Much of the campaign for the two main presidential candidates Republican John McCain and Democratic Barack Obama was rife with contentious issues such as the American economy and setting policies for economic and environmental sustainability. There were also issues with the cost of the Iraq war measured in both dollars and lives. Also, there was much talking on the American reliance on foreign oil and the need to develop energy independence within the nation. Presumably, this is so that the America’s flag-waving surburbanites could wipe clean their mental slates of any liability to the actions of the people who pump the oil abroad: namely the Saudi Arabians.
The global (impending) economic crisis has shaken not only worldwide bank accounts; it has also shaken the foundations of both major campaigns built on promises of big public spending. Both major candidates have since committed to the Bush “bailout” package, raising eyebrows about where that leaves the financial future of Americans. This has the unintended response of holding Americans hostage to their wallets rather than to their common sense. Will any of the promises made by either man pan out? Or has the era of big public spending as the red herring of progress come to an end?
Also troublesome is the irony of proposing energy independence as a means to ensuring national oil supplies for the maintenance of “status quo” American standards of living, while simultaneously promising an increase in the usage of and investment into “green” technologies and research – a promise of which both candidates are guilty. The candidates cannot plausibly make commitments to both forms of energy security without detriment to the other: the advent of more reliable “greener” technologies would necessitate the need to use less carbon-heavy energy forms such as coal, gasoline, and petroleum. Both men make commitments to oil and several “green” energy technologies to arbitrarily varying degrees. Also lacking is the attention paid on behalf of both candidates regarding the role of power grids in pursuing sound energy policy in America. The Northeast Blackout of 2003 was a prime example of why this is important. The inability of either man to commit to a realistic energy policy defeats the purpose of proposing one. This reveals a lack of understanding regarding energy policy and the science behind it. Their mutual indecision indicates future energy policies will be swayed by the strength of the successful lobby instead of the science behind it.
The dumbing down of the issues by the candidates so that they can be used as political fish bait slights the ability of ordinary Americans to understand them and encourages the twisted version of events sold on their national media. The pandering of these two politicians to the values of the “alienated” demographs of America is not only an insult to the democratic hopes of the people whose votes they intend to procure but also to democracy itself. Joe Biden is supposed to be a counter-balance to the maverick old guard reputation of John McCain, since they are chiseled out of the same stone. Sarah Palin was wryly chosen as an enticement of the female vote subjugated traditionally by patriarchy and most recently, in the form of Senator Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, by Obama. Pulling a page out of Michael Moore’s playbook by suggesting the unison of America’s “alienated” behind Ralph Nader is not that much different, either.
The contradictions of the two campaigns belonging to McCain and Obama taint an important episode in American history. As a result of this, McCain and Obama are tragically derailing any chance for Americans to seize the opportunity to fix not only problems created after 8 years of the Bush administration, but also the opportunity to fix what has been truly broken in the American system over the long term: a sense of connectedness to the rest of the world.
In all honesty, it’s hard to support either candidate because the criticisms for both are so similar that they read like a carbon copy. Would this be a situation where a Canadian like myself would suggest that our neighbours to the south choose the “lesser of two evils” as SNL would have you believe? Hardly. Perhaps it would boil down to something unexpected – such as the ability of the Head of State to survive some sort of imagined catastrophe. The recent assassination attempts on Obama does not bode well for him in this regard.
Choose apathy, then, because the presidential candidates have not given American a reason to care.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
What do you think of the Global Financial Crisis and the magnitude of its impact?
Anup Shah, Global Financial Crisis 2008, GlobalIssues.org, Last updated: Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Intelligent Design Strikes Back from the Shadows - Join the Debate?
This is Of Pandas and People, the 2nd edition. This is the first known textbook that was widespread and taught Intelligent Design. It has its roots in Creationism. In recent years, Intelligent Design movement has been gaining popularity in the Bible belt and some have even started claiming it as a legitimate science. In certain states, it is a legal part of the curriculum and children can be home schooled in the ethics and teachings of Intelligent Design. My friend posted on my Facebook page about how bad the Intelligent Design "theory" has been "getting treated" from people who claim to be rationally critical of it. I can't blame him; a lot of people who don't know a lot about either Science or Intelligent Design have anything constructive at all to say about it. These are the same lot who would attack George W. Bush's character or Al Gore's personality without a thorough understanding of either their ideas or policies: their disapproval reflects contemporary feelings manifest in media, or their friends' or family's extended networks - and to some that's proof enough. In Science, that's not good enough. My main problem with Intelligent Design is that it is not a Science a) by definition or b) in practice. Neither is it teaching anyone how to apply the principles of Natural Philosophy to further technology, research, and applications in medicine and the world; no, it would rather expouse the philosophies of Creationism. This also has ramifications on the education system, as Intelligent Design expouses the possibility that Creationism is possible. The possibility. At least it's honest, eh? Science usually expouses the same traits but in high schools or lower level education it is taught as fact, not as theory. It has not been thoroughly studied, proved in any appreciable measure, and is not an accepted science. However, this is where things get muddy. In science, consensus doesn't mean squat. My friend Albert, disagrees. He believes that Intelligent Design is not only justified but rather it is more probable than the accepted scientific account of creation. He has some good key points. Consensus itself is not good enough to determine good sciences: remember that at one time people laughed in the faces of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Galileo when they insisted the world went around the Sun and that the Earth was round. I've italicized Albert's key conjectures in the conversation below. I've also italicized my main points in the conversation below. However, this is not comparable with Galileo's situation: this is a situation when a teaching is neither a science - or a religion. It is trying to bridge the gap between the pseudo-Arts and convert the undecided. And it's main target - America's children. Whether or not you agree with Intelligent Design, you must agree that unless contended, our secular Canadian education is put at risk. So that is why I advocate contention. The modern age is not a time to dwell in the cowardice of the ignorant and the sit in the shadow of the fools. It is a time to really stand up and prove the beliefs you hold so deeply - and not to take for granted that some things are more than they seem. What do you think? Do you agree with Albert - or me? Do you disagree with both? Read on and COMMENT!! Another Facebook Conversation Albert Nguyen wrote at 5:50pm yesterday Slightly offtopic - Expelled, Intelligence Not Allowed, while it doesn't discuss what can be considered life or not, debates on whether Intelligent Design is a viable theory or not. Before you dismiss it as a buncha crockpots thumping bibles, you've got to remember that most of the big proponents of it are scientists as well as atheists, who feel stifled by the communism-like expelling of any idea other than raw darwinianism. | |
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden
ScienceDaily (2008-04-16) -- The world's oldest recorded tree is a 9,550 year old spruce in the Dalarna province of Sweden. The spruce tree has shown to be a tenacious survivor that has endured by growing between erect trees and smaller bushes in pace with the dramatic climate changes over time.
Link here or here.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
What constitutes "life" for the living? Are we all mortal or immortal?
A Facebook Conversation
2:55pm Antony
seeing as no cell can arise spontaneously (that Science, at least, has been able to replicate) then is every cell immortal? I know they all die eventually, but are we not technically a living continuation of the first successful replicating cell?
2:55pm Jaskaran
no, only henrietta lacks cells are immortal
2:55pm Antony
henrietta what
2:55pm Jaskaran
most human cells stop replicating rapidly after a certain amount of time (usually after pberty) so neurons and and braincells very rarely replicate
the problem is cells have problems removing wastes
so as we get older our cells accumulate with wastes to the point where it exceeds cell regeneration
thats why we age
2:56pm Antony
but how about our reproductive cells, they continue on to produce living beings as we are the outcomes of their success, are we not?
haploid, or not, they were successful
2:57pm Jaskaran
reproductive cells age too, which is why as people get older there is a greater chance of siring a child with downsyndrome or other congenital conditions
2:57pm Antony
what im trying to pose is a philosophical question
im not talking about the mortality of the individual cell and its functions
im talking about the continuity of living organic material
as the passing on of DNA, mtDNA, and etc.
or in plants, such as the transfusion of living cytoplasm between cells that ends up in the reproductive cells and then eventually in the new plant... a continuation of living organic matter
is that not some form of immortality?
3:00pm Jaskaran
i suppose, but most cells have a self-life
henrietta lacks cells were cells removed from a womans cervical tumor, these cells are special because they can grow forever as long as they are supplied nutrients. They are used for alot of research, except they are refered to as HeLa cells
3:03pm Antony
is it really true that answers raise more questions?
1) are haploid cells considered "alive"
2) are our individual cells considered "alive" in their singularity or only contributing the "whole" of the organism?
3) are cancerous cells considered "alive"
4) if so, what constitutes "life" for the living? for cannot a cancer continue living while the host has already died?
3:07pm Jaskaran
BALLS
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Over the Counter Culture
Over the counter culture,Well that's right where you belong,
You try to sever your ties with the London skies,
But you've got the whole thing wrong.
You try to be so different,
As does everybody else,
Create your own distinctions,
And flaunt them for yourself.
Over the counter culture,
With your cards and catalogues,
The mainstream wipes the river bed clean,
You're just wrong, you're just... wrong.
You think you followed your heart again,
Now it's in to be out,
Destroy the plans and just start again,
Don't pretend to not pretend at all.
Over the counter culture,
Well you live your life in waves,
Last year's dream was a terrible scheme,
This new fad will fade.
Let's see... what can we be now?
That hasn't been done before?
Shut your eyes,
Look inside.
You think you followed your heart again,
Now it's in to be out,
Destroy the plans and just start again,
Don't pretend to not pretend at all.
Don't pretend to not pretend at all.
Don't pretend to not pretend at all!
The Ordinary Boys
Motivational Poster Rip-Offs
Motivational Poster Rip-Offs have taken off and are now arguably more popular than their predecessor, the Motivational Poster. Many of them are slapstick comedy, most of them politically incorrect, and some of them will actually leave you speechless.
Some have even given it a new name, the Demotivational Poster, another gem of a counter-counter-culture item.
Here are some of the mock Motivational Posters I've pulled off of Google.
The best ones are near the bottom of this post. --->
External Links:
http://www.demotivateus.com/
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/category/Motorvators/
Then they get pretty ridiculous...
My favorites:
Some have even given it a new name, the Demotivational Poster, another gem of a counter-counter-culture item.
Here are some of the mock Motivational Posters I've pulled off of Google.
The best ones are near the bottom of this post. --->
External Links:
http://www.demotivateus.com/
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/category/Motorvators/
Then they get pretty ridiculous...
My favorites:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
