May 10, 2008

Obama says, “Yes we can”… Yes we can what?






Yes We Can, Bob the Builder?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2410/2281055812_4ef0b1e14e.jpg



Images are from : http://markcronan.livejournal.com/





From HotAir:


Beware the cult of personality in all its forms.

From Wikipedia:


A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies as well.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders.


Background


Throughout history, monarchs were almost always held in enormous reverence. Through the principle of the divine right of kings, rulers were said to hold office by the will of God. Imperial China (see Mandate of Heaven), ancient Egypt, Japan, the Inca, the Aztecs, and the Roman Empire (see imperial cult) are especially noted for redefining monarchs as god-kings.

The resurgence of ancient Greek democratic ideas in Europe and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries made it increasingly difficult for monarchs to preserve this aura. However, the subsequent development of photography, sound recording, film and mass production, as well as public education and techniques used in commercial advertising, enabled political leaders to project a positive image like never before. It was with these circumstances in the 20th century that the best-known personality cults arose.




Purpose


Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and he becomes treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as that of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Not all dictatorships foster personality cults, however, and some leaders may actively seek to minimize their own public adulation. For example in Cuba public images of Fidel Castro are rare, and a personality cult around Castro is not encouraged officially, although images, posters, and billboards of Che Guevara abound. Even in the totalitarian regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia the image of Pol Pot himself was rarely seen, though in the latter's case this was merely to perpetuate the image of a faceless, invisible, omnipresent state leadership.[citation needed]




Examples from totalitarian regimes


The criticism of personality cults often focuses on the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Josip Broz Tito, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il-sung and his son Kim Jong-il. During the peak of their reigns, these leaders were presented as god-like and infallible. Their portraits were hung in homes and public buildings, and artists and poets were instructed legally to produce only works that glorified the leader and their political movements. Other undemocratic leaders with such cults include leaders such as Eva Peron of Argentina and her husband Juan. The term cult of personality comes from Karl Marx's critique of the "cult of the individual" - expressed in a letter to German political worker, Wilhelm Bloss. In that, Marx states thus:


From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me… Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute.

Nikita Khrushchev recalled Marx's criticism in his 1956 "Secret Speech" denouncing Stalin to the 20th Party Congress:


Comrades, the cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. . . . One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin's self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948.[1].


This book is an expression of the most dissolute flattery, an example of making a man into a godhead, of transforming him into an infallible sage, "the greatest leader," "sublime strategist of all times and nations." Finally no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens.


We need not give here examples of the loathsome adulation filling this book. All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally and some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book.

Journalist Bradley Martin documented the personality cults of North Korea's father-son leadership, "Eternal (formerly Great) Leader" Kim Il-sung and "Great (formerly Dear) Leader" Kim Jong-il.[2] While visiting North Korea in 1979 he noted that nearly all music, art, and sculpture that he observed glorified "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung, whose personality cult was then being extended to his son, "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il.[2] Kim Il-sung rejected the notion that he had created a cult around himself and accused those who suggested so of "factionalism."[2] A US religious freedom investigation confirmed Martin's observation that North Korean schoolchildren learn to thank Kim Il-sung for all blessings as part of the cult.[3]

Former President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan is another oft-cited cultivator of a cult of personality.[4][5][6] Niyazov simultaneously cut funding to and partially disassembled the education system in the name of 'reform,' while injecting ideological indoctrination into it by requiring all schools to take his own book, the Ruhnama, as its primary text.[7][8] During Niyazov's rule there was no freedom of the press nor was there freedom of speech. This further meant that opposition to Niyazov was strictly forbidden and "major opposition figures have been imprisoned, institutionalized, deported, or have fled the country, and their family members are routinely harassed by the authorities."[9] Additionally, a silhouette of Niyazov was placed on the screen of all television broadcasts[10] and statues and pictures of him were 'erected everywhere.'[11]. For these, and other reasons, the US Government has gone on to claim that by the time he died, "Niyazov's personality cult…had reached the dimensions of a state-imposed religion."[12].

University of Chicago professor Lisa Wedeen's book, "Ambiguities of Domination" documents the cult of personality which surrounded late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Numerous examples of his glorification are made throughout the book, such as displays of love and adoration for the "leader" put on at the opening ceremonies of the 1987 Mediterranean Games in Lattakia Syria.




References






  1. ^ The Cult of the Individual. Retrieved on 2007-05-24.

  2. ^ a b c Bradley K. Martin. Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty. ISBN 0-312-32322-0

  3. ^ Thank You Father Kim-Il-Sung. Retrieved on 2007-12-09.

  4. ^ Government of the United States of America. March 2002. Report on Turkmenistan. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/

  5. ^ International Crisis Group. July 2003. Central Asia: Islam and the State. ICG Asia Report No. 59. Available on-line at http://www.crisisgroup.org/

  6. ^ Shikhmuradov, Boris. May 2002. Security and Conflict in Central Asia and the Caspian Region. International Security Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/

  7. ^ International Crisis Group. July 2003. Central Asia: Islam and the State. ICG Asia Report No. 59. Available on-line at http://www.crisisgroup.org/

  8. ^ Soucek, Svat. 2000. A History of Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  9. ^ Government of the United States of America. March 2002. Report on Turkmenistan. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/

  10. ^ Eurasianet. 2007. The Personality Cult Lives On, Residents Take It In Stride. Available on-line at http://www.eurasianet.org/

  11. ^ BBC. December 2006. Obituary: Saparmurat Niyazov.Available on-line at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6199021.stm

  12. ^ United States Commission on International Freedom. 2007. Turkmenistan: Ending the Personality Cult. Available on-line at http://www.uscirf.gov/mediaroom/press/2007/january/20070103Turkmenistan.html





See also



Jihadism, like the cult of personality that follows Barkak Obama, is a youth movement, that promises change from the existing world order. Change, in and of itself, is not good. Cobra Commander can promise change. Karl Marx wanted Change. There was a stalinist youth movement. All the "cool" kids liked Stalin. Hitler had a youth movement. Sexy actresses liked Hitler. People will distort what I am saying. Obama is nothing like Stalin. Obama is nothing like Hitler. Obama may be good for our country. Obama might take us down the right path. But being popular with young, attractive, popular people does not mean that his policies are good. What are my greatest fears with Obama? We have a good country, with a balance of powers. We have the Judicial, legislative, and executive branches. But the founding fathers were concerned with about passions of the moment.

Could we in America have an elected official have a "bad" cult of personality? I think we are drifting that way. President Washington didn't want anyone's face on our money, and we didn't put anyones face on our money, until the 1900s. Wouldn't that tick you off, if you were George Washington? He specifically asked us not to put anyones face on the money, and we go and put HIS face on our money! Then in 1913, we think we know better than the founding fathers how to elect people to congress, and we decide that both houses of congress will be "baby kissers".

We already have a cult of personality with the presidents on our money, two houses of baby kissers, MTV & "Rock-the-vote", celebrities who never graduated from high-school (let alone college) thinking that they should tell us how to vote…

I can see the cult-of personality when you can't criticize Obama without being called a racist. It's the dumbing down of our culture. It's symbolism over substance. "We have the opportunity to truly transcend color this year by treating Barack Obama exactly the same we treated Michael Dukakis."

Obama said he is a uniter, but he brought his daughters for 20 years to a church that damns the United States of KKK. He had the most liberal voting record in the senate. He was more liberal than Dennis Kucinich. It is scary to have a guy who is more liberal than Dennis Kucinich as president, whom you can't criticize without being called a racist. But you can critisize him with some people. Not everyone calls you a racist, but they do not treat him equally. For instance, Obama said he had been to all 57 states. If Bush had said that, it would have been on every news channel. But it is not "cool" to make fun of Obama. Until now. YES WE SHALL!
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Apr 19, 2008

Keeping Americans Safe

Issues: Keeping Americans Safe


We must ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement efforts are able to address threats before they reach our shores.

Reasons to agree:

  1. Addressing threats means learning about them, studying them, and working with other governments in stopping them.

Reasons to disagree:
  1. Blow-back. If we don't "address threats" in a smart way, it might create resentment.
Webpages that agree
  1. http://www.fbi.gov/
  2. https://www.cia.gov/
  3. http://www.state.gov/
Posted by at No comments:

Apr 7, 2008

4% of GDP on the military?

Issues / Keeping Americans Safe

Romney has said that, we should spend at lest 4 percent of GDB on defense.

Reasons to agree

  1. This kind of investment will make up for critical gaps in the modernization of our equipment, personnel and health care efforts.
  2. We have typically spent about 4% of GDP on defense.
  3. 4% is a good amount, given our challenges.
  4. Most countries spend about 4% of their GDP. Sometimes people try to make a big deal about how we spend more than other countries, but that is just because our economy is so much bigger than most other countries. Indonesia spends a higher percent of GDP, so does China. Saudi Arabia spend about twice as much as we do. We have a lot of land. Our people are spread out over a large distance. Everyone wants to take out the big dog. We are the protectors of the free world from despotic, tyrannical countries that want to rule the world, and are willing to kill others to be in charge... We would like it if other democracies carried their portion of the responsibilities, but because they won't, we have to protect them.

Interest of those who agree
  1. Protecting democracy, freedom of the press, rule of law, and those ideals that would fall to fascism, if America was not protecting this planet.

Interest of those who disagree
  1. Trying to get all countries to spend less on defense, and more on education, farming, and stuff.

Books that agree
#

Books that agree
#

Web pages that agree
#

Web pages that disagree
#
Posted by at No comments:

Mar 22, 2008

People should have to pass drug test to get government assistance.

Governor Mitt Romney and Drugs

2003

2005

  • 12-20-2005; HEALEY EXPANDS SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FOR WOMEN
  • 07-28-2005; HEALEY ENDORSES MANDATORY OVERDOSE REPORTING BILL

2006

  • 06-30-2006; ROMNEY VETOES NEEDLES BILL; Says legislation will worsen heroin crisis by loosening drug paraphernalia laws
  • 12-21-2005; HEALEY KICKS OFF STUDENT DRUG TESTING PROGRAM IN NEW BEDFORD
Also see Gangs

People should have to pass drug test to get government assistance.

Reasons to agree

  1. I have to pass a drug test to work. I hate work. I wish I could get money for doing nothing. If I have to pass a drug test, to have the honor of working, people should have to pass a drug test, if they want free money.
  2. Like a lot of folks in this state I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check????? Please pass this along if you agree or simply Delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country and soon!!!!! "

Gangs

I would be interested to hear from anyone who has been a victim of gang activity. I think gangs are a big threat to our country. From Norco-terrorist, to the good old fashioned street gangs. I think Mitt Romney has good executive experience working with the police in Massachusetts to stand up to Crime.

Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney about gangs:

  • "Gang violence destroys the fabric of our communities and offers nothing but a dead end street to young people drawn in by false hope," said Romney. "This program will encourage communities to develop and pursue promising new strategies that stop the mayhem and bloodshed that gangs inflict."
  • "Our criminal justice and public safety professionals now have a real tool to protect those who join with us to take a stand against crime and violence in our communities," Romney said during the ceremony at St. Peter's School, which specializes in youth programs that have shown great success in keeping students out of gangs and connecting them to their community. "Witnesses who have the courage to come forward and testify should not have to live in fear for cooperating with prosecutors to keep their communities safe."
    • Governor Mitt Romney
  • "Nothing troubles me more than watching a child's future shatter in a blast of violence. Our call for action will give law enforcement officials additional resources to protect the lives of our children and their families."

Press Releases from Governor Mitt Romney about gangs:

2004

  • 08-26-2004, LT. GOV HEALEY SIGNS BILL CRACKING DOWN ON SOMERVILLE GANGS
  • 10-01-2004, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $1.5 MILLION TO COMBAT GANG ACTIVITY

2005

  • 12-15-2005, HEALEY PUSHES TO GIVE PROSECUTORS TOOLS TO PROTECT CRUCIAL WITNESSES IN GANG CRIMES
  • 12-22-2005, ROMNEY APPROVES $11 MILLION PLAN TO TARGET GANG VIOLENCE

2006

  • 03-06-2006, HEALEY PUSHES FOR PASSAGE OF ANTI-GANG VIOLENCE BILL
  • 03-30-2006, ROMNEY SIGNS BILL TO CRACK DOWN ON GANG VIOLENCE
  • 05-17-2006, HEALEY AND MENINO ANNOUNCE $3 MILLION GANG-FIGHTING GRANT FOR BOSTON
  • 05-18-2006, HEALEY AWARDS GANG-FIGHTING GRANTS TO 15 COMMUNITES
Posted by at 1 comment:

Raising the Bar on Education

Issues / Raising the Bar on Education

Governor Mitt Romney said everyone benefits when parents and kids can choose their schools.

I would like to hear your reasons to agree or disagree; until then, here are my Reasons to agree with Romney:

  1. It is best to trust individuals to make decisions for their own lives.
  2. Choice is good.
  3. School choice is good.
  5. Parental Rights and Practicality: While school choice might not be feasible for every family, it honors parents' rights to choose the best educational path for their children, whether Catholic, public, or any other type of school.
  6. Informed Decisions: With the freedom to choose, media outlets could offer evaluations and comparisons of schools, fostering a culture where education is a priority, akin to everyday consumer choices. This increased scrutiny and interest could lead to better-informed decisions about children’s education.
  7. Choice and Access: Just as bookstores and libraries coexist, providing choice doesn't necessarily harm public schools. The focus should be on ensuring access to education through public, private, or homeschooling options.
  8. Use of Tax Money: Questioning the use of tax money for private or homeschooling overlooks the fundamental right of parents to decide the best educational setting for their children.
  9. Educational Outcomes: Evidence suggests Catholic and other non-public schools often outperform public schools, hinting at the benefits of competitive educational environments.
  10. Competition Drives Quality: Introducing competition among schools, including charter and homeschooling options, raises the quality of public education and aligns with the broader American value of competition improving services.
  11. Economic Incentives: While many teachers are motivated by altruism, economic incentives in a competitive educational system could drive improvements across all schools.
  12. Government Efficiency: Drawing a parallel with government services like the DMV, the argument posits that government-controlled entities often lack the motivation to excel and improve, a situation that school choice aims to remedy.
  13. Critique of Opposition Arguments:
    1. Affordability and Equity: Critics argue school choice might not be universally accessible, but this perspective overlooks the direct and indirect benefits to the majority, as well as the potential for a more dynamic educational environment.
    2. Historical Misuse of Private Schools: While some argue private schools contributed to segregation in the past, today's school choice mechanisms, like vouchers, aim to democratize access to quality education, potentially reducing educational inequality.
    3. Community Impact: Though some believe school choice might erode community cohesion, supporters argue that educational quality and parental empowerment should take precedence, with the belief that better education contributes to stronger communities in the long run.

What are the best objective criteria for measuring the strength of this belief?

1. Academic Outcomes

  • Improvement in Student Performance: Measure the academic progress of students who switch to schools of choice compared to those who remain in failing schools. Metrics can include standardized test scores, graduation rates, and college admission rates.

2. Equity and Accessibility

  • Demographic Representation: Analyze whether school choice options are equally accessible to students of all socioeconomic backgrounds, races, and abilities. This includes assessing the distribution of resources and opportunities.
  • Impact on Segregation: Study the effect of school choice on racial and socioeconomic segregation within and across schools.

3. Systemic Effects

  • Impact on Public Schools: Evaluate how the introduction of school choice affects the funding, resources, and student body composition of remaining public schools.
  • Overall System Performance: Compare the performance and health of the educational system as a whole in regions with robust school choice options versus those without.

4. Parental and Student Satisfaction

  • Satisfaction Surveys: Collect data on satisfaction levels from parents and students involved in school choice programs to gauge perceived benefits or drawbacks.
  • Enrollment Trends: Track enrollment patterns over time as an indirect measure of satisfaction and demand for school choice options.

5. Economic Efficiency

  • Cost-Benefit Analysis: Assess the financial efficiency of school choice programs by comparing the costs of these programs to their academic and social outcomes.
  • Resource Allocation: Examine how resources are allocated among public schools and schools of choice, including per-pupil spending and investment in infrastructure.

6. Long-term Outcomes

  • Post-Secondary Success: Monitor the long-term success of students participating in school choice, including higher education attainment and career outcomes.
  • Social Mobility: Investigate the impact of school choice on students' social mobility, especially for those from historically underserved communities.

Reasons to agree

  1. When parents and kids are free to choose their school everyone benefits. +17
  2. School choice is good. +13
  3. Choice is good. +8
  4. It is best to trust individuals to make decisions for their own lives. +3 
  5. Its not fair that poor kids have no option but to go to failing schools.
  6. Its not good for our future to have segments of our population stuck in failing schools.
  7. Kids should have access to the resources and opportunities they need to succeed.


Score: +7 (reasons to agree), + 41/2 [20] (reasons to agree with reasons to agree) = 27

Movies that agree:

  1. Waiting for "Superman" (2010): This documentary critiques the American public education system by following several students as they attempt to be accepted into a charter school. 

Movies that disagree:

  1. The Public (2018): Though not directly about school choice, this movie highlights the broader societal issues contributing to the failure of public institutions, suggesting the need for systemic reform rather than alternatives like school choice. 

Interest of those who agree

  1. Parents and Students seeking better educational opportunities.
  2. Advocates for Market-Based Solutions who believe competition can improve school quality.
  3. Charter and Private School Administrators who stand to gain enrollment and funding.


Interest of those who disagree

  1. Public School Advocates and Educators concerned about the diversion of funds from public schools.
  2. Critics of Segregation and Inequality who argue that school choice can exacerbate educational disparities.
  3. Supporters of Community-Based Solutions who favor improving schools through increased funding and community involvement rather than offering alternatives that might only benefit a few. 

Books that agree

  1. The School Choice Roadmap: 7 Steps to Finding the Right School for Your Child" by Andrew Campanella: Offers a practical guide for parents navigating school choice.
  2. "Education Myths: What Special Interest Groups Want You to Believe About Our Schools--And Why It Isn't So" by Jay P. Greene: Debunks common misconceptions about public education and argues for the benefits of school choice.

Books that agree

  1.  "Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools" by Diane Ravitch: Critiques the movement toward privatizing public education, including arguments against school choice.
  2. "Slaying Goliath: The Passionate Resistance to Privatization and the Fight to Save America's Public Schools" by Diane Ravitch: Focuses on the efforts to resist educational privatization and supports public education reform.

Web pages that agree

  1.   Organizations like The Heritage Foundation or The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice often publish articles and policy papers in favor of school choice, presenting it as a solution to failing schools.

Web pages that disagree

  1. The National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) frequently outline the downsides of school choice on their platforms, focusing on its impact on public education funding and equity. 
Posted by at No comments:

Mar 13, 2008

We should build and repair transportation infrastructure.

Reasons to agree

  1. We should invest in infrastructure projects critical to the national economy and its flow of goods and people, instead of funding home-district pork.
Posted by at No comments:

Mar 7, 2008

We should weaken the threat of the Castro regime.

Issues / Strengthening Latin American Allies and Confronting Tyrants


We should weaken the threat of the Castro regime.

Reasons to agree

  1. Castro has political prisoners. We should not sit down for coffee with dictators when they put their citizens in jail for what they think.
  2. Castro helped the Soviet Union sneak nuclear weapons into Cuba. JFK had to stand up to Khrushchev in order to get them out.
  3. Castro was the leader of his country for 49 years. No one should have power that long.
  4. Cuba only has one party. One party government is bad.
  5. Governments should not be allowed to control the media. Castro controls the media, including the internet.
  6. Cubans are rarely permitted to travel abroad. This country is a cage.
  7. Cubans are never permitted to create political organizations
  8. At best Castro has maintained Cuba's pre-1959 level of development, but at an "extraordinary" cost to the overall welfare of Cubans.
  9. When castro was in school he apparently collaborated in an attempt on a rival's life: Masferrer. (Thomas, Hugh : Cuba the Pursuit of Freedom p.523-524)
  10. Castro is a liar. In 1957, Castro signed the Manifesto of the Sierra Maestra in which he agreed to call elections under the Electoral Code of 1943 within the first 18 months of his time in power and to restore all of the provisions of the Constitution of 1940 that had been suspended under Batista. Of course, he did not do this. All dictators promise to limit their power once they no longer need it, but they never do. President Bush has expanded the power of the president, but luckily, because of two term limit, he will never benefit permanently from the expanded power. Also there is the possibility that his political opponents will benefit from this expanded power, which would make him think twice about expanding them too much. I personally think Bush's expanded powers are warranted. I think that it was stupid that a warrant to wire-tap did not apply to cell phones, but I am glad that they can be checked by the balance of powers. I am glad that we have congress and the courts to challenge him.
  11. Castro almost destroyed the whole planet. No joke. Millions, or perhaps billions of people almost died. Well maybe it wasn't all Castro's fault, but why would somone choose the soviet union over the united states? Anyways Castro chose the Soviet Union, and let them move nuclear weapons onto Cuba, and let them build missile launching sites... So it was the Soviet Union's fault more than Casto's, but gosh, it was close... we are talking about Billions of lives, and he rose to power, and helped cause all these problems.. over throwing the government, and holding onto power, and not following the constitution that he said he would, and then helping the soviets point nuclear weapons at America... we were the good guys, how could he have done that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis. Castro urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear first strike against the United States if Cuba were invaded. (Khrushchev, Nikita Sergeyevich (1962-10-27). Letter to Castro (PDF). The George Washington University. Retrieved on 2006-05-11)
  12. It has been claimed by the Carthage Foundation-funded Center for a Free Cuba that an estimated 14,000 Cubans were killed in Cuban military actions abroad. Castro would send people overseas to fight in support of Marxist.
  13. Just because people got along with Hitler, and Mussolini doesn't make them good people.
  14. Thousands of political opponents to the Castro regime have been killed, primarily during the first decade of his leadership.138139 Some Cubans labeled "counterrevolutionaries", "fascists", or "CIA operatives" were also imprisoned in poor conditions without trial.140141 Military Units to Aid Production, or UMAPs, were labor camps established in 1965 to confine "social deviants" including homosexuals, Jehovah Witnesses to work "counter-revolutionary" influences out of certain segments of the population.142 The camps were closed in 1967 in response to international outcries.143 Professor Marifeli Pérez Stable, a Cuban immigrant and former Castro supporter has said that "There were thousands of executions, forty, fifty thousand political prisoners. The treatment of political prisoners, with what we today know about human rights and the international norms governing human rights ... it is legitimate to raise questions about possible crimes against humanity in Cuba."144
  15. Castro acknowledges that Cuba holds political prisoners, but argues that Cuba is justified because these prisoners are not jailed because of their political beliefs, but have been convicted of "counter-revolutionary" crimes, including bombings. Castro portrays opposition to the Cuban government as illegitimate, and the result of an ongoing conspiracy fostered by Cuban exiles with ties to the United States or the CIA.145
  16. Until 1992 Castro banned Catholics from membership in the Cuban Communist Party which was the only way to get a job and provide for your family. We cannot allow a world like this where you get jobs based on what you believe politically or religiously.
  17. Until 1998 Cubans were not allowed to celebrate Christmas. Why do liberals love this guy so much? Liberals are fascist that want to control every aspect of society, just like their hero, Castro.
  18. Castro promotes a cult of personality.
  19. A lot of Nazis were smart. Just because Castro is smart doesn't mean he didn't almost contribute to millions of American's deaths by asking the soviet union to conduct a first strike on American cities, if things went bad in the Cuban Missel Crisis. All Castro cares about is power. He would rather have Millions of Americans die, than to have been removed from power. Castro and others say Americans are evil, but our presidents aren't willing to kill millions of people just to stay in power... they go out of power after 8 years.
  20. Billboards with his picture are very common in the island.162. Castro was accused by American anarchist Sam Dolgoff of "basking in the adulation and servility of his subordinates" and "creating a regime built around the cult of the personality functions" encouraging "the illusion that only he and his select group of revolutionaries have earned the right to wield unlimited power over the people of Cuba."163 Castro has also been described as an example of the rise of a distinct "charismatic leader"164 common to developing nations, and of encouraging the "personality political regime". This theory contends that Castro has maintained power largely through highly visible, charismatic leadership and popular appeals to the Cuban people, though the administration is successful only as long as the leader's charisma lasts. Kind of like Mike Huckabee with all his appeal to the common folks, and hatred of successful people.
  21. America hasn't always done well with Cuba, or South America. We have learned from our mistakes. We now want the same things that they want. We want to fight drugs. We want to fight terrorist. We want freedom of speech, we want freedom of press, we want good things on this planet. Just because we were bad in the past doesn't mean that the solution for these countries that don't like us, is to repress their people, and take away freedoms.

Reasons to disagree
  1. If Canada and Europe can get along with Cuba, why can't we?
  2. Castro gives longs speeches. He must be smart.

More info:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro
  2. http://www.state.gov/p/wha/ci/14776.htm

Posted by at No comments:

Combating Nuclear Terrorism

We are faced today with the horrific proposition that those who speak of genocide are developing the capability to carry it out. It's time to face the reality of the Iranian threat, take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word and act accordingly. We must tighten economic sanctions against Iran, isolate Iran diplomatically, and make it clear to the Iranian people that while nuclear capabilities may be a source of pride, it can also be a source of peril.

CHALLENGE : We are faced today with the horrific proposition that those who speak of genocide are developing the capability to carry it out. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made statements that Israel will be wiped off the map. It's time to face the reality of the Iranian threat, take Ahmadinejad at his word and act accordingly. Iran's ambition to develop nuclear weaponry cannot be clearer: they have a virtually inexhaustible supply of clean natural gas for energy, they have refused offers to supply nuclear fuel for their power. Obviously, their nuclear ambition has nothing to do with clean energy.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "Some people, of course, think that it's possible to live with a nuclear Iran. That thinking is based on the theory that Iran, once it's granted the privilege of becoming a member of the nuclear club, that it will be a responsible actor. Neither their words nor their actions justify that kind of thinking." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At Yeshiva University, 4/26/2007)

CHALLENGE: The 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) was meant to prevent countries from acquiring dangerous nuclear technologies and fissile materials such as plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU).

However, effective enforcement of this obligation is often lacking. Consequently, countries can ignore their obligations under the NPT with little fear of sanction or penalty. Given the unstable political and economic situation in many of these counties, there is the real possibility that these nuclear technologies, fissile materials, or even fully assembled nuclear weapons, could find their way to terrorists.

Moreover, the September 11th Commission reported that al-Qaeda had been trying to acquire or build nuclear weapons for well over a decade. Former CIA Director George Tenet said that Osama bin Laden sees the acquisition of WMD as a "religious obligation."

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "The Iranian regime threatens not only Israel, but also every other nation in the region, and ultimately the world. And that threat would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power. And just think of the signal a nuclear Iran would send to other rogue regimes with nuclear ambitions - this could be the tipping point in the development and proliferation of nuclear regimes." (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference, 1/23/2007)

The Romney Plan:

Governor Romney Believes We Must Expand And Accelerate Efforts To Combat Nuclear Terrorism By Taking The Following Actions.

  1. Tighten Economic Sanctions Against Iran. Governor Romney has called for strategic divestment from companies that support the Iranian regime's dangerous actions, using efforts similar to the actions taken against Apartheid South Africa.
  2. Isolate Iran Diplomatically. Their leaders should be made to feel like those of Apartheid South Africa. Until there are indications that high level engagement would do anything other than reward bad behavior, the United States should not engage Iran in direct, bilateral negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. Finally, Iran's President Ahmadinejad should be indicted under the terms of the Genocide Convention for incitement to genocide.
  3. Have Arab States Join This Effort To Prevent A Nuclear Iran. These states should support Iraq's government; turn down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict; stop the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hezbollah; and tell the Palestinians to drop their terror campaign and recognize Israel's right to exist.
  4. Make It Clear To The Iranian People That While Nuclear Capabilities May Be A Source Of Pride, It Can Also Be A Source Of Peril. If nuclear material from their nation falls into the hands of terrorists and is used, it would provoke a devastating response from the civilized world. The military option remains on the table.
  5. Expanding And Accelerating Actions To Combat Nuclear Terrorism. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which was launched last year, was a good start. Yet our efforts need to be greatly accelerated and expanded. Combating the threat of nuclear terrorism needs to be a top Presidential priority.
  6. Empowering A Senior Ambassador To Lead Efforts To Prevent Nuclear Terrorism. We should appoint a new Ambassador-at-Large to prevent nuclear terror. He or she would have the authority and resources needed to work across government agencies and departments to ensure that our strategies both here and abroad are coordinated.

Posted by at No comments:

Iran’s nuclear ambition has nothing to do with clean energy.

Issues / Combating Nuclear Terrorism

Reasons to agree:

  1. Iran has a virtually inexhaustible supply of clean natural gas for energy, but yet the French and Russians are building nuclear reactors for them. I wonder why?
  2. Iran has refused offers from us to supply nuclear fuel for their power. I wonder why?
  3. A country, like Iran, that says that Israil should be wipped off the face of the planet should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons.
  4. We have no problems with Iran getting their power from Nuclear Weapons. We even said we would help them. But they want to use it for weapons, and the argument doesn't work that America has them and so everyone should be able to have them, because in the 50s everyone got together and agreed their was a balance of power between Russia and America, but if Iran gets them, then Saudia Arabia has to get them, and if they get them, Egypt has to get them, and if Egypt gets them their enemies get have to get them, and so everyone signed an agreement that no one else would get them. But Iran complains that Israil has them. Yes, but Israil does not talk about killing it neighbors. Israil did not start any war.
Reasons to disagree:
  1. For the same reason that the US encouraged and supported Iran's nuclear program in the first place - because Iran needs to export oil and gas rather than use it at home (Gas is used mostly to repressurize the oil fields, btw)
  2. Because Iran has every right to use its own resources for its own benefit and doesn't need to become reliant on foreign energy suppliers.

Posted by at 1 comment:

Feb 28, 2008

Jihadism is this century’s nightmare. What do you think?

Reasons to disagree

  1. More people die from alcohol than terrorism. 85,000 people die each year because of alcohol Link
    1. 5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.
    2. 15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
    3. 30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
    4. 30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol.
    5. 30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
    6. 40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
    7. 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
    8. 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
    9. 100,000 deaths. That's more than a statistic. That is 100,000 individuals with faces. 100,000 individuals with lives not fully lived. 100,000 individuals grieved by mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children. Every year.
  2. An aggressive China that is willing to kill thousands of people in order to expand, would be this century's nightmare.

Reasons to agree
  1. Jihadist are the only people who would use a nuclear weapon.
  2. A nuclear weapon would destroy men, women, children. It would destroy homes, and make property un-usable for thousands of years.
  3. Some of the people who die from Alcohol, are just killing themselves. Those who would be killed from a nuclear bomb, would be mostly innocent.
  4. There can be more than one nightmare. China could go bad, but Jihadism is more likely to.
Posted by at No comments:

Below you will see an e-mail I recieved, along with my response:


4.      False. Obama turns 47 on August 4, and if elected would be the 5th youngest person to be president. In fact he will be over 4 years older than Teddy Roosevelt was when he was sworn in after McKinley's assassination, and older than JFK, Clinton, and Grant were when elected. Where are you getting your facts?

Obama would be tied for the 2nd youngest person to be elected president.

Reasons to agree

  1. Teddy Roosevelt is the youngest person ever to become President, but he became President at age 42 after the assassination of President McKinley. He was not elected president. People never said, we are comfortable with someone this young being president.
  2. JFK was 44. Clinton was 47. Obama would be 47.

Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, and Clinton were more experienced than Obama.

Reasons to agree

  1. Harry Truman was right when he said that JFK was too young.
  2. Barak's only jobs before becoming elected to the senate were an associate attorney for 3 years, a lecturer of constitutional law for 11 years and a state senator 8 years
  3. Teddy Roosevelt was Vice President before he became President.
  4. Before TR became Vice President, he served as (1) Governor or New York, (2) Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (3) an Army Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel who organized and led his "Rough Riders" during the Spanish-American War, (4) president of the Board of New York City Police Commissioners, (5) a United States Civil Service Commissioner and (6) a New York State Assemblyman who wrote more bills than any other New York state legislator.
  5. Wikipedia: "Roosevelt became president of the board of New York City Police Commissioners in 1895. During the two years he held this post, Roosevelt radically reformed the police department. The police force was reputed as one of the most corrupt in America. NYPD's history division records Roosevelt was, 'an iron-willed leader of unimpeachable honesty, (who) brought a reforming zeal to the New York City Police Commission in 1895.'Roosevelt and his fellow commissioners established new disciplinary rules, created a bicycle squad to police New York's traffic problems and standardized the use of pistols by officers. Roosevelt implemented regular inspections of firearms, annual physical exams, appointed 1,600 new recruits based on their physical and mental qualifications and not on political affiliation, opened the department to ethnic minorities and women, established meritorious service medals, and shut down corrupt police hostelries."

Barack's no TR, JFK, or even BC

Michael Gaynor Michael Gaynor
January 29, 2008

When Ted Kennedy enthusiastically endorsed Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States, Ted (1) chided Harry Truman for saying that JFK was too young in 1960 and (2) proclaimed that Barack is a bit older than Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, when they became President.

What Ted (and the media) ignored is that Harry Truman had a point. The Cuban Missile Crisis resulted from Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's impression, as a result of the Bay of Pigs fiasco and a personal meeting with JFK in Vienna, that JFK would not be strong enough to keep the Soviet Union from installing long-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. Yes, JFK got those missiles out, after taking the world to the brink of nuclear war, and only gave up some American missiles in Turkey in the bargain. But the truth is that JFK was NOT ready to be President on Day One, as the Bay of Pigs fiasco itself conclusively demonstrated. Instead of a successful operation, or no operation, JFK bungled the long-planned liberation of Cuba from the dictatorship of Fidel Castro as badly as possible: by allowing the attack to begin and then denying air cover to the would-be Cuban liberators.

In addition, Barack is no TR, or JFK, or even Bill Clinton.

Barack was an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland (three years), a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School (eleven years) and an Illinois state senator (eight years) before being elected to the United States Senate in 2004.

Teddy Roosevelt is the youngest person ever to become President. He became President at age 42 after the assassination of President McKinley.

Right, TR was Vice President before he became President.

Before TR became Vice President, he served as (1) Governor or New York, (2) Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (3) an Army Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel who organized and led his "Rough Riders" during the Spanish-American War, (4) president of the Board of New York City Police Commissioners, (5) a United States Civil Service Commissioner and (6) a New York State Assemblyman who wrote more bills than any other New York state legislator.

Wikipedia: "Roosevelt became president of the board of New York City Police Commissioners in 1895. During the two years he held this post, Roosevelt radically reformed the police department. The police force was reputed as one of the most corrupt in America. NYPD's history division records Roosevelt was, 'an iron-willed leader of unimpeachable honesty, (who) brought a reforming zeal to the New York City Police Commission in 1895.'Roosevelt and his fellow commissioners established new disciplinary rules, created a bicycle squad to police New York's traffic problems and standardized the use of pistols by officers. Roosevelt implemented regular inspections of firearms, annual physical exams, appointed 1,600 new recruits based on their physical and mental qualifications and not on political affiliation, opened the department to ethnic minorities and women, established meritorious service medals, and shut down corrupt police hostelries."

Barack surely is no TR!

Like TR, JFK was the second son of Joseph P. Kennedy and, as such, very well prepared for the Presidency, especially after his older brother, Joseph, died in World War II. A war hero himself, JFK served after the war as a Congressman (six years) and a United States Senator (eight years) before being elected America's second youngest President.

Barack is no JFK.

Bill Clinton, America's third youngest President, served as a University of Arkansas law professor, Attorney General (two years) and Governor of Arkansas (twelve years) before being elected President in 1992.

Barack is no Bill Clinton either.

5.      "Obama has never accomplished anything outside of the classroom." What is this supposed to mean? He has state senator, US senator, a successful attorney, director of a successful community development program in chicago, and held several different non-academic positions prior to going to Law School. He is a father, and a husband. How can you possibly say he has never accomplished anything outside of the classroom. Please back up your statement.

I assumed you would understand that I mean Obama has never accomplished anything NOTWORTHY outside of the classroom. Of course obama has accomplished somethings. All human beings have become potty trained, and done all sorts of crap. My point was, and I think you will have to agree, that Obama has never done anything noteworthy. You mention that Obama was a state senator? Is this noteworthy? If it is, then every senator should run for president. You know how many state senators there are? Small states like Idaho have perhaps a hundred of them... I bet there are thousands of state senators...

6.      "Obama has never had a job in the marketplace." See above. He worked at Eldridge Hayne's Business International Corporation, and it was not an internship.  If Romney can use his time in France as experience that contributes to his candidacy, why can't Obama use a post-collegiate job?

Good point. The point I was thinking of is that Obama has never done anything useful. I do not consider being a civil rights attorney useful. I do not think lawyers contribute to society, but that is a personal opinion. I think most people would agree with you that working as a lawyer prepares you for president about as much as Romney's experience overseas, but come on...your angers is not worth this SMALL, SMALL, SMALL point. You have to agree with me, if you have any credabilty, that working for a law firm does not qualify you to be president. 

7.      "Obama has never run an organization." He was president of the Harvard Law Review, which is pretty much like being the head of a major magazine, only held to a higher standard. He ran Developing Communities Project in Chicago. If you know anything about how government offices work you would know that running a Senate office is pretty much like running a business. There is a staff, there is a budget, you hire, you fire. And of course a presidential campaign is an incredible organization.

Senators have staff of 2 to 6 people, as far as I know. Obama does not run his presidential campaign. He has a campaign manager. Does everyone who runs for president, automatically have the experience you need to run for president, because running for president, qualifies you to be president. You really are an idiot.

8-12 See above. Senator is the boss. Director is the boss. President is the boss.
13-14. I love that your supporting "facts" for why Obama isn't experienced is "Obama just isn't experienced".  This is brilliant logic.

I am not a Bill Maher fan either, but not all experience is equal.  So Bush had 8 years of political experience, at the state level.  Obama had 7 years at the state level in the Illinois senate (also a very populous state, representing part of the 3rd largest city in the country), plus will have had 4 years in the US Senate.  Bush had 8 years of executive branch experience, Barack 0.  

A governor is not in the executive branch.
Barack has 4 years of foreign policy experience, Bush 0 at that time (same as Romney).

?
 I think the point that Maher is making (poorly, I admit) is that there is no broad brush of "experience" than can be painted onto candidates.  There are no specific pre-req's for the presidency (other than age, citizenship and US Birth), so to say one candidate is more experienced than another is not a simple issue of addition.  If that were the case then we would all just vote for the most "experienced" candidate, McCain

Romney is more experienced than Barak Obama. Romney balanced the budget in Massachusetts, without raising taxes. Romney turned around the Olympics, when they were in debt, just a few months after September 11th. Romney has experience in the marketplace. He made companies give him money, in order for Romney to tell them what to do, in order to fix themselves. Obama worked with a criminal, who ran slum housing in Chicago. What good did Obama accomplish? How many people did he get houses for? What did he accomplish?
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)