socio-politics

I was looking through my posts and thinking about how I never really say anything about happy things.  Granted, when it comes to anything to do with society or politics and my point of view on them, it’s hard to be too optimistic.

  Luckily, there’s still Matt Damon to bring everybody together. 

 I of course heard about some rant that Matt Damon went on about Sarah Palin and why he does not want people to vote for her, thought it wasn’t until today that I checked it out.  

I hate to say it, but Rosie O’Donnell could probably kick Matt Damon’s ass in a political debate.   

I really just have to get this out somewhere…….

Last night was the most frightening display of a brainwashed mob that I have ever seen.  Its not that I expect complete honesty from politicians, I just expect some degree of respect for people and for the truth.  Last night was, first and foremost, an insult to all those that support McCain.  The speeches made a cuckold of conservative values, and used complete or almost complete fabrications to insult the democrats.

And Palin’s speech can not be supported by anything that she had said or done before becoming the VP candidate - there is nothing to prove that those are actually her views.

I have no time right now so I can’t provide much evidence, though if you comment, I’ll definitely respond.  I’m more or less just looking for other people that are completely dumbfounded by this all.  I am in complete disbelief about how people just believe everything that they hear, though the media is largely to blame for that - they’re treating people like they’re idiots as much as the politicians are.

Now cnn.com is once again trying to bring Clinton back from the dead by starting a rumor about a big comeback at the convention.  Apparently, her endorsement of Obama can feasibly be ignored by enough people to potentially get her the nomination.

Keep in mind, this is the same news outlet that tried to suggest that it would not be surprising to see Al Gore get the 2008 nomination if the DNC could not choose between Obama or Clinton.

I do not know how a multi-billion dollar corporation like CNN can comfortably post gossip like this.  They apparently were only looking for a flashy headline, because the content of the article creates a much stronger arguement for why Clinton should not seek the nomination.

This article, along with the post about Al Gore, shows both CNN’s lack of respect for facts and their ignorance towards any sort of journalistic integrity.  This is the kind of trash that anybody on the internet could write, though it should not be coming from a supposedly respected source.

I was really starting to think that even conservatives were beginning to see through Limbaugh , but apparently, too many are still too tantalized by his uncanny ability to never actually grow up.He sees exactly what he wants in any given situation and ignores all else. I can’t even think of “Operation CHAOS !” without laughing: I give him credit for seeing that Clinton was the weaker candidate, but his decision to tell people to vote for Obama shows that he either believes that Americans are all idiots or that he is truly hidden from reality.

As soon as it became statistically impossible for Obama to not get the nomination, Limbaugh decided that Obama was the weaker candidate, and that people should vote for him - keep in mind that Obama was far ahead, even with the supposed success of operation chaos’ original plan.

Just think about all of that for a few seconds.

.

.

.

….yet people still believe that he speaks “the truth”

This is just kind of ridiculous.  The Pentagon wants to prosecute anybody that can be viewed as having the slightest connection to terrorism. This makes it seem to the American people, and to the rest of the world, like the United States government is doing more than its part in preventing terrorism. Just think about 9/11/091 - within hours, the government came out with a list of 19 probable suspects in the hijackings, and most immediately called Suddam Hussein the mastermind behind it all. However, Hussein was actually on our side in the fight against terrorists, and at least six of the nineteen accused hijackers have been proved to be alive and have no connection to the attacks.

This is a similar situation, albeit on a much smaller scale. The United States has not found Bin Laden, so they are trying to connect Hamdan to the attacks so that they can at least supply a consolation prize. Anybody that has done anything that directly or indirectly aided Bin Laden risks being in the same position as Hamdan.

This is trial is the first real test of the trial system for Gitmo prisoners.  The same people that did not want to give trials to Gitmo prisoners are the same people that want to convict Hamdan. They have high political incentive to prove that the Gitmo prisoners deserve to be prisoners, and that they don’t deserve the trials.

Anybody else find the sudden designation of anything liberal as Marxist/sociolist funny? All of these people that so confidently deem anything to do with taxes, or anything to do with social welfare programs or anything to do with one person helping a needy person as socialist knows absolutely nothing about the topic and is just following the crowd.

Marx believed that class struggles drive people’s consciousness, and the struggles therefore also drive all of society. He saw socialism as being the first step away from the capitalist system, where people would be paid according to the quality and quantity of work that they did. This distribution of wealth would be controlled by the public. There is much more to him than this, though these are a few of the basic principles.

Wanting graduated taxes and affordable health care does not fit into Marx’s model. Not at all, not even if you try to force it in.

Yet somehow, Obama is a Marxist, and liberals all want socialism. Oh, and all of Europe is already socialist……….as is Canada.

It just does not make any sense to me. The election is three months from today, yet so many people are still believing everything that they are told while they simutaneously criticize others for doing the same. The most hypocritical aspect of it all is that socialism is said to restrict originality and free thought, though by allowing buzz words like “Marxist” to permeate and be used as a poor excuse for unjustified and ignorant attacks, people are beautifully displaying their lack of free will and thought.

Drilling in the “1002 section” of ANWR is too often viewed as a debate concerning the preservation of wilderness - Republicans want to drill to ease our dependence on foreign oil, while Democrats have ecological concerns. This view is highly accessible for the public, and it is thus the view the media chooses to emphasize.

However, listening to politicians’ full view on the topic exposes the true issue of energy efficiency vs. immediate demand.

Thanks to new technology that minimizes the drilling area and further research that shows the “1002 section” to be all but completely baron, most politicians now believe there to be minimal environmental impact for offshore drilling. Animal life will be safe, and there would be no fear of causing any species to go extinct.

But there is fear that drilling is a convenient, short-term solution that would not lead to the changing of habits or an increase in urgency over finding alternate fuel solutions. Obama has stated this view as the sole reason for refusing to approve of drilling, though suddenly, he is being attacked for changing his mind on the subject. However, if anybody that is criticizing him for this would care enough to further research both his stance and the stance of many other Democrats, they would find that the views have remained consistent.

Oil is a non-renewable resource. If we are to put in the immense amount of time, energy and money that is necessary for drilling, it only makes sense for us to make the oil that is there last as long as it possibly can. At the present time, the nation is not equipped to do this, though minor changes in regulation and in individual’s mindsets can quickly prepare us to add years to the length of time that the north coast oil can sustain us. The right wants to appeal to their base by supplying an immediate solution to oil concerns that would not necessitate people to change their actions, while the left wants to appeal to their base by doing what is sustainable and most environmentally-conscious.

Ted Stevens, a man who has been an Alaska senator almost for most of the time that it has been a state, was indicted yesterday for lying to federal investigators and failing to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribe money that he received from VECO, an oil contractor.  Alaskan congressman Don Young is also under investigation.

What frightens me most about this is not the corruption - I’m sure that he’s not the only politician that is currently in office to abuse power.  Most disturbing is the probability that there will not be adequate measures taken to ensure that this will not continue to happen with other politicians.  In all likelihood, Stevens will be convicted and will not be reelected, and everybody will forget about the whole situation.  What should be established is full disclosure of financial records for all members of one of the three branches of government - at the very least, this would act as a deterrent.

Politicians should not be protected as much as they are.  They have too much power, and it is too easy to abuse this power.  It makes me think of the Enron scandal - it was well acknowledged the members of both Clinton and Bush’s administrations were involved with the scandal, though  only the masterminds of the corporation were convicted - nobody put pressure on to find out more about the politicians that enabled the corruption to occur.

All of the current issues between the United States and the middle east can very possibly be attributed to the United State’s support of Israel. The United States initially began to support Israel just minutes after it was officially created in 1948, and it has been by far the strongest supporter of Israel since.

Despite any positives of having an ally in that area, it is becoming more difficult to justify the relationship. The United States sends about three billion dollars each year to Israel for economic and military grants. The money does help to continue to build Israels already powerful military, which in turn helps the United States; during the Iraq War, Israel has been aiding the United States with armored cars and other supplies.

However, our relationship with Israel has also put us at ends with most of the middle east. Much of the middle east is against any degree of western influence in their area, since religious extremists strictly interpret the Koran to explicitly state that western influence must be stopped. Extremists groups such as al quada were formed largely with this objective in mind. The United States also would not have been obligated to perpetrate much of the military action, including the gulf war, against Iraq and other middle eastern nations if we did not have the alliance.  Therefore, 9/11 and the Iraq war would not have happened.

The support of Israel would be ideal if the consequences were not so dire, but in the present situation, the pros seem absurd when compared to the cons. One of the strongest factors contributing to the United States’ support of Israel is the long-standing democracy that is established there, though since time has proven that the surrounding nations are not going to follow that lead, it is of little use to the United States.