Watch this video.
I think it speaks for itself.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Why I Am Going to Vote for Ralph Nader
Some may think that voting for Nader is a wasted vote because he has such an infinitesimal chance of winning. Admittedly, this is the case. However, part of the reason I have decided to vote for him is precisely that fact.
I believe there is something horribly wrong with the system when there are only two viable parties from which to choose for any elected office. Given the plethora of personalities and viewpoints in this world, how can two platforms possibly describe any majority of people? In the past few elections that I have been old enough to care about, I have heard repeated multiple times that the presidential election is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
I don't want to vote for any evil! I want to vote for someone who I feel truly represents my interests and beliefs about what is right.
Moreover, the impression I get is that there are not many legitimate, tangible differences between the two parties. That is because, in my (cynical) estimation, the parties are subject to fads and financial influences (so that they can finance their campaigns).
The second reason, which has sort of been mentioned already, is that I really believe Nader is a good candidate. Using OnTheIssues.org as a source, I find that Nader is aligned pretty much entirely with my personal beliefs. Follow this link to get a thorough description of his stances. Some of the issues he supports includes pro-choice, corporate reform, alternative energies, pro-gay marriage, anti-Iraq war, etc.
Perhaps he may never win the presidency, but I cannot bring myself to vote for a person that I don't fully support. And again, I believe that our system is broken and voting for someone I cannot support is only perpetuating that broken system.
So, I guess to close, if you feel that one of the major candidates really represents your beliefs, then you have every right and responsibility to vote for them. However, if you find yourself weighing which candidate has the least negative factors in order to make your vote, then I really hope you can find and will vote for someone who represents you.
Here is a story from Progressive Magazine about Nader's announcement for candidacy, with a bleaker picture of his chances for getting any votes but nonetheless good: link.
I believe there is something horribly wrong with the system when there are only two viable parties from which to choose for any elected office. Given the plethora of personalities and viewpoints in this world, how can two platforms possibly describe any majority of people? In the past few elections that I have been old enough to care about, I have heard repeated multiple times that the presidential election is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
I don't want to vote for any evil! I want to vote for someone who I feel truly represents my interests and beliefs about what is right.
Moreover, the impression I get is that there are not many legitimate, tangible differences between the two parties. That is because, in my (cynical) estimation, the parties are subject to fads and financial influences (so that they can finance their campaigns).
The second reason, which has sort of been mentioned already, is that I really believe Nader is a good candidate. Using OnTheIssues.org as a source, I find that Nader is aligned pretty much entirely with my personal beliefs. Follow this link to get a thorough description of his stances. Some of the issues he supports includes pro-choice, corporate reform, alternative energies, pro-gay marriage, anti-Iraq war, etc.
Perhaps he may never win the presidency, but I cannot bring myself to vote for a person that I don't fully support. And again, I believe that our system is broken and voting for someone I cannot support is only perpetuating that broken system.
So, I guess to close, if you feel that one of the major candidates really represents your beliefs, then you have every right and responsibility to vote for them. However, if you find yourself weighing which candidate has the least negative factors in order to make your vote, then I really hope you can find and will vote for someone who represents you.
Here is a story from Progressive Magazine about Nader's announcement for candidacy, with a bleaker picture of his chances for getting any votes but nonetheless good: link.
A Secret Army of Business People Has Been Established by the FBI
Who makes up this secret army? Some 23,000 business people across the country. The reason I call it an army is that, if martial law were to be put into effect, this organization (called INFRAGARD) has the right to shoot to kill in order to protect their pieces of the American infrastructure. It's been around since about 1996.
Now, in my eyes, there are a few problems with this.
1) INFRAGARD has no accountability to anyone but the FBI. If they overstep their boundaries, there is no recourse for the victims of their abuses.
2) I can't imagine a more unqualified group of people to have this sort of authority.
3) INFRAGARD is supplied regularly with information not available to the public about possible threats.And, as you muay guess, there are more.
Please follow this link to get the whole story from Progressive Magazine.
Now, in my eyes, there are a few problems with this.
1) INFRAGARD has no accountability to anyone but the FBI. If they overstep their boundaries, there is no recourse for the victims of their abuses.
2) I can't imagine a more unqualified group of people to have this sort of authority.
3) INFRAGARD is supplied regularly with information not available to the public about possible threats.And, as you muay guess, there are more.
Please follow this link to get the whole story from Progressive Magazine.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Facebook Beacon: Someone is recording your every e-move
So I recently found out about this Beacon program that Facebook recently implemented. If you're unaware of it, it essentially is a partnership and program between Facebook and many corporations in which any activity you perform on one of the partner sites will be recorded by Facebook, potentially displaying on your profile (depending on what you set your privacy level at), and almost assuredly that information will be sold to the other partners. HOWEVER, even if you choose the privacy option that disallows companies to post on your wall, you sleep soundly knowing that your information is still being collected.
Anyone have a problem with that? It's like 1984 except the corporations are taking the place of the government as Big Brother.
Now, I'm not saying that Facebook is the first or the only to track all of my data. I am well aware of Google's questionable privacy policies. And I also know that my information is being stored at basically every page I visit (hence, the reason I allow cookies from only pages that I frequently use and trust). However, this is probably the most egregious violation of my privacy that I have personally witnessed. It is obviously a profit-motivated strategy in which we are unknowingly, unwillingly the subjects of intense scrutiny.
Do they really think that we will get some extreme added value of knowing what book or CD our friends bought on Amazon? Or that Alex O'Hagan was playing WoW yesterday? Or Jennifer Gahenna bought whatever-the-hell at Wherever-the-hell? In reality, if something was that good, you'd find out about it. Normal advertising has served us well for a long time, and I for one am thoroughly opposed to such invasions of privacy for this alleged added value.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that this move had any altruistic motives or a motive beyond profit. To be clear, I don't think Beacon was implemented with malicious intentions; I do think that there needs to be some serious dialogue on how far companies can pry into our lives. Or, to put it another way, on how far they can go to continue to indoctrinate us into this consumer culture. (Fact: Approximately 70% of U.S. GDP is derived from consumer spending.)
Here are some basic points that I think apply here (these may or may not have been mentioned above):
1.) The definition of privacy needs to be redefined.
2.) Limits need to be placed on how far third parties are allowed to dive into your data, what data they are allowed to keep, how long they are allowed to keep it, and what they are allowed to do with it.
3.) Some serious discourse needs to be had on the purposes and motivations of corporations. It is my contention that the profit motive of corporations is an indelible, if implicit, factor in this. Why is that a problem to me? I am not convinced that profit should be the #1 aim of any corporation, but that needs to be reserved for another post.
4.) Consumers need to be very careful of what products they use and need to be aware of what they are handing over when they sign up to use services like Facebook.
5.) Education on the impacts of the loss of privacy needs to happen.
6.) I am extremely concerned about the pervasiveness of corporations into every aspect of our lives. I am no history scholar, but I would go so far as to say that the role that corporations play in society today far outstrips the role that the Catholic Church played in Europe in the Middle Ages (partly due to technology).
Anyway, I am getting off topic and can offer my critique of capitalism another time. To close, there are at least two things you can do to help protect your information.
1.) Use the privacy settings (under External Websites under the Privacy options) to disallow companies to post stories on your profile. Please not the caveat above: your information will still be collected, just not used in quite the same manner.
2.) If you use Firefox, you can download an extension called Blocksite to prohibit Beacon from working (at least in theory). Details here. There are other add-ins that can enhance privacy like Track Me Not and NoScript, so check those out.
There is a way to block sites using IE and Netscape (as far as I know), but I don't know how to do it.
Take care.
P.S.: Sorry for the length of this, but I had a closing thought: For all the ease of life that technology was supposed to offer (which it has in some respects), it is providing us with a whole new set of complications that are far more tenuous and impacting than any of us could have ever imagined.
Anyone have a problem with that? It's like 1984 except the corporations are taking the place of the government as Big Brother.
Now, I'm not saying that Facebook is the first or the only to track all of my data. I am well aware of Google's questionable privacy policies. And I also know that my information is being stored at basically every page I visit (hence, the reason I allow cookies from only pages that I frequently use and trust). However, this is probably the most egregious violation of my privacy that I have personally witnessed. It is obviously a profit-motivated strategy in which we are unknowingly, unwillingly the subjects of intense scrutiny.
Do they really think that we will get some extreme added value of knowing what book or CD our friends bought on Amazon? Or that Alex O'Hagan was playing WoW yesterday? Or Jennifer Gahenna bought whatever-the-hell at Wherever-the-hell? In reality, if something was that good, you'd find out about it. Normal advertising has served us well for a long time, and I for one am thoroughly opposed to such invasions of privacy for this alleged added value.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that this move had any altruistic motives or a motive beyond profit. To be clear, I don't think Beacon was implemented with malicious intentions; I do think that there needs to be some serious dialogue on how far companies can pry into our lives. Or, to put it another way, on how far they can go to continue to indoctrinate us into this consumer culture. (Fact: Approximately 70% of U.S. GDP is derived from consumer spending.)
Here are some basic points that I think apply here (these may or may not have been mentioned above):
1.) The definition of privacy needs to be redefined.
2.) Limits need to be placed on how far third parties are allowed to dive into your data, what data they are allowed to keep, how long they are allowed to keep it, and what they are allowed to do with it.
3.) Some serious discourse needs to be had on the purposes and motivations of corporations. It is my contention that the profit motive of corporations is an indelible, if implicit, factor in this. Why is that a problem to me? I am not convinced that profit should be the #1 aim of any corporation, but that needs to be reserved for another post.
4.) Consumers need to be very careful of what products they use and need to be aware of what they are handing over when they sign up to use services like Facebook.
5.) Education on the impacts of the loss of privacy needs to happen.
6.) I am extremely concerned about the pervasiveness of corporations into every aspect of our lives. I am no history scholar, but I would go so far as to say that the role that corporations play in society today far outstrips the role that the Catholic Church played in Europe in the Middle Ages (partly due to technology).
Anyway, I am getting off topic and can offer my critique of capitalism another time. To close, there are at least two things you can do to help protect your information.
1.) Use the privacy settings (under External Websites under the Privacy options) to disallow companies to post stories on your profile. Please not the caveat above: your information will still be collected, just not used in quite the same manner.
2.) If you use Firefox, you can download an extension called Blocksite to prohibit Beacon from working (at least in theory). Details here. There are other add-ins that can enhance privacy like Track Me Not and NoScript, so check those out.
There is a way to block sites using IE and Netscape (as far as I know), but I don't know how to do it.
Take care.
P.S.: Sorry for the length of this, but I had a closing thought: For all the ease of life that technology was supposed to offer (which it has in some respects), it is providing us with a whole new set of complications that are far more tenuous and impacting than any of us could have ever imagined.
The Deplorability of Theocracies and Arcane Religious Ideals
A woman and a man were gang-raped in Saudi Arabi then convicted of having an affair and sentenced to 90 lashes and a prison term. Their sentence was for breaking laws pertaining to segregation of the genders.
The woman later confessed to cheating on her husband, so her and the man's punishments were increased to 200 lashes. Surprising to me, their attackers' punishments were also increased.
Adultery is a punishable offense under Islamic law, and, since Saudi Arabia is a theocratic state, such barbarism is completely legitimate in their eyes.
I have huge problems when the state and religion are commingled in such a way. In my mind, government has no place dictating the morality and punishment of actions like adultery. There, of course, should be recourse for the cheated upon spouse, but nothing like a state imposed sentence of whipping.
Moreover, I am greatly opposed to ideas within a religion that vindicate the unethical, savage behavior of the Saudi state towards its constituents.
It is reasonable to assume that this woman was forced into this marriage and was extremely unhappy, so I can understand why she may want to escape her marriage. However, I wonder under what conditions she confessed this adultery? Was it under duress and torture? Did she confess only so that her accusers would hear what they wanted to hear?
I can only infer that the gangrape was an attempt at vigilante justice. Taking the law into one's own hands is thorny at best, but rape is one of the most disgusting uses of power imaginable. I have understanding for the perpetrators only to the extent that they probably have been entirely indoctrinated into a way of thinking that justifies such actions, but that understanding is miniscule at best.
Who are the real criminals here? The rapists are the most obvious culprits. The unfaithful man and woman are also at fault, but there is a case to be made for them being victims of circumstance and there is something to be said about their attempt to escape the shackles of their religious oppression.
My opinion is that the real problem, the real crime, is not questioning and changing arcane religious doctine that dehumanizes and justifies despicable events like this. This man and woman were victims and then they were punished for it. Even if you think that they are wrong for their alleged infidelity, in no way is their rape justifiable.
Believe what you want to believe, but be aware of the oppression and injustice that may result when you unquestioningly accept dogma and doctrine that is given to you.
Source
The woman later confessed to cheating on her husband, so her and the man's punishments were increased to 200 lashes. Surprising to me, their attackers' punishments were also increased.
Adultery is a punishable offense under Islamic law, and, since Saudi Arabia is a theocratic state, such barbarism is completely legitimate in their eyes.
I have huge problems when the state and religion are commingled in such a way. In my mind, government has no place dictating the morality and punishment of actions like adultery. There, of course, should be recourse for the cheated upon spouse, but nothing like a state imposed sentence of whipping.
Moreover, I am greatly opposed to ideas within a religion that vindicate the unethical, savage behavior of the Saudi state towards its constituents.
It is reasonable to assume that this woman was forced into this marriage and was extremely unhappy, so I can understand why she may want to escape her marriage. However, I wonder under what conditions she confessed this adultery? Was it under duress and torture? Did she confess only so that her accusers would hear what they wanted to hear?
I can only infer that the gangrape was an attempt at vigilante justice. Taking the law into one's own hands is thorny at best, but rape is one of the most disgusting uses of power imaginable. I have understanding for the perpetrators only to the extent that they probably have been entirely indoctrinated into a way of thinking that justifies such actions, but that understanding is miniscule at best.
Who are the real criminals here? The rapists are the most obvious culprits. The unfaithful man and woman are also at fault, but there is a case to be made for them being victims of circumstance and there is something to be said about their attempt to escape the shackles of their religious oppression.
My opinion is that the real problem, the real crime, is not questioning and changing arcane religious doctine that dehumanizes and justifies despicable events like this. This man and woman were victims and then they were punished for it. Even if you think that they are wrong for their alleged infidelity, in no way is their rape justifiable.
Believe what you want to believe, but be aware of the oppression and injustice that may result when you unquestioningly accept dogma and doctrine that is given to you.
Source
$25,000 dessert. Only one dessert...
Does anyone else see something disgustingly wrong with this? Full story about a chocolate dessert that costs $25,000 for one serving.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Slavery and Economics
While writing a paper for Theology of African American Music, I had the following thought(s).
To what degree did slavery allow the United States to become a world economic power? It seems to me that the U.S. was the largest slave-holding nation, and it is definitely true that the American economy hinged on slave labor for some time. So the question is if the exceptionally cheap labor provided by slaves gave an extraordinary leg up to America, helping catapult it to the position in the world it has enjoyed for so long. That is not to say that I think that slavery is any way justified by the possible impact it had on the American economy - no person has the right to exercise indomitable will over another in any circumstance.
To what degree did slavery allow the United States to become a world economic power? It seems to me that the U.S. was the largest slave-holding nation, and it is definitely true that the American economy hinged on slave labor for some time. So the question is if the exceptionally cheap labor provided by slaves gave an extraordinary leg up to America, helping catapult it to the position in the world it has enjoyed for so long. That is not to say that I think that slavery is any way justified by the possible impact it had on the American economy - no person has the right to exercise indomitable will over another in any circumstance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)