B.P. otherwise known as British Petroleum, formerly known as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company under the rule of great Iranian President Mohammad Mossadegh has been taking a lot of heat lately because, well the pelicans kind of say it all. If you haven't heard of this, which I know you have Jacob (I wish I had more than one person who read my blog on a regular basis) than let me explain:
Basically, ever since the US okay'd offshore drilling many oil companies with any location in America have been drilling for oil on coastal lines across the good ol' US of A. But every once in a while, there is a malfunction and, in this case, the pipe doesn't turn off and it spews oil uncontrollably.
And this particular drilling plant was in the Gulf of Mexico which, as you may know, was famous for it's deep blue waters and white sand, now the sand and the water share the same color: a dark brown.
So whose fault is it?
Is it the fault of British Petroleum who shouldn't have gone out into the Gulf Coast in the first place or is it the fault of the people in Washington who approved offshore drilling in the first place?
Let's examine both arguments, shall we?
Let us start with the reasoning behind that it's BP's fault:
According to the British government, BP should have had a better drill plant and it is in no way the fault of the British Government.
I can see that, sort of.
You can say that offshore drilling is good because it lowers gas prices by making more oil available, and that oil only spills when the oil company makes a bad plant and for that reason, whenever a spill happens it is the fault of the oil company.
Then again, you could say that it is completely the fault of the government because, in a way it's kind of like when you feed a cat something that's unhealthy for them they are gonna eat it, and if that cat is not careful they could throw up all over your house.
Now my opinion:
I blame the entire oil spill on Sarah Palin who said on June 4 that the spill was "The fault of extreme environmentalists who protested drilling on land." This, she claimed, forced the companies to drill offshore and then this spill happened.
Let me name the things wrong with that statement:
1. She completely ignores the fact that "extreme environmentalists" also protested offshore drilling, so it wasn't exactly like these devil-like world savers only protested drilling on land and completely ignored offshore drilling.
2. She is for offshore drilling. She is ignoring that she advocated for offshore drilling and placing the blame on environmentalists who protested against offshore drilling because when something that a Republican endorses and a Democrat doesn't and it fails, which happens about 99.9% of the time, the Republicans try to hide that they supported it at one time and cover it up with lies, and when this oil spill is over, I'm sure that Sarah Palin will have a statement saying that we should not give up hope on offshore drilling, in fact, I think that she saw the picture of the pelicans above and said "Well, at least gas prices were lowered."
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Racism from A-Z
For two posts (including this one) now, I have been condemning racists, first people and now a state. Well, not an entire state, just a state congress, Governor and 70 percent of this certain state. I think that all of you 4, sorta, followers know what I'm talking about:
Arizona.
Yes, this Southwestern state, the Grand Canyon state with a population of almost 6 million people, 300,000 or so of which are illegal immigrants.
And this 5% of the population is causing a national stir, you may have heard about this protesting going on all across America, who knows, maybe it was even in your town! (who am I kidding. The only people who have ever read this blog have not only been in one state, not even in one city. In one side of one city in one state in one country. Good ol' west side of Madison, Wisconsin, USA) But anyways, this new immigration bill states that any police officer can ask any person who they suspect of being an illegal immigrant for documentation of their legal status in the country. If they do not happen to have their papers with them, they could be arrested and perhaps even deported no matter if they are or are not an illegal immigrant just because they did not have their papers with them.
This is called "Racism"
There are many excuses to justify this law, one of which being that about 60 percent of the cocaine that enters into this country through Arizona, and another being that Arizona has the 6th most approximated illegal immigrant population in America.
But it's the ladder argument, however is what I use to say that it is, in fact, a racist law.
What I say is yes, Arizona has the 6th most approximated illegal immigration of any state in America. But then, factor this in, Arizona also has the second largest Mexican foreign born population in the United States, 5 times the amount of the Asian foreign born population and 6 times the amount of the European foreign born population, almost 2/3 of the foreign born population was born in Mexico. Why would you target anyone accept the vast majority?
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Arizona.
Yes, this Southwestern state, the Grand Canyon state with a population of almost 6 million people, 300,000 or so of which are illegal immigrants.
And this 5% of the population is causing a national stir, you may have heard about this protesting going on all across America, who knows, maybe it was even in your town! (who am I kidding. The only people who have ever read this blog have not only been in one state, not even in one city. In one side of one city in one state in one country. Good ol' west side of Madison, Wisconsin, USA) But anyways, this new immigration bill states that any police officer can ask any person who they suspect of being an illegal immigrant for documentation of their legal status in the country. If they do not happen to have their papers with them, they could be arrested and perhaps even deported no matter if they are or are not an illegal immigrant just because they did not have their papers with them.
This is called "Racism"
There are many excuses to justify this law, one of which being that about 60 percent of the cocaine that enters into this country through Arizona, and another being that Arizona has the 6th most approximated illegal immigrant population in America.
But it's the ladder argument, however is what I use to say that it is, in fact, a racist law.
What I say is yes, Arizona has the 6th most approximated illegal immigration of any state in America. But then, factor this in, Arizona also has the second largest Mexican foreign born population in the United States, 5 times the amount of the Asian foreign born population and 6 times the amount of the European foreign born population, almost 2/3 of the foreign born population was born in Mexico. Why would you target anyone accept the vast majority?
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Rush Limbaugh and things
There are good people, there are bad people and then there are Racists. Governmental racism, or the "Jim Crow" laws were eliminated after the civil rights movement, but other racists, like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, have managed to have TV/Radio shows with millions of followers.
Now, can somebody please tell me why you would follow these horrible racist people? I mean I get the whole thing with the first amendment and that you can say these things, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you should.
I don't understand that after the whole civil rights era with all of the monumental things in America's history like the "I have a dream" speech and the Montgomery bus boycott, not only that someone would say, "The NAACP should have a riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies." but also that 13.5 million people a day listen to that and that it takes newsone.com to actually point it out.
If I could get paid 33 million dollars to link Nelson Mandela to communism and say that the NFL looks like the Bloods battling the Crypts, I would be happy.
And if I could say that James Earl Ray deserves the Medal of Honor and call our President a Nazi, I would be very happy.
And you could say that this is just one example of a Republican, consider one of my other very good friends:
Glenn Beck.
Yes, another major voice in the GOP, the party of Lincoln, the President MOST FAMOUS FOR BEING NOT RACIST AT A TIME OF EXTREME RACISM. Has said things like "Barack Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people." Is it he who has a hatred towards white people (and therefore his mother) or is it you, Glenn, my good ol' buddy who has a hatred towards black people? Yep my bestie Glenn, you had probably an audience of 3 point something million when you said that Al Gore's awareness for Global Warming used the same tactic as the Nazis when they rounded up Jews and exterminated them.
What men. What great American god-given men. You guys deserve the Nobel Prize.
Post questions and comments as comments.
Sam
Now, can somebody please tell me why you would follow these horrible racist people? I mean I get the whole thing with the first amendment and that you can say these things, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you should.
I don't understand that after the whole civil rights era with all of the monumental things in America's history like the "I have a dream" speech and the Montgomery bus boycott, not only that someone would say, "The NAACP should have a riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies." but also that 13.5 million people a day listen to that and that it takes newsone.com to actually point it out.
If I could get paid 33 million dollars to link Nelson Mandela to communism and say that the NFL looks like the Bloods battling the Crypts, I would be happy.
And if I could say that James Earl Ray deserves the Medal of Honor and call our President a Nazi, I would be very happy.
And you could say that this is just one example of a Republican, consider one of my other very good friends:
Glenn Beck.
Yes, another major voice in the GOP, the party of Lincoln, the President MOST FAMOUS FOR BEING NOT RACIST AT A TIME OF EXTREME RACISM. Has said things like "Barack Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people." Is it he who has a hatred towards white people (and therefore his mother) or is it you, Glenn, my good ol' buddy who has a hatred towards black people? Yep my bestie Glenn, you had probably an audience of 3 point something million when you said that Al Gore's awareness for Global Warming used the same tactic as the Nazis when they rounded up Jews and exterminated them.
What men. What great American god-given men. You guys deserve the Nobel Prize.
Post questions and comments as comments.
Sam
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Gold War
A few months ago, I put out my worst blog post ever (yes, all you 2 die-hard fans who even know about the failure fail blogs "Freedom of Speech" and "Bethlehem Steel", which I didn't even spell right, this was worse than the one blog post on each of them.) "Diamonds aren't forever (James Bond lied, I know)". This was about "Blood Diamonds" and it was horrible. I want to delete it, but I sometimes use it as a benchmark to do better than. This one is about something very similar to the idea of "Diamonds aren't forever (James Bond lied, I know)" (I hesitate to even write that out) but I hope to God that it is better than... that. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, perhaps known better as Zaire as it was called Zaire under former president Mobutu Sese Seko, there is a war that has killed up to 4 million people and this war is about gold.
Okay, so let's break this thing down. In the DR Congo, there's a lot of gold, and in the U.S. and all around the world, (don't yell at me about this one Jake, I was all-inclusive this time) there's a huge demand for gold, but for stupidity purposes, let's just refer to DR Congo as "Country A" and the U.S. and all around the world as "Country B". Country A is on the poorest continent in the world, and if Country A is rich with gold which is worth up to 1000 dollars per ounce. If Country B needs gold for things like money and jewelry (and yes, he went to Jared), the citizens of Country A will try and mine the gold so much that they will risk their lives, work in mountains that are at high elevation and at constant threat for landslides.
How this war was started is nine countries that border or are close to DR Congo invaded "Country A" in effort to get the gold resources of the DR Congo, eventually this invasion ended, but ever since, rebel militias have been trying to take over various mines so that they can control certain mines and get all of the profits of that mine, and these militias will take these $1000 and ounce mines, including killing innocent civilians to create terror and keep the conflict going. The last thing that these militia leaders want is a sudden resolution to this conflict, in fact, they want to keep the conflict going as long as they possibly can. But we the people of the United States need to find a resolution of a conflict.
Now my opinion. I think that this war needs to be ended and the only way to legally end it is by banning all gold that comes from the DR Congo, but even then, there would be jewelry companies who will import these diamonds instead of ones found in mines here in the US because they're cheaper than the ones where there is not a conflict so the US needs to talk with government officials from "Country A" and possibly spread out our industry to the DR Congo so that there are not still people being killed with the entire world turning it's back on this conflict.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Okay, so let's break this thing down. In the DR Congo, there's a lot of gold, and in the U.S. and all around the world, (don't yell at me about this one Jake, I was all-inclusive this time) there's a huge demand for gold, but for stupidity purposes, let's just refer to DR Congo as "Country A" and the U.S. and all around the world as "Country B". Country A is on the poorest continent in the world, and if Country A is rich with gold which is worth up to 1000 dollars per ounce. If Country B needs gold for things like money and jewelry (and yes, he went to Jared), the citizens of Country A will try and mine the gold so much that they will risk their lives, work in mountains that are at high elevation and at constant threat for landslides.
How this war was started is nine countries that border or are close to DR Congo invaded "Country A" in effort to get the gold resources of the DR Congo, eventually this invasion ended, but ever since, rebel militias have been trying to take over various mines so that they can control certain mines and get all of the profits of that mine, and these militias will take these $1000 and ounce mines, including killing innocent civilians to create terror and keep the conflict going. The last thing that these militia leaders want is a sudden resolution to this conflict, in fact, they want to keep the conflict going as long as they possibly can. But we the people of the United States need to find a resolution of a conflict.
Now my opinion. I think that this war needs to be ended and the only way to legally end it is by banning all gold that comes from the DR Congo, but even then, there would be jewelry companies who will import these diamonds instead of ones found in mines here in the US because they're cheaper than the ones where there is not a conflict so the US needs to talk with government officials from "Country A" and possibly spread out our industry to the DR Congo so that there are not still people being killed with the entire world turning it's back on this conflict.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Saturday, February 6, 2010
The Left Side of Hispañola
"In Haiti, there was a devastating earthquake. Up to half a million people have died. Please donate whatever possible" reads the sign that was created by me and this kid named Trevor Mcky at my school. It's all true and we've raised over 200 dollars for Haiti.
This earthquake all happened about three weeks ago, and this breaking news story has almost disappeared from news networks across the world. I guess even though there are still people dying under the rubble with absolutely no news support.
It was bad enough that it was a 7.0 magnitude, but let me explain further how the earthquake victims were so vulnerable to this earthquake.
First of all it was France. France colonized Haiti some time in the late 1600s or in the early 1700s and they were using Haiti as a port for African slaves. This lasted until the year 1791 when Haitian salves created a revolt lead by Francois Toussaint L'overture which ended in 1804 when Haiti finally defeated the French Military and Haiti became only the second free country in the Americas. However, then France pledged freedom to Haiti only if Haiti gave France a settlement, putting the newly developed Haitian in a great debt. Also, since these people were slaves, they had absolutely no training in running a government at all, and since the slaves had not gotten the right of an education, almost the entire country was illiterate. More than 100 years later, Haiti had a string of bad rulers, which made Haiti even worse.
Then, it was the United States who colonized Haiti from 1915 to 1934. Do you know what's weird to me, the United States Constitution was created because we hated our own English colonization, but then we go off 200 some years later and colonize other countries like Hawai'i, in which we completely eliminated as a country. Haiti is one of these sad examples. We ourselves collected taxes and set some of our affairs in Haiti. During this colonization, we collected billions of dollars from the Haitian people.
Then it was "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc" who messed up Haiti even more. "Papa Doc" (Francois Duvalier) started the whole thing when he arranged the "Tontons Macoutes" ("Bogymen"), a secret force of men who would execute or assassinate all of the opponents of "Papa Doc" and whoever he saw as a threat to his power, he would drain all of their power. And he would use corruption to get what he wanted. And then, there was "Baby Doc" (Jean-Claude Duvalier), he did pretty much exactly what his dad did and not in a good way.
And then, it was the United States again. When Haiti finally started to get back up on it's feet again and started exporting it's goods, the U.S. started sending "aid" to Haiti, creating it's dependence on importing goods. This is because of this: when farmers went to the markets to sell their produce, they used to be able to sell their produce, but when the U.S. sent "aid", the farmers could not sell their produce, and so they had to shut down their farm entirely, and since they had no source of income, they could no longer export their goods. These farmers all had to move into Port-au-Prince which created a huge increase in population of Port-au-Prince which is where the earthquake struck.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
This earthquake all happened about three weeks ago, and this breaking news story has almost disappeared from news networks across the world. I guess even though there are still people dying under the rubble with absolutely no news support.
It was bad enough that it was a 7.0 magnitude, but let me explain further how the earthquake victims were so vulnerable to this earthquake.
First of all it was France. France colonized Haiti some time in the late 1600s or in the early 1700s and they were using Haiti as a port for African slaves. This lasted until the year 1791 when Haitian salves created a revolt lead by Francois Toussaint L'overture which ended in 1804 when Haiti finally defeated the French Military and Haiti became only the second free country in the Americas. However, then France pledged freedom to Haiti only if Haiti gave France a settlement, putting the newly developed Haitian in a great debt. Also, since these people were slaves, they had absolutely no training in running a government at all, and since the slaves had not gotten the right of an education, almost the entire country was illiterate. More than 100 years later, Haiti had a string of bad rulers, which made Haiti even worse.
Then, it was the United States who colonized Haiti from 1915 to 1934. Do you know what's weird to me, the United States Constitution was created because we hated our own English colonization, but then we go off 200 some years later and colonize other countries like Hawai'i, in which we completely eliminated as a country. Haiti is one of these sad examples. We ourselves collected taxes and set some of our affairs in Haiti. During this colonization, we collected billions of dollars from the Haitian people.
Then it was "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc" who messed up Haiti even more. "Papa Doc" (Francois Duvalier) started the whole thing when he arranged the "Tontons Macoutes" ("Bogymen"), a secret force of men who would execute or assassinate all of the opponents of "Papa Doc" and whoever he saw as a threat to his power, he would drain all of their power. And he would use corruption to get what he wanted. And then, there was "Baby Doc" (Jean-Claude Duvalier), he did pretty much exactly what his dad did and not in a good way.
And then, it was the United States again. When Haiti finally started to get back up on it's feet again and started exporting it's goods, the U.S. started sending "aid" to Haiti, creating it's dependence on importing goods. This is because of this: when farmers went to the markets to sell their produce, they used to be able to sell their produce, but when the U.S. sent "aid", the farmers could not sell their produce, and so they had to shut down their farm entirely, and since they had no source of income, they could no longer export their goods. These farmers all had to move into Port-au-Prince which created a huge increase in population of Port-au-Prince which is where the earthquake struck.
Post questions and comments as comments
Sam
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Election Fraud (Yes) in Afganistan
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)