If you are anything like me, the smallest decisions can quickly become material for the greatest debates of your life. You can turn the tiniest molehill of an issue into a huge mountain of a decision just by sitting down and analyzing too much.
Sound familiar? Have you ever gotten weighed down in trying to make small decisions of little consequence and had trouble keeping perspective? I definitely have. It is so easy to take a minor decision like 'what should I eat for breakfast?' and turn it into a two-sided debate that can last long beyond normal breakfast hours. You begin to debate whether you should have a healthy, balanced breakfast of wholegrain toast and fruit or if you can indulge (just this once) in a less-healthy meal of packaged pastries and a latte. Did you eat healthy enough the day before to reward yourself witha sugar-filled breakfast? Are you planning to eat better food for the rest of the day? These questions and more can add unnecessary stress and debate to your choice.
Those of us who are analytical by nature have an even tougher time not turning everything into a debate in our head. Take shopping for example. You find a great sweater on sale for ten dollars, but there is an even cuter sweater that you are sure you'd wear more. The cuter sweater, however, is forty dollars. What do you do? People like me start making mental lists of the pros and cons on each side of what has become a great debate during your day. Do you save the money but forfeit the better looking sweater? Or do you splurge and take some dollars away from another item you really needed to buy? What a task it can be to make choices like these when we let ourselves make big issues out of small ones.
Is there anything we can do to stop making ourselves debate each decision we make each day? I for one am tired of living this way. It is one thing to be intentional about the choices you make, but it is another thing entirely to overwork your brain with debates over breakfasts or new sweaters.
I guess I only have one piece of tested and tried advice to give people whose biggest opponent in any debate is themself: stop it. When you feel a silly debate about to be had in your head, just stop it. Take a moment to settle down your thoughts and to really consider how important this decision is. The chances are that it is not anywhere worth near the time and energy you will spend analyzing the choice. You will find, as I am beginning to, that ninety percent of the things I let become a great debate in my head are really not worth having a debate about at all. Have the unhealthy breakfast, buy the expensive sweater. Do what you want. Just stop being so indecisive about what that means.
(sources from Internet)
Friday, October 22, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Hot In Politics
The blog is about politics that happens in our everyday life. I will be looking for topics in politics that may interest you. Most sources are from the internet, that may come from online newspaper, magazine or other people blogs.
I want to make sure that the sources are credited. However I may make mistake, and if I do please let me know, and will fix it for as soon as possible.
I want to make sure that the sources are credited. However I may make mistake, and if I do please let me know, and will fix it for as soon as possible.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Net Neutrality On The Hill
The internet has always been a source of confusion and angst on Capitol Hill. It has also been one of the more glamorous issues among the lawmakers, because the impact it has had on the way Americans communicate, seek entertainment and do business.
As the speed of the internet has grown, as its "bandwidth" has allowed it to carry large amounts of content at high speed, the internet highway has become an enormously lucrative commercial highway. It has also become much like a utility, in that its services are delivered primarily by cable operators and telephone companies, each industry operating in most markets as a de facto monopoly.
Now, those cable and telephone companies that are the internet service providers, or ISPs, are looking for additional revenue services beyond the subscription fees that they charge consumers each month. They are considering charging major content providers on the web a fee for massive use of their networks. Large websites such as Amazon, Google and Yahoo would be charged a fee for the amount of traffic they put into the web
pipelines.
Keep in mind, these providers already pay for their bandwidth. They pay for their connections to the Internet through various datacenters and connections to various backbone networks. Some don't do much to dispel the confusion their claims may cause, allowing people to think Google somehow isn't paying for their bandwidth usage already. All major content providers do pay, the issue at the heart of this debate is whether they will have to pay more due to their size, or suffer less-than equal treatment when an ISP's customers attempt to reach their sites.
Net Neutrality Comes to Center Stage
What has brought this issue to a head is the pending ability of broadband cable networks to deliver movies and other first run video programming over the internet. But the success of Google and Yahoo with their advertising revenue model and Amazon with its enormous retail presence has convinced the cable system operators that they are entitled to some of the revenue these companies are deriving from services delivered and transactions concluded over their networks - at no cost.
Thus "net neutrality" has become a buzzword on Capitol Hill and the focus of more than one proposed piece of legislation in the past eighteen months. One of the problems facing the lawmakers is that no one is exactly sure what net neutrality means. For the big content providers, it means no additional fees for their presence and availability on the internet. For the ISPs, it is a veiled term for regulated rates - or more accurately, the inability to create a rate structure for major websites.
The National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) has fought cable regulation for years, and sees net neutrality as another governmental threat. Says a spokesman, "For instance, does network neutrality mean that network operators can't block spam? Should network operators be allowed to stop viruses from spreading? Should large users of peer-to-peer software be allowed unlimited bandwidth so service for other users is slower?"
The major internet search engines and retail sites are active in their support for net neutrality, and they are joined by some likely allies including internet freedom of speech advocates, liberal organizations such as MoveOn and some libertarian organizations.
The legislative concern is that the monopolistic service providers would be in a position to favor some websites over others - and that providing unlimited high speed delivery capability to major sites will push other websites into slower lanes on the internet highway. There is also the possibility of ISPs denying some websites access to their networks altogether. These scenarios are viewed as an inherently unfair model subject to antitrust consideration, at least by some Democrats.
Google recently threatened to use antitrust lawsuits should net neutrality initiatives fail and they detect any signs of discrimination against their traffic.
Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Profit?
The philosophical issues are interesting. But more important in this issue are the potential business opportunities for both content providers and network operators. The telephone companies that have large numbers of high speed internet subscribers intend to get into the television business via the internet.
Yahoo and Google see opportunities in online video, and alliances between such websites and movie companies are a real possibility. The cable companies that provide internet service are also interested in proprietary pay-per-view services delivered via the internet. The service providers would like to see a "tiered" structure wherein they can charge large websites (with large revenue streams) a fee. In addition, they would like to get into the
content business themselves.
The ISPs argue that additional revenues are necessary in order for them to continue to invest billions in high speed networks to better serve their customers. They are finding some allies among hardware manufacturers, who see the implementation of a fee structure online as requiring additional in-home equipment. Some conservative Republicans are opposed to net neutrality as well, agreeing that the ISPs would be denied the ability to expand their networks without the additional revenue.
A Regulatory Conundrum
The FCC has left the issue alone. At one point, they dismissed the issue when raised by Amazon and other major web content providers, saying that regulation was unnecessary for activities that had yet to occur. Then Madison River, a telecommunications company in North Carolina, blocked internet telephone service over their telephone network which they used to deliver both internet access and telephone service. The FCC is no longer in a position to ignore the matter, as they will be the enforcement body for whatever rules emerge from the current debate
A bill addressing net neutrality that was proposed by Democrats failed in the House in April. However attitudes are shifting. In May, a seemingly bipartisan bill came out of the House Judiciary Committee that would add specific language to existing antitrust law guaranteeing net neutrality. The Judiciary bill would make it illegal under antitrust law for network operators to impose fees or to fail to provide their services on "reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms."
Further, the bill would bar ISPs from blocking or impairing internet sites. The house has two other pending bills as well, both emanating from Democrats. One of the proposals is from Congressman Ed Markey, a longtime expert on cable and telecommunications issues. He proposes to amend a telecommunications bill slated for consideration by both houses later this year.
On the Senate side, there is a major rewrite of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 underway and debate over this issue has made its way into the process. At the moment, the proposed bill includes language that charges the FCC with watching for potential violations of net neutrality and reporting its findings to Congress. This "when in doubt, commission a study" approach suits the NCTA perfectly. It's a good-government approach to continued non-regulation, and as the NCTA president told a Senate committee "This is the kind of issue that is most appropriately studied a lot more."
(sources from Internet)
As the speed of the internet has grown, as its "bandwidth" has allowed it to carry large amounts of content at high speed, the internet highway has become an enormously lucrative commercial highway. It has also become much like a utility, in that its services are delivered primarily by cable operators and telephone companies, each industry operating in most markets as a de facto monopoly.
Now, those cable and telephone companies that are the internet service providers, or ISPs, are looking for additional revenue services beyond the subscription fees that they charge consumers each month. They are considering charging major content providers on the web a fee for massive use of their networks. Large websites such as Amazon, Google and Yahoo would be charged a fee for the amount of traffic they put into the web
pipelines.
Keep in mind, these providers already pay for their bandwidth. They pay for their connections to the Internet through various datacenters and connections to various backbone networks. Some don't do much to dispel the confusion their claims may cause, allowing people to think Google somehow isn't paying for their bandwidth usage already. All major content providers do pay, the issue at the heart of this debate is whether they will have to pay more due to their size, or suffer less-than equal treatment when an ISP's customers attempt to reach their sites.
Net Neutrality Comes to Center Stage
What has brought this issue to a head is the pending ability of broadband cable networks to deliver movies and other first run video programming over the internet. But the success of Google and Yahoo with their advertising revenue model and Amazon with its enormous retail presence has convinced the cable system operators that they are entitled to some of the revenue these companies are deriving from services delivered and transactions concluded over their networks - at no cost.
Thus "net neutrality" has become a buzzword on Capitol Hill and the focus of more than one proposed piece of legislation in the past eighteen months. One of the problems facing the lawmakers is that no one is exactly sure what net neutrality means. For the big content providers, it means no additional fees for their presence and availability on the internet. For the ISPs, it is a veiled term for regulated rates - or more accurately, the inability to create a rate structure for major websites.
The National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) has fought cable regulation for years, and sees net neutrality as another governmental threat. Says a spokesman, "For instance, does network neutrality mean that network operators can't block spam? Should network operators be allowed to stop viruses from spreading? Should large users of peer-to-peer software be allowed unlimited bandwidth so service for other users is slower?"
The major internet search engines and retail sites are active in their support for net neutrality, and they are joined by some likely allies including internet freedom of speech advocates, liberal organizations such as MoveOn and some libertarian organizations.
The legislative concern is that the monopolistic service providers would be in a position to favor some websites over others - and that providing unlimited high speed delivery capability to major sites will push other websites into slower lanes on the internet highway. There is also the possibility of ISPs denying some websites access to their networks altogether. These scenarios are viewed as an inherently unfair model subject to antitrust consideration, at least by some Democrats.
Google recently threatened to use antitrust lawsuits should net neutrality initiatives fail and they detect any signs of discrimination against their traffic.
Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Profit?
The philosophical issues are interesting. But more important in this issue are the potential business opportunities for both content providers and network operators. The telephone companies that have large numbers of high speed internet subscribers intend to get into the television business via the internet.
Yahoo and Google see opportunities in online video, and alliances between such websites and movie companies are a real possibility. The cable companies that provide internet service are also interested in proprietary pay-per-view services delivered via the internet. The service providers would like to see a "tiered" structure wherein they can charge large websites (with large revenue streams) a fee. In addition, they would like to get into the
content business themselves.
The ISPs argue that additional revenues are necessary in order for them to continue to invest billions in high speed networks to better serve their customers. They are finding some allies among hardware manufacturers, who see the implementation of a fee structure online as requiring additional in-home equipment. Some conservative Republicans are opposed to net neutrality as well, agreeing that the ISPs would be denied the ability to expand their networks without the additional revenue.
A Regulatory Conundrum
The FCC has left the issue alone. At one point, they dismissed the issue when raised by Amazon and other major web content providers, saying that regulation was unnecessary for activities that had yet to occur. Then Madison River, a telecommunications company in North Carolina, blocked internet telephone service over their telephone network which they used to deliver both internet access and telephone service. The FCC is no longer in a position to ignore the matter, as they will be the enforcement body for whatever rules emerge from the current debate
A bill addressing net neutrality that was proposed by Democrats failed in the House in April. However attitudes are shifting. In May, a seemingly bipartisan bill came out of the House Judiciary Committee that would add specific language to existing antitrust law guaranteeing net neutrality. The Judiciary bill would make it illegal under antitrust law for network operators to impose fees or to fail to provide their services on "reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms."
Further, the bill would bar ISPs from blocking or impairing internet sites. The house has two other pending bills as well, both emanating from Democrats. One of the proposals is from Congressman Ed Markey, a longtime expert on cable and telecommunications issues. He proposes to amend a telecommunications bill slated for consideration by both houses later this year.
On the Senate side, there is a major rewrite of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 underway and debate over this issue has made its way into the process. At the moment, the proposed bill includes language that charges the FCC with watching for potential violations of net neutrality and reporting its findings to Congress. This "when in doubt, commission a study" approach suits the NCTA perfectly. It's a good-government approach to continued non-regulation, and as the NCTA president told a Senate committee "This is the kind of issue that is most appropriately studied a lot more."
(sources from Internet)
Monday, August 23, 2010
What Do You Know About Richard M. Nixon?
Depending on who we are, how old we are, and where we come from, associations with Richard M. Nixon vary greatly. The best is the SEINFELD episode wherein Elaine tricked into dating a guy because he has the perfect come-on.
He makes bets with total strangers (women he is attracted to) about trivia topics and names that he intentionally gets wrong. In Elaine's case, upon meeting her, he bets with her that Dustin Hoffman was in STAR WARS�then by the end of the show has moved on to Jerry's girlfriend, Nikki (though the freak doesn't know she's Jerry's girlfriend as he hits on her) what the M stands for in Richard M. Nixon.
There is also the brilliant, campy STRIPTEASE performance of Burt Reynolds playing Congressman David Dilbeck, who greases himself up with Vaseline to have his way with a token piece of fresh lint from his fantasy girl, Erin Grant (played by Demi Moore), then is cleaned up and hastened to a stage to speak to a huge group of Christians: as he enters to a standing O he holds both politician hand up in the sign of the V for victory but more looking like the Richard M. Nixon signs of peace. Such are the implications, anyway.
This is the silliest of associations I have with that name, Richard M. Nixon, as I was in high school when the 37th U. S. president was waving his phony peace signs and mumbling as if he had marbles in his mouth that he was "not a crook"�both becoming signature marks for the fallen president of the United States.
I recall actual silent periods in Latin class, for instance, when we would de-rail from our declensions and go into grave, oppressive quiet time once the overhead speakers piped the latest news on the infamous Richard M. Nixon, interrupting our "normal" class periods.
Yes, he has been made fun of, has been villanized and glorified equally by left and by right�. He was an iconic president, for numerous reasons, that is. Richard M. Nixon was responsible for issuing policy that brought price control and established SSI (Supplemental Security Income). Richard M. Nixon made electronic spying of the Big Brother of George Orwell's 1984 a reality by spying and bugging (Democrats and others, including his own people) and bringing about his impeachment.
And Richard M. Nixon is, conversely, known as the president who�in a detente with the then USSR and China, ended the miserable Vietnam War. So whatever your associations are with Richard M. Nixon, may they be more accurate than mine were when I was a pot-smoking, Latinate language-struggling, anti-authoritarianistic teen.
(sources from Internet)
Saturday, August 21, 2010
North Korea: Yes, You Have Our Attention
North Korea has tested a low yield nuclear device with 4% of the destructive power of the bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan at the end of World War II.
Some believe that the device was much larger but may have failed for technical reasons.
We don't know the truth, because the United States has not devoted the resources to know what is really going on. If you are surprised, don't be. Intelligence collection is a tricky business.
When Richard Nixon was President, you may remember that one of our ships, the USS Pueblo was brazenly attacked and hijacked in international waters in 1968, off the coast of North Korea. The 82 member crew was taken prisoner and tortured over an 11 month period before their release was negotiated.
There is such a thing as institutional memory. The senior members of the military remember the Pueblo incident well, and it still influences our behavior towards North Korea. As an aside, President Nixon gave the order to attack North Korea in retribution for the Pueblo incident. At the time the President believed a show of force was absolutely necessary to dissuade the Koreans from further provocative acts. Nixon's Secretary of Defense at the time did not carry out the Presidential directive. To the end of his life, Nixon felt the biggest foreign policy error of his administration was the failure to carry out a retaliatory raid against North Korea for the Pueblo capture. The Pueblo incident has emboldened the North Koreans ever since.
Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations were aware of the Pueblo incident and its aftermath, when attempting to configure a new US policy towards North Korea's nuclear program. We have 37,000 American soldiers stationed in South Korea protecting our alliance and interests with South Korea. There is a phased troop withdrawal from the South Korea Peninsula taking place.
You have to wonder why we are willing to withdraw troops from South Korea during a time when they wish to pursue a nuclear development process. The answer is that this area of the world is loaded with dynamite, and if it blows up, you don't want to have 37,000 American troops sitting in the middle of it. North Korea has one of the largest stockpiles of artillery weapons of any army in the world. They are capable of striking Seoul, South Korea's capital from across the border.
It was recently reported that Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States had a private conversation with President Bush. In the conversation the Prince told the President that the United States should withdraw US troops from South Korea. Bandar felt it was too dangerous to leave our soldiers in the middle of a possible confrontation where our OPTIONS would be limited. As Bandar put it, without troops on the border, if there's problem, it's a REGIONAL PROBLEM. With troops, you could have thousands of American lives at risk, and it becomes a major WAR instantly.
So what do we do about the North Koreans announcing the ACTUAL testing of a nuclear weapon? We have to realize that words have power. We have to be careful what we say. President Bush announced the "axis of evil" speech several years ago. He named North Korea and Iraq as two of the three countries. It would seem that he started his anti-terrorism campaign in the wrong end of the world.
Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD), while North Korea has gone live with them. Now we are in a bind. Our defense policy has been altered whereby we can only fight one war in one country at a time, while fighting a holding action in a second country. Prior to the Bush Administration holding power, we were postured to fight two simultaneous wars on two fronts.
The bad guys know our new policy and will take advantage of us being pinned down in Iraq to expand their own power bases. Since we have a fear of losing pilots or better yet, having a pilot shot down, we are not doing the reconnaissance flights that we would normally do over North Korea.
The best thing to do right now is to realize that if North Korea is a problem for the United States, it is a much bigger problem for Japan, China, Philippines, and South Korea. This is a regional problem in spite of our alliances, and treaty involvements. Its one thing to build and detonate a nuclear weapon, it's quite another to have a long range missile delivery system. North Korea could fairly easily develop a delivery system capable of hitting the countries in its immediate vicinity.
Hitting the United States from a 9,000 mile plus distance is another story, not so easy really. Since the countries bordering North Korea have the most to lose, they should be the ones bearing the brunt of the responsibility for multi-lateral talks among the powers involved.
The real deal is that North Korea is a dictatorship that routinely starves its own people for the benefit of the small leadership that has basically enslaved the country. This leadership wants to play the cards that it can. What it now has is nuclear weapons. They will use this card to maximize whatever concessions they can from the United States and the immediate surrounding neighbors.
Are we going to cave, and make concessions to the North Koreans? Of course we are, because that's what superpowers do. It's not about appeasement, it's about business, and what makes good business sense. Churchill said that "People have friends, nations have interests".
It is in our interest to not divert ourselves from the issue of extricating ourselves from a tortuous situation in Iraq. It is costing us treasure, and beginning to eat at the social fabric our country as Viet Nam did a generation ago. We must put a good face on Iraq and get out. The President may not be aware of it, but he is on a short leash in Iraq. The American people are very intolerant of wars without objectives that last too long, and that's precisely where George Bush finds himself. It is highly questionable that his party will survive the mid-term elections intact. The country will embrace CHANGE, even from a Democratic party that is devoid of ideas.
(sources from Internet)
Some believe that the device was much larger but may have failed for technical reasons.
We don't know the truth, because the United States has not devoted the resources to know what is really going on. If you are surprised, don't be. Intelligence collection is a tricky business.
When Richard Nixon was President, you may remember that one of our ships, the USS Pueblo was brazenly attacked and hijacked in international waters in 1968, off the coast of North Korea. The 82 member crew was taken prisoner and tortured over an 11 month period before their release was negotiated.
There is such a thing as institutional memory. The senior members of the military remember the Pueblo incident well, and it still influences our behavior towards North Korea. As an aside, President Nixon gave the order to attack North Korea in retribution for the Pueblo incident. At the time the President believed a show of force was absolutely necessary to dissuade the Koreans from further provocative acts. Nixon's Secretary of Defense at the time did not carry out the Presidential directive. To the end of his life, Nixon felt the biggest foreign policy error of his administration was the failure to carry out a retaliatory raid against North Korea for the Pueblo capture. The Pueblo incident has emboldened the North Koreans ever since.
Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations were aware of the Pueblo incident and its aftermath, when attempting to configure a new US policy towards North Korea's nuclear program. We have 37,000 American soldiers stationed in South Korea protecting our alliance and interests with South Korea. There is a phased troop withdrawal from the South Korea Peninsula taking place.
You have to wonder why we are willing to withdraw troops from South Korea during a time when they wish to pursue a nuclear development process. The answer is that this area of the world is loaded with dynamite, and if it blows up, you don't want to have 37,000 American troops sitting in the middle of it. North Korea has one of the largest stockpiles of artillery weapons of any army in the world. They are capable of striking Seoul, South Korea's capital from across the border.
It was recently reported that Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States had a private conversation with President Bush. In the conversation the Prince told the President that the United States should withdraw US troops from South Korea. Bandar felt it was too dangerous to leave our soldiers in the middle of a possible confrontation where our OPTIONS would be limited. As Bandar put it, without troops on the border, if there's problem, it's a REGIONAL PROBLEM. With troops, you could have thousands of American lives at risk, and it becomes a major WAR instantly.
So what do we do about the North Koreans announcing the ACTUAL testing of a nuclear weapon? We have to realize that words have power. We have to be careful what we say. President Bush announced the "axis of evil" speech several years ago. He named North Korea and Iraq as two of the three countries. It would seem that he started his anti-terrorism campaign in the wrong end of the world.
Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD), while North Korea has gone live with them. Now we are in a bind. Our defense policy has been altered whereby we can only fight one war in one country at a time, while fighting a holding action in a second country. Prior to the Bush Administration holding power, we were postured to fight two simultaneous wars on two fronts.
The bad guys know our new policy and will take advantage of us being pinned down in Iraq to expand their own power bases. Since we have a fear of losing pilots or better yet, having a pilot shot down, we are not doing the reconnaissance flights that we would normally do over North Korea.
The best thing to do right now is to realize that if North Korea is a problem for the United States, it is a much bigger problem for Japan, China, Philippines, and South Korea. This is a regional problem in spite of our alliances, and treaty involvements. Its one thing to build and detonate a nuclear weapon, it's quite another to have a long range missile delivery system. North Korea could fairly easily develop a delivery system capable of hitting the countries in its immediate vicinity.
Hitting the United States from a 9,000 mile plus distance is another story, not so easy really. Since the countries bordering North Korea have the most to lose, they should be the ones bearing the brunt of the responsibility for multi-lateral talks among the powers involved.
The real deal is that North Korea is a dictatorship that routinely starves its own people for the benefit of the small leadership that has basically enslaved the country. This leadership wants to play the cards that it can. What it now has is nuclear weapons. They will use this card to maximize whatever concessions they can from the United States and the immediate surrounding neighbors.
Are we going to cave, and make concessions to the North Koreans? Of course we are, because that's what superpowers do. It's not about appeasement, it's about business, and what makes good business sense. Churchill said that "People have friends, nations have interests".
It is in our interest to not divert ourselves from the issue of extricating ourselves from a tortuous situation in Iraq. It is costing us treasure, and beginning to eat at the social fabric our country as Viet Nam did a generation ago. We must put a good face on Iraq and get out. The President may not be aware of it, but he is on a short leash in Iraq. The American people are very intolerant of wars without objectives that last too long, and that's precisely where George Bush finds himself. It is highly questionable that his party will survive the mid-term elections intact. The country will embrace CHANGE, even from a Democratic party that is devoid of ideas.
(sources from Internet)
The Boss Endorses Barack Obama
Folk rock legend Bruce Springsteen endorses Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. The musician recently posted a letter on his official website that stated his support for the Illinois Senator. The endorsement was posted before a debate between Hillary Clinton and Obama in Philadelphia.
In Springsteen's letter to fans, he said he supported Obama because he reached out to the same demographic of the USA that the folk rocker's songs reached out to. The musician believes that Obama's ideals and dreams for the country reflect his own. He even criticized the detractors of the presidential hopeful for taking attention away from important issues to distract voters.
Bruce Springsteen is only the most recent celebrity to jump on the Obama train. Since the beginning of the caucuses and primaries, all presidential hopefuls have received both financial and vocal support from various celebrities. While some celebrities are content to host fund-raising events or send in checks, others accompany their candidate to public outings and debates and speak out about why they chose a candidate.
The musician is known for his eloquent lyrics and soulful music that deal mostly with the problems of America. His songs have been tied to progressive politics as his lyrics express the concerns of ordinary middle class men and women to make ends meet. Known as "The Boss", Springsteen is recognized as an icon for the blue collar demographic and it is believed that this will help Obama connect more with those voters. Springsteen also endorsed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in the 2004 elections.
Senator Obama has had a lucky string of celebrity endorsers who passionately speak for him and draw attention to his causes and ideals. Most notable among Obama supporters is the talk show host, media mogul, entrepreneur and philanthropist Oprah Winfrey. The internationally known "Queen of TV" publicly spoke about her reasons for endorsing Obama. She sincerely expressed her belief that Obama should be the next president.
However, Obama is not the only one with big names backing his campaign. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York also has star power enlisted in her campaign. Some prominent Clinton endorsers are Madonna, Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg, poet Maya Angelou, the novelists Anne Rice and John Grisham, Quincy Jones, America Ferrera of Ugly Betty fame and musicians 50 Cent, John Mayer and Jon Bon Jovi.
It has been a bit more difficult for Republican candidate John McCain to get endorsements from the predominantly Democratic world of show business. However, he did manage to garner some support from celebrities. Action stars Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone, actor Tim Selleck and Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling are some of the names that support the Arizona senator.
Other celebrities who have endorsed Obama are George Clooney, Will Smith, Halle Berry, Matt Damon, Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas, Scarlett Johannsen, Morgan Freeman, Usher, Stevie Wonder, Sharon Stone, Ben Affleck and former basketball player Charles Barkley.
(sources from Internet)
Friday, August 20, 2010
Six Thought Provoking Questions
Thought provoking questions usually put forth a certain viewpoint, if only because they inherently challenge the accepted one. However, they don't require you to agree with that viewpoint, and a question is just a question. We'll each have different answers to the following, despite their provocative intent.
Thought Provoking Questions - Politics
1. When several million want a given person or party in power, but can never elect them because only Democrats and Republicans will be elected by the other 90 million voters, can they believe that this is a representative government? Would a system that allowed them to send their own representatives to congress be more fair? Is there a way to devise a system which allows any million voters that agree on a candidate to have representation? (There are a couple million libertarians, for example, who never get represented.)
2. It is considered immoral for me to steal from my neighbor Joe in order to send my kids to school, or to paint a picture, or to subsidize my tobacco crop, so how can it be right for me to do it using the government as my agent? Is it moral just because enough of us vote to take Joe's money for something we want to do? Is this "mob rule" okay for any purpose, or only if it is a "good" purpose? If so, who decides what a "good" purpose is?
3. Hitler was elected to parliament, and the ancient Greek parliament, which was more representative than what we have today, voted to kill Socrates for teaching young men to think, so is Democracy the best we can do? If people vote to violate their own rights or those of others, is it okay, just because the majority wants it that way? (Another question: Why did we start calling our constitutional republic a democracy just because it votes for it's leaders?)
More Thought Provoking Questions
4. Since a moral rule like, "don't steal," can lead to immorality, as in not stealing to feed your child when that's the only option, is it possible we need a new way to define morality? Can morality be permanently codified in words, or should we use words only to point at what is beyond the definitions, and alter the definitions as often as we come to understand new things about the world and our role in it?
5. If the laws are recognizing more and more that animals shouldn't be treated cruelly, do animals have "rights," as children do? Children are dependent but with basic rights. If animals are the same, are their "owners" obligated to give them them proper food and medical care, and should they be prosecuted if they fail to provide it? Should they be forced to care for pets for life, with no option to have them killed when they become inconvenient?
6. Holy books instruct us to kill people for working on the wrong day (Exodus 31:15), or saying the wrong words (Leviticus 24:17) or because they're homosexual (Leviticus 20:13), and millions believe these are the words of God, so is it possible that religions inherently breed violence, or is it just some religions, or do they only do so if people really take their religions seriously? Most people would condemn a person who said these things, so why do they worship gods who say them? Religion gives us some of the most thought provoking questions.
(sources from Internet)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)