Psychiatrist: Showing Cho's Video Is 'Social Catastrophe'
Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist, had been disappointed in not the media's release of the VT Tech murderer Seung-Hui Cho video, but those who watched it.
The VT Tech student Cho murdered 32 students, injuring many others, and finally sent a chilling video about his motives and reasoning behind the shootings.
He believed that the best thing to do about the aftermath of the horrific murder of 32 (including Cho himself) is not to make him a martyr, but to publicly shame his name. To do this, the general public would have to stop caring for this murderer's motives, pre-strike signs, and his past. Instead, Welner believes that Cho was attempting to become a new "Quentin Tarantino character," and should not recieve the idol Cho has made himself.
Not only would this strike down Cho's name, but also discourage those in the future who are willing to commit murders for the same attention.
My View of this matter...
I feel like this is too strange a story for my reasoning, and I totally want to know where the evidence came from. This individual was so elaborative to make the video, intricately plan the attack, have no trouble taking a 2 hour break in between shootings (maybe security let him do it?), and a Korean-native (in the midst of Korea's nuclear and economic struggle with U.S. government)? This adds up to me that someone else was in on this one. And the fact that we are all pointing fingers at one person is the same thing as pointing all our fingers at Osama Bin Laden for the Sept. 11 attack. Both of them have little evidence of actual identity, motives, or released location of their bodies. Has anyone seen a picture of either of these two after their atrocities? Someone tell me I'm not crazy too.
I do however believe this kid was a sick and disgusting murderer himself, and his name should be removed from the general media airwaves. Cho probably loved the recognition Colombine recieved and wanted to stake his own name... let's not give anyone else an incentive to muder 30+ innocents, eh?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The media will be next on the radar...
Original Article: Browne under fire over Navy stories
This article explains how the Defense Secretary Des Browne didn't shut these servicemen/servicewoman up before they let out their stories to the public. This information could have included weaknesses in our military, but the head of the armed forces didnt do anything until damage was potentially available to the public media.
While it is true that top Navy authorities should be held responsible from allowing the story to be published, the individual servicemen and women fully knew that their stories would gather much public attention or insight on how the military is run when they were being negotiated or released from Iran. This is no different than if one of our military personnel was to indirectly explain to the enemy how defenseless our military system is at what points.
It is also irresponsible to treat this as a money issue and not as a security issue. Some want to claim that the Navy members want to make a few bucks off of a serious armed forces incident. Who cares? If they made 5 cents or retired on 8 billion dollars, it wouldn't matter.
What I'm personally aware of is that this will become an issue on whether the media should be limited to asking for such information. It was never the media's fault... they just wrote it down to continue their business... the servicemen releasing security info should be held under traitorous penalties. People giving security info like this should be legally kicked out of this country, with no citizenship rights or legal ties to the USA.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
CBC: Bush Promises to Veto Bill... great quick read!
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Bush promises to veto bill calling for troop pullout
The title proves best summary for the article.
A main subtitle below is written in red, I believe because the web site is geared towards fast-news, considering it isn't even meant to be online news, but TV and Radio for Canada. It caught my attention.
First paragraph again gives a more-specific explanation of the main player of the article: "President George W. Bush", and explains why he is the main role of the bill (able to veto).
Second paragraph gives the bottom line: President Bush will not allow senate to pass troop withdrawl bill. It also gives the place (of his speech, the main source of article).
Third paragraph explains the opposition: "The Democrats"
4-5th paragraphs detail the President's counter-opposition to the House's and Senate's efforts.
In the 6-7th paragraphs, the article quotes the bill's relation to the audience: "If Congress... the American people will..."
8-9th paragraphs explain what is at stake for the nation of America: "... put our own security at risk."
The 10-11th paragraphs explain the threat to the Democrat Party politicians' cause, ultimately highlighting the Senate Majority Leader (head opposition to President Bush on this issue).
I thought this was a great issue explaining in detail of the President's message, and the indirect (un-quoted) rebuttal from his opposition, the Democrats who support the Senate bill.
I believe the President is commander in chief, which means he makes the head military decisions, such as troop withdrawl... no matter how much I distaste his running of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe HE (yes, the President has the only Constitutional authority) should set a timetable, but not totally re-deploy troops out of the Middle East, but rather keep them closeby to be sure if the Iraqi security is at risk (given sufficient evidence), then American forces would help re-stabilize.
But doesn't this remind us to vote a President into office who has military experience? duh...
The title proves best summary for the article.
A main subtitle below is written in red, I believe because the web site is geared towards fast-news, considering it isn't even meant to be online news, but TV and Radio for Canada. It caught my attention.
First paragraph again gives a more-specific explanation of the main player of the article: "President George W. Bush", and explains why he is the main role of the bill (able to veto).
Second paragraph gives the bottom line: President Bush will not allow senate to pass troop withdrawl bill. It also gives the place (of his speech, the main source of article).
Third paragraph explains the opposition: "The Democrats"
4-5th paragraphs detail the President's counter-opposition to the House's and Senate's efforts.
In the 6-7th paragraphs, the article quotes the bill's relation to the audience: "If Congress... the American people will..."
8-9th paragraphs explain what is at stake for the nation of America: "... put our own security at risk."
The 10-11th paragraphs explain the threat to the Democrat Party politicians' cause, ultimately highlighting the Senate Majority Leader (head opposition to President Bush on this issue).
I thought this was a great issue explaining in detail of the President's message, and the indirect (un-quoted) rebuttal from his opposition, the Democrats who support the Senate bill.
I believe the President is commander in chief, which means he makes the head military decisions, such as troop withdrawl... no matter how much I distaste his running of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe HE (yes, the President has the only Constitutional authority) should set a timetable, but not totally re-deploy troops out of the Middle East, but rather keep them closeby to be sure if the Iraqi security is at risk (given sufficient evidence), then American forces would help re-stabilize.
But doesn't this remind us to vote a President into office who has military experience? duh...
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Lend Mortgages 'Til You Drop!
Subprime troubles send stocks into swoon
Adam Shell did a very interestingly-written story on the economy’s response and explanation of Tuesday’s 243-point drop in the DJIA, rippling into many other dependent factors.
First, he points out the culprit in the title: “Subprime troubles”
This clearly states the issues to be discussed in the rest of the article and sub-articles.
The second paragraph explains the further urgency of the situation: “prompting investors to wonder just how deep the damage in the mortgage business will turn out to be.”
A sub-story follows, explaining more detailed approach to the individual companies who faltered, and the effect it will have on the given money-lending companies. Also introduced is the outcry for government assistance, with its pros and cons quoted.
Later on, the ripple effect concerning the reader was the S&P500. 2 companies of high interest were mentioned as losing catastrophic number percentage drops.
Also mentioned was February 27th’s market drop, and its relation to this current situation.
And the great graphs and links helped more to understand the economic language.
And concluded was a quote by suggesting action and ambition towards economic recovery.
But for my opinion, I believe this is so expected...
We have the PATRIOT ACT in place for the U.S. government to monitor bank-lending and react accordingly (cheating capitalism).
We also have a very desperate home-building mentality in common middle-class to high-class families. Most feel they have to borrow more money from credit cards, and pay the credit card comapnies with what they would pay their mortgages. Then their is a difficult money trail of sub-lenders in trouble and too confused as to who eventually pays back the loans. 61% housholds owe $1000+ to credit card companies.
And last but not least.. This hasn’t taken its full effect yet because it is early, but illegal immigrants can apply for credit, so the debt might never leave a trail.
Adam Shell did a very interestingly-written story on the economy’s response and explanation of Tuesday’s 243-point drop in the DJIA, rippling into many other dependent factors.
First, he points out the culprit in the title: “Subprime troubles”
This clearly states the issues to be discussed in the rest of the article and sub-articles.
The second paragraph explains the further urgency of the situation: “prompting investors to wonder just how deep the damage in the mortgage business will turn out to be.”
A sub-story follows, explaining more detailed approach to the individual companies who faltered, and the effect it will have on the given money-lending companies. Also introduced is the outcry for government assistance, with its pros and cons quoted.
Later on, the ripple effect concerning the reader was the S&P500. 2 companies of high interest were mentioned as losing catastrophic number percentage drops.
Also mentioned was February 27th’s market drop, and its relation to this current situation.
And the great graphs and links helped more to understand the economic language.
And concluded was a quote by suggesting action and ambition towards economic recovery.
But for my opinion, I believe this is so expected...
We have the PATRIOT ACT in place for the U.S. government to monitor bank-lending and react accordingly (cheating capitalism).
We also have a very desperate home-building mentality in common middle-class to high-class families. Most feel they have to borrow more money from credit cards, and pay the credit card comapnies with what they would pay their mortgages. Then their is a difficult money trail of sub-lenders in trouble and too confused as to who eventually pays back the loans. 61% housholds owe $1000+ to credit card companies.
And last but not least.. This hasn’t taken its full effect yet because it is early, but illegal immigrants can apply for credit, so the debt might never leave a trail.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
MSNBC : Great authorship!
This is one of the best articles I've ever read!
MSNBC : Some fear Iran's space program is hostile
In the first paragraph, it explains who is concerned with the issue: "Europe and the United States.
It also concludes that the main conflict is Western "Fear" (of long-range missiles) VS Tehran's "Peaceful" Reassurance.
The article continues then to Iran's motives and outside speculation, but without giving them descriptively.
Immediately, a sub-story is created that explains the International and American concern with the space program quickly becoming a secret weapons program.
After that sub-story, another follows, explaining the imminent technological advancements similar to the great military power of the United States.
The next sub-story explains the proposed "evidence" of a threat to Europe. It later pulls into reality that the development of the high-range missile potential was not conclusive.
The subsequent sub-story finally explains what Iran's reasons are for the space program. Iranian officials also compared their ambitions similar to the American satellite uses in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then there is disagreement in how imminent the missile successes will come to Iran: One side says that it will come soon, the other views it as a "bluff"
Finally comes the bottom line: Will this "making Iran bigger" be an excuse to attack Iran? And if not, Iran will inevitably produce the missiles, so the threat will not disappear.
Personally, I think it is illogical to think that Iran could only have the equivalent technology as the 1950s United States. It's not like they're beating rocks together... They have advanced computers, military advancements, and a lot of other things that the rest of the civilized world shares.
But let's not be so paranoid that Iran might be making a missile... IT'S GOING TO HEPPEN ANYWAYS. What the United States and Europe need to do is not start another endless war, but to build a new branch (if there isn't one already) of military which is concerned with de-activates missile launches (like satellite-guided missile jamming).
MSNBC : Some fear Iran's space program is hostile
In the first paragraph, it explains who is concerned with the issue: "Europe and the United States.
It also concludes that the main conflict is Western "Fear" (of long-range missiles) VS Tehran's "Peaceful" Reassurance.
The article continues then to Iran's motives and outside speculation, but without giving them descriptively.
Immediately, a sub-story is created that explains the International and American concern with the space program quickly becoming a secret weapons program.
After that sub-story, another follows, explaining the imminent technological advancements similar to the great military power of the United States.
The next sub-story explains the proposed "evidence" of a threat to Europe. It later pulls into reality that the development of the high-range missile potential was not conclusive.
The subsequent sub-story finally explains what Iran's reasons are for the space program. Iranian officials also compared their ambitions similar to the American satellite uses in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then there is disagreement in how imminent the missile successes will come to Iran: One side says that it will come soon, the other views it as a "bluff"
Finally comes the bottom line: Will this "making Iran bigger" be an excuse to attack Iran? And if not, Iran will inevitably produce the missiles, so the threat will not disappear.
Personally, I think it is illogical to think that Iran could only have the equivalent technology as the 1950s United States. It's not like they're beating rocks together... They have advanced computers, military advancements, and a lot of other things that the rest of the civilized world shares.
But let's not be so paranoid that Iran might be making a missile... IT'S GOING TO HEPPEN ANYWAYS. What the United States and Europe need to do is not start another endless war, but to build a new branch (if there isn't one already) of military which is concerned with de-activates missile launches (like satellite-guided missile jamming).
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Introduction to My Past Disgruntlement on the New York Times as a whole.
Both times I have read the actual New York Times newspaper (which I admit is like twice), I found the front page always accusing the Bush administration or anything to do with his policies a mistake.
But this article pointed more blame on the situation, and not the administration.
That is what I consider a credible and honorable news story: A story that mentions failures for a reason... Not to accuse SOMEONE, but SOMETHING.
Personally, I don't care to read what the "Bush administration" (a government not directly governed by President Bush) did, but what solutions and viewpoints there are available to solve the situation. I'm not interested in reading tabloid-like finger-pointing like I often see on CNN or FoxNews!
And I'm definately not interested in something I can't control or personally suggest a solution to.
But this article pointed more blame on the situation, and not the administration.
That is what I consider a credible and honorable news story: A story that mentions failures for a reason... Not to accuse SOMEONE, but SOMETHING.
Personally, I don't care to read what the "Bush administration" (a government not directly governed by President Bush) did, but what solutions and viewpoints there are available to solve the situation. I'm not interested in reading tabloid-like finger-pointing like I often see on CNN or FoxNews!
And I'm definately not interested in something I can't control or personally suggest a solution to.
A Great New York Times Article Ripped to Shreds
Cheney Warns Pakistan to Act Against Terrorists
The lede starts with a visual protest of a disgruntled Pakistani government against a "dictation" by Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a great summary of the main point of the article, and is later revisited in the article.
The next paragraph explains in efficient detail on why this story is written, and why it becomes interesting to those interested in the world's government affairs. Most people reading this are interested in this genre of news based on the title, which suggests international politics.
Immediately following that paragraph, the story unfolds and more intricate details of the Vice President's visit.
First, it catches the reader's attention by intriguing the curiosity to government secrets, and also why the New York Times was one of the few that knew about his transportation to Afghanistan (which isn't answered).
Then, it explains the reason for other international readers to read the article: The decline in aid for the Pakistani role in the War on Terror.
Finally, the article ends without much of a conclusion. It briefly re-visited the protest by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, but it then re-develops an off-topic detailing of the "secrecy" of the Vice President's travel to Pakistan, compared to other past Presidential examples of similar security circumstances.
But why re-visit the "secrecy"? Probably because the readers of ths article truly want to know about government secrets, to satisfy their hunger for conspiracy and again tabloid-like fingerpointing at President Bush and President Clinton (Clinton was probably added to that conspiracy-hungered paragraph to disqualify this article as an anti-Bush-administration bias story).
Call me crazy, but the end of the news story imploded when the writer had to add in an irrelevant conclusion (because it has nothing to do with title or introduction), just to satisfy anti-Bush administration conspiracy-theorists.
This is a great example of how the New Yorks Times editors in the hierarchy of the business are radically anti-Bush administration, because I believe that the little added snippet was edited and inserted into the article after the original writer passed in the draft... And a sloppy job at that, in my opinion.
The lede starts with a visual protest of a disgruntled Pakistani government against a "dictation" by Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a great summary of the main point of the article, and is later revisited in the article.
The next paragraph explains in efficient detail on why this story is written, and why it becomes interesting to those interested in the world's government affairs. Most people reading this are interested in this genre of news based on the title, which suggests international politics.
Immediately following that paragraph, the story unfolds and more intricate details of the Vice President's visit.
First, it catches the reader's attention by intriguing the curiosity to government secrets, and also why the New York Times was one of the few that knew about his transportation to Afghanistan (which isn't answered).
Then, it explains the reason for other international readers to read the article: The decline in aid for the Pakistani role in the War on Terror.
Finally, the article ends without much of a conclusion. It briefly re-visited the protest by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, but it then re-develops an off-topic detailing of the "secrecy" of the Vice President's travel to Pakistan, compared to other past Presidential examples of similar security circumstances.
But why re-visit the "secrecy"? Probably because the readers of ths article truly want to know about government secrets, to satisfy their hunger for conspiracy and again tabloid-like fingerpointing at President Bush and President Clinton (Clinton was probably added to that conspiracy-hungered paragraph to disqualify this article as an anti-Bush-administration bias story).
Call me crazy, but the end of the news story imploded when the writer had to add in an irrelevant conclusion (because it has nothing to do with title or introduction), just to satisfy anti-Bush administration conspiracy-theorists.
This is a great example of how the New Yorks Times editors in the hierarchy of the business are radically anti-Bush administration, because I believe that the little added snippet was edited and inserted into the article after the original writer passed in the draft... And a sloppy job at that, in my opinion.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Fox News is Now Officially Boring to Ryan!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201786,00.html
This Fox News article was titled "Big Asteroid to Make Close Pass by Earth". To me, I clicked on it because I thought it would be another crazy armageddon media threat to scare or provoke interest. In this way it did, but as the story begins with its lede, it loses my interest because it almost immediately claims there is no threat to Earth: "...but astronomers say there is no danger of an impact."
And just to put out the last flame of my morbid world-ending interests, it is revealed that the distance of the asteroid is further from the moon, and will be barely visible even with a telescope. Not only that, but it was discovered and analyzed in 2004, and is no surprise to astrologists.
It then ends with a imagined background of a normal star filled sky, but with a little shooting star at around midnight.
But mybe this was the point... to make us feel secure. As a mater of belief, I follow conservative radio and news, and the main stories ou hear end in "everything is okay in your backyard" or "be involved, but stay at home".
What a waste of someone's time! At least the radiclly-liberal New York Times sparks national interest... the best thing anyone else has outside that newspaper today is Anna Nicole Smith's dead carcass and stories full of "NOYB" (None of Your Business).
This Fox News article was titled "Big Asteroid to Make Close Pass by Earth". To me, I clicked on it because I thought it would be another crazy armageddon media threat to scare or provoke interest. In this way it did, but as the story begins with its lede, it loses my interest because it almost immediately claims there is no threat to Earth: "...but astronomers say there is no danger of an impact."
And just to put out the last flame of my morbid world-ending interests, it is revealed that the distance of the asteroid is further from the moon, and will be barely visible even with a telescope. Not only that, but it was discovered and analyzed in 2004, and is no surprise to astrologists.
It then ends with a imagined background of a normal star filled sky, but with a little shooting star at around midnight.
But mybe this was the point... to make us feel secure. As a mater of belief, I follow conservative radio and news, and the main stories ou hear end in "everything is okay in your backyard" or "be involved, but stay at home".
What a waste of someone's time! At least the radiclly-liberal New York Times sparks national interest... the best thing anyone else has outside that newspaper today is Anna Nicole Smith's dead carcass and stories full of "NOYB" (None of Your Business).
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
10-Foot Pile of Hell, but it's not hot up there...
Yes, recorded is 11 foot of total snowfall in the Great Lakes region in the USA. Temperatures have not exctly fallen to record lows this week, but storms have ravaged the northeast with no relent for weeks at a time. 25 deaths were blamed for the last storms earlier this month, and 5 deaths so far recorded for this one.
I'd hate to say it, but this should be a wakeup call to anyone who still thinks it's going to get better up in the northeast. El Nino is blamed for this active winter season, and this cycle normally lasts over 2 consecutive years, although it looks more like La Nina. I know that my relatives have most moved down to Florida because it was almost un-bearable for a middle or low-class family to stay warm and active during the winter season.
(El Nino/La Nina)
And yes, the southeast has taken its own toll of weather catastrophes, such as the recent tornados which killed 20 people. But the tradeoff is that this week some of us in Florida are still wearing shorts and sandals, while at 1000 miles north, schools are closing because the snow makes it impossible for transportation.
THEY DONT CALL THE SOUTH THE SUNBELT FOR NO REASON!
Main Story
I'd hate to say it, but this should be a wakeup call to anyone who still thinks it's going to get better up in the northeast. El Nino is blamed for this active winter season, and this cycle normally lasts over 2 consecutive years, although it looks more like La Nina. I know that my relatives have most moved down to Florida because it was almost un-bearable for a middle or low-class family to stay warm and active during the winter season.
(El Nino/La Nina)
And yes, the southeast has taken its own toll of weather catastrophes, such as the recent tornados which killed 20 people. But the tradeoff is that this week some of us in Florida are still wearing shorts and sandals, while at 1000 miles north, schools are closing because the snow makes it impossible for transportation.
THEY DONT CALL THE SOUTH THE SUNBELT FOR NO REASON!
Main Story
Thursday, February 8, 2007
NOT FOR MMC2100, but if you're interested...
If anyone is remotely interested, check out The American Pub. And no, it has nothing to do with FCCJ, so dont go crazy.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Presidential Candidates Popping Like Wildflowers!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250497,00.html
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Guliani has put in the papers... He's in for 2008!
For anyone else that is sick and tired of Radical Party bases of the Democrats and Republicans, here's an answer.
Small Government, Strong Defense, Pro-Choice, Support for Gay Marriage... He sounds more like a Libertarian than anything?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/5/161823.shtml?s=br
And also Michael Savage, a Nationally-Syndicated Talk-Show Host of The Savage Nation, has talked to Newsmax.com about opening a presidential bid: "I'm only exploring this"
Both have given new hope for a long-drawn Bush Republican Party. So let's examine why they qualify for our valuable Presidential Vote in 2008....
In an interview with Sean Hannidy on Hannidy and Colmes, Hannidy asks many questions concerning the Conservative base. Of course, you know Hannidy just re-hashed everything over and over again, but it made great publication of Gulliani's Value-Base.
Gulliani says that he has qualifying candidacy in his "experiences that I've had as mayor of New York City, United States attorney, all of them very, very, strongly, kind of in the executive area, where you have to have leadership, and organization, and focus"
Also, he mentions his successes of being Mayor of New York City, such as "I lowered taxes in New York. I reduced the size of government in New York. I took a $2.4 billion deficit and turned it into a $3.2 billion surplus."
Clearly a Conservative Base, he answered off-Republican responses to our issues today.
Added to his past recognition in NYC, he also believes every woman has a right to abortion "as long as there's provision for the life of the mother", supports different states' rights to authorize gun-bans, promotes English-language-tested citizenship for any illegal immigrant that are not "drug dealers, and the criminals, and now the terrorists", and fully supports to "put Iraq in the context of a much broader picture than just Iraq."
Michael Savage, on the other hand, is a more Conservative-Based individual, who does not support Liberal views of Guliani like gay-marriage.
He feels he's somewhat qualified for President in 2008 because he is "somebody who's not a politician might be a viable candidate."
He said he will focus his main attention to "Borders, language, Culture."
He believes that America today is fighting a war with "the rules of engagement of a state trooper in the United States."
Among additional views, he believes Global Warming is natural, anti-gay, and his show is known for "psychological nudity".
So there you have it! 2 Sparks within the Republican party, just making news yesterday, for the 2008 Presidential bid.
Personally, Guliani has done amazing works in NYC, and I support his view of granting citizenship to those already here (without drug-smuggling, crime records, and welfare recipients). I also agree that gay marriage is up to the individual, as is abortion. The War on Islamic Terrorism is Number 2 priority as of now, behind number 1 which is restoring Constitutional Govt Standards (like repealing 17th Ammendment). He is my number 2 pick, behind George Phillies (Libertarian)
And as much as I adore and actually look foward to his radio show, Michael Savage is way too Conservative for me. He wants to outlaw Gay Marriage on all non-heterosexual sexualities (I suppoprt individual choice), believes we should just carpet bomb certain areas of Iraq (regaurdless of consequences), and his main topic of Presidential action on "Culture" (working on culture? Too Fascist for my vote...)
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Guliani has put in the papers... He's in for 2008!
For anyone else that is sick and tired of Radical Party bases of the Democrats and Republicans, here's an answer.
Small Government, Strong Defense, Pro-Choice, Support for Gay Marriage... He sounds more like a Libertarian than anything?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/5/161823.shtml?s=br
And also Michael Savage, a Nationally-Syndicated Talk-Show Host of The Savage Nation, has talked to Newsmax.com about opening a presidential bid: "I'm only exploring this"
Both have given new hope for a long-drawn Bush Republican Party. So let's examine why they qualify for our valuable Presidential Vote in 2008....
In an interview with Sean Hannidy on Hannidy and Colmes, Hannidy asks many questions concerning the Conservative base. Of course, you know Hannidy just re-hashed everything over and over again, but it made great publication of Gulliani's Value-Base.
Gulliani says that he has qualifying candidacy in his "experiences that I've had as mayor of New York City, United States attorney, all of them very, very, strongly, kind of in the executive area, where you have to have leadership, and organization, and focus"
Also, he mentions his successes of being Mayor of New York City, such as "I lowered taxes in New York. I reduced the size of government in New York. I took a $2.4 billion deficit and turned it into a $3.2 billion surplus."
Clearly a Conservative Base, he answered off-Republican responses to our issues today.
Added to his past recognition in NYC, he also believes every woman has a right to abortion "as long as there's provision for the life of the mother", supports different states' rights to authorize gun-bans, promotes English-language-tested citizenship for any illegal immigrant that are not "drug dealers, and the criminals, and now the terrorists", and fully supports to "put Iraq in the context of a much broader picture than just Iraq."
Michael Savage, on the other hand, is a more Conservative-Based individual, who does not support Liberal views of Guliani like gay-marriage.
He feels he's somewhat qualified for President in 2008 because he is "somebody who's not a politician might be a viable candidate."
He said he will focus his main attention to "Borders, language, Culture."
He believes that America today is fighting a war with "the rules of engagement of a state trooper in the United States."
Among additional views, he believes Global Warming is natural, anti-gay, and his show is known for "psychological nudity".
So there you have it! 2 Sparks within the Republican party, just making news yesterday, for the 2008 Presidential bid.
Personally, Guliani has done amazing works in NYC, and I support his view of granting citizenship to those already here (without drug-smuggling, crime records, and welfare recipients). I also agree that gay marriage is up to the individual, as is abortion. The War on Islamic Terrorism is Number 2 priority as of now, behind number 1 which is restoring Constitutional Govt Standards (like repealing 17th Ammendment). He is my number 2 pick, behind George Phillies (Libertarian)
And as much as I adore and actually look foward to his radio show, Michael Savage is way too Conservative for me. He wants to outlaw Gay Marriage on all non-heterosexual sexualities (I suppoprt individual choice), believes we should just carpet bomb certain areas of Iraq (regaurdless of consequences), and his main topic of Presidential action on "Culture" (working on culture? Too Fascist for my vote...)
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Post World War II Cleanup... 60 years later?
Don't we all know that in 1945, Nazi Germany fell to the hands of the Allied forces? Well, not without a trail. Since 1946, when cleanup crews began to clean areas ravaged by WWII in Germany, the German government is still paying bomb-squads to cleanup leftover war material. Materials like grenades, bullet shell, mortars, and rockets are still being uncovered beneath the rock and metal underground. Across the surrounding landscape, there is still visible evidence that battles were fought or munitions were tested... and abandoned.
Not too many people know how the Nazi government fell in 1945, in retreat of the mostly-Soviet advance from the East. Jews held in concentration camps were rushed through trains and went on death marches towards the center of Germany for a final last stand... and left a messy trail behind. Although most of the evils of the concentration camps were destroyed to hide evidence of the Nazi crimes against humanity, we know today from the Jewish witnesses that the Holocaust was real.
Also, the large ammunition-manufacturers (labored by the Jewish and war prisoners) were hastily left behind with a trail. There were extremely-quick advancements being made to weaponry in these ammunitions-making and testing facilities of the Nazi camps. For example, had the retreat of the Nazis been delayed for more than 6 months, their V-2 Rockets, which were almost as damaging as any bomb-equipped Tomcat fighter of today. It could fire 120 miles away to a perfectly-targeted objective, and only needed a few more months to advance their own similar nuclear bombs.
This news story is just evidence of a reminder that Nazi Germany was only 60 years ago--- within the lifetime of most senior citizens. And how close this world truly was to the chaos that insumed the desperate, horrible, and bloody retreat similar to the ancient Romans. The Allies may have even been forced to surrender?
Not too many people know how the Nazi government fell in 1945, in retreat of the mostly-Soviet advance from the East. Jews held in concentration camps were rushed through trains and went on death marches towards the center of Germany for a final last stand... and left a messy trail behind. Although most of the evils of the concentration camps were destroyed to hide evidence of the Nazi crimes against humanity, we know today from the Jewish witnesses that the Holocaust was real.
Also, the large ammunition-manufacturers (labored by the Jewish and war prisoners) were hastily left behind with a trail. There were extremely-quick advancements being made to weaponry in these ammunitions-making and testing facilities of the Nazi camps. For example, had the retreat of the Nazis been delayed for more than 6 months, their V-2 Rockets, which were almost as damaging as any bomb-equipped Tomcat fighter of today. It could fire 120 miles away to a perfectly-targeted objective, and only needed a few more months to advance their own similar nuclear bombs.
This news story is just evidence of a reminder that Nazi Germany was only 60 years ago--- within the lifetime of most senior citizens. And how close this world truly was to the chaos that insumed the desperate, horrible, and bloody retreat similar to the ancient Romans. The Allies may have even been forced to surrender?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
United States of Iraq? Best to look back at America's Past
"http://planforiraq.com/dow
nload"
Arent we a little pissed and tired of "stay the course" and "cut and run"?
Why not consider that we do neither?
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), a democrat who, in his "Plan for Iraq", has a main basis for our victory in making a new stable Iraq that involves neither the American troops deaths nor the Iraqi's downfall.... STATES RIGHTS?! WHAT A CONCEPT!
Well, he feels that since it is clear that there are 3 seperate (and almost completely-distinguishable) regions of 3 particular groups of Iraqis: Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.
Here's how these regions are divided into 18 regions: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/
maps/atlas_middle_east/ira
q_divisions.jpg
... and i dont have an online source, but this week's newsweek mag had a map of the 3 main groups of sunnis, shiites, and kurds. (kurds top, shiite lower right, and sunnis everything else)
Doesn't our own history explain itself in this situation? The American Civil War was NOT all about slavery, but states rights. I, personally, am an advocate of the old Confederacy (except for the slavery and mob-rule problems), and believe that if the Confederacy gained independence, the world would be much different... but our government wouldn't be so conspiratorial, power-hungry, and politically-driven as it is today... and the world would prob be even more stable, considering the South and the North would've cooperated in both World Wars and the Cold War. Not only that, but there would've been heavy competition between the Union and the Confederacy, and that would've produced a more advanced North America (and I bet the Confederacy would've conquested Mexico, and the Union Canada- making them both better nations than they are today).
That is what could happen to Iraq, if we just consider the simple-genious of 3 states under a Confederacy-like Federalism, in which there are well-balanced and limited powers of the central government (capitol Baghdad). Oil would be evenly distributed proportionately and national security- but besides that, the states retain most of thier own powers.
nload"
Arent we a little pissed and tired of "stay the course" and "cut and run"?
Why not consider that we do neither?
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), a democrat who, in his "Plan for Iraq", has a main basis for our victory in making a new stable Iraq that involves neither the American troops deaths nor the Iraqi's downfall.... STATES RIGHTS?! WHAT A CONCEPT!
Well, he feels that since it is clear that there are 3 seperate (and almost completely-distinguishable) regions of 3 particular groups of Iraqis: Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.
Here's how these regions are divided into 18 regions: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/
maps/atlas_middle_east/ira
q_divisions.jpg
... and i dont have an online source, but this week's newsweek mag had a map of the 3 main groups of sunnis, shiites, and kurds. (kurds top, shiite lower right, and sunnis everything else)
Doesn't our own history explain itself in this situation? The American Civil War was NOT all about slavery, but states rights. I, personally, am an advocate of the old Confederacy (except for the slavery and mob-rule problems), and believe that if the Confederacy gained independence, the world would be much different... but our government wouldn't be so conspiratorial, power-hungry, and politically-driven as it is today... and the world would prob be even more stable, considering the South and the North would've cooperated in both World Wars and the Cold War. Not only that, but there would've been heavy competition between the Union and the Confederacy, and that would've produced a more advanced North America (and I bet the Confederacy would've conquested Mexico, and the Union Canada- making them both better nations than they are today).
That is what could happen to Iraq, if we just consider the simple-genious of 3 states under a Confederacy-like Federalism, in which there are well-balanced and limited powers of the central government (capitol Baghdad). Oil would be evenly distributed proportionately and national security- but besides that, the states retain most of thier own powers.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Since 1987, Conservative radio has flourished, Liberal radio slowly decayed of itself, and NPR has become a good un-biased network to show different views and events of our world.
So what's the problem?
Power-hungry politicians and lame-duck liberals playing politics with "The Fairness Doctrine" to get their voice heard by force. And now that the Congress is held by Democrats, Free Speech is fair game.
What is the Fairness Doctrine? In a nutshell, the Fairness Doctrine (a unianimous agreement with no true legislation) required all broadcasters of radio to give a "fair" amount of airtime to express opinions. That was... until 1987 when it was decided unconstitutional.
"The FCC held that the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine)
Although it sounds "fair" to hold both voices for every issue presented, it can indirectly become commercial suicide. What if the people don't care to hear all sides of every single minute issue presented on talk radio? Well, the simple solution is that they will stop listening to it, because they dont have the time nor patience to listen to one issue with 10 viewpoints, rather than 10 issues with one viewpoint. (the only alternative is to limit 50 viewpoints to one measley sentence for one issue, as oppose to 50 comprehensive sentences with one viewpoint issue) When people tune out of the radio, advertising during the radio programs become useless and costly, so the radio station sponsors don't sponsor the station anymore. Once enough sponsors have gone, the investor of the radio station will have no choice but to give up the station.
... and to whom? Well, the only institutions who can afford to lose money by broadcasting are charities and the Government. Charities wouldn't care to spend money on stations, because broadcasting all viewpoints would be too expensive. But the Federal Government doesn't really have a limit to how much it can spend, considering it can just tax the American people, and doesn't seem to have a problem with deficit spending nowadays.
I also recall Nazi government relentlessly taking over all of the communications and using propoganda to convince the people to murder 3+million Jews in the 1930s-1940s
Here's a hypothetical preview of how our limitation of free speech will assume position under the Fairness Doctrine (limited to 13 words to conserve time for "equal" representation)...
Question: What do you think about the escalation of illegal-Mexican murder rates nationally?
Democrat: "Where are the statistics of the average murder rates nationally?It'd be worse!"
Socialist: "Well, why don't we count the rich-American murder rates, which are higher?"
African-American: "This is another right-wing attack on another minority, just like Rosa Parks."
Mexican-American: "Why are we, the Mexican-Americans, always targeted for this sort of attack?"
Asian-American: "This event does not specifically or definitively concern me in any direct way..."
Republican: "Well, this is one more reason why we should close the border now."
Green: "Someone should have given them a flower; then they would both be happy."
Nazi: "The Mexicans should have died; there would be less of the problem, right?"
Libertarian: "I'm assuming that they did this because they are upset with the government."
Communist: "This is blatently unfair; The government should kill both of them right now."
Without the Fairness Doctrine, with 130 words with one viewpoint:
Question: What do you think about the escalation of illegal-Mexican murder rates nationally?
Neal Boortz (Conservative-Libertarian): "On Saturday night a Tennessee State Trooper was shot and killed by 17-year-old Alejandro Guana and 19-year-old Orlando Garcia. It would seem that the two Hispanics were transporting drugs.
The next question is were these two Hispanic thugs in this country legally? Were they illegal aliens? Last week a 14-year veteran law enforcement officer was killed in a head-on accident as he was driving to work. You guessed it .. an illegal alien caused the accident.
Twenty-five Americans a day. That's the estimate of the death toll from the Mexican invasion. About one-half of that number from murders, the other half from traffic accidents.
That's going to change soon, though. The Democrats will soon be introducing their amnesty bill .. and George Bush will be all-to-eager to sign it."
.... which gave you more information? With the Fairness Doctrine (10 views with 13 words), or without (1 view with 130 words)?
And one more thing... doesn't NPR already cover the multiple viewpoints?
I admit, there are many radio shows, like Sean Hannidy and Rush Limbaugh, that do not...
It is mind-numb to believe this "fairness" eventually leads to a fair viewpoint. Considering the government, in the long run, would theoretically become the one sole viewpoint in the end, there will be
So what's the problem?
Power-hungry politicians and lame-duck liberals playing politics with "The Fairness Doctrine" to get their voice heard by force. And now that the Congress is held by Democrats, Free Speech is fair game.
What is the Fairness Doctrine? In a nutshell, the Fairness Doctrine (a unianimous agreement with no true legislation) required all broadcasters of radio to give a "fair" amount of airtime to express opinions. That was... until 1987 when it was decided unconstitutional.
"The FCC held that the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine)
Although it sounds "fair" to hold both voices for every issue presented, it can indirectly become commercial suicide. What if the people don't care to hear all sides of every single minute issue presented on talk radio? Well, the simple solution is that they will stop listening to it, because they dont have the time nor patience to listen to one issue with 10 viewpoints, rather than 10 issues with one viewpoint. (the only alternative is to limit 50 viewpoints to one measley sentence for one issue, as oppose to 50 comprehensive sentences with one viewpoint issue) When people tune out of the radio, advertising during the radio programs become useless and costly, so the radio station sponsors don't sponsor the station anymore. Once enough sponsors have gone, the investor of the radio station will have no choice but to give up the station.
... and to whom? Well, the only institutions who can afford to lose money by broadcasting are charities and the Government. Charities wouldn't care to spend money on stations, because broadcasting all viewpoints would be too expensive. But the Federal Government doesn't really have a limit to how much it can spend, considering it can just tax the American people, and doesn't seem to have a problem with deficit spending nowadays.
I also recall Nazi government relentlessly taking over all of the communications and using propoganda to convince the people to murder 3+million Jews in the 1930s-1940s
Here's a hypothetical preview of how our limitation of free speech will assume position under the Fairness Doctrine (limited to 13 words to conserve time for "equal" representation)...
Question: What do you think about the escalation of illegal-Mexican murder rates nationally?
Democrat: "Where are the statistics of the average murder rates nationally?It'd be worse!"
Socialist: "Well, why don't we count the rich-American murder rates, which are higher?"
African-American: "This is another right-wing attack on another minority, just like Rosa Parks."
Mexican-American: "Why are we, the Mexican-Americans, always targeted for this sort of attack?"
Asian-American: "This event does not specifically or definitively concern me in any direct way..."
Republican: "Well, this is one more reason why we should close the border now."
Green: "Someone should have given them a flower; then they would both be happy."
Nazi: "The Mexicans should have died; there would be less of the problem, right?"
Libertarian: "I'm assuming that they did this because they are upset with the government."
Communist: "This is blatently unfair; The government should kill both of them right now."
Without the Fairness Doctrine, with 130 words with one viewpoint:
Question: What do you think about the escalation of illegal-Mexican murder rates nationally?
Neal Boortz (Conservative-Libertarian): "On Saturday night a Tennessee State Trooper was shot and killed by 17-year-old Alejandro Guana and 19-year-old Orlando Garcia. It would seem that the two Hispanics were transporting drugs.
The next question is were these two Hispanic thugs in this country legally? Were they illegal aliens? Last week a 14-year veteran law enforcement officer was killed in a head-on accident as he was driving to work. You guessed it .. an illegal alien caused the accident.
Twenty-five Americans a day. That's the estimate of the death toll from the Mexican invasion. About one-half of that number from murders, the other half from traffic accidents.
That's going to change soon, though. The Democrats will soon be introducing their amnesty bill .. and George Bush will be all-to-eager to sign it."
.... which gave you more information? With the Fairness Doctrine (10 views with 13 words), or without (1 view with 130 words)?
And one more thing... doesn't NPR already cover the multiple viewpoints?
I admit, there are many radio shows, like Sean Hannidy and Rush Limbaugh, that do not...
It is mind-numb to believe this "fairness" eventually leads to a fair viewpoint. Considering the government, in the long run, would theoretically become the one sole viewpoint in the end, there will be
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
