Rant on Resent Presidents

"We live in very much the same age now, poised to move into a progressive era." (Thomas P.M. Barnett)

I really hope this is the case. The Progressive Era of old provided me with libraries, national parks, and other awesome things that I can't presently recall.

As I grow older I have come to admire Nixon and LBJ. These two men had a dramatic impact on foreign and domestic affairs for the USA. Nixon opened the door to China. LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.

What have the Presidents done since my birth? Regan can be credited with the end of the Cold War, and this seems to be the highlight of the last twenty years. Bush the first led a very successful war against Iraq that no one will remember (much like the Korean War). Clinton had oral sex in the oval office. Bush the second has yet to be judged by history, but I doubt he'll be remembered has a great man.

Now there is Obama. From what Barnett says he is a second Carter. This makes me sad. I was really hoping he would be another Roosevelt.

Whitman vs. Brown @ UC Davis

Yesterday, Meg Whitman of the Republican party and Jerry Brown of the Democratic party squared off in their first televised debate. The two candidates are running for Governor of California. This post will highlight my opinoins about the debate. It will be based on television ads, the debate, and NPR.

Before the debate I was undecided. Afterwards  I saw my choices clearly. Do I want Mrs. Whitman who is Arnold Part Deux? Or do I want to give Mr. Brown another term? The former is the independent businesswoman who will run the state like Ebay, and show those career politicians how it is done. The later has held the Governors seat twice, and his public record has many failures. Meg has great fiscal ideas (awesome), but seems to follow party lines on social issues (bummer). John has a sense of humor (super), but as mentioned before has many failures (doh).

Mrs. Whitman stated many great ideas. I loved her plan for a two year state budget. It makes sense. A two year budget will grant the state significant time to work on non-fiscal issues. I also agree with her notion to stream line the business red tape, and the tax cut to manufacturers. My only concern is a lack of environmental oversight if  more manufacturers make California their home. I'm also not convinced she has any genuine plans that will actually cut out the red tape for businesses.

Mr. Brown also had some great ideas. He mentioned that the state government should "live within its means." He wants to reduce the salary of top state officials, and close the back room deals of previous budgets. He stresses his experience, and ensures the public that he can trim down the costs of government. BUT (and that's a big one) he hasn't had the best fiscal track record. He has come into office with a surplus to leave with a deficit. That's a hard sale to a populace experiencing a recession.

Besides the money each honey illustrated their character. Jerry was a charismatic career politician. He had a sense of humor, and provided ample evidence that he understood state politics. When asked about state pensions he mentioned that if everyone worked as long as he did the pension program would have a surplus. When confronted about his past ambitions he mentioned his settled down life with his wife, and his desire to remain in California till he meets his maker.

Meg dotted every "i" and crossed each "t". She threw down tons of statistics in an attempt to discredit the status quo. Her tone was robotic, and she never drew a reaction from the crowd. You combine this with her campaigning, and the comparison to Mr. Schwarzenegger is remarkably close. She's the outsider. The one to shake up Sacramento. She was a successful CEO (actor), and she'll run her government like she ran her career.

Soon it will be time for California to pick their poison. Do they want the career politician, or the CEO of Ebay? Neither seems to have any relevant solutions to the states problem. The one elected will still have to manage the states legislator (the asshats who really screw things up), and convince the population to vote on many new reforms. As of this post I'm leaning towards Jerry Brown. The previous outsider hasn't done jack shit. Maybe this state needs that old crazy man who has nothing left to lose.

Jordan Sports Double Hitler Stash

Have you seen the latest Hanes commercials featuring Michael Jordan? One of the all time greats of basketball is sporting the Hitler mustache with a Soul Patch. I guess the later nullifies the negativity of the former. Or perhaps he is taking after the great Charlie Chaplin.

Free Speech: To a Point

Can we avoid this on the Internet?

Choose your words carefully because you'll never know who is reading. 

Recently the Los Angeles Times posted an article that touched on Internet free speech. The opening sentences sum up the issue well enough.

"The Internet has allowed tens of millions of Americans to be published writers. But it also has led to a surge in lawsuits from those who say they were hurt, defamed or threatened by what they read, according to groups that track media lawsuits."

This is a brand new issue that will continue to evolve as more incidents arise and rulings are passed. At the moment the cases I've seen have been at the local/state level, and there has been no sweeping reform or ruling that would effect the entire nation. Those filing complaints are generally defending themselves and their reputation.

In western Pennsylvania, for example, a politician was accused of collecting tax dollars for personal use. He was also called a "jerk," and the the cars sold at his dealership were deemed "junk." The poster was anonymous. The targeted individual sued for defamation, and the judge ruled that the community site must identify the Internet address of the posters.

My initial gut reaction was for unlimited freedom of speech. I don't want anyone limiting my right to type my mind on-line. After further thought, I found sympathy for the targeted individual mentioned above. If that was my business or political career, then I sure wouldn't want my reputation being tarnished by a few disgruntle individuals. Especially if I hadn't done anything wrong. I, however, don't know the nitty gritty details of this case so I can't accurately make an objective ruling one way or the other.

"Although bloggers may have a free-speech right to say what they want online, courts have found that they are not protected from being sued for their comments, even if they are posted anonymously. "

Two of the biggest problems with on-line speech are accountability and accuracy. Individuals will be more bold with their statements if they think there will be no repercussion. I see/hear this everyday while playing video games on Xbox Live and reading various forums. Individuals will use hateful speech that would be absent from their average face to face encounters.

People are also extremely lazy (or maybe busy), and rarely fact check their sources. With no accountability they are, in my opinion, more likely to state something that may be misleading or not entirely true. There is also a lack of fact checkers on the Internet. This, however, will be a persistent problem due to the shear amount of information on-line.

As seen in N. Korea.

Oh what to do? Censor everything? Hell no! Allow people to tarnish the reputation of others? Well only if it deserves to get tarnished. Should people be held accountable for what they say? That all depends on what was said, and under what context.

I actually like the current methodology for dealing with this issue. If a website or poster has wrongfully hurt, defame, or threaten someone, then the targeted person has every right to defend themselves. Let the courts take these issues on a case by case basis. Hopefully they can differentiate between legitimate complaints and unwarranted hate.

Unfortunately lawsuits cost money. This means wrongfully accused individuals may not have the financial resources to defend themselves. (This goes for "victims" as well as "posters.") This problem, however, seems less damaging to the whole of society. I don't want to see sweeping federal censorship of the Internet, and the slippery slope extreme argument leads down that path.

This issue is not going away, and it will be interesting to see Internet laws evolve. I hope the Internet remains free, but I would also like to see greater accountability from posters/bloggers. I don't think everything needs a "fact check." Someones rant on how to survive a zombie apocalypse is not as important as an article about real life current events. Hopefully we will find away to keep the freedom while increasing the accuracy, but that is easier said then done.

America Loves to Hate

The Issue:

An Islamic community center and prayer space is being built two blocks from "Ground Zero" aka the former World Trade towers. This has sparked controversy. In general there are two sides--for and against. Those in favor believe the mosque has every legal right to exist anywhere because of the first amendment. On the flip side those against feel the Islamic building would be a "slap in the face"* to everyone who died during the 9/11 Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks.

Behold American Hate

Whenever an issue like this arises I feel ashamed. As a white male I strive not to make the same mistakes of the past. Prejudice on any level should not be tolerated, and I am continually amazed at America's infatuation with needless hate. News organizations and American extremist (I'm looking at you FOX and Palin) use convoluted language and sensitive issues to infuriate the masses. Americans need to calm down and examine the issue.

B = Ground Zero A = Cordoba House

"Ground Zero" is the current term for the area destroyed by the 9/11 Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks. Two blocks away, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is planning an Islamic community center named Cordoba House. He is converting an old Burlington Coat Factory into a diverse facility that will include a mosque, sports areas, a theater, and a restaurant. The center would be open to the public. Mr. Feisal hopes to enlighten the ignorant, and denote Muslim life in America.

The main argument against the building of Cordoba House is this (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). The Islamic center at Ground Zero is a provocative act that is hurtful to the families tragically effected by 9/11. Paraphrasing Sarah Palin, it is ok to build a Mosque. Just not near Ground Zero. FOX news personalities also pointed out that countries like Saudi Arabia do not have any churches despite many requests. The more extreme opponents take things a step further, and declare that the problem is Islam. The slippery slope keeps going with wild baseless accusations that the center will become a future strong hold for Muslim terrorist.

Rendering of Cordoba House

Alright everybody gather round it's time for some history. Predating the World Trade Center was a portion of lower Manhattan called Little Syria. This community consisted of Muslims and Christians from the Ottoman Empire.

But wait there's more. Four blocks away from Ground Zero is a Mosque that also predates the Twin Towers.  

Fascinating. Do go on. The first amendment goes even further back and is pretty straight forward. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Ironically this wonderful amendment gives the American extremists the right to express their point of view.)

Really? Yep. And the group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Al-Qadea, is a radically extremist group that happens to follow the teaching of Islam. Just like the Nazi's happened to be mostly Christian. Guilt by association is not justice.

Current Picture of Islamic Center

If you haven't figured it out, I obviously support Imam Feisal right to build a religious center on private property. This center has the potential to further Americanize Muslims, which is the best way to combat Islamic extremist. Immigrants come to this country and succeed through hard work. They are overwhelmingly entrepreneurial, and create strong ties to their old homes. This process promotes America and globalization around the world, and America is always in need of good press. I am sympathetic to the victims of 9/11, but hurt feelings is no excuse for unconstitutional prejudice. Let us not forget that about twenty American Muslims died in the 9/11 attack.

Way to take the high road chump.

America has a dark history riddled with hate. The Native Americans were either wiped out, or continually manipulated. Slavery in this nation was race based, and drastically effected the entire world (Africa is still recovering.) Even as "free" individuals black Americans had to face legal prejudice via Jim Crow Laws until LBJ signed The Civil Rights Act. The Chinese were wage slaves, and abused to build the West. The Japanese were unconstitutionally incarcerated because of Executive Order 9066. Latinos were targeted by the U.S. Military during the Zoot Suite Riots in California. And the list goes on.

In post 9/11 America, the prejudice continues with irrational and ignorant hate directed towards individuals of Middle Eastern descent. (Also towards Hispanics in Arizona, but that is another topic.). The worst part is a person doesn't even have to be Muslim. Guilt by association ensures everyone who looks the part will get the blame. This is not what I want in my America. Like Dr. King Jr. I want a land where people are judged by their character, and not by the color of their skin/religion. The moral high ground isn't always easy, but in the end it is the only logical path to take. This means tolerating an Islamic community center near Ground Zero. Even if there isn't a church in Saudi Arabia.


Direct Source: CBS, Time,and Telegraph UK

Indirect Source: CNN, LA Times, and news blogs.

*Quoting former NY Fireman Tim Brown.

Main Idea for next article: Future of War

National wars are coming to an end.

Current war is against a group not a nation. Compare to gang warfare in states.

Groups may include moralist radicals who fight violently for a particular cause. Pop culture example is Whale Wars.

The power of globalization is a deterrent for nation based war.

Nukes are the back up deterrent.

USA Leviathan is proven top dog. Cold War is over.

Look how quickly Iraq military was defeated in open conflict.

Versus Vietnam or Afghanistan.

Korean War another example of limits of Leviathan.

USA need for a partner in crime for policing the world.

China

India and Brazil are similar but smaller.

Traditional allies are weak. See NATO and EU.

Middle East, Central/South America, Africa, and parts of Asia need to join the core. Long term lucrative goals for the smart and willing.

Those Rascally Pirates

This rant was sparked by my friends blog.

Pirates have been around forever, and are technically modern day water terrorist. They just lack such a label because Pirate is sexier for the news.

The reason they are so annoying is they don’t go away, and they use international/national waters to protect themselves. Do bad things in international waters, and hide out in national waters. The local nations are pretty poor and cannot get ride of them. Plus there is always the possibilities of kick backs from pirate booty.

Another advantage Pirates have is local knowledge of water ways. Pirates have been active in these regions for some time because they know where to hide. Even if the a US ship can see everything from a satellite other factors like sea conditions may deter an attempt to search every nook and cranny. It’s also next to impossible to police the open sea.

Why doesn’t the US military do their thing? The military is not an all encompassing kick ass machine. It has limits, and those limits are being met. Fighting in the Middle East is coming up on a decade. This is a volunteer military force. Those two factors alone account for any lack of military effort.

Fighting costs money. How much more money will the tax payer fork over to get rid of some pirates?

Africa is also traditionally ignored by the US who tends to deal more with Europe, Asia, and South America for armed conflicts.

How to curb the pirate threat?

Train and arm any crew sailing in those water. Pressure other countries not involved in the Middle East Conflict to patrol the pirate waters. (Let someone else police the world for once.) Develop the local African nations so they have no desire to work with outlaws.

The last idea is very close to preventing young people from joining gangs. Don’t give them a reason to become outlaws and they won’t. Most people just want to eat, live, and be happy. Not be poor and die of disease or starvation.

Back to Thinking

When I first created this blog it was only to be used for my old history papers. Things have changed, or rather will change. I am going to be posting random thoughts about news worthy or interesting topics.

Thomas P.M. Barnett is a name everyone should learn. The man has a knack for explaining the world, and I just so happen to agree with many of his opinions. In the near future I am going to do a review of his book Great Powers: America and the World After Bush. For now I am just going to highlight some of the most recent posts from his blog.

Keeping the A Types Coming to America:Lexington column in The Economist.

"IMMIGRANTS benefit America because they study and work hard. That is the standard argument in favor of immigration, and it is correct. Leaving your homeland is a big deal. By definition, it takes get-up-and-go to get up and go, which is why immigrants are abnormally entrepreneurial. But there is another, less obvious benefit of immigration. Because they maintain links with the places they came from, immigrants help America plug into a vast web of global networks."

This is a great piece to show anyone in support of the new Arizona laws. Connections to other countries. Exposure to new cultures--art, music, women (sorry I'm single and young), food, and more. Plus an improvement to the US/Global economy. Sounds like a bucket of win to me.

Arizona's new law is a step in the wrong direction. Don't like immigrants taking jobs? What have you done to make yourself a more valuable worker? If the answer is nothing, then it's you not the immigrant.

Millennials: plenty spiritual, just not religious USA Today

This article hits the nail on the head. It explains why I, a young American, have no interests in Christianity.

As a young history major, with parents who have seen the ugly side of Christianity--nasty nuns and Catholic School--I'm hard pressed to even give America's traditional religion a shot. Be it Catholic or a Protestant sect of Christianity.

Crusades, witch trials, sex scandals, and other bad press makes it difficult to believe there is good in Christianity. Of course there are great individuals out there that prove that sentence wrong, but that doesn't change my skepticism.

For the other two chapters in the one Gods plan I see similar issues. Israel seems to be in a holy war with Islam. How can I accept a faith as good when there is so much death and destruction? It's hard to believe things will change with the thousands of years of religious based chaos.

If I had to pick a religion, then I'd probably branch out to something totally different like Buddhism or Hinduism. I would, however, have to do some research before making a final choice. Is there any religion out there that doesn't have blood or sex juice on their hands?