Climate Change Treaty Copenhagen

The Notion of Fact v. The Idea of Fiction: The Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen: The Wrong “Green” is being focused on, Leaders Need to Consider National Debts

By Jimmy M.

The issue of global warming continues to march on. The latest discussion will happen in approximately 5 weeks in Copenhagen. The issue at the forefront is of course the consideration of how humanity can help reduce pollution and harm to the environment by launching a new treaty. Essentially this treaty is also being labeled the “Kyoto Protocol II”, so the necessary obligations to update are direr because the first Kyoto is set to expire pretty soon. It is important to note that the United States did sign the first Kyoto but President Clinton did not ratify it into Congress. This new treaty is alarming to Republicans because it suggests a “world government” on the issue of climate change. The Republicans have also been opposed to it because they believe President Obama will hold a foreign title to preside over the Climate Change council. As it is argued in the Constitution, the serving President cannot accept any titles of foreign nobility otherwise he will be forced to renounce his American citizenship. As seen on the Glenn Beck program was Lord Christopher Monckton, a man who warns Americans to fight off and resist the passage of this treaty for it will nullify the laws of the American Constitution. Monckton has called out Al Gore, former vice president and author of “An inconvenient Truth” to debate the issue of global warming on an international stage. To this moment, Al Gore has not accepted the challenge so Monckton insists that he remains silent until he does. Monckton is helping lead the resistance with other republicans by creating a webpage where an individual can sign a petition to have the US not sign the Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen. His webpage is www.webcommentary.com. You can view past archives that also go in-depth on the issue.

But the concern of creating and opening a door to world government is not the only concern. For other nations, like India and China for example, they feel that the numerical limits will prevent them into modernizing with the rest of the world and having the same sort of economy that “AAA” nations have, like that of the United States. The triple A rating comes from an investor credit service called Moody. Nations that have received the AAA rating demonstrate the strongest creditworthiness relative to other US municipal or tax exempt issuers or issues. India and China want to follow and sign onto this Kyoto Protocol II with the promise that their development will not be limited by numerical restraints of carbon emissions. For them, the argument is it is unfair that we have no right to enjoy the same lifestyle that the US or Europe enjoy and therefore we will continue to resist or status of remaining a third world nation. What’s particularly mind-boggling here is that if you believe a world government will happen, then China and India just gave the bird to these IPCC drafters of the Climate Change Treaty. China and India will literally have free reigns to ignore the ratified Climate Change Treaty.

My perspective on the whole thing is quite unorthodox to what they hope to achieve. Yes, they are trying to become more eco-friendly and place a severe cap on carbon emissions, but at the same time they are also very hesitant because of the “other green”. An article featured on the BBC News website sheds some light on the financial problems the treaty will create if ratified. It is believed, and stated in the treaty, that from 2013-2017, each of the industrialized nations will have to contribute 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to third world nations to help in the battle against carbon emissions. The number that is presented in the draft of the treaty is 167 billion dollars per year. Now let’s take into account what is occurring at the moment. The UK’s debt currently stands at the American equivalent of 24 billion dollars. The US’s debt is at (I think) 1.7 trillion dollars and expected to double in the course of the next ten years or so. Now the other day, there were flags everywhere that the recession is over because the stock market had a 3.5% growth this past quarter. Yeah that’s all well and good…for Wall Street and Goldman Sachs. But what about the people you took that money from and the fact that the “cash for clunkers” idea cost each citizen 24 thousand dollars? Do you see where I am going with this? We want to become more eco-friendly and green signing this treaty into effect and enforcing it better than the first Kyoto Protocol. But our leaders are hypocrites and “debt-incubators” because they are frivolous and incompetent to how they manage the paper green. Here’s an idea, find a way to have this debt forgiven. Not just in the United States is there a danger of high inflation, but in places such as England as well. Be skeptical of the intentions of the people fighting for the passage of this treaty. For example, John Holden, the advisor in charge of environmental policies for President Obama said back in the 70s that the world was entering a period of global cooling and that the ice from the Antarctic was going to become so large that it would sink into the ocean and cause a massive tidal wave. That never happened either.

Politicians everywhere, please keep track of what you say and your stances. People who listen and follow the news quite closely will call you out on your pendulum like approaches. It makes you look bad and the people who support you look like damn fools. When you sit down to discuss the treaty this December please take into account the debt you stand in at the moment. We really don’t want to make our graves any deeper and essentially we are signing off the future of our nation by obliging to the proposed rules. If you have no intentions to follow it, and are an enlightened individual, why should we then remain in ignorance and behave like prototypes? If a one-world government is in the works, how will the problem of debt ever be resolved or understood?

This treaty needs to be debated as much as possible and scrutinized because if this fails to happen, we could be looking at the coming of a third “Roman Empire”. Fight this possibility till the day you die and if that day should come with the cost of friendship and trust, then stand firm in what you believe. You must be willing to stand up for what is right, even if it means that you are standing alone.

Kirk Cameron Spars With Charles Darwin

The Notion of Fact v. the Idea of Fiction: Rigorous Debate is a Cause for Concern?! Cameron Concedes Common Freaking Sense!!
By Jimmy M.
On November 22nd 2009, Kirk Cameron is planning on releasing fifty thousand copies of an altered version to Charles’ Darwin’s The Origin of Species, the target audience being college students. This altered version according to Cameron, has three intended purposes: a.) to show a balanced and fair view of Creationism, b.) to shed light on Darwin’s discrimination towards women and c.) to argue the connection with Hitler (and Eugenics: note: it actually was the half-cousin of Darwin, Sir Francis Galton, who first introduced this theory, odd I know). Cameron has launched this crusade since he became a born-again Christian in 2007. In his own words, he states that Darwin’s work is “the Bible for Atheists”. Several people are siding with Cameron to spread his message. But, how much credibility is given to a man who is a former-actor and not a scientist or even a preacher for that manner? One has to assume that a theologian or a “bible-thumper” would be keener to argue against the ideals of criticism. But then again, he is an actor, so maybe he is just following someone else’s script. Kirk Cameron, it is ironic that you starred on a show called “Growing Pains”, because that’s exactly what you are right now. Please, just go away.

Speaking of scripts, did you happen to catch the YouTube user ZOMGitsCriss’s response to Mr. Cameron? Gee whiz, now she must have been using a script too? And where could that script have come from? Her own brain and reasoning perhaps? No, that just couldn’t be! In her response, entitled “Origin of Stupidity”, she rips apart all of Cameron’s objectives piece by piece. It’s opening a newer chapter to the battle of Evolution and Creationism. I wonder if Cameron is familiar with the term Theoistic Evolution? If not, it’s probably something that he should take into. Theoistic evolution: take a hint from its name on the kind of spin it gives to this seemingly immortal argument.

If one examines the argument of evolution, in its simple terms, there is strong evidence for it. Natural selection and the history of the Ice Age are two examples of evolution. Animals with fur survived, those without didn’t and when the ice melted it was vice versa. This is also true of the moths and butterflies. I can’t recall exactly, but I believe it was the butterflies that were black outlived the white butterflies, because they could hide themselves easier from their hunter. But I like a stronger and more modern example to show a strength favoring evolution, and that is the case of the swine flu and illness. Humanity develops antibodies to fight off a strain of last year’s illness. This immunization is only temporary for the disease of course is a living bacterium and mutates in order to counteract the new antibodies. If this isn’t strong enough for evolution I don’t know what is. Illnesses evolve, much like cockroaches and other insects. We could use a certain pesticide to an extent, until they develop a resistance to it that is.

How can humanity develop a resistance to as the YouTube user put it an Origin of Stupidity? Now of course, stupidity may be going too far. Let’s use instead, pushing an agenda of ignorance, because ultimately when a renowned actor takes up a cause it’s usually a platform to regain fame. Could it be that Cameron gets no love? Or could there be another operative force helping Cameron along the way? Why does he choose to strike a nerve by connecting Hitler to Darwin? Wouldn’t that be more suitable to Galton instead? Cameron hopes to stir the emotions and anger in as many individuals as he can, by saying the most outlandish things he can think of.

I for one am sick and tired of actors taking the lead. They are not leaders. They are followers; they follow a script given to them by their directors who they also take orders from. We…we do not follow scripts. We write them ourselves every day. We direct our lives and no one else. In my understanding, life is like a very creative book, and let me tell you I thoroughly enjoy brainstorming what will happen in my life! When I am with others and friends, I let them narrate for a bit, but never decide where the story will go. That is a matter of mutual consensus. Speaking of consensus, how many of you agreed to the bible being re-written to the King James’ version? I know the meaty stuff here. But in my next article I will address two important scopes both of which examine ideologies. These will go back and forth a bit. They will be between politics and religion: chiefly concerning re-writing the Bible. I will get opinion from the experts here on campus and in the community and report back to my peers my discoveries.

We are the human resistance. We don’t need to follow scripts to know that ignorance is wrong. We firmly hold that autonomy and we will use it in times such as these. Pay attention to the key phrases and decide for yourself which you identify with…

I hope you will join me as I begin my search to unearth the integrity of certain statements and to uphold my convictions on whether these statements actually apply to our community. This particular issue was merely a launching point. I’m sort of taking the column in a new direction, and it’s an idea I have been toying with for awhile. I am steadfast in the opinion that these statements that are made by our supposed leaders, and role models are completely out of touch with the world of today. Why is it that these people, who we devote so much adulation to, do nothing for our good? They serve as “propaganda incubators”. But, you and I, we know how to cure what ails us don’t we?

The “Veiled” Battle

The Notion of Fact v. The Idea of Fiction: Muslim Woman Has Dreams Denied Because of Imposing her Beliefs On Others Or Because of Too Much Devotion?
By Jimmy M.
About a week ago, the floodgates were reopened. In Cairo, Egypt talks once again began of whether or not conservative Muslim women should wear the veil at all times. This subject happened to become the focus after a Muslim woman went for a job interview and essentially lost the job because of the way she was dressed. The whole adage “when in Rome do as the Romans do” is a way to be polite to others who are of different perspectives then yours. If you ask me that adage is bullshit. It’s a two way street. The employer cited that the main reason for not hiring her is because the company has a high standard for appearance and that the Muslim woman needed to make compromises if she were to land the job. Compromises or just a polite excuse for prejudice? The woman had all the necessary credentials for the job. She was highly educated with a degree at Tel Aviv. She was personable, a skill that is of the utmost importance when being a secretary for a lawyer and handling potential clients. The woman was thorough, determined, and meticulous to detail as well. But for the small superficial offense of dress code she was denied. Maybe it was this woman’s dream to serve as a paralegal one day. And this employer brazenly shredded that woman’s dream. As if it were a cheap, torn resume. If hopes and dreams are an anathema where would that place despair and nightmares? Is this the social and particularly cultural alteration of the rule of proportionality??
Where is the line drawn between cultural differences? The western world places such a ridiculous amount of trust in one’s fashion sense and appearance alone (mostly due to advertising ploys and appealing to as many people as possible). Those who side with the employer argue that the woman did not respect the traditions of the Western society, which are they culturally clash with our beliefs. The common advertisements that are aired on television DO NOT represent the everyday American. Those people are unrealistic, and have spent an insane amount of hours, “perfecting” themselves to emit the fragrance of perfect beauty. Nations such as the United States, France, and England top this list of shallowness. How much harm can one’s shallowness cause you ask? Plenty, especially when it comes to finding work in difficult times such as these, not to mention the high suicide rates for those who feel inadequate and need to be consumers in order to repair those personal insecurities.
In this case, a woman denied employment because she showed up to an interview wearing the clothes which her religion tells her she must is unbelievable. It is also shameful and embarrassing. I also am sure that both parties aware realize that the reason for firing her falls under religious discrimination, not to mention persecution. The employer based a lot off of appearance, and the woman, who’s covered her body entirely, only revealing her eyes, was seen as someone he was uncomfortable with. The man also stated he graded the interview a lot from what he read from her body language. Because of the veil and entire covering of her body, he could hardly read her body language at all. This is like a fairy tale. This is like your worst nightmare has come true. To think that this is a common day occurrence to how others deal with difference, whether it is cultural norms or sexual preferences is utterly astounding and extremely immoral.
In the United States, we preach that we are the land of the free. We are taught as schoolchildren that the Pilgrims, who landed on Plymouth Rock, did so in the hopes of escaping religious persecution. We as a body are taught to uphold our civil liberties and that we have the power to do this through our freedom to choose. We preach freedom of choice, but we vilify those who use theirs and immigrate to our country, because we feel they are changing our culture too much, too radically? One person can cause our nation to become something very repulsive?? If that is at all possible then, we should give the pulpit to someone else, maybe the immigrant. There was another archaic word for preachers, and that was Pharisees. Is America quickly becoming a refuge spot for the new-aged Pharisees??

Obama and Iran

The Notion of Fact V. The Idea of Fiction: Iran – When President Obama Stated His Purpose, It wasn’t to Iran but to “Istayed”!
By Jimmy M.
A little bit over a week and a half ago, President Obama issued a clear message to Iran: come forward with your nuclear weapons program developments or face severe international consequences. This battle of two different approaches has been raging for decades now. Beginning from the overthrow of the Shah to the immediate crisis of the hostage situation, Iran and the US have never really seen eye to eye. This conflict has been heated, with the back and forth rhetoric used against each nation, and seems to be an issue that will see a use of force. This scene of force might be one not seen in global proportions for nearly 70 years. At an open lecture last year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discussed his views of the world in an auditorium full of Columbia University students. The talk sparked outrage but nowhere was there more outrage seen then when the President staked his claim. The tensions between the two nations are reminiscent of an old, familiar war, one where no troops were used and one that also captivated the entire world.
This past week, a new chapter was added to those rising tensions when the United States provided evidence of a “hidden nuclear weapons bunker”. When the United States wagged its finger at Iran, it really opened the door for Iranians to be as hostile as Iraqis were when “Dubya” came to visit in December of last year. Unsurprisingly, the Iranian President’s response was not that different from the shoe-thrower. Iran remains defiant in the mists of global disapproval and international disgust. The French, who have reliably sided with the US in having talks with Iran, have expressed a strong desire for Iran to speak honestly and to put everything out on the table for the world to see. But, given that France is one of the few nations powered by nuclear materials, they are in no position to levy such charges. It is strange how France chimed in for this discussion of nuclear weapons and not the one involving Saddam.
Anyway, I do believe that the way these events are playing out, are eerily similar to those of the first cold war. Iran is not the superpower that the Soviet Union was, but should they get their hands on such devastating technology, there is very few who would argue that they are indeed a superpower. Iran could deploy frightening methods of intimidation, like they were willing to do with the election protests of the summer. I just hope that the President does indeed have the support of the international community. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he needs the backing of the UN council. My feelings for that committee remain the same and that is to be ever careful of a group that uses the “art of negotiation”. That tactic may lead to blackmail or even a matter of gaining leverage for an event that is being planned.
The course of action the President should take is to stand firm on the Iran situation, but don’t become hotheaded about it and use the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike. That doctrine has hurt the US in the past and it continues to do so in the ongoing Iraq War. President Obama must not look at history and America’s WWII glories, he must create it. That cannot be created by launching the next world war. It must come from a direct source, a light upon the hill for the world to observe. The path to creating history must come by definitively resolving the Iranian threat using precise language. No double-talk, be a straight-shooter. Show Iran and the rest of the world that the United States, on such a matter as this, can be taken at its word. I might be a fool for expressing a wish that is impossible or unrealistic but dammit, it needs to be done. The world can’t continue to look at that faint light on its spoon, it needs to realize it is a reflection and that the real light is up above and has greater luminosity then the speck could ever possibly have.

Newspaper Crusade/The “Newspaper Revitalization Act”

One day, the front page of the local paper may read “The Boston Post” or “Massachusetts Daily News”, and as the days progress that is becoming more than just a theory. As the economy continues to grapple with returning to its boom period of the early 2000s, more and more industries, like the newspaper, are falling into debt during the economic recession. For the newspaper industry, times have indicated the strength of the dollar by consumer reports and annual subscription numbers. But with costs going up and with the growth of the internet, newspapers find it difficult to adjust to a recession period, often finding that obtaining the necessary number of subscriptions is a daunting task. Newspapers find it challenging to stay afloat in the waters of the digital age and are beginning to show signs of fading in the next 3 or 4 years if business and subscriptions do not improve.

Although, President Obama is one individual who is determined to see that the newspaper industry can keep pace with the Internet and other news-providing sources. This past March, simultaneously with the passage of the auto-bailout bill, the President along with Congress began talk of a “Newspaper Revitalization Act”. The bill at the time stood as a suggestion and was seen as an action that would only be carried out as a last resort. Desperate times have called for desperate measures and with traditional newspapers vanishing from the competitive market (like The Rocky Mountain News and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer) and the climbing costs as seen on the front pages of papers like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, there is no better definition of living in a period of desperation.

The Revitalization bill was introduced by Sen. Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland in March. As stated on votesmart.org, Cardin has been reelected as senator for Maryland nine times with little opposition. He is a lobbyist and member for various causes like the Congressional Competitive Caucus, Congressional Human Rights Caucus and the Congressional Urban Caucus. Cardin has served on three committees as well: the small business and entrepreneurship, environment, and public works. Cardin’s political record provides evidence of his support for government relations with the larger community, voting for the passage of The Patriot Act Renewal. Ben Cardin’s stance on technology and communications has been favorable in the past. On votesmart’s webpage, Cardin has voted in favor of all the technological bills thus far and in his proposal to Congress, the newspapers will undergo an unprecedented transformation. The Revitalization Act would, “give outlet tax deals if they were to restructure as 501(c) (3) corporations”, according to Michael O’Brien’s political blog titled “The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room”. The bill focuses on the rebuilding model for the newspaper industry and doesn’t examine the cost-operations for producing ads and how that ad revenue may be divided if the proposed bailout plan is passed.

There is also disagreement within Congress on whether or not the newspaper industry can be saved and revived. The White House’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has voiced these concerns stating, “I don’t know what, in all honesty, government can do about it”.

President Obama has not made any guarantees as of yet, stating “I haven’t seen detailed proposals yet, but I’ll be happy to look at them” in an interview with the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade. The public’s concern is with the President’s talk of looking at the proposed plans but not giving a decision on them. The President however wants to reassure the public that he will do the right thing in the name of good journalism for he also said in the interview, “I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding”.

The issue facing newspapers is whether the industry is being hit by a cyclical trough or whether new technology has rendered obsolete newspapers in their traditional format. Facing these challenges, newspapers are considering combining to survive, although the outcome of such partnerships has been criticized.

But the President is also facing a public backlash for his comments of turning newspaper industries into corporations and non-profit organizations as media pundit of Slate, Jack Shafer points out, “The last thing newspapers need is the sort of help from the government that turns them into NPR, endlessly begging for contributions, pursuing wealthy philanthropists, and standing in line for government handouts”. Newspapers oppose becoming non-profit organization identities because of matters dealing with pride, independency and the industry’s reputation for presenting political endorsements. In the form suggested, newspapers would act like public broadcasting companies barring them from getting those endorsements. Newspapers serve as the last bastion for reporting in the United States. Blogs can’t afford sending reporters to cover stories. Also, should profits continue to fall, newspapers will be forced to cut unnecessary expenses, like investigative journalism.

Shafer’s viewpoint sheds light on why the government shouldn’t intervene and newspapers should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own. Shafer expounds further on his position exclaiming that, “The government’s attempt to prop up newspapers with rewrites of the tax code or Sarkozy-esque direct subsidies of government advertising and free subscriptions for young people interferes with the already-in-progress transition from print to digital news that’s been accelerating for the past 15 years – or longer. Propping up troubled papers has a cost. It weakens the enterprises that are rising from below to compete with them to deliver advertising, and, yes, deliver news”.

Two of Shafer’s constituents are also sharing the same concern. Both Derek Thompson of the Atlantic and David Carr of the NYTimes released statements questioning the motive behind the Revitalization Act. In a blurb on his blog, Thompson writes, “But why only newspapers? It’s unclear to me why non-newspaper news organizations shouldn’t also benefit from the bill. Perhaps this is a matter of pure bias, because I work for a news company that is not a newspaper. But if newspapers qualify as ‘educational’ non-profits, why shouldn’t other media count?”.

David Carr also examines the issue of whether government aid will really be to help the newspapers or to insure that print material is another place where the President is the central focus for he states, “Yeah, running the country is great and all, but if the President is serious about throwing the newspaper business a lifeline, he should just christen the Obama Network and get it over with. Until his approval ratings slip further, why not just set up a place where we can stare at him all the time and cover his every wiggle and wobble?”.

Critics stand from opposite sides of the spectrum, pointing fingers at the President standing at the epicenter of the dispute, hoping to bring them closer together by taking steps both forward in progress and reaching out to the other.

People who browse the web and pay attention to online political blogs have left comments that show split support for following the bailout plan of the newspaper industry. The online community, alongside the aforementioned experts and pundits, has also joined the fray in what the best course of action for the newspaper business might be. One blogger writes, “This Is the first good idea Obama has had yet” while another writes, “This is outrageous…newspapers do next to nothing to stimulate the economy and employ very few people. Most of them are in trouble because they are out of touch with real people who do not share their odd ideas. If they cannot make money then they should die just like any marginal entertainment business. Newspaper is old technology and so is the agenda of most of the old line newspapers”.

The voices of the bloggers and the voices of the pundits combine to make one medium and it is unclear whether or not the President is paying attention to this medium or ignoring it.

Beck, Sanchez Battle for Supremacy

The Notion of Fact V. The Idea of Fiction: The Gloves Are Off!! Beck and Sanchez at Each Other’s Throats; Funding for ACORN Is Terminated

By Jimmy M.

A recent firestorm has set American policies ablaze as of late, the most noteworthy being the recent dogfight to reform healthcare. These attacks have been launched by far right conservatives in hopes of enlightening Americans who support President Obama’s reform bill. The most recent battle waged has become quite intriguing though. This battle, one of epic proportions, pits two networks against each other: CNN and FOX. This war between networks speaks for itself and attests to just how turbulent times really are in America. The world has literally been divided into two fronts. Those camps have mouthpieces butting heads. The liberal side’s mouthpiece is CNN correspondent Rick Sanchez and in the other corner, wearing a pair of vermillion trunks is conservative pundit Glenn Beck. For argument’s sake, it is reasonable to believe that Beck is winning the battle for two reasons: a.) Van Jones, the President’s former green job advisor (to Beck it is czar) resigned, and b.) After the release of the ACORN tapes promoting “mob-like tactics” and prostitution Congress has vaulted to immediately stop funding for the organization. But, Rick Sanchez has shown grit for his party’s side.
Two Saturdays ago, Glenn Beck’s 9/12 protest took place in Washington DC. Thousands of people showed up to show their dissatisfaction with the President’s policies thus far and according to Beck this was the first step in the second revolution. Sometime last week, FOX released an ad pointing out that other major news networks somehow missed covering the story or they “chose” to not cover it. This past Saturday, Mr. Sanchez personally challenged Beck and called out FOX news on the falsehood. Sanchez used another infamous politician’s words to set the stage, Senator Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” Sanchez cited that his main offense was terrible journalism on the part of FOX news since it was Bill O’Reilly who pointed out that CNN did in fact cover the protest but ran into trouble doing so.
The real issue, as one may interpret it, seems to be personal between the two. I for one am affiliated with neither side on this issue. I did not vote Republican or Democrat this past election. I am registered as an Independent and hope that one day, the third party will be a legitimate contender in Presidential elections. But that is enough subjection to my personals. As I see it, both reporters are trying to one up each other in the name of their network, trying to achieve political martyrdom. Political martyrdom, especially when it is pursued on television, is a dangerous path to tread. If they are hard lined in their feelings for their country, don’t do it on a public platform through your words, do it through your actions. Now some may say, “Yeah Beck is doing exactly that but he is going a bit too far for me”. To those I say he is performing his actions in front of a camera, not exactly doing it in a respectable fashion. And for those of you that agree with Sanchez and say “he was just defending himself and taking pride in his network” well I have to disagree. He could have done it in a more formal way, such as a written notarized complaint and the evidence photo of covering the story.
Beck vs. Sanchez might also be a last ditch effort, something that really was well-avoided during the election, though many perceived it. That issue was an issue of race or discrimination in American politics. That is a real issue and will remain as long as there is hostility towards perceived differences. Regrettably, that might always be the case in the world. But, to use an undertone that would suggest racism is a cry for desperation. Those of ignorance would argue that the reason one doesn’t agree with the President over any issue, must be racist. That tactic implicitly takes attention away from the meat of the issue, whatever it may be. I like to point that out because I know that Sanchez is of the Latino community and as of late Beck has spoken out against Van Jones and called the President a racist himself. This issue seems to be burrowing right now and I hope that at some point it doesn’t reach “def con 1” in the hopes and trust of the American people.
But whatever should happen between these two networks, the one side representing “the real news channel” of FOX and the other side, as Mr. Beck has put it, the “fringe media” in CNN, I hope that the laws and rights of the Constitution are upheld. Both sides have forgotten that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and no official’s words or orders stand above it. To some that document can be altered. Others feel that it is and should remain a non-living document, and that argument is somewhat convincing if one considers the rules of a child’s game (if two friends are playing basketball, it would be inappropriate for one of them to say that he wins the game after he got the first basket). I am not committed to that notion, but I do stress it is a strong argument. The way I see it, and I know I heard or read this somewhere, but the Constitution when it is amended during a President’s tenure, reflects the morality and perspectives of the society at that moment. This is axiomatic. Uphold the Constitution. Don’t rely on two individuals to regurgitate their views to you, process it for yourselves. Consume multiple perspectives on the same issue and find the middle ground. Differentiate between what is fact and what is bias. And continue to show the original spirit of America, the one forged in 1776. Be that revolutionary. Be that patriot and birth life into the “American Dream” once again.

Funny solution to Economic woes featuring Ronald Reagan

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_government_finds_20_trillion?utm_source=a-section

The ever growing Healthcare problem

The Notion of Fact v. The Idea of Fiction: America: The Land of The Opportunist or The Home of The Coddled?

By Jimmy M.   

     For a while now, both the blue party and red party have been at each other’s throats, using smearing techniques and fear-mongering tactics ( most notably the Glenn Beck program on FOX) to win the game of one-upmanship and to be recognized as the party that has America’s best interests at heart. But, I think it is fair to say that anyone who has been watching the soap opera continually revealing twists and turns to the public can say that at some point or another enough has to be enough. The government’s track record speaks for itself; they are in the business of making the most profit possible and in essence stealing those green pieces of paper right out of the citizens’ pocket. If you think that is an unfair assessment, I wonder how you felt when Ben Bernanke was literally castigated by the review committee and their interrogation as to understanding exactly how the finance sector collapsed. And yet, how that man was reinstated as head of the Fed, is beyond me. But this article is not a rant about the Fed and its duplicity since 1913, this article is about the monopolistic growth of the government. It is downright frightening to think of how much power America has willingly surrendered in order to secure protection. I cannot recall, but one of our forefathers said we cannot procure certain rights without conceding some of our “inalienable rights” to our favorite Uncle.

     But I just wish people would put some sense into everything that has gone on recently, paying attention to both the why of the event and what the rectification essentially implies, and carefully deliberate on this decision. The government has gained control of first and foremost our most private leisure activities with the patriot act under the Bush administration. Yes, the argument could be made that we need this to live in a modern world threatened by terrorism, but in a perfect world the government would no doubt be able to keep its promise to only protecting us. However, the world is not perfect, and we see now that as the information highway continues to evolve, messages and ads are being tailored to “speak” to us, as a result of the aforementioned act.

      And then there was the stimulus package and the government giving huge sums of money to corporations. Not to the do-gooders or the people who can barely scrap a meal together every night but the pillagers and pirates of the American society. Their skills at negotiation and contract can only take them so far I guess. But whatever happened to that theme, I don’t know just off the top of my head, from Horatio Alger’s work? What was it again? From Rags to Riches? Yeah, that sounds right. Whatever happened to the prospect in America of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps? Why wasn’t that applied there? Maybe, just maybe there was a you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours moment between the GOV and the big 3 automobile industries. But that’s nonsense. The government isn’t an expert at automobile manufacturing. What can they possibly get in return? A say, perhaps, but nothing more.

     And that is the decision in what America is facing right now. We have given the GOV a saying in social security, a program that is failing, a say in our education, words cannot express how the DOE is fairing when it comes to competing with nations like India, a say in what literature we read and direct access to our banking information, and now another word can be added to the list our health and our lives. Hospitals have purported how bad the government reform bill could be, hurting their operation tremendously and why shouldn’t it? Let’s think it over. When you see a doctor you have his fees and then you have your health insurance fees. When you make an appointment, the insurance is willing to cover only so much and you will be given a significantly small portion of the bill to pay, part of it to the insurance and then part of it to the doctor’s office. But should the government get involved, now you have a third party and a middle-man. That’s too much bureaucracy for me. I deal either directly with the insurance or the physician; I don’t need a middle-man to serve as the “negotiator”. No thank you.

     Given the circumstance, the costs of healthcare would actually increase not lower, because of the added party. Again another example of the government taking a slice from the pie. I mean it’s not that the health coverage shouldn’t go to those who deserve to be cared or treated, everybody does they are human beings just like you or I, but the point is the necessity of the government to get involved. They made this mess, why should we trust them to fix it? Can’t we learn to adjust from our mistakes and become self-problem solvers? Too much dependence is never a good thing. We are not children needed to be observed vigilantly and we are not “Washington’s babies” who need constant suckling. We are autonomous individuals who have a say as to how we live our lives. America cannot and is not showing any signs of forgetting that. Take a look at the town hall meetings that are setting aflame a new voice of democracy. We need to hit that point where we can do things for ourselves and not cry out for our government when we get a cut or bruise on the knee or elbow of our economy. We suck it up and we carry onward. That’s what made America great then and we need to do it now, we need to learn to persevere and stick it out during tough times like these because this is another chance to learn. This is our first real test in the 21^st century and it could pave the way for the future of America. Let’s do things right this time and let’s chart out a course that will keep us in a bold new world, a world of experience and of profound morality.

Long Overdue, but nonetheless remembering a pioneer in journalism

Celebration of a Life: Remembering Walter Cronkite

By   Jimmy M.

     On July 17^th, 2009, a pioneer in the broadcasting and news reporting trail passed on. This man left the news industry and the world for that matter, with so many unforgettable moments. Walter Cronkite, 92, was born from a Dutch background in St. Joseph, Missouri but he mainly lived in Houston for the rest of his life. Cronkite began his story-telling career while in high school, beoming the editor of its newspaper. From there, he went on to study at the University of Texas, blending in with his peers by joining the Nu chapter of the Chi Phi fraternity. Cronkite would not finish college though, dropping out his junior year to enter the arena of real-world broadcasting.

     Shortly after his first gig with WKY in Oklahoma City, Oklohama, he met his future wife  Mary Elizabeth “Betsy” Maxwell. At the time he had moved out to continue his reporting in Kansas City. As time continue to march on, Cronkite was handed a different duty and that was to provide the American people with an incomparable account of the “apocalyptic” war raging on in Europe that lasted until 1945 and for the first and only time in history, saw the atomic bombing of a country. Cronkite was called to do the reporting, only a select few were chosen to do so for the country. It was also at this time that Cronkite was asked to fly a bomber plane over Germany, with seven others joinging him.

     Following the end of the war, Cronkite was front and center to share with the public how the war criminals were being tried and sentenced during the Nuremburg trials., reporting mostly from Moscow for at least two years. Cronkite moved his career back to the states, joinging a young and soon to be world renkowned news channel in CBS . While working for the CBS Evening News, he met and began a friendship with another legendary reporter, Edward R. Murrow. Cronkite made his second significant contribution to the news industry by being the first person to report on both the Democratic and Republican National conventions. Cronkite also provided an in-depth look at the presidential election of 1952.

     From here, Cronkite etched his own microcosm in the nes world, by hosting a noteworthy news program entitled, You Are There, which was a show that reenacted historical events, using the format of a news report.  It is hard to forget his closing lines as the show aired for its final time in 1957, “What sort of day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times…and you were there” (Ital. added). Although the show was successful, the network’s second attempt at changing who its primary audience flopped in 1971.

     But it was only years later that Cronkite was given his iconic pulpit as chief anchorman for the CBS Evening News, competing directly against the ever-expanding quills of the multi-colored peacock network (namely NBC). NBC’s domination was short-lived however, when RCA decided to take a chance and pave the way for CBS and its famed indepth coverage and accuracy of broadcast journalism. During Cronkite’s tenure at CBS, there were many moments for which are claimed to be his most memorable. There is the reporting of the Kennedy assassination, where Cronkite was seen sitting at a table, carelessly and slowly removing his glasses to share the news that the president of the United States had just been shot and killed. There is also his coverage of the highly-protested, and most likely,deeply regretted Vietnam War.

     Walter Cronkite’s second and well-argued greatest moment of fame was the coverage of the space shuttle program and NASA’s intentions to have step foot on the moon for the first time. But on February 14^th, 1980, the curtain fell on the act of Cronkite’s career when he announced his retirement from CBS and introduced the man who would be taking over for him, Dan Rather. Although, Cronkite stepped away from the primetime spotlight, he would make occassional appearances, contributing his insight and his infintismial wealth of knowledge to news credibility and sources of truthfulness.

     Forever  will it be known that Mr. Cronkite was the paragon of a public servant and a man who always gave back to the public. Mr. Cronkite was the original objective journalist. His dedication and passion for journalism earned him a bit of recognition at Arizona State University, with a branch under the tree dedicated just to journalism. He also is honored by his alma mater at the University of Texas with a series of publications, known as the Walter Cronkite Papers, which chronicle his entire career as a journalist and share some of his initial news stories with the public.

     Walter Leland Cronkite was a precocious reporter for the CBS news team, his talents and his legacy are things which be it anybody else, would take a lifetime to hone and emulate. Thank you Mr. Cronkite,…  “And that’s the way it is, September 9^th, 2009”.

Prelude to Peace

The year 2009 came with the crackling fireworks in Gaza. As if Operation Cast Lead had not already reverted the peace process between Israel and Palestine, the government that was formed by Israel’s legislative election in February has yet to send out signals of sincere commitment to renew the efforts in order to achieve piece with the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority in Ramallah is still struggling to exert its authority over its own territory. With deep divide between two parties, Fatah and Hamas, within the government, the Palestinian government’s ineffectiveness is also eroding the patience of the international community, especially that of its hawkish neighbor.

Daniel Barenboim, the conductor of Chicago Symphony Orchestra and a close friend of Edward Said, once made an analogy between the Oslo peace process and Beethoven’s 7th symphony during a televised interview with Charlie Rose. He remarked that the Oslo Accords have all the right elements in it to establish peace between Israel and Palestine but the execution of it by both parties were impeded by reluctance and therefore the faith of commitment had been worn out by the delay. He compared this phenomenon to conducting Beethoven’s 7th Symphony in Largo when it was written for Presto. All the notes would remain the same and yet the music would sound completely different.

A quick review of events that succeeded the Oslo Accords would validate Barenboim’s claim. After Rabin and Arafat shook hand in front of the White House, Israelis continued to settle in the West Bank as the Palestinians struggled to reach a unanimous recognition of Israel as a state. In 1996, after Oslo II, which established Palestinian authority in major cities in the West Bank, the number of violent incidents took an upturn. Then the Second Intifada started in 2000, followed by a major war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006. Finally, the Gaza war that took place earlier this year falls into an almost predictable sequence.

Israel’s new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu met with U.S. president Barrack Obama on Monday at the White House. The main objective of the meeting is to discuss the archetypal Israeli concerns: Iran’s nuclear capacity and activities of various anti-Israel organizations. The gist of the 90 minutes meeting can be encapsulated into the following series of inquiries and responses:

Israel: Are you on our side, will you support us as your predecessors did?

U.S.: You are one of our most important allies, of course we support you. But only under the condition that you accept a two-state solution.

Israel: I agree with you that Israel must be recognized as a state, more importantly, a Jewish state [Ruling out Right of Return as a possibility]. Israelis are committed to live side by side with the Palestinians in peace. [Notice the omission of the words “two-state solution”]

U.S.: Let me reiterate that the acceptance of a two-state solution is nonnegotiable.

Israel: Let’s the change the topic. Say if we have evidence which lead us to believe that Iran’s nuclear capacities is imminent, and we initiate military retaliation, are you going to back us?

U.S.: Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons is simply unacceptable and it must be stopped. I am willing to take a tough stance on this matter.

Israel: So you are going to provide us with the proper aid to strike Iran.

U.S.: I certainly hope we won’t reach that point. In fact, I will not let the situation get to that point. Remember “Yes we can!”.

Israel: “No you won’t!” [Next time, I will be back with a detailed military.]

Although the White House claimed that the meeting was productive and conclusive, with the Obama’s signature “effectiveness”, it is not difficult to realize the strains that Obama faces in trying to push his agenda of resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict forward. As brilliant and effective as he is, Obama cannot boast in the experience department. Netanyahu, his Israeli counterpart, has already served as prime minister once in the late 1990s, which means that he operates on experience, not theory. America’s unconditional support is crucial to Israel’s foreign policy, and this is exactly why Netanyahu made this trip. Netanyahu’s ultimate goal is to renew the U.S.’s steadfast commitment to support Israel in its national security agenda.

The last administration had established a somewhat troubling legacy in regard to the Palestine –Israel conflict. Bush’s unwavering support for Israel has tipped the balance among government in the region. Empowered with American support, Israel grew bolder and careless with its national defense measures. The most dangerous consequence of American’s unconditional backing of Israel is the moral hazard it creates within the Israeli government. An article in an earlier issue of The Economist had the perfect analogy to capture this problem: The American dog should be wagging the Israeli tail, not the other way around. It would not be too long of a stretch to say that America’s staunch support for Israel has lead to the formation of the present right-leaning government. “Yes, we can. The Americans are onboard with us” is an accurate way of describing the Israeli mentality in the recent past.

In order for the peace process to move forward, America needs to redefine its role as a peace broker. During the Bush administration, America could hardly call itself a mediator. It would not be an exaggeration to call Bush-era America a perpetrator of violence in the region. As a mediator, the U.S. must maintain a sensible neutrality to promote fairness in this process. In order to remain neutral, the U.S. must find its own independent stance in the conflict and remain firm. So far, the Obama administration has managed to stick to its principle, emphasizing two-state solution as a sine qua non to the continuation to the peace process. Israel is likely to be forced to accept this condition at openly at some point because resolving the century long conflict with the Palestinians is in its best interest and ultimately, it has no other choice.

By pinning the support for Israel on top of the two-state solution, the U.S. government is sending out a clear signal to Israel that it must be willing to compromise its hawkish positions. The European Union will mostly likely take the lead from the U.S. and assume a similar stance on Israel. Israel must soon realize that it needs to muster all the support that is available, not just in the Western world but in its locality as well. Israel’s aggressive attitude towards the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is both perplexing and inimical to its interest. Knowing that Hamas is at odds with the Fatah-dominated government, it is not difficult for Israel to exploit this situation and alienate Hamas. Why make an enemy when you can make a friend? Excessively pressuring Mahmoud Abbas is not going to curb Hamas’ terrorist activities in Gaza. In addition, with the upcoming election in Lebanon and the increasingly likelihood that Hezbollah will be taking a more dominant role in the Lebanese government, Israel really needs to make friends. Hopefully, its current right-leaning government can keep Israel from being alienated in a hostile environment.

Even if Israel were to overtly embrace the two-state pretext for further peace negotiations, the peace cannot be achieved unless the Palestinian Authority can demonstrate its ability to curb terrorist attacks on Israel by its own people. The current state of the Palestinian government is pathetic. Mahmoud Abbas is being forced into a political cul-de-sac, with pressures coming from Israel as well as his fellow Palestinians. If the Palestinian Authority cannot form a coalition government that is committed to make peace with the Israelis, then not only will the peace process stall, the hope of ever establishing the state of Palestine will die as well. However, this is no easy task. Convincing Hamas, an organization whose goal is to annihilate the state of Israel, to give up its weapons along with its raison d’etre is almost impossible to perceive.

There is a reason why the conflict between Israel and Palestine lasted this long. The issue itself is extremely complex and difficult. For America, not only does President Obama have to compose a peaceful melody with the right tunes, he must also to conduct it well and stick to the original score. And to actually perform the prelude to peace, Israel and Palestine better be playing on the same tempo.