Sean Hannity has been exchanging video jibes with Russell Brand lately. What Sean doesn't understand about himself is that he's incapable of looking at a subject like the middle east objectively.
Yes, Sean. We understand you're defending the Israelis. We get it.
What we don't get is how you can justify a disproportional response of civilian deaths like it's somehow appropriate to kill so many people.
Sean, you effectively ignore the history of the region by saying that "Hamas started all this."
*sighs*
No Sean. Review your history and take a moment to digest what happened to the people of Palestine.
Do I have sympathy for Israel? I do. I do think Israel sometimes acts over the top and Hamas responds in kind. Neither side has been exceptionally great at establishing peace, but both sides are wonderful at pointing fingers at the other.
If Sean's goal is to be an adversary, then he needs to stop what he's doing and become a gladiator in some sort of death match if that's going to satisfy his blood lust that he has for this conflict.
One more thing Sean: you'll want to avoid having Russell on your show. Yes he may come across rather nutty, but the man has more facts than you.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
The Dangers of Russia
If you're not concerned - you should be.
Russia is poised to become the threat it once was. Vladamir is doing what's natural for Russian leaders: do whatever you want, screw the consequences.
It's dangerous territory and the world let him have a bit too much leash. Unfortunately for all of us, the repercussions of letting Vlad go out and about ... is now we have a nuclear player gone rogue.
It comes down to this: Russia wants the Ukraine for obvious reasons (um, oil - hello!) So Russia seizes a moment where the Ukraine was vulnerable and just slipped right in before anyone could react.
I know Republicans are blaming Obama - but they blame him for the sun rising each day, so it's moot to take their points seriously.
Who is to blame then?
I'm going out on a limb to say it's nobody's fault - as Vlad took it upon himself to act for the betterment of Russia.
I've studied 19th century European history. There's the David Hume reference to "The Balance of Power" by which you ensure everyone has equal dominance so that countries don't fight one another. The belief is that once these countries fight - it'll end in stalemate while both sides losing heavily in terms of people and having their economies ruined.
When there's a power vacuum as what has taken place in the Ukraine, it's not unheard of for another country to run in and put their flag on their capital.
The world is supposed to run on a system of checks and balances ... but if we're going to play the role of world cop - then exactly how to Republicans expect to FUND being a world cop?
It's laughable ...
Russia is poised to become the threat it once was. Vladamir is doing what's natural for Russian leaders: do whatever you want, screw the consequences.
It's dangerous territory and the world let him have a bit too much leash. Unfortunately for all of us, the repercussions of letting Vlad go out and about ... is now we have a nuclear player gone rogue.
It comes down to this: Russia wants the Ukraine for obvious reasons (um, oil - hello!) So Russia seizes a moment where the Ukraine was vulnerable and just slipped right in before anyone could react.
I know Republicans are blaming Obama - but they blame him for the sun rising each day, so it's moot to take their points seriously.
Who is to blame then?
I'm going out on a limb to say it's nobody's fault - as Vlad took it upon himself to act for the betterment of Russia.
I've studied 19th century European history. There's the David Hume reference to "The Balance of Power" by which you ensure everyone has equal dominance so that countries don't fight one another. The belief is that once these countries fight - it'll end in stalemate while both sides losing heavily in terms of people and having their economies ruined.
When there's a power vacuum as what has taken place in the Ukraine, it's not unheard of for another country to run in and put their flag on their capital.
The world is supposed to run on a system of checks and balances ... but if we're going to play the role of world cop - then exactly how to Republicans expect to FUND being a world cop?
It's laughable ...
Monday, July 21, 2014
Is it willful?
I'm consistently amazed at how folks view the world around them. When presented with factual content to the contrary, there almost appears to be a willful ignorance to maintain their own reality.
It's astounding how much bias has entered the foray anymore.
Literally: if we lived in the era where the roundness of the earth was still resolved and agreed upon ... how many folks would willfully stow their bias in the name of needing to be right?
What got me going?
Comments on FB - where folks were applauding Gov. Perry's option to send national guardsmen to the border to "protect" Texas.
Most of the comments blame Obama - okay.
But when Obama challenged the Republicans to pass comprehensive immigration reform, where are those commenters now? Still pining over what happened in Benghazi? Seriously folks ... c'mon.
Obama can only do so much when you have an ass dragging Congress who has completely lost touch with reality. Instead of being sensible, we've become divisive. Instead of being realistic, we've become obstinate. Instead of being reasonable, we've become accusatory.
I'm reminded of those completely idiotic beer commercials:
"Taste great!"
"Less Filling!"
"Taste great!"
"Less Filling!"
.... if the national conversation has been reduced to that of a 1970's alcoholic beverage commercial then the human race has all but lost. Enough with the bullshit.
It's astounding how much bias has entered the foray anymore.
Literally: if we lived in the era where the roundness of the earth was still resolved and agreed upon ... how many folks would willfully stow their bias in the name of needing to be right?
What got me going?
Comments on FB - where folks were applauding Gov. Perry's option to send national guardsmen to the border to "protect" Texas.
Most of the comments blame Obama - okay.
But when Obama challenged the Republicans to pass comprehensive immigration reform, where are those commenters now? Still pining over what happened in Benghazi? Seriously folks ... c'mon.
Obama can only do so much when you have an ass dragging Congress who has completely lost touch with reality. Instead of being sensible, we've become divisive. Instead of being realistic, we've become obstinate. Instead of being reasonable, we've become accusatory.
I'm reminded of those completely idiotic beer commercials:
"Taste great!"
"Less Filling!"
"Taste great!"
"Less Filling!"
.... if the national conversation has been reduced to that of a 1970's alcoholic beverage commercial then the human race has all but lost. Enough with the bullshit.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
How is this even possible?
Politician lies.
They bold face lie.
They are proven to be wrong.
They get re-elected as if they are the terminator.
They keep coming back no matter how bad they perished the scene before.
How is this even possible?
They bold face lie.
They are proven to be wrong.
They get re-elected as if they are the terminator.
They keep coming back no matter how bad they perished the scene before.
How is this even possible?
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
The science is still out on that ....
Unfortunately the earth is still flat if conservatives have their way.
*sighs*
Okay.
Science hasn't always been right. (There I said it.) In fact, science is based on a lot of theory because it's difficult to prove such things otherwise.
HOWEVER ...
Let's use some common sense about the basics as we know it.
If we stop embracing what science tells us - then we're only going to revert into a country that's lagging behind in science (oops, we are now.) To deny that "the science is out" basically eliminates nearly everything around us from manufacturing, to computers, to the internet, to the clothing we wear or the houses we live in. It negates your existence to view this entry. Period.
We are all products of innovations made as a result of science.
Think on that when you want to utter "the science is still out on that."
Can scientists disagree? Absolutely. It wouldn't be a peer-reviewed setting if other scientists didn't test and refute their findings based on scientific fact.
Read that again.
It's not faith-based fact.
It's scientific fact.
It's not based on money.
It's not based on capitalism.
It's not based on some political leaning.
It's a basis of fact conceived through scientific principles that man has relied on from the beginning.
When you have scientists - saying: "this (insert thing here) is happening," then it should be at least considered. At the very least the information should be examined and thoughtfully considered. Even if it cuts against what you have known, science tests our ability to rationalize the process and conclusions reached by someone else's study.
Good scientists keep an open mind at all times and don't shut doors.
Will there be dissenters? Yes.
Will there be disagreements? Yes.
Will there be conflicting opinions? Yes.
Can scientists be bought to say whatever they're paid to say? Yes.
Good scientists can dismiss the distractions and focus on the applicable science before them. Good scientists won't be swayed by political opinions, personal beliefs or peer pressure.
The problem with science is that it is as easily corruptible as journalism has become. With an infusion of politics - how can we expect scientists to remain professionally neutral when there's money, funding and careers at stake?
The narrative isn't: "does climate change exist or not." The real narrative is: "how can we rely that our scientists are looking at the evidence without skewed lenses?"
It's perfectly okay to disagree on account of fact and evidence. I'm all over that. But I can prove to you that the earth is not flat because we have a curvature thing going on and we have some pictures from others that have (supposedly) been to space that can prove the earth is round.
If your science says the earth is still flat despite my evidence and if you're going to stand by that, then it's going to be impossible to agree. Further: it is flawed to rely on an outdated, proven otherwise belief. We are beyond that now. Why keep with the ... "I don't know, the science may still be out on that" bit?
Let's skip forward a bit to climate change.
It's completely naive to believe that human existence has not affected the earth.
- Species have died and have gone extinct because of us. 59 different species that once roamed the earth no longer do because of our interference in their existence.
- We have rerouted water supplies to suit our needs while changing the ecosystem that benefited from the original source water.
- We have plowed the earth to plant crops over existing land, plants and animals. We have disrupted our ecosystem for the basis of pro-profit farming and ranching.
- We have cities that cover fields of earth with tar and asphalt so that we can park our vehicles.
- We poison and pollute the water supplies by dumping our refuse into streams and lakes to "tolerable levels" because manufacturers and factories don't have any other place to dump their shit after.
- We exhausted our earth's resources so that we're afforded luxuries and other "necessities" we have in our lives. Our homes. Our cars. Our jobs.
We also live in a society that focuses on the capitalistic greed. When there is an obvious and apparent financial motivation involved, then that should be figured into someone's prevailing opinion. It's a belief process that has been woven into the politics and belief structure of our society. When that belief or an intervening bias that interferes with the scientific analysis, then that opinion is tainted and can't be considered reliable.
There's the grand conspiracy by climate change deniers that there's a huge financial windfall involved with the climate change movement. One tiny problem: there's no proof. None. If there's a conspiracy then show me the money. Except - there is money at stake when it comes to the deniers as they are protecting their corporate interests. They are afraid of the constraints and costs involved to protect the environment. They stand to lose a lot of money if controls are put in place to impede or stop their toxic output.
Now .... to be fair.....
I will fully admit that there's a lot of pressure to "own up to climate change."
Problem: it impedes scientific opinion when the pendulum swings too far in the other direction so that the pressure and influence forces just to get another voice to sign on.
*sighs*
So.
If we can truly admit that there's an overt bias on the right and intense peer pressure from the left, then we can remove the defective opinions and rely on what we know and what we see.
We affect change to animals on this planet: true.
We affect change on the our environment when we lay down roads, when we erect buildings and houses: also true.
We affect change to our water supply by the contaminants we pollute them with: again, true.
So when the argument is made that "the science is out that," I shake my head and close my eyes to the helpless perspective of those that want to sit in denial than consider the evidence seriously without their Mr. Money Bags Monopoly blinders on.
Create an argument rooted in fact and evidence so that it's reliable, then we can have an honest discussion on climate change.
Then maybe we can start working on dismantling that whole "the science is still out with that" bullshit.
*sighs*
Okay.
Science hasn't always been right. (There I said it.) In fact, science is based on a lot of theory because it's difficult to prove such things otherwise.
HOWEVER ...
Let's use some common sense about the basics as we know it.
If we stop embracing what science tells us - then we're only going to revert into a country that's lagging behind in science (oops, we are now.) To deny that "the science is out" basically eliminates nearly everything around us from manufacturing, to computers, to the internet, to the clothing we wear or the houses we live in. It negates your existence to view this entry. Period.
We are all products of innovations made as a result of science.
Think on that when you want to utter "the science is still out on that."
Can scientists disagree? Absolutely. It wouldn't be a peer-reviewed setting if other scientists didn't test and refute their findings based on scientific fact.
Read that again.
It's not faith-based fact.
It's scientific fact.
It's not based on money.
It's not based on capitalism.
It's not based on some political leaning.
It's a basis of fact conceived through scientific principles that man has relied on from the beginning.
When you have scientists - saying: "this (insert thing here) is happening," then it should be at least considered. At the very least the information should be examined and thoughtfully considered. Even if it cuts against what you have known, science tests our ability to rationalize the process and conclusions reached by someone else's study.
Good scientists keep an open mind at all times and don't shut doors.
Will there be dissenters? Yes.
Will there be disagreements? Yes.
Will there be conflicting opinions? Yes.
Can scientists be bought to say whatever they're paid to say? Yes.
Good scientists can dismiss the distractions and focus on the applicable science before them. Good scientists won't be swayed by political opinions, personal beliefs or peer pressure.
The problem with science is that it is as easily corruptible as journalism has become. With an infusion of politics - how can we expect scientists to remain professionally neutral when there's money, funding and careers at stake?
The narrative isn't: "does climate change exist or not." The real narrative is: "how can we rely that our scientists are looking at the evidence without skewed lenses?"
It's perfectly okay to disagree on account of fact and evidence. I'm all over that. But I can prove to you that the earth is not flat because we have a curvature thing going on and we have some pictures from others that have (supposedly) been to space that can prove the earth is round.
If your science says the earth is still flat despite my evidence and if you're going to stand by that, then it's going to be impossible to agree. Further: it is flawed to rely on an outdated, proven otherwise belief. We are beyond that now. Why keep with the ... "I don't know, the science may still be out on that" bit?
Let's skip forward a bit to climate change.
It's completely naive to believe that human existence has not affected the earth.
- Species have died and have gone extinct because of us. 59 different species that once roamed the earth no longer do because of our interference in their existence.
- We have rerouted water supplies to suit our needs while changing the ecosystem that benefited from the original source water.
- We have plowed the earth to plant crops over existing land, plants and animals. We have disrupted our ecosystem for the basis of pro-profit farming and ranching.
- We have cities that cover fields of earth with tar and asphalt so that we can park our vehicles.
- We poison and pollute the water supplies by dumping our refuse into streams and lakes to "tolerable levels" because manufacturers and factories don't have any other place to dump their shit after.
- We exhausted our earth's resources so that we're afforded luxuries and other "necessities" we have in our lives. Our homes. Our cars. Our jobs.
We also live in a society that focuses on the capitalistic greed. When there is an obvious and apparent financial motivation involved, then that should be figured into someone's prevailing opinion. It's a belief process that has been woven into the politics and belief structure of our society. When that belief or an intervening bias that interferes with the scientific analysis, then that opinion is tainted and can't be considered reliable.
There's the grand conspiracy by climate change deniers that there's a huge financial windfall involved with the climate change movement. One tiny problem: there's no proof. None. If there's a conspiracy then show me the money. Except - there is money at stake when it comes to the deniers as they are protecting their corporate interests. They are afraid of the constraints and costs involved to protect the environment. They stand to lose a lot of money if controls are put in place to impede or stop their toxic output.
Now .... to be fair.....
I will fully admit that there's a lot of pressure to "own up to climate change."
Problem: it impedes scientific opinion when the pendulum swings too far in the other direction so that the pressure and influence forces just to get another voice to sign on.
*sighs*
So.
If we can truly admit that there's an overt bias on the right and intense peer pressure from the left, then we can remove the defective opinions and rely on what we know and what we see.
We affect change to animals on this planet: true.
We affect change on the our environment when we lay down roads, when we erect buildings and houses: also true.
We affect change to our water supply by the contaminants we pollute them with: again, true.
So when the argument is made that "the science is out that," I shake my head and close my eyes to the helpless perspective of those that want to sit in denial than consider the evidence seriously without their Mr. Money Bags Monopoly blinders on.
Create an argument rooted in fact and evidence so that it's reliable, then we can have an honest discussion on climate change.
Then maybe we can start working on dismantling that whole "the science is still out with that" bullshit.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
The SCOTUS and Congressional debacle
The SCOTUS recently declared that it's okay for businesses to decide what kind of health care coverage to allow for their employees when it comes to contraceptives.
Hobby Lobby declared that it was infringing on their religious beliefs to force them to provide money to insurance companies who will assist women who opt to receive contraception.
O.o
Paint me a skeptic, but this was more than just a infringement on contraception rights. It was a move to once again attempt to underhandedly move one's morals ahead of another's. According to SCOTUS, it's apparently okay for businesses to make that decision "because they're paying for it."
Bullshit.
First off: the pendulum that has afforded business and "Christian" organizations the rights they presently enjoy have swung incredibly off the map. The power and influence these two sides have in our daily lives has become tragically apparent. It's not what the founders believed in as they would argue that not only should there be a very strong line dividing church and state, they would also reject the idea that "businesses are people too."
The unfortunate rulings by the SCOTUS have impacted and interfered in the role capitalism and Christianity plays in today's society. They are seeking to become protectionists for systems that are corrupt, flawed, immoral and fundamentally wrong.
It's not the role of the SCOTUS or that of Congress or American government to have a direct relationship with corporations and businesses that are set out to change and redefine the role of capitalism in our society. Instead of saying: "we shouldn't be involved here," the SCOTUS has openly embraced the intervention into the way these systems operate in our society. I have no problem with them intervening as a matter of law, but ascribing rights to entities that can't vote seems contra-intuitive.
It's not the role of the SCOTUS to decide one's morality or bestow that right with the employers or organizations that decide that for others. The protections of this country guarantee a PERSON to decide how they should or shouldn't believe. It's an individual right that has been stripped from the dialogue and now placed with a bastardized protection scheme that has been misapplied despite it's original intent.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was designed as a protective cover for Native Americans to have a greater amount of religious freedom on their land. Since the Hobby Lobby ruling, experts now debate that the RFRA has exposed some deep flaws in how laws protect religion and the citizenry.
Just like Congress, the SCOTUS has become a hack for those that want to exploit the flawed laws that pass through Washington. Instead of being a disinterested, apolitical, unbiased entity that forges an independent mindset, SCOTUS has become a myopic polarizing gang seeking to further political causes (conservative and liberal alike) while providing outs like the RFRA and granting the rights to corporations just like they were citizens.
Think on that for a bit.
We are giving rights to entities by which do not exist. (Corporations)
We are also giving rights to entities that want no government intervention, but they have no problems influencing the electorate as they see fit. (Religious entities)
Those that decry "big government" are actively exploiting the loopholes that keep turning out bad law and bad rights that ultimately affect all of us.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds and yet no one cares anymore about being a lying sack of shit.
Our three tiered government has failed us. A system that was supposed to protect this country from making horrible laws and bad decisions has continually demonstrated (in recent times) that special interests, corporations and religious entities are the real "victims" here.
A society that prides itself with its incredibly fabled superiority could have such great promise if it weren't for the continual greed and infection of those that have no inclination to participate - much less improve upon the work established by our ancestors. Instead of doing what's best and right, we only seek to protect our own because that's what isolationists want.
Change has got to happen.
Change has got to be real and total.
End the hypocrisy and lies.
Become the source of change and an instrument of good.
Together, we can. The question becomes: will we?
Hobby Lobby declared that it was infringing on their religious beliefs to force them to provide money to insurance companies who will assist women who opt to receive contraception.
O.o
Paint me a skeptic, but this was more than just a infringement on contraception rights. It was a move to once again attempt to underhandedly move one's morals ahead of another's. According to SCOTUS, it's apparently okay for businesses to make that decision "because they're paying for it."
Bullshit.
First off: the pendulum that has afforded business and "Christian" organizations the rights they presently enjoy have swung incredibly off the map. The power and influence these two sides have in our daily lives has become tragically apparent. It's not what the founders believed in as they would argue that not only should there be a very strong line dividing church and state, they would also reject the idea that "businesses are people too."
The unfortunate rulings by the SCOTUS have impacted and interfered in the role capitalism and Christianity plays in today's society. They are seeking to become protectionists for systems that are corrupt, flawed, immoral and fundamentally wrong.
It's not the role of the SCOTUS or that of Congress or American government to have a direct relationship with corporations and businesses that are set out to change and redefine the role of capitalism in our society. Instead of saying: "we shouldn't be involved here," the SCOTUS has openly embraced the intervention into the way these systems operate in our society. I have no problem with them intervening as a matter of law, but ascribing rights to entities that can't vote seems contra-intuitive.
It's not the role of the SCOTUS to decide one's morality or bestow that right with the employers or organizations that decide that for others. The protections of this country guarantee a PERSON to decide how they should or shouldn't believe. It's an individual right that has been stripped from the dialogue and now placed with a bastardized protection scheme that has been misapplied despite it's original intent.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was designed as a protective cover for Native Americans to have a greater amount of religious freedom on their land. Since the Hobby Lobby ruling, experts now debate that the RFRA has exposed some deep flaws in how laws protect religion and the citizenry.
Just like Congress, the SCOTUS has become a hack for those that want to exploit the flawed laws that pass through Washington. Instead of being a disinterested, apolitical, unbiased entity that forges an independent mindset, SCOTUS has become a myopic polarizing gang seeking to further political causes (conservative and liberal alike) while providing outs like the RFRA and granting the rights to corporations just like they were citizens.
Think on that for a bit.
We are giving rights to entities by which do not exist. (Corporations)
We are also giving rights to entities that want no government intervention, but they have no problems influencing the electorate as they see fit. (Religious entities)
Those that decry "big government" are actively exploiting the loopholes that keep turning out bad law and bad rights that ultimately affect all of us.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds and yet no one cares anymore about being a lying sack of shit.
Our three tiered government has failed us. A system that was supposed to protect this country from making horrible laws and bad decisions has continually demonstrated (in recent times) that special interests, corporations and religious entities are the real "victims" here.
A society that prides itself with its incredibly fabled superiority could have such great promise if it weren't for the continual greed and infection of those that have no inclination to participate - much less improve upon the work established by our ancestors. Instead of doing what's best and right, we only seek to protect our own because that's what isolationists want.
Change has got to happen.
Change has got to be real and total.
End the hypocrisy and lies.
Become the source of change and an instrument of good.
Together, we can. The question becomes: will we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
