A Note on True Politics and Terrorism

Al-Qa'ida, I'm pretty sure everyone has heard of them. HAMAS, another terrorist group; actually there are a lot of terrorist organizations that anyone with internet access can go to http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm and see the Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. There is the Aum Shinrikyo, the Revoluntionary Armed Forces of Columbia, al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad), the National Liberation Army (ELN), Salafist Group for Call and Combat, just to name a few. Some of the names sound more like clubs that anyone can join on a college campus that actual organizations that have purposes to harm/kill people.

But amoungst these names, there seems to be a name missing, a name that has been synonymous with ethnic persecutions, massacres, horrible treatment of women, and that name is the Taliban. The U.S. State Department, Britain, European Union, Canada, and Australia do not recognize the Taliban as a terrorist organization. The Taliban's main supporters were Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Pakistan but they halted official support after 9/11 and partnered up with the United States.

I have to wonder why this group is not recognized as a notorious terrorist group even with all the attention they seem to be receiving from the media, but I guess the Council on Foreign Relations put it rather soundly, "possible political support, you can't call them terrorist and then try to reconcile with them".

Does a list matter when its purpose is not reflected in its contents? This is just another example we can ponder while sipping our lemonades on our porches while feeling utterly helpless. How's the foreign policy going?

Iowa Caucus

“First in the Nation” fits into the scheme for Iowa in the 2008 elections because it was the first state to start of a nominating contest for presidential candidates. Some of the info on http://www.atmoreadvance.com/articles/2008/01/07/opinion/editorials/col1.txt says that this caucus is one of many gatherings that shall be held in the United States over the course of the 2008 election. They are a way to measure the popularity of the candidates of both parties and see which one can come out on top. When asked about the Iowa Caucus, many people simply disregard it from their daily life. As for the few that were aware of the caucus, they were interviewed to gain their perspective for the upcoming elections. Robert Sharp {a med. tech. manager in Seattle} had been asked what his feelings towards the results of the caucus were, he stated, “I was kind of disappointed. I am a Democrat rooting for Hilary Clinton.” Given the response, it would seem that Obama’s sudden victory was not only a surprise to me. It is true that I would prefer Obama over Clinton because I do believe that since he is still very young, he has room to grow and he it would be interesting to see what he has to offer.
I had also asked Paula Misley {a high school teacher in Spanaway} what she thought kind of an impact the Iowa Caucus had on the 2008 elections, she said, “I think it’s a good indicator of a candidate’s success in the presidential election.” This I completely agree with, since it naturally does give you a view on who is in the lead and show which candidates will make or break the votes. However, with that thought in mind, it is interesting that those I interviewed didn’t talk about the Republican candidates; those such as Mike Huckabee who dominated the Republican candidates or Mitt Romney who came in second. This may be an indication that these caucuses or primaries are just for popularity and not how or what a person has in his/her span of working in politics.Speaking with some of the student body, I discovered that most only knew of the Democratic candidates Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama because they are different, big and changing in America. Most Americans tend not to become knowledgeable in politics and pay attention to top candidates, however this time the top competitors are causing more of a commotion then ever before. On the night of the Iowa Caucus, history was made when voters decided to take the government into their own hands after many years of hiding in the shadow. A tidal wave of voters rushed to the polls to voice out who it was they wanted. The two victors were Barack Obama of the Democratic Party and Mike Huckabee for the Republicans, whom which came out of no where and dominated their opponents.. Even though I was extremely surprised with the results, I was quite pleased with it. I do believe that Iowa caucus proved that with something new, people get intrigued and want to know more and do more, which was what happened. Seeing as how anything can happen in the primaries and caucuses, I can't wait to see the results of which two will face off for the final prize of being named president of the United States of America. For more on the results, go to http://www.kcci.com/politics/14973253/detail.html.

Hold the Conspiracy Please

President Bush authorized domestic spying, as in the government can monitor phone calls between U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, in 2002. According to the former director of the National Security Agency [the guys that have the power to monitor a whole lot of people's e-mails, telephone calls and other ways of communication] Michael V. Hayden said that the reason for this was because vital information could be lost because it takes time to get a warrant. [washingtonpost.com]

Now for those of you who don't know, telephone companies, namely, those 1-800 numbers we make when we make collect calls, are already recording our conversations. Sure, it is to make sure that the quality of our conversation is up-to-par, but still, our conversations are being recorded nonetheless.
You have to wonder about the abuse that could be made because the government is watching us , and really... ever since 9/11 the public have been very willing to give up their privacy more because they are worried about their safety. It should be a good thing that we have a government that is taking steps to further public safety, if anything we should be worried if the government wasn't doing anything. But there is a time, where we have to wonder if they will go too far, taking advantage of their new hold on America's attention. President Bush's term has been the most unbalanced of the checks and balances in the executive branch favor, what is this suppose to mean for the new president's term starting in 2008?

So I guess we have to choose; security or privacy? One extreme to the next, where is this balance that our framers seemed to crave so much?

Waterboarding/Geneva Conventions

So originally I was going to have this blog post to be about waterboarding, which for those of you who may not know anything about, back in around November, Congress had this sparked interest in torture, as in what constitutes as torture because well, people found about how the CIA still uses this technique as a means of getting information even though it has been banned for the military in 2005 by Congress [as said by commondreams.org].
Now 2005, that's pretty recent considering that this method of obtaining information has been around since the Middle Ages. Now based on an article I read on ABC News' website called History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding there was mention on the laws of war, better known to some, namely myself, those things that were established during the Geneva Convenions.

The point that I'm actually trying to get here, is that while reading that ABC article, what hit me was the quote that Darius Rejali, who happens to be a professor at Reed College, was ' "Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture." ' Now let's ignore the fact that a professor just made a fallacy by saying water torture is torture, [I mean come on, begging the question anyone?] and focus on the fact that he quoted laws of war, now that really made me think about the Geneva Conventions, now I'm paraphrasing here and this is all from memory, in that if a soldier sees that something is wrong and that he/she believes that is wrong, despite what his commanding officer is telling him, he is allowed to disobey. Now that sounds all good and dandy, but how well does that hold? In talking to three active duty soldiers at Ft. Lewis, who did not want their names included, they all had pretty much the same response to this, that they still have to follow whatever they are being told, I tried pushing the laws of war, and they kept pushing back that no, it does not work like that, that you could not disobey, and the person that disobeyed would be the one that suffered.

This brings me to the question: How worried should we be about this?
Being only someone that recently realized this, [I'm sure we can all name a Hollywood movie that brings this about somehow but never really truly took seriously because come on, its Hollywood] I have to wonder what exactly we don't know is going on. There is just so much that is not revealed to the public, especially to the United States public, let's face the fact, we are usually only worried about what's going on specifically with the US. Try BBC or some other countries news station and they talk about what's going on everywhere in the world, but that's another blog post.

Does Voting Really Matter?

Every four years we choose a POTUS [President of the United States] to lead, guide and represent us in upcoming events. How we come to a decision, by voting of course, for the candidate we believe shall symbolize our nation accordingly. But there is a question that tends to arise with the way over voting system is set up especially on blogs such as the one on http://montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/OPINION02/801040359/1006. This question is “is voting really necessary?” I mean, the votes of the states are determined by the electoral colleges which is the supposed “choice” of the people of the state. If that’s how it is, then why do voters even participate in the elections when the higher ups are the ones calling the shot? Voting has its ups and downs; people see these positives and negatives differently. For example, in the caucuses and primaries, candidates travel all over the United States to win the support of the voters in the elections. Besides it being a popularity contest, voters have a chance to participate in the selection of their top two leaders, on Democratic and on Republican. This can give them a sense of accomplishment because they feel as if they have done something for this country by helping elect a leader. I'm just saying that there seems to be a certain time for the public vote and that is during the months before the elections, in the primaries and caucuses. Since when it comes down to the final results, it is the electoral colleges that get that say even when their opinions come from a majority vote from the voters, a simplified statement from wikipedia. I believe that voting is a preference since there are those who feel so strongly about it and those that just don't want to deal with it.

Global Warming Hoax

We are destroying Earth. Our cars and factories are polluting the air around us; it is devastating to the ozone layer. Greenhouse gases are building, causing ice caps to melt and the world to flood.

Not quite.

Yes, the world is getting warmer. But no, this is not the end. Every climatologist will agree that Earth has been much hotter (and much colder) than it is now. Like everything else, Earth's climate goes through cycles.

The 1850s saw the end of the Little Ice Age; a terrible time that froze over the New York Harbor and killed many. It was rough; there were no heaters or electricity to keep people warm. At the same time, there were no heaters or electricity to emit greenhouse gases, but Earth was able to warm up all on its own.

By the 1930s, the temperature had risen so much that people began to worry about global warming. But then, in the1940s (when there was a drastic increase in carbon dioxide emissions), Earth began to cool again.

It cooled so much, in fact, that in the 1970s there was a global cooling scare. Mass media and scientists were convinced that Earth would freeze over and we would be faced with another ice age. Before the 1970s were even over, Earth began to warm again.

This increase in temperature did coincide with a large increase in industry. The American economy has grown by 150 per cent and automobile traffic by 143 per cent. But, during this same period of economic flux, air pollutants declined by 29 percent, toxic emission by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide by 65 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 percent.

While America, after China, emits the most carbon dioxide, no one could compete with the amount of carbon dioxide released by earthquakes and volcanoes. Human activities contribute less than one percent of the total carbon atmospheric mass.

Not that carbon dioxide is such a bad guy anyway. Every living entity on this Earth requires it to live. With out carbon dioxide there is no photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis there is no food and there is no us. With the increase of carbon dioxide also came the increase of wheat in Australia (the third largest “polluter” in the world.)

Despite the hype that human pollutants are destroying the atmosphere, we are fueled and heated by an outside source: the sun. During the Little Ice Age of 1645 – 1715, there were very few occurrences of sunspots. A sunspot is a cooler, darker spot on the sun’s surface, which usually occur in clusters. It has been suggested that the sun is one per cent cooler when there are no spots.

Starting this year, it is predicted that solar storms will increase and peak in 2012. The cycle is predicted to be 30 to 50 percent stronger than last. This implies that our temperature increase on Earth has nothing to do with humans and the greenhouse gases we emit. Also, Mars is experiencing global warming as we speak. There are no cars on Mars. Some would hope that no human is arrogant enough to believe that our pollution is affecting Mars as well.

Global Warming is Becoming a Problem

Global warming is becoming an even bigger issue as the years pass. The government doesn’t seem to do anything until it’s too late, always waiting for the last possible second to fix problems instead of dealing with them from the beginning. Now we are fighting a war that is much bigger than Iraq and may become a battle we cannot win. Even now there are organizations that are trying to prevent additional effects that society has been causing for generations.This disaster is destroying the habitats of polar bears, thus driving them to extinction; affecting weather, and creating more monstrous storms than anyone could comprehend. These events may seem like nothing but that is far from true. Over the past few years, we have been continuously bit by natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, the California fires and Washington floods. Global warming it’s caused by the “greenhouse effect”, which is when “greenhouse gases” trap energy within the earth’s atmosphere and causes the temperature to rise. But to make matters more confusing the “greenhouse effect” is a very important factor to human survival. We need it to regulate earth’s climate; otherwise the temperatures would become unbearably cold. It’s ironic that we need the greenhouse effect to survive, but it is also the very thing that could destroy us. More information on the greenhouse effect can be found at http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html. There are so many ways to help prevent a worse off future. All you have to do is use better gas, carpool, use energy-saving light bulbs, and many more ideas found on http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/.