Discussion
Monday, June 23, 2008
-
The Stigma of Socialism
Why is it that when Americans, fiscal conservatives / libertarians in particular, hear Socialism it has a negative stigma.
At first after reading books like Animal Farm and 1984, of course I felt this way. But as time went on and I could actually sense the difference between Totalitarian states, Fascist states, Communist states and Socialist states, Socialism didn't seem as negative.
I believe absolute socialism can't work. Absolute being the key word, state owned property, no independent insurance, financial equality, etc. That is doomed to fail, however I believe certain socialist polices can work such as socialized insurance.
America is the most conservative of Western nations.
We are among the worst in industrialized nations in a number of categories.
I enjoy using Scandinavian Countries as examples, mainly because they do so many things better than we do. I employ you to research some data about their economy. In Norway the cost of living is much higher, however the benefits from this higher cost of living is immeasurable. In Denmark taxes are near 50%! However it is one of the most energy independent countries in the world.
How do they do it? One major way is that windmills are built in the bays on the Baltic Sea, and the Ocean breeze gives a considerable amount of power. San Francisco, Los Angelos, San Diego, New York, Boston, many other coastal cities could all do the same thing, but most do not.
Here is information on how Nordic countries in general handle their energy problems.
Where does socialism come into play?
These governments could not afford to install these systems if taxes were not high enough to finance them. But now, these countries are some of the richest in the world, in addition to Luxembourg.
Incidentally, the crime per capita is extremely low in these 3 nations. I mean take a look at the Global Peace Index
Granted those that don't like socialism still won't like it after this post, I hope it makes people think.
I have no issue with libertarian economics, I just think socialist inspired economics can be better.
F^2
Friday, June 20, 2008
-
Homosexuality Part 2
Funny how things like this work out:
I was talking to a friend I met online named Andy, who is moving to one of the most politically charged cities in the country: Columbus, Ohio. It's about 65/35 Liberal/Conservative in and around OSU (which makes up about a good half of downtown Columbus, and the people living around the school subscribe to a similar culture in many respects)
Having lived there for 2 years +, I saw everything from people from HRC asking for donations to Christians damning them for helping the sinful gays.
I started a student Organization with my friend Edwin called "Sexuality and Education" to try to eliminate the perception (mostly by Christians) that being gay is wrong, and to educate people about what being gay and bisexual actually means. Edwin is an extremely devout Christian - he does not believe homosexuality to be sinful. He was president of the organization. No officer in the organization was gay or bi-sexual.
What strikes me as odd, is that people can use Christianity as a message of peace and love for gays, as Edwin did, or use it as a reason to marginalize them, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Just the fact that someone thinks they are wrong or sinful will marginalize them.
What Andy said to me is something he goes through every week, and it just makes me mad:
Andy: OMG so funny: I got this note on Deviant Art the other day from a user on my website, he has been a member for around 2 years now, making graphics with the other members and what not. But get this: he sends me this shit after he reads some of my journals on DA.
"What the crap, that's just sad, no offense, but i hate gays, lol, sry if it hurts your feelings. I'm a christian so i don't believe in that stuff."
It makes me cringe seeing things like that.
And I'm not even gay.
F^2
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
-
Homosexuality
For any of you homophobic fundamentalists out there:
It's not a choice.
Now shut up, sit down and go back to humping your bible.
F^2
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
-
Bill Gates Retired, 2 Years After Announcement
Wired magazine has done a tribute to Bill Gates now that his major role with Microsoft is done, and he is focusing more on charitable causes around the world.
The tribute can be found here
"August 28, 1980
Gates signs a contract with IBM, agreeing to develop software for the PC. Later he buys an operating system called QDOS for $50,000, improves it, renames it DOS, and licenses it to IBM."
One of the most important events of the previous century.
Enjoy your time off, Bill, I wouldn't be writing this entry without you.
F^2
Friday, June 13, 2008
-
Intelligence and Belief in Relgion Correlated - Inversely
To me this is really a "No duh" situation, but a recent article cited research that said there was in fact a correlation between intelligence and a disbelief in God.
Here are a few excerpts:
"A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.
Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts."
I think this one is the one that sums it up for me:
"Dr David Hardman, principal lecturer in learning development at London Metropolitan University, said: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief. Nonetheless, there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt institutions."
It seems to be a matter of intelligent people are more likely to question the logic of long held beliefs, and if the logic is flawed, to over turn them. I'm sure this might make people angry.
F^2
Friday, June 06, 2008
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
-
CIA Gave Iran Nuclear Weapon Blueprints
And a better question would be why was this published 2 years ago and no one knows about it here?
The book is called State of War by James Risen.
Here is a very scary excerpt.
"Deep in the bowels of the CIA, someone must be nervously, but very privately, wondering: "Whatever happened to those nuclear blueprints we gave to the Iranians?"The story dates back to the Clinton administration and February 2000, when one frightened Russian scientist walked Vienna's winter streets. The Russian had good reason to be afraid. He was walking around Vienna with blueprints for a nuclear bomb.
To be precise, he was carrying technical designs for a TBA 480 high-voltage block, otherwise known as a "firing set", for a Russian-designed nuclear weapon. He held in his hands the knowledge needed to create a perfect implosion that could trigger a nuclear chain reaction inside a small spherical core."
There was a plan for this though:
"On paper, Merlin was supposed to stunt the development of Tehran's nuclear programme by sending Iran's weapons experts down the wrong technical path. The CIA believed that once the Iranians had the blueprints and studied them, they would believe the designs were usable and so would start to build an atom bomb based on the flawed designs. But Tehran would get a big surprise when its scientists tried to explode their new bomb. Instead of a mushroom cloud, the Iranian scientists would witness a disappointing fizzle. The Iranian nuclear programme would suffer a humiliating setback, and Tehran's goal of becoming a nuclear power would have been delayed by several years. In the meantime, the CIA, by watching Iran's reaction to the blueprints, would have gained a wealth of information about the status of Iran's weapons programme, which has been shrouded in secrecy."
Basically we were giving them a fake, but...
"The Russian studied the blueprints the CIA had given him. Within minutes of being handed the designs, he had identified a flaw. "This isn't right," he told the CIA officers gathered around the hotel room. "There is something wrong." His comments prompted stony looks, but no straight answers from the CIA men. No one in the meeting seemed surprised by the Russian's assertion that the blueprints didn't look quite right, but no one wanted to enlighten him further on the matter, either.In fact, the CIA case officer who was the Russian's personal handler had been stunned by his statement. During a break, he took the senior CIA officer aside. "He wasn't supposed to know that," the CIA case officer told his superior. "He wasn't supposed to find a flaw."
"Don't worry," the senior CIA officer calmly replied. "It doesn't matter." "
So the contact knew about the flaw in the plans, shouldn't really matter, right? Wrong:
"In Vienna, however, the Russian unsealed the envelope with the nuclear blueprints and included a personal letter of his own to the Iranians. No matter what the CIA told him, he was going to hedge his bets. There was obviously something wrong with the blueprints - so he decided to mention that fact to the Iranians in his letter. They would certainly find flaws for themselves, and if he didn't tell them first, they would never want to deal with him again.The Russian was thus warning the Iranians as carefully as he could that there was a flaw somewhere in the nuclear blueprints, and he could help them find it. At the same time, he was still going through with the CIA's operation in the only way he thought would work."
Fuck...What idiot put together this plan?
"The Russian scientist's fears about the operation seemed well founded. He was the front man for what may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA, one that may have helped put nuclear weapons in the hands of a charter member of what President George W Bush has called the "axis of evil".
Operation Merlin has been one of the most closely guarded secrets in the Clinton and Bush administrations. It's not clear who originally came up with the idea, but the plan was first approved by Clinton. After the Russian scientist's fateful trip to Vienna, however, the Merlin operation was endorsed by the Bush administration, possibly with an eye toward repeating it against North Korea or other dangerous states."
What the fuck is wrong with our government? Especially considering this:
"Iran has spent nearly 20 years trying to develop nuclear weapons, and in the process has created a strong base of sophisticated scientists knowledgeable enough to spot flaws in nuclear blueprints. Tehran also obtained nuclear blueprints from the network of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, and so already had workable blueprints against which to compare the designs obtained from the CIA. Nuclear experts say that they would thus be able to extract valuable information from the blueprints while ignoring the flaws."
It seems like quite possibly the biggest screw up in American history. We armed one of our most fear enemies with the most feared weapon in the world.
Only in America.
F^2
Thursday, May 22, 2008
-
Conservative Social Values
I realized that to me, Republican political candidates seem to be for the most part idiots. However, that recently became unsatisfactory so I felt like breaking down current Republican social-political views into their economic and social counterparts.
The economic stance of conservatives is to lower taxes across the board and spend less federal money. Hey, that doesn't sound so bad.
The social policies is to install Christian morals into law to have a better society. Hey that doesn't sound so-wait a second!
You see its not so much the economic conservative policy I disagree with, but I'll get into that in a moment. It's the social "I know the best way to raise a country" thought that bothers me.
You see I personally believe in most circumstances, if it doesn't adversely (and directly) negatively influence other people and/or society, there should not be a law against it. Prostitution? Legal. Drugs? Legal.
You see the difference between my views on these 2 subjects in particular is that both will be heavily regulated by state and/or federal government so things such as fraud, extortion and slavery don't come about.
This 23 year old wants to become a professional prostitute. Okay so we will test her medically to see if she can both physically and mentally handle the job of being treated like an object for 12 hours a day. Next, we test her for STDs, and will do so every week for the remainder of her career. Okay so now she's a certified prostitute, so we register her into the prostitute database that we use to track prostitutes. She now goes and applys at a brothel for employment.
Personally I don't see the harm in this process. You also would have to ensure she wasn't being forced into this process, but that's only slightly more complicated than standard criminal background checks.
Think of the economic benefit this country would receive if the Federal government sold Marijuana. Federally certified weed, top quality, that had been screened for imperfections and given a seal of approval. This weed will get you high as the clouds.
I digress from this now, but you see my point. It's not government job to tell people how their morals should be, apart from basic sociology and public good.
But now I want to talk about Conservative Economics, the basic idea of which is to lower taxes and spend less money so that people have more money and therefore spend more money on the economy. It's a great idea, its basically what a libertarian is. But you see here's the problem, there hasn't been a Fiscal Conservative President in at least 40 years. Every single Republican candidate as far back as I remember has started a war, while at the same time lowered taxes.
Well when you lower taxes and spend more as opposed to less, you reach a point of economic troubles. The problem with Republicans isn't their economic policy, its what they actually do in public office that causes problems. The idea of having lower taxes is great, but the problem is, more often than not the way they run their social policies causes you to need to spend money by telling someone "This is the way we are doing things!"
This is why left leaning libertarians will be able to succeed one day, because they are about letting people do what they want, and spending less money. I suppose this is a more apathetic government, and its not my social view (as I'm more of a socialist leaning liberal, who wouldn't mind 30% income tax if we received the government benefits of say Sweden, Norway or France), but it works. The traditional Republican mindset as we are seeing with $4/gallon gasoline (which in turn raises the prices of everything dependent on gasoline, which is almost quite literally everything) does not work.
Honestly, I just find most Republicans to be stupid.
F^2
Friday, May 16, 2008
-
How Much Would It Take
Gas is closing in on $4.00 per gallon for gasoline in the US. Indications show that it will raise even higher.
How high would gas prices have to rise for you to change your habits / change your gasoline dependency?
Will you buy a fully electric car when they become widely available in the US?
F^2
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
- browse entries:
- older »
Thought Provoking Entries
Random Thoughts
-
I've recently become addicted to StumbleUpon. I added the Firefox addon, if I ever get bored, start stumbling. Entertainment 24/7
Recent Entries
-
The Stigma of Socialism
Why is it that when Americans, fiscal conservative... -
Homosexuality Part 2
Funny how things like this work out:I was talking ...

















True
Premium