Monday, October 12, 2009
Happy Columbus Day?
Some interesting thoughts about what Columbus and by extension American colonialism really means. Also, how can we rethink this holiday?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Red Sox and The Office
My last few posts have been pretty serious, so I thought I might counteract that with talking about some lighter subjects.
Game 3 of the Boston Red Sox's series against the Los Angeles Angels is at noon today in Boston. For the first time in the last four seasons (2004, 2007,2008 and now) that these two teams have met the Angels are 2 games up on the Red Sox. The Sox, as much as I hate to say it, have their backs against the wall. They need to win these next two games in Boston and then go back to L.A. and win there. This is not going to be easy, but that has not stopped the Sox in the playoffs before.
Also, Jim and Pam Finally got married on The Office this Thursday, in one of the show's always classic hour long episodes. I'm not one to become obsessed with fictional character's lives, but the love tension between these two characters has been growing for the shows's six seasons and it is quite satisfying to see it finally realized. The episode represented the perfect mix between comedy and sentimentality and had a perfect ending. Looking back, The Office, hopefully along with the underrated Arrested Development, will be considered among the best shows this decade.
Enjoy your long weekend. Peace.
Game 3 of the Boston Red Sox's series against the Los Angeles Angels is at noon today in Boston. For the first time in the last four seasons (2004, 2007,2008 and now) that these two teams have met the Angels are 2 games up on the Red Sox. The Sox, as much as I hate to say it, have their backs against the wall. They need to win these next two games in Boston and then go back to L.A. and win there. This is not going to be easy, but that has not stopped the Sox in the playoffs before.
Also, Jim and Pam Finally got married on The Office this Thursday, in one of the show's always classic hour long episodes. I'm not one to become obsessed with fictional character's lives, but the love tension between these two characters has been growing for the shows's six seasons and it is quite satisfying to see it finally realized. The episode represented the perfect mix between comedy and sentimentality and had a perfect ending. Looking back, The Office, hopefully along with the underrated Arrested Development, will be considered among the best shows this decade.
Enjoy your long weekend. Peace.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Obama's Nobel Prize and What it Means
Let's put this in perspective: the United States is still occupying Afghanistan and Iraq and conducting illegal military action in Pakistan. The United States is still the leading producer of green-house gases. The United States still supports China, Israel, Saudi Arabia and numerous other practitioners of the most grievous human rights abuses in the world. The United States still executes more people per capita than any 'first would' country. The United States still allows millions to die due to lack of or inadequate health insurance. How does this warrant anyone representing the power structure of the United States winning the Nobel Peace Prize?
First, it is absurd that any siting U.S. president can possibly win the Nobel Prize. Since the end of World War II Presidents of the United States (not too mention Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson the only other sitting presidents to win the prize) have led the country in human rights abuses that warrant trial much more than awards.
But this is not the debate you are going to hear when the Nobel Committee's decision is discussed by the corporate media. In the U.S. both the presidents critics and his supporters are far more concerned with the image than the reality of this situation. The president did not ask to be awarded the prize and has remained humble while accepting it, But the media, far more concerned with theater than reality, is going to be portraying the President as some ego-maniac, messiah once again stealing the spot light (which can be seen here, here and here). We are going to seen this debate cast in light of Obama and his personality rather than true questions about America and its unpeaceful practices which these commentators have nothing to gain by challenging. Ultimately these attacks are going too outweigh any benefits the prize will bestow on the president.
I am not going to attack the entire idea of the Nobel Peace Prize as I believe that the majority of the time it goes to deserving individuals (just consult the list). However, their are numerous examples of individuals who deserved the award not receiving (the most notable and frequently cited being Gandhi) and other examples of those who did not deserve the award winning it. The most tragically comic Henry Kissinger who received the award in 1973 while the U.S. was still engaging in illegal bombings of Cambodia. His counterpart in Vietnam Le Duc Tho refused the award saying that his country had not yet received peace.
With this understanding, there are numerous individuals who certainly did deserve the award this year (some listed here) and did not receive it. Europe, apparently not getting the memo from the United States media, is still in the grips of its own delusion about the president. Obama has encouraged this delusion with some impressive rhetoric especially his Egypt speech, but until these words are reinforced by some real actions the president is a long way from deserving this honor. However, if he can use this as a challenge to fight for peace, as he said he would, this may end up being a good thing.
First, it is absurd that any siting U.S. president can possibly win the Nobel Prize. Since the end of World War II Presidents of the United States (not too mention Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson the only other sitting presidents to win the prize) have led the country in human rights abuses that warrant trial much more than awards.
But this is not the debate you are going to hear when the Nobel Committee's decision is discussed by the corporate media. In the U.S. both the presidents critics and his supporters are far more concerned with the image than the reality of this situation. The president did not ask to be awarded the prize and has remained humble while accepting it, But the media, far more concerned with theater than reality, is going to be portraying the President as some ego-maniac, messiah once again stealing the spot light (which can be seen here, here and here). We are going to seen this debate cast in light of Obama and his personality rather than true questions about America and its unpeaceful practices which these commentators have nothing to gain by challenging. Ultimately these attacks are going too outweigh any benefits the prize will bestow on the president.
I am not going to attack the entire idea of the Nobel Peace Prize as I believe that the majority of the time it goes to deserving individuals (just consult the list). However, their are numerous examples of individuals who deserved the award not receiving (the most notable and frequently cited being Gandhi) and other examples of those who did not deserve the award winning it. The most tragically comic Henry Kissinger who received the award in 1973 while the U.S. was still engaging in illegal bombings of Cambodia. His counterpart in Vietnam Le Duc Tho refused the award saying that his country had not yet received peace.
With this understanding, there are numerous individuals who certainly did deserve the award this year (some listed here) and did not receive it. Europe, apparently not getting the memo from the United States media, is still in the grips of its own delusion about the president. Obama has encouraged this delusion with some impressive rhetoric especially his Egypt speech, but until these words are reinforced by some real actions the president is a long way from deserving this honor. However, if he can use this as a challenge to fight for peace, as he said he would, this may end up being a good thing.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
A Response to Ron Paul on Health Reform
A few weeks back Ron Paul made a very interesting speech about his stance on health reform. Now I find a lot to admire about Ron Paul, he is willing to discuss the deficiencies of American foreign policy, he was a big supporter of third-party candidates in the 2008 election and he generally avoids towing the party line. However in this speech, in which he lays out 17 points against health care reform, I find one of the most major flaws in his positions exemplified, namely his unwillingness to challenge corporate power.
If you click the link you can read his arguments and I will provide some brief responses to them.
1. If one assumes that an individual does not have a right to health care then you are assuming that someone's right to property comes before that right. Meaning that property is given a higher value than life and health.
2. This assumes that a government run program will not function with the interest of the people in mind. Although government has proven that this is often the case, through neglect of the public interests, a government run health care program should be the opposite of this neglect. Certainly a non-profit government problem would care for its recipients more than health insurance companies who function only for their own self-interests and profit.
3. This statement is historically false. Any significant government entrance into the health care industry has been denied since Teddy Roosevelt first introduced the idea and Harry Truman later made the first strong push for it. These possible reforms have repeatedly been halted through health insurance companies cries of socialism.
4. There are numerous efficiently run government-programs, including medicare. To argue that governments providing any service creates an inherently flawed system is to argue against some of the most fundamental American institutions.
5. I concur with this statement.
6. I concur with this statement as well if (as he most likely is not) referring to laws that favor private insurance companies monopoly over the health care industry.
7. I do not believe that inflation has a lot to do with this debate.
8. Bureaucrats should never interfere with health care as they do in numerous way through the current system, where most insurance companies pay individuals to search for pre-existing conditions through which to deny care. In a single-payer health care system (which there has been no significant fight for by congress) a person would be provided care by a hospital or other health institution and would not have to be approved for care as the current system does.
9. I agree with this statement, with the understanding that it would do little to change the current system. For people to really begin spending less money a non-profit entity is necessary.
10. The cost of litigation is a relatively insignificant aspect of the money most health care providers spend. The government should not take steps that defend medical practitioners who make mistakes that harm their patients.
11. This is one of the most common talking points used by insurance companies when making arguments for their forms of 'reform.' I don't see why this shouldn't be done, but it would do little to lower health care costs as most companies from state to state follow the same business model.
12. I concur.
13. Health insurance is fundamentally different than most other forms of insurance in that it affects individuals, and by extension society, very directly. Individuals often find it difficult calculating risk with regard to their health. Insuring everyone some form of cheap insurance will ensure that people are not weighing the financial burden private insurance will put on them against the risk presented by not having it.
14. I agree that the insurance industry does have an all too close relationship with the government, but this relationship primarily takes the form of the government allowing massive insurance company bureaucracies to exploit their customers.
15. I believe that the usefulness of fines is certainly debatable especially when they are being forced on the most poor, but when one considers this one must also consider the fact that those without health insurance often incur more costs upon themselves and society when they are injured or fall ill. Fines are simply a patch and do little to fundamentally change things.
16. I concur.
17. I concur.
Ron Paul in his speech presents some of the most common and most influential arguments against reform. I think common ground is possible in this debate, but not when the interests of the majority of the citizenry are ignored.
If you click the link you can read his arguments and I will provide some brief responses to them.
1. If one assumes that an individual does not have a right to health care then you are assuming that someone's right to property comes before that right. Meaning that property is given a higher value than life and health.
2. This assumes that a government run program will not function with the interest of the people in mind. Although government has proven that this is often the case, through neglect of the public interests, a government run health care program should be the opposite of this neglect. Certainly a non-profit government problem would care for its recipients more than health insurance companies who function only for their own self-interests and profit.
3. This statement is historically false. Any significant government entrance into the health care industry has been denied since Teddy Roosevelt first introduced the idea and Harry Truman later made the first strong push for it. These possible reforms have repeatedly been halted through health insurance companies cries of socialism.
4. There are numerous efficiently run government-programs, including medicare. To argue that governments providing any service creates an inherently flawed system is to argue against some of the most fundamental American institutions.
5. I concur with this statement.
6. I concur with this statement as well if (as he most likely is not) referring to laws that favor private insurance companies monopoly over the health care industry.
7. I do not believe that inflation has a lot to do with this debate.
8. Bureaucrats should never interfere with health care as they do in numerous way through the current system, where most insurance companies pay individuals to search for pre-existing conditions through which to deny care. In a single-payer health care system (which there has been no significant fight for by congress) a person would be provided care by a hospital or other health institution and would not have to be approved for care as the current system does.
9. I agree with this statement, with the understanding that it would do little to change the current system. For people to really begin spending less money a non-profit entity is necessary.
10. The cost of litigation is a relatively insignificant aspect of the money most health care providers spend. The government should not take steps that defend medical practitioners who make mistakes that harm their patients.
11. This is one of the most common talking points used by insurance companies when making arguments for their forms of 'reform.' I don't see why this shouldn't be done, but it would do little to lower health care costs as most companies from state to state follow the same business model.
12. I concur.
13. Health insurance is fundamentally different than most other forms of insurance in that it affects individuals, and by extension society, very directly. Individuals often find it difficult calculating risk with regard to their health. Insuring everyone some form of cheap insurance will ensure that people are not weighing the financial burden private insurance will put on them against the risk presented by not having it.
14. I agree that the insurance industry does have an all too close relationship with the government, but this relationship primarily takes the form of the government allowing massive insurance company bureaucracies to exploit their customers.
15. I believe that the usefulness of fines is certainly debatable especially when they are being forced on the most poor, but when one considers this one must also consider the fact that those without health insurance often incur more costs upon themselves and society when they are injured or fall ill. Fines are simply a patch and do little to fundamentally change things.
16. I concur.
17. I concur.
Ron Paul in his speech presents some of the most common and most influential arguments against reform. I think common ground is possible in this debate, but not when the interests of the majority of the citizenry are ignored.
Democracy Now!
For my first real post I'd like to make a suggestion: Democracy Now! is a great source for news. Far removed from the corporate media (New York Times, Fox, MSNBC, Rush Limbaugh...) Democracy Now! receives no funds from the government, private corporations or even the Corporation for Public Broadcasting like PBS. Instead it is funded by listeners, viewers and various foundations (read about it), this allows a level of independence not usually available from many news sources.
Hosted by Amy Goodman the show, broadcasted on numerous radio stations across the country and on its website, covers stories that the vast majority of the media either ignores or covers from a perspective far removed from the experiences of the masses in the United States and around the world.
For example, just yesterday, on the 8th anniversary of the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan the show hosted an interview with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California), the only Congressperson in either chamber of congress who stood up after 9/11 and asked Congress to step back and question what it was doing as it granted the President unprecedented powers to use the military. In the interview Lee states her opposition to any troop surges in Afghanistan and support of a plan for troop reduction and an eventual end to the occupation of Afghanistan.
Right now I'm listening to a talk Noam Chomsky gave in New York City on June 12 called Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours in which he discusses various topics including the financial crisis and global warming. The general thesis of his talk is that in Western (read: rich) countries when "the crisis" is discussed it is quite clear what we are talking about (the financial crisis). However when one talks about a crisis in other poorer countries it is very difficult to use the definite article as they face numerous crises even more severe than the financial crisis in the west, namely the food and AIDS crises. I'd really recommend giving it a listen or reading it.
Democracy Now! obviously cannot serve as ones only source of news, but it is a powerful supplement to the all too hegemonic mass media.
Hosted by Amy Goodman the show, broadcasted on numerous radio stations across the country and on its website, covers stories that the vast majority of the media either ignores or covers from a perspective far removed from the experiences of the masses in the United States and around the world.
For example, just yesterday, on the 8th anniversary of the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan the show hosted an interview with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California), the only Congressperson in either chamber of congress who stood up after 9/11 and asked Congress to step back and question what it was doing as it granted the President unprecedented powers to use the military. In the interview Lee states her opposition to any troop surges in Afghanistan and support of a plan for troop reduction and an eventual end to the occupation of Afghanistan.
Right now I'm listening to a talk Noam Chomsky gave in New York City on June 12 called Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours in which he discusses various topics including the financial crisis and global warming. The general thesis of his talk is that in Western (read: rich) countries when "the crisis" is discussed it is quite clear what we are talking about (the financial crisis). However when one talks about a crisis in other poorer countries it is very difficult to use the definite article as they face numerous crises even more severe than the financial crisis in the west, namely the food and AIDS crises. I'd really recommend giving it a listen or reading it.
Democracy Now! obviously cannot serve as ones only source of news, but it is a powerful supplement to the all too hegemonic mass media.
My Blog
This is my blog. It's called "It's Always Something" because it always is.
I'm a biology major at UMass Lowell and have a pretty normal life. I'm going to try to update this blog regularly about things that interest me, namely politics, history, books, science, sports, music and other fun things. Hopefully the things that interest me will also be things that interest some other people and they, or you, will read it. I look forward to your feedback on my post and I hope this will be fun.
Peace.
I'm a biology major at UMass Lowell and have a pretty normal life. I'm going to try to update this blog regularly about things that interest me, namely politics, history, books, science, sports, music and other fun things. Hopefully the things that interest me will also be things that interest some other people and they, or you, will read it. I look forward to your feedback on my post and I hope this will be fun.
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)