Unwanted Newborns

Well, I am back from the weekend away and ready to start typing again.  Although, I must admit, it was nice to be away from the news, the internet, cell phone service and any type of technology whatsoever including electricity.  Alas, back to the real world, and making a buck or two.  Since I have been away three days, I figured I would kick off the shortened week with a nice, uplifting blog; women abandoning their newborns.  I stumbled across a short article last week that talked about two separate incidents in which young mothers tried to get rid of their unwanted newborns.  One was successful in killing her child, the other luckily was not.  The incident that I guess prompted this article in the NYTimes was the discovery of a newborn child in the bottom of an apartment building's trash compactor.  It is suspected that the mother who gave birth the day before, dumped the baby down the trash chute from her eigth floor apartment.  In this case, the newborn somehow survived and was reported in stable condition afterwards.  The 18 year old mother was arrested and is being held on charges.  This incident happened only one week after another young mother of 23 gave birth in the restroom of a hospital and left her baby there.  In this case, the baby died and the mother is being held on more serious charges.  It is obvious in both cases that the mothers were not ready to have children, yet were careless and got pregnant.  The worst part about this is, after carrying the baby to term, the mother's outright abandoned the newborns at the earliest possible convenience. 

If these two mothers were not ready for children, there were other options available other than the trash chute or the restroom of a hospital for the newborns.  There are many families out there who are unable for whatever reason to get pregnant who would have been more than happy to adopt these two newborns and give them a life worth living.  Luckily, out of the two incidents, at least one baby has the chance to live and will hopefully find a loving family who will accept him into their home.  It is my only hope that with our justice system, we don't find a reason to give that child back to its mother at all but rather strip her of the opportunity of raising the child, an opportunity she did not want to begin with.  It is also a hope of mine that this is not an indication of how other mother's are reacting to their newborns or will react in the future.  If women don't want to get pregnant, they should be more aware of their bodies and how they actually get pregnant.  It is pretty clear that these two women never thought that they would get pregnant when they did, but honestly, what did they think would happen if they had intercourse.  Inevitably, if you have intercourse enough times and the time is right for your body, you will get pregnant.  Perhaps the education wasn't there for them to learn enough about their bodies and how to properly prevent pregnancies or maybe they came from households where it they didn't matter and in an attempt to feel wanted, threw themselves at the men in their lives.  Maybe they will try blaming it on society and claim that since everyone can just get rid of their problems easily these days either through blaming someone else or taking a happy pill, then they should be able to get rid of their "problem" just as easily by abandoning their newborns. 

What really needs to be done is to take money dedicated for abortions and dedicate it instead to educating women about pregnancy and how it all works.  It is obvious that these women didn't even consider abortions or they would have had them.  If they have this much disregard for human life after a baby is born, then they surely would have had no problem having an abortion and abandoning their offspring much earlier.  I am not in any means whatsoever condoning abortion, but it just seems as if these two women would have had no problem with it.  It is puzzling that they would go through as much trouble as they did, carrying a child through nine months of pregnancy just to abandon it almost immediately after birth.  Maybe as I mentioned before, it actually does speak to our society's mentality about human life in general and how we do not place the value we used to on human life in general.   Wherever you look, human life does not hold the meaning it used to.  As much as we may claime to value life greatly, that value has diminished from where it was even 10 years ago.  Not necessarily in every sector of society, but in certain sectors, it has distinctly diminished and these two incident's speak directly to that.   We should all cherish those we love, whether they are young old, unborn children, or newborns.  Every life has value and if we cut off a life early, we have no knowledge of what that life may have come to be.  The baby who died in a hospital restroom could have grown up to become a great artist or businessman, we will never know now.  Today, tell your family you love them and make sure they know it.  It is not enough to just let time pass by and wander past everyone in a stupor.  We must take human life and lift it up again, in every area of society, so that it holds greater value than it does now and we can change perceptions of the way life should be lived. 

Prepping Women for Bikini Season

A quick note before I get fully into this post, I will be away this weekend and far away from internet access or cell phone service, so no new posts till Tuesday morning.  Please check back then.   Moving on, I have talked about women and how they are supposed to look before, but since it is almost "bikini season" and there are commercials everywhere telling women how to lose weight so they can look good in a bikini, I felt it was worth it to touch on it again.  Ads everywhere are pretty much telling women that if they want to look good this summer and fit into a bikini without folds of fat flowing over, they need to lose weight, trim their shape up, work out, and look like a model.  For most women, this is not going to happen.  But never fear, for those with money, they can always resort to liposuction, tummy tucks, and other procedures to whisk away the fat so that they don't have to put in an ounce of effort.  This image can be extremely damaging to women's ego's and self esteem if they are unable to lose the weight or pay for a procedure (which I don't agree with at all).  They are made to feel like outcasts if they can't look good in a bikini.  Will everyone succumb to this mentality, no, but it seems to be getting more and more invasive as time goes on, creeping into every magazine and TV show.  What makes it worse is when women see celebrities being chastised for being a "little" over weight and sporting a bikini, or actually showing evidence of a "procedure" that was done so they can look good in a bikini. When they see other's being chastised for their image, it makes them fearful of what might be said about them if they don't look the part.   If stores actually want to sell bikini's, wouldn't it make more sense to market to a wider range of women than just the ultra thin? 

It used to be, just 40 years ago, that a little extra weight around the middle was not a bad thing, and that having it show while wearing a bikini would not subject the wearer to comments or side long glances that indicated they were less than perfect.  The image has been ingrained into the mentality of not just women but men as well.  Men have come to expect women who wear bikini's to look the part.  Men expect a flat, hairless stomach, and while they are at it, they should get pre-tanned in a booth somewhere before stepping outdoors with their pale skin.  So in part, men play into this and are part of the problem causing women to constantly look for new and more efficient ways of losing weight in preparation for the bikini season.  While weight-loss is mostly marketed towards women at this time of year, there is a certain percentage that is devoted to getting men to trim up in order to look good for the ultra thin women on the beach.   It is not as big of an issue, but the image of men is getting just about as bad as the image of women.  If either men or women want to lose weight, it should not be just to look good at the beach for someone else.   While that may be a good goal to set (if that is what people want), it should not be expected to happen overnight.  Losing weight should for the most part be done to improve the overall health of an individual.  And the ideal weight is not that portrayed by models on the cover of magazines or by celebrities.  A person's ideal weight varies depending on a number of factors and is not the same across the board. 

When losing weight, people should set goals on what they want to achieve, not based on the media, but based on their own sense of self and beauty.  Obviously, for some, that sense of self and beauty will be influenced by the media to an extent, but it shouldn't be.  If you feel comfortable in your body, then stay where you are, don't feel pressured to lose weight just to impress others or to fit the mold being pushed by society these days.  If you are a over weight and still want to wear that bikini, then by all means, do so.  Don't pay attention to others, wear whatever the hell you want and be proud of it.  The most important part about all of this is to develop a sense of self that is distinctly your own, not someone else's.  There needs to be a cultural revolution to change the way that people perceive themselves, mostly women, but it goes for men as well.  If we could all just be happy with who we are, then there would be no need to stress out about weight loss and bikini season.  Part of the problem with losing weight to begin with is stress and the effect that it has on your body.  If people get stressed out about losing weight in time for summer, then it will make it that much harder to lose that weight.  Take time today to develop a sense of who you are and what is important to you.  Don't let the media tell you how you should look, develop your own let it be your own.

Workplace and Obesity

There is a new study out that adds another factor to the list of reasons why Americans keep adding weight to their waistlines.  In addition to reduced physical activity at home, poor eating habits, and genetics, the workplace is also an added boon to remaining fit.  In 1960, at least 50% of the workforce was involved in at least moderate physical activity at work, whether it be at a manufacturing plant or in the agriculture.  Since then, that percentage has dropped to 20% leaving 80% of the workforce with only light physical activity on the job today.  Even in the office environment 20 years ago, there was more physical activity involved.  What changed since then in the office?  The internet.  This fabulous addition to our lives has in effect reduced the amount of physical activity we get in the office during the day.  Now, office workers can rely on emails, wireless printing, and online meetings instead of face to face interactions in which they are required to get up from their desks and actually walk to another part of the office.  This new addition to the factors of American obesity makes absolute sense.  If American workers get only light to no physical activity during the day either at the office or at home, then combined with poor eating habits, it is no wonder that 1 in 3 of us are obese.  In addition to having increasingly sedentary jobs, more and more Americans are staying away from mass transit which includes more walking  versus driving in their own cars to work.  In essence, a lot of Americans from the time they wake up to the time they go to bed will do more sitting than walking throughout the day. 

The shift from moderate to light physical activity during the work day accounted for an average decline in 120 to 140 calories that were lost during the day due to that activity.  Instead, we are piling on those calories around our waists.   Since this is mostly a personal problem, Americans need to realize what is happening and make changes to their lifestyle to increase the amount of physical activity they get throughout the day so they can try and keep some of the weight off.  One could argue, as I am about to, that obesity is not just a personal problem.  It is also both a family and a social problem as well.  An obese person is more likely have health problems due to the added weight such as heart disease, diabetes, cholestorol issues, strokes, and a slew of other medical problems.  This directly affects their family in the fact that if they do succumb to one of the health problems, they are leaving their family behind at a much younger age than they should be.  Secondly, it is a social problem because as the number of obese people in America rises, the number of visits to doctors to "fix" their health problems increases as does our insurance premiums.  A sedentary lifestyle creates problems across the board and until American realize what effect they are having on those around them, it is not going to change. 

I completely understand the effect that physical activity can have on the body and weight gain.  Personally, I am a contractor that rarely sits down during the day.  The only time I really sit down is in the morning to write this blog and eat my breakfast, a half hour at lunch to eat, and then again at dinner and to relax afterwards for about an hour.  The rest of the time, I am on my feet working, burning calories, and yes eating a lot.  But the thing is, I don't just eat to eat.  I eat when I am hungry and stop eating when I am not.   People are continually amazed at the amount of food I can eat in one sitting without putting on one pound of weight.  The only reason I can do that is because I am active all day long.  Even when I was in college, not doing much physical activity for 5 years, I weighed 35 pounds more than I do now.  Why, because my eating habits were the same as they are now, yet the amount of physical activity during the day was greatly reduced.   If the amount of physical activity I did throughout the day were to reduce drastically, I would seriously need to reign in my eating habits because I can guarantee that the 35 pounds would come right back.    In addition, I  currently eat mostly healthy organic foods, which make a big difference.  I can't remember the last time that I went to a McDonalds, Burger King, or some other fast food joint.  If I went there now, I would probably be sick to my stomach.  At this point, I mostly eat home cooked meals, most of which are low in preservatives and additives.  But enough about me. 

There are changes that can be made in the workplace and some are suggested in the article I linked at the beginning of this post.  Some of these include standing work stations, movement of the office printer farther from desks requiring more walking, reduced use of the internet to communicate within the office, and even treadmill work stations where someone can walk while working on the computer.  (This last one could prove hazardous if someone is incapable of multi-tasking, I have an image of someone trying to send an email and suddenly flying backwards because they lost concentration.)  But there are changes that can be made in the workplace.  The biggest change that needs to be made is in the American mentality about obesity, the problems that it causes, and the solutions that need to be worked on.  People need to learn to take weight-loss one day at a time.  It needs to start with a little walking, then a little more, and so-on till the pounds start coming off.  There also needs to be changes made to eating habits.  While it is much easier to buy the prepared dinners at the grocery store, they are much less healthy than fresh cooked food.  The preservatives and additives that prepared foods have in them do not help in achieving a healthy lifestyle, one could argue that they are downright detrimental.  If you know someone who is obese, try working with them to increase the amount of physical activity they get throughout the day.  In general, lets all try to do a little extra walking today, and then a little more tomorrow.  It will only improve our overall health and help us to live longer, more fruitful lives. 

British Law and Ryan Giggs

Since we seem to be on the topic of law suits, lets move across the pond to a law suit that is being filed against Twitter for exposing the name of Ryan Giggs despite a super-injunction granted by the British government.  Who is Ryan Giggs, what is a super-injunction, and what happened?  Well, Ryan Giggs is a soccer star in Britain who had an extra-marital affair with a reality TV star from Big Brother.  After the affair, he filed for a super-injunction which basically prevents his name, picture, or anything about him and the event  from being printed in the media.  This is supposedly to protect his privacy and keep his affair out of the public eye.  What happened was that an anonymous user or two tweeted Ryan Giggs' name on Twitter, spawning an avalanche of tweets and re-tweets further exposing his name.  The British government is now saying that Twitter broke British law and is suing to have the identity's revealed of the users who first used Ryan Giggs' name and exposed the whole incident.  At this point, despite the fact that almost everyone who wants to know, knows who Ryan Giggs is and what happened, the media in Britain is still forbidden from uttering his name or using his picture.  This seems a little absurd to me.  Recently, there has been some controversy over the whole super-injunction issue itself because it can be used to cover up almost anything ranging from politicians hiring prostitutes to devious business dealings.  The big problem that the British government is facing in attempting to sue Twitter is that first off, it is an American company which operates out of America and follows all American laws and second, it is not technically a news agency although the line gets blurry on that second note.  Two articles that seem to cover the incident pretty well are linked here:  Article 1 and Article 2.

I personally think that super injunctions are a load of crap.  If someone becomes a celebrity or a politician, they should be willing to accept the publicity that comes along with it.  Likewise, they should be extra careful about how they act knowing that the public eye is scrutinizing them and looking for a slip up of any kind.   For this Ryan Giggs, why shouldn't his affair be made public?  He screwed up, was un-faithful, and has a following of fans who look at his every move.  Shame on him for having the affair in the first place and then he wanted to cover it up?  It looks a lot worse now that his name has been revealed and the British media is still not able to reveal his name or picture.  This sort of cover up would never happen in the United States.  If someone in the public eye who is fairly well known screws up, the public usually finds out about it pretty soon afterwards.  The only way that things get covered up in this country is if those who are famous are extra careful to make sure word doesn't get out.  After all, Arnold Schwarzenegger was able to cover up his affair and illegitimate child for ten years before the news came out about it.  Those who have enough money and savvy can skirt the media and hide their misdeeds without the use of the government to help them cover it up.  What ever happened to being honest and forthright with people?  Oh, right, that went by the wayside years ago, my fault.

Twitter is now facing dealings with varying laws based upon the country that its services are used in.  This is just one of the downsides of globalization and the ever expanding presence of the internet.  While internet companies may abide by the laws of the country that they are based out of, they may not be abiding by the laws in another country.  However, with the internet, those laws and their applicability to internet services gets fuzzy depending on what is occurring.  Google has run into issues both in China and in Germany over different aspects of its services.  These issues just go to show how countries need to work more closely with each other to define how internet services will be allowed to operate in their countries and even to re-adjust laws if necessary so that the services being provided can operate within them instead of potentially breaking them.  The other option, as I see it, is for whatever country that is using the services that finds that it is breaking laws, to not use those services or not allow them to be used in their country.  My option, obviously, would probably never happen, because as stated before, the proliferation of internet services across the globe has happened at an incredibly fast rate and is still increasing every day.  To stop internet service in a given country would upset hundreds upon thousands of people who rely on it daily for a variety of purposes.  For the most part, almost all sites operate within the given laws of most countries and no real issues arise.  This latest issue out of Britain, in my mind, is a stupid issue.

Both the super-injunction itself and the British lawsuit are pointless, outdated, and stupid.  Granted, I am looking at it from an American perspective, but I feel, as I have said before, that if you put yourself in the public eye, for whatever reason, then you should expect to be followed and reported on by the media more closely than others.  The easiest way to get rid of an issue is to admit to it from the get go and be totally honest about it.  Wouldn't it have been much easier if Ryan Giggs came out when the affair first happened and said, "Listen, I screwed up, I had an affair, I am sorry, and now I am trying to work things out with my wife."  The issue would not have been as big as it is today and there wouldn't be lawsuits flying around or super-injunctions being issued.  In any case, none of this would have happened to begin with if Ryan had simply remained faithful to his wife, something that it seems is incredibly hard for men to do these days.  Many men see a gorgeous woman walking down the street and immediately must have that women for themselves, regardless if they are in a relationship or not.  What ever happened to self-restraint and adhering to vows and promises that one makes.  That has obviously also gone by the wayside along with honesty.  Today, take a look at your own life and see if you are being honest with those around you.  Honesty goes a long way and is a much better policy than deceit.

Law Suit over Tyson Tattoo

As if we didn't have enough lawsuits in the United States over everything from spilling hot coffee on yourself to retribution for faulty medical practice, there is a relatively new arena of lawsuits coming forward over tattoos.  That latest is over the tattoo that adorns the former boxer Mike Tyson's face.  It was reproduced for use in the film "The Hangover Part II" in which Mike Tyson also briefly plays a role.  It is not Mike Tyson as some might predict who is suing, but rather the artist who created the tattoo and claims that no one asked permission to re-produce his artwork for the film and now wants monetary compensation.  There have been a few lawsuits in the past regarding tattoos and their reproduction, but this is just the latests which exemplifies the truly muddy waters that need to be waded through in order to sort this whole mess out.  After all, the original work of art, (on Mike Tyson's face) is in the film itself.  This lawsuit, apparently, aims at protecting intellectual property or artwork, or the artist who created the design himself.  One can make the claim however, that he borrowed ideas from the native Maori's of New Zealand as a basis for the tattoo.  I don't see them suing over intellectual property rights over the reproduction of art.  The tricky part with tattoos is that while the person whose body the tattoo is inked on owns the tattoo itself, they technically don't actually own the design itself.  One could argue that nothing was done wrong in the sense that the tattoo was not reproduced for sale or personal monetary gain (although the artist will claim it was since it "might" make the movie production studio more money) and that since it wasn't, it is ok to reproduce the art. 

There is a very fine line in artwork that can't be crossed.  To me that fine line is reproducing a work of art, regardless of origin, for the explicit use of making money off of it.  As long as recognition is being paid to the original artist, then there should be nothing wrong with reproducing someone elses artwork.  Artists, obviously will claim otherwise.  But lets look at another example.  In the movie, "The Da Vince Code", there is a painting of the Mona Lisa, obviously a reproduction, that is an important part of the movie.  The art was reproduced because the original is priceless and would never be used as the reproduced art was in the movie.  Additionally, the original artist has long passed away and we would never know if he would file a lawsuit against the movie production studio over the use of his artwork. (My guess is, he wouldn't)  In this case, the work of art was not resold to make direct money, just as the reproduced tattoo was not used to make direct money off of.  If the tattoo is exactly reproduced by another tattoo artist with the explicit intent of making money, then the original artist has a right to be upset.  But in the world of art, borrowing other ideas, making them your own, and building off of them is an integral part of making art.  People use aspects of other's artwork all the time.  They may not copy it exactly, but they may use different aspects of the work and incorporate them into their own. 

In the end, if I was the artist who created the tattoo on Mike Tyson's face, all I would ask for is recognition in the credits for creating the original tattoo.  That alone is enough to boost business and attract attention.  By suing over the reproduction of a tattoo, I feel that it signals that an artist is not doing as well as he would like to be doing and needs an excuse to get himself in the media to get his fifteen minutes of fame.  If I ever was to hunt down Mike Tyson's tattoo artist because of what he did for Mike Tyson (which I wouldn't do to begin with), I would never do so after finding out that he sued over the tattoo.   Should the movie production studio have asked for permission to use the tattoo, absolutely, but I believe that the artist suing over the reproduction of his art is a little severe and over the top.  Yet, that is the world we live in, where everyone goes overboard with everything they do, seeking retribution for anything that goes wrong, and always looking for someone else to pay.  The artist should be greatful instead that he had the opportunity to tattoo Mike Tyson's face and then have that tattoo reproduced for a major motion picture.  But no, that is not enough, he must have more.  I find it personally ridiculous, but then again, I am probably in the minority here.  In any case, let us all seek to be ourselves, be responsible for our own actions, and not constantly look to make other's pay. 

Impending Civil War in Sudan

Sudan is a country that doesn't often make the news.  I am guessing mostly because we don't really receive any oil from them and they are not a country that holds strategic importance for our military.  In July, after years of dispute and war, genocide in the Darfur region and north/south disputes over the town of Abyei, the North and South are officially supposed to split into two countries.  It is anyone's guess if this will really happen or not.  Most of the border has been agreed upon except for the one town of Abyei, mostly inhabited by Southerners, yet claimed as part of the North's territory for years.  There has been no formal agreement as yet as to which side the town will go to or if it will remain neutral territory with security forces from both the North and the South present.  Over this past weekend, antagonized by the South, the North invaded the town starting with airborn bombing runs to clear the way and followed with an all out invasion with tanks and troops.  At this point it seems as if no one was killed with most of the residents able to flee before the actual invasion.  Now the South seems poised to retaliate saying that the North's invasion is an outright declaration of war.  As we do with most countries that do not have massive reserves of oil or hold strategic military importance, we are only issuing statements of warning that a civil war will not make it easy to split the country officially come July.  Really?  That one was hard to figure out.

It is definitely a good thing that we are not meddling in the affairs of this country.  If only we could carry this through to all other world wide issues, maybe we would be a little better off.  The only effect we do have on that country at this point is the sanctions we imposed on them in the 1990's for harboring Bin Laden.  The Southern troops, according to news reports, did receive U.S. training at some point, but I do not believe that it was recent.  Regardless, watching this unfold is like watching two little children, sworn enemies since birth, battle it out over a sandbox in the schoolyard.  One pokes the other and claims innocence.  The reciever of the poke retaliates claiming just cause.  And then it goes on and on and on ad infinitum.   To me it is ridiculous that there can be so much dispute and turmoil over different ethnicities, one small town, and how it factors into a large country.   Perhaps there should be a 20 mile wide demilitarized zone, similar to that between North and South Korea that forces both North and South to abandon the town of Abyei and leave it to rot and decay.  Then maybe there could be some sort of closure.  Let each country patrol their border, stay on their side, and leave each other alone.  Unlike North and South Korea, this is unlikely ever to happen.  They probably would not even be able to decide where the DMZ should go and neither would be likely willing to forfeit the possibility of controlling the town of Abyei. 

If we can't effect a change through issuing statements and sanctions, then I say let them fight.  Let the civilians run for cover and let both militaries fight it out till they kill of most of themselves.   It is not our fight to get involved in, the same as the dispute in Israel is not our fight to get involved in either, yet we take much more interest in that region than in Sudan.  Granted, there are much more powerful people in our government with direct ties to Israel than to Sudan, so it only makes sense that they would push to get our government involved in the foreign affairs of Israel.  To me, there is no difference between the fight over Abyei or Jerusalem.  Both are highly contested areas, claimed by multiple parties as their own, and no one is willing to budge on the issue of who ultimately has the right to govern that territory.  Obviously, we can't all just get along or we wouldn't have to witness these issues being dealt with.  It seems unfortunate that Sudan is not recieving as much news coverage as the Middle East and the turmoil currently engulfing that region.  The lives of the people living there are just as important as the lives of the people living anywhere else.  Human life is valuable no matter where a person lives, what ethnicity they are, or what religion they follow.  The governments and media of the world never cover wars, disputes, and the atrocities perpetrated with equal coverage.  The genocide in Darfur never received as much coverage as any of the current uprisings in the Middle East has.  Unfortunately, I don't see that changing any time soon.  We will forever concern ourselves with those countries that can have the largest negative impact on us and sideline those that are simply fighting over themselves.  It seems that war at this point will never end.  There will always be conflict, men exerting power over other men, and men trying to retaliate and overcome subjugation.  At this point, we can only hope for peace, for an end to world wide conflict, and for men and women alike to realize that every person is unique in their own way and just because they may look different or worship a different religion, it does not mean that they are less important in any way.  Today, lets look to a future of peace, a future where we can accept others for who they, a future void of discrimination and subjugation, a future where we can all live together without worry.

Yet Another False Prophet

Well, Saturday May 21 came and went and nothing truly out of the ordinary happened.  There was no world wide earthquake signaling the Rapture in which 200 million people would have been absorbed into heaven, there were no new world wide wars that began nor any new major political upheavals.  For the most part, yesterday was just another ordinary Saturday in May with another ordinary Sunday following right afterwards.  The only difference is that all the believers in Harold Camping's prophesy are now stuck on earth instead of being absorbed into heaven and for some of them, today is the first day of being bankrupt, having no savings to fall back on, and the beginning of their new life after the world didn't end.  However, such is the price they now have to pay for believing the prophesy of this 89 year old man from California who is now no where to be found.  Some people have stopped saving for their children's education, spent their last dime on helping to spread the word about the end of the world, some even using up their entire money saved for retirement on this one false prophet's prediction.  Did they not think twice when investing themselves entirely with this one prophet's vision?  Did they not look back and see that he was wrong back in 1994 when he first predicted that the world was going to end?  Who ultimately gave him the power to interepret the Bible, call all other churches apostate, and make himself the ultimate prophet and savior to those who believed in his word?

The truth is, no one gave him the power, no one made him a prophet, and his vision was ultimately false.  The saddest part about this is that so many people came to believe in his prophesy.  Has our society come to that point where so many people have lost faith in humanity where they are looking for the world to end?  If you look at the basic beliefs of all those who thought the world was going to end, most ultimately thought that they would be absorbed into heaven and as such they were ready for their life on this earth to end.   They lost faith in the inherent good of humans to prevail over evil and wished to usher in the end of the world so that they might be free of all of societies vices and evils.  In essence, they lost the inner power or faith to fight against the pull of modern society, its atheistic ways, and its message that everyone should be able to do what they want regardless of the harm that it may cause others.  Especially in this day and age, it is becoming more and more difficult to stand against the forces out there that would have you believe that there is no God, that humans can do as they wish without fear of reprisal, and that society is inherrently good and filled with moral substance.   It is much easier to believe in one man's prediction that the world is going to end than to stand up to evil and say that you will not take part in societies vices and the messages that it promulgates. 

It takes inner strength these days along with strong faith (if you are religious) to fight against the pull of evil.  It lurks at every corner, seeking to suck you into its grip.  I am not saying that religious people alone are capable of withstanding the pull of evil.  I believe that even atheists, regardless of their beliefs, can still lead a wholesome, morally sound life that is void of all evils (evils according to religion of course).  It is becoming increasingly rare to see a devote religious person of any religion.  Most have succumbed to societies whims and its messages.  When society incessantly bombards you with messages of instant gratification, power to be had in order to exert it over others, and ways to increase your own personal vanity, it is hard to pull away or even just to reject that message.  Maybe these believers just lost faith in our world and were looking for the easy way out.  Maybe they had given up and were ready for everything to end because they were tired of fighting.  Well, in a way, they had succumbed to societies message saying that there always should and will be an easy way out.  There isn't.  Life takes work, but the more work we put into it, the more we push against the pull of evil, the better off our life will be in the long run.  There is not an easy solution to every problem and the sooner we can all come to realize that, the sooner we can move past this whole movement of instant gratification that has become so ingrained in our social mentality. 

In the end, it is sad to see that so many people put their faith in a man who proclaimed to be a prophet.  Others have done it in the past to much worse outcomes as with the Heaven's Gate cult that committed mass suicide.  Luckily, there was no mass suicide yesterday, but just a lot of disappointed people who lost a lot of money on their proclamation that the world was going to end.  It saddens me even more to know that there will be attempted law suits against Harold Camping due to all of these people spending their life savings on the end of the world.  You know what, they should suck it up and realize that they were wrong and deal with the consequences.  Unfortunately, that is yet another message that society would like us to believe, that we do not have to deal with the consequences of our actions any more, we can just blame someone else for everything that we do wrong.  In this case however, he did not tell them to spend their money, they all did it on their own accord and thus, they have nothing to gain through a law suit except possibly losing more money that they don't have.  We would all do well to learn from what happened, or didn't happen yesterday.  There are many people out there who claim to have the answers to life's problems, whether it be ushering in the end of the world, or simply offering solutions to rid you of your responsibilities.  Regardless of their message, they are all false prophets and should be avoided at all costs.  It seems however, that as soon as people start buying into societies messages, it becomes easier to accept a false prophet as real, regardless of what he or she is peddling.  Whatever your faith is, whether you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or other, there is a moral high ground that we all can follow.  That high ground is simply treating others as you would want to be treated, and abstaining from harming anyone in any way, shape, or form.  If we all follow these basic tenets of society, we can improve society as a whole.  People can actually work together if we look past our faults and differences.  Lets all make an effort to not hold people's faults and shortcomings against them and look to work with and for others.  Stay away from the false prophets, save your money, and help others.  At least thats what I would recommend.  If you don't believe what I am saying, don't buy into it, no one is forcing you.

Neither World nor Conflict in Israel Ending

Today is the telltale day on which we will see if all those supposed believers are absorbed into heaven or not as today is supposed to be the beginning of the end of the world.  What won't be beginning to end however is the conflict in Israel.  No matter how many times representatives from the Palestinian Authority or the prime minister of Israel visit the United States to try and reach agreements on how to proceed with peace talks or reconciliating borders between the two, nothing ever happens.  There may be an agreement that is reached temporarily, but inevitably, one side or another renegs on their agreement and ticks off the other side which inevitably cause more turmoil in the region.  This latest discussion between President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu is no different.  Obama is pushing for Israel to consider pre-1968 borders as a starting point for discussion with Palestine, but as usual, Israel gawks because they have since built settlements beyond their former border essentially expanding their country.  To really gain an understanding of how this whole issue started in the first place, you need to go back hundreds of years.  The furthest I will go back for the current situation is the 1890's and sum things up from there. But suffice it to say that the Israelites inhabited the region they currently call their country centuries ago before being dispersed in the Great Diaspora and becoming the lost tribes of Israel.

Jumping ahead centuries and bypassing centuries of persecution and racism against them, we get to the 1890's when a movement was started by the Zionists to create a homeland for the Jewish people in the Middle East, currently the area that Israel occupies.  During that time, the area was under Ottoman rule and it wasn't until 1917 that the Ottoman's were conquered by the British and the area known as Palestine was taken under British control.  At this time, Jerusalem was populated by a majority of Jewish inhabitiants yet in the whole region they accounted for less than 10% of the population, the rest being a mixture of Muslims, Christians, Greeks, Druze, Bedouins.  In 1917, there was sympathy for the dispersed population of the Jews in the British government and the prime minister, Lord Balfour, sent a letter to Lord Rothschild which became known as the Balfour Declaration of 1917.  This letter essentially stated that the British government favorably viewed the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.  This essentially began the era of violence that we have come to be so acquainted with in this region.  Essentially, this and subsequent letters and declarations by the British government who then controlled Palestine, allowed for the migration of Jews to the region to set up a national home for themselves.  There was an immediate influx of Jews to the region, at first mostly from Russia and then more came from Europe as anti-semitism grew in the region.  This influx obviously angered the Arabs and Muslims living in the region.  Essentially, a distant foreign power took control of the region and without the consent of any of the people living there, allowed foreigners to migrate to the region, set up a home for themselves, and settle in.  The way it was originally supposed to happen was supposed to be peaceful, with no intrusion into the way of life of people already living in the region, no military to be created by the Jews migrating, and a relatively slow migration of people. 

However, this did not happen.  The Arabs and Muslims in the region protested, rioted, and wanted to end British rule.  This really ramped up in the late 1930's when illegal immigration due to World War 2 became a bigger issue.  Arabs and Muslims increased their revolt and this caused Britain to propose the Peel Commission by which territories would be separated so that Jewish people would not have to live with Arabs.  However, the terms were not agreeable as over 200,000 Arabs would have been relocated with only about 1250 Jewish people being relocated.   Britain eventually became overly frustrated and by the end of World War 2 and the end of the British Mandate of Palestine which ended in 1947, they handed over the issue to the UN to decide what to do with.  The UN with support from the United States, Britain and other countries, carved out the current nation of Israel from the lands in that region and that is officially when the state of Israel came into existence.  The started a war between Israel and surrounding nations for the next couple of years as the nations protested the very existence of Israel.   Pretty much since Israel was formed, there as been conflict of one from or another in existence as Israel tries to illegaly expand its borders through building new settlements and the Palestinians, currently without a country to call their own protest the intrusions.  With no disrespect to the Jewish people, I am a fervent believer that the current state of Israel should not exist.  Its very existence was begun by the British when they took control of Palestine and allowed the Jews to migrate to the area.  The United Nations then decided to create the nation out of portions of land from surrounding nations.   If the Jewish people wanted their own country, they should have figured out a way of banding together and fighting for their own nation or through discussions with countries in that region, bargained for a national home for themselves. 

At this point, we can not take away the nation of Israel, it was created and it will now be in existence.  Now, however, we should retract all of our support from them because they consistently violate any peace terms or agreements and essentially do what they want.  By retracting all our support from both sides, both Israeli and Palestinian, we disavow ourselves from any involvement and save ourselves money.  In addition, we improve our image in the region as a whole as most of the other Arab countries in that region want to see us remove ourselves from that equation.  As I have mentioned time and time again, the United States needs to focus on ourselves and not fixing the problems of the world.  The sooner we realize that the more money we invest in our own country and creating jobs through innovation and manufacturing, the sooner we can pull ourselves out of this recession and improve our economic standing in this world.  As I mentioned again, I have Jewish friends and I do not want to offend them, but Israel needs to figure out their own problems without our support.  They have the capabilities of doing so, and if they end up ticking off enough people, they will realize the effects of their actions.  I personally don't see the conlflict between Israel and Palestine ending anytime soon.  Both are thick headed and stubborn.  Both have reasons to be ticked off at the other, yet I feel personally that the Palestinians have the better case here.  Granted, the Israelites were kicked out centuries ago, but we can't hold current populations accountable.  What happened in the past is the past.  The only thing we can look for is how to create a better future.   Until people can figure that out, let the past go, and move forward, there will always be conflict.  Today, lets all forget about the past, live today for what it is, and forget the issues at hand and make peace, if we can.

Will the World End Tomorrow?

There is currently a doomsday prophesy that proclaims that the world will begin a severe downward spiral starting tomorrow, Saturday May 21.  According to the beliefs of this one group of individuals, believers will be absorbed into heaven tomorrow with all none-believers doomed to suffer through plagues, wars, famine, earthquakes, tsunamis and more over the next 5 months till the world finally ends in October.  This group, following the prophesy of Harold Camping and his mathematical calculations that the world will end 7000 years after Noah's flood, are putting everything aside, warning the world, and preparing for tomorrow.  Personally, I don't believe that the world is going to end tomorrow or that it start on a path of self-destruction over the next few months.  If you look at the last few decades, we have already been experiencing a lot of what has been prophesied to happen, more earthquakes, more wars across the world, famine and drought affecting millions of people in poor regions of the world, and disbelief in God growing amongst more and more people.  I guess what I don't understand the most is why people are putting everything aside to await one specific day to be absorbed into heaven.  If they have led good, wholesome lives, then it shouldn't matter what they are doing at that specific moment when the world ends.  Furthermore, the world has been around for billions of years longer than the 7000 years since Noah's flood so why would the earth all of a sudden self destruct and demolish everything? 

There have been a slew of doomsday prophesies throughout the ages, most circling around times that are troublesome both economically, environmentally, and politically.  In fact, this is not the first time that Mr. Harold Camping predicted that the world was going to end.  Originally, he set the date for sometime back in 1994, yet reneged after doing better "calculations".  Are we living in troublesome times?  Absolutely, but that should give people more reason to lead by example, live wholesome lives, and show how living that wholesome life can improve the overall quality of life itself.  Perhaps the more troublesome aspect of this new doomsday prophesy is how it is fracturing families.  In preparing for one day of "rapture" when all believers will be absorbed into heaven, many families have members who have quit their jobs, stopped saving money, and in general, let things go to the wayside all in preparation for this one day.  Wouldn't it make more sense, based upon the fact that Camping was wrong once already to keep your job (especially in this recession), save more money for your family that they might need during the world's supposed self destruction, and keep on living?   I know, their argument would be that since they won't be here after tomorrow, why bother?  If you are Christian, and you do follow the Bible, believers will not be absorbed into heaven.  True believers will endure suffering as will every other person on earth and will be tested to in a variety of ways to prove that they are followers.  And by the way, who proclaimed that this Camping is a prophet?  This man was a civil-engineer turned self-taught Biblical scholar.  Now, he may be right, and if he is, then so be it, but I don't buy it.

So what do the rest of us do?  I guess if Mr. Camping is correct, we will have to suffer for the next five months as the world is upheaved and all hell breaks loose.  If they are wrong, we should still look to improve our own lives, help others in need, and turn to our community for strength and assistance.  It is true that more and more people do not believe in a God or Heaven or anthing spiritual anymore.  For whatever reason, whether it is losing faith or just an a growing acceptance that God does not exist, many people are turning towards society as their guide to living a good life.  If society really had something to teach us about living a good life, then we would all get regular botox injections, follow the Jersey Shore as some sort of wholesome life to lead, and pray to that almighty box called a TV sitting in our living rooms.   Ok, maybe that is a little extreme, but still, we can learn more of what not to do from society and the news than what to actually do.  What we should all do is spend more time with our family, regardless of whether or not the world is going to end and work on our relationships with others.  Our family and friends are the driving force behind who we are and how well we do in this world.  In order for us to flourish, we need to invest in the relationships that we already have and work on building new ones.  Human interaction is what drives humanity.  In this day and age of cellphones, texting, emails and the like, we too often get pushed away from human interaction and spend time alone, absorbed in ourselves.  Today, tonight, whenever, turn off the TV and work on your relationship with a family member or friend.  Actually talk to them, have a conversation, and see how their life is going, what concerns they have, what is troubling them, and see if you can help them out at all.  Regardless of wether or not the world will end tomorrow, we must all sieze the day and live every moment to the fullest!

New Interest in Hydropower

With all the talk about reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the world, the conversation inevitably leads to what types of renewable sources of energy are the best and which ones can have the greatest impact in regards to producing electricity.  While there is much excitement about wind and solar power, both depend on the wind and sun being around to power the turbines.  Wind, as we all now is highly variable except for a few places on earth and is not always blowing with the same tenacity if it is blowing at all.  While an excellent option, it is subject to the whims of the weather.  The same holds true with the sun.  There are very few places on earth, except the hottest deserts, where there is almost constant sun that can power turbines necessary to produce constant electricity to homes.  If clouds move in, electricity output diminishes or cuts off all together.  While hydropower is also subject to different variables, it has one important thing going for it, the capability of holding back water in its reservoir to maintain continuous electricity output.  In recent years there has been a surge in the building of dams across the developing world as countries seek to sustain their growing economies.  In 2008 and 2009, hydropower saw its largest output of electricity yet world wide.  However, as I mentioned, there are new variables that need to be taken into account when looking at placement of new dams and their future efficacy.

The biggest hurdle these days in dealing with new dams is the effect that climate change (i.e. global warming) is having on rainfall.  Many areas that would normally be ripe for placement of a dam now have to rethink efforts due to recent sever droughts that could leave reservoirs almost dry or without enough water to make the dam worthwhile.  In China, at the Three Gorges Dam, there has been recent severe drought which has effected shipping lanes on the Yangtze and also the output of electricity from the dam.  There has also been severe drought across southern and central America over the past decade which has negatively impacted the output of electricity from dams in those regions.  Contrarily though, what is a negative for one region is usually a positive for another.  In Norway, rainfall has generally increased over the past few years and is expected to do so thus increasing the potential output of electricity from dams in those regions.  The effects of climate change need to be taken into account when designing new dams, especially smaller ones, to make sure that A) money isn't wasted and B) electricity is able to flow continuously from the dams being built. 

There are other, and in my mind, bigger hurdles that need to be overcome with hydropower.  These hurdles involve the displacement of individuals from the areas that will be flooded, the destruction of cultural sites and the environment in general, and the effect that the damming of a river will have on those living downstream from it.  In China, while the Three Gorges Dam may indeed produce the most electricity from water of any dam (as it is the largest in the world), how does that compare to the millions of people the reservoir displaced and the cultural sites that are now buried under water?  There were many small towns that were forced to relocate along the upper Yangtze river.   These towns had existed for hundreds of years in peace and quiet, their buildings alone able to convey generations of family stories and now the residents of these towns have been forced to move uphill to cookie cutter apartment buildings built en masse with no character and no thought put into their design.  The cultural sites along with the people displaced would be enough for me to have not built the dam.  Seeing as how they are now dealing with drought that could directly impact the efficacy of the dam, it seems like it may not have worthwhile afterall.  Currently in Chile, there are protests being staged over the possibility of damming of a few rivers flowing through a remote part of Patagonia.  There needs to be much consideration placed into all the effects that a dam will have, both positive and negative, and all these effects should be taken into account before dam construction begins. 

All in all, if hydropower is used responsibly and undertaken with great care, then it is a great asset in our arsenal of renewable energy sources.  However, I must stress the word responsibly here.  Often times, governments especially rush into projects without taking into account all the variables such as climate change, dam efficacy, and most importantly the impact on local people, cultures and the environment.  If we do not take care of the people and environment in which we hope to build a dam, then what is the point?  We should strive to maintain, as much as possible, the surrounding landscape and cultures in the area that a dam is being built in.  Inevitably, an area will have to be flooded in order for a dam to function; you can't have hydropower without it.  That being said, the best place for a dam to be most effective might be the worst in regards to local culture and environmental destruction.  It is very hard to weigh all the alternatives, but if we do so with care, then I believe hydropower will have an even stronger resurgence than it already has.  In addition to building new dams, we also need to look into retro-fitting and improving the functionality of dams already in existence so that we do not need to build new ones and we can gain even more power from them.  New turbines and electrical equipment are much more effective now than they were when some of these older dams were built and simply by replacing the equipment we could increase the electrical output of them.  We need to constantly explore the best and newest ways to incorporate renewable energy sources into our power grid so that we can eventually drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.  For now, lets try and use a little electricity in our homes and make sure we turn lights off when we leave a room.

Britian's Great Environmental Endeavor

Amidst all the negative news these days of scandals, wars, terrorism, and recessions both in the U.S. and abroad, there is some positive news coming out of Great Britain.   It seems that out of all the developed-countries, Britain is the only one willing to step up to the plate and make ambitious pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their country.  Britain on the other hand, also entrenched in recession recovery and dealing with the most severe budget cuts in decades, has however looked to the future and realized that if nothing is started now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it will be harder if not impossible in the future to do so.  Their pledge is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2025, by far the only country to take steps this large yet.  In comparison, the E.U.'s goal for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is 20% by 2020.   The United States is lagging in this area with Obama setting a goal of only 17% by 2020 and that goal is contingent upon legislation being passed.  So that means that the goal will be pushed farther and farther down as our legislators debate about the ability to reach the goal and how we should do it.   What will Britain's ambitious cuts do to its economy?  Some say that it will hurt the economy during this time of recovery and severe austerity measures in place.  But there are those that see it as an opportunity to look at renewable sources of energy such as solar power and harnessing the power of the tides to produce energy.  It will not only force them to look at new sources of carbon-free power, but it will also force them to re-look at the systems they already have in place and see how they can be improved upon.  This can range anywhere from improving the efficacy of their power grid to burning more natural gas whose emissions are easier to capture, and also look to burying carbon emissions underground. 

When we look at the world as a whole and take into account both developed and developing nations, it is the developed nations that need to take the biggest steps in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  The developed countries are those that have established economies (whether or not they are suffering from a recession) and a higher standard of living for the majority of their populations.  These countries have the greatest capability to reduce greehouse gas emissions versus those developing countries that are still seeing steep rises in emissions due to growing populations, rising standards of living, and increases in power production to facilitate the transition from a poor country to a competitive, established one.  If the developed countries can not take the steps now to severly cut their emissions, what kind of example will that set for the developing countries such as China and India when they become more established and are confronted with reducing their emissions?  If we look at China now, they have emphatically said no to any pledge to reduce or even cap their greenhouse gas emissions.  Their contention is exactly what I just stated previously that as a developing nation, their greenhouse gas emissions will rise for some time before they will be able to cap them or even begin to start thinking of reducing them.   This step by Britain is the first necessary step to set the example for the rest of the world. 

The two largest producers of greehouse gas emissions are the United States and China.  The United States, which should be the one setting the example and taking the largest steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is the one that seems to be lagging behind the worst.  It is fantastic that Britain is setting the example, but more developed nations need to see this as a necessary endeavor if we are to protect the world that we live in and provide a cleaner environment for our children and our children's children to live in.  At our current rate of emissions, it is doubtful if there will ever be smog-free day anywhere.  If we keep on driving our cars with poor gas mileage, devoting our money to fossil-fuels that produce excessive amounts of emissions and not funneling money into developing new technologies, then we are all royally screwed.  Britain sees this as an opportunity to turn their nation into one that relies heavily on the financial sector for sustainability to one that can include manufacturing again as a mainstay.  If that manufacturing is dealing with renewable sources of energy, then it will be even more sustainable as that is the direction that we all need to be heading towards.  How can the United States be blind to the fact that in our own country with manufacturing dwindling drastically, jobs being constantly sent overseas, that this new arena of renewable energy sources and green products is the way to go if we want to re-invigorate our economy and take steps to dragging ourselves out of this recession. 

We can all take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Whether it be from buying a more gas efficient car or even an electric one, to conserving energy consumption in our homes, to investing in renewable sources of energy; we can all take steps to reduce our own personal emissions and thus have a greater impact on the country we live in.  Solar panels have been greatly improved over the last few years and their cost has diminished with that improvement.  They are now easier to install with more contractors being able to do so and the cost is less.  On top of that, most governments offer rebates for installing these panels.  Another fantastic alternative to reduce our reliance on oil and other heating products is geo-thermal.  While still expensive, if people are willing to do some of the work themselves, then they can assist in reducing the cost for their home and within 5-7 years, the installation of a geo-thermal system will pay itself off and after that, there will be no more heating or cooling cost because the earth will be providing that for the home.  In sum, we should all look to Britain as the goal-setter in greenhouse gas emissions reduction.  Let us hope that they can find viable ways of achieving their ambitious goal and in our own countries, lets encourage our governments to take the necessary steps to match or even exceed Britain's goal.  Today, lets drive a little less, try to use a little less energy, and take steps together to forge a better world for the future. 

Endless "War on Terror"

It seems that some feeble minded, idiot brained Republicans in D.C. have been caught up in this "lone wolf" scare that is being spread across the United States these days.  As most of our country was celebrating the death of Bin Laden, supposedly enemy number one and supposedly the main reason behind military endeavors in Afganistan and the recent military invasion of his home in Pakistan, there were Republicans working secretly to expand the "Authorization for Use of Military Force" which was passed into law after the September 11 attacks.  This bill gives any sitting president the right to use military force to pursue anyone who committed or aided in the attacks and also to invade any country who harbored said inviduals to prevent acts of terrorism.  This new bill, extremely vague in its definitions, seeks to expand the rights of the president to use military force against any “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.”  What the hell does that mean?  That means that pretty much anyone, anywhere, who acts out against the United States in a terrorist way can be engaged by our military.   What can they do?  They can detain "belligerents" until the "termination of hostilities" such as they have done with suspected Al Qaeda members in Guantanamo Bay.  I have borrowed much of what I said here from an article in the NYTimes which talks about this new bill.  I have not read the actual bill, but hearing just these parts of it astounds me that we have elected people who feel they can give the president almost limitless military power.   Before we get too far into this, the bill that would expand the president's military authority has not yet been passed and we should do everything in our power to ensure that it does not get passed. 

Our government was created in such a way that the president was not supposed to have these sorts of limitless powers.  The founding fathers of this country created a system of checks and balances by which any one section of government whether it be judicial, executive, or legislative could not act without the consent of the others and if one such section tried to do so, it could be overruled by the others.  By the legislative branch giving limitless military authority to the president, they are in essence circumventing this process that has been in place for hundreds of years to ensure that no one section can act with impunity.  Granted, the bill still needs to pass through the House, the Senate, and finally the president.  We can only hope that we have some clear headed legislators in D.C. who will see the insanity of this bill and work it out of existence.  This bill, if passed, would be a tragedy and a complete reversal of the standards that we have set as a nation (not that we have necessarily been living up to them lately).  At one point in our history, it was our goal to promote democracy across the world and to support those through humanitarian missions that have been attacked and subjugated.  Now it seems, there are those that want us to be able to attack anywhere in the world for any reason.  If this bill passes, there could come a time when a president deems it necessary to attack Iran or even China for that reason due to "belligerents" carrying out terrorist activity that might affect the United States.

Has our country's ego been inflated that much where we still feel we are number one across the whole world, everyone respects us, and we have the right to act however we choose?  I have news for those who think so.  While we may still have the strongest military, there are scores of country's now who look at our policies with disdain and scorn, who do not respect us simply because we feel as though we can act with impunity, and honestly, there are developing country's now with economies that our stronger than ours.  We are not number one anymore and the sooner we realize that, the sooner our image will improve across the world.  We need to work on deflating our ego and realize that the whole goal of our country should not be to invade other countries for any reason.  In this age of globalization, countries have equalized and while some our still developing and engaged in conflicts, we should not make it our duty to be the global watchdog.  Our country needs to re-focus its efforts.  At home, we need to re-direct money being spent on the military to creating jobs and abroad, we need to re-focus efforts back to humanitarian aid by helping poor countries to feed their people, rid the developing world of disease, and help those developing countries become part of the global community with technology, innovation, and sustainable living.  Whether or not these countries become democratic as we are should not be an issue.  Each country should develop a government by which people can lead free lives and as a whole work together with other countries throughout the world. 

Before we reach a true global community where war and conflict has truly diminished and people from every country can feel free to work with others, we need to defeat this overly intrusive bill being proposed by House Republicans.  We elected these forsaken individuals and now we need to set them straight.  How do we do this?  We need to contact all of our representatives in both the House and Senate and urge them to defeat this bill and throw it on the trash heap.  If we could throw those who proposed it on the trash heap as well, I would say lets do that, but unfortunately we can't.  We need to look to the future not as one filled with terror, but one filled with hope and positive engagement across all borders.  By letting this bill pass, we will in effect be shutting borders down and alienating ourselves from the global community.  We can not maintain our military present across the world and hope to gain respect at the same time.  Eventually, the bully gets beaten down and subjugated itself.  We are becoming that bully and its time to realize that the sooner we engage positively with others (as hard as that may be) the sooner we can regain some of the respect we once had.  Today lets look to a future of unity and peace, not one of terrorism and war. 

To Drill or Not To Drill?

Gas prices are incessantly creeping upwards, well above $4 a gallon now and it doesn't look like there is any end in sight.  We haven't even reached the summer driving season when gas prices usually peak, so we can be assured that prices will go up at least until then.  So what do we do about it?  The public finds it convenient to blame government for the rise in gas prices, after all, we blame them for everything else, so why not this?  However, the government is not entirely to blame here (I know its shocking that I just said that).  Gas prices are based on worldwide influences and largely on speculators who, however we want to view them, are the direct incfluence behind rising gas prices.  Americans now want drilling to take place, here, there, and everywhere if possible.   What happens, however, when we run out of places to drill?  What will we do when oil supply does indeed seriously diminish to the point where it costs more to get the oil out of the ground than it is worth?  While I do support the increase of drilling in our country, there can't be an immediate rush to just start shoving metal rods into the earth to suck out the black gold we all crave so much.  We need to take into consideration all the impacts that drilling may have, most of them environmental.  The article linked here goes into the current push to speed along the drilling process.

Drilling must be a responsible process with all the necessary safety precautions in place to reduce the possibility of any accidental spills, explosions, or negative effects on the surrounding environment.   I believe that drilling should take place on privately owned lands, those that are not a part of any wildlife refuge, national park, or other protected area.  Any area that is protected is protected for a reason.   There may be unique geological formations, rare flora and fauna co-existing in a unique environment, or simply fragile ecosystems that would be almost surely demolished should any heavy equipment be allowed to traverse that area.  Currently it seems that our government is taking this into consideration allowing new drilling to take place only in areas that have been designated previously as potentially beneficial to producing oil and those that do not invade wildlife preserves or national parks.   As much as we would like to see oil start flowing from the ground in all these new areas, we must also take into consideration that many of these potential areas have not even been physically tested yet to see if they are economically viable to the production of oil.  This push for drilling is also a push for oil exploration, to see if we can verify what geologists currently assume to be an area that could produce enormous amounts of oil.   Even in those areas that are already verified as having oil worth drilling for, we still need to create the wells and pipelines necessary to bring that oil to production.  None of this is an immediate fix.  It is not like we can just say "lets drill for more oil" and oil will come gushing out of the ground.  Those days are long gone and it now takes much more effort to reach the oil which is farther and farther underground as we deplete those areas that are closer to the surface.  How deep are we willing to drill before we can't drill anymore?  If we drill far enough anywhere on earth, we will eventually reach molten lava.  Granted, we haven't reached that point yet and hopefully won't, but it is a possibility.

While I believe that drilling in our own country will assist in relieving our current situation, we can't let it blind us to the fact that oil is not a permanent resource and that it will eventually run out.   People in Europe have been paying higher prices for gas than we have for decades and they don't complain like we do.  They find ways to work within the system, creating more gas efficient cars and using mass transportation more.  Instead of using the higher gas prices as an impetus to find better ways transport ourselves around, we instead use it as a base to complain about our current situation.  We need to re-invent the American spirit of ingenuity and innovation and move forward using higher gas prices to our benefit instead of using it to complain about ourselves.  What can we do?  Invest more money in high speed trains as I have mentioned before, come up with more viable gas efficient vehicles or even cheaper electric cars, and quit giving subsidies to these oil companies who are raking in the profits more than ever.  If we can start to re-direct more money to useful endeavors than maybe while reducing our demand for oil, we can create a path to the future that we have needed for years now.  We need to use our current problems to invigorate our vision for the future, one that is not dependent on oil, but one that is relatively free of it. 

The "Lone Wolf" Scare

Before I get started here, I want to apologize for not have a post up the last few days.  Thursday morning I had one all written out and Blogger ate it on me and yesterday I still couldn't log in.  Obviously the problems have been fixed because here I am typing away and hopefully this time, my post won't get eaten.  Anyway, since our killing of Bin Laden and ensuing disgraceful celebrations of his death, our country has been increasing its vigilance for terrorist activities, especially those that might be carried out by a "lone wolf", that horrific person, ticked off by our killing of Bin Laden, who will seek to wreak havoc on our way of life and destroy as many lives as possible.  If you ask me, I thought we already had increased vigilance and intel that was supposed to be preventing terrorist attacks.  Wait, they have been.  There was the attempt to blow up that plane headed for detroit that was thwarted, there was the attempt to set off a bomb in Times Square in NY that was thwarted, there was another bombing that was thwarted in Seattle, and most recently, a few men were stopped who were going to carry out an attack on a synogogue.  It seems to me that most of these are "lone wolf" scenarios.   So why all of a sudden is there a need to scare the public into being more vigilant, more skeptical of everyone around them, more afraid of traveling in public lest they die a horrific death at the hands of some terrorist. 

There is an article that talks about the increased vigilance across the country from local to state police in coordination with the FBI and HS.  It seems that there are multiple daily telephone conferences taking place between different police departments, increased patrols of densely populated areas including those "soft targets" like train stations and malls, and details being shared about what to do should something happen.  These police departments should already know what to do in an emergency.  There has been training for 10 years now since 9/11 in counter-terrorist tactics and how to identify "suspicious persons" and packages.   In addition, the government has released information that they supposedly gleaned from a treasure trove of intel at Bin Laden's compound (glorified word for a house that was attacked by the military) that some of the intended targets will be cities other than New York and Washington.   Oh my God, tell me it isn't so.  Really!  We just figured out that terrorists may attack other cities including smaller ones than NY and Washington?  So what has this done to the public's mentality?  It has pretty much thrown them back into the same mode they were in after 9/11, scare mode.  We have now re-attained our former level of skittishness in public, phoning in suspicious bags and packages inciting evacuations of train stations and other locales in addition to phoning in other false alarms around the country.  Even mayors of those smaller cities like Philly are getting scared into thinking that they might be attacked. 

Get out your guns and pitchforks, torches and lanterns, we must gaurd our children and protect the homeland!  Give me a freakin break.  If the government was doing what it was supposed to be doing (which it has for the most part as I pointed out before), then there would be no need to scare the public.  I am not going to comment on the government's motives, because frankly, I am not going to be the one to start any conspiracy theories about why the government is doing all of this.  Frankly, I think it is just a load of bull.  We wouldn't even be in this situation if we had just kept to ourselves in the first place, drilled more holes in own soil for oil, and not invaded foreign lands to try and secure our oil and energy future.  That is the main complaint of terrorists and was the main complaint of Bin Laden himself, that we injected ourselves into foreign affairs with bogus reasons and the main thing they wanted was for us to get out and stay home.  If we had just minded our own business from the get-go, maybe we wouldn't have to be scared about terrorists walking down our streets, stealing our babies, and bombing our shopping malls, arenas, and train stations.  Lets get freakin real, the more we play into the hands of our government, the more we give them control over our lives and how we live.   If we listened to everything the government said, we should probably just be sitting on our couches, watching the news, popping pills provided by health care, and getting injected with a vaccine to ward of the "terrorist bug". 

Ok, so maybe two days without writing on my blog as left me with a little pent up frustration, but I think that it is warranted.  As great as our country is, our government is run by a bunch of pigs and pidgeons.   Unfortunately, most of our country listens to whatever these pigs and pidgeons say without questioning.  If there was ever a doubt that the book 1984 would come true, let those doubts be squashed.   But what are we to do.  If the majority of us can't see through the veil of fog in front of our eyes, then we are all screwed because our government depends on the majority liking what they do.  And every election time, they throw out a little more fluff for us to feed on, getting themselves elected again so they can go back to their normal ways.  This whole "lone wolf" scare is a manifestation of their actions over the past number of decades.  Our government essentially brought terrorism to our doorstep and now they want us to be scared that enormous numbers of people will die because terrorists our mad that we killed Bin Laden.  Don't be fooled, if enormous numbers of us die, the blood will be at the hands of our government for starting this whole thing in the first place.  Lets get our troops home, stop meddling with Israel, and let countries deal with their own problems.  Lets focus on bringing jobs home for our unemployed, lets focus on reducing our deficit, lets focus on our own freakin country for once and lets not let our attention be diverted by these scare tactics proliferated by our government.  Today, I say,  enjoy yourself, say hello to a stranger instead of calling them in as a terrorist, and smile at everyone you meet.

Racism is (unfortunately) Not Dead

In the news this morning is an article about a young 10 year old boy that shot and killed his father at four in the morning.  At this point, details are still coming out, but the police have determined that the shooting was in deed intentional.  The boy's father was the head of a chapter of the N.S.M or National Socialist Movement in southern California.  N.S.M. is a neo-nazi group that is filled with white supremacists who are ticked off at our government, illegal immigrants, and anyone who is not white.  While a relatively small group with only about 400 members, there are reports that it is slowly growing, in part fueled by the recession.  This group claims that it is a "white civil rights movement" concerned mostly with protecting the rights of white people throughout the United States.   This movement, fueled by hatred and highly supportive of violence as a means to an end, has influenced this ten year old to the point where he took matters into his own hands and used the groups creed to exert his dominance.  There was obviously something that his father did to tick him off, whether it be a singular moment or a build up of grievances, and he followed his father's teaching and used violence to rectify the situation. 

It is sickening that this young boy was so ingrained with this philosophy of hatred and violence that at such a young age, he felt the need to kill his father.  Children are impressionable, especially at his age, and they will draw upon their parents actions and words to formulate their own perspective of the world.  It seems that this boy's father taught him all the wrong things.  This child learned that if you don't like what is going on in the world, resort to violence and things might get better.  He was taught that he must fight for survival and existence if the white race was to survive in the future.  What bull.  Why does one group of people need to separate themselves and exert dominance over another?  (I know, this has been happening since the beginning of time, but still.)  What makes white people better than anyone else?  In my mind, nothing.  By segregating themselves from society and adhering to their creed of hatred and violence, they are essentially setting themselves up for disaster.  What happened to the Aryan Nation, the Ku Klux Klan?  They are all but dead and gone at this point.  This National Socialist Movement is just the latest in an attempt to keep alive that spirit of white supremacy and hatred.  In my mind, it is nothing more than a group of racists who gather out of fear of change.  The world is a constantly fluctuating place with populations changing chemistry every year, and constant cycles of booms and busts.

To me, this group is on the same level as the church in Florida that burned the Koran in a "trial", or any other group that foments a racist attitude whether or not they promulgate violence.  Racists are also in my mind no better than terrorists.  Their ultimate goal it seems, is to inspire fear in those that do not look like them and to exert their control by any means possible.  What they must remember is that if it weren't for this country's freedom, they would not have the ability to act as they do or to spew their views of hatred and racism into the public sphere.  The only way they would survive in a society that is not as free as ours was if they had a whole country of people that supported their views and actions (which is what they want, but will not get).   It also seems that every time an economy retreats into recession, racist activity increases.  I believe this to ultimately find a certain group with which to place specific blame for the problems of a society.  In good times, people have less to fear and are not as likely to subscribe to such extremist philosophies as a remedy for their woes.  As such, and unfortunately, racism will probably never die.  People will always find a reason to hate another group of people, whether it be out of fear or lack of undestanding, and unless we teach children at a young age the fundamentals of being human, the fact that we are all different, then society will never rid itself of hatred. 

Racism has no place in our society.  It seems though, as is shown with this young boy killing his father, that children brought up in a racist family, will latch on to that hatred and anger and make it their own unless they are taught otherwise.  While not all children will grow up to emulate their parents, if they are sheltered enough and are not exposed to other theories and philosophies, then they will most likely be exactly like their parents.  If they are taught at a young age that violence is ok, then they will exert violence whenever they feel the need.  The same goes with watching TV that I spoke of yesterday; if children learn that it is ok to watch TV all the time, then they will carry that with them into adulthood.  What society needs is greater understanding, especially when it comes to different cultures and races.  Every person has something positive to contribute to society if we only allow them to live freely and become a true integrated part of society.  Those that remain at the fringe and segregate themselves will only diminish in time as society will have no way of accepting them and becoming one with them.  Obviously, some groups do not wish to become one with society, but that is their loss I say.  Variety is the spice of life and the more variations we have within a given society in terms of ethnicity, culture, and race, then the more interesting and exciting it becomes.  We should all today do our part to learn the stories of those around us, especially those that we do not undestand. 

A.D.H.D. and Television

There is a definite connection between A.D.H.D (Attention Defecit Hyperactive Disorder) and watching television.   With more and more children spending hours in front of the television either playing video games or just watching TV, there seem to be more instances of ADHD occuring.  However, there is still much debate over whether excessive watching of TV has a causal effect on ADHD occuring in a child or if it is a consequential occurence as a result of having ADHD to begin with.  There is much information on both sides of the debate as pointed out in an article in NYTimes.   On the one hand, if a child has ADHD, they are more likely to be socially inept in the classroom and have difficulty learning.  As a result of this, they may retreat to the TV to escape their social woes outside their house and also escape from the textbooks that they have trouble learning from.  Children with ADHD have no problem recalling facts and remembering things, the problem arises with cause and effect.   They have trouble putting together cause and effect and as such, learning becomes difficult and social interactions are most times fumbled through because they can't see the overall picture. By watching TV, it alleviates some of the symptoms they experience with ADHD.  Although brief, this speaks to the consequential occurence of watching TV in children that are already suspected to have ADHD. 

But what about children who don't exhibit any signs of defecit disorder until they start watching TV or playing video games excessively?  There is also evidence to suggest that there may also be a reverse effect in which children who are glued to the screen begin to exhibit signs of defecit disorders.  This happens due to the rapid changing of scenes on the screen in which gratification comes in more frequent spurts than it normally would in every day life.  This affects the dopamine delivery system in the brain forcing it to pump out more dopamine on a regular basis and thus when the child or teenager goes to interact in the real world, it may seem dull and boring compared to television and they may develop problems with social interaction and learning.  By increasing the dopamine delivery in the brain in more frequent intervals on a regular basis, it changes the brains chemistry to the point where it may never return to normal function.  This is proven to have effects reaching into the college years of children and possibly beyond if not adressed early enough. 

Regardless of which side you support, which side you have seen effect children, the overwhelming determining factor in all of this is family structure and support.  If a child has a supporting family who regularly interacts with each other without a television, the children are less likely to retreat to a television.  Whether TV and video games causes or is a consequential effect of ADHD, it is a constant factor that can only be adressed at the familial level.  No amount of drugs or intervention outside the household will make a difference unless the family itself takes steps to directly make a difference in a child's life.  Too often these days, television and video games are relied on as a baby sitter, an easy cure for the temperamental child or the ultimate reward for doing something good.  Gone are the days of discipline where a child's actions have a direct effect on what they can or can not do.  I have seen it within my own extended family where a child that acts out gets in effect silenced by the television.  I believe the saying was, "You know what, if you can't behave, just go watch TV and be quiet."   I would hazard to suggest that the child all along just wanted to watch TV and was acting out because he knew how his father would react.  Children are very observant and pick up on their parents body language and repeated actions to learn how best to get what they want.  I don't believe that is a coincidence that when rewarded with TV, children will act out more to get that "reward". 

TV and video games have invaded every aspect of our life from having a place in every room in our house, to our cars, offices, Dr's offices, phones, computers, pda's, tablets...you name it, you can watch TV on it.  Soon will be the day when we can just hit a button on the side of our heads and a virtual TV will appear in front of us so we can watch a show while walking down the street.  (OK, maybe not so soon, but still, it will probably happen).   Parents, granted, lead much busier lives these days often times with both parents working in order to make ends meet.  This doesn't make it easier to raise a child, but you know what, if you couldn't handle raising a child, then why have the child.  A TV is not a baby sitter and does not know what is best for you child, nor can teach it moral and ethical standards by which to live up to.  If a child is constantly glue to the TV screen, they will miss a good portion of their life where they could be learning to interact socially with others and learn about body language and the subtle signs of human conversation that they can not learn through TV or video games.  Television and video games will not go away at this point, but parents can make an effort to reduce the influence they have in their own homes and maybe as a result, improve their child's cognitive function both in the social world and in the classroom.  If you have a child and you use the TV as a babysitter, think twice before you just plop them in front of the TV so you can get some rest.  Parents are not supposed to get rest.   They are supposed to be constantly tired and stressed out trying to raise their child to the best of their ability.   While having a child may be the best times of your life, they are also most likely, the most tiring.   Raising a child isn't easy and by using TV and video games, parents are probably making it harder in the long run by causing the child to develop defecit syndromes.  My suggestion, shut off the TV and take your child for a walk outside, the fresh air might actually do them some good.

Who caused our Financial Crisis?

It is being thrown around from the powers that be that the general populace of both Europe and the United States are at fault for our current financial situation in these developed countries.  In Europe, the Euro is coming undone at the seams and the U.S. is fighting mass-unemployment and enormous budget defecits.  Now the power brokers, the elite at the top of the government chain are claiming that we, the people, asked for to much, so the government gave it to us, and now we have to suffer and take the blame in order to get back to where we were.  The problems were not, however, created by us, the general public.  In fact, the elite who now are blaming the public are the one's who set us down the road to financial insecurity and ruin.  As Paul Krugman in an op-ed article in the NYTimes points out, the problems weren't designed by the public, but were envisioned and implemented by those with the power to do so.  In the United States, which had a budget surplus in 2000, we had "Bush-era" tax cuts which added significantly to our defecit, we had the invasion of Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with oil (also adding to our defecit), and we had the Great Recession spawned by deregulation of the financial industry allowing them to act however they wanted to and set the course for disaster.  In Europe on the other hand, you had an elite group of powerful individuals dead-set on uniting Europe through a common currency.  However, they failed to create the necessary institutions to deal with booms and busts that inherently come with any economy. 

It seems that the government is the only institution where people can screw up, blame it on others, and still keep their jobs even getting re-elected often times by deflecting the blame from themselves to others.  They prey on the general public's inattention to the root causes of the problems and create new, often fictitious theories of how things got the way they are.  Often times the public buys their theories as new explanations for events thinking that the elite are finally taking a step in the right direction when in actuality they are shifting blame in an attempt to save their own skin and often times they are not addressing the root cause as it needs to be.  The general public has a job to do, question those in power and hold them accountable.  When we hear the blame being passed from one hand to another, we need to step in and stop them, however hard that may be to do.   Deflecting  blame also does not address the need to learn from the mistakes of the past and come up with new solutions for the future that will help keep us out of these situations.  Too often, we get caught up with our own concerns, which is absolutely justifiable.  It seems most of us have needed to tighten our belts, watch our money even closer than before, and be more concerned with day to day expenses.  So how are we to find the root cause of the problem when we have so many other concerns that need to be dealt with?  It starts with taking a few minutes every day to dig into the news and find the stories that expose the truth.

Believe me, there is a lot of crap in the media that needs to be sifted through in order to get to the truth.  As much as we would like to believe everything the media says, they are often not thoroughly objective and do not question everything that is handed to them as thoroughly as it needs to be.  When the government hands the media a story, they often times run with it, not reporting the flip side or questioning the ulterior motives that are behind a certain press release or story.   Why then should we bother reading the news or digging to find the truth?  Because it affects all of us one way or another.  It may not affect us immediately, but it will affect us at some point whether we know it or not.  The news must be read with an air of skepticism on our part, always questioning the words that are being portrayed as truth.   Truth is difficult to find in this day and age, especially when it concerns our government, whether it be in Europe or the United States.  Too many of us have unquestioning faith that our government will do the right thing.   While I love our country, I need hip boots to wade through the crap flowing out of our capitol sometimes.  I say we must question the government, a little every day, till our country reverbrates with skepticism at the motives of our elected officials.  Maybe then they will take responsibility for their actions and be truthful with those that put them into power.  Today, read a little news, question it, and then question it some more.  Search for the truth and don't let yourself be blinded by those who proclaim to know the truth.