November 22
Since 2001, the United States has been involved in conflict with the Middle East country of Afghanistan. This was a response to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. The terrorists were linked to the Muslim extremist group al-Quida, led by Osama bin-Laden. Bin-Laden was known to be hiding in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban government, which refused to hand over the terrorist leader. In response, war was declared and the Taliban driven out. It is now 2011, and we are still there. The United States has lost the battle in Afghanistan, and it cannot win.
Afghanistan is known as the Graveyard of Empires. The Persian Empires, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British Empire, the Soviets, and more have invaded that country and all have left. Like the U.S these were the greatest powers of their time, and they were in some way defeated. The problem is terrian and its people. Every force that has entered Afghanistan is an outsider, and thus does not properly know the terrain and how to work in it. The people do, and they are relentless. While they are easily beaten by the concentrated force of the enemy, they can use the land itself to strike at the invaders in all the right places. In our case, the terrorist forces intimidate and threaten the local population against the U.S, leaving us even less help. The people are driven by nationalism, terror, and religon, and will not stop until we leave.
Our obvious defeat is in the lack of democracy. Afghan Presiden Karzai and his goverment are corrupt, and depend on our soldiers. Should we leave, the Taliban would tear them apart. Karzai has also stated that he would support Pakistan over the U.S, if tension turned to violence. Our soldiers continue to die, and face the prospect of conflict with Iran. Just like the great empires before us, Afghanistan is bleeding us dry of men and resources. We have been defeated, it now comes to how much can we salvage. Or nuke the place into a parking lot, but I dont see that happening.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Other Wes Moore
Nov 5
1. Wes Moore 1 grew up without a father. His dad had died due to a medical problem at an early age. Wes was left with his mother and sisters, so he didnt really have a male model aside from his extended family. Wes didnt treat school too seriously, he prefered spending time on the streets with his friends. Despite getting into trouble for things like defacing a wall, Wes never entered the drug business. He also continued to care for his family, even if he did become annoyed with them over what he viewed as small things, like school. This can be understandable, since he had no father and was in his pre-teen to teen years.
Wes Moore 2 also had no father. Unlike Wes 1's father, 2's was a deadbeat and didnt stay around to raise Wes. That left him to seek out a male role model in his older brother Tony, a growing drug dealer. Unlike Wes 1's siblings and mother, Tony was a horrible influence on Wes. Wes took school even less seriously then Wes 1, and soon chose the drug trade to make quick money. This led to his involvment in gangs that were far worst then Wes 1's friends. Wes also became detached from his mother for flushing some of his product down the toilet.
2. A turning point for Wes 1 is military school. There, among strict rules, Wes didnt have the same influence of the streets he did at home. Wes also saw the marked respect that students gave higher ups, also different from the street life. The school forced Wes to take responsibility for himself and grow up. He took the lesson seriously and realized how much trouble he had caused others, including his mother.
A turning point for Wes 2 came far later in life, and too late. In order to find a job and pay support for his children, Wes enrolled for trade courses. The sheltered atmosphere and order of the school made Wes feel at ease, and he found he had some skill as a carpenture. However, once Wes was out of the courses, he broke down again. He couldnt find work as easily as he had hoped, and soon joined his brother Tony in a robbery. Wes did not learn his lesson, and prefered the easy way out. Well, easy until he ended up in prison.
3. Wes 1's mother raised him, as his father was dead. Wes' mother was constantly angry and upset about his antics and low grades in school, but she didnt give up on him. She used 'tough love' to teach him the lessons of life. When she saw that Wes was at the point were he could go either way in life, she sent him to the school where he could grow up. This was not an easy choice for her, but she realized what needed to be done, and she did it rationaly. The point eventually came through to Wes.
Wes 2's mother was not so strong. Wes' lack of responsiblity also comes from his father, who abandoned them. The mentality of giving up or not being accountable passed over to Wes. His mother made all the wrong choices. She didnt seperate him from Tony, and suffered from denial about Wes' drug involvment. She also did a rather stupid move of flushing Wes' drugs down the toilet. She prefered to toss the drugs and pretend it didnt exist. Destroying that much product could have also put Wes in danger with his suppliers. Her lack of control and resolve allowed Wes to become so out of control.
4. The book displays two parts of human nature. Wes 1 started off abit wrong, being drawn into street activites and disregarding school. When some life changing moments arrives, however, he learned them and tried to change. Not just that, he kept working at it to earn real respect.
Wes 2 was drawn to the streets, and stayed there. Wes prefered the 'easy way' of life, no school, and illegal work. Despite being arrested several times, Wes never actually took responibility for it. He always blamed it on someone else, from his mother to the girls he slept with. When Wes was given a chance to change, it was to hard for him and he ended up even worst off.
5. I like the book. The perspective is clearly documented and interchanges between both Wes Moores well. Wes 1 writes it in a way that trys to be unbiased about his success against Wes 2's life. The story of both boys growing up is very human, as you can both feel for and dislike certain parts of their life. For Wes 1, you can feel satisfaction at his achievments. For Wes 2, you can feel upset when he makes every wrong move. The Other Wes Moore is a pwerful book.
1. Wes Moore 1 grew up without a father. His dad had died due to a medical problem at an early age. Wes was left with his mother and sisters, so he didnt really have a male model aside from his extended family. Wes didnt treat school too seriously, he prefered spending time on the streets with his friends. Despite getting into trouble for things like defacing a wall, Wes never entered the drug business. He also continued to care for his family, even if he did become annoyed with them over what he viewed as small things, like school. This can be understandable, since he had no father and was in his pre-teen to teen years.
Wes Moore 2 also had no father. Unlike Wes 1's father, 2's was a deadbeat and didnt stay around to raise Wes. That left him to seek out a male role model in his older brother Tony, a growing drug dealer. Unlike Wes 1's siblings and mother, Tony was a horrible influence on Wes. Wes took school even less seriously then Wes 1, and soon chose the drug trade to make quick money. This led to his involvment in gangs that were far worst then Wes 1's friends. Wes also became detached from his mother for flushing some of his product down the toilet.
2. A turning point for Wes 1 is military school. There, among strict rules, Wes didnt have the same influence of the streets he did at home. Wes also saw the marked respect that students gave higher ups, also different from the street life. The school forced Wes to take responsibility for himself and grow up. He took the lesson seriously and realized how much trouble he had caused others, including his mother.
A turning point for Wes 2 came far later in life, and too late. In order to find a job and pay support for his children, Wes enrolled for trade courses. The sheltered atmosphere and order of the school made Wes feel at ease, and he found he had some skill as a carpenture. However, once Wes was out of the courses, he broke down again. He couldnt find work as easily as he had hoped, and soon joined his brother Tony in a robbery. Wes did not learn his lesson, and prefered the easy way out. Well, easy until he ended up in prison.
3. Wes 1's mother raised him, as his father was dead. Wes' mother was constantly angry and upset about his antics and low grades in school, but she didnt give up on him. She used 'tough love' to teach him the lessons of life. When she saw that Wes was at the point were he could go either way in life, she sent him to the school where he could grow up. This was not an easy choice for her, but she realized what needed to be done, and she did it rationaly. The point eventually came through to Wes.
Wes 2's mother was not so strong. Wes' lack of responsiblity also comes from his father, who abandoned them. The mentality of giving up or not being accountable passed over to Wes. His mother made all the wrong choices. She didnt seperate him from Tony, and suffered from denial about Wes' drug involvment. She also did a rather stupid move of flushing Wes' drugs down the toilet. She prefered to toss the drugs and pretend it didnt exist. Destroying that much product could have also put Wes in danger with his suppliers. Her lack of control and resolve allowed Wes to become so out of control.
4. The book displays two parts of human nature. Wes 1 started off abit wrong, being drawn into street activites and disregarding school. When some life changing moments arrives, however, he learned them and tried to change. Not just that, he kept working at it to earn real respect.
Wes 2 was drawn to the streets, and stayed there. Wes prefered the 'easy way' of life, no school, and illegal work. Despite being arrested several times, Wes never actually took responibility for it. He always blamed it on someone else, from his mother to the girls he slept with. When Wes was given a chance to change, it was to hard for him and he ended up even worst off.
5. I like the book. The perspective is clearly documented and interchanges between both Wes Moores well. Wes 1 writes it in a way that trys to be unbiased about his success against Wes 2's life. The story of both boys growing up is very human, as you can both feel for and dislike certain parts of their life. For Wes 1, you can feel satisfaction at his achievments. For Wes 2, you can feel upset when he makes every wrong move. The Other Wes Moore is a pwerful book.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Are Corporations in the U.S people?
Oct 30
People dont like corporations. The Occupy movements are apparently about fighting corprate greed, even as they use phones, Ipods, and laptops. Movies and video games cast corporations as evil. In the game Saints Row 2, the main antagonist is the Ultor Corporation, which seeks to use gang violence to ruin the city so Ultor can buy the property. In the hard economic times, people are upset at stories of corprate bailouts and the pay that CEOs make. So the question comes, are corporations people?
Propenents argue yes. A corporation should be free to spend its own money however it likes, so long as it does not break a law. There is no law against unlimited money, so it can spend it. Like any voter, a corporation is using the money on a candidate so that, if he wins, the corporation can have representation for the offical. A person can email or call their politician, a corporation has its own needs that need addressing. Ed Rollins, a Republican consultant, claims that there will now be more transparncy and competitive. Supporters also point to the freedoms of the First Amendment as proof that they are right.
by promoting gang warfare.
Opponents argue no. Politicians, such as John Kerry and John McCain, claim this will lead to increased corruption and special interest influence. The New York Times claimed that the Court has 'handed the lobbyists a new weapon'. If a group does not like a candidate, they can spend unlimited amounts on his opponent. The lack of checks on money also means the corporation can dangle even more money over an offical to get their way. Add to the fact that a corporation is a collective of people with different interests and shares, a corporation can hardly be seen as a person. In a poll, 80% of the people opposed the ruling.
I believe that a corporation can spend its money however they like. I dont absolutely love the idea, but they have that right. I would prefer it if the corporation leaves it to its members to either take a vote on who they support, or simply let indiviuals within the corporation make their own donations. I do not believe that corporations themselves are people, but they are made up of people, thus bringing it under the First Amendment.
Facts:
1. Supporters claim that this provides more transparncy, while opponents expect a flood of corruption and special interest.
2. In an ABC-Washington Post poll, 80% opposed the idea of unlimited corporate spending in elections.
3. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnel claims the ruling "Struck a blow for the First Amendment."
People dont like corporations. The Occupy movements are apparently about fighting corprate greed, even as they use phones, Ipods, and laptops. Movies and video games cast corporations as evil. In the game Saints Row 2, the main antagonist is the Ultor Corporation, which seeks to use gang violence to ruin the city so Ultor can buy the property. In the hard economic times, people are upset at stories of corprate bailouts and the pay that CEOs make. So the question comes, are corporations people?
The question comes after a ruling but the Supreme Court in Citizens united vs Federal Electoral Commisson, in which corporations were permited to spend whatever they pleased in supporting a candidate. The Court ruled that, under the First Amendment, corporations could not be sensored in how much they advertize for a candidate. This sparked the debate over whether or not corporations are considered people in the United States.
Propenents argue yes. A corporation should be free to spend its own money however it likes, so long as it does not break a law. There is no law against unlimited money, so it can spend it. Like any voter, a corporation is using the money on a candidate so that, if he wins, the corporation can have representation for the offical. A person can email or call their politician, a corporation has its own needs that need addressing. Ed Rollins, a Republican consultant, claims that there will now be more transparncy and competitive. Supporters also point to the freedoms of the First Amendment as proof that they are right.
by promoting gang warfare.Opponents argue no. Politicians, such as John Kerry and John McCain, claim this will lead to increased corruption and special interest influence. The New York Times claimed that the Court has 'handed the lobbyists a new weapon'. If a group does not like a candidate, they can spend unlimited amounts on his opponent. The lack of checks on money also means the corporation can dangle even more money over an offical to get their way. Add to the fact that a corporation is a collective of people with different interests and shares, a corporation can hardly be seen as a person. In a poll, 80% of the people opposed the ruling.
I believe that a corporation can spend its money however they like. I dont absolutely love the idea, but they have that right. I would prefer it if the corporation leaves it to its members to either take a vote on who they support, or simply let indiviuals within the corporation make their own donations. I do not believe that corporations themselves are people, but they are made up of people, thus bringing it under the First Amendment.
Facts:
1. Supporters claim that this provides more transparncy, while opponents expect a flood of corruption and special interest.
2. In an ABC-Washington Post poll, 80% opposed the idea of unlimited corporate spending in elections.
3. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnel claims the ruling "Struck a blow for the First Amendment."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)