There has been ongoing criticism, particularly among mainstream conservatives, concerning the ambiguous and continual appointment of executive ‘czars’ by the Obama administration. The term itself, ‘czar’, was coined by Ronald Reagan in 1982 when referring to his predecessor Jimmy Carter’s appointments, and Reagan himself maintained loyal officials in similar positions. The main grievance with this fairly recent czar tradition is that these specifically appointed presidential advisers, some of whom are currently unabashed communists, serve entirely outside of congressional oversight and are not appointed with Senatorial approval. As it stands, the Obama administration has a record staff of thirty two czars, but has only nominated candidates for 243 of the 385 branch positions which do require confirmation in the Senate. Though the president can delegate authority amongst inferior officers (Article II section 2), there has been an increasing discomfort with the ever-increasing appointment of these persons outside of the traditional advice and consent process.
Because Obama has already set a new record only ten months into his presidency, and he has done so with such notable appointments as Socialist International member Carol Browner and accused embezzler Nancy-Ann De Parle, a renewed wariness is very appropriate. The exact administrative authority of these czars is uncertain, undefined, overlapping, and tax-payer funded, but with unmistakable certainty the presidency is growing less and less transparent. It is important to remember that, while Obama may be going above and beyond any sense of political prudence, he is not the first president to so appropriate his executive powers. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes all had varying numbers of czars, and while there is something to be said about the quality of appointments and the reflection on each president by the company he keeps, the fact remains that while conservatives complain, their record is no cleaner.
Obama’s approval rating, along with that of a majority Democrat congress, has fallen at record rates, and as it looks increasingly likely—albeit still a long time away from the next dual election—that conservatives will reclaim majority control, they will have to make an important decision. If the republicans do retake the White House and intend to make good on their promises of reduced government and de-regulation, they cannot simply appoint better qualified czars or appoint less of them; they must abolish the practice entirely. This is not to say the convention is in itself unconstitutional, but it is certainly abused, unnecessary, and contrary to any avowals of conservative policy. Republicans have contributed to the czarist problem as much as the Democrats, and if given the opportunity they must not forget to accompany their words with action. Conservatives complain that Obama’s appointments are out of touch with Middle America and nothing more than an expansion of power. While this is probably true, Republicans have not yet done anything to actually curtail this form of oversight. Czarist appointments must not be accepted as an irreversible aspect of the political status quo, but altogether rejected by conservatives if their political platforms are applicable and genuine.
Removing this state of czar-dom is far from implausible—after all the czars are only accountable to the president. Some maintain that the practice, if carefully regulated is a good and needed check against congressional power, but this only further shows how deeply rooted the regulatory mentality is rooted. This persistent commissioning suggests that politicians on both sides of the spectrum are too used to the idea that the czars should be there. This political malaise, this timid approach to reducing an appallingly costly and inefficient bureaucracy, stands in as victorious progressivism. Despite all of the agreeable rhetoric against it, governmental micromanagement has been allowed to persist where it should not, and it is a shame that so many politicians seem used to the idea.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Inside Joke or Communist Yoke?
Inside Joke or Communist Yoke
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn raised a few eyebrows last week when she, while addressing a group of high school students, identified Mother Teresa and Mao Zedong as the two people she looked to most in life and as her inspirations to challenge the status quo. Dunn went on to urge her audience accordingly, “It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definitions define how good you are internally.” Dunn praised Mao for his intrepid takeover of China, neglecting to mention the 70 million casualties but nonetheless admiring his indomitable spirit. This shows President Obama, the first president to spurn a meeting with the Dalai Lama, in a new light—he was fighting his own war and not letting the external tradition of his predecessors influence him. When challenged on her pro-communist and potentially anarchical rhetoric, Dunn claimed to have been joking. It is indeed difficult to see the humor, but this does mean Dunn was not taking her address to impressionable high school students seriously and she may regard Mother Teresa a joke as well.
Before everyone’s sides stopped hurting, the administration again came under fire, this time with manufacturing czar Ron Bloom taking the spotlight. A video of the somber union man addressing his somber comrades at the annual Union League Club meeting in which Bloom states, “We know that the free-market is nonsense” and, “We agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun” has resurfaced in conjunction with Dunn’s recent comments. Though democrats may have had a good laugh about the peace prize, they now have a serious problem. It seems that the communications and manufacturing heads of staff have been caught red handed pitching their tents in Mao’s camp, but the Democratic congressmen and women who were cited earlier this Fall praising Fidel Castro and his regime missed the memo. So far they have all maintained some semblance of unity in their attempts to over-regulate the market; one can only hope their continued political power doesn’t come at gunpoint, as Mao and Castro’s did.
Anita Dunn maintains that calling Mao and Mother Teresa her “favorite political philosophers” was a bit of ironic humor. As a one-time stand-up comedian, this should be totally unacceptable for Dunn, who has now established that she is not only bad at humor, but also bad at communicating. Though he may not have the same pretext of mirth, Bloom’s communicative skills must also be lacking, for the Democrats clearly don’t all agree. Congresswoman Diane Watson, who lauded Castro as, “one of the brightest leaders I have ever met," displayed the same narrow scope as Dunn. Though they both rub shoulders with the major political figures of today, and have all of western political tradition to look back upon, Watson and Dunn are satisfied to idolize Mao and Castro as the best examples of initiative and administration.
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn raised a few eyebrows last week when she, while addressing a group of high school students, identified Mother Teresa and Mao Zedong as the two people she looked to most in life and as her inspirations to challenge the status quo. Dunn went on to urge her audience accordingly, “It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definitions define how good you are internally.” Dunn praised Mao for his intrepid takeover of China, neglecting to mention the 70 million casualties but nonetheless admiring his indomitable spirit. This shows President Obama, the first president to spurn a meeting with the Dalai Lama, in a new light—he was fighting his own war and not letting the external tradition of his predecessors influence him. When challenged on her pro-communist and potentially anarchical rhetoric, Dunn claimed to have been joking. It is indeed difficult to see the humor, but this does mean Dunn was not taking her address to impressionable high school students seriously and she may regard Mother Teresa a joke as well.
Before everyone’s sides stopped hurting, the administration again came under fire, this time with manufacturing czar Ron Bloom taking the spotlight. A video of the somber union man addressing his somber comrades at the annual Union League Club meeting in which Bloom states, “We know that the free-market is nonsense” and, “We agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun” has resurfaced in conjunction with Dunn’s recent comments. Though democrats may have had a good laugh about the peace prize, they now have a serious problem. It seems that the communications and manufacturing heads of staff have been caught red handed pitching their tents in Mao’s camp, but the Democratic congressmen and women who were cited earlier this Fall praising Fidel Castro and his regime missed the memo. So far they have all maintained some semblance of unity in their attempts to over-regulate the market; one can only hope their continued political power doesn’t come at gunpoint, as Mao and Castro’s did.
Anita Dunn maintains that calling Mao and Mother Teresa her “favorite political philosophers” was a bit of ironic humor. As a one-time stand-up comedian, this should be totally unacceptable for Dunn, who has now established that she is not only bad at humor, but also bad at communicating. Though he may not have the same pretext of mirth, Bloom’s communicative skills must also be lacking, for the Democrats clearly don’t all agree. Congresswoman Diane Watson, who lauded Castro as, “one of the brightest leaders I have ever met," displayed the same narrow scope as Dunn. Though they both rub shoulders with the major political figures of today, and have all of western political tradition to look back upon, Watson and Dunn are satisfied to idolize Mao and Castro as the best examples of initiative and administration.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Communists Ahoy!
It is difficult and uncommon to find some piece of media, some exposition, which is particularly damning for one person or group. Kanye West’s drunken belligerence has not curtailed his record sales any more than David Letterman’s well-publicized affairs have brought him bad publicity. There are some few outbursts of the entertainment industry, be they songs or movies, which can defines generations, encompass cultural movements, or capture a particular mentality with inimitable effectiveness. Warner Bros.’ Mission to Moscow, released in 1942, is one such film, and one’s whose release last Tuesday is as appropriate and unsurprising now as it was sixty-five years ago. This blatant, calibrated piece of Soviet and communist propaganda was requested directly by Franklin Roosevelt and is, as a critic put it at the time, a $2 million love letter to Josef Stalin.
According to Cass Warner, film historian and granddaughter of Harry Warner, “President Roosevelt himself asked Harry and Jack Warner to assist in educating, entertaining and enlightening the American people.” Directed by Casablanca’s Michael Curtiz, the controversial film marked a turning point in Hollywood’s perception of the Soviet Union, at the time an ambiguous and distrusted ally, towards a curious and praise-worthy alternative to America. The script was loosely based on the memoirs of Joseph E. Davies, ambassador to Moscow in the late 1930s, and at one point features Davies’ character lauding Stalin; “Mr. Stalin, history will remember you as a great leader.” The film insists that Stalin recognized the Nazi threat long before the West and only allied with Hitler to buy himself and the West—his real friends, some time. He was then obligated to invade Finland, as this mission to Moscow reveals, to protect it from the Nazis (don’t tell the Finns, or for that matter mention it to the rest of Europe lest they become envious) while the film insists his subsequent purges were the conjuration of a vast Nazi conspiracy.
The Office of War Information praised the movie and its rendition of Stalin, saying it portrayed that “the leaders of both countries desire peace and both possess a blunt honesty of address and purpose”. Upon its release, Mission to Moscow came under heavy criticism, and the Warner Bros. found themselves appearing before Congress in 1950 as examples of communist infiltration in Hollywood, but after asserting screenwriter Howard Koch as the sympathizer were reprieved. Such behavior by the FDR administration is hardly surprising, but the release of Mission to Moscow is an inadvertent reminder that the situation has not changed that much. Russia is still a belligerent power ready and willing to exercise military force, as now is China, and while both countries have launched multiple operations in the past 3 years, they are being greeted mild affection and flimsy politics. Though FDR was proven wrong and Stalin identified as one of the greatest mass murderers in history, the current administration is offering Russian operatives open tours of U.S. nuclear silos. FDR’s ghost can contentedly watch a re-implementation of his economic policies with the current administration while seeing the mission to Moscow turning into a submission to Moscow.
According to Cass Warner, film historian and granddaughter of Harry Warner, “President Roosevelt himself asked Harry and Jack Warner to assist in educating, entertaining and enlightening the American people.” Directed by Casablanca’s Michael Curtiz, the controversial film marked a turning point in Hollywood’s perception of the Soviet Union, at the time an ambiguous and distrusted ally, towards a curious and praise-worthy alternative to America. The script was loosely based on the memoirs of Joseph E. Davies, ambassador to Moscow in the late 1930s, and at one point features Davies’ character lauding Stalin; “Mr. Stalin, history will remember you as a great leader.” The film insists that Stalin recognized the Nazi threat long before the West and only allied with Hitler to buy himself and the West—his real friends, some time. He was then obligated to invade Finland, as this mission to Moscow reveals, to protect it from the Nazis (don’t tell the Finns, or for that matter mention it to the rest of Europe lest they become envious) while the film insists his subsequent purges were the conjuration of a vast Nazi conspiracy.
The Office of War Information praised the movie and its rendition of Stalin, saying it portrayed that “the leaders of both countries desire peace and both possess a blunt honesty of address and purpose”. Upon its release, Mission to Moscow came under heavy criticism, and the Warner Bros. found themselves appearing before Congress in 1950 as examples of communist infiltration in Hollywood, but after asserting screenwriter Howard Koch as the sympathizer were reprieved. Such behavior by the FDR administration is hardly surprising, but the release of Mission to Moscow is an inadvertent reminder that the situation has not changed that much. Russia is still a belligerent power ready and willing to exercise military force, as now is China, and while both countries have launched multiple operations in the past 3 years, they are being greeted mild affection and flimsy politics. Though FDR was proven wrong and Stalin identified as one of the greatest mass murderers in history, the current administration is offering Russian operatives open tours of U.S. nuclear silos. FDR’s ghost can contentedly watch a re-implementation of his economic policies with the current administration while seeing the mission to Moscow turning into a submission to Moscow.
Nuclear Proliferation
It is commonly held that nuclear weapons are unduly dangerous and unnecessary, and U.S. policy is indeed an affirmation of this overly reasonable mentality. With the first war fought for nuclear proliferation near concluded in Iraq, (in so far as it was directed against nuclear arms) it is appropriate to reexamine the ideology that a general prevention of nuclear development is the best way to combat ambitiously malicious nations. North Korea and China, by far the most belligerent Asian countries, have managed to obtain or develop nuclear capabilities, and while Iran is apparently well in tow, Japan and Germany, the largest economies in Asia and Europe respectively, are tacitly chided from developing their own nuclear technologies. The problem is that U.N. and global sanctions, which come heavily with nuclear pursuits, only really affect internationally active and benevolent nations. The current method for deterring weapons development, a series of hefty embargos, makes it difficult for responsible—and often jeopardized—nations to acquire a nuclear deterrent. The situation, when reduced, shares its problems with gun control. While the good guys respect the prohibitions in a vain hope for peace and decency, the bad guys stockpile weapons.
Very few people are comfortable with the idea of nuclear promulgation, and with good reason. Nuclear combat is the most dangerous and destructive force man has thus far brought to bear. Still, because that force is here, and because it has already fallen into the wrong hands, it is very challenging to see why, from an objective standpoint, the U.S. and U.N. shouldn’t encourage nuclear programs with time-tested and responsible nations. It would be far better if no one had any at all, but with the current weapon stockpiles, there is enough atomic power to destroy the world many times over, and the global threat of any one country initiating doomsday has not really dissipated since the Cold War. A case example is the India-Pakistan situation, in which two countries with mutual enmity have peaceably existed for the last fifty years. Compare this to Israel’s military activity. Though it is not entirely certain whether or not Israel have atomic weapons, she has been involved in more direct conflicts on this side of the twentieth century than any other non-Western power.
It seems like the only way to really prevent aspiring antagonists from acquiring atomic weapons is to sustain prolonged military campaigns and a sort of semi-occupation, which is very costly for all nations involved. Furthermore there are already volatile and militaristic nations with nuclear weaponry, and at this point they can’t well be invaded. The only apparent way to check the abuses by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, is to allow our similarly located allies—Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Ethiopia, Germany—to defensively arm themselves in kind. It isn’t a pretty picture, but nothing else seems to be working and as much as it makes one cringe to say it, nuclear deterrents may indeed be the most effective method to prevent militaristic expansion and preserve human life. People have an inherent and rightly placed discomfort with nuclear expansion, and there isn’t a precise guarantee that American allies will stay agreeable when armed. The only real assurance is that belligerent countries are aggressively arming, and as it stands they see no reason not to.
Very few people are comfortable with the idea of nuclear promulgation, and with good reason. Nuclear combat is the most dangerous and destructive force man has thus far brought to bear. Still, because that force is here, and because it has already fallen into the wrong hands, it is very challenging to see why, from an objective standpoint, the U.S. and U.N. shouldn’t encourage nuclear programs with time-tested and responsible nations. It would be far better if no one had any at all, but with the current weapon stockpiles, there is enough atomic power to destroy the world many times over, and the global threat of any one country initiating doomsday has not really dissipated since the Cold War. A case example is the India-Pakistan situation, in which two countries with mutual enmity have peaceably existed for the last fifty years. Compare this to Israel’s military activity. Though it is not entirely certain whether or not Israel have atomic weapons, she has been involved in more direct conflicts on this side of the twentieth century than any other non-Western power.
It seems like the only way to really prevent aspiring antagonists from acquiring atomic weapons is to sustain prolonged military campaigns and a sort of semi-occupation, which is very costly for all nations involved. Furthermore there are already volatile and militaristic nations with nuclear weaponry, and at this point they can’t well be invaded. The only apparent way to check the abuses by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, is to allow our similarly located allies—Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Ethiopia, Germany—to defensively arm themselves in kind. It isn’t a pretty picture, but nothing else seems to be working and as much as it makes one cringe to say it, nuclear deterrents may indeed be the most effective method to prevent militaristic expansion and preserve human life. People have an inherent and rightly placed discomfort with nuclear expansion, and there isn’t a precise guarantee that American allies will stay agreeable when armed. The only real assurance is that belligerent countries are aggressively arming, and as it stands they see no reason not to.
Peaceful Resistance
The world was shocked, animated, and maybe appalled with the awarding and acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize by President Barack Obama. Citizens of inner-Chicago, while no doubt saddened by their inability to host the Olympics, may now take pride in the peaceful triumph of their esteemed Community Organizer, who has risen well above the rampant violence in Chicago and continues to lead by example. In his acceptance speech, Obama said he was both humbled and honored to receive the award. While admitting he may not have done enough yet to equally share company with the “transformative figures” who have also draped the peaceful medal over their peaceful shoulders, he was nonetheless resolved: "I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century." No peace pipes were passed around the White House Garden, but the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited the president's creation of a "new climate in international politics" and his work on nuclear disarmament as enough of a qualification, despite his comparatively short stay in international politics.
It is difficult not to be preoccupied with Obama’s inexperience and greenhorn credentials on the international stage, much less as President, but this really is a secondary concern. The deadline for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize nominations was February 1st, 2009, which means that Obama was actually nominated only two weeks into his presidency. Taking into account that he is currently pushing for a troop surge in Afghanistan, people may be well skeptical of declaring him the most peace-loving person of 2009, but the Nobel Prize Committee, it must be remembered, is not behaving without precedent.
The “transformative figures”, Obama’s peaceful prize predecessors, are as diverse in cause and origin as they are supposedly peaceful. Al Gore’s acceptance in 2007 received a lackluster reception, perhaps because the runner-up who helped sixty Jews escape Nazi concentration camps seemed a bit more deserving, and if Obama is to bring a new climate to politics—as the Committee suggested—he may indeed be unable to share Al Gore’s company. Woodrow Wilson received the Prize for his peaceful involvement in World War I, and in fact, ever since the Nobel Prize Committee gave to award to themselves in 1928, they have embarked on a peaceful journey of epically unsettling proportions. The International Labor Organization (international communist party) received the award in 1969, and three separate persons, each in a different decade, have been awarded for bringing peace to the Middle East. The United Nations Peace-Keeping forces shared the award in 1988, despite Alfred Nobel’s stipulation that recipients should have done the most for the "abolition or reduction of standing armies". To counterbalance, Egil Aarvik, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, rebutted Nobel’s opinion on his own prize, citing "mobilization of troops from countries all over the world as a tangible expression of the world community's will to solve conflicts by peaceful means". It is strangely fitting and perfect then, that a peace prize having nothing to do with peace, is gifted to a U.S. President who has nothing to do with America.
It is difficult not to be preoccupied with Obama’s inexperience and greenhorn credentials on the international stage, much less as President, but this really is a secondary concern. The deadline for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize nominations was February 1st, 2009, which means that Obama was actually nominated only two weeks into his presidency. Taking into account that he is currently pushing for a troop surge in Afghanistan, people may be well skeptical of declaring him the most peace-loving person of 2009, but the Nobel Prize Committee, it must be remembered, is not behaving without precedent.
The “transformative figures”, Obama’s peaceful prize predecessors, are as diverse in cause and origin as they are supposedly peaceful. Al Gore’s acceptance in 2007 received a lackluster reception, perhaps because the runner-up who helped sixty Jews escape Nazi concentration camps seemed a bit more deserving, and if Obama is to bring a new climate to politics—as the Committee suggested—he may indeed be unable to share Al Gore’s company. Woodrow Wilson received the Prize for his peaceful involvement in World War I, and in fact, ever since the Nobel Prize Committee gave to award to themselves in 1928, they have embarked on a peaceful journey of epically unsettling proportions. The International Labor Organization (international communist party) received the award in 1969, and three separate persons, each in a different decade, have been awarded for bringing peace to the Middle East. The United Nations Peace-Keeping forces shared the award in 1988, despite Alfred Nobel’s stipulation that recipients should have done the most for the "abolition or reduction of standing armies". To counterbalance, Egil Aarvik, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, rebutted Nobel’s opinion on his own prize, citing "mobilization of troops from countries all over the world as a tangible expression of the world community's will to solve conflicts by peaceful means". It is strangely fitting and perfect then, that a peace prize having nothing to do with peace, is gifted to a U.S. President who has nothing to do with America.
Water water everywhere, but no one needs a drink
Last month India’s Moon Impact Probe, onboard the maiden voyage of Chandrayaan 1, confirmed trace amounts of water on the moon’s surface. The US space agency and NASA corroborated the findings, and top Indian scientist G Madhavan Nair expressed pride in the “path-breaking discovery”. This may have come as sharp relief for those who have become belatedly bored with the water features Earth has to offer, but unfortunately the moon-water is embedded in the surface of minerals and rocks.
Though NASA missed the water with their 1969 walkover, they’ve followed up the Indian find with an Impact Probe of their own. The imposing LCROSS device detonated in the crater Cabeus A at 11:30 GMT on October 9, the idea being that any residue ice would be shot up above the lunar surface by the impacting probe, where sunlight would break it into easily detectible oxygen and hydrogen molecules. The water, thought to be sublimated at the bottom of craters after several million years of meteor impact, could have been essentially refrigerated by virtue of the constant shadow, and scientists think there now could be some billion tons locked up near the Moon’s South Pole. Cabeus A, near the South Pole, is shaded and easily visible from Earth—the 2 second long impact flash was visible to those with household telescopes. NASA crashed the rocket and a satellite into the moon's surface on Friday morning in a $79 million mission. It will be some weeks before all the data from the satellite can be analyzed to determine if there is indeed water on the moon.
While this is well and good, NASA’s recent machinations still and unabatedly beg the question, why? As the fifty billion dollar space station looms overhead without production or purpose, it is appropriate that one wonders at the feverish expense going into the rather mundane space exploration. Even now, there are fanciful talks of establishing an international moon base for eventual shuttle launches to Mars and further expansion (though not necessarily useful) of the space station. Now a moderate expense like the Hubble Telescope seems to be well worth the amazing celestial photos it’s captured, and hey if NASA wants to launch some probes every once in a while that’s fine too—it’s good to stay busy, but especially now in these times of economic and political upheaval, where is it appropriate to draw the line?
Many students and professors alike, especially here at UD, will rightly insist that learning is an excellent virtue and an end in itself, and furthermore one can’t well put a price on excellent education. It seems in Man’s nature to explore and test his surroundings, and while that should not necessarily be curbed, perhaps it should be redirected to Man’s more immediate surroundings. After all, more is known about the moon’s surface already than the ocean floors, and apart from any potential resources that may be there discovered (not to mention there’s lots and lots of water already) a more direct study of life—tangible and reactionary—can be carried out.
Though NASA missed the water with their 1969 walkover, they’ve followed up the Indian find with an Impact Probe of their own. The imposing LCROSS device detonated in the crater Cabeus A at 11:30 GMT on October 9, the idea being that any residue ice would be shot up above the lunar surface by the impacting probe, where sunlight would break it into easily detectible oxygen and hydrogen molecules. The water, thought to be sublimated at the bottom of craters after several million years of meteor impact, could have been essentially refrigerated by virtue of the constant shadow, and scientists think there now could be some billion tons locked up near the Moon’s South Pole. Cabeus A, near the South Pole, is shaded and easily visible from Earth—the 2 second long impact flash was visible to those with household telescopes. NASA crashed the rocket and a satellite into the moon's surface on Friday morning in a $79 million mission. It will be some weeks before all the data from the satellite can be analyzed to determine if there is indeed water on the moon.
While this is well and good, NASA’s recent machinations still and unabatedly beg the question, why? As the fifty billion dollar space station looms overhead without production or purpose, it is appropriate that one wonders at the feverish expense going into the rather mundane space exploration. Even now, there are fanciful talks of establishing an international moon base for eventual shuttle launches to Mars and further expansion (though not necessarily useful) of the space station. Now a moderate expense like the Hubble Telescope seems to be well worth the amazing celestial photos it’s captured, and hey if NASA wants to launch some probes every once in a while that’s fine too—it’s good to stay busy, but especially now in these times of economic and political upheaval, where is it appropriate to draw the line?
Many students and professors alike, especially here at UD, will rightly insist that learning is an excellent virtue and an end in itself, and furthermore one can’t well put a price on excellent education. It seems in Man’s nature to explore and test his surroundings, and while that should not necessarily be curbed, perhaps it should be redirected to Man’s more immediate surroundings. After all, more is known about the moon’s surface already than the ocean floors, and apart from any potential resources that may be there discovered (not to mention there’s lots and lots of water already) a more direct study of life—tangible and reactionary—can be carried out.
Case Study: Cuba
As healthcare reform continued to dominate the political maneuverings and current events here in the U.S., Congresswoman Diane Watson decided the issue was heading south, and accordingly urged fellow California Democrats to hearken the Cuban example. Watson recently accused conservative opposition of blocking Healthcare reform out of malicious racism, but conversely had only the best to say about the Cuban regime. After lauding Cuban healthcare, along with mass murderer Che Guevara, Watson, amidst applause and encouragement from fellow congressmen, described Fidel Castro as, “one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." Assuming Watson has met all of the foremost Democratic and Republican leaders alike, this is a particularly alarming mindset. Watson may not be aware that Castro himself ousted a man who was, like Obama, 50% black, but nonetheless the current administration may be taking Watson to heart.
In addition to lifting travel restrictions and allowing remittances to the island from Cuban-Americans, the U.S. and Cuba are now coordinating to resume uninhibited postal services. This should come as sharp relief to many Cubans, who for more than remittances are in desperate need of toilet paper. The cash strapped country, which imports 60% of its food supply (now being rationed) and approximately 80% of its toilet paper, does not have the financial resources to continue its foreign dependencies. Apart from decreasing the food ration, the only reassurance thus far issued by Castro’s government is that by state-run Radio Rebelde, which currently maintains that, “an important importation will be attained at the end of the year”. Raul Castro, who replaced his ailing older brother Fidel as president, also has complained that Cuba's productivity is too low, and to the wailing and gnashing of communist teeth he is putting more state-owned land in private hands and pushing for salaries to be based on productivity. With the global economic downturn, a particularly harsh hurricane season, and a tradition of being unproductive, the largest Caribbean island is in dire straits.
President Obama recently compared his Health Care schematic to the general Postal Service in the U.S—the government owned USPS running nicely alongside the private companies such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL. This was supposed to be an assuring example of cooperation between public and private sectors (though of course it’s still illegal for anyone but the USPS to go door-to-door). However, this may take on new meaning as UPS and FedEx are, and will still be, barred from business in Cuba, whereas the USPS going to be granted exclusive business access, in addition to German owned DHL. In the spirit of ornery rebellion therefore, and more importantly in the spirit of humanitarian aid for the Cubans and their constipated economy, conscientious and caring Americans should cover all Cuba-bound mail-planes/boats with toilet paper. With Castro initiating capitalist policies and Watson pushing to emulate Cuba, maybe a trade is in order (now that it’s possible). America can airmail Watson and some TP, as long as it’s USPS, and get some celebratory cigars.
In addition to lifting travel restrictions and allowing remittances to the island from Cuban-Americans, the U.S. and Cuba are now coordinating to resume uninhibited postal services. This should come as sharp relief to many Cubans, who for more than remittances are in desperate need of toilet paper. The cash strapped country, which imports 60% of its food supply (now being rationed) and approximately 80% of its toilet paper, does not have the financial resources to continue its foreign dependencies. Apart from decreasing the food ration, the only reassurance thus far issued by Castro’s government is that by state-run Radio Rebelde, which currently maintains that, “an important importation will be attained at the end of the year”. Raul Castro, who replaced his ailing older brother Fidel as president, also has complained that Cuba's productivity is too low, and to the wailing and gnashing of communist teeth he is putting more state-owned land in private hands and pushing for salaries to be based on productivity. With the global economic downturn, a particularly harsh hurricane season, and a tradition of being unproductive, the largest Caribbean island is in dire straits.
President Obama recently compared his Health Care schematic to the general Postal Service in the U.S—the government owned USPS running nicely alongside the private companies such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL. This was supposed to be an assuring example of cooperation between public and private sectors (though of course it’s still illegal for anyone but the USPS to go door-to-door). However, this may take on new meaning as UPS and FedEx are, and will still be, barred from business in Cuba, whereas the USPS going to be granted exclusive business access, in addition to German owned DHL. In the spirit of ornery rebellion therefore, and more importantly in the spirit of humanitarian aid for the Cubans and their constipated economy, conscientious and caring Americans should cover all Cuba-bound mail-planes/boats with toilet paper. With Castro initiating capitalist policies and Watson pushing to emulate Cuba, maybe a trade is in order (now that it’s possible). America can airmail Watson and some TP, as long as it’s USPS, and get some celebratory cigars.
Renaissance Men in Venice
Acclaimed film directors Oliver Stone and Michael Moore were again throwing their weight around in the international film circuit, and rocking the boat in Venice. The once mighty commercial Republic sunk all the faster as Moore, Stone, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez concentrated their considerable mass (in the spirit of socialism) at the annual Venice Film Festival. Moore’s film, Capitalism: A Love Story, along with Oliver Stone’s latest documentary South of the Border, debuted in a nifty, four-hour, commercial free proclamation of the evils of capitalism, extortion by America, and the virtues of Hugo Chavez and his proclaimed, “Latin American Renaissance”.
Moore’s film unequivocally concluded that, “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy." Stone echoed Moore’s blatant criticism, particularly targeting the American policies in Latin America while praising Chavez’s counteraction: “I hope you realize how dynamic he is in the movie. What I like about the film is you see how sincere he is on camera. You don't see a guy who is a phony. He's not a dictator." Moore let his standard publicity stunts and political analysis circulate with typically minimal objectivity, but Stone and Chavez really lit up the red carpet scene with their sincere dynamism.
After Chavez’s dramatic entrance, during which he threw flowers, blew kisses, and took pictures—of himself, Stone addressed reporters saying, "I think the movie, if you've seen it, shows very clearly the level of stupidity in the kind of broad statements that are made about Mr. Chavez.” The film itself received criticism for poor editing, sporting several scenes wherein cameramen were unintentionally visible. Apparently, Stone has sacrificed the meticulous approach in film for the bombastic in his PR campaign. According to Stone, his movie will only show things to people who watch it—fair enough—and furthermore will cover up what Stone saw as harsh generalities with more amicable blanket statements of its own.
When asked why he didn’t present any opposing viewpoints of Chavez, Stone coldly replied, “There's a dark side to everything. Why do you seek out the dark side when the guy is doing good things? He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect”. Fellow filmmaker George Lucas knows more than anyone that the Dark Side is cunning. Two Sith there always are…a master, and an apprentice. It is very curious because, in this instance, the dark side is the generally liberal media and Latin American ex-patriots—some Sith somewhere is acting very duplicitously. Where is that chancellor Palpatine? Obama’s policy on cloning is shaky at best, but he’s already called for a civilian army: "We cannot continue to only rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."…the Jedi are going to feel this one.
Moore’s film unequivocally concluded that, “Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy." Stone echoed Moore’s blatant criticism, particularly targeting the American policies in Latin America while praising Chavez’s counteraction: “I hope you realize how dynamic he is in the movie. What I like about the film is you see how sincere he is on camera. You don't see a guy who is a phony. He's not a dictator." Moore let his standard publicity stunts and political analysis circulate with typically minimal objectivity, but Stone and Chavez really lit up the red carpet scene with their sincere dynamism.
After Chavez’s dramatic entrance, during which he threw flowers, blew kisses, and took pictures—of himself, Stone addressed reporters saying, "I think the movie, if you've seen it, shows very clearly the level of stupidity in the kind of broad statements that are made about Mr. Chavez.” The film itself received criticism for poor editing, sporting several scenes wherein cameramen were unintentionally visible. Apparently, Stone has sacrificed the meticulous approach in film for the bombastic in his PR campaign. According to Stone, his movie will only show things to people who watch it—fair enough—and furthermore will cover up what Stone saw as harsh generalities with more amicable blanket statements of its own.
When asked why he didn’t present any opposing viewpoints of Chavez, Stone coldly replied, “There's a dark side to everything. Why do you seek out the dark side when the guy is doing good things? He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect”. Fellow filmmaker George Lucas knows more than anyone that the Dark Side is cunning. Two Sith there always are…a master, and an apprentice. It is very curious because, in this instance, the dark side is the generally liberal media and Latin American ex-patriots—some Sith somewhere is acting very duplicitously. Where is that chancellor Palpatine? Obama’s policy on cloning is shaky at best, but he’s already called for a civilian army: "We cannot continue to only rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."…the Jedi are going to feel this one.
People's Republic of New York
New York, once an eminent icon of the United States, has become an embarrassing case causing liberals and conservatives alike to cringe (plastic surgery not preventing). Similar to California, New York benefits from extensive natural resources and a large population, but through a gross, extensive, and long-term abuse of fiscal policy and dead-end social intervention, it is bankrupt. Its state debt is second only to California, but Governor Patterson, who is planning to run again for the position, insists this is due to vindictive racism. It may be best to ignore Albany, and most people probably do, but New York City is another matter entirely. With its famous skyline and infamous Wall Street, New York is often thought of as the pinnacle of economic initiative and the place wherein America’s tremendous wealth is centered. While this may be exaggerated or debatable, there are nonetheless few people who look at the Empire State Building and aren’t impressed by the capability it signifies. The financiers in New York often come under criticism for lacking any egalitarian perspective, and whether or not this is fair, some may well have finally sold out.
This past Wednesday, October 2nd, marked the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, and the Empire State Building was bathed in the red and yellow towards its honor. The most iconic building in North America was illuminated with Communist colors while they goose-stepped in Beijing. The lighting ceremony itself is not unusual or a particularly reserved procedure (it recently shone celebratory colors for the Wizard of Oz jubilee), but this is nonetheless a most disconcerting display. In the midst of the current obsession with the floundering economy, and as China is mobilizing troops along the Indian border, the tallest building in America is covered in communist totalitarian propaganda. People would be far more alarmed if a poster of Mao had been plastered on the Statue of Liberty, and while that is admittedly more extreme, the demoralizing and apathetic mindset witnessed in New York can easily lead to further ethical abandon.
The ESB Lighting Partners sub-committee maintains that, “The program is designed to achieve the best and most constructive publicity for the Empire State Building and its Lighting Partners. All special lighting requests are considered based on the merit of their cause, the benefit of their use of the special lighting and their treatment of the Empire State Building’s iconic image for the event and on an ongoing basis.”
Perhaps the powers that be really want China to keep buying U.S. bonds. Maybe moral fiber in New York is irrevocably tarnished, or maybe people just don’t think that advertising Chinese communism is that big of a deal. This repulsive (and tax-funded) display, in accordance with ESBLP, acknowledges that the act was intended, deliberately, to publicize China PR, and that celebrating the 60th anniversary of one of the most destructive and abusive regimes mankind endures is a cause of merit. China hasn’t only been gifted a pass on accountability, it’s had the iniquitous ideology for which it stands directly focused on the tower’s iconic presence.
This past Wednesday, October 2nd, marked the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, and the Empire State Building was bathed in the red and yellow towards its honor. The most iconic building in North America was illuminated with Communist colors while they goose-stepped in Beijing. The lighting ceremony itself is not unusual or a particularly reserved procedure (it recently shone celebratory colors for the Wizard of Oz jubilee), but this is nonetheless a most disconcerting display. In the midst of the current obsession with the floundering economy, and as China is mobilizing troops along the Indian border, the tallest building in America is covered in communist totalitarian propaganda. People would be far more alarmed if a poster of Mao had been plastered on the Statue of Liberty, and while that is admittedly more extreme, the demoralizing and apathetic mindset witnessed in New York can easily lead to further ethical abandon.
The ESB Lighting Partners sub-committee maintains that, “The program is designed to achieve the best and most constructive publicity for the Empire State Building and its Lighting Partners. All special lighting requests are considered based on the merit of their cause, the benefit of their use of the special lighting and their treatment of the Empire State Building’s iconic image for the event and on an ongoing basis.”
Perhaps the powers that be really want China to keep buying U.S. bonds. Maybe moral fiber in New York is irrevocably tarnished, or maybe people just don’t think that advertising Chinese communism is that big of a deal. This repulsive (and tax-funded) display, in accordance with ESBLP, acknowledges that the act was intended, deliberately, to publicize China PR, and that celebrating the 60th anniversary of one of the most destructive and abusive regimes mankind endures is a cause of merit. China hasn’t only been gifted a pass on accountability, it’s had the iniquitous ideology for which it stands directly focused on the tower’s iconic presence.
Where Has it Ghandi?
Realistically, Gandhi’s policy and the Indian Independence movement were destructive for the sub-continent. India, as a country, is imaginary. It’s a conglomeration of disagreeable nationalities, creeds, and castes, placed on the world map by an arbitrary line drawn by civil service elite. The movement lacked majority support but was promulgated by British neglect. Until the unification, de-centralized government presided and each distinct culture was left to self-government provided they all traded with Britain and ceased slave trading. The conception of a homogenous India without regarding the peoples, cultures, and prejudices of the nation was swept up in the socialist agenda of the Congress Party (former IIM).
Gandhi’s own world view reflected such prejudices. He advocated keeping the entire country together, under arms, if necessary. He protested suffrage for the untouchables, one of the ethnic castes, and supported the invasion of all Portuguese controlled areas in modern India. The Indian constitution, which Gandhi presided over, displayed a disregard for constituent wishes and traditions. Additionally, only civil servants can appoint new civil servants, thus perpetuating the stagnant aristocracy. Indira Gandhi, his granddaughter, invaded Pakistan and violently curtailed the Sikh rebellion, killing five hundred participants in the sacred Golden Temple and causing a Sikh alliance with the Hindu Nationalists.
Because of legal definitions, British-Asian territories were all made different nations upon independence; Malaysia, Burma, Nepal, Hong Kong, and Bhutan. Ethnic disunity had surfaced before independence in India. The Muslim population was against independence due to majority Hindu control, while the Hindu Nationalists strove to create a theocracy. The concentrated Muslim areas soon seceded to Pakistan in a very bloody exchange, while the Hindu Nationalists took Gandhi’s quote to heart, “Be the change you want to see in the world”, and shot him. The Cashmere, a Muslim populated and desirably productive area, held a referendum to become part of Pakistan, and was then invaded by India, which had written in constitutional protection of the area from by-ins by non-Cashmeries. The area was since partitioned between India, China, and Pakistan.
To compound the problems, there is totalitarian control of the electrical industry and artificial property rents assigned by local civil servants, which keeps rents low and development lower. Additionally, the Nationalist party is gaining strong support for the upcoming election, and is pushing to end the slaughter of beef, nationally, and annex all of Cashmere from Pakistan, as well as ban the conversion from Hinduism (to Islam or Christianity). Violent communist insurgencies in the eastern provinces have added to the social unrest while local communist regimes have controlled three states since the founding. Their influence has now spread into Nepal with funding from China, and recently taken control of the Nepalese government. Decreasing exports, Christian persecutions, and hyper inflation all compound the undesirable situation, which has caused considerable damage to attempts at peace and prosperity in the area. India is a contrivance, an amalgamation of irreconcilable cultures, and should be allowed to desist for the betterment of all within its borders.
Gandhi’s own world view reflected such prejudices. He advocated keeping the entire country together, under arms, if necessary. He protested suffrage for the untouchables, one of the ethnic castes, and supported the invasion of all Portuguese controlled areas in modern India. The Indian constitution, which Gandhi presided over, displayed a disregard for constituent wishes and traditions. Additionally, only civil servants can appoint new civil servants, thus perpetuating the stagnant aristocracy. Indira Gandhi, his granddaughter, invaded Pakistan and violently curtailed the Sikh rebellion, killing five hundred participants in the sacred Golden Temple and causing a Sikh alliance with the Hindu Nationalists.
Because of legal definitions, British-Asian territories were all made different nations upon independence; Malaysia, Burma, Nepal, Hong Kong, and Bhutan. Ethnic disunity had surfaced before independence in India. The Muslim population was against independence due to majority Hindu control, while the Hindu Nationalists strove to create a theocracy. The concentrated Muslim areas soon seceded to Pakistan in a very bloody exchange, while the Hindu Nationalists took Gandhi’s quote to heart, “Be the change you want to see in the world”, and shot him. The Cashmere, a Muslim populated and desirably productive area, held a referendum to become part of Pakistan, and was then invaded by India, which had written in constitutional protection of the area from by-ins by non-Cashmeries. The area was since partitioned between India, China, and Pakistan.
To compound the problems, there is totalitarian control of the electrical industry and artificial property rents assigned by local civil servants, which keeps rents low and development lower. Additionally, the Nationalist party is gaining strong support for the upcoming election, and is pushing to end the slaughter of beef, nationally, and annex all of Cashmere from Pakistan, as well as ban the conversion from Hinduism (to Islam or Christianity). Violent communist insurgencies in the eastern provinces have added to the social unrest while local communist regimes have controlled three states since the founding. Their influence has now spread into Nepal with funding from China, and recently taken control of the Nepalese government. Decreasing exports, Christian persecutions, and hyper inflation all compound the undesirable situation, which has caused considerable damage to attempts at peace and prosperity in the area. India is a contrivance, an amalgamation of irreconcilable cultures, and should be allowed to desist for the betterment of all within its borders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
