The Ziggy Articles

Healthcare Debate: The Republicans $700 Billion "Band-Aid"

2009-07-30T11:57:00.001-07:00

On Wednesday, July 29, the Republican Party unveiled their Healthcare Plan. In short, "a $700 billion health care plan that would offer tax credits to help people buy insurance." (Yahoo! News)

What changed?
The $700 Billion are still going to have to come from "Somewhere" (Tax Raise), so how is this idea better than the previous Democrats Plan? How is transferring another $700 Billion Dollars to the "American Health Industry" to purchase a market tested "Not-so-efficient" & Overpriced product going to help the Majority of American People?

Well... It Doesn't!
It's quite clear that this bill favors the Health Industry and that it's not an acceptable proposal to address the Healthcare Crisis in America. More importantly, it does nothing in terms of the Health Providers accountability.

Why should we trust these people?
Yes... THESE people:

Ronald Williams, CEO of Aetna

H. Edward Hanway — CIGNA

Angela Braly — WellPoint

Dale Wolf — Coventry Health Care

Michael Neidorff — Centene

James Carlson — AMERIGROUP

Michael McAllister — Humana

Jay Gellert — Health Net

Richard Barasch — Universal American

Stephen Hensley — UnitedHealth Group

* I'd like to thank Tom Harper for this list of links:

These are the same people that have been "Investing" 1.4 Million Dollars every day to block President Obama's attempts to pass any Health measures that might not favor them.

According to the Washington Post the Health Industry Lobby has hired more than 350 "former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues... The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight." (Washington Post, July 6, 2009).

This is nothing new really, according to a report by Common Cause:
'Legislating Under the Influence' - PDF.

• The major health interests have spent an average of $1.4 million per day to lobby Congress so far this year and are on track to spend more than half a billion dollars by the end 2009. That comes out to about $2,600 per day per member of the House and Senate.

• The pharmaceutical lobby alone spent $733,000 per day in the first quarter of 2009. Since 2000, the industries have spent over $3 billion on lobbying, with the total increasing every year and rising more than 142 percent over the course of the decade.

• In each of the past four years health interests have been the number-one lobbying force in Washington, measured in expenditures, and have averaged over $1 million per day.

As far as I'm concerned, the approved Healthcare Bill must include strict regulation - both in terms of Health Insurance Providers and Pharmaceutical Companies. This is because they are a significant part of the problem; it's time to write a bill that protects the interests of the American people and not the pockets of the Health Industry Profiteers. Otherwise, we will continue to get ripped off by those who are supposedly looking after our health.

The American people are asking for Major Reforms. It's also painfully obvious that the American Economy needs Major Reforms in the Healthcare Department; not just another "Band-Aid" solution.

UK Inquiry to Iraq War: A Kangaroo Court?

2009-07-30T08:57:00.000-07:00

Blair to be called before UK inquiry to Iraq war
Updated 1 hour, 23 minutes ago - LONDON, England (CNN)

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will be called before an inquiry into the country's role in the Iraq war, its chairman said during the opening Thursday.

John Chilcot told media he would not "offer a list of witnesses" but that "key decision-makers in the key phases of the Iraq affair" would be called.

Blair's successor, Gordon Brown, announced the inquiry last month, saying it would look in depth at the lead up to and conduct of the war.

After criticism, the government was forced to abandon its original plans to hold the inquiry behind closed doors.

Chilcot said the panel intends to make the proceedings "as open as possible, because we recognize that is one of the ways in which the public can have confidence in the integrity and independence of the inquiry process."

Some of the hearings may be televised or streamed on the Internet, and the panel will have a Web site on which information will be regularly posted, he said.

Hopefully it won't be just another Kangaroo Court.

Will they ask the Real Questions or the "Real" Questions...?

There's a high likelihood that Tony Blair will be sitting on a stand very soon. It's fair to assume that he won't be able to avoid it, because by not discussing his decision and the circumstances, he would be admitting guilt (at least to some degree), and from my observations it seems as though Politicians aren't too good at that - admitting to anything.

With that said, and if indeed the Tough questions will be asked, is it possible that somehow this will "Heighten Demand" for a similar inquiry in the United States. Will the American people want to hear what Bush and Co. have to say about Iraq?

This Inquiry is very interesting either way, this is Real News - you know, not "Real News"!

Where is the Health Care Debate around the World?

2009-07-19T06:44:00.000-07:00

As I'm writing this article, the Health Care Debate in the United States is at full force. All you have to do is Google the phrase “Health Care Reform”, and this will lead you to around 100 relevant News articles published in the last hour and over 1,000 Articles published in the last 3 days. Give or take.

If only for a moment we could turn back the clock and remove the details that are being discussed in Congress at present. If we could go back to pre-Economic Meltdown & pre-Bailout times, back when there was a clear majority on two important issues regarding Healthcare in America.

1. Roughly 80% of Americans are dissatisfied with the total cost of Healthcare.

2. Over two thirds of Americans agree that there were (at least) major problems with the Healthcare system in the United States.

* Only 1% to 3% stated that there are 'No Problems'.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx

What I found interesting is that despite all of the negative information we hear about Universal Health Care, the horror stories about waiting lists and whatnot. I couldn’t find one poll or article calling for a complete reform or "Overhaul" of the Health Care System in Australia, France, Japan or any First World Country for that matter.

In reality, Universal Healthcare Systems are widely accepted wherever they are implemented - overwhelmingly so. The thought of removing these systems, by individuals/parties both Left & Right equates to political suicide.

Sure there are problems overseas, none of which erase the issues that we have right here in the United States of America.

On the topic of 'Problems' in the US, I would like to share with you a few informative pieces that I've come across in recent weeks:

In a study conducted by the Harvard Medical School they estimate that 1.5 Million Americans will go Bankrupt this year due to Medical Bills. In addition, they surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them. They say that overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance.

(CNN, June 5, 2009)

Apperantly, even if you have Health Insurance you are not immune from Medical Bankruptcy.

I recently saw an interesting program on PBS - Sick around the World - FRONTLINE, which visits 5 Capitalist Democracies, explains how their Health Care System works and draws the applicable comparisons between all of them. In the interviews that were conducted during this trip, it was evident that in countries operating under a Nationalized Health Care systems you simply cannot go bankrupt.

Beyond the issue of bankruptcy, the interviews seem to be quite fair in the sense that they expose both the Positive & Negative aspects of each system. The solution, as far as what I believe will bring the most positive outcome for the United States, is to take a serious look into all of these different systems and apply what would serve us best - at least in theory. Both in terms of the Economic implications and of course the Quality & Accessibility to Health in our country.

I'll close with a couple of Questions and Answers from the interview with Nigel Hawkes, the health editor for The Times of London and a longtime observer of Britain's National Health Service (NHS) - this is 1 of 5 interviews conducted by T.R. Reid.

We look at these comparative statistics of the United States versus other wealthy countries, including Britain. ... On most health indicators, Britain does better than the U.S.

Yes, it probably does, but other countries do better than Britain. The proper comparison really is with continental European countries like the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain. And on most measures, they tend to do a little better than us.

So the notion, "We're doing better than the U.S.," that's not an important notion to you?

No. The U.S. is always considered to be an outlier in health policy, because you've got this insurance-based and rather uncontrolled system that leads to very high costs and very great inequalities, as perceived from this side of the Atlantic. Unfortunately, I think the American experience has tended to put British people off insurance-based health care, because they say, "Oh, we don't want the American system." But you don't have to have the American system. You can have the French system or the Japanese system, which are not so expensive and which seem to work quite well.

Indeed, nobody thinks that their system is perfect. The question is therefore - Which set of problems do you you prefer?

It's apparent that no one in the Industrialized World wants to copy the American system. In a country that prides itself as being a World Leader, on this specific issue, one can only wonder why.

Gaza War Crimes: Who is Less Wrong?

2009-07-04T02:44:00.000-07:00

Last weekend, the United Nations held a public hearing in Gaza where Palestinians had the chance to report their personal accounts of the 2009 Gaza War. In the next round of testimonies, it will be Israeli witnesses giving their personal accounts.

Just a few days ago, on July 2nd, Amnesty International released a report titled "Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 Days of Death and Destruction" which accuses both Israel & Hamas of War Crimes. The report also details the results of the Israeli Offensive which led to the death of 1,400 Palestinians, of which 900 were civilians and 300 of these being Children. In contrast, the Israelis incurred a total of 13 fatalities - a ratio of 107 to 1.

This was, without a shadow of a doubt, an atrocious showing of strength by the Israeli forces. The overt use of force was justified by the Israeli Government as a retaliation to the ongoing and long term firing of Qassam Rockets, which have been mostly directed at the Israeli city of Sderot.

The escalation of hatred between the two sides in recent years is evident. This sentiment has been clearly reflected in the voting booths, where Palestinians have chosen to elect Hamas, and the Israelis electeding yet another Right Winged Government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the 'Likud' Party.

It's difficult to understand/explain the intricacies of Israeli Politics and their 12 Party System. With that said, what occurred in the February 2009 Elections in Israel is a rarity, even within the context of Israeli political complexities. The victorious party ('Kadima') did not retain power - How often does this occur in Democratic Societies?

The 'Likud', led by Benjamin Netanyahu, received less votes than the 'Kadima' party (28 vs. 27 seats). Netanyahu then argued, in order to assume leadership, that the 'Right Wing' in Israel (Likud + Yisrael Beiteinu + Shas) had received a majority of seats from the Israeli constituents, which therefore legitimized his claim to be Israel's Prime Minister.

In my opinion Netanyahu's argument is futile, mainly because the definition of Left & Right Parties in Israeli Politics (specifically in terms of the Palestinian Issue) is ambiguous - particularly now. It's important to understand that 'Kadima' (founded in 2006), was created by like-minded ex 'Likud' and 'Labor' Party members. The idea was to create a unified centralist consensus in the country that would finally be able to move the peace process forward.

Make no mistake, 'Security' is the most significant issue in Israeli Politics at the moment. Three years under the 'Kadima' leadership, Two Wars during their tenure, and they are suddenly considered "Too Soft" to handle Israeli Security. The main problem that 'Kadima' had, which eventually cost them their leadership role, was an issue of discontentment. It was caused by their supposed losses and mismanagement of the recent Gaza Offensive & 2006 Lebanon War.

In any case, 'Kadima' are not as "Right Wing" as 'Likud' and not as "Left Wing" as the 'Labor' party. The fact that 'Kadima' were responsible for Two Offensive Wars is a clear indication that they aren't "Soft" at all. This leads me to the conclusion that there is no Left Wing Party in Israel, at least not of any significance - Definitely not on the issue of Security.

The fact of the matter is that at present, the Israeli Population can be divided into three Political categories: Hardline Right Wing, "Light" Right Winger, and The Overwhelming Minority.

And the bitter debate continues - Terrorism on one side, Oppression on the other.

Many people would argue that "Two wrongs don't make a Right", which indeed makes a lot of sense in this case, but maybe one side is less wrong than the other. The question therefore is one of legitimacy - Who is Less Wrong?
It's perhaps much easier to answer this question.

The Palestinian people (for the most part), are living in what can only be described as a collection of refugee camps. To ignore the conditions in which they are living and then blame them for being radical/violent towards Israel is absurd. Even Ehud Barak recognizes this aspect of social conditioning:

"If I were a Palestinian at the right age, I would have joined one of the terrorist organizations at a certain stage."

Ehud Barak, from an Interview by Gideon Levi, March 1998
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak

Considering the intimate knowledge that Mr. Barak has with the details of the conflict, the Israelis reasoning that the recent Gaza Offensive was due to 'rockets being fired at Sderot on a daily basis' is unsatisfactory.

Unfortunately, the Israeli people don't see it this way. Most Israelis are unwilling to accept any responsibility, which leads them to believe (for whatever reasons) that the Palestinian people are "bringing it on to themselves" and that "it's all their fault" while completely removing themselves and their history from the equation.

And the violence continues - Terrorism on one side, Oppression on the other.

If the Israeli Government is in fact oppressing the Palestinians (for nearly two generations), and the people that they are abusing are uprising against them, their rebellion doesn't make it legitimate to tighten the stranglehold. It should make the Israelis look inward, in search of ways to mitigate and improve the conditions that the Palestinian people are living in. Unless the playing filed changes, this vicious cycle will will never come to an end.

The Right Wing Media is Playing it Wrong

2009-06-30T12:39:00.000-07:00

It was just over a year ago when it all started. At some point during the 2008 Presidential Primaries, as it was becoming clear that Barrack Obama was going to be the Democratic Nominee, I began to notice a Bizarre & Spooky Onslaught of Accusations flowing his way.

From the controversy surrounding his relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright onto the claim that he is somehow "Palling around with terrorists", it's apparent that Obama has been the Target of Right-Winged Mudslingers long before he received the title - 'President of The United States of America'.

Of course the "Slinging" doesn't end with the title. Au contraire, even the former President recently felt the urge to throw his two-cents into the mix.

The problem that I foresee - which is somewhat of a blessing in disguise if you're a Left-Winger like me, is that with all of this "Mud" flying around and with over 3 and a half years left to go, if President Obama will come out of this dirty game even relatively clean, then it's pretty much over for the Republican Party. The GOP as we know it will be gone forever.

It's obviously too early to discuss the 'Obama Legacy' and what it may or may not hold, but this fact hasn't deterred Conservative Media Outlets and Personalities from putting every ounce of their credibility on the line, predicting failure at every turn.

Beyond the Doom & Gloom Scenarios, in ways that can only be described as discombobulating, these people are blaming Obama for everything from Stock Market Drops to a South Carolina Governor cheating on his wive.

I believe that the realities of having a Democrat in the White House has in many ways exposed the Right Wing Media's true colors - which is yet another blessing. It is now clear to anyone with an IQ of 70+ that the slogan "Fair & Balanced", in relation to Fox News and the way that they operate, is completely absurd. It is becoming a borderline insult to ones intelligence that Fox use the word 'News' in their T.V Channels title.

Objectivity in News

News organizations are often expected to aim for objectivity; reporters claim to try to cover all sides of an issue without bias, as compared to commentators or analysts, who provide opinion or personal point-of-view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News

Aside from the people who comprise what is known as "The Base" of the Republican Party, the rest of the audience that tune-in are likely to be turned-off by the blatant and overwhelming bias shown by folks like Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and many others in the Fox "News" Crew.

Every time they use the words 'Communism', 'Anti-American', and/or any other form of "Unfair & Imbalanced" Obamabashing hate-speech during their broadcast, they are inadvertently losing more and more credibility as an actual source of 'News'.

And then there are guys like Rush Limbaugh.
I accept that Limbaugh is an entertainer, which means that his job by definition is to get good ratings. To the naked eye (or ear) he is no different than folks like Howard Stern, John Stewart, and David Letterman. Considering the amount of attention he's been getting recently - which I'm sure he is absolutely loving (as are his sponsors), he's obviously pretty competent at his job.

The fact of the matter is that Rush is an extremely hyper-biased dude with a Microphone & Audience, and he knows how good his outrageous remarks are for ratings. I truly wonder how many people actually take Limbaugh seriously vs. how many people simply tune in to hear what he's going to say next. In a weird and twisted way, Rush is like the Radio Talk Show version of a highway car-wreck, people are sickened by it and yet they can't control their sudden urge to slow down and have a glimpse.

With that said, what's good for ratings isn't necessarily good for Politics. If Rush Limbaugh and the folks at Fox "News" continue going down this path, they will slowly but surely create an antagonistic sentiment between their viewers/listeners and the Conservative Agenda, at least with the more Moderate factions of their audience.

This Agenda isn't defined by the amount of people that tune in to watch or listen on a daily basis, it is measured in votes and how many representatives they have in the Senate & Congress. It is measured every two years in Election Booths, where it becomes a question of How many Voters you have Attracted vs. How many Voters you have Alienated.

As a Self-Proclaimed Leftist, I sincerely hope that the Conservative Media doesn't take my advise.

Quadruple Standards: You Decide

2009-06-29T17:14:00.000-07:00

It seems as though in the last couple of weeks, following the Iranian Elections (and massive protests), everybody has had something to say about about Obama and his supposed timid response. The criticism has been brutal from both media outlets and Right-Wing Politicians such as Senator Lindsey Graham who asserts that:

"This [Iranian] regime is corrupt. It has blood on its hands in Iran. They've killed Americans in Iraq, innocent Iraqi people, now they're killing their own people. Stand up with the protesters. That's not meddling, it's doing the right thing."

I would argue that Senator Graham wouldn't know what the "Right Thing" to do was if he was behind the wheel of a car and somebody told him he should turn left in order to reach his destination.

Humor aside, we've already tried this so-called non-meddling attitude if I'm not mistaken.
But after 8 years of George Bush and his Cowboy-Ways the "Cattle" decided to vote for the other guy.

I just want to clarify something here... it has to do with the 'Death of Innocents' and the assumed 'Right Thing'. There are a few obvious 'Wrong Things', most of which can be summed up by using the words: "Shooting at Protestors".

With that said the United States has had some violent protests in the past and so have many other countries for that matter. Not too long ago Greece made the News, and we all know what happened in China 20 years ago.

My Problem is the hypocritical notion that Something has to be done in Iran At Once! If this were really about the "Blood on people's hands" and the killing of innocents, why is the world turning a blind eye towards Africa? What can only be described as ethnic cleansing is happening in multiple places yet nobody seems to care. One Iranian woman dies in a protest and suddenly the war drums are starting to rumble... AGAIN!
Right Thing My Ass!!!

And one last thing before I go. American Politicians have been responsible of overthrowing enough governments in the last century, from Central/South America to Indochina (through the Middle East) for me to say - Enough is Enough!

I believe that as a nation the United States (and everybody else) shouldn't meddle and/or interfere with other nations business, not unless all of the folks in the U.N Security Council decide that there's no other way. That's the conclusion "The World" came to after WW2 and that's the way it should be.

How would the average American feel if (hypothetically speaking of course) China were to overthrow the American Government? Would there be outrage and resentment in our country towards China? Would there be a resistance? How many people would be willing to fight for our freedom?

Food for thought.

Words: A Question of Significance

2009-06-19T17:33:00.000-07:00

In the last few weeks, I've been hearing quite a lot of criticism about Barrack Obama. People are saying that "He can give a good speech", and that "Words are one thing - Actions are another". In the context of Obama's recent trip to Cairo, 'Words' might not necessarily result in any immediate actions, but if anything, it has forced people to react.

The recent Speech made by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a clear response to Obama's words, and his speech will force the Palestinian leadership to react, and this, as you can imagine, is a cyclical process. In this sense, all of these words are necessary to move the Peace process forward, you're not going to get everybody to sit in the same room, let alone sitting around the Negotiation Tables together.

For some reason, I keep thinking back to an old tale about "Carrots & Sticks". It has been a long time since the Israeli Government had heard anything that resembles a "Stick" from the folks in Washington.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue of the Israeli Settlements in the West Bank is a very important issue. Beyond the controversy surrounding these settlements in the last decade or two, most "Peace Pursuing Israelis" understand that they will have to give back a large part of the West Bank Territories in any future agreement. In this respect, resolving the 'Settlements' issue is a first step towards the Two-State Solution, which everyone involved seems to understand is the only way to end this conflict.

I cannot go without saying that this morning Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, spoke about the recent elections in his country. This is another case where 'Words' will most likely cause a 'Reaction'. The entire world had tuned in to listen following the protests and questions about the legitimacy of the Iranian Election. I'm very interested to see what President Obama's response will be, not so much about the Elections Results and their Legitimacy, but regarding the Ayatollah's remarks about US Military involvement in the region.

Even though actions speak louder than words, and Yes, it's obvious that 'Words' do not equal 'Actions', I'm nonetheless very glad to see that people are talking again. Because naturally, Peace is more likely to be achieved through dialog rather than at gun-point.

We'll have to Wait & See, If & When, Over & Out.

The Next American President (Part2)

2008-06-10T00:38:00.000-07:00

I couldn’t consider this a political Blog if I didn’t write anything thing about the Barrack Obama Victory and Official Candidacy for the U.S Presidency. It’s nice to know that this tiring saga, also known as the Democratic Primaries, is finally over and that we’re a step closer to the end. Ah… The end… That point where the ‘Commander in Chief’ title has moved on to a successor. That point in time when George W. will begin to focus on writing a book. It’s an important point in time to say the least.

It might be too early to say that Obama will become the next U.S President, but if I were I gambling man (which I am on occasion) I’d put my money on the Democrat. I have mentioned several times, possibly in other articles but definitely in conversations dating back to December, that the Democratic Candidate is going to be the next President of the United States – Go Obama!

I’ll be the first to say that I’m surprised Hillary lost. I will take the honest route and say that I’m happy she’d lost, the main reason being that I personally prefer Obama for a variety of reasons, which I can only sum-up as “Closer to my personal views”. I truly believe that Obama will do great things as the U.S President, and that while he is occupying the ominous role of 'Leader of the Free World' he will surely take a (very much needed) different approach to matters concerning the ‘World’, both internationally and domestically.

It goes without saying that the fact Obama & Hillary had such a lengthy race created a situation where focus was constantly on the Democratic Party. An interesting thing to think about regarding this point, is whether or not there were interparty discussions and/or future planning, focused on the question – ‘How to take full advantage of the way things are developing?’

One immediate example that I can think of has to do with the selection of the Democrats ‘Vice President’. Now, this seems to be the main focus in the media: “Will it be Hillary?” – and even the existence of the ‘Dream Ticket’ (as a phrase) strikes me as a premeditated concept. I might be wrong about this, as this is merely speculation, but maybe Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton (including some executive staff members) had been meeting since February, deliberating on how to make sure the Democrat will win in November.

Another example would be the fact that Hillary had made sure every single state had voted, there could be a variety of reasons, beyond the glimmer of hope she had of winning the nomination, to keep the race going until the end. Again, the media focusing almost entirely on the Democratic race, leaving McCain & the Republican party in the shadows.

With that said, if she doesn’t get the VP Nomination there simply can’t be any truth to my speculations. But what would be more disturbing than my blunder (at least for me on a personal note) is that by running with anyone other than Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama will be opening the door for John McCain. In other words, it seems to me as though the Democrats have everything going for them and by announcing that Obama & Clinton will share the ticket they can pretty much seal the deal.

As a final note for what has turned out to be a bizarre essay, I wanted to congratulate Obama for the Nomination and to say that I personally hope he will be 'The Next U.S President'. You can also take this as an official Barrack Obama endorsement by the Ziggy Articles staff of one.

Let the betting begin...

The Youth Vote Phenomenon

2008-05-27T08:52:00.000-07:00

I saw an interesting segment on PBS today. It was featured on ‘News Hour’ with Jim Lehrer and was titled “Students and Experts Discuss the Role of the Youth Vote”. You can have a listen to this interesting discussion on PBS.org:
www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008

We’re now at a point where nobody can deny the major role the ‘Youth Vote’ (Aged 18-29) will have on the 2008 General Elections. It seems pretty obvious to me, reading through several articles regarding this issue, that this is major victory for the Democrats.

According to RockTheVote.org:
“Young voters favored Hillary Clinton (47%) over John McCain (35%), and Barack Obama (57%) over John McCain (27%).”
'Rock The Vote' Press Release

Before I continue I have a genuine question: When will Hillary Clinton realize that it’s time to call it a day? I have nothing but respect for her but this is getting to a point where it's quite embarrassing, I can only hope that one of her (many) advisors will fianlly give her some good advice (if none have done so already), and sit her down for a reality check of sorts. Perhaps she’s not that good with arithmetic’s, I know how confusing the delegate count can be, as I’ve actually attempted to write an article about the inner workings of the Delegate Process, so I obviously know how bewildering it can get.

With that said, if the only thing keeping her in the race is the pending debacle over the uncounted Florida & Michigan delegates, I would argue that even if they were to hold another Primary, which is really the only reasonable thing to do at this point if you want to count them at the Democratic Convention, Hillary won’t be able to close the gap. So with no offense to Floridians and Michiganians, it doesn’t matter whether or not your primary delegates are counted.

And enough of that inconsequential jabbering and back to the ‘Youth of the Nation’. The main issues that young Americans are passionate about in 2008 are:

• The Economy / Jobs (Decent Wages)
• The War in Iraq
• Health Care (The Rising Costs)
• College Affordability
• Environmental Issues

Note: This was the common theme throughout ALL articles I’d read on the subject.

Now I don’t want to sound biased, but these would generally seem to be the issues that the Democrats or (so-called) “Leftists” are Campaigning strongly about. This would explain the aforementioned 'Youth Vote' margin between either one of the Democratic Candidates and McCain.

The first two (Economy & Iraq) could be split between the parties, at least to some extent based on where each voter stands individually. But there is nothing to deliberate over when you look at the other three issues. I would also like to point out that when it comes to Iraq, the majority of Americans have shifted to the “Left” side of things, so it would only be fair to assume that ‘Young Voters’ would prefer the immediate ‘Gradual Withdrawal’ option, rather than ‘Staying The Course’.

It will be interesting to see the actual effects of the ‘Youth Vote Phenomenon’ in November. In the meantime I encourage everybody to get their registration forms in order, and try to get as many people as you can involved.

The Trailing Democracy

2008-04-27T13:45:00.001-07:00

As the days have been passing by in these last few months, I’ve been following as much of the Presidential Campaign Trail as I possibly can. There is obviously a limit to how much an individual can endure as they observe the constant twists-and-turns, while in the meantime attempt to decipher each of the candidates’ discourse. Some spectators would suggest that the upcoming Presidential Election is one of the most pivotal in American history, and while it’s axiomatic that the question “Who will be the next American President?” will always bear much significance, it's undoubtedly possible that there is some truth behind the assertion that this time around the stakes are considerably higher than ever, and well… perhaps there is no truth to this assertion at all... I have my doubts! (Now try to decipher that one...)

Either way, we must remember that Politicians are political creatures by nature, one quick look in the common dictionary will tell you that they (the ‘Creatures’) will “use underhand or unscrupulous methods in obtaining power” – those scurvy two-faced skulks.

Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, I’m sure you can find something in each one of the Presidential Nominees positions appealing to you personally, and perhaps your ideal candidate is some type of fusion between all three. I would argue that if we looked deeply into every government, and all governors historically, we will find many significant differences between what we would call “Initial Positions” & “Pre-Election Promises” and than comparing them with their actions later on as “Head of State”.

My point is that nobody can (or will) deliver 100% of the goods (if they would we’d be living in Utopia by now), yet when it comes to American Politics there is a deep-rooted problem. There are some major flaws in our (so-called) Democratic Voting System which make matters much more complex, and in many ways could only be described as discouraging and despicable.

The Popular Vote

The most obvious example has to do with the 2000 Presidential Elections between George Bush (the 2nd) and Al Gore. Without getting into the major dramas that took place in Florida – which are interesting enough on their own terms – the fact of the matter is that Al Gore received 539,947 votes more than George W. Bush. In other words, unlike any other Democracy in the world (as far as I know) in our country the most popular candidate isn’t necessarily the winner of the elections. So much for Politics being a High-Stakes Popularity Contest!

Historically this type of event has occurred only once, though in reality it has been a close call (or closer call than it was in 2000) at least twice before. ‘Popular Vote’ wise, in 1960 John F. Kennedy had won the Presidency with a plurality margin of around 112,000 votes over Richard Nixon, and in the 1968 Elections Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey by just under 512,000 votes. The difference between the 2000 Elections and the other two cases that I’d mentioned is that the President Elect was also the winner of the popular vote, unlike the “Unpopular” Bush victory in 2000.

The Unbalanced House of Senate

For those who don’t know how the U.S Senate’s representatives are elected, the system is actually quite simple. There are two Senate members representing each U.S State. This, to the naked eye, sounds fair enough (definitely simple enough), that is until you do some number crunching (and I’ll try to keep this part as simple as possible).

On one hand – "Group A":

The 36 Million residence of California get to elect 2 Senators.
The 21 Million residence of Texas get to elect 2 Senators.
The 19 Million residence of New York get to elect 2 Senators.
The 16 Million residence of Florida get to elect 2 Senators.

On the other hand – "Group B":

The 781 Thousand residence of S. Dakota get to elect 2 Senators.
The 642 Thousand residence of N. Dakota get to elect 2 Senators.
The 626 Thousand residence of Alaska get to elect 2 Senators.
The 494 Thousand residence of Wyoming get to elect 2 Senators.

In other words, the 92 Million people represented in “Group A” States have as much voting power as the (just over) 2.5 Million people in the “Group B” States as both “Groups” are represented by 8 U.S Senators. The problem, when we put these numbers to the test, is that 30% of Americans have as much power as 0.8% of Americans. In other words, and I find this part quite shocking on a personal level, each vote casted by a member of a ”Group B” state is worth roughly 38 times more than a vote casted by a member of any ”Group A” State. This is Democracy at one of its weirdest moments! (And one of the reasons why we’re not really living in a Democratic country but rather a Republic)

18th Century Political Science

With all due respect to our Founding Fathers, the American Political System is outdated. Back when the American Constitution and Bill of Rights were written they were considered the cutting edge of modern politics. The fact of the matter is that they didn’t know much about Democracy back in those days, definitely not as much as we know now, and just like any Science, Political Science has seen much progress in the last 200 plus years.

I’m not going to touch the issues of Slavery or the development of Women’s Rights, but the fact remains that a serious change was needed when the time came and what seems obvious to us now was obviously not obvious to the very intelligent and progressive men who founded our country. With that said, the way our voting system was designed, and the legal process that any bill must go through for any type of change to be put into law is mindboggling. Nonetheless, it is possible to change the system. Here are a few good reasons…

A Victory for Democracy

While I understand the logic on which the American Political System was based, and considering the general knowledge that existed during that period of time, it’s understandable why things are the way they are. But there is nothing wrong with looking across the Atlantic (or anywhere else for that matter) and adopting positive innovations that have been made since the 18th Century.

When we look at the scientific field of Politics, the concept of Proportional Voting should definitely be on the table in the United States. There are many ways to incorporate a Proportional Voting Representation into the American system, at least on a partial level (as I will demonstrate in a moment), and there are many reasons that I could think of for why this should happen.

For starters, those of us who live in States or Congressional Districts that are virtually uncontested have literally NO VOTE! If (for example) each state elects one Senator and the remaining 50 Senators were elected through a Proportional system, I’m willing to bet that the voter turnout numbers would rise significantly. In this type of scenario you don’t lose the State’s Representation and you gain a House that represents ‘We the People’ in much more of an accurate way. You can divide Congress similarly, a certain percentage of Proportional reps and a certain percentage for Local reps (For Example: 300 Congressmen through districts and 135 Congressmen Proportional – or any other agreed upon configuration)

Another good reason for this type of change is for people who feel strongly about one specific issue, they could vote for a party that represents them personally, whether it’s Environmental Issues, Abortion, or any other issue you could think of, there is an actual chance for our two-party system to become a three or four party system. If enough people (let’s say roughly a Million) feel strongly about an issue they should have someone in Washington fighting their battle. This reason as well would give us a much better and more accurate representation of voters. In so many words, it would be a victory for Democracy.

The Politics of Fear

2008-03-21T04:21:00.000-07:00

I would like to begin this essay with a question, what does it take to turn an idea into a government policy? If you have an answer to this question, please leave a somewhat detailed comment or send me an Email (or something). Either way, these writings are dedicated to one method which I believe is the most effective approach and perhaps the most commonly used process in terms of making drastic government policy changes, I like to call this procedure ‘The Politics of Fear’.

The general concept, in regards to ‘Fear Techniques’, is that when they are applied correctly we (the unsuspecting citizens) are bombarded with information regarding “Issue X” and some of this information will show “Average Joe” how it affects him personally, so much so that “Issue X” may even be publicized as life threatening. In other words, if we don’t take care of “Issue X’ immediately, there is a good chance all of us are going to suffer and in some cases we may even die.

Sounds pretty terrifying already eh… I mean, “Mother of God (running around the room in fearful manner)… We must take care of this ‘X’ issue at once...”

Before you run into Home Depot and start asking about portable bomb shelters, you should know that the second part of ‘Fear Techniques’ is that they involve misinformation. In one way or another we are being misled to believe something that isn’t necessarily true and sometimes far from it. Within this rogue-information there is an element containing deceitfulness, and most of the time there will be a great deal of selectiveness as to what information is used and what isn’t. If “Average Joe” would only take the time to search for facts and educate himself (Thank God for Google) he will most likely find some of the answers he’s looking for.

I would like to take a moment and elaborate on the word ‘Selectiveness’. In the most basic form it has to do with the notion that “If this information is in line with what I’m promoting I will use it in my campaign and if it doesn’t toss it”. In many ways, this is the same thought process that goes on when companies are creating a T.V commercial for a new brand of cereal. With that said, and as a matter of fact, this type of behavior (as a political issue) is bipartisan. The usage of these ‘Fear Techniques’ is a well thought out plot that is used by Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, Leftists and Rightists. Indeed, they are used by both the George W. Bush’s and the Al Gore’s of our world.

I will begin with Iraq, or to be more specific, the U.S led invasion of Iraq which is perhaps one of the easiest ways to illustrate what “The Politics of Fear” is as a concept and how it’s applied. To balance the tables, I’ll take a stab at Global Warming, or what we should ALL begin to refer to as ‘Man Made Global Warming’ and not merely as ‘Climate Change’, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

Worst Case Scenarios

It’s pretty clear now, in the aftermath of the ‘Iraq Invasion’ that many false statements were made by our government officials. There were no ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. There was no realistic scenario where the “Smoking Barrel” would be in the form of a “Mushroom Cloud”, at least not in a million years. And although Saddam Hussein wasn’t much of a dovish character, he had as much to do with the attacks of September the 11th as you and I. The real question is: ‘Where was all of this information in 2002?’

While the war drums were beating at a steady pace, there were large amounts of information contradicting the assertions being made by Bush and Co. (about 1,000 times pre-invasion). All you had to do if you really wanted to debunk (for example) the ‘Uranium purchased by Iraq from an African country (Niger)’ is follow the name Elisabetta Burba and see where it leads you. This is just one of many examples, but the theme remains similar throughout. Repetitive, terrifying statements that had convinced “Average Joe” that something must be done about Iraq in the name of National Security, or maybe even International Security.

It’s said that when you’re dealing with Security matters you must plan your moves according to ‘Worst Case Scenarios’. The irony in this specific case is that before the invasion Saddam’s Iraq was being publically portrayed in a ways that were in line with this ‘Worst Case Scenario’ theory, yet at the same time everybody was either ignoring or under-the-rug-sweeping any (if not all) contradicting information. This obviously had a tremendous influence on ‘Public Opinion’ and on the final decision, that is, whether or not to move forward with the invasion.

During this time our government officials were planning and preparing for the invasion based on the ‘Best Case Scenario’, sending (for example) the lowest amount of troops possible, and doing whatever they could on the cheap. Their belief was that Invading, Conquering, Overthrowing Saddam, Securing and Building a Democracy in Iraq was going to be more like a ‘Walk in the Park’ than a battle with an ominous enemy, one that was supposedly a real threat to our American freedom. If the end results and real life consequences weren’t as depressing this thought process would be funny in a demented and depraved sort of way.

Perhaps Man Made-Up Global Warming

In the debate concerning ‘Man Made Global Warming’ (MMGW) I cannot personally give you any educated scientific information, I’m simply not a Scientist, or more specifically, I’m not a Climatologist… And neither is Al Gore for that matter.

Firstly, I would like to draw a clear picture in terms of issues regarding ‘The Environment’ and where I personally stand. When it comes to matters of International Policy and the Sociological / Personal Awareness changes that are happening (as we “Speak”), I for one am very happy about them. Indeed, the ‘Industrialized World’ (and in more of a sluggish pace the United States) is becoming “Greener” on a daily basis. When it comes to issues such as (1) Air & Water Pollution, (2) Renewable Energy, (3) Recycling, (4) Wastefulness of Natural Resources, and some of the other main “Green” issues, I believe that it’s very important to change our devious ways. With that said, the correlation between all of these “Man Made Environmental Issues” and any significant existential and/or life threatening ‘Climate Changes’ (caused by “Man”) is (at least) arguable.

Back in the 30’s, that is the 1630’s, a man named Galileo Galilei wandered around the streets of Florence asserting that it is in fact the Sun which is the “Center of the Universe” and not the Earth. This type of thinking was outside-of –the-box during that period of time and a fairly revolutionary concept, therefore Galilei was labeled a “Madman” and put under house arrest, never to repeat such nonsensical banter in public ever again. Of course we all know how this story ends.

The reason for which I’m bringing up this historical story is because of the Sun and its significance in the ‘Climate Change’ arena. What the “Holy Church” did not recognize in the 17th century, Global Warming advocates are completely disregarding today. The Sun is a truly dazzling phenomenon, one which man seems to take for granted all too often. It is disproportionately larger than our little “Global Community”, an enormous burning star which releases gargantuan amounts of energy to the furthest destinations in our ‘Milky Way’ bringing light and warmth to our planet (and several others) on a daily basis while all we can do is float around it in circles. Have you ever heard about “Black Spots” and the effects they have on our climate?

I’ve spent quite some time reading and researching ‘Global Warming’ and I can tell you first handedly that enough esteemed scientists are raising enough logical questions to leave the verdict unclear due to reasonable doubt. Another piece of evidence is the actual percentage of Carbon Dioxide (co2) in the atmosphere to begin with. If I remember correctly (both from the research and from my 7th or 8th grade science classes) it’s around 5%, nonetheless a very low number in terms of proportionality. Since this ‘Global Warming’ crisis was brought to our attention these figures haven’t changed by that much and it is virtually impossible for ‘Man Made Carbon Emissions’ to change that percentage significantly, that is, enough to create what Climatologists call the “Greenhouse” effect. In addition to that, from my understanding, the temperature rises should appear about 10-12 kilometers above sea level for us to be in what they (Scientists) call a state of ‘Global Warming’ and, at least from what I’ve heard, these changes haven’t begun to happen yet at all.

Final thoughts…

So what is going on? Why are we being bombarded with all of this false or incomplete pieces information? Why are politicians using these “Politics of Fear” methods? Some would say that this has become a somewhat normal routine in Political Strategy. If government officials want to get some of these “Green” bills approved they have to get the public behind them, in the same way political strategists made sure everybody in the world knew about Saddam’s ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. In other words, politicians have become very successful in molding ‘Public Opinion’ around issues, they understand the power of the media and most importantly, politicians have learned that in the theatre of ‘Public Opinion’ intimidation goes a long way.

The Next American President (Part1)

2008-02-05T05:45:00.000-08:00

The long, twisted, and brutal ‘Road to the White House’ is as gruelling as a marathon race (in the Mohave Desert). In the Olympic Games for example, the greatest athletes in the world come together to compete in their respective fields once every four years, their goal is to win a gold medal and to gain the everlasting title of ‘Olympic Champion’. In the United States Presidential Race, once every four years, the greatest minds in American politics come together, all working in a frantic pace with their distinguished candidates, trying to convince the citizens of our country which one of them can serve “We the People” in the best manner.

Getting hold of that most coveted of prizes, a seat behind the Presidential desk in the ‘Oval’ office, is perhaps as complex as winning a world class Chess-masters tournament, the Tour de France (seven times in a row), and an international pie eating contest all combined. In many ways, the American political campaign trail is the ultimate reality show.

The 2008 season of “Who will be the next American President” has already begun, but trying to make sense of it all, in the real sense of the word, is practically pointless. When the newspaper headlines had said about Hillary Rodham Clinton, “She’s so yesterday,” and after no more then three days announced a “Magnificent Comeback” on her part, I began to wonder what the hell is going on in this country. Does anybody understand that these primaries go on from January 3rd until June 3rd? It's quite scary to think that we are going to have the rest of the year to enjoy this nonsensical media frenzy.

These so-called media analysts dissect every possible aspect of the campaign, and for some reason these "Experts" believed that Hillary was finished, because she has just lost by one delegate in the 45 delegate state of Iowa, and let us not forget to mention that the polls were grim for the Hillary camp in New Hampshire, another 22 delegates (out of a total of over 4,000 delegates nationwide). Before the actual voting started (Jan.3) it seemed like there was no doubt in any pollsters mind that Hillary was going to receive the nomination, and this of course affected the media, who treated Hillary as a clear front runner.

Was this some kind of a joke? Iowa has virtually no value in the delegate race, and the irony in this story is that not only was too early to declare Hillary (or anybody) was finished after Iowa, they announced that she made an amazing comeback in New Hampshire (another small state) when in fact she and Barrack Obama had tied, each with 9 delegates in New Hampshire. God almighty!

We are now at the point where on the Democrats side 416 delegates have been counted out of the 4,049 total, and nearly 1,700 will be on the line for them on Tuesday. With that said, for the Democrats matters are still unclear, and what Obama has accomplished so far, and what will finally be answered when the votes of 23 states are tallied up is, whether or not there is any reason to go on with the final three months of the primaries. I’m certain that there will be no guaranteed winner after tomorrow, at least not as clear as McCain on the “Red Team”. But if either Hillary or Obama win big on the delegate count, we can all but wait for November and listen to some more rambling from all candidates.

All of this talk about delegates is exhausting, as I write these words we are less then one day away from finally moving close enough to the ‘Full picture’, to understand what shape the frame is, in the broad sense of the campaign trail. We are now down to three possible “Next American Presidents”. Rudy Giuliani, and his new strategy, has left the building (or the nomination race). He was the Republican front runner before the voting started, but decided (for some odd reason) to begin his bid in Florida, where he ended up in third place and quit shortly after. This move has left the door wide open for John McCain, and it seems quite clear at this point that he will be all but the guaranteed Republican candidate after ‘Super Tuesday’ is concluded (depending on the margin of his dominance), and it seems quite likely that he will run with Giuliani as his Vice President. This is probably, or at least in part, the reason why Rudy stepped down so quickly after the loss in Florida, but that’s ancient history now.

With 24 States on the line (23 Blue and 21 Red) voting all on February 5, it will become the day where things are truly determined. Everything that happened before will merely be considered as foreplay, and to put the Republican side into numbers, only 224 delegates have been counted so far (out of the over 2,200 delegates), with over 1,000 republican delegates on the line all at once. Tuesday will be a crucial day for all remaining contestants.

There is so much money involved in the production of “The Next American President”, but the truth is that when it’s all said and done it all comes down to winning delegates. I will follow the ‘Money Trail’ in my next essay, and end this one with a few final thoughts about the Presidential Primaries and campaign trail in general.

1. Without getting into the finances I would argue that it’s all a waste, both of the actual money and of our time. There are over 5 months of actual voting and some extra months of campaigning, which of course begin long before the final voting begins (and in between, before the national votes in November). In other words, a waste!

2. The media has too much of an influence when it comes to creating and even changing the publics opinion. They would rather focus on Hillary’s tears, racial slurs, ‘Soap Opera’ jabbering, and Chuck Norris, than tell the American people what is actually happening. Understanding the entire process of the campaign, and having the math skills to figure out what all of these delegates mean is so boring and confusing that the majority of the press don’t really bother explaining them to people, they just get excited about saying the words “Victory in Iowa” and having something to talk about, rather than discussing the realistic nonexistent value of Iowa (Nonexistent unless of course you are in the “Public Relations Business”). I must say that I don’t blame corporate media for their enthusiasm, because I understand the notion that when you’re in the "Broadcasting Business" your goal is to reach a broad audience, and all of this mathematical delegate counting simply can’t be good for the ratings.

3. The fact of the matter is that we are down to three potential “Next American Presidents”. I often hear people say that promoting a Political figure, especially American Presidential candidates, is a lot like advertising a new product, hence the aforementioned “Public Relations Business” reference. It’s no secret that each and every one of them has a team of experts and a bundle of cash. We now have three commercials with well thought out slogans, and it seems as though ‘Change’ has turned into a common theme. In a few days (or months in the event that the “Blue Team” gets into a brawl) we will have only two choices, and this is all quite sad when I think deeply about the word Democracy.

Our President George Bush’s approval ratings are currently horrendous, which (quite frankly) is the reason ‘Change’ is so dominant of a word on the trail. The polls say that 79% of Americans want 'Change', and I assume that behind closed doors every political advisor is barking that “If you’re NOT going to change anything, ‘We the People’ simply won’t get behind you”.

If you think about the type of change that many of these Americans want vs. the issues that are being debated, I have to ask, “Why do we get only get two options?” If 79% of the American people want ‘Change’, why is it that a man like John McCain is going to end up with (pretty much) a 50% chance to become the “Next American President”? I don’t have anything against McCain personally because I don’t really know HIM on such a level, but it just so happens that what he believes in, vis-à-vis “Where our country should be headed” is almost a full 180 degrees from what I personally believe in. What 79% of Americans believe in, and want to see... Change! How long, oh lord, how long?

"War (CRIMES) on Terror"

2008-01-20T01:19:00.000-08:00

In this essay I will try to explain why the United States Military Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is a ‘War Crime’. In the discussion about ‘Pre-emptive War’ and/or ’Preventive War’, I believe that beyond defining the meaning of the declaration, which in itself is very crucial, it’s also important to understand what led to making this type of declaration to begin with.

Under international law, a ‘Supreme Crime’ is defined as - “to initiate a war not in self defense, but with the intent to conquer territory and subjugate other people”.

Supreme Crime (Wikipedia)

To start things off, without being able to prove the act of ‘Self Defense’, initiating a war of aggression is considered a ‘War Crime’ (Article 51 of the U.N Charter). To be more specific, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing... To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The Nuremburg trials (to remind you) is where Nazi War Criminals were brought to justice, this specific U.N Charter resolution was conceived after ‘World War Two’, and (obviously) because of events that took place during the second ‘World War’. The only way a country could legally wage an ‘Aggressive War’ without it being considered a ‘War Crime’ is simply by either defending yourself, or by receiving the ‘Permission’ of the United Nations Security Council (Article 39 of the U.N Charter).

War of Aggression (Wikipedia)

In regards to the ‘War on Terror’, and what is currently taking place in Iraq & Afghanistan, the United States being accused and guilty of committing ‘War Crimes’ wouldn’t be anything new. The Abu-Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, the Wedding party massacre, and several other events are already viewed as ‘War Crimes’. The main difference when discussing the issue of ‘Preventive War’, and whether or not the United States governments decision to invade was in fact an “Initiated War not in self-defence”, if found guilty the ‘War Criminals’ would be the most highly ranked government officials in the United States. To be more specific, the ‘Criminals’ would be the President of the United States and (pretty much) every key member of the George W. Bush administration. In the aforementioned controversial events, the U.S government had waved its hands from any liability. In this case, it would be impossible to wave off the responsibility by merely accusing the so-called ‘Few Rotten Apples’. The U.S government would be guilty of “the accumulated evil of the whole.”

*** For a list of ‘War Crimes’ that took place in Iraq (and elsewhere):
List of Military Scandals (Wikipedia)

With this in mind, let us think back to some of the events that followed the attacks of 9/11. There is one night in particular that pops into my head. It was during the ‘State of the Union Address’ in January 2004 where George Bush had stated, “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country”. I find this choice of words very interesting on many levels.

We are ‘Defending America' and therefore our invasion is NOT an act of aggression.
‘We don't need a permission slip’ and therefore we do not care if the United Nations Security Council approves of our actions.
‘Permission Slip’ which is a witty choice of words because of the normal context in which this phrase is used (I know it’s a bit off topic but nonetheless, it’s not everyday that an American President mocks the international community so bluntly, and on top of that, during the American ‘State of the Union Address’ of all places).

At this point in time (from around September 2002), the war drums in the U.S of A. had begun beating in a frantic pace, influencing the American public opinion that the invasion of Iraq is crucial. Whether or not the claims made by the government were true or false, it was imperative to make it noticeable that the intensions were to ‘Defend ourselves’. If the United States is not committing an act of ‘Self Defence’, the invasion would be considered a ‘War Crime’, or to be more specific, the ‘Supreme International Crime’ of acting in aggression.

Quote:
“The 2003 Invasion of Iraq was justified in part as a preventive war, on the grounds that an Iraqi weapons buildup and/or possible alliances with international Islamic terrorist groups that share a common hatred of Western countries might, in the future, threaten international peace and security, and, specifically, Europe and the United States. In support of an attack on Iraq, U.S. President George W. Bush stated in an address to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, that the Iraqi "regime is a grave and gathering danger."
--- Preventive War (Wikipedia)

In my opinion, the declaration of a ‘Preventive War’ in this case is a violation of the United Nations charter. As a result of this declaration, the United States – and only the United States – has the so-called “Self-Given Right” to use military force in order to eliminate any perceived threats, even if it happens to be an imaginary threat.

In the context of ‘War on Terror’ – which is a new breed of military combat, and a new type of threat – does the U.S. have the right to invade another country, bombing it to shambles with the use of its armed forces, with or without their oppositions declaration of a War? Does the (unproved) assertion that Saddam Hussein was linked to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin-Laden give the United States government the ‘Unauthorized Right’ (by the UNSC) to invade another countries territory and claim ‘Self Defence’?

The way I see it, the answer to both of these questions is ‘Nay’.

George’s New ‘Occupation’

2008-01-10T07:23:00.000-08:00

My fellow Americans, I’d like to kick things off by wishing everybody a ‘Happy New Year’. I’m writing this essay in a new environment, a new continent as a matter of fact, and as I consider myself more of an ‘Earthling’ rather than simply an ‘American’, my wishes go out to anybody who happens to read these words.

At the moment, I’m in North-Eastern Australia in a town called the Gold Coast. It’s about an hour south of Brisbane, and very close to another city known as Surfers Paradise. As you can imagine (or ‘Google’ some images of these places), it’s quite a striking place in terms of natural-visual-appeal. Unfortunately, since I’d landed here, the weather has been in somewhat of a tropical rage, with unpredictable massive rainfall coming and going all-day every-day. Anyway, yes… new environment, new continent, a new vibe (mostly positive for the time being), and at the starting-point of a new year.

With that said, there is a good reason as to why I began this post with the phrase ‘My fellow Americans’ and not ‘My fellow Australians’ or ‘My fellow Earthling’ for that matter. Firstly, if you choose to read-on, you will come to grips with the obvious topic of this essay - The ‘U.S of A.’ & ‘The Occupation in Iraq’. Secondly, the aforementioned phrase is regularly used by George W. Bush, whom I personally consider the main villain of my political consciousness for the past 5-6 years.

So, here we are now, the present, one more year to go and George is out… We’ve (almost) finally made it! 2008 is an election year, ‘Happy New Year’ - Halleluiah! My intentions are to constantly write in the months ahead, for the most part ‘In-Shallow’ essays concerning the upcoming American elections and primaries (which are very concerning!). I won’t dig my toes into that topic now… It’s too much to handle in this essay, especially as I’m writing on ‘New Years day’. It’s like mixing too many alcoholic beverages in one drinking binge. Ironically, this is something that happens quite often on ‘New Years Eve’.

“Yes Sir Mr. Bartender, I’ll have another Whiskey on the rocks… Shit, make it a double, why not? All I’ve had up to now would be umm… *Burp… four shots of Vodka, two pints of Carlsberg, and a few Margaritas… *Burp… oh, and those three bottles of red wine we had for dinner… yeah… did I mention the rum?!?... *Barf…”

Ah… Mother of God, enough of this strange banter. This was supposed to be a serious essay on George W. Bush… Seriously! In the last few days I’ve been framing my thoughts around this subject, and here I am going off on some kind of nonsensical jabbering about the effects of irresponsible drinking binges and vomit. Enough said!

As I was framing my thoughts (seriously), I tried to look back and figure out precisely when the ‘Last-Straw’ was drawn between me and George, but it was difficult to pin-point the exact date or event that changed my feelings from ‘We probably would have been better off with Al Gore’ to ‘I hate that lying hypocrite’.

I was amazed to hear that even now, with George’s approval ratings comparable to fat percentages in ‘Lite’ Cream-cheese, he is still the ‘Most admired man in the World’ - at least according to the USA Today/Gallup annual survey. Of course, since the polls are completely open, asking Americans which man and woman “living today in any part of the world do you admire most?” it’s not much of a surprise that the U.S President keeps winning this title year-after-year. When you can vote for absolutely anybody from Toby McGuire to Osama Bin-Laden, it’s no coincidence that the ‘Leader of the Free-World’ keeps finding his name on top (this year with only 10% of the votes, the lowest in his six year winning streak).

When your job description includes being ‘The Most Powerful Man in The World’, people tend to (a) know who you are, and (b) respect you even if they don’t agree with a single thing that you’ve done. But even Toby knows that with ‘Great Power’ comes ‘Great Responsibility’ (as do all you Spider-Man geeks out there). When you have the most powerful armed forces in the world, combined with the largest number of the most destructive weapons known to mankind at your disposal, responsibility is crucial.

This talk of ‘Last-Straws’ and ‘Responsibility’ takes me back a few years, May 1st, 2003 to be exact, the day that George made the (now) infamous speech on the flight deck of the USS Lincoln, somewhere in the Persian Gulf. George was in a celebratory mood on this day as he declared an end to major combat in Iraq, with his memorable quote - “In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed“. I remember being somewhat happy on that day as well, the thought that ‘The War’ was finally over and that at last we can exhale as our fellow Americans return to their homes. As the speech went on, George mentioned that - “Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home and that is your direction tonight. After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theatres of war… you are homeward bound”. As we all know, reality had a different idea, and now, almost four years later, it’s quite likely that the next American President will inherit this war.

Of course since ‘The War’ is officially over, we must redefine the terminology used in reference to Iraq. Let us not be duped by semantics. The main goals, used to justify the Iraqi invasion, were to oust Saddam Hussein and free the Iraqi people from his totalitarian regime, and to eliminate the threat of ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ falling into the wrong hands and/or being used against us. Now, both George and I agree that we have already accomplished these goals. Saddam is long gone, and the ‘Weapons…’ - Well… Let’s just say that they’re no longer a threat.

If it would help in any way, I would begin to point out similarities between ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ and ‘The Vietnam War’. I could also list a few ‘Other’ reasons for the initial Iraqi invasion, but I don’t want to go to great lengths on this matter. There’s really no point. By now you are either with me or against me. What I wanted to point out is that it was Richard Milhous Nixon who eventually brought our troops back home from Vietnam, and when Nixon campaigned for the presidency in 1968, ‘Ending the War’ was the central issue in those elections. History teaches us that indeed it was he who brought our troops back home, and ended the war. It took him about five years to deliver on this promise, but that’s another story altogether. By the way, I’m not much of a ‘Nixon Fan’, but now is erm… Definitely not the time to go to any length about that one… (Remember the correlation between irresponsible drinking and writing?)

In the upcoming 2008 elections, there are many other important issues besides ‘Iraq’, but none of them are quite as important in my mind. It’s a question of approval, and whether or not the American people really want ‘Change’. With that said, depending on which individual will become the next American President, there’s still no telling when this atrocious occupation will end.

And when will this atrocious essay end? When indeed! I’ll just finish it off on a personal high note; no-matter who will win the elections in 2008, it won’t be George ‘Occupying’ the ‘Oval Office’ in January 2009.
Halleluiah!

Sports Advocating Diplomacy

2007-12-13T21:13:00.000-08:00

According to the Olympic Charter, established by Pierre de Coubertin, the goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sports, practised without discrimination. The concept, as elementary as it may sound, has been disregarded many times throughout history, not only on the Olympic "Stage", sports (in general) have been used numerous times as a political tool.

A couple of notable examples occurred prior to the 1980 (Moscow) and 1984 (Los Angeles) Olympics, when the Cold War opponents boycotted each other's games. The United States led, and 64 other Western nations followed in refusing to compete at the Moscow Olympics in 1980, because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The boycott reduced the number of nations participating to only 81, the lowest number of nations to compete since 1956. The Soviet Union, and 14 of its Eastern Bloc partners, countered by skipping the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984, arguing the safety of their athletes could not be guaranteed there, and that "chauvinistic sentiments and an anti-Soviet hysteria are being whipped up in the United States".

In the 1976 Montreal Olympics, twenty-one African countries plus Guyana (which was the only non-African nation), withdrew their teams after some African athletes had already competed, and after the games had already started. A lot of sympathy was felt for the athletes, forced by their governments to leave the Olympic Village, while their governments were trying to force a ban on South Africa, Rhodesia, and New Zealand, from the games.

In the same year (1976), Canada told the team from the "Republic of China" (Taiwan) that it could not compete at the Montreal Summer Olympics under the name; "Republic of China" - despite a compromise that would have allowed Taiwan to use the R.O.C flag and anthem. The "Republic of China" refused, and as a result did not participate again until 1984, when it returned under the name "Chinese Taipei" and used a different flag.

The reason I'm bringing any of this up has to do with one of today's most eminent conflicts, Iran Vs. "The West". If you have not heard about this conflict, please come back to us, because you have probably been living on the moon for too long now.

Here's some of the latest on this matter; Earlier this month (Dec.3), the American National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) found with "High-Confidence" that Iran stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003. Despite the release of this report, I know many people who still consider Iran a threat, and as a matter of fact, President Bush quite bluntly states that "Iran Remains a Threat".

On Bush's side are the Israeli Leaders, who say that "The U.S. assessment (NIE Report) is flat-out wrong", according to 'Time' magazine; "If the U.S. fails to act on the danger (recognized by the NIE), the Jewish State will be forced to act alone." In the same article, the author claims that "Despite the talk of an "Israeli option" for military action, few analysts believe an Israeli attack on Iranian facilities is likely, or even possible." And at the same time, Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert says, "Israel will expose the Iranian military plan to develop a nuclear weapon".

I would like to believe that there is still a "Fighting-Chance" for a diplomatic resolution, a way to resolve the matters-at-hand without any explosions or combat-aircrafts. I'm sure you might be asking yourself, "What in the world do sports have to do with this?" - The truth is, this conflict is much bigger than any sporting event, but in terms of taking a step forward, there might just be something to this, at least in my twisted mind at 5:00am.

In a political policy move that flouts the spirit of the Olympic movement, the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran specifically orders its athletes not to compete in any Olympic heat that includes athletes from Israel. At the 2004 Olympics, an Iranian judoka, Arash Miresmaeili, refused to compete in a heat against an Israeli judoka, Udi Vaks, but did so surreptitiously to avoid the possibility of Iran being removed from the games for political intrigue (the athlete deliberately didn't make weight). The Iranian judoka however, returned home to a hero's welcome, and received a $125,000 reward from his government.

This political policy is the main reason why Iranian striker Vahid Hashemian would not travel to Israel for Bayern Munich's Champions League match against Maccabi Tel-Aviv during the 2004 qualifying rounds.

These examples are connected in part to Iran's refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist, and another example is that Iran has blocked Israel’s Participation in the World Armies Olympic Games. It's quite ironic to me that the goals of the aforementioned event, are to develop friendly relations between the Armed Forces of member nations. As the "Now Public" article suggests, it is indeed very interesting to pick out key phrases from the CISM website:

Is open to the armed forces of all nations.
To develop friendly relations.
Universal peace.
Apolitical organization.
To promote international harmony.
Rejects all forms of discrimination.

If in fact Iran doesn't recognise Israel's right to exist, who can blame Israeli leaders for being worried? If in the near future diplomatic communication opportunities will develop, the issue of "Israel's right to exist", has to be discussed. I believe Iran should use its position to better the general conditions of the Palestinian people, and refrain from adding more fuel to the fire. Show the world that they are willing to "Pursuit Peace" in the region, if only to avoid expanding this ferocious conflict.

If Iran's government doesn't take a reasonable step forward in regards to Israel, I'm afraid that the Israeli government will remain sceptical. I'm afraid that Olmert might choose the counterproductive way, which will lead to reactions, that could quite possibly result in a war.

I don't like these stakes, and more than anything, I would like to avoid further escalation on the world-violence meter. Most of all, I'm afraid of sceptics, because often times they seem to enjoy the rush of high-stakes politics. Too often, they'll go all-in on a "Bluff" in this "Texas-Hold'em" game of "War-craft & Peace". Some of these "Leaders" have an adrenaline-junkie disorder, and they live for these type of high-stakes-games. What happens sooner or later is that someone will call their "Bluff", and that in effect, touches too many people that never even wanted to be a part of the game to begin with.

Sports my friends, they are a different phenomenon, and as I said, they can be used as a political stage. If you choose to do so, you can use this stage to your benefit. What's wrong with Iranian and Israeli athletes competing against each other? Is that too much to ask as an act of good-will? Why not arrange a soccer meeting between Israel and Iran's national teams? That's why they call it a friendly-match, right?

Small Arms of Mass Destruction

2007-12-05T18:51:00.000-08:00

There are over 698 Million firearms in our world, more than one for every ten people. Some of these guns are used by criminals, some are used to terrorize innocents, some are used to displace people from their homes, and some are used to abuse international human rights and humanitarian law. Many guns, all around the world, are used for killing.

Here are some of the disturbing facts:

Every minute, someone is shot dead by the use of a gun.
Between 300,000-500,000 people are shot dead every year.
Guns are relatively cheap and easily available.
The "Black Market" arms trade is valued at $2-10 billion in sales every year.
Guns are easy to use, long lasting, highly portable, and easily concealable.

"The death toll from small arms dwarfs that of all other weapons systems – and in most years greatly exceeds the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In terms of the carnage they cause, small arms, indeed, could well be described as 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. Yet there is still no global non-proliferation regime to limit their spread."
--- UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, 2000

In this post, I will try to shed some light on this important global issue. Where are these guns coming from? Where do they end-up? Why isn't anybody doing anything?

I will answer the last question first, because the answer is quite simple. In 2001, the United Nations held a conference aimed at reducing the flow of arms into conflict zones. The goals for the two week conference were scaled back after pressure from major gun-producing countries such as the United States, China and Russia, whose delegates had worked behind the scenes to block any agreements on a program of action.

In this conference, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control at the time, John Bolton (and a former U.S Ambassador to the United Nations), told the delegates that "The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms." The conference (I remind you) was about reducing the flow of arms into conflict zones. Bolton stated that the United States could not support a final Conference document that included:

Making restrictions on the sale of small arms and light weapons to entities other than governments.
Funding campaigns by human rights organizations to raise awareness of the trade.
A ban on private ownership of military weapons (such as assault rifles and grenade launchers).
A commitment to begin discussions on legally binding agreements.

This, in effect, answers the first question, "Where are these guns coming from?" - at least to some degree. According to the U.S Congress report on "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations" (page 64), the U.S had "Transferred" over $61 Billion in arms (between 1999-2006). Russia was number two with over $32 Billion, followed by the U.K with almost $28 Billion, and France with 16.6 Billion Almighty Dollars in "Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations". These figures include supplying: Tanks, Helicopters, Missiles, Armored Cars, Combat Aircrafts, etc.

In terms of small arms, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are (what-do-you-know) the five leading nations in terms of small arms exports (88% of the market).

According to the Oxfam International & Amnesty International Arms Report (Page 54), the U.S is the World "Leader" in this category (as well) with $14 Billion in sales per year (between 1998-2001). The U.K is a "Solid" number two at $4.6 Billion. France and Russia are tied for third ($3.4 Billion), and China ($0.5 Billion) is number five.

Some of these weapons reach conflict zones (one way or the "Black Market" way), causing pain and suffering to the powerless. There are over 698 Million firearms in our world, more than one for every ten people. So to answer the question, "Where do these guns end-up?" - Small arms are in every corner of our globe, involved in almost every conflict that we hear about, every day of every week.

Another disturbing factor, a part of the "Arms Trade" discussion, is that there are an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 children serving as soldiers in current armed conflicts, both for rebel groups and government forces. Africa is the most problematic continent in regards to this issue, an estimation from 2004 claims that there are over 100,000 "child-soldiers" in current armed-combat-positions. This is of course a world-wide plague, and in Columbia for example, between 11,000 and 14,000 children are estimated to be involved with left-wing guerrilla groups and right-wing paramilitaries. Children are also recruited by terrorist-organizations and rebel-groups around the globe. If you are interested, you can read more about this specific topic "Military use of children" (Wikipedia).

I know a lot of American citizens who feel strongly about the 2nd Amendment of our constitution, and care very much about their right to own a gun. The truth, at least in my own mind, is that there's nothing wrong with legally (and responsibly) owning a gun. The problem, both within the U.S. and in other parts of the world, begins when firearms end up in the wrong hands, and I'm sure you can see that often times they do.

I sit here tonight, writing about these issues, and I feel perplexed as to how this matter is not a top-priority. In an era when the "War on Terror" is such a "Hot" topic, finding ways to prevent the distribution of arms into conflict zones should be a matter of international security. In a time when every American Presidential Candidate is being asked whether or not they are "Pro Life", perhaps the issue of "arms" could serve as an extension (of sorts) to the "Pro Life" debate. Maybe as a side note, or in the form of a new topic. Maybe someday.

"We cannot have it both ways. We can’t be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of arms."
--- Former US President Jimmy Carter, The presidential campaign, 1976

Pursuing Peace - The "Holy Land"

2007-11-27T02:23:00.000-08:00

For good or ill, this topic can be discussed, dissected, and spun around in every which way. Take into account the large number of political figures attempting to intermediate, the extensive media coverage and political analysis. It's amazing to me that somehow, disregarding any form of rationale, to many people on all sides of the spectrum, a peaceful solution seems unattainable. It would appear as though for every one-step-forward they end up taking two-steps-back, as if the light at the end of the tunnel was moving further away rather than getting any closer.

For the longest time I've been saying, "The first thing that needs to be done, is to bring together politicians from both sides to discuss the issues." Of course this in itself has proven to be a rigorous task, and in fact since the "Camp David Summit" in July 2000, and the "Taba Summit" in January 2001, the negotiation tables have been empty. This week, after over 6 years, the talks are finally going to resume. To some, the tables are finally turning, leaders from both sides are on a path that will lead to a peaceful two-state solution. To others, these talks mean nothing. The Hamas leaders are not even there, Olmert doesn't have the political power to make anything happen in Israel, Abbas is an American puppet, and George Bush (along with Condoleezza Rice) is trying to end his presidency on a positive note.

These are brutal words indeed, but it is possible that these people, with any of these points of view, are all partially right. On the other hand, maybe everybody is wrong. But that's neither here nor there on this issue, and before I get into my personal point of view, I want to say that it's a definite positive that these negotiations are taking place, even if this specific "one-step-forward" results in moving "two-steps-back", at least there is motion again.

One new issue, that came to life between the 2001 summit and the present date, is the rise of Hamas as a political party, and the internal struggle between Hamas and Fatah leaders. Mahmoud Abbas, for lack of better words, had to flee from the Gaza Strip because of this conflict. Shortly after Hamas won the elections in 2006, Abbas dismissed the elected (Hamas) Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, and illegally appointed Sallam Fayyad. This action was followed by Hamas armed forces taking control of Palestinian Authority positions that were in control of armed Fatah militias (that were supported by the U.S. and Israel). Some are predicting that in the future, possibly, the Gaza Strip will become a Hamas state and the West Bank will become a Fatah state. With that in mind, perhaps the negotiations should be focused on creating a "three-state" solution, because at the moment (sadly) it would seem that two might not be enough. As I had mentioned before, Hamas leaders aren't a part of these talks, so anything that would be agreed upon (unless Hamas joins these negotiations at some point) would most likely be futile.

On the other hand, politics in Israel haven't been stable (either) for quite some time. There are currently 12 parties represented in the Knesset (the Israeli parliament). The Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is from a completely new party (Kadima) that ran for the first time in 2006. Kadima won because of Ariel Sharon, who had formed a strong allegiance of political figures prior to the elections. These politicians had joined him, believing in his leadership, and formed a new middle-of-the-road party. Unfortunately, before the elections took place, Sharon's political career had ended because of a massive stroke, and it was because the Israeli population believed in this allegiance, Kadima had won the elections. As a result, Olmert became the Prime Minister as Kadima's original number two. This so-called "majority" Kadima has, consists of less than 33% of the votes (29/120 parliament members). In reality, there are 5 different parties in the Israeli parliament (50 members in total) who would be considered on the "right" side of the political spectrum. There are 2 parties (24 members) on the "left" side of things. There are 3 parties (10 members) that represent the Israeli Arabs. There is a long history of different parties joining together, and party members breaking away from their original parties to form new parties. What I'm trying to point out here is instability, which could explain the reason why the Israeli government has continuously collapsed in the last 15 years. Since Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in Nov.1995 (elected in 1992), there has not been an Israeli Prime Minister who stayed in office for the full four year term without having to go through reelections (and only Sharon was successful in this reelection scenario).

The negotiations between the two sides have always revolved around four principal obstacles:

Territory
Jerusalem and the Temple Mount
Refugees and the 'Right of Return'
Security concerns

In my personal opinion, at the end of this process, Jerusalem will have to be divided between the two states. Without getting into the specifics, the Eastern part of Jerusalem will be under the Palestinian Authority, and the Western part will remain Israels. The "Old City" (and perhaps a few other historical & religious landmarks) will have to become "God's Land", I vision it as something similar to the Vatican in Rome. A place where neither government has absolute control, and the general population from both sides can employ their religious attachments to it. The "Holy City". The interesting thing about this idea is that in the United Nations Resolution 181 (Israels "Birth Certificate"), that came after WW2, Jerusalem was to come under international control.

Since then many things have changed, mainly due to the violence that began almost as soon as the U.N. plan was approved. The fighting has been going on ever since those days in one form or another. The territories that have been negotiated from the beginning of the two state process (between Arafat and Rabin during the Oslo Accords), are the areas that Israel took over during the Six Day War in 1967. The general notion of these talks is that Israel returns to the 67' Green Line borders, which would in effect bring to a withdrawal from a large number of settlements, somewhere around 200,000-300,000 civilians. This part of the agreement was already negotiated, and the Israeli government was ready to move forward with this process. There were a few other points, mainly the 'Right of Return' issue, that sabotaged the whole negotiation process in the most recent summits.

Another issue, that I believe has to be discussed, is the economic separation between the two states, or to be more specific, development of the Palestinian economy. The international aid has come to a virtual halt since Hamas won the elections in 2006, which has (of course) only made conditions worse. The unemployment rate in the Palestinian Authority is now over 40%, so politics aside, these people need some of the basic necessities for leading a normal life. They need some form of stability, they need a regular source of income and the ability to support their families, they need an education system, they need sewers that don't erupt in the streets, and many other items that would fall into this "basic" category.

In the hypothetical case, where resolutions are actually being made, both parties have to take the agreements to their people, and honor them. Taking into account the current chaotic political conditions, this would be a very difficult task for both sides. Either way, in reality, there's a very long process ahead, and perhaps this meeting is a good starting point in that respect. I personally believe, that before any of this can happen, there has to be a change in leadership on both sides. New leaders who can unify the masses (to some extent), and come to the table with the will and understanding that they will both have to make certain sacrifices. These leaders will have to take the small steps necessary for creating a peaceful coexistence. Until then, the "Holy Land" will most likely remain a God forsaken place.

Is The Future De-Railed?

2007-11-15T11:51:00.000-08:00

In my travels, I've been fortunate enough to visit quite a few places around the globe. Beyond any cultural experiences and seeing some fascinating thingamajigs that exist in our world (with my own eyes), I always enjoy observing and taking notes on "How things work?" in other countries, and often times, I ask myself "Could they work in the United States?"

I was on a train from Tokyo to Kyoto, the distance = 400 miles/600 kilometers. We were moving "Faster than a Speeding Bullet". Surprisingly, this trip lasted approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes. It didn't feel strange at all moving at speeds around 188mph (300 km/h), and the chairs were nice and cozy as well. I had just begun to settle in when we'd "finally" arrived at my destination (and by the way, Kyoto is amazing... in case you were wondering). On my way back to Tokyo, I'd decided to do some research and take an in depth look on what it would mean to bring the "Shinkansen" across the Pacific Ocean.

Before I get into the "rah-rah" details, what I'd just described would be (pretty much) the equivalent of a train ride from Los-Angeles to San-Francisco (in terms of distance). From personal experience, this is about a six hour drive, and that's if you're lucky enough to avoid traffic. It would also cost somewhere around $50-60 in gas money, in an average car, at the California rates of $3 a gallon. Could you imagine that? LA to SF in less than two and a half hours.

It came to me as no surprise to find out that such plans already exist. With a smile on my face, I give to you "The California High Speed Rail Project". Furthermore, I'd learned that several other areas in the United States are deliberating whether or not to develop a High Speed Rail System (The Midwest, Florida, Texas... You can click Here for a nice image). The burning question is "Will They Do It?"

Creating these tracks will come at a high price, this is of course one of the main issues. The (full) California rail project is estimated to cost $30 billion. The Midwest Regional project would cost around $8 billion. Completing projects of these magnitudes are expected to take no less than a decade. Before we all wave this idea off and call it a day, lets examine a somewhat similar project in U.S. history - The U.S. Interstate and National Highway system.

It was President Roosevelt who drew up the eight superhighway corridors in 1938, and it was only during President Eisenhower's term (in 1956) that the project was authorized and construction had begun. It ended up costing $114 billion (adjusted for inflation, $425 billion in 2006 dollars), and took 35 years to complete. We also have to take into account that the work is never truly "Complete" (as far as finances go). There is always maintenance to do, new extensions being built, adding new lanes, etc.

The weight of rail developments, in terms of time and economics, is nothing new to the U.S. government. It's a matter of moving in a new direction (or by a different means), and the way I see it, there is much to gain.

Here are a few findings from a study by the "California High-Speed Rail Authority" and the "Federal Railroad Administration", released in August 2005. In this study, they point out that the California Rail System:

Would be two-to-three times less costly than expanding highways and airports to serve similar travel demands.
Would improve intercity transportation reliability.
Would be the most energy efficient of the alternatives.
Would have quicker travel times than air travel.
Would provide low passenger costs per mile.
Would be safer and more reliable than highway and air travel.

These conclusions are based on future projections of intercity travel demands by 2020. If they're right, the California High Speed Rail system will carry as many as 68 million passengers annually, with the potential to carry twice as many passengers, this according to the findings of the "Environmental Impact Report" (EIR).

The "Midwest Regional Rail Initiative" (MRRI) is a plan to use Chicago as a hub and implementing a vast network of tracks. The primary routes would stretch across Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. You can read some specific details on the project in this "Executive Report" released in September 2004. If you are interested in reading about any other particular areas, I'm sure you will find what you're looking for by following this link. "High-speed rail in the United States"

According to the U.S. Department of safety, the annual death toll on U.S. roads has remained virtually unchanged (40,000-42,000) since 1991. During the 40 plus years and 6 billion passenger history on the Japanese "Shinkansen", there has never been a passenger fatality due to derailments or collisions (including earthquakes and typhoons), only minor injuries as a result of the trains doors closing on a passenger. Enough said on the safety issue.

Another element worth mentioning, is the possible economic developments near stations. I believe there is a tremendous potential of creating flourishing businesses within and around the multiple train station areas (based on what I've seen in Japan) and in addition, many employment openings. How often do we hear political discussions about "Manufacturing Jobs" or the lack thereof? Undertaking these projects could be an opportunity to improve matters in this department, both in terms of "Rail System Employees" and the aforementioned "New Businesses" that would come to life.

Beyond any amount of time commuters would save on High Speed Rails, the issues of Energy Consumption, Air Pollution, Employment and Safety, should make a strong case for investment in rail projects. For whatever it's worth, I think they are worth it.

Quick update:
Popular Mechanics - December Article on Fast Trains.
(I just beat them to it...)

They added another route, in addition to what I've mentioned, between Los-Angeles & Las Vegas (90 Minutes). Cool article!

"One World Government"

2007-11-08T07:59:00.000-08:00

Often times, I find myself wondering when all hell will finally break loose. It seems to me like any day now the world will simply go up in flames. When that happens, there won't be a safe haven, there will be nowhere to hide.

Before you get all depressed and start looking for a bridge to take the final plunge, I want you to know that I have faith. I truly believe that sometime in the future, current affairs will become a thing of the past, not only because enough time will go by and this year will become "A few years ago" or "Back in the day", but in that I have confidence in the resilience of mankind.

Whether it's the United Nations or a new international organization that will come to life at some point, I believe that there should be some kind of coalition council or "Global Authority" (if you will), one that is in charge of administering significant actions on a global scale.

The way I see it, if things remain as they are, where each individual government has its own policies regarding universal issues, there will never be any major improvements. In other words, history will keep repeating itself, and finding whatever solutions to solving important matters such as "The environment", "War & Peace", "Poverty" and other humanitarian injustices will never be feasible. It takes everybody, all nations, regardless of religious beliefs and race, to regulate these universal laws and make all countries come together and undertake the questions at hand.

Obviously, it's easier said then done, but in order to reach this harmony, in every sense of the word, there must be an establishment constructed of great minds from around the globe, one that supervises and sets guidelines that the rest of the world must follow. For the time being, the UN General Assembly resolutions are not enforceable as a legal or practical matter. Why? (you ask...) The General Assembly lacks enforcement powers, they cannot penalize a country for its disobedience.

To shed some light on the matter, the United Nations have the right idea basically. It is divided into several administrative bodies that are in charge of different matters, the most important are as follows:

The General Assembly, which is the main deliberative organ.
The Security Council, which is in charge of making resolutions regarding peace and security.
The Economic & Social Council, which promotes international economic social cooperation and development.
The Secretariat, which provides studies, information and facilities needed by the UN.
The International Court of Justice or the ICJ, which is the primary judicial organ.

Beyond the first obstacle I presented, which would be granting the UN some more leverage in carrying out their resolutions. There are a few more things that need to be changed in order for this type of global organization to work efficiently.

The General Assembly, for instance, consists of members from 192 different countries. More than two thirds of them are from developing countries. Because of their numbers, the developing countries are often able to determine the agendas of the Assembly, leaning the discussion towards issues between industrialized nations and developing countries. This is of course a very important topic, but in the notion that there are many urgent matters to discuss, it seems to me that making this specific issue a collective one would save a lot of time. I'm not saying that certain nations shouldn't be represented or not have the ability to raise issues on their local fronts, but there should be a time distribution rule to some degree, if only to discuss the pressing matters that are important on a global scale.

The UN Security Council, which consists of 5 permanent members (The United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom) and ten temporary members, is often criticized for only addressing the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent 5, especially when it comes to humanitarian interventions. For example, the eagerness to protect oil-rich Kuwaitis in 1991 compared to the unwillingness to protect resource-poor Rwandans in 1994. Just a few days ago, as a matter of fact, I heard Jan Eliasson, the UN Special envoy for Darfur, talk about how the UN is seeking helicopters for the peacekeeping forces in the region. Why doesn't the UN have enough resources at their disposal?

Anyway, enough of this negativity. This is not really the point that I'm trying to make here, I can dig up a lot of dirt but there are bigger fish to fry. If you would like to read some more about "Dirt", Give this a click.

To simplify the point that I'm trying to make, I will try to dissect things into smaller particles. Every town or city has a Mayor, then you have county (or regional) officials, the next level would be state governors, parliaments, prime ministers, presidents, etc. Every country has its own form of political hierarchy, somebody at the "Top of the Food Chain" or a head honcho. The way I see it, there has to be one more level that transcends all of the aforementioned, on this level should be what I call "The Global Authority".

Here's a quote from arguably the smartest man in the history of humanity: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

In that notion, I don't want WW3 to happen and I'm pretty sure most of you will agree with me on that one. I also think that it's time for people to unite and cooperate, if only to make sure that the generations that follow ours will be able to coexist in this fragile planet we live on. In the beginning of this post I'd mentioned something about the world going up in flames -- and well -- the sad truth is that many peoples worlds have already been annihilated, in the most personal of ways. The unfortunate reality is that more and more peoples lives are being destroyed every day of every week. I think it's time we embrace the idea of a global community and perhaps more importantly that we are all responsible, at least in some minor way, for what happens on this globe.

Fred Phelps, One of Gods Prototypes?

2007-11-04T05:21:00.000-08:00

If you don't know who Fred Phelps is, I would say "You're pretty lucky!"
On Oct.31 the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, which Fred Phelps is the founder of, made some very interesting headlines.

In short, they were ordered to pay $10.9 million for picketing in the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, a Marine who was killed in a vehicle accident in Iraq. Members of the fundamentalist church were carrying signs blaming soldiers' deaths on America's tolerance of homosexuals.

For the full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/funeral.protest/index.html

My issue with all of this is how distasteful the "Fred Phelps Klan" actually is. How ridiculous it is to believe that the death of American soldiers in Iraq has anything to do with gay tolerance. Who are these people who think it's a good idea to protest in a young soldiers funeral, which is such a sensitive matter for all of the people involved to begin with.

The first time I came across Fred Phelps was on Michael Moore's T.V show - "The Awful Truth". On the show Moore created (what is called) the "Sodomobile", a pink van loaded with gay men and women, traveling across the country to U.S. states that have on-the-books sodomy laws, to fight for gay rights. At one point they encounter Pastor Fred Phelps, who back in those days was infamous for protesting at the funeral of Matthew Shepard and picketing during the funerals of other young gay men.

For some more information on Pastor Phelps and his Church's activities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Examples of signs they use in their protests:

* Thank God for 9/11
* Thank God for Katrina
* Thank God for Dead Soldiers
* God Hates You

and the latest...
* Thank God for $10.9M

Follow this link for some more examples:
http://www.thesignsofthetimes.net/watchsignmovies.html

After the courts decision, Phelps told reporters that "This will elevate me to something important, this was an act of futility."
I do hope that all of this sudden attention that he's getting will make people feel as sick as I do about his preaching.

I want to get a few things straight:
I don't support the war in Iraq. I'm not a Christian. I wouldn't consider myself a part of any religion but I have no problem with any religious/spiritual beliefs. I'm not a homosexual nor do I have a problem with homosexuality. I don't have anything against same sex marriage.
To each his own I say.
Live and let Live.
I Love Us All.

Wait a minute, I just had an epiphany...
"Join me my children for soon the 80+ year old Phelps shall not be amongst the living, we shall all go to his funeral and hold up picketing signs."

Some of our sign examples:
"Rest in Hell"
"Good Riddance"
"Thank God It's Over"
and/or anything else that feels appropriate.

All jokes aside, this ludicrous fiasco must come to an end, I'm very glad that Phelps and his church will finally be forced to pay for their deviant actions, but even though the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" covers the 139 "National Cemeteries", there are only 17 states that have banned protests near funeral sites. This should be changed, if only to stop something like this from ever happening again.

This latest court decision and all of the media attention should hopefully take care of that. Phelps has also filed several lawsuits trying to overturn these state bans, I would like to believe that that is now taken care of as well.
"Thank God for $10.9M"

Americans Disapprove of Congress -> Why?

2007-11-01T10:15:00.000-07:00

In a recent poll conducted in the United States, it turns out that 75% of Americans disapprove of the Congress' performance. A similar poll was conducted a year ago, when the results showed that "Only" 63% disapproved. My question to those who disapprove is:
"Are you surprised?"

I was trying to figure out why so many Americans are unsatisfied with the performance of the 435 voting members of Congress.
"How could this be?" - I asked myself...

I began doing some research (and extensive mouse clicking) when it finally hit me. Most of the people that disapprove probably never voted for anybody to begin with. On Nov.7.06 only 36.8% of the eligible voters showed up to cast their vote for Congress, and for that matter, only 29.7% voted for the U.S Senate.

Then I began to ask myself: "Why aren't people voting?"
Could it be because they don't like the candidates?

If so many people feel like their Congressman is doing a poor job,
THEY should replace him (or her).
THEY are the only ones with the power to do it!
(THEY = YOU = US = EVERYBODY)

This may seem like a difficult task, rounding up over 100,000 people in your district to vote for change is no "Walk in the Park", I believe that what it takes is some motivation, determination, effort, planning and organizing. I've heard of a lady, who happens to be a fundamentalist Christian, with a mailing list of over 100, 000 people in her state. Indeed a very organized woman who has rounded up her "Troops" trying to create change in her local fronts. You can also have a look at MoveOn.org and what they've accomplished, on their site you can find some details on how they did it.
Find your district and learn more about your representatives.

In the inspiring words of Dr. Emmet Brown (Back to the Future):
"If you put your mind to it anything is possible!"

Another question that came to mind was:
"What are the 435 members of Congress doing wrong?"
In my personal opinion, I believe that the 110th Congress is not much different than any of the previous ones. The truth (and I find some of this quite disturbing) is that there are major differences between the U.S. political system and that of most other developed democracies.

For starters, the self proclaimed "Leading Democracy" has only two major parties. There are currently only two independent members in the U.S. senate, Bernard Sanders from Vermont and Joseph Lieberman from Connecticut (2 out of 100 Senators). In fact, at the moment all 435 serving members of Congress are either Republicans or Democrats.

In addition, unlike most democracies, the president of the United States has the power to either (a) sign bills into law or (b) veto bills that are passed by both houses of Congress and the Senate, whereas in most democratic countries there is a "Separation of powers" between the Legislature (Parliament) and the Executive government (President).
For example, George W. Bush had recently vetoed the "Children's Health Insurance Program" and two bills regarding Stem cell research.
To Bush's defence however, he has only used his presidential "Veto Powers" four times, nowhere near the all time leader Roosevelt who used it 635 times.
History of U.S presidential vetoes.

I could point out a few more things that I consider problematic in American politics, but lets get back to the initial topic...

The point I am trying to make is that people should get more involved with what's going on. Whether it's the upcoming presidential elections and primaries, voting for the U.S Senate, Congress - and while we're at it, any kind of vote that puts somebody in a position that could effect your life.
It doesn't take a math-whiz to figure out that if only 36.8% of people vote for Congress, it shouldn't really surprise anybody that 75% of the population disapproves of the Congress' performance.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that nowadays more people are concerned about: "Who will be the next American Idol?", rather than, "Who will be the next American president?"

The Price of War

2007-10-26T09:45:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I read this article on the CNN website,
"Bush wants another $42 billion for wars"

The topic of this post isn't in relation to the overwhelming sums of money being spent, I'm not even going to raise questions about invading Iraq in the first place. At this point, if you haven't taken a side on that issue, I must assume that you have been in a coma or perhaps in a deep sleep for the last three or four years. On a personal side note, I would like to say that I could think of quite a few things that I'd rather see that kind of money invested in. The truth be told, I come from more of a pacifistic point of view when it comes to War, in every form and all regions, mainly because the "Price of War" is often paid with innocent lives.
How much is one life worth?

The official U.S. military death toll in Iraq is getting close to 4,000 with over 28,000 American soldiers wounded. A study that has been published recently says that since March of 2003 the 'Excess' death toll in Iraq has reached 655,000. That would mean that there are around 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country since the coalition forces had arrived. Various estimates have been made about the number of Iraqi casualties, ranging from 48,000 to 126,000. I had such a hard time finding a reliable source on how many Iraqi civilians have been injured, that I just gave up on that one, but another disturbing fact that I had learned is that there are millions of displaced refugees in Iraq, the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees estimated that 1.8 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighboring countries, and 1.6 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month.
How much is one ruined life worth?

In reality, I believe that any "official" number we hear, especially regarding such a sensitive topic, would depend on the source from which the number came from. (But that's another issue altogether...)
These numbers are staggering any way you look at it!

On Saturday, October 27, people will gather in 11 cities around the United States in a national expression of the antiwar sentiment in the country.
How many people will participate in this?

I will post some details in a couple of days, after it takes place, but I hope truly hope that many people will show up for the cause.
According to the organizers, the fact that it's being divided into regional rallies will hopefully enable a much larger amount of people to participate.

For more information: www.oct27.org