NPR aired an interview with NASA Senior Administrator, Michael Griffin, this morning. I was not paying attention at the time, but Heather was, and from the other room I heard her say, "What the hell is this guy talking about?"
"What was it?", I asked.
"Jesus! Just listen to it." she said. So earlier today, I streamed the interview from NPR.
Then I read a little about this Michael D. Griffin.
The first (and only?) thing you need to know about him is that he is a George W. Bush appointee, and bears the characteristics of such. We already know about Bush's inclination to reserve his political appointments for those on whom he can depend for tenacious loyalty to himself, and a spectacular lack of concern for seemingly anything else, including that for which their appointed position obligates them to have concern; i.e. Alberto Gonzalez, Julie McDonald, Phillip Cooney, etc. the Eight recently fired US attorneys know this all too well. I guess he also over-estimated John Ashcroft's capacity for mindless loyalty and corruption, amazingly enough.
Here is a quote from the Michael Griffin interview, "I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
He thinks it is arrogant for people to think that human beings shouldn't change the climate? That is mind-blowing. Is it not rather arrogant to express the opinion that one species (human beings) has the right to change the climate for all other species with whom we share this planet? Is it not arrogant to express an opinion that is starkly contrary to that of virtually all other climate and ecological scientists? Is it not arrogant, and tremendously reckless, to express the opinion that it is okay for us to dramatically change environmental conditions on Earth for our descendants for centuries to come? Also, nobody is saying that this "is the best climate". They are saying that if the climate continues changing on its current trajectory, environmental catastrophes are likely to occur. How grossly disingenuous of Griffin.
There's more, "First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown."
What a spectacularly inane statement. Griffin deserves to be dismissed for submitting such a ludicrous, and frankly, ignorant, statement to the public forum. Yes, the climate has been changing since the dawn of the Earth, but climate changes of this magnitude take place over millenia, not decades.
Secondly, the statement is just stupid. It implies that humans have been trying not to change the climate during human history, or that we've had the capacity to change the climate forever, or something?? I'm clueless. Also, human beings have been on this planet for about 250,000 years, not "millions of years". Hello?
This moron is the head of NASA??? He is par for the course for the kind of gross incompetence Bush has committed to public service and to recieve our tax dollars.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Darth Benedict XVI Addresses South America
Well, he was a member of the Hitler Juengen (Hitler Youth), so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at most of what he does. I just wish the College of Cardinals would have voted in a Latin American or African Pope (since that is where the majority of catholics live) so I wouldn't have to get pissed off so often and then be worried that my protestant, little, self will be labeled anti-catholic for thinking (and saying, very loudly) that Darth Benedict XVI is piece of shit that I want to punch in the face!
So... What has he done other than interfere in my political process by saying catholic politicians should be excommunicated if they don't support catholic doctrine in their legislative voting?
See that BS here.
As an American, I feel that that in itself might just be enough for some "shock and awe" on Vatican City. Hey! Don't we want to fight theocracy and spread democracy? I don't want these extremists manipulating elected Representatives' votes with their threats! And womens' issues....don't get me started!
But, what is at hand is what Benny16 (the name he uses while chatting with young boys online) said about bringing Jesus to the heathen Injuns. And I quote, "For them, it meant knowing and welcoming Christ, the unknown God whom their ancestors were seeking, without realizing it, in their rich religious traditions. Christ is the Saviour for whom they were silently longing."
Unfortunately, they didn't know that their longing would bring disease, rape, slavery, the theft of their land, and the destruction of most of what they knew and held dear. But Cortez and Pizarro were really giving them what they silently longed for. I know that I silently long for a Spaniard raping my daughter in front of me before he kills me and steals my land, because my descendants (from the rape of my daughter) will get to go to heaven. Awesome! Thank you conquistador! You rock! DarthBenny16 says so.
Read the whole speach here.
So... What has he done other than interfere in my political process by saying catholic politicians should be excommunicated if they don't support catholic doctrine in their legislative voting?
See that BS here.
As an American, I feel that that in itself might just be enough for some "shock and awe" on Vatican City. Hey! Don't we want to fight theocracy and spread democracy? I don't want these extremists manipulating elected Representatives' votes with their threats! And womens' issues....don't get me started!
But, what is at hand is what Benny16 (the name he uses while chatting with young boys online) said about bringing Jesus to the heathen Injuns. And I quote, "For them, it meant knowing and welcoming Christ, the unknown God whom their ancestors were seeking, without realizing it, in their rich religious traditions. Christ is the Saviour for whom they were silently longing."
Unfortunately, they didn't know that their longing would bring disease, rape, slavery, the theft of their land, and the destruction of most of what they knew and held dear. But Cortez and Pizarro were really giving them what they silently longed for. I know that I silently long for a Spaniard raping my daughter in front of me before he kills me and steals my land, because my descendants (from the rape of my daughter) will get to go to heaven. Awesome! Thank you conquistador! You rock! DarthBenny16 says so.
Read the whole speach here.
Darth Cheney addresses West Point Grads
Why am I surprised; at what he says or that most Americans have such a lack of education in basic history that they are willing to believe what he says? What appalls me most, is that the men and women who are going to be leading our military in the Middle East, are assumed to have such a lack of history education that the Vice President feels that he can make these remarks. I can understand him assuming that your average American is an idiot, but West Point grads?
A few quotes......
"America is fighting this enemy in Iraq because that is where they have gathered. We are there because, after 9/11, we decided to deny terrorists any safe haven."
"Their ultimate goal is to establish a totalitarian empire, a caliphate, with Baghdad as its capital."
If you are not exactly sure why these statements are inaccurate, reply and I will post more with details. Right now I am too beyond belief to even want to try.
Here is the whole transcript if you want these quotes in context.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070526-1.html
A few quotes......
"America is fighting this enemy in Iraq because that is where they have gathered. We are there because, after 9/11, we decided to deny terrorists any safe haven."
"Their ultimate goal is to establish a totalitarian empire, a caliphate, with Baghdad as its capital."
If you are not exactly sure why these statements are inaccurate, reply and I will post more with details. Right now I am too beyond belief to even want to try.
Here is the whole transcript if you want these quotes in context.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070526-1.html
Thursday, May 24, 2007
US Iraq study Group proposes measures to Insure iraq's oil reserves are exploited by International Oil Corporations
The Iraq supplemental spending bill, expected to pass the House tomorrow, includes provisions which define, as benchmarks, the privatization by multi-national oil companies, of Iraq's oil reserves. This represents the first step in securing the real spoils of this war. As I recall, some have speculated that securing Iraq's oil was the whole reason we entered this tragic conflict. Am I mistaken?
Dennis Kucinich stands alone in opposing this criminal act. You'll be hearing more about him from me in the near future.
Dennis Kucinich stands alone in opposing this criminal act. You'll be hearing more about him from me in the near future.
Guantanamo Bad; Patriot Act Worse
I don't know much about Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). One thing I do know is that he is the first Senator to introduce legislation to set a time line for closing Guantanamo detention center.
What took so long? Why have Democrats had Congressional majorities for months now and nobody has gotten around to introducing a bill like this? Sure, they're busy folks, but jeez, what are aids for? Are they too busy trying to raise the minimum wage? A noble cause, for sure, but it pales a bit when compared to the fact that the US has operated the illegal facility in Guantanamo for years now. The facility casts deep shame on America by holding people without charge and torturing them. The shear existence of Guantanamo Bay has stripped the US of the its former stature int he world community. The justification for continuing to hold many of these individuals seems to be, "Well, they weren't terrorists to begin with, it seems, but now they're so pissed of at America, they probably will be now." Or even better, "We can't seem to figure out who this person is."
While I am delighted by Harkin's Bill, and I must assume it will pass, I would have been much more impressed with a Bill that repealed the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. Both acts, especially the latter, are opposed by almost all Democrats and many Republicans. What's the problem, guys? Too busy changing rules for Congressional lobbyists (again, a noble cause) to bother doing something about the dismantling of core Constitutional principles and International standards of Human rights?
In closing, I'm loosing my patience with Democrats in Congress.
Oh yeah, please contact your representatives urging them to support Senator Harkin's Bill.
What took so long? Why have Democrats had Congressional majorities for months now and nobody has gotten around to introducing a bill like this? Sure, they're busy folks, but jeez, what are aids for? Are they too busy trying to raise the minimum wage? A noble cause, for sure, but it pales a bit when compared to the fact that the US has operated the illegal facility in Guantanamo for years now. The facility casts deep shame on America by holding people without charge and torturing them. The shear existence of Guantanamo Bay has stripped the US of the its former stature int he world community. The justification for continuing to hold many of these individuals seems to be, "Well, they weren't terrorists to begin with, it seems, but now they're so pissed of at America, they probably will be now." Or even better, "We can't seem to figure out who this person is."
While I am delighted by Harkin's Bill, and I must assume it will pass, I would have been much more impressed with a Bill that repealed the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. Both acts, especially the latter, are opposed by almost all Democrats and many Republicans. What's the problem, guys? Too busy changing rules for Congressional lobbyists (again, a noble cause) to bother doing something about the dismantling of core Constitutional principles and International standards of Human rights?
In closing, I'm loosing my patience with Democrats in Congress.
Oh yeah, please contact your representatives urging them to support Senator Harkin's Bill.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Why complain about high gas prices?
Personally, it is annoying to have a greater percentage of my family income going into my gas tank, but let's look at the bigger picture. I'll do this next bit in Don Rumsfeld mode...
Am I annoyed by high gas prices? Yes.
Is it goofy that I ask myself questions in public addresses? Maybe.
Does it bother me that oil companies are making record profits while the middle/lower class is getting squeezed and the administration enables and promotes this? Sure, but what else is new?
Is the middle/lower class consumer willing to purchase energy efficient vehicles or support investigation into alternative energy sources unless fossil fuel prices are astronomically high or the world experiences catastrophic environmental calamities? Apparently not.
Are petroleum companies shooting themselves in the foot by manipulating the market to inflate gas prices, as this will hopefully result in behavioral changes in the population? I hope so.
Is the unknown unknowable? I think so.
Are unknowables known to be potentially knowable in systems that promote universal knowing in heretofore unknowable capacities? Leave me alone!
I guess that, for now, I'm in favor of high gas prices. Humans, as a whole, seem incapable of the kind of thinking that proactively solves environmental problems. Birmingham has the fourth worst air quality in the nation. Our asthma rate is sky-rocketing. If that doesn't get people to buy efficient vehicles and support legislation to explore alternative, non-polluting energy, maybe high gas prices will.
Am I annoyed by high gas prices? Yes.
Is it goofy that I ask myself questions in public addresses? Maybe.
Does it bother me that oil companies are making record profits while the middle/lower class is getting squeezed and the administration enables and promotes this? Sure, but what else is new?
Is the middle/lower class consumer willing to purchase energy efficient vehicles or support investigation into alternative energy sources unless fossil fuel prices are astronomically high or the world experiences catastrophic environmental calamities? Apparently not.
Are petroleum companies shooting themselves in the foot by manipulating the market to inflate gas prices, as this will hopefully result in behavioral changes in the population? I hope so.
Is the unknown unknowable? I think so.
Are unknowables known to be potentially knowable in systems that promote universal knowing in heretofore unknowable capacities? Leave me alone!
I guess that, for now, I'm in favor of high gas prices. Humans, as a whole, seem incapable of the kind of thinking that proactively solves environmental problems. Birmingham has the fourth worst air quality in the nation. Our asthma rate is sky-rocketing. If that doesn't get people to buy efficient vehicles and support legislation to explore alternative, non-polluting energy, maybe high gas prices will.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Bush's Greenhouse Gas Directive: Complete Crap
George Bush has universally opposed measures that would reduce CO2 emissions. His problem with such measures is simple: In order to reduce CO2, you must reduce fossil fuel consumption. But reducing fossil fuel consumption would, it seems, inherently reduce oil company profits, and that of course, simply won’t do.
But this week, Bush issued a directive instructing the EPA to draft rules that would reduce CO2 emissions. The EPA rules must be completed by the end of 2008, weeks before Bush leaves office.
Interesting. Has Bush seen the light? Become a new man? Decided to stand up to the Oil companies once and for all? Or has he simply admitted defeat?
None of the above, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Recently, the Bush administration argued before the Supreme Court, that the EPA did not have the authority to regulate CO2. Simultaneously, the EPA said that even if they did have that authority, they would not seek to exercise it. The Court found that the EPA must regulate CO2 if it is determined to be a threat to public health. (If it strikes you as bizarre that the administration was arguing that the EPA can not, and should not, address this environmental threat to public health, Congratulations on being at least half-conscious)
Thus, Bush’s greenhouse gas directive was a legal imperative. He had no choice. Unfortunately, the court failed to direct the President to abstain from grand-standing; taking full credit for being a forward thinking visionary who’s fulfilling his commitment to public health and the environment by doing what had to be done, my fellow Americans!
While the Supreme Court’s ruling is encouraging, the thing to remember is that the EPA (Bush’s EPA, mind you) has been directed to come up with a plan only. This is a plan of the Environmental Protection Agency. This is only a plan. If this had been a real action by the Bush Administration, you would have been directed to the nearest medical facility for pulmonary resuscitation.
There is nothing to see here. Please move along.
The EPA will not come up with a plan. They will come up with a ball of shit. Weeks thereafter, Bush will be out of office, and it will be the job of a new president to come up with, God help us, a meaningful course of action, and Bush’s stall tactic will have worked.
The Democrats are introducing several bills to expedite rules on CO2 emissions.
But this week, Bush issued a directive instructing the EPA to draft rules that would reduce CO2 emissions. The EPA rules must be completed by the end of 2008, weeks before Bush leaves office.
Interesting. Has Bush seen the light? Become a new man? Decided to stand up to the Oil companies once and for all? Or has he simply admitted defeat?
None of the above, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Recently, the Bush administration argued before the Supreme Court, that the EPA did not have the authority to regulate CO2. Simultaneously, the EPA said that even if they did have that authority, they would not seek to exercise it. The Court found that the EPA must regulate CO2 if it is determined to be a threat to public health. (If it strikes you as bizarre that the administration was arguing that the EPA can not, and should not, address this environmental threat to public health, Congratulations on being at least half-conscious)
Thus, Bush’s greenhouse gas directive was a legal imperative. He had no choice. Unfortunately, the court failed to direct the President to abstain from grand-standing; taking full credit for being a forward thinking visionary who’s fulfilling his commitment to public health and the environment by doing what had to be done, my fellow Americans!
While the Supreme Court’s ruling is encouraging, the thing to remember is that the EPA (Bush’s EPA, mind you) has been directed to come up with a plan only. This is a plan of the Environmental Protection Agency. This is only a plan. If this had been a real action by the Bush Administration, you would have been directed to the nearest medical facility for pulmonary resuscitation.
There is nothing to see here. Please move along.
The EPA will not come up with a plan. They will come up with a ball of shit. Weeks thereafter, Bush will be out of office, and it will be the job of a new president to come up with, God help us, a meaningful course of action, and Bush’s stall tactic will have worked.
The Democrats are introducing several bills to expedite rules on CO2 emissions.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Toast!
Alberto Gonzalez
Julie MacDonald
Paul Wolfowitz
They're all Toast!
... and that's just off the top of my head. Who else is toast?
Wow!
Wow!
I mean, just, Wow!
If you haven't read about James Comey's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the US Attorney firings, read it here. And even if you did hear about it, I'd recommend reading about it again. From NPR, "One senator called it some of the most dramatic testimony he's heard in 25 years as a legislator."
The most striking fact that came out in the testimony was that the domestic surveillance program was, in its original form, unacceptable to John Ashcroft and James Comey. THAT MEANS THAT BUSH WANTED THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROGRAM TO BE MORE INVASIVE AND MORE ILLEGAL THAN THEY BECAME IN THEIR FINAL FORM. The program that was found to be illegal by every court that has considered it is a HEAVILY SCALED-BACK version of what Bush wanted.
It was, therfore, perfectly clear to George Bush that what he wanted to do was completely and undeniably illegal. It took a legion of Federal lawyers threatening to resign to convince him to alter his plan.
John Ashcroft apparently told George Bush that he wasn't signing off on this illegal program. That means that John Fucking Ashcroft has some measure of respect for the law which is in significant excess of that which the President possesses. I can't decide if that makes me dislike Ashcroft less or dislike Bush more. Both seem impossible. Maybe my head will implode.
The testimony provoked Arlen Specter (R: PN) to remark, "The department really cannot function with the continued leadership, or lack of leadership, of Attorney General Gonzales".
I mean... wow.
I mean, just, Wow!
If you haven't read about James Comey's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the US Attorney firings, read it here. And even if you did hear about it, I'd recommend reading about it again. From NPR, "One senator called it some of the most dramatic testimony he's heard in 25 years as a legislator."
The most striking fact that came out in the testimony was that the domestic surveillance program was, in its original form, unacceptable to John Ashcroft and James Comey. THAT MEANS THAT BUSH WANTED THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROGRAM TO BE MORE INVASIVE AND MORE ILLEGAL THAN THEY BECAME IN THEIR FINAL FORM. The program that was found to be illegal by every court that has considered it is a HEAVILY SCALED-BACK version of what Bush wanted.
It was, therfore, perfectly clear to George Bush that what he wanted to do was completely and undeniably illegal. It took a legion of Federal lawyers threatening to resign to convince him to alter his plan.
John Ashcroft apparently told George Bush that he wasn't signing off on this illegal program. That means that John Fucking Ashcroft has some measure of respect for the law which is in significant excess of that which the President possesses. I can't decide if that makes me dislike Ashcroft less or dislike Bush more. Both seem impossible. Maybe my head will implode.
The testimony provoked Arlen Specter (R: PN) to remark, "The department really cannot function with the continued leadership, or lack of leadership, of Attorney General Gonzales".
I mean... wow.
Jerry Falwell
If his influence hadn't wained so much in recent years, his death would be cause for celebration. Instead, I think this is an occasion to look at the life of Jerry Falwell, see it for the tragedy that it was, and think of ways that we can repair the kind of harm that individuals like him have done in the world.
It may be true that Falwell is single-handedly responsible for creating the right-wing movement in America, in its current configuration, and therefore for putting Gearge Bush in power. For that, he deserves a fate worse than death.
Bye bye from Tinky Winky...
Monday, May 7, 2007
Air Pollution
Birmingham, AL, just ranked fourth in the list of cites with worst air pollution int he US.
Why, then, do we not have emissions inspections? Why, then, do we have some of the laxest restrictions on industrial air pollution production in the nation? Why are our children getting asthma at alarmingly increasing rates? Why is it legal for a car to drive down the road spewing a huge cloud of black, toxic smoke?
"Why", you ask? The business lobby... in conjunction with an apathetic population.
The strategy of Government officials in Alabama is to stay just below Federal limits on air pollution in order to avoid Federally enforced restrictions. Maybe we should all just let our V-8's idle all day in downtown Bham.
Why, then, do we not have emissions inspections? Why, then, do we have some of the laxest restrictions on industrial air pollution production in the nation? Why are our children getting asthma at alarmingly increasing rates? Why is it legal for a car to drive down the road spewing a huge cloud of black, toxic smoke?
"Why", you ask? The business lobby... in conjunction with an apathetic population.
The strategy of Government officials in Alabama is to stay just below Federal limits on air pollution in order to avoid Federally enforced restrictions. Maybe we should all just let our V-8's idle all day in downtown Bham.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Lemmings (Dicrostonyx groenlandicus)
The Lemming is a small furry rodent resembling a gerbil, residing in Greenland and Iceland . They were incorrectly rumored to have suicidal tendencies wherein they would spontaneously jump off cliffs in herds. In the 1950's, Disney sent a cameraman to Iceland to capture footage of this. Upon finding out that the rumor was false, the cameraman somehow arranged to have the lemmings herded off a cliff while he filmed. Hence, the misinformation lives on to this day.
Lemmings are interesting creatures in other ways too. For instance, they will die if exposed to temperatures above 70 degrees Fahrenheit for extended periods. They also exhibit a photoperiodic response, i.e., they turn fat and white when exposed to short day lengths under laboratory conditions, and skinny and brown under long day lengths. The short day lemmings are amazingly cute.
The Lemmings have little relevance to American life these days, except that, were they really prone to jump off cliffs in herds, they would make a great metaphor for the current Administration. Here's the latest on the Gonzalez hearings. I'm so embarrassed for that guy. Why doesn't he just go hide under a rock?
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Another Bush Appointee Resigns in Shame
Julie MacDonald, a Bush political appointee to the position of Deputy Secretary for fish, wildlife, and Parks, recently resigned. She was scheduled to appear next week before a House committee investigating her role in interfering with endangered species decisions and favoring industry groups when shaping policy.
Surprise, surprise.
I kinda wish that the American Public had time to fully digest a scandal before being hit by the next one. I'm afraid that the populous is getting desensitized.
Surprise, surprise.
I kinda wish that the American Public had time to fully digest a scandal before being hit by the next one. I'm afraid that the populous is getting desensitized.
More Spectacluar Idiocy from our Commander -in-Chief
George Bush has, by legal proclamation, designated May first, "Loyalty Day".
That makes my head spin. Its almost like a sick joke.
First, everybody knows that Bush values loyalty, not to "American" principles, but to HIS twisted agenda. In his administration, loyalty gets you everywhere. Competence, unfortunately, doesn't count for anything. "Loyalty Day"! How grossly poetic.
The proclamation fails to mention exactly what we are supposed to be "loyal" to. It's an embarrassing montage of inane drivel. Apparently we're supposed to "fly our flag", and "learn more about our country" on Loyalty day. "Loyalty Day", by God! It just sounds stupid.
How about loyalty to individual rights, to Human rights, to social justice, to the land and water and air that is America, to the Constitution and basic decency, you bastard?
Will somebody please get rid of that guy so we can begin to fix this mess?
That makes my head spin. Its almost like a sick joke.
First, everybody knows that Bush values loyalty, not to "American" principles, but to HIS twisted agenda. In his administration, loyalty gets you everywhere. Competence, unfortunately, doesn't count for anything. "Loyalty Day"! How grossly poetic.
The proclamation fails to mention exactly what we are supposed to be "loyal" to. It's an embarrassing montage of inane drivel. Apparently we're supposed to "fly our flag", and "learn more about our country" on Loyalty day. "Loyalty Day", by God! It just sounds stupid.
How about loyalty to individual rights, to Human rights, to social justice, to the land and water and air that is America, to the Constitution and basic decency, you bastard?
Will somebody please get rid of that guy so we can begin to fix this mess?
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Wal-Mart: High Costs... Always
Human Rights Watch has just released a 210 page report titled, "Discounting Rights:
Wal-Mart's Violation of US Workers’ Right to Freedom of Association". The report outlines the spooky tactics and propaganda methods employed by Wal Mart to prevent workers from organizing.
Human Rights Watch has also obtained a video which dramatizes Wal Mart's anti-union propaganda.
The crimes perpetrated by Wal Mart are numerous, heinous, and well-documented. Please consider the costs to Wal Mart workers, your community, and our country before shopping there. Read more here and here. And here is the website for the movie "Wal-Mart: the high cost of low prices". You can watch the trailer there.
Fun fact: a Zogby poll indicated that, prior to the 2004 election, 76% of voters who shopped at Wal-Mart once per week planned to vote for Bush, while only 23% planned to vote for Kerry. When measured against other similar retailers in the US, frequent Wal-Mart shoppers were rated the most politically conservative.
But Here's the point I'd like to make,
It's not Wal-Mart's fault.
Wal-Mart is the inevitable product of a system. There are no "good" corporations. There are only big corporations and small corporations. And there are a few corporations whose business plan is to be "good" in order to make more money. You see, corporations have a legal responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders. In other words, it is illegal for a corporation to behave responsibly if that behavior will diminish share-holder profits. Even if the governing members of a corporation are themselves nice folks, their behavior is defined by their role in that corporation. If they do not conform, they will be replaced.
Form is content.
So what are we, as a society, to do? Well for one thing, use the power of your wallet. When we refrain from patronizing businesses that engage in bad behavior, bad behavior becomes unprofitable. And secondly, we need to regulate corporations in such a way that will result in corporations serving the interests of the people, not the other way around, as is the current trend. For example, we don't need to give corporations tax breaks for taking jobs from working Americans and giving them to a kid making a dollar a day in Malaysia.
Wal-Mart's Violation of US Workers’ Right to Freedom of Association". The report outlines the spooky tactics and propaganda methods employed by Wal Mart to prevent workers from organizing.
Human Rights Watch has also obtained a video which dramatizes Wal Mart's anti-union propaganda.
The crimes perpetrated by Wal Mart are numerous, heinous, and well-documented. Please consider the costs to Wal Mart workers, your community, and our country before shopping there. Read more here and here. And here is the website for the movie "Wal-Mart: the high cost of low prices". You can watch the trailer there.
Fun fact: a Zogby poll indicated that, prior to the 2004 election, 76% of voters who shopped at Wal-Mart once per week planned to vote for Bush, while only 23% planned to vote for Kerry. When measured against other similar retailers in the US, frequent Wal-Mart shoppers were rated the most politically conservative.
But Here's the point I'd like to make,
It's not Wal-Mart's fault.
Wal-Mart is the inevitable product of a system. There are no "good" corporations. There are only big corporations and small corporations. And there are a few corporations whose business plan is to be "good" in order to make more money. You see, corporations have a legal responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders. In other words, it is illegal for a corporation to behave responsibly if that behavior will diminish share-holder profits. Even if the governing members of a corporation are themselves nice folks, their behavior is defined by their role in that corporation. If they do not conform, they will be replaced.
Form is content.
So what are we, as a society, to do? Well for one thing, use the power of your wallet. When we refrain from patronizing businesses that engage in bad behavior, bad behavior becomes unprofitable. And secondly, we need to regulate corporations in such a way that will result in corporations serving the interests of the people, not the other way around, as is the current trend. For example, we don't need to give corporations tax breaks for taking jobs from working Americans and giving them to a kid making a dollar a day in Malaysia.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Save the Foreskin!
Here is a story about a divorced couple in Oregon who are fighting in court over whether their son will be allowed to keep his penile foreskin. You see, after the parents were divorced, the father became enamored of the Jewish Faith, which instructs that all males must have their genitals mutilated in a religious ritual known as "circumcision". The problem is that neither the son, nor the mother, wish that this should occur. Oregon courts have so-far sided with the father, who has full custody of the 12 year-old minor, writing that, "The primary custodial parent is the one that makes the decisions about religion and education and about matters of child-rearing", to which one Oregon-area lawyer responded, "You're talking about not just religious instruction or whether you're going to send the child to parochial school or public school. This is a matter of permanent change of bodily structure. And it's irreversible."
Yeah. I think the kid needs a lawyer.
Will the courts up-hold a ruling that says a parent has the legal right to force his child to have what amounts to cosmetic surgery? Please tell me how that is different than a father forcing his daughter to have a boob-job or lipo-suction. At least both of those surgeries are reversible.
Circumcision is an absurd practice that should be removed from our cultural pallette. It is not ethical to permanently disfigure a child who has no say in the matter. Nor is it ethical to perform surgery on a baby WITHOUT ANAESTHESIA.
"But I don't want him to be different!", I have heard parents say. Well, the trend towards not circumcizing is growing. Let your kid be part of a progressive future. Besides, he can always have it done if he so elects (right!!).
In other parts of the world, women are subjected to horrible, brutal surgical procedures on their genitals for religious reasons, and WE, in all our rightiousness, declare that this is deplorable!
Let's fix the problems in our own back yard before we criticize anyone else.
Here is an organization of Physicians dedicated to eradicating the practice of circumcision.
Here is their statement concerning the claim that circumcision reduces the spread of HIV.
If you are reading this, Mom or Dad, I forgive you.
Yeah. I think the kid needs a lawyer.
Will the courts up-hold a ruling that says a parent has the legal right to force his child to have what amounts to cosmetic surgery? Please tell me how that is different than a father forcing his daughter to have a boob-job or lipo-suction. At least both of those surgeries are reversible.
Circumcision is an absurd practice that should be removed from our cultural pallette. It is not ethical to permanently disfigure a child who has no say in the matter. Nor is it ethical to perform surgery on a baby WITHOUT ANAESTHESIA.
"But I don't want him to be different!", I have heard parents say. Well, the trend towards not circumcizing is growing. Let your kid be part of a progressive future. Besides, he can always have it done if he so elects (right!!).
In other parts of the world, women are subjected to horrible, brutal surgical procedures on their genitals for religious reasons, and WE, in all our rightiousness, declare that this is deplorable!
Let's fix the problems in our own back yard before we criticize anyone else.
Here is an organization of Physicians dedicated to eradicating the practice of circumcision.
Here is their statement concerning the claim that circumcision reduces the spread of HIV.
If you are reading this, Mom or Dad, I forgive you.
Will You be a friend to Mr. Habeas?
Habeas Corpus just put up a page on myspace. Will you be his friend?
You may not know it yet, but Mr. Habeas was your friend until he went missing when Congress passed the Military Commissions Act. He was always there to prevent you, and other citizens of the world, from being imprisoned without cause. And Congress sent him away.
Ungrateful bastards.
The right to due process is a central core value upon which this country was built, and one to which most reasonable people feel that every human has an inalienable right.
Please make your representatives aware that you do not support the dismantling of such a core value. Or maybe Habeas won't be there for you when you need him.
You may not know it yet, but Mr. Habeas was your friend until he went missing when Congress passed the Military Commissions Act. He was always there to prevent you, and other citizens of the world, from being imprisoned without cause. And Congress sent him away.
Ungrateful bastards.
The right to due process is a central core value upon which this country was built, and one to which most reasonable people feel that every human has an inalienable right.
Please make your representatives aware that you do not support the dismantling of such a core value. Or maybe Habeas won't be there for you when you need him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)