A few weeks ago, Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced that he had not won his re-election cleanly, meaning that there had been some kind of fraud, meaning that Abdullah Abdullah, his main opponent, had probably won the election.
A few months ago, I had my first new post in a while called "Election Fraud (?) in Iran" about another controversial election in the middle east, but there it was between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir-Hossein Mosavi.
The Iran election was similar and different to the Afghan election.
It was similar because they were both suspected to have election fraud and both of them were extremely shady.
It was different because Hamid Karzai actually admitted that there was some kind of Election Fraud going on in the election.
Now, some might argue that that means that there wasn't any fraud in Iran. They'll say that the election in Iran was older than the Afghan election, and if Ahmadinejad hasn't said that he didn't win cleanly, then he probably did win cleanly.
This is exactly what Ahmadinejad wants you to think. Karzai coming out and saying that there was corruption in the Afghani election was probably the best thing for Ahmadinejad's corrupt win.
But anyway, back to Afghanistan, Abdullah Abdullah is against everyone in the Afghan government right now since, right now, everyone in the Afghan government works for Hamid Karzai. Although Abdullah is probably supported by most of the country, he has to get through the government before he becomes the next President of Afghanistan.
Since Afghanistan is still a developing democracy, it isn't exactly where the U.S. is since we've had a democracy for more than 200 years.
Now, we do know from 2000 and 2004 that we don't have a perfect democracy either.
This is a bad thing for us and for the rest of the world.
For us, we don't win clean elections and we get the wrong guy to run our country for 4 years.
For the rest of the world, we set an example for democracy worldwide, and if we don't have clean elections, the rest of the world doesn't have clean elections
What do I think? Well, as I said earlier, since Hamid Karzai has come out and said that the race had fraud in it, Karzai has said without saying that Abdullah Abdullah won the Afghan election.
But now, according to nytimes.com, Abdullah has quit the race, and according to CNN Newsroom, it's because he feared that there would be even more fraud the second time around.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Happily Married
In the 1960's, Homo-Sexuality was far from accepted.
Now, in the 2000's, it is more accepted, but not to the point where it should be. And there, comes the Gay Marriage laws.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama said that he didn't think it was the president's duty to make a law for the whole country to approve or dis-approve Gay Marriage, and thought that it should be up to states to decide weather or not to allow Gay Marriage.
John McCain, however, didn't like it at all.
No big surprises.
During the Presidential Campaign, however, Gay Marriage was being tossed around in the state of California, and Obama has said, publicly, that he is against Proposition 8, which later passed, and banned Gay Marriage in California. Although, he has also stated that he believes Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Is this believable?
Not especially.
It wasn't until his campaign that he has even been shy about this issue. When he was a Illinois state Senator, he was for it. When he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois he was for it. But when he was running for President, probably in an effort to get more votes, he was shy, and now that he's President, he's against it.
Also, explain this to me: he's against both Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage, and Gay Marriage.
What do I think?
I think that Gay Marriage is absolutely needed in this country.
First off, no one just decides to be Gay, weather they're Gay or Straight is something that you are born with.
And secondly, according to many surveys from many sources, about 1 out of 10 people in America are Homo-Sexuals.
So if you are against Gay Marriage, that means that you are against giving 10 percent of the people in America the right to be Married.
Ten Percent of the people in this country are the work of the Devil.
10% of people in this country are not going to Heaven.
Will we ever change this?
A special thanks to huffingtonpost.com for additional information
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Now, in the 2000's, it is more accepted, but not to the point where it should be. And there, comes the Gay Marriage laws.
In the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama said that he didn't think it was the president's duty to make a law for the whole country to approve or dis-approve Gay Marriage, and thought that it should be up to states to decide weather or not to allow Gay Marriage.
John McCain, however, didn't like it at all.
No big surprises.
During the Presidential Campaign, however, Gay Marriage was being tossed around in the state of California, and Obama has said, publicly, that he is against Proposition 8, which later passed, and banned Gay Marriage in California. Although, he has also stated that he believes Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Is this believable?
Not especially.
It wasn't until his campaign that he has even been shy about this issue. When he was a Illinois state Senator, he was for it. When he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois he was for it. But when he was running for President, probably in an effort to get more votes, he was shy, and now that he's President, he's against it.
Also, explain this to me: he's against both Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage, and Gay Marriage.
What do I think?
I think that Gay Marriage is absolutely needed in this country.
First off, no one just decides to be Gay, weather they're Gay or Straight is something that you are born with.
And secondly, according to many surveys from many sources, about 1 out of 10 people in America are Homo-Sexuals.
So if you are against Gay Marriage, that means that you are against giving 10 percent of the people in America the right to be Married.
Ten Percent of the people in this country are the work of the Devil.
10% of people in this country are not going to Heaven.
Will we ever change this?
A special thanks to huffingtonpost.com for additional information
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Friday, October 9, 2009
Congratulations: President Barack Obama
On October 9, 2009, something historic happened.
President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
He was not a front-runner, in fact, people were surprised that he had won, yesterday, the front-runner, they said, was Colombian senator Piedad Cordoba, who's most famous act was to find and free 16 prisoners.
All applications had to be sent in only 12 days after he had taken office, and there was already talk about who it was going to be 2 months before he was even elected.
The committee said, just after they had announced that it would go to Obama, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given it's hope for a better future".
According to Thorbjorn Jagland, the leader of the committee, the decision to give Obama the prize was "Unanimous" and that it came with ease to pick the President.
During Obama's speech, he said that he didn't deserve to "be in the company" of all the other winners of the prize, but that he would accept it, because he did think that he was trying to do a lot of things, like his attempt to find a resolution to Nuclear Weapons, the Global Economic Downturn, and finding the resolution to the Arab-Isreali conflict.
He also mentioned that he, as the President of the United States, was responsible with ending the useless Iraq war to premote a higher level of peace, and that he will donate about 1.4 million to charity and charitable causes.
As well as Barack Obama, other winners of the Nobel Prizes include Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider, and Jack W. Szostack for Medicine and Physiology, Herta Müller for Literature, and many others.
A special thanks to cnn.com and other various sources for additional information
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
He was not a front-runner, in fact, people were surprised that he had won, yesterday, the front-runner, they said, was Colombian senator Piedad Cordoba, who's most famous act was to find and free 16 prisoners.
All applications had to be sent in only 12 days after he had taken office, and there was already talk about who it was going to be 2 months before he was even elected.
The committee said, just after they had announced that it would go to Obama, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given it's hope for a better future".
According to Thorbjorn Jagland, the leader of the committee, the decision to give Obama the prize was "Unanimous" and that it came with ease to pick the President.
During Obama's speech, he said that he didn't deserve to "be in the company" of all the other winners of the prize, but that he would accept it, because he did think that he was trying to do a lot of things, like his attempt to find a resolution to Nuclear Weapons, the Global Economic Downturn, and finding the resolution to the Arab-Isreali conflict.
He also mentioned that he, as the President of the United States, was responsible with ending the useless Iraq war to premote a higher level of peace, and that he will donate about 1.4 million to charity and charitable causes.
As well as Barack Obama, other winners of the Nobel Prizes include Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider, and Jack W. Szostack for Medicine and Physiology, Herta Müller for Literature, and many others.
A special thanks to cnn.com and other various sources for additional information
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Monday, October 5, 2009
North Korea's Iran
North Korea, like Iran, supposedly has Nuclear weapons. North Korea, like Iran, is feared by the U.S. North Korea, like Iran, are places that, out of fear, Republicans feel like we need to bomb.
God, has anybody learned anything from Pearl Harbor? Or even our Atom Bomb droppings on Japan?
Bombing just keeps everything going, in fact it makes the feud between those countries worse.
If we bomb them, they are more likely to bomb us.
If we bomb them, they see us as cowards.
Also, let me explain the physics of this, we think that they have Nuclear Weapons, so we get Nuclear Weapons, and we bomb them. Makes perfect sense, right?
Wrong.
If we drop a few Nukes on them, and let me just point out, that we don't know if they have Nuclear Weapons, and we're just assuming, 'cause, y'know, all Muslims are Terrorists.
Right now, there is about an 100% chance that no, they don't have Nuclear Weapons. But just to be sure, we should assume that that 0% is right, and go in, spend 10 billion dollars a month (and they wonder why our debt is so large), realize that there aren't any, but they'll still stay in Iran, to make sure that they aren't making non-existing Nuclear Weapons (and yes, "Iraqi Road" still wasn't enough).
But back to the point, if we bomb them, we are imposing a threat that is doesn't exist, we need to have Iran see us as a good country. Charitable, forgiving, and genuine.
If we bomb them, we are bad people.
To them, to the world, and to me.
How do we do this?
We give aid.
Iran has a lot of people in need of Aid, and if Ahmadinejad sees that we are supplying aid, it will change our image, slightly at first, but later, by a significant margin.
Also, we half to do it sincerely.
If we don't do it sincerely, and Ahmadinejad knows that, he'll just think that we are trying to suck up.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
God, has anybody learned anything from Pearl Harbor? Or even our Atom Bomb droppings on Japan?
Bombing just keeps everything going, in fact it makes the feud between those countries worse.
If we bomb them, they are more likely to bomb us.
If we bomb them, they see us as cowards.
Also, let me explain the physics of this, we think that they have Nuclear Weapons, so we get Nuclear Weapons, and we bomb them. Makes perfect sense, right?
Wrong.
If we drop a few Nukes on them, and let me just point out, that we don't know if they have Nuclear Weapons, and we're just assuming, 'cause, y'know, all Muslims are Terrorists.
Right now, there is about an 100% chance that no, they don't have Nuclear Weapons. But just to be sure, we should assume that that 0% is right, and go in, spend 10 billion dollars a month (and they wonder why our debt is so large), realize that there aren't any, but they'll still stay in Iran, to make sure that they aren't making non-existing Nuclear Weapons (and yes, "Iraqi Road" still wasn't enough).
But back to the point, if we bomb them, we are imposing a threat that is doesn't exist, we need to have Iran see us as a good country. Charitable, forgiving, and genuine.
If we bomb them, we are bad people.
To them, to the world, and to me.
How do we do this?
We give aid.
Iran has a lot of people in need of Aid, and if Ahmadinejad sees that we are supplying aid, it will change our image, slightly at first, but later, by a significant margin.
Also, we half to do it sincerely.
If we don't do it sincerely, and Ahmadinejad knows that, he'll just think that we are trying to suck up.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Close it now.
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is, by a Republican's standard, the only good thing in all of Cuba.
But, in reality it is the worst thing in that entire country.
The U.S.'s first encounter on Guantanamo Bay was during the Spanish-American war, when a Marine force camped there on June 10, 1898. The next day, two Marines were killed in the same area.
Five years later, in 1903, former President Theodore Roosevelt signed an agreement with the new Cuban government, where they would lease the Bay for 2,000 golden coins a year. But this was not something that they did voluntarily, it was something that was in the "Platt Amendment" that, more likely then not, the new government was forced to sign.
I think that they were probably forced to sign this, because it does not seem like something anyone would want. Basically, it gave the U.S. permission to interfere with Cuban affairs, and the Cuban government could not have any say in where or when they interfered.
This agreement was signed on February 16, 1903, and in the agreement, it said that "...for use as coaling or naval stations only, and no other purpose..."
Then, on July 2, 1906, another agreement was signed in Havana to re-buy Guantanamo with another property, Bahia Honda, and for both of these, they would pay $2,000.
The U.S., ever since has been dis-honoring the Platt Amendment, and it has not been for naval purposes only.
Now Guantanamo Bay is, well, Guantanamo Bay, the main torture center for America.
And, if they find someone in associated with Al-Qaeda, if they don't kill them, they'll ship them out to Guantanamo, tie their arms to the back of a board, shove water down their nose and mouths, ask 'em where Bin Laden is, they'll lie, and put them in a small room with 10 other former Al-Qaeda members.
I will never understand the use of torture.
And now, Robert Gates is saying that it might be harder then he originally expected to close Guantanamo, and John McCain has said "Apparently, we are not going to make the deadline, but we should work towards the closure of Guantanamo Bay because of the image it has on the world, of brutality, [which] harms our image very badly"
For once in my life, I can say that I agree with Senator John McCain of Arizona. That's true, completely. If you tie people's hands to a board, and shove water down your throat, it ruins your image.
And no one, unless their Hitler, deserves to die.
A special thanks to cnn.com and historyofcuba.com for additional information
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
But, in reality it is the worst thing in that entire country.
The U.S.'s first encounter on Guantanamo Bay was during the Spanish-American war, when a Marine force camped there on June 10, 1898. The next day, two Marines were killed in the same area.
Five years later, in 1903, former President Theodore Roosevelt signed an agreement with the new Cuban government, where they would lease the Bay for 2,000 golden coins a year. But this was not something that they did voluntarily, it was something that was in the "Platt Amendment" that, more likely then not, the new government was forced to sign.
I think that they were probably forced to sign this, because it does not seem like something anyone would want. Basically, it gave the U.S. permission to interfere with Cuban affairs, and the Cuban government could not have any say in where or when they interfered.
This agreement was signed on February 16, 1903, and in the agreement, it said that "...for use as coaling or naval stations only, and no other purpose..."
Then, on July 2, 1906, another agreement was signed in Havana to re-buy Guantanamo with another property, Bahia Honda, and for both of these, they would pay $2,000.
The U.S., ever since has been dis-honoring the Platt Amendment, and it has not been for naval purposes only.
Now Guantanamo Bay is, well, Guantanamo Bay, the main torture center for America.
And, if they find someone in associated with Al-Qaeda, if they don't kill them, they'll ship them out to Guantanamo, tie their arms to the back of a board, shove water down their nose and mouths, ask 'em where Bin Laden is, they'll lie, and put them in a small room with 10 other former Al-Qaeda members.
I will never understand the use of torture.
And now, Robert Gates is saying that it might be harder then he originally expected to close Guantanamo, and John McCain has said "Apparently, we are not going to make the deadline, but we should work towards the closure of Guantanamo Bay because of the image it has on the world, of brutality, [which] harms our image very badly"
For once in my life, I can say that I agree with Senator John McCain of Arizona. That's true, completely. If you tie people's hands to a board, and shove water down your throat, it ruins your image.
And no one, unless their Hitler, deserves to die.
A special thanks to cnn.com and historyofcuba.com for additional information
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Taliban Problem
Starting in 1996 until 2001, the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Who are the Taliban? An Extreme-Islamist group, who believe that Women shouldn't be educated, and should just not have a voice anywhere.
This, of course, is not accepted by the U.S. government.
The Taliban are one of the worlds worst groups, and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda probably were the ones who created the "All Muslims are Terrorists" stereotype.
If you judge all people associated with a religion just based on two groups, and even worse, if you say that all Muslims should die, to me, that's no better than Al-Qaeda.
And if you say "Oh, well they actually attacked us" then you are telling a lie.
There were about 3,000 people in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. And over the course of the Iraq war, we have killed about 10,000 civilians.
That's a difference of 7,000 people, dead.
In 2001, the Taliban lost control of Afganistan, and lost thousands of supporters.
After 3 years, the Taliban leaders had enough supporters to re-start the group.
And ever since 2004, the Taliban have been terrorising Afghanistan and it's leaders.
The movement is getting out of control, and right now, the Taliban are bombing innocent children in schools because they are educating girls, they are bombing to scare the school board. What the Taliban is obviously trying to is to get the government to stop educating girls so that the Taliban will stop bombing.
But the school board is not buying in, they have taken 5 years of this now, and they haven't bought in, yet.
People all across the world are calling out, telling them not to buy in, and other people are calling out to buy in.
What do I think? I think that although people will die in the process, the government should not buy in. If the Taliban gets it's way, then they will do more things, and if they keep on buying in, the government might as well be a Taliban government.
A special thanks to nytimes.com for additional information
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
This, of course, is not accepted by the U.S. government.
The Taliban are one of the worlds worst groups, and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda probably were the ones who created the "All Muslims are Terrorists" stereotype.
If you judge all people associated with a religion just based on two groups, and even worse, if you say that all Muslims should die, to me, that's no better than Al-Qaeda.
And if you say "Oh, well they actually attacked us" then you are telling a lie.
There were about 3,000 people in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. And over the course of the Iraq war, we have killed about 10,000 civilians.
That's a difference of 7,000 people, dead.
In 2001, the Taliban lost control of Afganistan, and lost thousands of supporters.
After 3 years, the Taliban leaders had enough supporters to re-start the group.
And ever since 2004, the Taliban have been terrorising Afghanistan and it's leaders.
The movement is getting out of control, and right now, the Taliban are bombing innocent children in schools because they are educating girls, they are bombing to scare the school board. What the Taliban is obviously trying to is to get the government to stop educating girls so that the Taliban will stop bombing.
But the school board is not buying in, they have taken 5 years of this now, and they haven't bought in, yet.
People all across the world are calling out, telling them not to buy in, and other people are calling out to buy in.
What do I think? I think that although people will die in the process, the government should not buy in. If the Taliban gets it's way, then they will do more things, and if they keep on buying in, the government might as well be a Taliban government.
A special thanks to nytimes.com for additional information
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Monday, September 14, 2009
Iraqi Road
In my last post, I talked about 9/11, which is what triggered the Iraq war. After 9/11, the U.S. realized that Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were more powerful then we thought.
And at that time, George Bush thought that Osama Bin Laden was hiding somewhere in Iraq. This, of course, was absolutely irrational and untrue.
There were no Nuclear weapons in Iraq, and you couldn't even say that there was no way of telling weather or not there was Osama Bin Laden, and/or Nuclear Weapons in Iraq, because there was no legitimate proof of there being any of that in Iraq. In the speech that Colon Powell gave to the United Nations, it showed blurry pictures of where there "might be" Nuclear Weapons, and proof that there were no people or weapons associated with Al-Qaeda was that they checked, every space that looked like the ones Colon Powell showed.
Were there Nuclear Weapons? No.
Were there Terrorists? No.
And you would think that at this point, they would abort the mission.
But they simply couldn't.
1st, They had caused so much international news, that it couldn't just be over after a few months.
And 2nd, they had already taken over Iraq, and they couldn't get out of it.
And after another year or two, the mind set had come back, and then it came back, stronger than ever.
Then, George Bush sent more and more troops in, costing about 10 billion dollars a month, and we got in bigger and bigger debt.
And in the middle of it all, the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was executed, because the U.S. thought that he had ties to Al-Qaeda.
Saddam Hussein had his share of problems, he murdered and tortured tens of thousands of people in his own country, but had no ties what so ever to Al-Qaeda.
And there is no reason for the Death Penalty, no one deserves to die and people are very easily concealed in a prison.
The Iraq war is one of the worst wars in the history of America.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
And at that time, George Bush thought that Osama Bin Laden was hiding somewhere in Iraq. This, of course, was absolutely irrational and untrue.
There were no Nuclear weapons in Iraq, and you couldn't even say that there was no way of telling weather or not there was Osama Bin Laden, and/or Nuclear Weapons in Iraq, because there was no legitimate proof of there being any of that in Iraq. In the speech that Colon Powell gave to the United Nations, it showed blurry pictures of where there "might be" Nuclear Weapons, and proof that there were no people or weapons associated with Al-Qaeda was that they checked, every space that looked like the ones Colon Powell showed.
Were there Nuclear Weapons? No.
Were there Terrorists? No.
And you would think that at this point, they would abort the mission.
But they simply couldn't.
1st, They had caused so much international news, that it couldn't just be over after a few months.
And 2nd, they had already taken over Iraq, and they couldn't get out of it.
And after another year or two, the mind set had come back, and then it came back, stronger than ever.
Then, George Bush sent more and more troops in, costing about 10 billion dollars a month, and we got in bigger and bigger debt.
And in the middle of it all, the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was executed, because the U.S. thought that he had ties to Al-Qaeda.
Saddam Hussein had his share of problems, he murdered and tortured tens of thousands of people in his own country, but had no ties what so ever to Al-Qaeda.
And there is no reason for the Death Penalty, no one deserves to die and people are very easily concealed in a prison.
The Iraq war is one of the worst wars in the history of America.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Friday, September 11, 2009
8 years, we remember.
Eight years ago today, two airplanes hit the World Trade Center, which were some of the tallest building in the world, and the tallest buildings in New York. Where were these airplanes from? After the government (meaning the Senate and the CIA, since the President was sitting in a classroom reading "The Very Hungry Caterpillar", which according to him is his favorite book. Hey, it's probably the closest thing to "Ulysses" he's ever read) found that it was members of Al-Qaeda who hi-jacked the planes, and ran them into the World Trade Center.
This killed almost everyone in the towers, with only a few dozen survivors. And the people who did survive are now scarred for life.
A lot of people don't know that beyond the towers, another two planes were hi-jacked. One hit the Pentagon, and although there were no deaths, a lot of people got seriously injured. And one was going to hit the White House, but failed the mission.
This was the iconic moment in the"all Muslims are terrorists" stereotype.
Before this, we knew about terrorists, but didn't really care, then 9/11 came along, and the U.S. suddenly took action, as they had to. Once the Al-Qaeda group had gone into the U.S., and took lives, that's when you half to take action.
But then, they went into Iraq, and there was no reason to go to Iraq.
The decision to go into Iraq was made by the U.S. government, and a speech was given in a U.N. convention by Colon Powell.
Colon Powell was, more likely then not, the most reasonable person in the history of the Bush Administration, but he could have very easily said "No. I will not give a speech to almost every country in the world saying that a completely corrupted war is actually needed."
But, he did, and the speech basically said "There might be weapons, so we are gonna check, and spend 10 billion dollars a month on something that isn't real."
And that somehow persuaded a bunch of countries to help pay for this war.
I don't know.
Post questions and comments as comments.
Sam
This killed almost everyone in the towers, with only a few dozen survivors. And the people who did survive are now scarred for life.
A lot of people don't know that beyond the towers, another two planes were hi-jacked. One hit the Pentagon, and although there were no deaths, a lot of people got seriously injured. And one was going to hit the White House, but failed the mission.
This was the iconic moment in the"all Muslims are terrorists" stereotype.
Before this, we knew about terrorists, but didn't really care, then 9/11 came along, and the U.S. suddenly took action, as they had to. Once the Al-Qaeda group had gone into the U.S., and took lives, that's when you half to take action.
But then, they went into Iraq, and there was no reason to go to Iraq.
The decision to go into Iraq was made by the U.S. government, and a speech was given in a U.N. convention by Colon Powell.
Colon Powell was, more likely then not, the most reasonable person in the history of the Bush Administration, but he could have very easily said "No. I will not give a speech to almost every country in the world saying that a completely corrupted war is actually needed."
But, he did, and the speech basically said "There might be weapons, so we are gonna check, and spend 10 billion dollars a month on something that isn't real."
And that somehow persuaded a bunch of countries to help pay for this war.
I don't know.
Post questions and comments as comments.
Sam
Monday, September 7, 2009
Exhaling is bad for the Environment?
CO2, Carbon Dioxide, is both good and bad for you. There are two types of CO2, one is Natural, and one is Artificial. Natural is what you exhale, and is absorbed by Plants and Oceans, and Artificial is more difficultly absorbed by plants and oceans, and in large amounts, nature can absorb almost no CO2.
Over time, (say, 30 years) a whole is created in the atmosphere, which rises the worldwide temperature, which makes the plants and oceans go crazy, in fact, they say when global warming hits its full effect, Antarctica and the North Pole will melt, which will turn the ice into water, rising ocean levels worldwide, which will sink all of the coastal cities in the world, like New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Seoul, and many more. We are talking hundreds of millions of people here, and if we don't get our CO2 level back down to 350, it is not going to be good.
There was a guest on Colbert (who by the way I challenge to a blog-off, and I am doing that because he doesn't even have a blog, so I challenge you, Stephen Colbert) a few days ago, and he was from 350.org.
And being the good person that I am, I went on this website. And it defines what I am talking about in this article.
It says on it has on it's home page the first part of a whole article (most of which they talked about on Colbert) and, although I can not quote everything on the front page, based on simple copyright laws, I can say certain themes.
And what it said was this:
(written as though it the average activist to the average person in the world), most people in the world are aware of global warming, and that all of the people in the world know that what ever it is, it needs to be stopped. But then it ends with a hopeful message, saying that it can be achieved.
I couldn't read beyond the sample that was given on the homepage, because the link didn't open, but I think that that pretty much summed it up.
The climate crisis is one of the biggest troubles in the world today, and I appreciate the efforts of 350.org.
My opinion, along with everyone in the world, (accept the Bush-Cheney administration) is that global warming is bad.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Over time, (say, 30 years) a whole is created in the atmosphere, which rises the worldwide temperature, which makes the plants and oceans go crazy, in fact, they say when global warming hits its full effect, Antarctica and the North Pole will melt, which will turn the ice into water, rising ocean levels worldwide, which will sink all of the coastal cities in the world, like New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Seoul, and many more. We are talking hundreds of millions of people here, and if we don't get our CO2 level back down to 350, it is not going to be good.
There was a guest on Colbert (who by the way I challenge to a blog-off, and I am doing that because he doesn't even have a blog, so I challenge you, Stephen Colbert) a few days ago, and he was from 350.org.
And being the good person that I am, I went on this website. And it defines what I am talking about in this article.
It says on it has on it's home page the first part of a whole article (most of which they talked about on Colbert) and, although I can not quote everything on the front page, based on simple copyright laws, I can say certain themes.
And what it said was this:
(written as though it the average activist to the average person in the world), most people in the world are aware of global warming, and that all of the people in the world know that what ever it is, it needs to be stopped. But then it ends with a hopeful message, saying that it can be achieved.
I couldn't read beyond the sample that was given on the homepage, because the link didn't open, but I think that that pretty much summed it up.
The climate crisis is one of the biggest troubles in the world today, and I appreciate the efforts of 350.org.
My opinion, along with everyone in the world, (accept the Bush-Cheney administration) is that global warming is bad.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Saturday, September 5, 2009
If the president's speaking, I want my kid out.
On Tuesday, September 8, 2009, the President will give a speech to late Elementary, Middle, and High school students, about how you should stay in school.
And of course, since it is the president, and not say Rush Limbaugh, it is going to be about the return of the Nazi-Socialists. Obviously.
Seriously, do these people ever give it a rest? I mean if George Bush could stop filming "Barney's Christmas Special", and go on national T.V. (right after he did something about Iraq) and say "Hey kids, don't do drugs" and basically walked off, would there be people keeping their kids out of school? No.
And even better, since it is completely going to be, "Drugs are something that were invented by Republicans and those Republicans have destroyed the world."
Right?
And, y'know we don't want to hear a racist speak to our children to manipulate our children and hypnotize them.
Can we ever change some people?
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
And of course, since it is the president, and not say Rush Limbaugh, it is going to be about the return of the Nazi-Socialists. Obviously.
Seriously, do these people ever give it a rest? I mean if George Bush could stop filming "Barney's Christmas Special", and go on national T.V. (right after he did something about Iraq) and say "Hey kids, don't do drugs" and basically walked off, would there be people keeping their kids out of school? No.
And even better, since it is completely going to be, "Drugs are something that were invented by Republicans and those Republicans have destroyed the world."
Right?
And, y'know we don't want to hear a racist speak to our children to manipulate our children and hypnotize them.
Can we ever change some people?
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Monday, August 31, 2009
Answer this Question, Without Drowning
The U.S.is, in many ways one of the most understanding countries in the world. It has eliminated about 70% of Racists, Sexists, Anti-Semites from existence (most of them are people who watch Glenn Beck's Show). It has come so far since the 60's and 70's due to all of the Movements from Women, African-Americans, and Jews.
But with some things, were not quite where some other countries are.
And one of those things is Water Boarding.
If you are Unfamiliar with Water Boarding, then let me explain:
a Republican would probably explain it like this: there's a Muslim (and that means a terrorist) and he is a bad person (all Muslims are) and so in order to get him to answer questions, we simulate drowning, which doesn't actually hurt the person at all.
Are there lies? yes, many. But are there any lies about the actual water boarding, no. However, this is what really happens:
There's a guy who is a terrorist or, more likely, some guy who drives a Taxi into a camp. And this guy, guilty or innocent, is taken into a room, where they tie his arms to the back of a board and they take an entire jug of water and force it down their nose and mouth, making it seem like their drowning. No, it doesn't hurt the person at all, but if you were sinking to the bottom of a pool, that's what it would feel like. And if you tried to close your mouth, they would open it back up, physically. And the same thing for your nose. And while you feel like your about to die, you half to answer questions about terrorism.
So can't you think that it is just simple, because it is not.
My overall opinion is that water boarding sucks and should be illegal.
(Special thanks to cnn.com)
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
But with some things, were not quite where some other countries are.
And one of those things is Water Boarding.
If you are Unfamiliar with Water Boarding, then let me explain:
a Republican would probably explain it like this: there's a Muslim (and that means a terrorist) and he is a bad person (all Muslims are) and so in order to get him to answer questions, we simulate drowning, which doesn't actually hurt the person at all.
Are there lies? yes, many. But are there any lies about the actual water boarding, no. However, this is what really happens:
There's a guy who is a terrorist or, more likely, some guy who drives a Taxi into a camp. And this guy, guilty or innocent, is taken into a room, where they tie his arms to the back of a board and they take an entire jug of water and force it down their nose and mouth, making it seem like their drowning. No, it doesn't hurt the person at all, but if you were sinking to the bottom of a pool, that's what it would feel like. And if you tried to close your mouth, they would open it back up, physically. And the same thing for your nose. And while you feel like your about to die, you half to answer questions about terrorism.
So can't you think that it is just simple, because it is not.
My overall opinion is that water boarding sucks and should be illegal.
(Special thanks to cnn.com)
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Thursday, August 27, 2009
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!
Sitting on the couch, watching the news. Sounds like a Status update for Facebook, but it's not. What I am watching is Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn talking about Health Care Reform. This is exactly what he said, I didn't edit this out:
Reporter: What's being done to help the woman at the town hall meeting?
Coburn: Well, everything we can, but, y'know she has a case filed with her and that's all confidential, so we can't speak the details of it, uuh, but we've had several people call us, and say that they're willing to help her, since! So, and so y'know the question is-
Reporter: Do you do that with the Millions of Uninsured people in this country-
Coburn: Yeah!
Reporter: Who are on the same boat?
Coburn: No! They're not on the same boat! Don't exaggerate Most people-
Reporter: There are millions of people who are uninsured in this country.
Coburn: Your gonna ask me a question, let me answer, or are you gonna argue.
Reporter: I'm just asking.
Coburn: What I'm saying is there are millions of people who are uninsured, but they're not people who've lost their husband's ability to be a bread winner, and then not have a safety net that is taken care of. There's not many. And the question is, is are we efficient in how we help people who really depend on us.
Reporter: So of the 47 million people in this country, her case is an exception?
Coburn: Absolutely. Absolutely. Let's talk about the 47 million you all continue to refer to. 11 million of 'em are illegal immigrants; 16 million are legible of "S chip" or "Medicate Today", they go anywhere, there gonna get covered 'cause there eligible; we have 11 million who are making over 75,000 dollars a year who choose not to buy insurance.
So we actually have about nine million Americans who really need our help.
Reporter: So it's exaggerating.
Coburn: Absolutely it's exaggeratin'. But it does mean the problem with the cost of health care. Because the thing that keeps the from getting Health Care is cost.
Wow. That's almost as bad as the amount of racism it takes to call Obama a racist.
So there are just 38 million, no, not thousand, not ten thousand, not even hundred thousand. 38 Million Americans without health insurance that we should just pay no attention to.
38 Million Americans, more than 1/9 of the country we can just plow over. Sure, 8/9's of the country we will pay attention to, but 1/9 of the country can just die.
Let's break down the people who should just die, shall we?
11 Million illegal immigrants, which isn't even true, according to a republican study, there are 8 million illegal immigrants who are uninsured. And since it is a republican study, there are probably only about 5 million illegal immigrants. And even so, illegal immigrants have just as much of a right to be healthy as people who have been living here all of their lives. And when he said that 11 million were illegal immigrants, he didn't even go on to explain why they shouldn't get coverage, he just said "11 million are illegal immigrants" as if they deserve to die.
16 Million Americans who legible, but for some reason don't have health insurance. What? That almost makes less sense than the last one. So they have no health insurance but are covered by health insurance?
11 million who choose not to get health insurance, and are rich. So they are making way more money than most of the 16 million and probably all of the illegal immigrants. And they choose not to get health insurance. Personally, I don't understand it and I'm sure that there are not 11 million people who do.
He is pulling numbers out of... I don't even know where.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Reporter: What's being done to help the woman at the town hall meeting?
Coburn: Well, everything we can, but, y'know she has a case filed with her and that's all confidential, so we can't speak the details of it, uuh, but we've had several people call us, and say that they're willing to help her, since! So, and so y'know the question is-
Reporter: Do you do that with the Millions of Uninsured people in this country-
Coburn: Yeah!
Reporter: Who are on the same boat?
Coburn: No! They're not on the same boat! Don't exaggerate Most people-
Reporter: There are millions of people who are uninsured in this country.
Coburn: Your gonna ask me a question, let me answer, or are you gonna argue.
Reporter: I'm just asking.
Coburn: What I'm saying is there are millions of people who are uninsured, but they're not people who've lost their husband's ability to be a bread winner, and then not have a safety net that is taken care of. There's not many. And the question is, is are we efficient in how we help people who really depend on us.
Reporter: So of the 47 million people in this country, her case is an exception?
Coburn: Absolutely. Absolutely. Let's talk about the 47 million you all continue to refer to. 11 million of 'em are illegal immigrants; 16 million are legible of "S chip" or "Medicate Today", they go anywhere, there gonna get covered 'cause there eligible; we have 11 million who are making over 75,000 dollars a year who choose not to buy insurance.
So we actually have about nine million Americans who really need our help.
Reporter: So it's exaggerating.
Coburn: Absolutely it's exaggeratin'. But it does mean the problem with the cost of health care. Because the thing that keeps the from getting Health Care is cost.
Wow. That's almost as bad as the amount of racism it takes to call Obama a racist.
So there are just 38 million, no, not thousand, not ten thousand, not even hundred thousand. 38 Million Americans without health insurance that we should just pay no attention to.
38 Million Americans, more than 1/9 of the country we can just plow over. Sure, 8/9's of the country we will pay attention to, but 1/9 of the country can just die.
Let's break down the people who should just die, shall we?
11 Million illegal immigrants, which isn't even true, according to a republican study, there are 8 million illegal immigrants who are uninsured. And since it is a republican study, there are probably only about 5 million illegal immigrants. And even so, illegal immigrants have just as much of a right to be healthy as people who have been living here all of their lives. And when he said that 11 million were illegal immigrants, he didn't even go on to explain why they shouldn't get coverage, he just said "11 million are illegal immigrants" as if they deserve to die.
16 Million Americans who legible, but for some reason don't have health insurance. What? That almost makes less sense than the last one. So they have no health insurance but are covered by health insurance?
11 million who choose not to get health insurance, and are rich. So they are making way more money than most of the 16 million and probably all of the illegal immigrants. And they choose not to get health insurance. Personally, I don't understand it and I'm sure that there are not 11 million people who do.
He is pulling numbers out of... I don't even know where.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Senator Edward Kennedy: Dead at 77
The Lion of the Senate, brother of the legendary president John F. Kennedy, Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy has died from a brain tumor at the age of 77.
When he had started his political career, his brother, John was serving his legendary time in the White House. Partly because of his brother's popularity, and partly because of his great ideas, he was elected into the Senate.There he served 46 years.
Throughout is entire career, he fought and fought for things like Health Care reform. A few posts ago, I talked about Health Care reform in "Health Care for E.T.?", in that, I praised Universal Health Care which Sen. Kennedy did.
Senator Kennedy said in his article for Newsweek Magazine that the thought of someone not being able to afford full treatment for cancer was what kept him on the Senate floor.
Unfortunately, he was never able to vote on Universal Health Care, but I am positive that he would have voted Yea on it.
Although his successor will almost definitely be a Democrat, who will hopefully vote Yea on Universal Health Care.
In 1980, Ted Kennedy ran for president against the incumbent Jimmy Carter.
He ran against Carter because he didn't feel he was moving far enough on things life Health Care. And there, he was probably right.
In the 1980 Democratic Convention, though, he didn't win.
In the 2008 election, he surprised the world by endorsing Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.
In fact, he was one of the few people who said that Obama was going to defeat Hillary Cilnton.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Monday, August 24, 2009
Kim Jong's Ill
Kim Jong Il, current dictator of North Korea, and who is right now suffering from Pancreatic cancer, is a man with many, many problems.
First of all, it's not huge in population, it has about 22 million people, meaning that it has about five million more people than the largest city in it's current rival, South Korea.
There was once just one Korea, but then, there was the Korean War.
They say that around the time when the Korean war started, the new and green Cold War suddenly turned up a notch, and went up to a bloody, explosive war that is the Cold War.
The Korean war started with a sudden invasion of what is now South Korea from North Korea.
North Korea wanted it's own government, the people in North Korea decided that the idea of communism was a better idea than the Korean Democracy.
And the U.S. sided with South Korea, which means that now, North Korea hates us.
But, if that were today, the North Korean people would almost definitely go with South Korea.
Right now, in North Korea, people cannot go over the border to South Korea, or they would be killed.
In fact, the people in North Korea cannot leave any country that is not an ally of North Korea, the only countries that aren't enemies of North Korea are Russia, China, or maybe Cuba.
Two of those four countries listed there are the only two countries that people in the U.S.A. can not go to.
Kim Jong Il is pretty much the dictator of dictators of this generation. (Yes, I know. Even bigger than Obama) He has cut off his country from the rest of the world, North Korea now has way more enemies than they have allies, and he lets his country live in poverty while he spends the countries money on himself, the military, (there, mostly nuclear missiles), and tourist attraction (when he does let people into his country, he puts on huge celebration, in order to possibly get more residents).
About two years ago, the New York Philharmonic Orchestra played a concert in North Korea, where they were greeted by a warm audience.
That may have been more than just a concert, that may have been one of the best opportunities in the history of the U.S.-North Korean rivalry for making up.
It could very strongly benefit for our making up.
In the end, Kim Jong Il needs to be de-throned.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
First of all, it's not huge in population, it has about 22 million people, meaning that it has about five million more people than the largest city in it's current rival, South Korea.
There was once just one Korea, but then, there was the Korean War.
They say that around the time when the Korean war started, the new and green Cold War suddenly turned up a notch, and went up to a bloody, explosive war that is the Cold War.
The Korean war started with a sudden invasion of what is now South Korea from North Korea.
North Korea wanted it's own government, the people in North Korea decided that the idea of communism was a better idea than the Korean Democracy.
And the U.S. sided with South Korea, which means that now, North Korea hates us.
But, if that were today, the North Korean people would almost definitely go with South Korea.
Right now, in North Korea, people cannot go over the border to South Korea, or they would be killed.
In fact, the people in North Korea cannot leave any country that is not an ally of North Korea, the only countries that aren't enemies of North Korea are Russia, China, or maybe Cuba.
Two of those four countries listed there are the only two countries that people in the U.S.A. can not go to.
Kim Jong Il is pretty much the dictator of dictators of this generation. (Yes, I know. Even bigger than Obama) He has cut off his country from the rest of the world, North Korea now has way more enemies than they have allies, and he lets his country live in poverty while he spends the countries money on himself, the military, (there, mostly nuclear missiles), and tourist attraction (when he does let people into his country, he puts on huge celebration, in order to possibly get more residents).
About two years ago, the New York Philharmonic Orchestra played a concert in North Korea, where they were greeted by a warm audience.
That may have been more than just a concert, that may have been one of the best opportunities in the history of the U.S.-North Korean rivalry for making up.
It could very strongly benefit for our making up.
In the end, Kim Jong Il needs to be de-throned.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Friday, August 14, 2009
Health Care for E.T.?
Health Care reform is something that has been on the news so often, that people, including me, are getting sick of it.
But once you think about it, it is a pretty interesting subject.
Especially Universal health care.
If it really is that bad, how can it help millions, and millions of people.
The people that the Republicans ignore, that they watched die in New Orleans during Katrina, and did nothing about. And while the Democrats said that we had to do save these people's lives, and if we had Al Gore as a president (that's right, although I was only two when that happened, I'm still mad about it.) thousands of people would still be walking this earth, but since we had George Bush, those thousands died. And the city is still recovering from it.
If Sarah Palin had to choose between a Billionaire who had a business opportunity for them, and one thousand people who were on their death beds (not making a cent), she would choose the Billionaire with no questions asked.
But ever since the Obama campaign (the only reasonable campaign in that election as far as I am concerned), Obama was proposing the idea of Universal Health Care.
It is a myth (and one that the conservative media came up with) that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world. Which is evident by the life expectancy rate, in 1945, the U.S. was No. 1, in life expectancy; now, it's No. 21.
Another myth is that Universal Health Care would be too expensive. The fact is that their could be 200 billion dollars chipped off of our Ten-Trillion Dollar debt if we went with Universal Health Care. That's 2% of the debt, and right now, anything that we can chip off of the debt is good.
If it were the Health Insurance company's choice, they would keep the 200 billion, and the Chairman and CEO's of them would give it to themselves as bonuses.
It makes me angry that the Health Care industry cares more about making money than they do about actual health care. that's obviously the purpose of pre-existing conditions, to make money. If you have cancer, and you are lying on your death bed, and you had changed your health insurance about three years ago, they would probably say that it was a pre-existing condition, and you would get nothing. Nothing at all.
It is another myth that if we did this, the government would completely run Health Care. Since the campaign, Barack Obama has said that if you like your doctor, you can keep him or her, but if you don't like the health care situation you are in, you have the option to change.
In the end, Universal Health Care is awesome, and Pre-existing conditions suck. So please, Congress, pass Universal Health Care.
But once you think about it, it is a pretty interesting subject.
Especially Universal health care.
If it really is that bad, how can it help millions, and millions of people.
The people that the Republicans ignore, that they watched die in New Orleans during Katrina, and did nothing about. And while the Democrats said that we had to do save these people's lives, and if we had Al Gore as a president (that's right, although I was only two when that happened, I'm still mad about it.) thousands of people would still be walking this earth, but since we had George Bush, those thousands died. And the city is still recovering from it.
If Sarah Palin had to choose between a Billionaire who had a business opportunity for them, and one thousand people who were on their death beds (not making a cent), she would choose the Billionaire with no questions asked.
But ever since the Obama campaign (the only reasonable campaign in that election as far as I am concerned), Obama was proposing the idea of Universal Health Care.
It is a myth (and one that the conservative media came up with) that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world. Which is evident by the life expectancy rate, in 1945, the U.S. was No. 1, in life expectancy; now, it's No. 21.
Another myth is that Universal Health Care would be too expensive. The fact is that their could be 200 billion dollars chipped off of our Ten-Trillion Dollar debt if we went with Universal Health Care. That's 2% of the debt, and right now, anything that we can chip off of the debt is good.
If it were the Health Insurance company's choice, they would keep the 200 billion, and the Chairman and CEO's of them would give it to themselves as bonuses.
It makes me angry that the Health Care industry cares more about making money than they do about actual health care. that's obviously the purpose of pre-existing conditions, to make money. If you have cancer, and you are lying on your death bed, and you had changed your health insurance about three years ago, they would probably say that it was a pre-existing condition, and you would get nothing. Nothing at all.
It is another myth that if we did this, the government would completely run Health Care. Since the campaign, Barack Obama has said that if you like your doctor, you can keep him or her, but if you don't like the health care situation you are in, you have the option to change.
In the end, Universal Health Care is awesome, and Pre-existing conditions suck. So please, Congress, pass Universal Health Care.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Thank You: Yang Jiechi
I would just like to issue as statement saying thank you, Yang Jiechi, Chinese Foreign Minister, for bringing support to peace talks in Darfur. It is something that the U.S., Great Brittan, and pretty much every other country in the world (I'm sorry if your country supports peace talks in Darfur, I would like that and I would support that, but right now I would like to talk about Yang Jiechi and China's support) hasn't done, and since China, being perhaps the second most powerful country in the world, has supported it, (and if only we could convince the U.S. to support it) I think that Sudan can at least try to do it.
Jiechi also mentioned that he considers Darfur to be one of the foreign "Hotspot Issues" along side Iran's Nuclear programme, the many wars in the Middle East and (this one surprised me) Nuclear bomb crazed North Korea. Now, both being communist countries, and both having some of the biggest weapon forces in the world, they both half to be allies, and for China to throw North Korea under the bus like that surprised me. But this is good, if North Korea listens to their ally, that could be the end to a lot of Nuclear weapons.
But back to what the article was originally about, thank you once again, Yang Jiechi, for supporting peace talks in Darfur.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Jiechi also mentioned that he considers Darfur to be one of the foreign "Hotspot Issues" along side Iran's Nuclear programme, the many wars in the Middle East and (this one surprised me) Nuclear bomb crazed North Korea. Now, both being communist countries, and both having some of the biggest weapon forces in the world, they both half to be allies, and for China to throw North Korea under the bus like that surprised me. But this is good, if North Korea listens to their ally, that could be the end to a lot of Nuclear weapons.
But back to what the article was originally about, thank you once again, Yang Jiechi, for supporting peace talks in Darfur.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
conservativetruth.org, the world's most racist website
So, I recently went to conservative truth.org,(I advise you not to go there, you don't want to add to their popularity) and they compared our president, Barack Hussein Obama (I like his middle name. It means good, small, or handsome one in Arabic) to Fidel Castro, who seems like God in next to the other person that they compared our president to, (who won by a landslide over that strange-looking Demon that is John McCain) Adolf Hitler. That's right, they compared the president of the United States to the Racist, Anti-Semitic, Sexist man who started World War II, therefore killing about 72 million people, and about 4% of the population worldwide. Wow, that takes a lot of courage, and the fact that no one (at least not that I've read) has pointed this out until now? Wow.
Glenn Beck said a few weeks ago on his show that Barack Obama hates White people. Therefore (sorry Stephen Colbert, I'm gonna use the same joke that you did) saying that Barack Obama hates his own mother.
We finally have a President who's not White, and they call him racist. There have been so many other presidents who have been racist. To name a few, Woodrow Wilson (who was in favor of the KKK), Andrew Jackson (who forced thousands and thousands of Native Americans oust of there homes, and if they weren't moving fast enough, there were guards who would shoot them) and George Bush (Jr. more than Sr., with the Iraq war and basic prejudice for people who live in the middle east).
Republicans did the same thing to Sotomayor. She said a reasonable statement saying that with cases involving Latina or Latino people, she could probably come up with better results than a white person. Which is probably true.
Meanwhile, Samuel Alito, another Supreme Court justice (Republican, but did you really need to know that?) Said that he, being a Italian-American could come up with better results with a case involving an Italian-American than anyone else on the Supreme Court.
That is exactly what Sotomayor said.
Is it just because she is a Democrat? Or is that racism by itself.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Glenn Beck said a few weeks ago on his show that Barack Obama hates White people. Therefore (sorry Stephen Colbert, I'm gonna use the same joke that you did) saying that Barack Obama hates his own mother.
We finally have a President who's not White, and they call him racist. There have been so many other presidents who have been racist. To name a few, Woodrow Wilson (who was in favor of the KKK), Andrew Jackson (who forced thousands and thousands of Native Americans oust of there homes, and if they weren't moving fast enough, there were guards who would shoot them) and George Bush (Jr. more than Sr., with the Iraq war and basic prejudice for people who live in the middle east).
Republicans did the same thing to Sotomayor. She said a reasonable statement saying that with cases involving Latina or Latino people, she could probably come up with better results than a white person. Which is probably true.
Meanwhile, Samuel Alito, another Supreme Court justice (Republican, but did you really need to know that?) Said that he, being a Italian-American could come up with better results with a case involving an Italian-American than anyone else on the Supreme Court.
That is exactly what Sotomayor said.
Is it just because she is a Democrat? Or is that racism by itself.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Election Fraud (?) in Iran
Iran, ever since the Bush administration, (God am I happy that those years are done) has been the only country the world that they hate that they haven't invaded.
Iran has been a country that ever since the years that the U.S. decided that all Muslims were terrorists, has been on the list of countries that the U.S. wants to eliminate.
And with the recent stuff with Iraq, that has fueled another hate of Arabs.
And since Ahmadinejad was in the Presidential position most of the time Iraq was invaded, the U.S. hates him.
Unfair? Yes.
But don't get me wrong, Ahmadinejad has many, many problems. Such as he is a Holocaust denier.
So with the Iranian Presidential Election on its way, where the Election was between Ahmadinejad and someone else, you can see why the U.S. was so thrilled and exited to get the results.
Who exactly was this "someone else"? Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the former Prime Minister.
Mousavi is considered a much more reform figure than Ahmadinejad, and was supposed to be a favorite amongst young voters. Young voters who, if they were basically unanimous, could decide the election.
When the Washington Post took a poll, it showed Ahmadinejad leading by a 2-1 margin. Two thirds of the country.
However, early voting spoke otherwise. It had a lead towards Mousavi.
So, at this point, it could go either way.
On my opinion, neither source has much use.
Nationwide polls are rare for Iranian people, so they may have felt as if the Government was going to come and get them if they didn't say that they were voting for Ahmadinejad.
And most people don't vote early, most people vote on election day.
On June 12, millions of Iranians lined up to vote for someone who was going to help lead their country for the next four years.
And when the results came in, millions of Iranians were surprised.
The election showed a strong victory for Ahmadinejad.
Mousavi demanded a recount.
In just a few days, thousands of people around the world were protesting, most of them showing picket signs that said "Where's My Vote?"On them.
Although Mousavi, and thousands of people worldwide demanded a recount, it wasn't granted to them. And Ahmadinejad was sworn in.
Was there election fraud involved, well, based on the polls, no. However, in statistics, it showed Ahmadinejad and Mousavi close on young voters, which wasn't expected, it was expected that Mousavi would completely destroy Ahmadinejad in that field.
Another thing that fueled protest was that Mousavi lost, by a great margin, in his home district. Which is very rare for a serious competitor in any serious election.
Another election fact that I was suspicious about was that Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran wasn't going to let Ahmadinejad loose, who he has favored all along.
And lastly the fact that there was no recount that was granted to Mousavi makes me think that the results of the recount would probably in Mousavi's favor.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Iran has been a country that ever since the years that the U.S. decided that all Muslims were terrorists, has been on the list of countries that the U.S. wants to eliminate.
And with the recent stuff with Iraq, that has fueled another hate of Arabs.
And since Ahmadinejad was in the Presidential position most of the time Iraq was invaded, the U.S. hates him.
Unfair? Yes.
But don't get me wrong, Ahmadinejad has many, many problems. Such as he is a Holocaust denier.
So with the Iranian Presidential Election on its way, where the Election was between Ahmadinejad and someone else, you can see why the U.S. was so thrilled and exited to get the results.
Who exactly was this "someone else"? Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the former Prime Minister.
Mousavi is considered a much more reform figure than Ahmadinejad, and was supposed to be a favorite amongst young voters. Young voters who, if they were basically unanimous, could decide the election.
When the Washington Post took a poll, it showed Ahmadinejad leading by a 2-1 margin. Two thirds of the country.
However, early voting spoke otherwise. It had a lead towards Mousavi.
So, at this point, it could go either way.
On my opinion, neither source has much use.
Nationwide polls are rare for Iranian people, so they may have felt as if the Government was going to come and get them if they didn't say that they were voting for Ahmadinejad.
And most people don't vote early, most people vote on election day.
On June 12, millions of Iranians lined up to vote for someone who was going to help lead their country for the next four years.
And when the results came in, millions of Iranians were surprised.
The election showed a strong victory for Ahmadinejad.
Mousavi demanded a recount.
In just a few days, thousands of people around the world were protesting, most of them showing picket signs that said "Where's My Vote?"On them.
Although Mousavi, and thousands of people worldwide demanded a recount, it wasn't granted to them. And Ahmadinejad was sworn in.
Was there election fraud involved, well, based on the polls, no. However, in statistics, it showed Ahmadinejad and Mousavi close on young voters, which wasn't expected, it was expected that Mousavi would completely destroy Ahmadinejad in that field.
Another thing that fueled protest was that Mousavi lost, by a great margin, in his home district. Which is very rare for a serious competitor in any serious election.
Another election fact that I was suspicious about was that Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran wasn't going to let Ahmadinejad loose, who he has favored all along.
And lastly the fact that there was no recount that was granted to Mousavi makes me think that the results of the recount would probably in Mousavi's favor.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Friday, May 8, 2009
Diamonds Aren't Forever (James Bond lied, I know)
In places in Africa, like South Africa, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, people go into the Diamond mines for up to ten months. That is not good, at all.
In our country, we have coal miners and coal mining is a job that is in the top 17 most dangerous jobs in the world (I thought that it would be higher), along with fisherman, oil rig workers, and pilots.
And some people say that diamond miners have even more of a dangerous job then coal miners
And that is debatable, due to the coal miner's risk of black lung, (a medical condition where particles from coal get into your lungs, and if you are exposed to it long enough, those particles destroy your lungs, and you die from suffocation almost immediately.)
However, the mines in Africa are in terrible condition.
The mines that are in West Virginia and Pennsylvania are at least in stable condition, and they try to make them stay up and not topple on top of it's self.
The mines in Africa are make to be built and to harvest diamonds, and if one falls down, then they just build a new one.
A movie called "Blood Diamond" raised awareness for this cause a few years ago.
It was a surprise hit, although I have not seen this movie, I've heard that it was quite good.
So how do we stop this?
You can help stop this by trying to not buy diamonds, or, you can possibly ask the people at the counter "Where do you get your diamonds from?"
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
In our country, we have coal miners and coal mining is a job that is in the top 17 most dangerous jobs in the world (I thought that it would be higher), along with fisherman, oil rig workers, and pilots.
And some people say that diamond miners have even more of a dangerous job then coal miners
And that is debatable, due to the coal miner's risk of black lung, (a medical condition where particles from coal get into your lungs, and if you are exposed to it long enough, those particles destroy your lungs, and you die from suffocation almost immediately.)
However, the mines in Africa are in terrible condition.
The mines that are in West Virginia and Pennsylvania are at least in stable condition, and they try to make them stay up and not topple on top of it's self.
The mines in Africa are make to be built and to harvest diamonds, and if one falls down, then they just build a new one.
A movie called "Blood Diamond" raised awareness for this cause a few years ago.
It was a surprise hit, although I have not seen this movie, I've heard that it was quite good.
So how do we stop this?
You can help stop this by trying to not buy diamonds, or, you can possibly ask the people at the counter "Where do you get your diamonds from?"
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Separate Church and State, but don't separate Church and Classroom?
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, founded the University of Virginia and will always be one of the most respected Presidents of all time.
He also said "Separate Church and State" which means that religion should not be in a person's life unless in some kind of sacred building of religion like a Church (Christian place of Worship), Mosque (Muslim place of Worship),
Mandir (Hindu place of Worship), Synagogue (Jewish Place of Worship) or any other kind of worship around the world that I don't have listed here.
And ever since Charles Darwin wrote one of the most controversial books of all time "The Origin of Species" these places of worship have been questioned by some, but others -the population of this group decreases every year- has doubted "The Origin of Species". This book, some say, is more trouble than it's worth.
Now, this debate is still going on, but now, you usually hear more about weather Creationism (the theory usually thought of as the how the Bible puts it, but you can also say that for the Torah, the Quar'an, or the Bhagawath Gita [accept, the Quar'an has two main gods and the Bhagawath Gita has four main gods and the Bible and the Torah have just one god]) or Evolution (the theory that over time, all living things have evolved from single-celled organisms to Plants, and Animals [technically humans are animals]).
About two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Creationism of any religion will not be taught in classrooms.
Some what in protest, and some what to start a new religion, Kansas school teacher (in whom I couldn't find the name of) came up with the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and this is not a metaphor, in this religion there is actually a Flying Spaghetti Monster who made it look like there were fossils and then created the Universe.
Here is a picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
I have. I have been touched by his Noddly appendage.
So now, you get to hear what I have to say: I think that no theory of Creationism should be taught in a classroom unless scientifically proven. Since Evolution has been scientifically proven, that should be taught in a classroom
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
He also said "Separate Church and State" which means that religion should not be in a person's life unless in some kind of sacred building of religion like a Church (Christian place of Worship), Mosque (Muslim place of Worship),
Mandir (Hindu place of Worship), Synagogue (Jewish Place of Worship) or any other kind of worship around the world that I don't have listed here.
And ever since Charles Darwin wrote one of the most controversial books of all time "The Origin of Species" these places of worship have been questioned by some, but others -the population of this group decreases every year- has doubted "The Origin of Species". This book, some say, is more trouble than it's worth.
Now, this debate is still going on, but now, you usually hear more about weather Creationism (the theory usually thought of as the how the Bible puts it, but you can also say that for the Torah, the Quar'an, or the Bhagawath Gita [accept, the Quar'an has two main gods and the Bhagawath Gita has four main gods and the Bible and the Torah have just one god]) or Evolution (the theory that over time, all living things have evolved from single-celled organisms to Plants, and Animals [technically humans are animals]).
About two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Creationism of any religion will not be taught in classrooms.
Some what in protest, and some what to start a new religion, Kansas school teacher (in whom I couldn't find the name of) came up with the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and this is not a metaphor, in this religion there is actually a Flying Spaghetti Monster who made it look like there were fossils and then created the Universe.
Here is a picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
I have. I have been touched by his Noddly appendage.So now, you get to hear what I have to say: I think that no theory of Creationism should be taught in a classroom unless scientifically proven. Since Evolution has been scientifically proven, that should be taught in a classroom
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
The worst war in the world
Darfur has quickly become the most famous region in Sudan. And that is because of the war there, and this war is the most deadly war that is currently going on in the world. 400,000 people have died in this war. And this war has -and should be- entirely credited to religions (and I am trying to write a book about this war called "400,000")
Now you get to hear my democratic opinions (and if you don't like them, well sorry, you lost the election).
Sudan's religion percentage is 70% Sunni Muslim, 5% Christian, and 25% Indigenous Beliefs. So as you can see, there are about 14x more Muslims than Christians, however that does not mean that we can just immediately count them out, they were actually the ones who started this war. With their revolt and them saying that the Sudanese government was discriminating against them.
Now I think that it was completely rational for the Christians to have a sudden revolt. If the Muslims were forcing Islamic laws on them and said that they were right, it is completely within the Christian's right to call them out on it and say that they were forcing the laws on them.
However, maybe the Christian's shouldn't have responded in the way that they did.
It was some one's idea that they should start a war, and it seemed like a good idea (of coarse, I am against war in almost all circumstances) at first. Y'know, fight for like a month or so and the Muslims will learn their lesson.
But then, the Muslims decided that they would fight back.
And that's how it's been ever since.
And then, recently, current President Omar al-Bashir has been charged with war crimes by the ICC (International Criminal Court) and has denied all of them. He has denied all of them to the point where he has banned all of the aid groups that support the ICC.
And now, you get to hear what I have to say again, first of all, if you deny all of your accusations, and you take out all of the aid groups that work to save people's lives who are about to die because of the war you are paying pretty much no attention to at all because you'd rather live in your own wealth then save people's lives, that doesn't seem like a good idea. It seems that if you don't want to act suspicious that you just let it go and don't do anything that would make you seem more of a suspect.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Now you get to hear my democratic opinions (and if you don't like them, well sorry, you lost the election).
Sudan's religion percentage is 70% Sunni Muslim, 5% Christian, and 25% Indigenous Beliefs. So as you can see, there are about 14x more Muslims than Christians, however that does not mean that we can just immediately count them out, they were actually the ones who started this war. With their revolt and them saying that the Sudanese government was discriminating against them.
Now I think that it was completely rational for the Christians to have a sudden revolt. If the Muslims were forcing Islamic laws on them and said that they were right, it is completely within the Christian's right to call them out on it and say that they were forcing the laws on them.
However, maybe the Christian's shouldn't have responded in the way that they did.
It was some one's idea that they should start a war, and it seemed like a good idea (of coarse, I am against war in almost all circumstances) at first. Y'know, fight for like a month or so and the Muslims will learn their lesson.
But then, the Muslims decided that they would fight back.
And that's how it's been ever since.
And then, recently, current President Omar al-Bashir has been charged with war crimes by the ICC (International Criminal Court) and has denied all of them. He has denied all of them to the point where he has banned all of the aid groups that support the ICC.
And now, you get to hear what I have to say again, first of all, if you deny all of your accusations, and you take out all of the aid groups that work to save people's lives who are about to die because of the war you are paying pretty much no attention to at all because you'd rather live in your own wealth then save people's lives, that doesn't seem like a good idea. It seems that if you don't want to act suspicious that you just let it go and don't do anything that would make you seem more of a suspect.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
My hope for the Economy
India. India is my solution to help end the Economic Recession. India is on the rise, it has two of the largest city's in the world -Mumbai and Calcutta- and it is the second largest country in the world, with about 1.2 billion people living in the whole country. The people in the slums of India don't go on Who Wants to be a Millionaire to make a living, most of them make a living because of Mumbai's huge recycling industry, that's right, you read that last sentence right, recycling is what is keeping some of India's poorest people out of starvation. India makes more movies every year then any country in the world, and that is from "Bollywood" (Bollywood not Hollywood because of Bombay which is the old name for Mumbai, kind of like Constantinople turning into Istanbul) and every single movie is a musical (and they are all very good, good enough to win Best Musical Score and Best Picture in America, and some say that "Slumdog Millionaire" isn't the best movie by A.R. Rahman [the most popular Musical Score person in India])
And then, I also half to say that India has a very well run government and has a rising Economy, even in the Economic Recession, India still thrives and because the movies are so popular, that the Indian government thrives and makes Millions, they also thrive on the recycling, (so take a lesson U.S., and make two kinds of green) and the government can give almost everyone jobs and all of those jobs can support their families and give some of them spare change as well.
So if the U.S. invested in some of India's most popular industries then we could have something going, and since the U.S. is basically in charge of the Economic recession, then the entire world would start to have something.
India.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
And then, I also half to say that India has a very well run government and has a rising Economy, even in the Economic Recession, India still thrives and because the movies are so popular, that the Indian government thrives and makes Millions, they also thrive on the recycling, (so take a lesson U.S., and make two kinds of green) and the government can give almost everyone jobs and all of those jobs can support their families and give some of them spare change as well.
So if the U.S. invested in some of India's most popular industries then we could have something going, and since the U.S. is basically in charge of the Economic recession, then the entire world would start to have something.
India.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Pirates of the African Coast
When we first heard of the Somali pirates we thought that they were not much of a threat, we thought that they were dangerous, but could be controlled. And then the Somali pirates captured the captain of a U.S. cargo ship, we were suddenly threatened. And some of the U.S. Navy SEALs, swore to take them down.
So when the Somali's took captains of so many other ships from nations across the world and sometimes asked them for up to 30 million dollars to release them from captivity, the U.S. couldn't care less. But suddenly when a U.S. captain was captured (it was actually one of there worst and least terrible captivities) the U.S. is really shocked and have sworn to take them down and possibly kill some of them.
How did this even start?
Somalia is the poorest country in the world (based on a 'per capita' survey in "The 2009 Scholastic Book of World Records") on average, the average person (or, in Latin, 'per capita') in Somalia makes 600 dollars a year, and these Somali Pirates used to be fisherman and coastguards.
Ever since the Somalian civil war in 1991, Somalia has never had an official government, and since they are a coastal country and they need water borders so that they can have legal places for them to fish and no one else, however if you don't have a government, then you don't have legal fishing waters and that means that any country in the world can just go in there and fish and it will be legal. Now I am not saying anything, (That was a lie, I shouldn't lie on Truthnicity) but if I were in charge of a country, although, it were completely legal, if someone caught me (and a lot of major countries border Somalia, like Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia) then I would be in trouble, and then after they had already fished in the should-have-been Somali waters, the self-volunteering coast guards were about to report these countries when the legal-trespassers bribed them with the one thing that most Somalians need, money.
So now, whenever anyone enters there waters, the Somali pirates will take them, hold them hostage, and say that they will let them free if given the proper amount of money (usually around 5-10 million dollars).
My overall conclusion is that it is not entirely the pirates' fault.
Post questions and comments as comments.
Sam
So when the Somali's took captains of so many other ships from nations across the world and sometimes asked them for up to 30 million dollars to release them from captivity, the U.S. couldn't care less. But suddenly when a U.S. captain was captured (it was actually one of there worst and least terrible captivities) the U.S. is really shocked and have sworn to take them down and possibly kill some of them.
How did this even start?
Somalia is the poorest country in the world (based on a 'per capita' survey in "The 2009 Scholastic Book of World Records") on average, the average person (or, in Latin, 'per capita') in Somalia makes 600 dollars a year, and these Somali Pirates used to be fisherman and coastguards.
Ever since the Somalian civil war in 1991, Somalia has never had an official government, and since they are a coastal country and they need water borders so that they can have legal places for them to fish and no one else, however if you don't have a government, then you don't have legal fishing waters and that means that any country in the world can just go in there and fish and it will be legal. Now I am not saying anything, (That was a lie, I shouldn't lie on Truthnicity) but if I were in charge of a country, although, it were completely legal, if someone caught me (and a lot of major countries border Somalia, like Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia) then I would be in trouble, and then after they had already fished in the should-have-been Somali waters, the self-volunteering coast guards were about to report these countries when the legal-trespassers bribed them with the one thing that most Somalians need, money.
So now, whenever anyone enters there waters, the Somali pirates will take them, hold them hostage, and say that they will let them free if given the proper amount of money (usually around 5-10 million dollars).
My overall conclusion is that it is not entirely the pirates' fault.
Post questions and comments as comments.
Sam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)