC, to the economist; even the foreign tabloids covered it. British prime time is nothing but debates on this.

But what of Americans prime time news? There is no time to talk about such unimportant things such as Darfur and government leaks. Instead what our only method of informational dissemination consists of the essentials that the public needs to know to make economic and political decisions, things such as the Michael Jackson trial, the runaway bride saga, and the infamous finger in the custard. Because of course the American public is much better off knowing about these things then if they were plagued with knowledge of events that actually affects the world at large.

This is extremely dangerous for many reasons. From an economic point of view an uncritical and uninformative media is a cause of the principle agent problem. This will lead to all markets losing their values and becoming worthless. From a political point of view it creates the problem of an uninformed constituency, which effectively destroys the validity of a democracy. But the most pragmatic concern is that the breakdown of the American media comes at perhaps the worst time imaginable.

Right now the world is quite worrying, the US and world economy is approaching stagflation, there is a impending real estate crisis and possible bank collapse in the Americas, North Korea has began testing missiles and might be preparing for a nuclear weapon test (there nuke count is at 5-9 now), and Iran has now openly stated they will continue uranium enrichment.


But are the large majority of Americans informed of such things? Are there debates on CNN and Fox about such things? The answer sadly is no, what occupies debates on Larry King Live and the No Spin Zone are discussions about the fate of the runaway bride, interviews with celebrities, or the Michael Jackson trial. In fact it might say something about America when the only respectable news shows are aired on Sunday morning, when the large majority of the nation is either asleep or at church. Such bastions of investigative reporting in America such as 20/20 or 60 minutes are quickly being conformed to the national standard of celebrity interviews and human-interest stories.

On the day that 88 congressmen wrote to George bush to protest the contents of the media leak, what was on the American news prime time? ABC Nightly News spent 20 of there 30 allotted minutes talking about a Rolling Stones Concert, the remaining 10 spent of human-interest stories. 360 With Anderson Cooper gave a monologue about American obesity and the runaway bride. The morning shows have become even worse, now the CEO’s of Disney (ABC) and NBC have both made mentions to the morning shows as a great way to hype up the prime time lineup to stockholders, effectively admitting it is nothing but advertising.

The day has arrived where an American can watch the news all day and still be ignorant of the most important happenings of the world. The news has effectively turned into E!, albeit with some CSI and law and order reruns. When the news media becomes hesitant to criticize America, when more news time is put toward informing Americans of the presidents Ipod play list then his long term strategy for Iraq, when the media interrupts the presidents speech to cut to a dog being rescued in Canada, and when Americans know more about the Michael Jackson trial then MGM v. Grokster. When all of these things occur, then CNN becomes the Soviet Pravda and Fox the Xinhua.



update: this only furthers my point, Tom Ridge, former director of homeland security said The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says. once again no networks covered it.
update may 15th: about time, over 5 days after the I posted the above, and over 10 days after the story broke in england, it is on CNN. Took them long enough, but maybe thats progress.

The God Of The Gaps

Around the nation we see new attacks on science from all fronts by our government. On one front, we have the attack on meteorology. On another front, the attack on peer review. However, by far the most disturbing front is the attack on the most fundamental principles of biology. This is manifested in many ways, but the most visible is the attack on evolution. School systems around the country have been bombarded by parents to stop teaching evolution, and to instead teach the "science" that the world was created 6000 years ago by God. These fundamentalists attempt to twist the very definition of science and attempt to scientifically attack evolution. Their arguments sound pretty and simplistic, but break down under the most basic analysis. The attacks are usually based on four arguments, that something cannot come from nothing, that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, and that God created the earth in 6 days at 4000 BC therefore evolution is impossible, and that evolution is just a theory that cannot be proven.

Many creationists are quick to point out a fundamental law of biology, that life cannot come from non- life in earth's current environment. In other words, maggots cannot come from rotten meat, they must come from flies. They are very quick to forget the last part of the law, the part that says the law is only true in earth's current environment. When life first came about around 3.9 billion years ago the earth was far different then it is now. There was plenty of heat to be a catalyst, a large part of the atmosphere was hydrogen, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, and there were constant lightning strikes. Scientists in the 1960's carried out an experiment where they emulated the early environment of earth at the time, their result was the creation of amino acids, a fundamental building block of proteins and extremely complicated. While many would say that life was not created in the experiment, it is important to note that the experiment lasted about 40 minutes and was in a tiny flask. The entire earth was in this state for over a billion years. Depressing as it is to think, life is not very special. Crystals also can reproduce themselves, thousands of chemicals create energy by chemical conversion, life is nothing but a combination of properties found by other nonliving things. Actually, I would venture to say that buckyballs (C60) are about as complicated as early life and they are created by volcanoes. What is more complicated? A basic archaea bacterium or a large ball of hydrogen that counteracts compression pressures with an outward pressure derived from nuclear fusion with such precision that it is in hydrostatic equilibriam1.

Many say that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy can never be conserved in a closed system. This is coupled with the first law that states that entropy in a closed system can never go up. It can simplified for the purpose of this essay that order2 must always give way to chaos. Creationists say that evolution is in violation of this law because a bacteria evolving into a human counts as in increase in complexity. Once again, the creationists conveniently forget the other part of the law, the part that says it only holds true in a closed system. To even attempt to make the argument that the earth is a closed system is laugh inducing. The definition of a closed system is a system where no energy or matter comes in or out. The earth does not fit this definition because of the constant barrage of energy constantly sent at us from the sun, the constant influx of cosmic rays, to say nothing of asteroids. They also say that even if the earth is not a closed system, the universe is3. Even then, there is no violation. This is comparable to saying that building a car from raw ore violates the second law, but it does not because of all the waste that is created in the building of that car. Moreover, when you think about it, wouldn't god creating the whole universe as it is now out of nothing in 6 days constitute a violation of the second law?

The most laughable argument is that the world was created in 6 days 4000 BC. This goes in the face of uranium-lead dating which shows the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, potassium-argon and fossil evidence showing life has been around since at least 3.5 billion years with genetic evidence furthering that back to 3.9 billion. Even if you do not trust radioactive dating or fossils, then there is still one fact that cannot be argued. That is that we have detected light from a source 13.5 billion light years away. Since light travels at c that means that in order for the light to have reached us the universe would have to be at least 13.5 billion years old. Some creationists have responded by saying that the speed of light has decreased according to a y=1/x curve. That would be great because then our scientist's ultra precise instruments could detect the decrease. They then respond by saying that it conveniently stops decreasing right before we invent the equipment to detect this drop. This argument looks consistent if not a bit contrived until you remember what the speed of light is. The speed of light isn’t a arbitrary constant, the speed of light was discovered by Maxwell (before light was supposed to stop slowing down) to equal 1/the square root of the sum of the permeability of free space and the permittivity of free space (both are other constants). 4 in order for their theory to be true then those two constants must change with light. If these two constants changed by even one percent then electrons would not be able to orbit atoms, nucleons would be unable to hold together. The conditions required for life or even inanimate matter simply would not be present. And to quote the fundamental postulate of relativity: the speed of light is constant in any time or spatial frames.

The argument that is arguably the most idiotic and ignorant argument is that evolution is just theory, not a fact. To anyone familiar with science this sentence would be a hallmark of scientific illiteracy. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works and what a theory is. In science there are no facts, just hypothesis’s that fit the observations. When writing a paper on electrodynamics, I cannot put that my experiment proved gauss’s law, I instead put that my experimental observations are in concordance with gauss’s law. The idea that the earth goes around the sun is a theory, as the earth being round. These are idea’s that have also been opposed by religion at some point in history, one step at a time I suppose.

One might question why the creationists who question evolution do so in face of established science. The reason why is because these people's god only exists in the gaps of science, and they want to keep those gaps wide. This god of the gaps was created in ancient times when religion was necessary to explain why it rained, why there were stars in the sky, why people got sick, and how to treat disease. Back then the gaps were very large. Now we have science and can understand most of the universe, the gaps have shrunk considerably. However, there will probably always be gaps in the understanding of existence. Nevertheless, as long as there are scientists the gaps will always shrink. this is exemplified in the 1950's when we knew atomic structure but realized that a nucleus of protons would repel with no force to counteract the repulsion, but in order for a nucleon to be stable there must be something to stop the protons from flying apart. The creationists jumped on this gap by saying that god used his sheer will in order to hold a nucleon together, and brought up biblical verses to back it up5. Of course, this gap like all other gaps was closed. In the 70's, the strong force of nature was discovered to emanate from the constituent quarks of protons and neutrons that overcame the protons electrostatic attraction, a couple years later scientists worked out a field theory to explain its behavior. The creationists who believe in the god of the gap look at science as a direct attack on there faith, they feel more comfortable in a universe that is simple. Sadly the universe never will conform to our simplistic expectations of coherency. May their god of the gaps always shrink.

FOOTNOTES

One: these complicated forms of energetic hydrostatic equilibrium are otherwise known as stars. Two: order is known in thermodynamics as complexity

Three: the idea that the universe is a closed system is debatable because of increased evidence of Rosen-Einstein bridges, essentially wormholes between different universes.

Four: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Overview for more information

Five: so apparently we overcame god’s will whenever we split an atom, thereby proving our superiority to god.

Mans Will to do evil

In order to stunt the influx of hate mail now I must say even though my name does sound British I am black (my middle name is west African anyway) so just keep that in mind as you write it.

As a further disclaimer I apologize to everyone whom I will surely offend in my endeavor to explain the course of the continuing slavery existing in the minds most of the African populace the world over. Keep in mind that I am not sorry for having said these things but sorry that whoever is offended has a mind narrow enough to be hurt by documented facts (as feeble an apology as that is). My only reason for writing this is to make someone, anyone more aware of reality as it stands, not as we would like it to be, or as we would like to see it, but now.

So without further adieu I will do my best to explain the psychological debilitation that was implemented during American-British slavery and more specifically by men such as William Lynch, from whom the word and Idea of Lynching is derived.

First off, I want to make it clear that England and the European Countries with whom it had relations did not Invent Slavery. Slavery Existed as far back as ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia –the two oldest human civilizations- even then slavery on a physical level was very prominent about a third of any given civilization’s population was slaves.

This insidious institution reached its pinnacle if measured by sheer volume in ancient Rome (The territories not the one City-State) when during the time of Spartacus’s Slave revolt nearly half of the population was comprised of forced Laborers i.e. slaves.

What makes the most recent stint of unspeakable inhumanity more evil and/or wrong than the others were, is a couple of things I would be happy to list. Listing in order from very wrong to egregious horrors for which an adequate punishment has yet to be devised.

1. The fact that In ancient civilizations there was no marked race prejudice only those who fought and lost were enslaved (fortunately there was a lot of fighting) for example the Romans and Egyptians did not feel that blacks whites or anyone else for that matter were inherently inferior to them. Admittedly, the Romans did feel this way about the Britons; this was because in comparison to other cultures they were primitive. The modern people Britain are mostly (Anglo) Saxons, who about 1500 years ago invaded and almost completely wiped out the then native Briton peoples and culture.

2. My second point is in regards to the method of Slavery, no other group of people that I know of has managed to so completely, utterly and remorselessly break and destroy the cultural mind and Psyche of one that they had enslaved. In fact, a major tenet of our enslavement was that at some point blacks who are going through the “breaking” process be thoroughly “crossbred” with whites to make sure all of our culture, history and whatever remaining oral knowledge was snuffed out. I will go into the details of the methods of our psychological breaking later.

3. The last point I have to make, the point that sums up how despicable and evil slavery was in its latest incarnation is the cause of the civil war. When I say this, I refer to the major industrialization of the north a time a time during which southern confederates rejected the notion of automation. They did not reject machinery -an alternative that was cheaper more efficient and all together a morally and economically responsible decision- for any reason other than the fact that it was not a practice devoted to human suffering. This is the fact really made southern confederate slavery abhorrent in comparison to all other incarnations of an already insidious institution, what made them unlike the peoples of antiquity. To be honest ancient civilizations at the very least had passable reasoning (not excuses) for still allowing slavery like not having the resources needed to abolish the practice or not being able to survive without it, they didn’t have machines that we use to fill positions human self preservation instincts didn’t let themselves to. The confederates on the other hand simply continued slavery to spite the north and perpetuate one of the worst forms of suffering imaginable.

Earlier in this Essay I referred to slavery on a physical level, in order to explain myself I will use this part of the essay to explain the methods of psychological enslavement still fully in effect most of the Black population (at least 85 percent on a conservative estimate).

During the year 1712 at the banks of the James River in the Colony of Virginia, a man named William Lynch stood on a podium and spoke. What he spoke on was the method used for removing the will to escape found in any Africans brought into forced labor. He proposed a method that would be self-perpetuating, in fact he assumed (and was correct in said assumption) that his plan would be effective for at least three-hundred years possibly thousands. Whether he knew, it or not he outlined the basic vulnerabilities existing within of the human psyche. He told the slave owners who had assembled to take small differences (intelligence, size, sex, age, tall hair, short hair, smooth hair, coarse hair, the amount of favor they had with the owners and skin tone) and point them out using an air of fear, distrust and envy turn the slaves against each other. Make them strike out at one another and they cannot strike at you as a group in so doing William Lynch crippled any society we could create afterward by making it so that unlike other people of the world we would hold contempt for the old and belittle children instead of the customary reverence and cherishment. William Lynch helped to make it so that in the presence of an intellectual the first impulse is to loathe rather than to learn, he helped to make it so that we are able to abandon a woman who was 8 months pregnant without a second thought. In fact, I have a chilling paragraph of his proposal right here “Don't forget you must pitch the OLD black Male vs. the YOUNG black Male, and the YOUNG black Male against the OLD black male. You must use the DARK skin slaves vs. the LIGHT skin slaves, and the LIGHT skin slaves vs. the DARK skin slaves. You must use the FEMALE vs. the MALE Moreover, the MALE vs. the FEMALE. You must also have you white servants and over- seers distrust all Blacks. But it is NECESSARY THAT YOUR SLAVES TRUST AND DEPEND ON US. THEY MUST LOVE, RESPECT AND TRUST ONLY US. Gentlemen, these kits are your keys to control. Use them. Have your wives and children use them, never miss an opportunity. IF USED INTENSELY FOR ONE YEAR, THE SLAVES THEMSELVES WILL REMAIN PERPETUALLY DISTRUSTFUL. Thank you gentlemen.”

I warn anyone who reads the next part of this paper that it isn’t for the faint of heart it deals with cruelty and violence in a sadistic and cruel manner

Hard as it may be to believe, the last paragraph showed only a single weapon in this man’s arsenal, in this paragraph I would be detailing the human psychological breakage that made Willie’s plans effective. First, I want you to know that there will be wanton use of euphemisms in this part of the essay, in this paragraph Willie equates the breaking process of a Horse to that a slave*. What is said in this part of the man’s speech is that both horse and slave* are of no use to the U.S economy in their natural state and must be broken and tied paying special attention to Women and children. After that sentence there is this one “Both must be CROSSBRED to produce a variety and division of labor” I only hope that that sentence has a completely different meaning than the one I interoperate it to be. But I digress, what I want to get to is the fact that during this part of the speech special emphasis is placed on damaging a female slave*. Using this process she would eviscerate her own child’s psyche and actually offer him/her up to the slave-owner once they are old enough to work. This was because the object of the process was also to damage her maternal instinct. Moving on to the why and how the first step of this method is one that sickens me to go into detail on so I will simply cut and paste it here.

“When it comes to breaking the uncivilized African*, use the same process, but vary the degree and step up the pressure, so as to do a complete reversal of the mind. Take the meanest and most restless African*, strip him of his clothes in front of the remaining male African*, the female, and the African* infant, tar and feather him, tie each leg to a different horse faced in opposite directions, set him a fire and beat both horses to pull him apart in front of the remaining African*. The next step is to take a bullwhip and beat the remaining African* male to the point of death, in front of the female and the infant. Don't kill him, but PUT THE FEAR OF GOD IN HIM, for he can be useful for future breeding.”

This was not the true depth of this mans sickness, William Lynch –hereafter referred to as “Willie”- suggested encroaching on any residual free will or resistance that was left in the Woman and if there was any he instructed everyone assembled to beat her with a bullwhip and repeat as needed. After this traumatizing process, Willie theorized that the African female would be frozen in a reversed psychologically fearful state in which she trains her children to fit extreme and reversed roles. What I mean by this is that under regular circumstances both a man and woman are able to function reasonably well in an independent state and after some sort of union we are biologically predisposed to take up some vague roles one partner becomes dependent and the other independent. Unless harsh circumstances force both of them, be independent. Up until recently, the male would usually be independent one and the female the dependent, of course the roles are not absolute in fact they function because they are flexible (evolution 101 adaptability or death). Of course, our mothers are usually the ones who teach us how to fill these roles. In the Case of the severe trauma induced by the slave owner onto a/the slave woman, she raises her son to be rigidly dependent (mentally). This is because after seeing two men (one presumably being her husband) killed in an especially brutal fashion she now (sub) consciously fears for her sons life. Any mother who witnesses this public torture will be under the same affliction I.E raising her children in (rigid) reversed roles making her son incredibly weak and dependent mentally while making her daughter very independent (as stated above the slave owner bends this nature to his own twisted means).

The most effective means of enslavement used at the time was to keep slaves stupid (to put it bluntly). When I say this I mean besides the obvious lack of formal education there was A controlled language system in place. I am referring to the roots of Ebonics; not only was it in itself a means of enslavement, but it was a way to ensure the other forms of enslavement were fully effective. I feel that William Lynch himself put the reasons for this best “You know language is a peculiar institution. It leads to the heart of a people. The more a foreigner knows about the language of another country the more he is able to move through all levels of that society. Therefore, if the foreigner is an enemy of the country, to the extent that he knows the body of the language, to that extent is the country vulnerable to attack or invasion of a foreign culture”. This explains why white southern slave-owners took great pains to eradicate all slaves “mother tongue” keeping it meant that a slave would have a cultural or historical tie (almost like an inherited memory) to a time before enslavement which wasn’t useful if you wanted to make sure all thoughts of freedom were erased from someone’s mind . A reason for implanting the Ebonics system of speech was to make sure that a slave was inarticulate and had a rudimentary understanding of language; once he did, it was possible to fool him into anything for the slave-owners pleasure. This would make sure that any attempt at organization would be crippled to say the least making escape nigh on impossible due to the fact that with impaired speech it was nearly impossible to move through society as needed (without help and lots of it). If a slave had a complete mastery over the same language as his slave-owner he knew much more than was convenient for the slave-owner, he knew that a command to work harder in getting “our” crops meant “my” crops. Small things like that were what made the difference between continued slavery and a well-organized escape plot (or worse).

Well this is the last part of the essay dealing with method of slavery and this will be the hardest part to explain enslavement through clergy, it was the number one tool used to encourage “any” group of people to roll over and fully accept injustice. Whether or not it is possible, for an entire belief system to been conceived in malice I am not sure, and I don’t care. What I do know is that since any religion was started regardless of any sincerity held by its founders (real or imagined) was used by the upper echelons of any society to convince the poor (Proletariat if you will) that the bottom is exactly where they belonged. The three major religions on the western hemisphere Christianity, Islam, Judaism (regardless of their denominations) were/are essentially a means of distracting the populace with the notion that even though this life is horrible the next one (in heaven) is going to be absolutely great and last forever. All they had to do was pledge their allegiance to some faceless ruler. As added insurance this faceless ruler used religion to completely placate the subjects of a ruling body by instilling in them the notion that if they began to demand social reform they would be sinners (or some other relevant synonym) and would go to some sort hell. These major tenets are common to (nearly) all religions; Hinduism has social castes wherein those who are higher up have an underlined disdain for those beneath them, effectively dividing up society so that they can work in a somewhat unified manner (despite their mutual underlined hatred) up until it is profitable for the higher-ups. Buddhism does not go so far as to threaten its followers, but the idea that any social upheaval would require actions that would have them stray from the path to enlightenment (anatta; the absence of a substantial self. And Nirvana; (Sanskrit) meaning extinguishment) is usually enough. Note the qualifier usually in the last sentence, I refer to the recent string (last 50 years) of Rebellion and riot in Tibet against China where monks and the populace at large took up arms against their Chinese oppressors (with the blessings of (his holiness?) the Dalai Llama).

The problem with converting another people to your religion is one that is best explained through another arduous history lesson and journey through the human mind. To start with, I want to get it out of the way the humans (myself included) tend to be pitiful creatures. When proto humans began thinking in any sense that could be considered sentient, they began to create belief systems. These systems although rudimentary were indicators that we as a species had evolved to a point where we (our brains) could accommodate an expanded view of the world i.e. imagination. This meant that we were able to see not only what was there in front of us but what we thought should and could be there. Of course all belief systems were/are also meant to serve as a coping mechanism, lets suppose that you’re an early human in northern African watching a sunset from the top of a cliff or standing on the beach of the Mediterranean somewhere in Tuscany and you don’t know that the sun is a star which is burning billions of tons of hydrogen a second and you look out into an expanse seemingly never-ending, looking at it and everything else you cant see how all of what is got here into this arrangement without help from someone or thing that was obviously working toward the grand crescendo of you and indeed everything in creation that you can see. To you the notion that there are unseen forces the likes of which act outside of your influence and weren’t just made up inside your head (like your belief system) is preposterous, the idea that these forces could work over time to arrange all of everything that is, ever has been and ever will be by chance is only more ludicrous. Those Ideas are counter intuitive to our limited perceptions, they fly in the face of common logic, unless taken under context that context being thousands of years (roughly 7000 BC the birth of the first 2 human civilizations) of scientific study and accumulation (not just science in the traditional sense either up until recently philosophy and science stood as the same thing). Of course early man did not have such a context to draw from so instead he did his best to refine what little and superficial understanding he had of his world that later evolved into organized religion

Now If I’ve managed to sorely confuse some of you I can I’d like to say sorry, I’ll do that by following through. I did this to make you the reader aware of our intense narcissism and conceit when we made gods and spirits we imagined them as being mirrors of our own behavior, testaments to our own grandeur our gods were and are glorified versions of ourselves. Therein lies the essential problem with one people submitting to the religion of another our gods and deities were made to vilify outsiders and glorify our own respective cultures. This is what makes it possible for narcissistic little humans to submit to the perceived will of a faceless deity and say “you are better than me in every conceivable way” its really just a collective pat on the back. If you just accept another people’s religion you make the ultimate and most complete admission of slavery you accept that they are on the whole better than you could ever hope to be.

I hope I have cleared up some things for some people I’ll be expanding on this essay later but for now this is what you get.

If you actually made it this far thanks for reading (even If you are incensed now) goodbye and GOOD DAY.

About the Ebola Epidemic

By Vadim

I want to congradulate CNN for finally putting some train of thought into what they are doing. They ignored all the anarchy and paranoia that would be caused by the general public, and released some form of information about the dreaded Ebolia virus. It's a fatal hemorrhagic fever in which you end up dying from massive blood loss. Another added fact, you die bleeding out of your recton as your internal organs liquify into a pile of black stuff.
CNN reported that over 253 people have died of Ebola, and that they are confident on tracking others who had some form of contact with infected victims down. You have to remember that if one of these people who had some association with the infected boards an airplane, and travels across the sea to the United States, the world practically ends there. Anarchy and confusion break out, dead bodies everywhere, and meanwhile good 'ol Bush is sitting there blissfully pretending that America (likewise the wolrd), is NOT in a states of emergecy. God bless you Mister President, for putting millions of lives in grave danger where you bleed out your ass. America, what did you do to deserve this fate?
Continuing on, the World Health Organization assured that this virus will not spread far. Can we trust their world? Hell no. This is old news to the WHO. CNN just gave us news that was two weeks old. Now, Ebola is spreading like genital warts at an 18-year old Catholic virgin's first unsupervised party. The numbers have probably reached thousands by now, and CNN is doing their best not to let people know that. What the hell are they thinking not giving us the latest news?! Well, I'm done ranting now. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to the North pole to live a happy disease-free live.

Ago Porro Quod Bonus Fortuna Es Plures Obstaculum

For those just getting back from work and school, Benedict the XVI⁶ is the new pope. Instead of focusing on his past, let us instead propose a look at the future and the hurdles the Catholic Church must overcome, and the reforms necessary for the Catholic Church to exist in our modern society. Current catholic dogma currently ranges from questionable, such as celibacy for priests, to downright cruel, in the case of the forbidding of condom use among AIDS patients. The pope has nearly unlimited power to modify catholic dogma as he pleases (a power known as papal infallibility⁷), so there is no reason why he cannot make these reforms. While the number of reforms needed might qualify the need for a third Vatican council, the most urgent reform needed is the rewriting of the Humanae Vitae.

The Humanae Vitae was written by Pope Paul the VI in 1968, it continues to be one of the most controversial and most widely disobeyed document of Catholicism. In this document details the Catholic Churches position on abortion and birth control. It states that barrier or chemical based birth control is forbidden in every possible situation, and sexual abstinence and the rhythm method (having intercourse at a time in the woman’s menstrual cycle that would make conception unlikely) can be used in cases of dire emergency after consultation with your local priest(though it is to be avoided if possible). This is effectively a blanket ban with no exceptions. The implications of this are staggering, especially when considering that a significant portion of Africa is catholic. It is actually official church policy to tell Africans that if they have AIDs and use a condom during intercourse with there wife they will go to hell. they have lied about the effectiveness of condoms and have disseminated mistruths such as “that latex is riddled with millions of invisible holes which allow the HIV virus to pass through.”⁴ This policy has probably been responsible for a large number of HIV infections throughout Africa and needless deaths, to say nothing of how it is fundamentally evil.

The Humanae Vitae also talks about abortion. It states that any abortion under any possible circumstance is not allowed. This includes morning after pills and first trimester abortions¹. this blanket ban also holds in situations of incest, or even when the delivering of pregnancy would result in certain death for the mother(and in cases where not only would she die but the child would probably not make it).this stance on abortion is out of synch even with other religions, let alone the laws of developed nations. Judaism, Protestantism², Islam, and even Mormonism accept abortion in cases of medical necessity and extreme circumstances. While nobody would suggest the Catholic Church to rescind there ban on abortion, they are somewhat obligated as the policy trendsetter of the world to choose a abortion policy that is somewhat more humane, at the very least allowing of abortion in the case of medical necessity.

Because of the prevalence of Catholicism in the third world, they have a moral responsibility to change The Humanae Vitae. Its policies are now cruel and have no place in a 21^st century society. It is hard to justify telling a destitute mother of six in Brazil she cannot use birth control, even more so forbidding condom use for a Masai couple in Kenya where one partner has AIDs. The Pope serves as the head of state for over a billion people in every nation. He wields more power then any other man in the world. His actions and policies affect the workings of every nation in existence. Because of this he must consider the worldwide consequences of his actions instead of worrying himself only of theological matters. Gone are the days where the pope’s only considerations for policy were the gospels. It is his responsibility to make sure that his policies do not help to stimulate millions of needless death and billions worth of damage⁵, and to consider the long term viability of his policies for the general good of humanity, catholic or not.

FOOTNOTES

1: A little known fact is that this is in conflict with previous church dogma, which stated that abortion before animation (the 40^th day of pregnancy) was only allowed (this is because they believed the fetus did not receive a soul until animation)

Two: there is no actual unified protestant church, so actual belief varies, the majority of congregations accept it however

Three: Other concerns need to be addressed, but they are more complicated and must be done in the long term. The foremost amongst them is the need to forge further ties with his fellow religions. While the previous pope has made much progress with Catholic-Jewish relations, and some work on relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church, much work remains to be done. In particular, the new pope must foster relations with Islam, for the simple and obvious reasons. The Pope must also acknowledge the problem of overpopulation and attempt to do something about it.

4: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm

5: AIDs for example

Six: formally Bishop Joseph Ratzinger

Seven: this is admittedly an oversimplification, while he could easily change most matters, some matters would require the forming of a third Vatican council, though not necessarily a bad idea. For more information visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Rumors Of Our Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated

If you listen to pundits then America is going downhill. Apparently, America’s hegemony over world politics and world economics is to collapse in the face of competition from the likes of China, India, and The EU. This has mostly been spurred by the economic success of china and India, the political success of the EU, and the recent economic recession. These claims are the result of oversimplification and logical fallacy.

A blow to pundits would be that America has failed to turn red, Japanese, British, anarchist, hippy, or German as they have said in the past. To understand why the American hegemony over the world is here to stay, we must look at why it has persisted for so long. The world failed to turn red because the USA free market system is efficient, fast, and flexible. The USSR however was corrupt, inefficient, and slow to respond. This led to the eventual stagnation and deterioration of the USSR's economy in response to technological innovation.

In the 70 and 80, Japan seemed posed to become the economic leader of the world. There economy was booming, they had one of the largest trade surpluses in world history, there products were out-performing and out-selling American counterparts, and they were buying real estate all around America. Unfortunately for Japan, in the late 80’s there was a banking crisis, America bailed out the banks, Japan did not. The Japanese economy then tanked (this is admittedly an oversimplification; the collapse of the Japanese economy is far more complicated). This incident is just a manifestation of a different philosophy in Japan then in America. The Japanese government acts in the regulatory influence of consumers, the American government acts in the interest of corporations. Before this is denounced as left-wing propaganda, it is mentionable that this is not necessarily a bad thing, what is good for a corporation is usually good for the economy and therefore good for constituents. Japanese consumer-centralism is illustrated by a recent occurrence where Japan raided Sony’s headquarters for price gouging on cell phone ring tones. This would never happen in America. America might have anti-trust laws, however it is important to remember that in America we only prosecute companies that use unfair practices against other companies (This is not bad either, as it benefits the economy and “a raising tide raises all ships”). Japanese consumer-centralism helps the consumers, but is not fit for economic hegemony, this is because being consumer-centric hinders corporate and economic growth.

India has been rising fast, they now have the fourth largest GDP in the world, are a declared nuclear power, and possess one of the fastest growing economies in the world. They are infamous for being the biggest recipient of outsourcing in the world. This has lead many to believe India is going to cause the economic collapse of the American economy. There are however cracks in the Indian machine, a simple look at there economy shows that they have a rapidly rising population that puts a damper on economic growth. They have a problem with AIDS that is probably going to rise to epidemic levels and incur huge costs on there economy. There shaky relations with Pakistan and china, along with there warm relations with Israel will put them at risk in the future from terrorism and war. As India’s GDP per capita increases the world will lose incentive to outsource to India, this is because their economic advantage relies on their supply of low-wage workers. Furthermore they will encounter many hurdles developing there entire country and uplifting there entire population out of poverty, as 60% of there population works on a sector of the economy that is only 15% of the GDP (agriculture).

The EU is a Supranational Organization that governs over the nations of Europe. They have recently drafted their constitution and are considered the most powerful supranational organization in the world. The EU has a common currency, a common defense force, a parliament, and may possibly get a UN Security Council seat. Many say that they are on the road to become a federalist state, a United States of Europe if you will. If the EU were to become a nation would have the largest GDP in the world (though not the highest GDP per capita), and one of the largest militaries in the world. It is important to note that they might not ever become a state, as increased opposition from so-called Euro skeptics takes hold in France, Great Britain, and Ireland. This is unlikely however, and most agree that there will be a steady strengthening in the EU in the future. The EU possesses no threat however to American hegemony. They fall susceptible to the same problem as Japan, except worse so. Because of the short terms of European Governments (two years), they are faced with the problem of an electorate that is too powerful. This is exemplified as European governments pull their troops out of Iraq. Another example of the powerful electorate occurred when France attempted to ease labor regulations; this was responded by a nationwide strike of government workers, essentially shutting down the country. Their strike worked and France pulled back. This was attempted in the early 80's in America, Reagan proceeded to fire them all and bar them from government jobs. A powerful electorate and more active media creates a powerful consumer-centralism in Europe that makes them incompatible for economic and political hegemony, this is because a overpowered electorate doesn't allow for unpopular wars and restrains their corporations.

Everyone says China is going to take over the world. Not only are they a nuclear power, but they have the largest population in the world. They own most of the debt of the USA, and have a large income steam from outsourcing. They invest heavily in there military and have one of the largest militaries in the world. They seem like an unstoppable giant, with record GDP growth and unbelievable market competitiveness. They do not have a problem with an over powerful electorate as Europe does, as they have no electorate. They do not fall victim to the problem of India, as since they are not a democracy, then they do not have to waste resources to increase standards of living for over one billion people. There is however one kink in the there armor. There population will age tremendously over the next 15 years due to their one child policy. Even if china cuts off there social security program, then they still face the problem of rapidly decreasing productivity and health costs, not to mention insurrection. This shock is enough to land a blow to the Chinese economy to stop there meteoric rise.

In conclusion, the US political and economic hegemony is here to stay. Our military has a larger budget then every other country in the world combined (while still keeping at only about 4% of GDP). While many would point out our debt, it is notable that out debt is only about 65% of our GDP, if this is compared to other countries such as Japan, which have over 95% of there GDP as debt. There however is a deeper innate reason for continued US dominance. This is because of corporate-centrism and particular mix of free market economics and light regulations. It is also because of the long terms of our politicians (4 years for president, and six for senate). America also possesses the general tendency not to care about their electorate in the short term, this is illustrated historically by unpopular wars such as the Vietnam War and World War II, and more recently by Operation Iraqi Freedom, and this allows America to metaphorically "bite the bullet". There willingness to kill civilians and aggressiveness to attack all threats gives them the necessary ability to preserve there hegemony. It is not necessarily true that these traits are in the best interests of the average American, but that is up to debate. Regardless of whether this is good or not, these traits are necessary if America is to keep ruling the world. Moreover, it looks as though they will rule it for a very long time.

Zoe Project

Imagine an organic device, called a Zoe Implant, placed into your brain at birth. From that time forward, everything you see, everything you hear, is recorded from you're point of view. Every second of every minute until your death. Then, it is extracted and given to a Cutter. They look through it and select the most precious moments, which are played as a movie in your funeral. Now imagine it from the place of the Cutter. To see what other's see. Their most private moments to their saddest ones and happiest ones. I wish I could have thought of it sooner. This is a movie, The Final Cut. But, what you must ask yourself is this: What is your life but a series of memories? Is the only way to have existed is to have people remember you? When the people one knows now pass, who will remember? How can one gain immortality? We have to be remembered, but what is the purpose? What then, is the meaning of life? The purpose of living? Are we puppets? Are we just animals? If we just die and that's it, why have morals? Laws? Shouldn't one enjoy life to the fullest before it's over? Or is there something beyond death? Someone more? The belief that there is Something more, carries me forward and shapes my trivial decisions, as I live on a speck of cosmic dust in the outer reaches of one of uncountable galaxies. And yet, I matter.
-Jack Twain

The Principal Agent Problem

Yesterday Kofi Annan gave a presentation on reform on the UN. Instead of Fox airing live coverage of Kofi Annan’s speech, what aired was a woman with her parents and about how Barry Bonds Girlfriend said he takes steroids. It can be assumed that the readership of this website cares more about Terri Schiavo than UN reform, so for this essay, I will weigh in on Terri Schiavo instead of UN reform.

Why is this in the senate, house, and our federal courts? Are we to believe that our government has nothing better to do then save the life a nearly dead woman? What about all our troops that die in Iraq because of the lack of armor, the thousands who die waiting for organs, the homeless and drug addicts who die everyday, those who die because they have no health insurance? Progress on all of these fronts has been denied. However, The US government will save a nearly brain dead woman. Why is it that saving the life of one gives more political capital then saving the lives of thousands? Is it not it odd that social conservatives who are so outspoken about Euthanasia will accept capital punishment?

The media serves the economic and political purpose of educating consumers in order to prevent the principle agent problem. The principal agent problem is an example of market failure that occurs when there is an asymmetry in distribution of information. The purpose of the media is to make obscure and important economic and political news available to everyone. Without an effective media, there can be no functioning free market economy and by extension, no functioning democracy.

Wisdom

A word to the wise:
Have you ever noticed how most products are aimed to save you time, yet we have no time to do anything?

Today consists of two parts: Reaping what you planted yesterday and sowing for tomorrow. That's life.

Hakuna Matata.

When you see the dessert, stretching farther than the eye can see, do you feel like a grain of sand? Nay, you are more than a collection of atoms.

Don't sacrifice everything to be happy. Happiness is not life. Why gain everything you want, and lose what you need?
-Jack Twain

Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment:

It’s Dead Wrong!

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” thus reads the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately, the United States violated this Amendment 855 times in the last twenty-eight years (Bonzcar and Snell). The Supreme Court has been debating the issue of capital punishment for an entire century. Many people refer to capital punishment as “an eye for an eye.” Today, the ‘eye for an eye’ theory has been applied by people who have misinterpreted it to their own advantage” (Death Penalty). In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States of America abolished the death penalty saying that it was “unconstitutional for the State to execute a human being.” However, in 1976, the Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment as a legal penalty for criminals. There are many forms of execution in the United States. Among them are lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gases, firing squads, and even hanging. Lethal injection is predominant among these barbaric rituals, accounting for 718 executions (Bonzcar and Snell).

Attempts to “improve” capital punishment through the legislation have failed. In 1998, Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, prepared a Capital Punishment Bill. “[It is] so carefully written that it only guarantees only the guilty are executed,” he said. This bill supposedly limited capital punishment to the “worst of the worst” crimes, such as murder, terrorism, and rape. However, this bill failed almost immediately (LeBlanc). Only elimination of the death penalty can improve it. Capital punishment should be abolished because there is a chance that an innocent person is killed, and it is cruel and unusual punishment, thus violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Abolition of capital punishment will solve all of these problems and lead to a better quality of life for all.
To read more go to http://capitalpunismentmatt.blogspot.com/

Effects of Capitalism

Julien:
About two nights ago, while I was staying in Orlando, I experienced a huge argument between two of my team mates and myself about Capitalism. I believe the topic originated from religion, and how it balances life with guidelines. I think I pointed out that businesses are usually more successful depending to their worship. Anyway, I had begun the subject by saying that capitalism was a weakening system. My teammate rebutted by saying it was not weakening, but on the contraire, that is was getting stronger; Pointing out a lot of very successful businesses. Let me just remind you that in order for those businesses to run and in order for their very rich bosses to get richer, they are the backbones of the business, being the minimum wage worker, which is placed there not because he is lazy, but just because the system keeps him there. Why does the System keep the minimum wage worker (or as I like to call it, manual laborer) where he is, despite the fact that they have to ride 10-20 miles of bus every day to get to their job? They usually live in very poor or lower middle class neighborhoods that were placed so far, purposely. (I will be getting to racism and Capitalism later on.)

They do not tend to have very good schooling, simply because so few teachers like to teach in those kinds of schools. And so, these hard working people who do as much work as a doctor does, get about $5.00 an hour while the rich owner, who got where they are, because they successfully grilled a hamburger and put it onto buns, gets about $100,000 to $60 billion. Now to me, that does not sound like improvement. Our capitalism today is also an effect of past wrong doings such as segregation, which has put many black people at the bottom and keeps them there, due to location and poor schooling.

I also pointed out what had happened to Overtown: A lush African American neighborhood that was destroyed because of the interstate. Not exactly a direct fault of capitalism, but proves how stupid our Constitution is, and how stupid our Senate is for not worrying about it, but instead about their large pay checks. If every one had somewhat the same paycheck, I am sure they would have thought different. Sure, the interstate brought prosperity, but it also ruined 20,000 lives. In fact, Overtown is a community with about 10,000 struggling people. I can name more communities across the tracks that are very poor as well. I Guess people living in their condominiums on Miami Beach do not really know that. Why didn't we have the interstate cross Miami Beach?

Let us move on to the effects of segregation in the US, and how that effects the segregated population. Lets start with landmark. Most cities in the United States were built during segregation, so white people usually live in the center of the city; The part of the city that was most prosperous with the best schools and businesses. The African Americans would usually live further from their jobs and would not be allowed to go to the best schools, white schools. Therefore, limiting their jobs, and since most black families are naturally poor, funding for college is rare, and if there is a free college, most of the time, they stay and work rather that spend 4 years in school.

Let us see, our economy has collapsed. Why is that? It is because the government is filled with
capitalist pigs that only care about their profits. I am sure a Socialist Senate would not have spent about a trillion dollars on Iraq if it came out of their pockets, and maybe then they would have paid more attention to the interstate over Overtown. So, capitalism did have an effect on that stupid decision.

These are just a few things that capitalism has done to our society, especially in keeping the lower class from ever rising. Only in some rare instances such as becoming a basketball player or inventing a new combination to put a patty on bread will you ever come up.

VIVA LA SVISSA

The Joy of Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons saved mankind. Yes, you read that correctly--nuclear weapons saved mankind. To clarify: without nuclear weapons, mankind would be doomed to endless poverty, war and environmental damage. While many have said nuclear weapons are the bane of mankind because of their destructive potential--the contrary is true: nuclear weapons saved mankind because of their destructive potential.

Nuclear Weapons are Peace

Before you discount this statement, consider that there has never been a war between nuclear powers. This is because a war between two nuclear powers would almost surely result in nuclear world war, which is undesired to both. Therefore, a conflict between nuclear powers must be resolved peacefully, through diplomacy. This holds true in practice, as well as in theory, as demonstrated by the different ways the United States dealt with North Korea and Iraq. North Korea had nuclear weapons while Iraq did not. History speaks for itself.

Without nuclear weapons, there would not have been a cold war. This might sound good until you realize what would replace it. Without nuclear weapons, the U.S. would not have bothered with the continuous flow of supplies by air to Berlin after Russia blockaded it in 1949. The U.S. would have simply declared war on Russia. If not for nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have directly attacked Russia instead of working through endless proxies and puppets during the Vietnam and Korean wars. The only thing that prevented this bloodshed was nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons forced the countries to question whether their territorial squabbles were more important than the well-being of humanity, fostering international cooperation and sowing the seeds of the EU and similar bodies.

Without this peace created by nuclear weapons, what would have happened to Mankind? We would not have our technology or high standard of living. We would never have discovered the damage pollution does to the environment. Most importantly, in 1974 scientists discovered that CFCs deplete the Ozone layer. That enormous discovery was made during a simulation of the Venusian atmosphere. If we were at war, we would not have assigned scientists to study the Venusian atmosphere and they would be working on bomb development instead. If we never discovered this, then we would not have banned CFCs in the Montreal conference, and the ozone layer would have been depleted causing most of the world's life to die of cancer. Thus, nuclear weapons could be thought of as a necessary evil.

No.1

*posted by julien*

by Michael Ventura

02/03/05 "ICH" - - No concept lies more firmly embedded in our national character than the notion that the USA is "No. 1," "the greatest." Our broadcast media are, in essence, continuous advertisements for the brand name "America Is No. 1." Any office seeker saying otherwise would be committing political suicide. In fact, anyone saying otherwise will be labeled "un-American." We're an "empire," ain't we? Sure we are. An empire without a manufacturing base. An empire that must borrow $2 billion a day from its competitors in order to function. Yet the delusion is ineradicable. We're No. 1. Well...this is the country you really live in:

* The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (the New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).
* The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
* Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).
* "The International Adult Literacy Survey...found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy Rifkin's superbly documented book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78).
* Our workers are so ignorant and lack so many basic skills that American businesses spend $30 billion a year on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). No wonder they relocate elsewhere!
* "The European Union leads the U.S. in...the number of science and engineering graduates; public research and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised" (The European Dream, p.70).
* "Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature" (The European Dream, p.70).
* Nevertheless, Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004).
* Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28 percent last year. Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56 percent, Indians 51 percent, South Koreans 28 percent (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore.
* The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. "The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less.
* "The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping.
* Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)
* "U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.
* Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).
* The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
* Women are 70 percent more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
* The leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country is murder (CNN, Dec. 14, 2004).
* "Of the 20 most developed countries in the world, the U.S. was dead last in the growth rate of total compensation to its workforce in the 1980s.... In the 1990s, the U.S. average compensation growth rate grew only slightly, at an annual rate of about 0.1 percent" (The European Dream, p.39). Yet Americans work longer hours per year than any other industrialized country, and get less vacation time.
* "Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S. companies" (The European Dream, p.66). "In a recent survey of the world's 50 best companies, conducted by Global Finance, all but one were European" (The European Dream, p.69).
* "Fourteen of the 20 largest commercial banks in the world today are European.... In the chemical industry, the European company BASF is the world's leader, and three of the top six players are European. In engineering and construction, three of the top five companies are European.... The two others are Japanese. Not a single American engineering and construction company is included among the world's top nine competitors. In food and consumer products, Nestlé and Unilever, two European giants, rank first and second, respectively, in the world. In the food and drugstore retail trade, two European companies...are first and second, and European companies make up five of the top ten. Only four U.S. companies are on the list" (The European Dream, p.68).
* The United States has lost 1.3 million jobs to China in the last decade (CNN, Jan. 12, 2005).
* U.S. employers eliminated 1 million jobs in 2004 (The Week, Jan. 14, 2005).
* Three million six hundred thousand Americans ran out of unemployment insurance last year; 1.8 million--one in five--unemployed workers are jobless for more than six months (NYT, Jan. 9, 2005).
* Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40 percent of our government debt. (That's why we talk nice to them.) "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture.
* Sometime in the next 10 years Brazil will probably pass the U.S. as the world's largest agricultural producer. Brazil is now the world's largest exporter of chickens, orange juice, sugar, coffee, and tobacco. Last year, Brazil passed the U.S. as the world's largest beef producer. As a result, while we bear record trade deficits, Brazil boasts a $30 billion trade surplus (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
* As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
* Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.
* One-third of all U.S. children are born out of wedlock. One-half of all U.S. children will live in a one-parent house (CNN, Dec. 10, 2004).
* "Americans are now spending more money on gambling than on movies, videos, DVDs, music, and books combined" (The European Dream, p.28).
* "Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32).
* Forty-three percent of Americans think torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004).
* "Nearly 900,000 children were abused or neglected in 2002, the last year for which such data are available" (USA Today, Dec. 21, 2004).
* "The International Association of Chiefs of Police said that cuts by the [Bush] administration in federal aid to local police agencies have left the nation more vulnerable than ever" (USA Today, Nov. 17, 2004).


No. 1? In most important categories we're not even in the Top 10 anymore. Not even close.

The USA is "No. 1" in nothing but weaponry, consumer spending, debt, and delusion.

Social Security

You may have heard of the new republican proposal for privatizing social security, the basic idea is supposed to be that the private sector works better than the public one, so privatizing social security is a grand ideal. Like many a grand ideal however, the devil is in the details. The following is a point-by-point rebuttal of the GOP website on their proposal (found here).

"Personal retirement accounts offer younger workers the opportunity to receive higher benefits than the current system can afford to pay, and build a "nest egg" for retirement that the government cannot take away. Personal retirement accounts provide ownership and control, and can be passed on to loved ones."

This is true in principle however, reality differs significantly. nearly every calculation of benefits from the privatization plan would cause a decrease in benefits, the only way there would be a increase in benefits is if the government borrowed much more then the 2 trillion+ already proposed. not to mention I would prefer the threat of the government taking my social security then risk my entire retirement fund if there’s a single economic depression in the 55+ years I am in the workforce. While this might be a pet peeve, recent government expansion of power to exercise eminent domain (see Kelo et al. vs. City of New London) and increased ability to seize and freeze assets makes the idea that the government cannot take the money away laughable.

"Personal retirement accounts would start gradually. Early contribution limits would be raised over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside 4 percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts. "

Wait don’t people already pay 4 percent of payroll taxes to social security anyway, oh wait I get it, if you make the program optional then only the rich with the highest income and therefore highest payroll taxes(and not to mention the highest return) will put there money in it, giving them tax free investment.

"Personal retirement accounts would be voluntary. Those who do not opt for a personal retirement account would continue to draw benefits from the traditional Social Security system, reformed to be permanently sustainable. The system of personal retirement accounts would be similar to the Federal employee retirement program, known as the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Contributions would be collected and records maintained by a central administrator”.

Reformed to be permanently sustainable? It would be great if they were more specific. If we make social security optional then the only who will opt out will be the rich. The rich would either put money into the private accounts or opt out of both because they have enough money to pay for there own retirement.

Keeping the old system available is a clever trick however, as it would increase support for the privatization of social security. Whether it exists or not the system would be dead soon anyway. The opting out of the program by the rich would change the system from a popular insurance program to an unpopular welfare program with a large tax burden on the middle class.

“Personal retirement accounts would be invested in a mix of conservative bond and stock funds. Workers would be permitted to allocate their personal retirement account contributions among a small number of very broadly diversified index funds patterned after the current TSP funds.”

Investment in bond funds? Is that not that exactly what our current social security system does? Diversified index funds are the safest bet if you are going to go with the stock market, however there is no data of how they perform and there rate of return over the course of 55+ years. A single economic depression could destroy 90% of an index fund, while we have not had a depression in 60 years, over the course of 55 years it is only reasonable to assume one will occur.

“Personal retirement accounts would be protected from sudden market swings on the eve of retirement. To protect workers as they near retirement, personal retirement accounts would be automatically invested in the "life cycle portfolio" when a worker reaches age 47, unless the worker and his or her spouse specifically opted out by signing a waiver form stating they are aware of the risks involved. The life cycle portfolio would gradually shift the allocation of investments as the individual neared retirement so that it was weighted more heavily toward low-risk bonds.”

Wait, what if the person turns 47 during a stock market recession, wouldn’t that mean he/she would get far less money? As said earlier, if we invest it in low risk bonds, then we are simply mimicking the social security system, except it would be more inefficient.

“Personal retirement accounts would not be eaten up by hidden Wall Street fees. Personal retirement accounts would be low-cost. Most of the administrative fees, estimated at 30 basis points, would be for recordkeeping, which would be done by the government, not investment management done by Wall Street”.

Thirty basis points? It would be nice if they used clearer language, but that means .3%. While one could point out .3% is massive when you consider a 12 trillion dollar GDP, that is for another article. Let us get this strait; we will have the government collect tax dollars to create government-approved funds managed by the government with tax dollars? Is that not an expansion of the government, Wasn’t the purpose of this legislation to shrink government?

“Personal retirement accounts would not be accessible prior to retirement. Account holders would not be allowed to make withdrawals from, take loans from, or borrow against their accounts prior to retirement. “

So the government takes your money and effectively holds it hostage, without taking any responsibility for what happens to it?

“Personal retirement accounts could not be emptied out all at once, but rather would be paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits. Security procedures would be established to govern how account balances would be withdrawn at retirement.”

Once again, the government takes your money hostage with no guarantee that you will ever get it back. Moreover, if it is given in addition to social security benefits then there is no point! The benefits from money put into the privatization plan will not be greater than what is put in the old system, so why not just put the money into the old system. Doesn’t this mean that people who do not pay into the social security will still draw from it? This is solvent how?

The aforementioned writing proves that there is no point to privatizing social security. It will not increase benefits, will not make the system solvent, and will not shrink the government (in fact it would increase it). In fact it is in conflict with all ideologies. It violates conservative ideology because it would expand government and require massive borrowing in contradiction with there core belief in balanced budgets. It violates liberal philosophies because it involves losses in government control over pensions. It violates libertarian and free market ideologies because it involves massive government involvement in the free market. It does this because the creation of this plan would result in billions of government dollars funneled into certain indexes. In addition, the restriction of investment into certain indexes constitutes a major violation of free market ideologies by creating a government-sanctioned monopoly. In addition, it must be noted that massive government in a companies stocks would amount to partial subsidizing of the company that company. Therefore, it is in violation of every political ideology across the spectrum.

African-American Senator Dissatisfied By Democratic Leadership

By Gamal Jadue
The Democratic Party has always depended on different small groups. For example, Gays, Hispanics, etc… Those groups give the Democratic Party the strength to sustain on the elections. One of the most important groups they really depend on is the African-American one. Which has been its “ally” always.

A good example of this support is the support whowed by African-American in the 2000 election. 90% of African-Americans voted for the Democratic Candidate Al-Gore.

However, political scientists say there is an increasing dissatisfaction among African-Americans with the Democratic Party. More African-Americans are starting to change their status to Republicans or Independents.

In 2000, 74% percent of African-American identified themselves as Democrats, however in only two years that percentage fell eleven points. In 2002 only 63% of African-American identified themselves as Democrats. This poll was taken by Joint Center for Political Studies in Washington, D.C., a nonpartisan group that researches concerns of importance to minority groups.

While Africans-Americans that identify themselves as Democrats have decreased during 2000 and 2002. African-American that identify themselves as Republicans have increased. In 2000 4% of African-American identified themselves as Republicans, in two years that number grew up to 10%. This also occurred with the Independent side, from 20% in 2000, they went to 24% in 2002.

While population increases, the African-American importance in the elections increases, too. In every election that passes Democrats need more and more support. And as already stated most of its support come from minorities groups. So, as African-American population increases, they become a vital component on the elections. Democrats need the African-American support, at least so they don‘t get beat up so badly in the popular votes, as well as the electoral votes.

There are more than 15 million African-American registered voters. Total votes on the 2004 elections were more than 121 million. African-American represented 11% of total votes in the 2004 election. President George W. Bush got a total of 11% of African-American votes last election, he increased his support by African-American by two points.

In the 2004 elections Democratic Candidate Sen. John Kerry, decreased the support by African-American by two points comparing with 2000 elections. On the 2004 election 88% of African-American voted for John Kerry. Which means support to the Democratic party by African-American decreased by two points, even though we are not counting the fact that population increased.

Lately, relationship among African-American haven’t go too well. African-American still dissatisfied with Democratic treatment. Days after the November election, a half-dozen African-American state senators were trying to create a new position, so that Shirley K. Turner (D-Lawrence) could be promoted into the Democratic leadership.

However, the Democratic caucus rejected their efforts, and filled up the two spots with white men.

On the second week of January another conflict presented. Richard J. Codey had promised to make Nia M. Gill (D-Montclair) the chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee. However, this promise became another “lie” from the Democrats.

Codey broke his promise because Gov. James E. McGreevey suggested that it would be better if State Sen. John H. Adler (D-Cherry Hill) gets the position.
These issues started to create anger in the African-American Senators. Also they started to be unsure on how far they would get with the Democrat Party not wanting to give positions to African-Americans.

Turner, a African-American Senator said: “We're outnumbered and outgunned at every corner."

"For the vast majority, it's inside baseball," Turner added. "I don't think anybody really understands the way the power structure [in Trenton] really works."

African-American are now looking forward the upcoming budget to test McGreevey. Rebovich said African-American could be helped in two ways: By helping African-Americans legislators secure money for their districts, and by including them more directly in the process.

However, the conclusion is yet to be seen at the 2008 national elections. The question will be if support by African-Americans will still decrease for the Democratic party, meanwhile it increase for the Republican party. As for my point of view, I do thing that treatment among Democrats and African-Americans is going from good to bad. And, it will slowly decrease, and it will decrease by next election.

Gamal Jadue can be reached at gajaza8@hotmail.com.

Outsourcing jobs is the most effective foreign aid

Right now, there is an unseen war that we are moving into, one barely covered by the media. This is "the war on poverty", a phrase eerily reminiscent of a Lyndon Johnson campaign pitch. This may sound surprising, but the evidence of the upcoming war is ample. It starts with the swelling of foreign aid by nearly every country in the world. This is not only aid to the tsunami disaster, actually most of the growth has been to African countries. The intellectual circles have been wildly speculating about Africa and the war on poverty, and diplomats and intellectuals are arguing and discussing the best ways to do it. The methods differ greatly, from Colin Powel’s suggestion that "tough love" be given to corrupt and autocratic regimes on one end of the spectrum, to more moderate suggestions like increasing foreign aid budgets on the other side. These idea’s however are flawed, despite there popularity. These ideas are flawed because they do not reflect the true causes of the continued destituteness of third world. If we are really determined to help the world’s poor we must do things very unpopular. My proposal after much thought is as follows:

We must sign more free trade agreements. If we sign free trade agreements then we will buy more goods from them, giving third world country citizens an income and a job, which will allow them to pay for there children’s school. This breaks a cycle of poverty. It is historical precedent that after free trade agreements with nations, money flows from the richer country to the poorer country.

Allow and encourage the outsourcing of manual labor jobs that do not require education. There is historical precedent that outsourcing (when combined with free trade agreements) leads to the poor countries eventually becoming developed nations; Japan, America, and Canada became rich this way. Proof of this can be found in the quiet shift by corporations away from India and China to poorer countries like Laos and Vietnam, the reason is that Wages and benefits are rising rapidly in India and China as they become economic powers in there own right.

The destruction of our agricultural subsidies is also necessary for economic development of third world nations. If we allow fair competition then we will buy more from them, giving them more income.

The removal of a limit of H-1 visas issued per year. H-1 visas are visas for educated professionals where they can stay as long as they want; they are also given high opportunity for citizenship. If we admit poorer college professionals such as engineers or doctors to the USA then they will utilize their previously underutilized skills and probably send a chunk of there income to there family in there country of origin. This is illustrated by the fact that a significant percentage of the GDP of countries such as Cuba and Ethiopia are these kinds of monetary transactions

These four steps are among the most politically unpopular moves imaginable; however, they are necessary if we are to be serious about our upcoming war on poverty. Note that I am not actually advocating these measures, but simply stating that the failure to implement them will result in further poverty. There is no almost support for this, as the Democrats are against free trade, and republicans against repealing farm subsidies, there is universal hatred of outsourcing and against immigration. A partial implementation would do almost nothing, as the different measures need each other (outsourcing without free trade or no agricultural subsidies would destroy all the benefits of outsourcing).

China

China is a threat to national security. I know this sounds very protectionist. However, it is not China's manufacturing strength or the loss of jobs they are causing, no the problem with China is that they are a communist totalitarian police state. Many people have forgotten this about China. Yet despite this, countries and companies that should know better still throw trillions into China. China is using this for massive military expansion. While one might wonder whether this really matters because they have a right to defend themselves, however China's military expansion is dangerous for America in particular.

China is a totalitarian police state, as much as no country in the world wants to admit it. I only need to bring up that China is the only country in the world that has a nationwide firewall that blocks almost every website on the Internet. Nevertheless, if this not enough I can simply cite history, the 1989 Tian'anmen Square massacre where hundreds of students were killed just because they had a peaceful protest. I could cite the blood baths that occurred when they invaded Tibet, the massive human rights abuses that happened when they invaded Xinjiang, the infamous cultural revolution, and the time they FIRED ON AMERICAN TROOPS during the Korean war.

Companies poor trillions world wide into China because of their cheap labor prices and because they want to tap into the largest market in the world of 1 billion people. However, because of the nature of the Chinese government almost all this money goes to the Chinese government. How do they spend it? The people who blindly poor money into China claims it has used to raise standards of living. However, in reality a large chunk of this money is used for massive military expansion. They have put a man in space and are investing heavily in anti-satellite weapons. They have bought a large chunk of the former Soviet Union’s military, and are now one of the major military powers of the world.

China’s military expansion is dangerous to us in particular, because history shows that they will flex their growing muscles . Whether they use it against Vietnam, Japan, or the Philippines over the Spratly islands, they invade Taiwan, or they attack India (India and China hate each other more then India and Pakistan) does not matter. The point is that in every scenario the USA is involved and damaged.

If they invade Taiwan then the USA is bound by the Formosa act to come to their military aid, meaning that the USA and China will declare war on each other. The significance is that they are both nuclear powers, it would almost definitely cause WW3. Even if we do not help them, then we still sink into economic recession as a major trading partner is destroyed. A confrontation over the Spratly islands, the fifth largest source of oil in the world, would be similarly a disaster, as it would create a militarily insurgent Japan. The implications of this would hurt the USA in particular, as our economy relies on them. A war between India and China would be disastrous, as millions would die. And both countries are nuclear.

-David M. Shor

The Responce To The Letter

Hello David--
First of all, let me compliment you for your great thoughts and ideas. I am against 12mth school, I always looked forward to going to camp and getting away from the pressures of school. I agree, summer school should be for those that fail and need to get extra help.
I hope that the problems that you have mentioned concerning teachers is not county wide and I will be able to come out to each school in my district to observe. I have an open door policy now and that will be the permanent problem. I encourage you to let me know what your concerns are in the future and I will personally address them
Retention's should be done through the referral process--but they should be done in k and 1st grades. Third grade and above is too late.
My motto is to return the focus to the children and I feel that way everyday--
thank you, randy heimler

The Kyoto Protocol-Cowritten by David M. Shor and Nigel J. Franklin

The Kyoto protocols just went into effect a couple of days ago. If you do not know what they were then let me tell you, The Kyoto protocols are International regulations on greenhouse gas emissions(mostly CO2),CO2 (Carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas, and despite what some people tell you CO2 is mainly responsible for global warming. As you may also be aware, America did not sign the Kyoto protocol, an unabashed show of arrogance on their part to the entire world. The bush administrations arguments against signing are:

1. The treaty is unfair because china and India do not have to
Reduce emissions, making the system unfair.

2. Two: that America’s economy is fragile and that the regulations
Would hurt industry.

3. That the cure will kill the patient.

Allow us to discount the first argument of the bush administration. Yes china and India are not Annex 1 nations and therefore do not have to lower there emissions, however china and India will become Annex one nations in 2008, forcing them to abide by regulations.

Now let me tackle the second heap of monumental stupidity. First, the Climate is far more fragile than the economy and we stand to lose more from its destruction than we do from its preservation, in fact its preservation could become lucrative if done correctly. second studies show that Global warming stands to cause trillions in damage as climates become arid over time and the breadbasket of the America becomes unfertile. Then there are the more severe hurricanes which would have to be faced as a result of rising water temperatures, which would lead to and hundreds or more dead and billions of dollars per year spent on restoration efforts.

Another point on the part of the bush administration implies that the US economy must be hurt in order to decrease CO2 emissions. This is categorically untrue if we raised taxes on all car sales involving Non-(Partial) Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles -SULEVs and PSULEVs- compliant vehicles and cars having an MPG of fewer than 60 then we would see the emissions of CO2 and other motor-vehicular pollutants fall drastically. Alternatively or rather additionally a national mandate requiring all coal plants to cease production of the pollutant CO2 costing about 10,000 dollars per plant, might achieve similar results. If the United States were to take these actions, it would be more than feasible to meet and exceed the expectations of the Kyoto protocols.

If the U.S were to ratify the protocols at anytime, they would have ample time to meet them. If they were to utilize the inspired notion of emissions trading, buying the credits off of other nations which overshoot their expectations, while also preparing themselves to meet the protocols independently. The U.S would eventually meet the emission standards and overshoot allowing them to sell their credits to other nations. This would recoup the losses of having purchased credits from other nations. Perhaps we could create our own carbon sinks by planting several forests(which we can harvest for lumber) and then selling the credits gained by a new carbon sink helping to boost our (To borrow one of George Bush’s idioms) “Growing” economy and satisfy our environmental requirements.

In fact there is another economic boon to this plan, gasoline would take up much less of a person’s budget, and consumer Spending would increase. We would save billions on security and Military costs that we use to defend our oil supply abroad (Barring mention of Iraq, I refer to the billions we spent in Saudi Arabia to guard their refineries).the decreased spending on security would help to destroy the American budget deficit. This is turn would boost consumer and investor confidence, which would further serve as a boon to the economy.

A similar increase in confidence would be observed as an effect of the US economy not being susceptible to terrorist waylaying of Oil sources. In fact, the decrease in oil use would probably mean that we would become an oil exporter instead of importer, pumping billions into the economy. So not only is the Kyoto protocol not harmful to the US it is an economic dream, which utterly and completely discounts the bush Administration’s argument

The late Carl Sagan took down now the third argument best: “The patient is not the US economy, the Patient is the World ecology, the patient is continued human inhabitance of a non-hostile earth, and the cure is the only thing that can save the patient”

Resources
Carbon Di-Oxide Sink = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
Kyoto Protocols = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocols
Global Warming = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

I just want to denounce Sharons comments about france,
One such comment was calling france pro Arab-Of course there is an arab influence in france,it is the country with the largest migration of arabs in all of Europe,about 20-30 percent of the population,or even more,is arab.I also dont really understand why he is ranting on france,and not in other rascist country(such as U.S.).I guess they are just mad that france doesnt want to kiss israels ass just like the U.S..Also,pointing out another silly comment,which stated that france was full of anti-semitism,Now,politicaly,i cant see how that could ever be true,looking on all france has contributed to the holocast,such as one of the biggest memorials situated in paris.

Also there is the complication with hizbollah,and that france does not accept it as a terrorist organization,well considering the large arab population,lets consider this,Maybe to most Arabs,more specificaly,Muslims,believe that hizbollah is not a terrorist organization,just like The US isnt one to its people.

Just some opinions on sharon

-Julien

Heads up

me and nigel are at http://groups.msn.com/TruePolitics/, we post all our stuf there and there are some interesting commentary.there are alot of interesting conversations there too, I am socialistic libertarian and nigel is detached liberal,see you there.

Check this place out

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

It’s about Abu Gharib, just to give you perspective, this is the person that broke the story on the My Lai massacre in Vietnam

Rebuttal to a Second hand smoke study

"Reduced incidence of admissions for myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban: before and after study"
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conten/full/328/7446/977"

Studies of this nature are unscientific and very unreliable. For those who did not read it, this study measures hospital admission of heart attacks (acute myocardial infarction is just a fancy name for a heart attack) before and after a public smoking ban. There are serious flaws with this study. First of all the cause’s of heart attacks is a very long-term thing. It says that hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 60% within 6 months of a public smoking ban. This is far to short a time frame to attribute a widespread environmental factor such as ETS to a drop in heart disease. Not only that but it measures from people outside Helena.

While such a huge drop in a short time frame would make me question whether the data is even accurate, I will assume it is. Many factors contribute to the cause of heart attack. The cause of heart attacks is a buildup of cholesterol that blocks an artery. ETS and even direct smoking have not been shown to cause heart attacks (let alone in 6 months). Furthermore, the group is far too small (60 people before, 24 people after) to make such a bold statement as any finding would be statistically insignificant.

And as I mentioned before, it is highly likely the data was fabricated, as they lie several times. It seems that this city of 69,000 people has a very low rate of heart disease if they only have 60 heart attacks a month. And they say it is a “a geographically isolated community with one hospital serving a population of 68,140” I would hardly call a city of so many people “isolated”. HELINA IS THE CAPITAL OF MONTANA. It has many hospitals.

It is therefore very easy to conclude that this data was completely fabricated, and can be disregarded.

The Fable Of Gabriel

One day god tired of his creation, it bored him to see billions who did not worship him, at this point he could have cared less about there fate. God also happened to be bored at the time, so he ordered the smartest of his angels, Gabriel to create something to destroy earth. The angel toiled over his work for years. One day Gabriel was finished and represented his work to god. It was a virus, a virus powerful enough to wipe out entire ecosystems, its very existence hinged on its ability to manipulate and destroy its environment. It could wipe out millions of species per year; it even could deplete natural resources and destroy the atmosphere. So god asked Gabriel what the virus will be called. Gabriel responded in a simple fashion. Man.

The Facts about NASA

On the mourning February 1st 2003, the space shuttle Columbia burnt up in the atmosphere. All seven astronauts onboard died. This ordeal made America think, “Why do we have a space program”, “should we have one”. For the most part America said yes to robotic exploration, and a resounding maybe to human exploration. First, let me clarify what the Columbia mission was, and a brief history of NASA.

There are supposed to be about five shuttle launches a year, with most of these going to the international space station. occasionally there is a mission to deploy a satellite, fix Hubble, or a specialty mission in an odd orbit to test equipment or do scientific experiments. Columbia was on the last one, to test a scientific testing habitat. It broke up during reentry in what was a very rare tragedy. The shuttle cannot venture beyond what is called low earth orbit, which is where our satellites are positioned. The space shuttle cannot go to the moon, or any asteroids, and cannot reach most satellites. Before the disaster, Columbia found out many interesting discoveries, most too technical for you to understand but some you can. These include that flames in candles are domes instead of rod like figures. As illustrated below.

In addition, there are three shuttles, Atlantis (1985), Endeavor (1991), and Discovery (1983). The shuttle was designed in the 70’s with a goal of a reusable launch vehicle that would cost 10 million a launch. This was not achieved since only half of the shuttle is reusable, and it costs 270 million a launch. There have been two disasters with the space shuttle, Columbia, and challenger. There have however have been over a hundred launches averaging to a 98.6 percent success rate. The success rate on capsules is far less, mainly because there have not been as many flights (and cannot be accurately calculated because Russia and china have not declassified many of there launches). More people have died on shuttles then on any other spacecraft because of their large crews (5-9). This is akin to saying more people have died on jumbo jets than fighter planes, with fighter planes crashing more but having a crew of two, and jumbo jets having a crew of 500. Still no one has ever died in space; all space related deaths were either on the ground or in the atmosphere.

NASA has been in a rut for the last 30 years as far as manned space flight goes. There have been no men beyond earth orbit since 1972(Apollo 15). All we have is a space station going around and around earth. In unmanned space flight, there has been a boon of progress. Several mars Landers, an interplanetary Internet, a GPS network on mars, we have sent probes to every planet except Pluto, have probes that have left the solar system, and have telescopes of every kind. It has gotten to the point where we have maps of Venus and mars that are comparable in detail to maps on earth. However, when it comes to manned space flight, we have no progress at all. Its not that we are not capable of a manned trip to mars, it is that we do not want to. We all say we do but we look at the 40 billion dollar bill and say it is too expensive. However, I must remind you that Apollo cost 127 billion dollars, and we just spent 88 billion on Iraq. Our obsession with safety is part of the problem also, to counter that I must say one thing, ROCKETS WILL NEVER BE 100% SAFE IT WOULD BE A MIRACLE IF THEY ARE 70% SAFE. Rockets will never be able to reach another star, in order to reach another star you need a radically new technology that has not even been discovered yet. Another large part of the problem is that the company is that build things for NASA are the same company’s that make things for the army. These companies have no incentive whatsoever to produce cheaper and more innovative technologies, if they do less money for them right?

George bush has announced a new space initiative. It states that NASA's new goal is to go to the moon and mars. I have to say that I am against this plan. It is my belief that it will never happen. Also with these new goals, you think there would be a bigger budget, right? Wrong. There are currently 15 billion dollars in NASA’s budget. Therefore, instead of allocating large amounts of funds to NASA, he is going to give them four more billion dollars over 10 years. Instead of budget increases, he is canceling the space shuttle program, ISS, and many space science programs. This will put many astrophysicists and shuttle technicians out of a job, prompting them to move to other countries. Brilliant move bush, not only did he increase unemployment, he caused an exodus of intelligence to other countries. Of course, space science has been severely affected. With the most famous casualties being the Hubble space telescope, the Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter (JIMO), and the New Horizons probe (the first Pluto and KBO probe). Bush turned a good idea (going to the moon and mars) into a bad horrific idea (by canceling space science and losing jobs) by not giving NASA enough money. If you read this, I urge you to call your local congressional representative and urge him to give NASA budget increases.

Capital Punishment

During the autumn of 2002, there was a spree of sniper attacks in Washington D.C. Within a short time frame, more attacks were also done in Maryland, and then followed by Virginia. The media, desperate for a way to terrify the public for ratings could not resist, and soon they had made the sniper attacks into national and international news. All the media talked about were the attacks, this put pressure on the FBI so they started the hunt for the sniper.

Eventually the FBI got a break in the case and arrested John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. more then a year later, Muhammad was sentenced to the death penalty, while Malvo has been sentenced to life in prison without parole.

This may seem like a liberal view, but I do not support the death penalty. My veiw is best decribed by Victor Hugo: "Que dit la loi? Tu ne tueras pas! Comment le dit-elle? En tuant!" ("What says the law? You will not kill! How does it say it? By killing!")Out of all the industrial countries, only the USA and Japan still have the death penalty. The federal government and almost every state is allowed to use the death penalty, or their euphemism “capital punishment”, as punishment for the same crime that they are about to commit. It just does not seem right. This is a punishment with no real guidelines; for instance, in many states people can be executed for crimes they committed when they were under the age of 16. In other words, if a 6 year old found a gun in the closet and shot his playmate, theoretically he could be given the death penalty. Such punishment seems a bit drastic for a situation that at the time the child knew no better about.

In conclusion, I think the death penalty is a remnant of past eras of barbarism, one that should be rid of as soon as possible.

Here is a letter i sent to the school board last summer, I just got a responce that I will post later

As an enquiring seventh student, I would like to ask what your actions would be on the length of the school year if elected to the school board. It is very irritating how everyone is considering it a non-issue. Since I was in kindergarten the summer has started 4 days earlier, but it has ended 21 sooner. This is a net loss of 17 days. Now an idea is being pushed around for a year round school year. I want to remind you that they used to have a similar system in Japan, but they changed it because of a staggering amount of teen suicides and no real benefit. In addition, it is a financial problem too, the longer the school year the more you have to pay staff, electricity, and water and so on. In addition, in all honesty, this is an issue of student moral; students care far more about the school year length then they does about overcrowding. I know that overcrowding is a big issue but there is no real solution that can be done by the school board. and I realize that there is a problem with children who are behind academic wise, but then give them summer school and leave everyone else will well deserved free time.

Teachers are a big problem in my school (highland oaks middle school) many are under trained and/or tyrannical. That is not just a student-talking look at the access center 2 complaint forums. There have been serious violations of Imps for people with learning disabilities, and there are several instances on record of vindictive teachers falsifying records and being hostile. It is my belief that all schools in Dade County are like this. Bluntly, what do you plan to do about this? In addition, there are serious flaws with ideas of holding kids back, many expert organizations and individuals do not believe in holding kids back I will list them: http://www.nasponline.org/information/pospaper_graderetent.html http://www.empoweramerica.org/stories/storyReader$235 and more.

I would like to remind you that the point of the school system is kids, how about giving them what they want or at least consider them when you are passing laws. In addition, a well enforced law stating that there can only be two tests a day and one saying that there cannot be more than four projects due in one week. and a chain of appeals for students to contest detentions or CSI or suspensions, also real punishment such as firing or temporary leave for administrators or teachers who do something wrong accompanied by a easy stigma free way for students to complain. I realize it is a tall order but those in kids minds are the most important fixable issues. Please respond and I want to mention how much I respect the time you put into helping the ailing school system.

Just one of your underrepresented constituents,

David M. Shor

Syria

Keep an eye out for Syria. As you have probably heard, Syria has announced an alliance with Iran. This is a military alliance with the expressed purpose of defending from common threats…. In other words America. This is hardly surprising; Syria and Iran have had good relations since the 80’s when Syria was the only Arab country that supported Iran. However the timing makes this notable, an assassination of a Lebanese hero in Beirut has led to rapid and significant deterioration of relations between America and Syria.

The implications of this could be serious. Consider this: we will invade Iran, probably within the next year. Moreover, when we do, then what will Syria do? They have several choices, but the most likely one will be an attack on Israel. The resulting is not a question of whether Syria s attack will succeed, but how brutal Israel’s counter-attack will be. We must also consider that Israel has about 200 nuclear weapons, and countries in wartime and in danger are rarely rational. If a Syrian offensive takes Haifa or one major city then we might see a nuclear assault on the Arab world.

Now the chances of Syria capturing a city are very slim. However, Israel’s likely counter-attack will likely incur massive casualties. This might either make the Arab countries declare war on Israel or cause rebellions in those that do not. Now a military coalition of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, the PLO (they will probably have sovereignty by then), Syria, Egypt, and Sudan. Well they might succeed in capturing a major city such as Haifa or Jerusalem. Even this however is debatable, because such a war happened before and Israel won without losing a single city. Let us assume they do however capture a city. Then Israel might out of desperation carry out a nuclear assault on Mecca, Damascus, and Cairo.

At this point, every country in the world faces insurrection from almost every Muslim in the world, imagine total chaos and anarchy in most of Asia, and rebellions and riots in Europe where the Muslim population numbers 25%, while in America there will be martial law in the rest of the world. Let us just hope that I am just a dumb 13 year old.