U.S. Finally Focusing Efforts on a Big Problem In Afghanistan War

This article is all over the place by now, I just thought I would share anyways. The NY Times reports that the U.S. military would "escalate military activities inside Pakistan" utilizing special forces. We all know that these special forces have been operating in that theater since we went over there in 2001. So why make this escalation public? Probably because their "escalation" will produce results that will make it harder to keep out of the media's microscope. One thing is for sure: no matter how much you may hate Obama, he has delivered what he promised in his campaign for the presidency: a steady draw-down of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our security has not decreased as a result of it up until now. Click here to read the full article from the NY Times. 

Take Our Country Back?

I have heard that phrase used again and again in recent days and weeks.  That Tea Party battle cry is getting used more and more as the elections approach, and it has me asking a few questions.  I know I'm not the first one to question exactly what that phrase means, but until I hear a cogent and rational answer from those who say it, I feel that it is every voters' responsibility to keep asking.

First of all, who has taken our country from us? Democrats? Big government? Socialists? Black people? The people who say "we need to take our country back" are, I think, intentionally vague about this.  What I can't figure out is why they are vague about it.  Is it because more specificity would limit who they can blame for America's problems? Would it make them seem prejudiced? I don't know, but I sure would like to.  Also, aren't the likely culprits who stole America...uh...American themselves? Even the most leftist Pinko Commie who wants to bring down all things capitalist can be an American.  Isn't that what one of the things being an American is all about? How is this country more the Tea Party's and less theirs?  Isn't it more American to have a confluence of many different ideas rather than one group's ideas dominate our country and our government?  Wasn't a tolerance of all people's ideas, religion and speech one of the most important ideals our Founding Fathers wanted to establish in our nation?  The Tea Party's name conjures up images of our American forefathers fighting the imperial English government and the modern day version is constantly referring to the principles of our Founding Fathers and telling us that their views are most in line with the likes of Washington and Jefferson.  But the one thing they seem to lack is a tolerance for people who disagree with them about the role of government in our everyday lives. According to them, we are a doomed nation unless we cut the government back to the levels they see as appropriate.  We survived a Civil War, yet we are going to be brought down all because taxes are a little higher and there are some government regulations that they don't like.  Really? Fox News 1, rational thought 0.

Getting back to my original question of taking our country back...

The phrase itself is littered with innuendo and implications, none of which I like. To say that "we" have to take our country back is implying that an outside and malicious force has taken over our country.  While some people vehemently believe that this has truly happened, I think that most would be referring to big government and how that has taken over America.  What people on the right seem to forget is that this "big government" was elected by a majority of the voters, so how can "our country" be under the control of some outside malicious force?  Even our politicians are Americans, so it's their country as well (although a lot of us would like to kick them out of the country these days!).  Also, it brings to light more philosophical questions like: what does it mean to be "American?"  Just because someone has a different belief concerning the role of government in our daily lives, does that make them more or less American?  When does an immigrant truly become an "American?"  When they first arrive?  When they get their citizenship?  Is disagreeing with your government an "American" thing to do?  Does it make you more or less patriotic?  It seems that lately the same people who questioned the patriotism of Bush critics are the same ones who are saying now saying it is "American" to not trust your government and want to all but eliminate government from their daily lives.

Once again, I ask: Who exactly has taken our country? And where have they taken it?  We are all Americans. This country belongs to all of us. Don't confuse losing an election with someone taking your country from you.  Take a deep breath, the pendulum always swings back the other way.  I just wish the politicians and talking heads would help the situation and remind people that disagreement and compromise are a fundamental part of a healthy democracy, not the agents of its downfall.

The Tea Party Movement

I'm tired of reading them.

It's funny how the politics of fear can produce such varied responses. Some people are consumed by the fear-mongering politicians and resort to making and displaying the most ignorant and vile protest signs. On the other side of the political spectrum, this seemingly irrational behavior is often combated with humor and sarcasm. The superlative and inflammatory language used in today's political climate is, in my opinion, used solely for self-preservation. It is easier for elected officials to scare the huddled masses into voting for them rather than trying to communicate honestly with their constituents. The result of this is that prominent elected officials use words like "Armageddon" and "socialist." According to the likes of Glenn Beck, we are heading down a path that will strip us of all our freedoms, destroy the country we love and turn us into a nouveau-Weimar state. No mention of the warrant-less wiretaps or torture practices of the previous administration. Those acts were perpetrated to preserve and protect our precious freedom, as long as your skin wasn't brown.

 WE CAN STILL BE A CAPITALIST COUNTRY WITH UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. It is a moral issue. Should health care corporations be allowed to make money off of sick people by NOT paying claims and simply acting as a middle man? The right always says: "Do you really trust your government to handle your health care?" My answer is: "Not so much." But I trust for-profit corporations A LOT less. After all, they make more money by NOT paying claims, and the primary objective of a corporation is to make money, which is NOT a problem. I just don't think that we should live in a country where someone can have their life ruined simply because they got sick or hurt. Aren't there some limits to capitalism? Aren't there some things that are simply wrong to make a profit on? We do have laws against things like selling drugs, committing fraud, stealing, etc. I think health care should be considered in that same category. For those of you on the right who will never trust your government to handle health care, think about this: police officers, fire fighters, EMT's and many other essential services are provided through government. Do you think we should privatize all these things? Should we have a handful of large corporations in charge of keeping our streets safe or answering our emergency calls? I would like to think that you would not. All in all, please don't let the Becks, Limbaughs, Olbermans, Maddows, Drudges, Stewarts, Colberts, etc. determine what your opinions and views are. Take the time and effort to look at FACTS objectively rather than giving in to incendiary rhetoric spouted by blow-hards who are simply in it for the ratings. Also, don't blindly follow elected leaders' fear-inducing propaganda. Most of those politicians are simply trying to win the next election and keep their job. Always be objective and make up your own mind. Check out this little video I put together of some protest signs. Pay attention to the hate, ignorance, humor and misspellings. I think they are fairly interesting. Enjoy!

The Beginnings of the Green Revolution

Just as we were on the precipice of progress in the 19th century at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, we are now on the brink of the Green Revolution. Soon, our "need" for green technologies will surpass our "need" for our perceived "modernization" and "industrialization."

What are we waiting for? Why are we letting the industries of the past dictate our future? We must put our efforts into our two most readily renewable resources: our people and their ideas and ambition. We must no longer reward the few who control the fate of the many. Rather, we will reward those make this whole human comedy more efficient. We can and we must march ahead with our eyes forward. Do not dwell on the loss of our manufacturing plant, but instead look at a group of highly skilled and dedicated citizens who can be the roots of a new and greener tree of liberty. Either get ahead of it or fall behind it. If we are not leaning forward, we are falling backwards. Capitalism will speak. And she will declare dead the old ways we are hesitant to break away from. She will lead us hand-in-hand towards a goal which we cannot see, yet the existence of which we must never doubt. The blindfolded lady may wander astray at times, but she always seems to find her destination. No matter what, there is always a conspicuous absence at the requiem. Reason flees before the arrival of hope. In the vacuum of human nature, a dangerous social virus often infects our better judgment.

So how does this supposed "green revolution"(GR) compare to previous economic and social "revolutions?" Let's take a look at the Agricultural Revolution (AR), Industrial Revolution (IR) and what I like to call the recent Technological Revolution (TR) (of the late 20th and early 21st centuries).

First of all, I believe the GR will rival all aforementioned Revolutions in size, scope and impact on our increasingly globalized society. An important facet of each "revolution" involves the driving force (s) behind them. The AR was the simplest one to understand. It was mostly a product born out of survival. By learning how to better control our food resources, we were able to better control our food supplies. This gave us more time and energy to focus on other things, such as warfare and feudalism. Two great inventions of our complex thought processes. Too bad that pushed out such trivial concepts like compassion and community.

The IR was driven primarily by our natural need to progress. The assembly line. The internal combustion engine. Fossil fuels. Efficiency, productivity, electricity. All were intended to help make the acquisition of basic necessities of survival more easily obtained. This allowed humans to focus more on expanding our reach and making life easier. We spent decades building this industrial monster that brought us much wealth and power. Nukes, space flight, automation, Twinkies. We spent so much energy and utilized so many resources because we were concerned with how we could do it. We never thought about whether or not we should do it. Granted, the concepts of global warming, pollution or the rape of the natural world were just as unknown as black holes or quasars at the time. Keep in mind this was an era when uranium was considered junk and thrown away. So, this movement was driven by greed and curiosity (and tragically, ignorance).

Next comes the TR. This had a driving force that was much more intrinsic to human nature. Why were computers and the Internet conceived? These had no direct effect on meeting our basic biological needs. Those had already been taken care of by our previous advancements. We had long ago transitioned from the hunter/gatherer to the agrarian to the industrial. We no longer needed to work for our sustenance. Survival was expected. Without this common task laid before us on a daily basis, our minds and efforts were left to pursue other more frivolous things. Our natural urge to share knowledge and information came to the forefront. Our focus shifted from the tangible to the intangible. We no longer coveted the wealthy gentry's lands and privileges. Instead we lusted after their information and knowledge. We were also willing to exchange it for our dignity if need be. Yet we needed an infrastructure to facilitate this new mercantile exchange.

Thank God Al Gore invented the Internet. Once we figured out how to use electricity to communicate at the speed of light across our world, we entered the next phase of human evolution: Infophilia. Just as early sailors figured out how to use newly discovered shipping routes to move precious commodities such as spice and gold quickly (relatively speaking) across long distances, we discovered with the 1st telegraph that we don't have to wait six months to tell someone in Europe about a new scientific discovery in America. We learned how to turn this seemingly beneficial exchange of ideas into something much more sinister and destructive. The more we developed and advanced these informational exchange technologies, the more our everyday lives became dependent upon them. We let our everyday lives become more dependent on their effective operation. Case in point: How badly would a massive power outage have effected everyday life in America 100 years ago? Not very much. How about today? Catastrophe. Traffic accidents. Business shutdowns. Looting. Riots. NO Facebook. Use your imagination. Not only that, but we have also become more and more susceptible to rogue threats of this increasingly automated and technologically-dependent infrastructure. It is not far-fetched to imagine a pubeless Russian teenage hacker infiltrating our critical systems and causing widespread havoc just because he's got nothing better to do on a Saturday night (he is a teenager in Russia after all).

So, both "Revolutions" discussed thus far have both their benefits and their pitfalls. This IR gave us progress, while also causing irreparable damage to our environment. The TR gave us an unparalleled spread of knowledge while also leaving us vulnerable to those who wish to use said knowledge for ill intent. Where does that leave us with my purported and impending "Green Revolution?" What driving factor will be behind it? The simplicity is so poetic it hurts: survival. We will make these changes out of necessity. We will be left with no choice. And if evolution has taught us anything, it has taught us that the most elegant and creative solutions are conceived when our very existence is at stake. Humans will always find a way. That's what got us to the top of the food chain. We're not the strongest or the fastest or the biggest. We're the smartest. This fact can be our salvation or our Armageddon. Like a weapon, our intellect can be used to protect or to destroy. So far, we've only used it for one of these. We've invented and modified technologies that would have amazed the best minds of western civilization, only to use them for texting and Twittering. We conceived an information superhighway with a speed limit of stupid. There is traffic up ahead. Better go around. Who knows where that country road may lead us? Hopefully we will reach our destination. Much is at stake. Time is short. I look forward to the end of this tragically comical and scary journey.