| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
06 April, 2010
Poetry Collection 1
29 November, 2009
Their Own Interests
In response to "A Defiant Iran Details Plan for 10 Enrichment Plants" by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad of The New York Times: Sunday, 29 November.
Each group of persons, collectively, look out for their own interests. As a nation, we do this extraordinarily well. Through the years, we've looked out for our own interests by investing our time throughout the world, developing business and trade (sometimes exploiting others) and forcing ourselves into territories which may not want our presence there. By looking out for our interests, primarily our love of oil, we've been in war after war after war.
That being said, when Iran wants to look out for its own interests, which happen to conflict with ours, we put up the defense. We condemn Iran's want for nuclear energy because we are afraid that they would use it against us. Buy why? Would they use it because we've somehow exploited the Iranian government in the past? Do they want nuclear energy simply to better the placement of their nation upon the prolific scale of nations which we place ourselves at the top?
My point is that we should worry about how others in the international community view our actions. So Iran wants nuclear weapons. We monitor the situation, we don't make harsh accusations, we don't anger them. We won't always be #1, although many will be saddened to realize this truth. The United States should maintain a status of humility, humble in its dealings with other nations and people. Perhaps then we may realize a time of supposed international favour.
Each group of persons, collectively, look out for their own interests. As a nation, we do this extraordinarily well. Through the years, we've looked out for our own interests by investing our time throughout the world, developing business and trade (sometimes exploiting others) and forcing ourselves into territories which may not want our presence there. By looking out for our interests, primarily our love of oil, we've been in war after war after war.
That being said, when Iran wants to look out for its own interests, which happen to conflict with ours, we put up the defense. We condemn Iran's want for nuclear energy because we are afraid that they would use it against us. Buy why? Would they use it because we've somehow exploited the Iranian government in the past? Do they want nuclear energy simply to better the placement of their nation upon the prolific scale of nations which we place ourselves at the top?
My point is that we should worry about how others in the international community view our actions. So Iran wants nuclear weapons. We monitor the situation, we don't make harsh accusations, we don't anger them. We won't always be #1, although many will be saddened to realize this truth. The United States should maintain a status of humility, humble in its dealings with other nations and people. Perhaps then we may realize a time of supposed international favour.
22 November, 2009
Voting on Party Lines
In response to "Democrats Focus on U.S. Senators from Maine" by Carl Hulse of The New York Times: Sunday, 22 November.
We all know the Democrats are mustering their legislative strength in the Senate to pass a health-care reform bill. What we also know is that the Republican party is seemingly unwilling to enter into a debate of the proposed legislation, voting along party lines with each proposed bill. And now the Democratic party is reaching out to Senators Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, Republicans, to help gather the needed votes in the Senate to pass any bill produced.
We all know of these events, but what we sometimes fail to realize is the partisan Congress which we've created. Congress is supposed to be representative of the people, of us, but how often it is that our elected policy makers cannot come to a specified compromise. Is this legitimate truth of un-compromise representative of the American public? Well, we did vote Congress into office...
The public should be more wary of voting along partisan lines so effortlessly and conveniently. Political parties should be seen as a detractor to passing legislation and as such should be limited in their scope to avoid such misgivings to the American people as we see in the Senate and the House. No, not everyone will agree all of the time, especially in terms of politics, but we need to realize what impact a simple vote of "Republican" or "Democrat" will have on our governmental system. Instead of voting for a party, we should vote on the issues, what is of more importance.
Let's not vote along party lines.
29 October, 2009
Wait a second... I thought drugs were bad...
In response to "Brother of Afghan Leader Said to be Paid by C.I.A." by Dexter Flinkings, Mark Mazzetti, and James Risen of The New York Times: Wednesday, 27 October.
President Hamid Karzai's brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is accused of being paid by the Central Intelligence Agency. The services for which he is paid include helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force, called the Kandahar Strike Force, around Kandahar, where Ahmed Karzai resides. Normally, this kind of information would not be surprising or in any way regrettable, as we are in a war in Afghanistan: their leaders obviously need protection.
What is surprising is the presumption that Ahmed Wali Karzai is a major proponent of the lucrative opium trade which supports the Afghan economy. Chances are, we are reminded, he is benefitting from the largest opium trade system in the world. And that's not to mention that we know that the Taliban also generates a majority of its wealth from the opium trade. Karzai is seen as a direct connection with the Taliban, especially when it comes to More importantly, to remember the C.I.A.'s involvement in the Middle-East and abroad during the mid-twentieth century is to realize that our government's intent in Afghanistan may not be what we suspect or want.
To support those who are generating this drug trafficking in Afghanistan, is to support the degeneration and disunity within the country. How can we ever hope to complete the goal of a "free", "united" Afghanistan if the C.I.A., a source of "behind-the-scenes" policy execution, links itself with the supposed enemy? Not all the details of this situation are certain, but the American people have a right to know what their government is up to abroad: if it is working in the interests of its citizens, or if it yet again creates a double-standard with hypocritical behavior. We need to be aware of the whole perspective.
President Hamid Karzai's brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is accused of being paid by the Central Intelligence Agency. The services for which he is paid include helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force, called the Kandahar Strike Force, around Kandahar, where Ahmed Karzai resides. Normally, this kind of information would not be surprising or in any way regrettable, as we are in a war in Afghanistan: their leaders obviously need protection.
What is surprising is the presumption that Ahmed Wali Karzai is a major proponent of the lucrative opium trade which supports the Afghan economy. Chances are, we are reminded, he is benefitting from the largest opium trade system in the world. And that's not to mention that we know that the Taliban also generates a majority of its wealth from the opium trade. Karzai is seen as a direct connection with the Taliban, especially when it comes to More importantly, to remember the C.I.A.'s involvement in the Middle-East and abroad during the mid-twentieth century is to realize that our government's intent in Afghanistan may not be what we suspect or want.
To support those who are generating this drug trafficking in Afghanistan, is to support the degeneration and disunity within the country. How can we ever hope to complete the goal of a "free", "united" Afghanistan if the C.I.A., a source of "behind-the-scenes" policy execution, links itself with the supposed enemy? Not all the details of this situation are certain, but the American people have a right to know what their government is up to abroad: if it is working in the interests of its citizens, or if it yet again creates a double-standard with hypocritical behavior. We need to be aware of the whole perspective.
25 October, 2009
CAPITALISM
In response to "Talking Business- Short Memories At Goldman" by Joe Nocera of the New York Times: Saturday, 24 October.
Nearly half of Goldman Sachs' revenue has been used for bonuses?! $16 billion: that's incredible, especially, Nocera notes, with the fourth quarter yet to go!
The government has proved that it will not let these institutions fail. These institutions, no longer in private hands alone (as Goldman once was), are now publicly traded: they affect our financial system. Instances like this, with these excessively EXCESSIVE "compensations" for executives, need to be reviewed with more caution. Sure, the recession is "over," but do we really want to give more power to these companies by letting them take advantage of the help our government has given them? Our government bailed them out with our tax money, and there are still examples of these extravagant bonuses... Apparently, they forgot that they should be subservient to us. Or should they?
We need to be more mindful of who is in control in our society. Do we have the power to chose how our economy operates, how it serves our well-being? Should we have that power? Or should a group of financial institutions whose stated goal is to solely make money? These are serious questions that the American people need to answer if policy-makers are ever going to alleviate these problems.
The Fed wants to eliminate these bonuses and replace them with rewards more conscious of long-term profit. For the American people, this is a good solution. What better way to promote economic growth and stability than to promote it over the long-term?
We need to take control of our government, economy, and our society in general if we ever hope to become prosperous once more as a nation.
Nearly half of Goldman Sachs' revenue has been used for bonuses?! $16 billion: that's incredible, especially, Nocera notes, with the fourth quarter yet to go!
The government has proved that it will not let these institutions fail. These institutions, no longer in private hands alone (as Goldman once was), are now publicly traded: they affect our financial system. Instances like this, with these excessively EXCESSIVE "compensations" for executives, need to be reviewed with more caution. Sure, the recession is "over," but do we really want to give more power to these companies by letting them take advantage of the help our government has given them? Our government bailed them out with our tax money, and there are still examples of these extravagant bonuses... Apparently, they forgot that they should be subservient to us. Or should they?
We need to be more mindful of who is in control in our society. Do we have the power to chose how our economy operates, how it serves our well-being? Should we have that power? Or should a group of financial institutions whose stated goal is to solely make money? These are serious questions that the American people need to answer if policy-makers are ever going to alleviate these problems.
The Fed wants to eliminate these bonuses and replace them with rewards more conscious of long-term profit. For the American people, this is a good solution. What better way to promote economic growth and stability than to promote it over the long-term?
We need to take control of our government, economy, and our society in general if we ever hope to become prosperous once more as a nation.
11 October, 2009
The "Shameless Argument"
In response to "Two Wrongs Make Another Fiasco" by Frank Rich of the New York Times: Sunday, 11 October.
We need to realize what the wars in the Middle-East are for. Are they on par with the American people's values and beliefs? Do they represent our worldview? The more I ask myself these questions, the more I doubt the success and reasons for them.
The 640,000 troop level suggested by General Patraeus is outrageous! Not only would we be fueling a wild goose chase of a war, scouring the whole of the Middle-East for a threat that never was. The mere fact that intelligence officials state that "there are few, if any, links between Taliban commanders in Afghanistan today and senior Al Qaeda members" tells me that we need to reevaluate where we're going in this war. Are we really going to let ourselves be drawn into another irrelevant conflict by proponents of unsuccessful war?
These conflicts just go from one country to the next. First, Afghanistan, then Iraq, next Afghanistan again- next, Iran or Pakistan, then Somalia or Yemen- it seems to never end.
Rich makes a good point when he remembers that the goal, the victory, of the war is "left vaguely defined." And he states that the American people realize this, that there may be some sleight of hand here. This second chance can be achieved if we look past the rhetoric of those who urge for war in order to alleviate "Armageddon," if we take a good hard critical look at what we've done in the Middle-East and work to right our policy in our current situation.
We need to realize what the wars in the Middle-East are for. Are they on par with the American people's values and beliefs? Do they represent our worldview? The more I ask myself these questions, the more I doubt the success and reasons for them.
The 640,000 troop level suggested by General Patraeus is outrageous! Not only would we be fueling a wild goose chase of a war, scouring the whole of the Middle-East for a threat that never was. The mere fact that intelligence officials state that "there are few, if any, links between Taliban commanders in Afghanistan today and senior Al Qaeda members" tells me that we need to reevaluate where we're going in this war. Are we really going to let ourselves be drawn into another irrelevant conflict by proponents of unsuccessful war?
These conflicts just go from one country to the next. First, Afghanistan, then Iraq, next Afghanistan again- next, Iran or Pakistan, then Somalia or Yemen- it seems to never end.
Rich makes a good point when he remembers that the goal, the victory, of the war is "left vaguely defined." And he states that the American people realize this, that there may be some sleight of hand here. This second chance can be achieved if we look past the rhetoric of those who urge for war in order to alleviate "Armageddon," if we take a good hard critical look at what we've done in the Middle-East and work to right our policy in our current situation.
04 October, 2009
To whom it may concern- everyone.
In Response to "Cracks in the Future" by Bob Herbert of the New York Times: Saturday, 4 October.
For me, college is important. Education is important to us all; without it, how else are we to make well-informed judgments in our lives and sustain our future and that of our successors? The budget cuts from Berkeley (and those of the other UCs and college system in general) show the lack of interest for available education for those of... not-so-well-off individuals. As a future UC student, I see these occurences frightening at best. They are a reflection of our state's inability to discern what the basic needs of its residents are.
If Berkeley, one of the nation's most prestigious universities, is unable to stay properly funtional in this time of financial insecurity and governmental inability, then how stable are the rest of our nation's resources? I believe it is time for our government, and its citizens, to realize what it's doing to the sustainability of our nation. Without proper education, the United States will only slip further into cultural and economic backwardness. Our elected officials need to realize the vital importance of our public universities: they offer vast opportunities to those who deserve, but would normally be unable to attain such advancement.
Countless go through hardships due to a lack of education. California, the United States, and the world for that matter, now, more than ever, need the opportunities given out by education and these universities. If they fail, it will leave us in declination.
For me, college is important. Education is important to us all; without it, how else are we to make well-informed judgments in our lives and sustain our future and that of our successors? The budget cuts from Berkeley (and those of the other UCs and college system in general) show the lack of interest for available education for those of... not-so-well-off individuals. As a future UC student, I see these occurences frightening at best. They are a reflection of our state's inability to discern what the basic needs of its residents are.
If Berkeley, one of the nation's most prestigious universities, is unable to stay properly funtional in this time of financial insecurity and governmental inability, then how stable are the rest of our nation's resources? I believe it is time for our government, and its citizens, to realize what it's doing to the sustainability of our nation. Without proper education, the United States will only slip further into cultural and economic backwardness. Our elected officials need to realize the vital importance of our public universities: they offer vast opportunities to those who deserve, but would normally be unable to attain such advancement.
Countless go through hardships due to a lack of education. California, the United States, and the world for that matter, now, more than ever, need the opportunities given out by education and these universities. If they fail, it will leave us in declination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
