The greatest environmental catastrophe in US history continues to unfold while our cars keep guzzling and we, seemingly immune to the irony, continue watching in our oil fueled plastic worlds as the earth goes down the shitter. Ah, isn't it just great to be American?
Well, I'm sure Nigerians would agree.
The Niger Delta is one of the most oil polluted places on the planet (barring of course our tremendous un-ability to plug the gusher in the gulf with more hair). Somewhere in the range of 11 million barrels of oil have spilled into the Delta over the course of 50 years, since the oil companies first noticed the glittering potential in this coastal country. The US currently gets about 10% of it's oil from Nigeria, and many activist groups fear that with the current situation in the Gulf, that figure will rise, leading to more problems in the already plagued region. A Nigerian spokesman for Shell oil complained that many militant groups in the area have been busting open pipelines to steal oil, and keeping crews from trying to rectify those break ins and other spills that have occurred, leading to the five decade old catastrophe. So there you go guys, not their fault. And this rager in the gulf isn't BP's fault either. Some dolphin or something probably bumped into the line and sent the whole thing into may-day mode.
I can't really decide which is more disgusting: the fact that Nigeria has lived with an ongoing spill many times the size of ours and yet we couldn't give two shits about them as long as they give us oil, OR that we continue to guzzle as the gulf gushes, immune to the catastrophes in both places...
Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Welcome to hell General Patraeus
This week's forecast for Afghanistan: hell.
June 2010 has shown to be the deadliest so far for NATO forces, the death toll being 101 on Wednesday, outweighing the previous most deadly month by 22 soldiers, in August 2009. And now General Patraeus is taking over for the big mouthed McChrystal who made a complete cluster fuck of himself in Rolling Stone.
Calling McChrystal back to Washington was somewhat of a crap shoot (but then again, so is this war), considering that pulling a General out of a rising death toll war zone isn't usually on the list of recommendations, even from the disjointed lot that organize our troops in the Middle East. Still, Obama forged ahead and replaced McChrystal with Patraeus who officials say have a much better report with the media. Oh good. I'm so glad that that's our criteria for generals. Next war, we should ask that they have a talent like tap dancing or glass playing. I'm not saying that either general deserves a gold star for their efforts in the Middle East but I am saying that if you're gonna go full steam ahead into a war, step up the troops while simultaneously claiming a Nobel peace prize and promising you'll pull troops out, you can't care too much about how the media spins stories.
Insubordination is unacceptable and this Rolling Stone article only profiles the serious holes in the chains of command leading from the top to the poor kids that get blown up every month on the ground. If his own general can't say a thing or two to back up the president, it's not surprising that we're cha-cha-ing back and forth on troop numbers, movements and locations.
We're there, over over there so now we have to do something. Both General Patraeus and McChrystal have more experience in the air conditioned halls of the Pentagon than in the real world. Neither one of them are buddy buddy with Obama. Mr. President, if you wanna go in there, you better make damn sure that you've got your ducks in a row. At the moment, you've got a crazed group of Canada Geese running around and nipping like headless chickens on LSD. Don't let these kids keep dying while you keep trying to figure out a plan.
June 2010 has shown to be the deadliest so far for NATO forces, the death toll being 101 on Wednesday, outweighing the previous most deadly month by 22 soldiers, in August 2009. And now General Patraeus is taking over for the big mouthed McChrystal who made a complete cluster fuck of himself in Rolling Stone.
Calling McChrystal back to Washington was somewhat of a crap shoot (but then again, so is this war), considering that pulling a General out of a rising death toll war zone isn't usually on the list of recommendations, even from the disjointed lot that organize our troops in the Middle East. Still, Obama forged ahead and replaced McChrystal with Patraeus who officials say have a much better report with the media. Oh good. I'm so glad that that's our criteria for generals. Next war, we should ask that they have a talent like tap dancing or glass playing. I'm not saying that either general deserves a gold star for their efforts in the Middle East but I am saying that if you're gonna go full steam ahead into a war, step up the troops while simultaneously claiming a Nobel peace prize and promising you'll pull troops out, you can't care too much about how the media spins stories.
Insubordination is unacceptable and this Rolling Stone article only profiles the serious holes in the chains of command leading from the top to the poor kids that get blown up every month on the ground. If his own general can't say a thing or two to back up the president, it's not surprising that we're cha-cha-ing back and forth on troop numbers, movements and locations.
We're there, over over there so now we have to do something. Both General Patraeus and McChrystal have more experience in the air conditioned halls of the Pentagon than in the real world. Neither one of them are buddy buddy with Obama. Mr. President, if you wanna go in there, you better make damn sure that you've got your ducks in a row. At the moment, you've got a crazed group of Canada Geese running around and nipping like headless chickens on LSD. Don't let these kids keep dying while you keep trying to figure out a plan.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
G(aga)8
I went to check the news as per usual on a few different sites and was amazed to see that there was little to no mention of the G8/G20 summit in Canada this weekend. However, I know that Lady Gaga is having trouble with her driver and that her and Obama are in a facebook war. Fascinating...
Not to give props to our former kingdom, but BBC was the only news site that had a front page mention of it. Considering that this summit comprises of the worlds 8 biggest economies (except for the biggest, China) and the G20 which is a group of finance ministers and central bank governors overseeing the world economy, I'd think major news organizations would give just two more shits about that than Gaga's employee problems. But I guess she looks hotter in a machine gun bra than Obama would...
As far as what is going on at the G8/G20 summit, so far it's been a lot of Big Brother condemnation of what other countries are doing wrong, a playground pow-wow between the big kids about what the little kids should be doing. For example, the North Korea/South Korea ship incident, the North Korean and Iranian arms development, and suggesting that the Gaza situation is unsustainable.
Well, having an erection for a day is also unsustainable but what does that have to do with the price of rice? Interestingly enough, this seems to me to be regurgitation of earlier arguments just with more big wigs in a different place. We are sticking our nose in other peoples business while simultaneously doing nothing about it. We shove Afghanistan and Iraq under the rug as if they're the embarrasing stepchildren and focus on the countries we haven't started wars with yet.
The G20 summit is another can of worms being that you have 19 different countries and then the EU that sit there and argue about how to unfuck the current economic situation. It reminds me a bit of when I was in Switzerland and was asking a French man and a German for directions, having no idea what they were saying or who was right...needless to say, I got lost and tried again with a happily found Brit. Unfortunately, I don't think the same strategy will work at the G8/G20 summit. Decisions need to be made and we can't afford to get lost and hope for the best.
It also doesn't do to sit and discuss who did what wrong when you're involved in two wars and have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Leaders lead best by example. As always, talking is cheap, actions are not. Best of luck in Canada everyone.
Not to give props to our former kingdom, but BBC was the only news site that had a front page mention of it. Considering that this summit comprises of the worlds 8 biggest economies (except for the biggest, China) and the G20 which is a group of finance ministers and central bank governors overseeing the world economy, I'd think major news organizations would give just two more shits about that than Gaga's employee problems. But I guess she looks hotter in a machine gun bra than Obama would...
As far as what is going on at the G8/G20 summit, so far it's been a lot of Big Brother condemnation of what other countries are doing wrong, a playground pow-wow between the big kids about what the little kids should be doing. For example, the North Korea/South Korea ship incident, the North Korean and Iranian arms development, and suggesting that the Gaza situation is unsustainable.
Well, having an erection for a day is also unsustainable but what does that have to do with the price of rice? Interestingly enough, this seems to me to be regurgitation of earlier arguments just with more big wigs in a different place. We are sticking our nose in other peoples business while simultaneously doing nothing about it. We shove Afghanistan and Iraq under the rug as if they're the embarrasing stepchildren and focus on the countries we haven't started wars with yet.
The G20 summit is another can of worms being that you have 19 different countries and then the EU that sit there and argue about how to unfuck the current economic situation. It reminds me a bit of when I was in Switzerland and was asking a French man and a German for directions, having no idea what they were saying or who was right...needless to say, I got lost and tried again with a happily found Brit. Unfortunately, I don't think the same strategy will work at the G8/G20 summit. Decisions need to be made and we can't afford to get lost and hope for the best.
It also doesn't do to sit and discuss who did what wrong when you're involved in two wars and have an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Leaders lead best by example. As always, talking is cheap, actions are not. Best of luck in Canada everyone.
Friday, June 25, 2010
and we're back with a random post...
Sorry it's been so long dear blog...life is a strange series of ups, downs, rights and lefts and now I'm back again...that is of course the abridged version. If you're interested in the fuller version, just lemme know.
At the moment, I'm in lovely Stockholm, Sweden, enjoying midsummers eve in the clean air and under a utopian blue sky.
Sweden is known for their eco-friendly stance in this shit storm of trashing our planet and raping her resources. In January 1999, an Environmental Bill was passed including many laws penned to protect the natural Sweden for this generation and those to come. However since then, many amendments have taken place that according to the Swedish EPA has greatly weakened the bill.
Mikael Karlsson, the speaker for the Swedish EPA suggested that Parliament has several times been a doormat to companies that trampled the laws with the pretense that they just wanted to make the laws simpler. Even though, the laws barely effect the companies' bottom line and stimulate competition amongst manufacturers.
A Swedish environmental lawyer said that she is disappointed with how the environmental laws have slipped, under two successive governments, both Alliansen (the Alliance) and Socialdemokraterna (Socialists).
I might add just to the reader who isn't stuck into Swedish politics that those two groups are quite on opposite sides...one might say, quite like Democrats and Republicans...hmmmm, drawing parallels...reminds me of math class.
As much good as I have to say about Sweden, this article that I read on Svenska Dagbladet (a popular newspaper) leaves me sad and irritable. If you've read any of my posts you know that I am not an extremist, whether we be talking of right or left. In Sweden, I am not a socialist nor a conservative. I believe in getting things done, regardless of what your voting card says.
The continued fucking over of our planet by big corporations is not just something that hails from the land of the free and home of the brave. This is an international problem, because corporations work globally.
For anyone who didn't think we live in a global world, wake up and smell the stench of 6 billion people crowded in your back yard...b/c that's basically where they are.
While Sweden may be a ways away from "oops, is that my oil spill?" and "we must strike before stricken," these trends of government laying down their justice and morals to the full pocket books of corporate interest is a striking and scary one. And it is one I don't intend to accept...it's good to be back.
Happy Midsummer.
At the moment, I'm in lovely Stockholm, Sweden, enjoying midsummers eve in the clean air and under a utopian blue sky.
Sweden is known for their eco-friendly stance in this shit storm of trashing our planet and raping her resources. In January 1999, an Environmental Bill was passed including many laws penned to protect the natural Sweden for this generation and those to come. However since then, many amendments have taken place that according to the Swedish EPA has greatly weakened the bill.
Mikael Karlsson, the speaker for the Swedish EPA suggested that Parliament has several times been a doormat to companies that trampled the laws with the pretense that they just wanted to make the laws simpler. Even though, the laws barely effect the companies' bottom line and stimulate competition amongst manufacturers.
A Swedish environmental lawyer said that she is disappointed with how the environmental laws have slipped, under two successive governments, both Alliansen (the Alliance) and Socialdemokraterna (Socialists).
I might add just to the reader who isn't stuck into Swedish politics that those two groups are quite on opposite sides...one might say, quite like Democrats and Republicans...hmmmm, drawing parallels...reminds me of math class.
As much good as I have to say about Sweden, this article that I read on Svenska Dagbladet (a popular newspaper) leaves me sad and irritable. If you've read any of my posts you know that I am not an extremist, whether we be talking of right or left. In Sweden, I am not a socialist nor a conservative. I believe in getting things done, regardless of what your voting card says.
The continued fucking over of our planet by big corporations is not just something that hails from the land of the free and home of the brave. This is an international problem, because corporations work globally.
For anyone who didn't think we live in a global world, wake up and smell the stench of 6 billion people crowded in your back yard...b/c that's basically where they are.
While Sweden may be a ways away from "oops, is that my oil spill?" and "we must strike before stricken," these trends of government laying down their justice and morals to the full pocket books of corporate interest is a striking and scary one. And it is one I don't intend to accept...it's good to be back.
Happy Midsummer.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Authoritarian Arizona?
The Republican governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer signed a bill on Friday that requires Arizona police to question people who they feel may be in the states illegally. The law thereby demands that immigrants carry their alien registration documents with them at all times.
The bill also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.
The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination.
So that's the basic gist of the law. Critics have been calling the bill highly discriminatory and a step towards authoritarian government. Supported say that it's the first comprehensive step towards doing something about the illegal immigration problem, which I think we can all agree is being handled terribly.
I can see both sides. However if I was asked which side I stand on, I'm in favor of the bill. Oh my god! I agree with a Republican?! My liberal heart bleeds and weeps! No, really. Again, forward not left or right. I'm sure that governor Brewer and I would butt heads on many issues but taking the intiative to bear down on illegal immigration is necessary. I have nothing agaisnt immigrants-hell my mother is an immigrant! What I have a problem with is people who enter into
the country and break the law, either in a violent act or simply by feeding off of a system while not putting anything back into
it. And this is not just about hispanics. It's about anyone who enters into this country illegally. This country is built off of immigration but my grandparents came through Ellis island, legally. Does the fact that they had to sign papers and often times change their name speak of a 1984 authoritarian society? They had to learn the language-is that considered nazistic?
I have to keep my id on me while driving, along with license and registration bearing all sorts of private information. I'm fine with that. My mom had to keep her resident alien card with her, and she did. We all walk around with personal information tied to our persons.
If anyone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. In this age of over-exaggerated politcal correctness, we seem to be more interested in looking cultural and accepting than acting it. We're either
for open borders and peace and love or we want everyone who can't draw their family tree back
to the Mayflower to get the hell out. How about some middle ground: ur welcome if u can a) learn the language, b) immigrate legally and c) contribute to the society positively. Is that authoritatively unreasonable?
The bill also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.
The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination.
So that's the basic gist of the law. Critics have been calling the bill highly discriminatory and a step towards authoritarian government. Supported say that it's the first comprehensive step towards doing something about the illegal immigration problem, which I think we can all agree is being handled terribly.
I can see both sides. However if I was asked which side I stand on, I'm in favor of the bill. Oh my god! I agree with a Republican?! My liberal heart bleeds and weeps! No, really. Again, forward not left or right. I'm sure that governor Brewer and I would butt heads on many issues but taking the intiative to bear down on illegal immigration is necessary. I have nothing agaisnt immigrants-hell my mother is an immigrant! What I have a problem with is people who enter into
the country and break the law, either in a violent act or simply by feeding off of a system while not putting anything back into
it. And this is not just about hispanics. It's about anyone who enters into this country illegally. This country is built off of immigration but my grandparents came through Ellis island, legally. Does the fact that they had to sign papers and often times change their name speak of a 1984 authoritarian society? They had to learn the language-is that considered nazistic?
I have to keep my id on me while driving, along with license and registration bearing all sorts of private information. I'm fine with that. My mom had to keep her resident alien card with her, and she did. We all walk around with personal information tied to our persons.
If anyone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. In this age of over-exaggerated politcal correctness, we seem to be more interested in looking cultural and accepting than acting it. We're either
for open borders and peace and love or we want everyone who can't draw their family tree back
to the Mayflower to get the hell out. How about some middle ground: ur welcome if u can a) learn the language, b) immigrate legally and c) contribute to the society positively. Is that authoritatively unreasonable?
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Clinton looks back
Former President Bill Clinton sat down with Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room (sounds like something out of a superhero movie) to discuss the upcoming anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, which occurred on April 19th, 1995.
Among some of the commentary, Clinton expressed concern at the parallel moods in the country now and then. He also noted that back in '95, getting in touch with other extremists had to be done on a more local level, a more face-to-face scenario. These days, with the Internet, you can find people just as loopy as you who want to destroy the world.
"Then, you had the rise of extremist voices on talk radio. Here, you have a billion Internet sites." Clinton said. "The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already, there was enough use of the internet that if you knew how to find a Web site - and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb."
You can also learn that from the Anarchist cook book, or the crazy kid next door who likes to stab roaches with bobby pins. While I agree with the Clinton on the unsettling fact that now extremist groups have access to the boundless reaches of the Internet, you can't blow up a building via the internet. You can't march on Washington via facebook.
I think the bigger problem is that extremist groups are allowed to flourish the way that they do. What happened to the people who shot rounds into windows or threw bricks into homes the day the Health Care Bill passed. What happens to the people who advocate grabbing your gun and marching on Washington? Do these people not get a red flag, regardless of how many hours they're on the internet?
Clinton noted that he didn't want to analogize the past and present too much, in fact "I actually love this political debate." He went on to say that groups like the Tea Party are highly political but "they're not advocating violence or encouraging other people to do it." Ummmmm...
“I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.” Richard Behney
Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, said she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous." In Texas, the Tea Party gubenatorial sweetheart, reminded folks at a rally that “the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”
Yeah, that doesn't sound confrontational at all. They're not advocating violence, they just want people who believe in shedding blood in the name of freedom, armed and dangerous. Oh goody.
While I'd like to think that Tea Partiers are more like the buff guy in the gym who talks a lot and acts a little, I can't trust that fragment of hope. And the Tea Partiers aren't the only extremists out there. You've got Anarchists, Larouche crazies, White Supremacists, Communists, Islamists, and on and on.
The internet can't be blamed for the ills of political extremism. What I see this as is more of a question of free speech. Where do you draw the line? On a smaller level, it is illegal to threaten someone directly. Is that also a infringement on freedom of speech? To make threats against an entire government is ok but to one person isn't?
Where do you draw that line, and why? Extremist groups should be allowed to have a voice, so long as that voice isn't riddled with death threats.
Now, I have issues with our current government. I personally feel it's a corrupt web of corporate interests spending our money and spinning our hearts and minds into corpotocratic mayhem. However, I don't believe that killing people will get my point across.
Clinton warned that demonizing the government with incendiary language can have effects beyond just rallying a crowd. This is very true. What are your thoughts?
Among some of the commentary, Clinton expressed concern at the parallel moods in the country now and then. He also noted that back in '95, getting in touch with other extremists had to be done on a more local level, a more face-to-face scenario. These days, with the Internet, you can find people just as loopy as you who want to destroy the world.
"Then, you had the rise of extremist voices on talk radio. Here, you have a billion Internet sites." Clinton said. "The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already, there was enough use of the internet that if you knew how to find a Web site - and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb."
You can also learn that from the Anarchist cook book, or the crazy kid next door who likes to stab roaches with bobby pins. While I agree with the Clinton on the unsettling fact that now extremist groups have access to the boundless reaches of the Internet, you can't blow up a building via the internet. You can't march on Washington via facebook.
I think the bigger problem is that extremist groups are allowed to flourish the way that they do. What happened to the people who shot rounds into windows or threw bricks into homes the day the Health Care Bill passed. What happens to the people who advocate grabbing your gun and marching on Washington? Do these people not get a red flag, regardless of how many hours they're on the internet?
Clinton noted that he didn't want to analogize the past and present too much, in fact "I actually love this political debate." He went on to say that groups like the Tea Party are highly political but "they're not advocating violence or encouraging other people to do it." Ummmmm...
“I’m cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I’m serious about that, and I bet you are, too.” Richard Behney
Tea Party hero and Minnesota congresswoman, said she wanted “people in Minnesota armed and dangerous." In Texas, the Tea Party gubenatorial sweetheart, reminded folks at a rally that “the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”
Yeah, that doesn't sound confrontational at all. They're not advocating violence, they just want people who believe in shedding blood in the name of freedom, armed and dangerous. Oh goody.
While I'd like to think that Tea Partiers are more like the buff guy in the gym who talks a lot and acts a little, I can't trust that fragment of hope. And the Tea Partiers aren't the only extremists out there. You've got Anarchists, Larouche crazies, White Supremacists, Communists, Islamists, and on and on.
The internet can't be blamed for the ills of political extremism. What I see this as is more of a question of free speech. Where do you draw the line? On a smaller level, it is illegal to threaten someone directly. Is that also a infringement on freedom of speech? To make threats against an entire government is ok but to one person isn't?
Where do you draw that line, and why? Extremist groups should be allowed to have a voice, so long as that voice isn't riddled with death threats.
Now, I have issues with our current government. I personally feel it's a corrupt web of corporate interests spending our money and spinning our hearts and minds into corpotocratic mayhem. However, I don't believe that killing people will get my point across.
Clinton warned that demonizing the government with incendiary language can have effects beyond just rallying a crowd. This is very true. What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)