Monday, June 30, 2008

Ron Paul





I rarely will do this, but i am about to post another persons ideas about Ron Paul, that i agree with.

(The reason i rarely do this is because I'd rather give links to the articles so the person who wrote it will get some sort of payment for their time and effort, but in this case i don't have the exact link and it's crucial you read this before you read my commentary!

The writer of this article is the owner of www.bushflash.com)

It's everything I've wanted to say about him, in a perfect manner.

At the end is my commentary. Enjoy! :)

In recent weeks, I've been asked many times what my opinions regarding Ron Paul are.

My first answer is: "He'd make a better president than Bush." However, that's damning the guy with the faintest of praises. I've got soiled socks in the back of my closet that would make a better president than Bush. With the exception of Giuliani, Tancredo, and Thompson, any of the republicans running would wind up doing a better job than Bush.

I've followed the career of Paul for many years- however, our introduction wasn't all that impressive.

Before the war, he distinguished himself by being the legislative answer to John Bolton- continuously introducing anti-United Nations bills to congress that were routinely voted down. He also spent a lot of time sniffing the backside of Gun Owners of America, whose founder, Larry Pratt, had a history of trolling for support among white supremacist groups.

That having been said, he has been consistently against the war in Iraq, and was pretty much the only republican who refused to drink the Bush Bowl's kool-aid. I was surprised to hear him on Pacifica's "Democracy Now" back in 2003, where he presented a cogent and common-sense rebuttal to the march to war, delivered from the conservative point of view in a charming texas twang. Since the beginning of the war, his anti-war cred has been impeccable, and he's worked closely with the unlikeliest of bedfellows, including Dennis Kucinich.

While his polling amongst republicans has been consistently low, he's surprised a lot of folks (myself included) with his ability to raise a respectable amount of cash in a short period of time, via the web. However, this, in and of itself, isn't really indicative of much- Howard Dean pulled the same trick back in '04, and we all know how far that went.

This isn't 2004, however, and Ron Paul seems to have struck a genuine chord amongst a significant number of folks. This is mostly due to the fact that the republican party has a sizeable anti-war contingent that has been pretty much disowned by the party at large. Add to this the internet Buzz that has won him support amongst a large number of independents and first-time voters who (quite understandably) are turned off by the vacillation of many of the democratic candidates, vis a vis Iraq.

However, despite Paul's continuing insistence that he's running as a republican, he remains a libertarian at the core- and libertarianism is a philosophy of government that embodies social darwinism run amok. Libertarians want to demolish what little remains of our social safety net, and much more:

1: Department of education? Do away with it! Turn education over to corporations, churches, and charitable organizations.

Great! So, we'll have private Haliburton schools for the rich, religious madrassas for others, and overcrowded basket-case schools in poor areas that depend on charity for their operating costs. Pardon me if I fail to see a silver lining, here.

2: Food stamps, WIC, and Social security? Away with them!

Yeah! Let's leave those single mothers, working poor, and struggling families to themselves- if they starve to death, it's their fault for not being smart enough to get rich! And don't get us started on medicaid- poor kids and elderly don't deserve a flu shot- medicine is for those who are strong enough to be rich.

3: Get rid of the UN, and refuse any international treaties!

Great! This approach to international relations makes Bush's seven-year middle finger to the world look downright warm and cheerful. Screw the world- it's not like we live here, or anything...

4: Government oversight of commerce? That's COMMUNISM! AWAY with the FDA- what did they ever do for us?

Again- GREAT thinking, there, Libertarians. Hope ya don't mind your kids sucking up alla the lead and date rape drugs pouring out of their toy chest, before digging into their e-coli laced salads.

And there's so much more- ya see, the paradox of "small government" conservatism/libertarianism is that those candidates who adhere to it are quick to say that government is inherently bad, and once they are elected, they do everything in their power to destroy the government's ability to function, and thus, their admonition of the ineffectual nature of government becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Further, Libertarianism has always been, and remains a destructive philosophy- they want to destroy 75% of what our government does, but when pressed about what is to replace these badly-needed services, they mumble generalities about how the "free market will provide."

We saw this sorta thinking in action, back in the days of Reagan. He decided to dramatically cut the government expenditures for mental health programs, and as a result, hundreds of mental hospitals nationwide found themselves without the money they needed to help their patients. These hospitals were forced into a deadly calculus: treat the patients who were "salvageable", and discharge the rest out into the streets.

As a result of this, the ranks of our nation's homeless population were swelled by tens of thousands of mentally ill people who were all but incapable of surviving on their own. It was a monumental tragedy that begs comparison to the indifference of regimes such as those led by Kim Jong Il and Nicolae Ceau┼čescu.

Now, I feel the need to change subjects, as this diatribe was supposed to be about Ron Paul, rather than an anti-libertarian polemic, so here we go...

All things considered, Ron Paul is the most palatable of the republican candidates, but that ain't saying much. While I dislike the "candidate whom I'd like most to have a nonalcoholic drink with" comparison, he comes out on top, on that yardstick.

Regardless of such superficialities, I am not a libertarian- I'm a liberal/progressive, and have too many fundamental differences with him to ever lend him my support.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

He does away with the very fabric of our morality and conscience.

And what does he have to offer?

A good foreign policy....

Barack obama has a good foreign policy
So does John Edwards(My personal vote)

Neither want to invade Iran.
The difference in Foreign policy between Those 2 democrats and Ron paul is they like the U.N, And Ron Paul can't stand to be a part of it.

What are you loosing for choosing Ron Paul?

1) Universal Health care
2) S.E.C (Securities and Exchange commission) (These are the Oversight for the stock market, stopping fraud)
3) FDA (Federal oversight for medication)
4) Loss of all Federal Oversight and a substantial loss to Federal Regulations.
5) Education for all

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~

If you can support him after all this, than take this test i told you about last time:
http://eenvandaag.nl/index.php?module=PX_Story&type=user&func=view&cid=465

Your votes themselves, will prove to you, you don't agree with him.
Sure he's not listed there, but you can easily research his positions on those topics.

What it will show you, is how much you have in common with the Democratic party, especially Obama/Edwards.

~~Phoenix

Role of Government


A brief summary i once wrote about the people and government; just to start things off:

The power is with the people.
Unless you are a totalitarian...

The government is for the people and by the people, in order to protect our civil liberties.
Its abilities stop after that point and become frivolous politics.
The power lies with us, the people.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I love how republicans write things like, "The Government is inefficient", or "The government does wasteful spending", or "It's all Government Bureaucracy".

So why is it that i love it when they say things like that, mainly because the government is the REFLECTION OF IT'S PEOPLE!!!

It will be as strong, trustworthy, caring, and JUST as it's people.

I know what your saying now though, "Phoenix it's not my fault America does such things over here, or over there, and I can't stop them, I've tried, It's all the presidents fault!!"

When a government wretches control away from the people through marginalization or political tactics, it is no longer a government but a group of individuals in power (aka you now live in a totalitarian state).

IF you truly believe that you have no control over what you government does, than you no longer live in a free state, and are being controlled, in that situation I'd call for a revolution or at least civil disobedience.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is such a hard point for some to get, maybe because they haven't looked at why a government exists or why we even have them. This is not a game, it's not tradition, governments have purposes and they have owners.

Again:
A GOVERNMENT REFLECTS IT'S PEOPLE

That is if they are truly a free people who have control over a government, otherwise they are the ones being controlled and are now in a totalitarian state.

EITHER WAY:

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF YOUR STATE!

Refusing to fix a corrupt state, is to enable it to do injustice to it's people and the community abroad. Silence is Enabling too!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So when republicans say:

"The Government is inefficient", or "The government does wasteful spending", or "It's all Government Bureaucracy"


They really should just say:

"This government is a reflection of me, and i refuse to work harder to make it better. I do not trust this organization i helped build and i do not think it is effective. Therefore I want to put 'insert republican demand here' in the hands of Americans who can do it better than the government can, after all American's didn't make the government, so they would be better at managing these things. "[hint of sarcasm at the end there lol :D]

This is why the question of privatizing social security comes up or health care or a myriad of other things.

One party claims the government sucks and the people rock, the other party stares, and shakes their head knowing the government is essentially THE PEOPLE in an organized matter.

I repeat:
THE PEOPLE in an organized matter.
THE PEOPLE in an organized matter.
THE PEOPLE in an organized matter.
THE PEOPLE in an organized matter.
THE PEOPLE in an organized matter.
THE PEOPLE in an organized matter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for those who say the government sucks i need only address a few things:

  • 1) The mail gets delivered very efficiently and has been for more than a century. When was the last time you or someone you knew lost a letter or a bill because of the government?
  • 2) Social security checks seem to come on time, and have been for about half a century now.
  • 3) Politicians never get paid the wrong amount and always get paid on time, that's quite inefficient don't you think?
  • 4) Do you go to work? How do you get there?
  • All those who said Subway, Bus, or any other form of public transportation say "I"!!
  • 5) Oh you drive a car? Really?... Wow...
  • What's that black thing you drive on... a road you say? Who made... your kidding me really... the government? No!!!
  • 6) When was the last time your kids complained school was too easy and they hardly teach a thing? Never.... really... that much homework? Wow....
  • And books.... you mean actual books... and desks... and by god... a teacher?
  • 7) Well it's not like these kids receive a free lunch, they work hard for their grades!! Wait.... kids with families on low incomes actually get a free lunch at school... everyday? How do they know who deserves it and who doesn't?
  • Organiza ... organizatia.... organization ??? What... what does that mean... like they actual are organized and know who deserves what?
  • Wow.....
  • 8) Man, well at least they don't have free health care, the most hotly disputed thing this year!!
  • Wait.... med.. i ... cal? Medical ..... it's a government program that allows families with low incomes to actually get cured....
  • What? But how could they ever organize it... oooh... right... the government did it...
  • But wouldn't it take months to see a doctor after all that bureaucracy?
  • Really... after filing and being accepted you see a doctor whenever you want? And a dentist!!!
  • WOW!!! o.k stop stop.... stop there
  • STOP !!!
  • 9) Man, we're so busy organizing this stuff how are we ever going to defend ourselves?
  • We... actually have a ... wait... we have... the greatest military force the world has ever seen from the beginning of time till now....
  • Well they must be inefficient after everything else we're doing, how do we keep track of it all right?
  • We can bomb any country within 24 hours..... really?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The government is inefficient..... yea... right... and the boogey monster is real.

Republicans, come up with better arguments to privatize NEEDED government programs that better society, socialism is the wave of the future, a wave that will sweep your greedy ways to the side.

~~Phoenix

End of copyright


If you liked my last post you have to read these:

"The End Of Copyright"
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml

"When Pigs Fly The Death of Oink the Birth of Dissent and a Brief History of Record Industry Suicide"
http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

"Embrace File sharing or Die"
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/02/01/file_trading_manifesto/index2.html

You find a lot of people are arguing that there is no other way to live without copyright, even if it's death is inevitable.

Hence a new model of distribution has been thought up, by the author of the first link:

"The donors have to trust that the developer will finish it, of course; but this is effectively how freeware development works now. Somebody makes a name for themselves with a piece of freeware; they ask for donations; the donations help to fund further work on a new version. So far it has only been tried on a small scale, but—as the mobile and casual games are showing us—there’s still plenty of demand for small scale games in the world.

(A variant of this system, pioneered by cyberspace engineer Crosbie Fitch, is already in place for music, except that people give pledges rather than donations. When the musician releases the work, she collects all the pledges made towards it. See www.quidmusic.com for details. Credit where it’s due: I first heard about this whole idea from Crosbie.)"


Very simply a point i try to make all the time, made by the first author:

"If the public simply refuse to acknowledge that copying books or movies or software is wrong, then in a democracy, it will eventually cease to be wrong. People elect the legislators, and legislators make the laws."

Simply put, Copyright is ending and the billionaires and millionaires who profit from it, who are too greedy to share to the world, who don't know what a content life means, will fall.

~Phoenix


Magic Box - End of Copyright


I wrote about this 2 years ago, and if you read my last post, this is the summary of that one thread i couldn't find. I'll patch up the missing links between the 2 at the end.

Here we go:

Imagine this, South Korea invents a machine that is 10 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet.
In this big metal box there is a Vertical divider, basically one empty space on one side, a wall, then another empty space on the other.
Now you insert whatever you want, food, materials, money, computers, and after 2 days, you get an exact copy.

Do you know what this means?
We could end hunger by using thousands of these machines to send food to millions of people around the world.
Free computers.
Free equipment.
Free everything.

What do you think would be done with this machine?

I think it would be banned and prohibited from EVERY country in the world. Why? Because profits would be lost from corporate America.

I see pirating in the same way. Pirating HELPS the artist, it gives him a wider fan base, allows the music to be distributed faster. Same with software, especially open source, where then you can take the software and improve it.

I think pirating is banned for the same purpose, it's a step forward for technology, and yet it's banned because it takes away corporate profits.

If you look at the bigger picture though it helps all people in general.

Just like that machine I mentioned before, It's able to clone ANYTHING, do you really think the U.S would allow it to exist?
Even if we had the technology now, wouldn't governments be doing everything possible to stop the creation of such a device?
Wouldn't this device help the world over? Stop hunger? Be the answer to all our dreams?


Sadly the cause of the E.u.l.a's(End User License Agreements) and the over charging is all from one source:

Corporate America and Big Business.

Pirating is the result of it and of our technological advancements.

There is a war going on right now and i stand with the consumer and the greater good for the greatest amount of people.

People will have to take sides soon and eventually the machine I mentioned will be made, it will be up to you to allow its creation or destroy it.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Missing part of the summary:


How the machine works:

Scan:

The reason why this has two compartments is so that it can scan the original object you want to copy. It will understand everything about it and know all it's basic working parts in the matter of 1 day. On day 2 it will begin creating parts from dirt and then using those parts to make an exact replica of your original item.

Fuel:
It uses either solar power or anti-matter as fuel. I can't say which now because i don't know the energy demands of such a machine, so i can't say solar power would meet it's needs. The most powerful form of energy though, that we know of so far, should be able to power it, even if solar can't right now.

Input:
It requires only dirt as an input. There is a big tank that is at the side of the machine that holds this dirt.

Why does it need dirt at all?

Well we're cloning after all, so we need matter for the clone, where do we get the matter?
If i have one microwave and i want another one, i need material to make the second one with, this material is the dirt.

So how do you transform dirt into a microwave?

Process:

Everything is the same at a subatomic level. We all have protons, neutrons, and electrons, and they serve as the building blocks to everything.

Yes we're starting very small lol, but we need to :D

So what this machine does is it takes the dirt and manipulates it, it changes the number of protons in the dirt to match the material it needs.

Does this microwave need some gold? Well then lets manipulate this proton of dirt here, from such and such protons, to 79. There, now we have an atom of gold.
We'll now keep making atoms of gold till we have enough and then make a new substance.

This machine will continue to manipulate the protons and electrons of the dirt until it gets the basic materials it needs, once it gets those materials(the building blocks) it will then start to put them together in the right order, working more precisely than a surgeons hand.

So there we go:

Dirt + Fuel + 2 days + original = Copy of original a.k.a Clone.

You now have a second microwave to do with what you wish.

This is not fiction, but future reality, not if but when.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now the interesting question, what are the consequences of this device, and would governments usher it into society or ban it away?

To usher it in, is to wish for the best of society.

To ban it is to wish for the best in Corporate America.

It would answer the one underlying question that no one seems to know but we all feel, is America starting to become fascist?

~~Phoenix

Forums- Never trust them

So you might be wondering about the topic of my post today, lets just say this will be a rare frustrated/angry post.

Basically as you can tell from my other posts, most of them are discussions on forums with other people.

  • I put these on my blog firstly because i wanted to preserve them.
  • Secondly they were philosophical debates i had with other people and i got a lot of insight from them. I thought that i could share this insight with others by posting them for all to view.
  • Thirdly they took a lot of time and effort to write, so rewriting them would never get the essence that i put into the first draft.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So what's the problem and why am i mad?

Basically there is one thread in particular that I can't find, and it seems the forum either removed it or a moderator deleted it.

It in no way was controversial really, it was very insightful and I've been looking for hours now trying to find it, sadly I've now given up.

What i did get was a post i wrote about the thread, in another thread, that is a good summary of my thread.

I will post that after this post, but still i am angry at the fact that that post is missing, and after trying internet archive, Google cache, and a few other techniques i can't retrieve it. (If you have any other idea of how to get it let me know).

On a bit of good news, i have the exact URL for it, the forum just tells me that this particular thread is not there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway, the moral of the story is, back up your well written, concise threads/posts that you would like to keep.

I've done that for a few threads of mine, but nearly not enough, and I've learned my lesson the hard way.

Don't trust forums, your thread will be gone, with or without your permission, and that's a fact.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There was a whole other forum that is dedicated to deep discussions altogether, and after going to that forum and trying to retrieve those posts, i remembered that months ago, because of a hard drive failure, they had lost millions of posts and thousands of threads.

Nearly all of mine were included in that, so you won't be getting to hear my opinions on those topics, my favorite of them being religion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A quote to end this off with

Again don't trust forums... "I learned the hard way, don't travel that path I've shown you it's not a good option, and if you do follow it, don't complain when you fall in the same hole i did."
~Quote by Me

~~Phoenix

Friday, June 27, 2008

Optical Illusions

A few very fun optical Illusions:








And my favorite for last, the beads aren't moving btw, but your brain interprets them like that because it likes following strait lines and angles.


Another fun one, but you have to follow the rules to make this one work, if it does the pink things dissapear.

So yea, to see it, Look at the + in the middle for a while and don't move Smiley.

Computer Protection and Norton

Norton antivirus is useless.

It's heuristics aren't near what they should be.

The proven best antivirus, is "NOD32" by Eset.

There is a rumor bill gates himself uses this antivirus.

No joke, it has the best heuristics out of every antivirus:

http://www.eset.com/index.php

I'd say, this is just my opinion, but after all the reading i've done comparing other antiviruses i'd have to say, Nod32, in tests, has always done better.

OH and nod32 only uses 25k Computer virtual memory usage, When i had Norton Internet Securtiy, i was at about 60k, 3 times more memory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The best form of protection though, would be an External hard drive, everyone should have one.

Love of the Nba

A very old post i found on a forum, it was basically who i was picking for the All star event in Las vegas back in 2007. By the way, yes I'm very happy that finally my favorite player got a championship and yes he deserved it. Although i live 10 minutes away from LA the lakers will remain the Fakers for me just because i have very little respect for Kobe Bryant, as a person and a player.

Now the walk down memory lane, enjoy this post from a year ago :)





WEST

Forwards:

Kevin Garnett, and Dirk Nowitzki

The best Forwards in the Game, Hands down.
And Kevin Garnett, is my overall favorite player, if i could build a team around any player, it would be him.

Guards:

Tracy Mcgrady, Steve nash

I had to choose tracy, even though he hasn't been blowing up or anything, and been silent.
He's just an amazing player, and he makes his team soo good when he's on the floor.

But besides ALL that, he shoots like he's on fire nearly all the time.
In an All star game, He's CRUCIAL, when you just need those points.


Steve nash, 2 time MVP, one of the best passers in the history of our game, definetely deserves this.

Just watching him play shows you the level he goes to, to get his friends involved, the guy ran 2 circles around the court, to split the defense, and rather than laying it up, he passes to amare for the dunk.

What heart, what passion, what a team player, Nuff said.

Center:

Amare, his dominance can't be stopped, he's not yao, standing back and shooting, He'll take it to your face and dunk on you.
He's a Powerfull player, and now that he's back this season, he DESERVES to be on the all star team.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

EAST

Forwards:

Rasheed wallace has been struggling this season, but he's still getting it done.
Detroit the team and franchise is a bit weaker this year but still a threat, and it's all because of this guy.

Watch his outside game, even if you can post him out, he spins and shoots, this guy is hard to defend.

Lebron, James

King james, argueably one of the best up and coming players. Want to know why the Cavaliers have the best record in the League?
Why? Because of him. He's doing it all himself, getting people involved, dunking, and shooting his brains out.
To not bring him on, would be a travesty.


Guards:

Gilbert Arenas... The guy finished off 2 GAMES, in a ROW, with a shot at the buzzer.
He shoots a really nice shot, and makes it go into the hoop as soft as butter.
This guy will really give Tracy a run for his money, He is ON FIRE. 2 Buzzer beaters, all alone, this man is deadly.

He probably won't make the All star game, because he's not as well known, But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve it.
PLEASE everyone, I'm pleading with you, Let Arenas on the All star team.

Dwayne wade:

In my opinion, the Best guard in the game. He's a Steve nash/ Kobe Bryant. He gets his teammates involved when he needs to, but he also Shoots your lights out.
He doesn't focus on passing the ball, if he can get it in.

He has the deadliest spin in the game, Phil jackson himself saying Wade can get 20 feet, with his spin alone.

How do you stop this guy?

Only one way, Run him to death. Who can keep up with him? No clue, Nash could keep up, but nash couldn't defend him.
And tracy can Defend him, but he can't keep up.


Center

My second favorite player in Basketball, the most dominant center this game has ever seen, Shaq!!!

He's AMAZING, last year the Heat got to the finals thanks to Him and Wade.
Sure Wade had a WAY better playoff and Finals appearance, But they GOT TO THE PLAYOFF, BECAUSE OF SHAQ!
Case and point, without Shaq, the Heat can't get to the top, But if they can get to the Playoffs, Wade will give them that extra push to the top.

Does he deserve to be on the all star team?

!@#$@#$#@ Are you kidding me!!! DUH

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who i didn't vote for, but will probably make it:

Yao ming, and Kobe bryant.

Yao is going to win and get in, even though he doesn't deserve it, because the NBA All star game voting is open to the WHOLE world.
Basically, China is gonna vote for him lol, or the majority of chinese basketball fans.

It'll be this way, REGARDLESS of performance, till Yao Retires.
Does yao deserve to be on the All star team? Maybe as a second string.... maybe.


Kobe, Does he deserve to be on the All star team? Yes
Is he one of the best players in the game? Yes

Then why didn't you vote for him? Well i don't like him, as a person or a player.

The lakers nearly lost their last game against Spurs because Kobe took the ball, and turned it over twice.
This was during the last 3 minutes of play.
He thought he could just go up, and make some points, he was wrong, and the Spurs rallied back.

The Lakers had a 10 Point Lead, broken down to 4, and they only won because Smush made a nice Three and they played some good defense.

Will kobe be in the all star game? Yes, because of his popularity.
But i'm not going to back him up, let others vote for him, I'll take Tracy Mcgrady over him.
And Steve nash WAS taken over as MVP twice, over him, so i'm not the only one who doesn't vote for kobe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the way, Basketball is my favorite sport lol woot thumbup as you can tell by now lol Grin

I'll watch football, but i love basketball ten times more.
And baseball.... horrible to watch... horrible to discuss, again that's just me, but i hate baseball.

Football ----> Will start watching it more, now that we got some heat in L.A!!!

Scariest Person

Basically i was once asked what was the scariest person that i saw in a book, movie, or play.

My scariest person:

Blair witch



No that's not a picture of the blair witch, in the blair witch project you never actually see the witch.
That's what made it soo scary for me.

Typing this here right now, is scaring me pretty bad actually lol, that movie really shook me up.
So excuse me for cutting it short here lol :D

The critics will be critics, but i loved that movie, even if the rest of America didn't.

Athletes Paid too much?


Refer to the last post, i use it as an example to explain why Athletes get so much and why they deserve it.

As for David Beckham getting paid too much.... it's all about demand, and the demand for great playes is very high, there arn't a huge crop of them to choose from, like there are Employees for Mcdonalds.

Anyone can work at mcdonalds but not everyone can be a professional soccer player.

Thus, even though certain soccer players might not work as hard as coal miners... they still get paid way more... because they are a rare commodity.

Consider a good soccer player like beckham a very nice, one of a kind, diamond.
That only a handful of such diamonds exist.
And thus, even though this diamond is nowhere near as helpful, as a 2000 dollar computer, this diamond is worth MILLIONS!!!

Sure... people just stare at it... but it's the fact that it's a rare commodity that gives it it's wealth.

Is David Beckham the hardest working man in the world? No
Is he a rare commodity? Yes

Does he deserve his money? Yes, just like a special diamond, deserves its 100 million dollar price tag.

Someone replies back to these comments mentioning:

Well when you compare football to macdonalds of course it'll seem different but what about when you compare theoretical physics to football. The table turns entirely.
I reply:

O.k, you win there, there are less good theoretical physics professors, or people who truly grasp it's knowledge than their are good football players.
So why aren't they a rare commodity worth millions?

There is not as big of a demand to see or hear from them by the general public like in David Beckham's case.

David Beckham joining, caused a HUGE surge in season tickets for the galaxy.
They are burning very very fast, and they aren't cheap either.

So again it goes back to demand.

No/less demand to see theoretical physics professors, while there is a great demand to see great football players like David.

Elementary Economics.

~~Phoenix

Beckham sign with Galaxy


Another old but good post back in January 07'.

Here's the official link, i saw it on the news before i saw it on the internet.

http://la.galaxy.mlsnet.com/news/team_news.jsp?ymd=20070111&content_id=81598&vkey=pr_lag&fext=.jsp&team=t106

This is a HUGE acquisition, we're getting arguably the best soccer player ever spawned.


Quote
The most recognizable athlete in the world, Beckham agreed to a five-year deal to play for the Galaxy, whose season opens April 8 in Houston. The deal to bring Beckham to America is thought to be the biggest in sporting history, with industry experts estimating the worth to the player in excess of $250 million.

Basically, he's getting paid, and paid well Grin

Quote
"David Beckham will have a greater impact on soccer in America than any athlete has ever had on a sport globally," said Timothy J. Leiweke, president & CEO, AEG. "We are acquiring an individual that will not only be the best ambassador and the best role model for athletes and fans of soccer but the best example of what any athlete can and should be. David is truly the only individual that can build the 'bridge' between soccer in America and the rest of the world," added Leiweke.

If you didn't like soccer before.. i warn you... soon you will.
The most popular teenage sport currently is Soccer, it has the highest number of players, surpassing every other sport.
Now Beckham wants to convince the adults and kids, that this sport, which the rest of the world CRAVES, is something to be revered.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Beckham is in Socal now, and i'll be looking to buy season tickets to the Galaxy games, Watch out world Wink thumbup

~~Phoenix

The universe is not limited mans perception is


One person's view:

The universe is not limited, man's perception of the universe is limited. Solipsism is egocentrism become rationalization, not reason. No different than ancient people's belief that the universe revolved around them.

Hisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has everything to do with the observation and measurement of particles in applied quantum mechanics, and nothing to do with philosophy.

If you have a problem with that statement then actually study Hisenberg's work, a basic reading in the history of science by Sagan, various published applications of quantum theory models by damn near everybody from Einstein to Hawking, and follow it up with the lectures of Richard Feynman.

The actuality of conditions that cause light to be changed by materials in the world has nothing to do with you perceiving it or not. This is measureable, it is demonstrable, it is elementary.

My response:

If man's perception of the universe is limited, how do you know the universe isn't limited?

Your own perception says so.
You cannot tell me the universe, is absolute, in any sense.

Let's define that term, absolute:
Not constrained by, Time, matter, or space.

Or:
free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way:
b. something that is independent of some or all relations.
c. something that is perfect or complete.

~~~~~~~~~~
Now let's define some of your terms, so i can try and break down what you said, being as i didn't understand your second sentence:

Solipsism:
Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.

Egocentrism:
having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things

Rationalization
to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

Reason:
sound judgment; good sense.
to think or argue in a logical manner.

Let's look at your sentence again now:

Quote
Solipsism is egocentrism become rationalization, not reason.

The theory, that only the self exists, is regarding the self as the center of everything, become rationalization (i still don't understand that)
not sound judgment and good sense.

Even when broken down into its simplest parts, i don't get it...
I guess you can restate, hopefully in another, more coherent, manner.
You should be more coherent the first time running through it though.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then you go on saying, the Uncertainty Principle, has nothing to do with philosophy, and everything to do with observation. What people choose to add to philosophy, is their choice, you can't exclude Heisenberg's findings, saying they were just observation. You never know if something has a bigger meaning.

No one has authority to limit the scope of philosophy, especially something as crucial as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which cause ripples you couldn't even imagine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Case in point, you can't say, the universe is absolute, when our perception of it is limited.
That's like saying you see something with certainty, using uncertain eye sight.

~~Phoenix

Enlightening the world or Forcing Beliefs


This all stared from a single statement made by someone asking why we should let people live ignorantly, if we perceive the truth to be something else altogether than what they believe.

Their statement:

Thats what I mean. No logical person would believe half of this tripe and yet so many do just because they're told it. Why should we let people live in ignorance and claim things that they can't explain are gods/spirits/angels/dead relatives when there are really beautifuly simple explanations for them in science.


My response:

You can't force your beliefs on others.
Look at history, when has "ENLIGHTENING" anyone helped?

Slavery in America, Destruction of the Indians, Conversion of the Mexicans, the crusades, THERE ARE MILLIONS OF CASES where people forced their beliefs on others.
It never turns out well.
If you have the truth, than speak about it, and be done, be content with yourself.

That richard dawkins guy is opening up a can of worms when he openly attacks religion, and says in his own video he's funding research to see when religion is most susceptible in child's brains.

Please, Don't enlighten anyone, you might be 100% right, and i could be totally wrong, but if we're both going to die and be forgotten, What's this need to start wars and arguments.

Clasp my hand, join us ignorant god fearing folk, and lets change the world for the better, get rid of Aids in Africa, stop the genocide in darfur, fix Iraq, and a MILLION other problems.
Then once our world is rid of problems... probably never, maybe you can enlighten us then.

~~Phoenix

Does Color exist?


It's a continuation of the conversation of the last post, but this time the person I'm speaking with makes another controversial statement:

You still don't get it. The point isn't that our senses are limited. The point is that our senses aren't even means of sensing objective reality.

An example that might help is color. Color does not exist. There is no such thing as red. Red is simply the way our brain interprets a certain wavelength of light, but there is no redness inherent to that light.

Without the brain, color would not exist, but wavelength would.
My response:

It's the old... do you hear the sound of a tree fall if no one is around to hear it.
Would you see the color of red paint, if no human were around.

I think the color red does exist, even if it exists only in our mind, it exists.
You and i both agree, we see red, and our reality of red is the color we see.
And we both agree, it exists, only in the head.

Would you like to know what else only exists in our heads?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justice, love, morality, mercy, freedom and a plethora of other emotions and ideas.
So don't think, if it exists in our head, but isn't tangible outside it, that it doesn't exist.

I can quite easily say, all those emotions exist, even if some of them are the result of chemical reactions.
I can't say though, morality, is the result of chemical reactions.

Morality would actually be, you working against your chemical reactions.
Against your inner evils, inherent in all humans, rising above them, through your ethics and morals.

So does color exist? Yes, in my opinion it does, just like justice, love, morality, and a million other emotions and ideas only exist in our heads.

Someone else continues with this comment:


How can you honestly say that?
color as you know it is only known by that of wich you are taught, red is nothing untill you are told it is red. Our mind notices its differences but untill we are told what it is we cannot know what to call it. Comparing color to morality is like comparing apples to transmission fluid, not even close. Morality is taught to us by our parents and the people around us in our developmental years, and it is something that is felt not something that is observed. Yes I do belive some things are geneticaly passed on but not all.


My reply:

So... we both... are taught, color and morality..... they are different... i agree Blink


Nothing is known, until we are taught it, i don't get your point...., we wouldn't even know what to call light, or the sun, if we weren't taught it.
Justice wouldn't be known as justice if we weren't taught it.

We learn everything.

But i know what you mean, morality, some things are inherently wrong.
No one is born with the desire to kill.

So i understand your point to a degree.

But i have to say, color exists, we both agree on it, although it isn't tangible, it exists, just as morality, justice, truth, and a plethora of other ideals and emotions, exist.

Things don't have to be tangible to be real.

For me to perceive it, understand it, and share this understanding with Billions of people, who agree this color is red... should mean something.

And it does, it means that it exists.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be arguing that the color red doesn't exist, just the fact that you are arguing over it, is a sign of its existence.

He replies with this:

The point is that the rainbow has no color. It's colorless. color only exists in our brain as a way of describing to our consciousness what it is we are seeing, and all we are seeing are light waves of different wavelengths.

Color is a creation of the brain. No brains, no color.


My reply:

No brains no justice, no brains no love, no brains no mercy.

My point is you agree it exists in our brains, that should be enough for you to say it exists, period.

So it's not tangible, some of the greatest things in life aren't tangible.

That is unless you're 100% materialistic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My last point:

Another reason why i think color exists, is that NOTHING is absolutely known but that we exist.

You cannot name a single thing, that is situational in some way, as color and our brain is.

So why hate color? Just because it only exists in our brains?

It's not like everything else in this world is absolutely known.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Closest thing to a proof, that i made, that we should accept color as existing:

Everything we perceive is seen through a frame of reference, which in itself is flawed.
We also have Heisenberg;s uncertainty principle, to interact with something forever changes it.
Backed up by chaos theory, showing very minute changes can cause HUGE change.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So working off the framework that nothing is absolute, not anything we perceive anyways, i deduced color must exist.

Because, even though color is inherently faulty, by only existing in our minds, so is every other object deduced by us in this world.

Basically, in layman's terms, we have to let color join our group, because the same fault he has, is had by everything we observe.

So it only exists in our brains.
Doesn't everything?
We know nothing absolutely except that we exist.

And that was my point Smiley

~~Phoenix

A logical Standpoint

Everything in this world is relative, we know nothing absolutely.

What we're discussing, is IF our relative views, our eyes, our measurments, WERE correct.
That there is a universe.
IF our relative calculations, and our relative experiences are correct, THEN constants, are constant.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's not hard to argue... well, we could all be in the matrix.

Which is what you are saying basically.
I understand that the constants might not be constant, EVEN though we've tested them millions of times.
I understand that.
Everything is relative to our 5 senses, and our measurement tools.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But you have to start somewhere, you need something to work with.
And we've been working with what we have.
And today, we have the internet.
I'd say, our calculations are pretty accurate.
Oh, and we also have the ability to go into space, a very costly, and amazing feat.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So do i believe constants are constants, yes.
And do i believe there is a universe, yes.
Have we been flurishing thus far in science, yes.

Could we all be wrong, and everything we thought turned upside down, yes.
Do we know anything absolutely, no.

So please, from now on, Argue from a LOGICAL standpoint, because we all know things could be the opposite of what they appear to be.

Again, because we all have to start somewhere, such as, I am here, at this point.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Someone goes on to mention that what is true for us is just those little electric signals interpreted by our brain given to us by our senses.

I reply with this:

I understand what you mean, i've heard of it from the black box situation.

Basically, you have a back box, something is in it.

You can't see the box, or use your 5 senses to figure out what's in it.

Someone might say, let's just xray the box, you'd still be looking at the xray, using your viision, to determine what is in it.

The actual xray would be fine, but the process of you looking at the results ruins it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Basically the point or premise of the situation is to show you no matter what you do, eventually, everything filters into you through your sense of touch, eyesight, hearing, sense of smell, or sense of taste.

Thus, we can't absolutely know anything because of the limits of our own tools, our senses.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But for us to get anywhere, do anything, we need to start somewhere.
And our starting point, is our brain, and 5 senses.

Favorite Countries

As for who I'd choose, for my favorite list of countries, it's more like:

Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, South korea, Japan, and a few others.

I personally Hate china.
I think we should end our Embargo against Cuba, rather, help them out, them being our neihbors.
Stop about 4 billion dollars of aid going to Israel, try and cut off as many links with china I can.

Along with a myriad of other things.
And yes, i'll reiterate my hate for china's government, once again Cursing lol

~~Phoenix

Justifying Iraq

Someone tries to justify the Iraq war, read my last post because it ties in with this one:

What's happening in Darfur now isn't much different to what happened in Iraq (to the Kurds as one example) pre-invasion. If the USA invaded Sudan to stop this, we'd have the same situation as we have in Iraq now and people would be whining just as much.

I 100% disagree with that, besides the Janjaweed who are in cohoots with the government, the people would love us.

In Iraq, 10,000 people weren't being killed every month.
People had power, water, and all the necessities. It was no where near as bad as Sudan.
IRAQ wasn't even considered a 3rd world country because their GDP was very high, thanks to their oil and other exports.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Iraq is nothing like the Sudan.

We had literally no reason to invade Iraq, all reasons we had were cooked up by Bush and Blair and It turned into a Disaster.
No where near as many people were dying as in the Sudan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If we were to invade and create a new government, the Janjaweed would attack back, so all we'd need to do would be to set up a strong perimeter.
AS long as that perimeter holds, we're good, it would take a lot of men, and probably a long time, but it would be worth it.
We wouldn't have civilians attack us, as we saw in Iraq.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again unlike Iraq, where things are still NOT anywhere near the quality of pre war.
People still don't have water and power in lots of areas and the rate of civilian deaths is unbelievable.

Iraq is not Sudan, and i can't compare the two, not on any level.
You can blame the Iraq disaster on Bush and Blairs unneeded war, and destabilization of the country.
Their ignorant reply:

Sounds like you read/watch/listen to very biased left-wing media Smiley

Try reading up on the Al-Anfal Campaign, genocide against the Kurds in Iraq. Tens of thousands were slaughtered by Saddam for no reason other than being Kurds.

* destroyed about 4,000 villages in Iraqi Kurdistan [4]
* destroyed 1,754 schools, 270 hospitals, 2,450 mosques, 27 churches[5]
* wiped out around 90% of Kurdish villages in targeted areas.[6]

We didn't finish the job properly in the Gulf war when we should have unfortunately, then the media eye was lost and people forgot and no longer cared about what was continuing in Iraq. No different to us going into Sudan now, stopping this for a short time and then forgetting about it while it slowly continues out of the eye of the media, then going back in 10 years or so later and finishing the job.

The Janjaweed are civilians with guns. The people fighting in Iraq are civilians with guns. I don't see a difference.

"so all we'd need to do would be to set up a strong perimeter."


Yeah right, you obviously underestimate these people. This is exactly what we thought we needed to do in Iraq and it failed for the same reasons it'd fail in Sudan.

My reply:

You want to know why we lost in Iraq?

It's because we killed innocent women and children.
We also had no reason to go to war, all have been proven false.
Liberators? WE went for WMD's... which were non existent:

But, with all you people who listen to the Media Wink, rather than do independent research, i present my evidence:

http://www.zshare.net/download/14323420d52460fe/
(A pdf entitled Mortality Iraq.
I give anyone here full permission to spread this file if they like, the only thing they may not do is sell it, which was a limitation i'm put to as well.)


Quote
Findings The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6–4·2) higher after the invasion when compared
with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we
exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1–2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that
98 000 more deaths than expected (8000–194 000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the
outlier Falluja cluster is included.

You had a 95% chance of dieing after Iraq war, than before it? What liberation is that?
We killed TEN's of THOUSANDS of innocent people!!!

Do you really think they would say, great job!
They were better off with Sadam, who killed, but no where near what we did.

Quote
Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in
the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1–419) than in the period before the war.

More women and children were killed than members of Al Qaeda.... some precision bombing eh?

Quote
Interpretation Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100 000 excess deaths, or more have happened
since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces
accounted for most violent deaths.



Quote
Study faults US health effort in Iraq, Afghanistan By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has botched efforts to improve public health Iraq and Afghanistan, missing a chance to gain support in those countries, an independent report released on Wednesday said.

U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq following the 2003 invasion failed to maintain and improve basic sanitation and provide safe drinking water in heavily populated areas, the RAND Corp. report stated.


Quote
About 40 percent of Baghdad's water and sanitation network has been damaged since the U.S. invasion, and efforts to rebuild the crumbling and aging system have moved too slowly amid security problems and looting, the report stated.

Researchers unfavorably compared health reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan to post-World War Two efforts in Japan and Germany. However, while those countries remained calm under foreign occupation, violence in Iraq and instability in Afghanistan have hindered reconstruction projects.

There was no reason for war, not a single one, all are botched, and we did nothing but hurt the Iraqi people.
And you wonder why there are insurgents?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AS you can see from all that i've provided you, Sudan and Iraq are nothing alike, we have a clear reason for war.
10,000 people are dying every month.
The only insurgents who would come after us would be the Janjaweed
And once governemnt support of the janjaweed was stripped, by the U.S, they would need to find funding elsewhere and would shrivel up slowly.

The civilians would side with us.
If you don't believe me, go look at pictures of U.N stations in the Sudan.
Their lives couldn't possibly get worse.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Best part of all this, our government heads, bush and blair, lied to us to get in order to initiate the war:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece

Quote
The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

That's only a small snipit, the title of the article is, Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war.
Please read it all if you have time.

Don't trust the media, Ruport murdock basically owns most of it, Msnbc is owned by Microsoft, hence the MS, and CNN is owned by Time Warner.
Look at their track record:

Quote
GENERAL ELECTRIC --(donated 1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election campaign)

Television Holdings:
* NBC: includes 13 stations, 28% of US households.
* NBC Network News: The Today Show, Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, Meet the Press, Dateline NBC, NBC News at Sunrise.
* CNBC business television; MSNBC 24-hour cable and Internet news service (co-owned by NBC and Microsoft); Court TV (co-owned with Time Warner), Bravo (50%), A&E (25%), History Channel (25%).
The "MS" in MSNBC
means microsoft
The same Microsoft that donated 2.4 million to get GW bush elected.

Quote
DISNEY / ABC / CAP (donated 640 thousand to GW's 2000 campaign)
Television Holdings:
* ABC: includes 10 stations, 24% of US households.
* ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America.
* ESPN, Lifetime Television (50%), as well as minority holdings in A&E, History Channel and E!
* Disney Channel/Disney Television, Touchtone Television.

Quote
TIME-WARNER TBS - AOL (donated 1.6 million to GW's 2000 campaign)
America Online (AOL) acquired Time Warner–the largest merger in corporate history.
Television Holdings:
* CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%).
* Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.

Quote
NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch) (donations see bottom note)
Television Holdings:
* Fox Television: includes 22 stations, 50% of US households.
* Rupert Murdoch: Board of Directors, Philip Morris (USA).
*(Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000)*


They all have biased views, get the facts and get them from independent trusted organizations.
I mainly use the BBC and the AP, although the AP has a bias at times, so i always back it up with other articles.

IF this doesn't convince you the war was wrong in IRAQ, nothing will, and you will have not been open minded.
Again, as you can see, Sudan is 180 degrees different than Iraq.
And again, Do not listen to the media, Don't let them spoon feed you garbage.
After such a long and concise post a lot of agreement grows in the thread, but someone mentions that Sudan would be better off with no military intervention, i firmly disagree and say:

Do you really feel, Sudan will be better off, without U.S intervention.

Let's check those stats again, 10,000 people killed every month.

400,000 total at this point.
That's 4 times the Iraq War.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some things to consider

Pre war Iraq for the most part Has:

  • Running water
  • Electricity
  • Plumbing
  • Stability
  • A Strong GDP
  • Safety for most civilians
  • No internal civil war

Pre war Iraq doesn't have:

  • 10,000 deaths per month
  • Overall Sad citizens

Pre war Sudan for the most part Does not have:
  • Running water
  • Electricity
  • Plumbing
  • Stability
  • A Strong GDP(It's a poor 3rd world country)
  • Safety for most civilians

Pre war Sudan Does have

  • Civil war
  • Government Power struggle
  • 10,000 innocents dead every month
  • Overall sad citizens

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tell me please
Tell me... someone....

That the Sudan can get worse.
The U.S WILL NOT HAVE 10,000 deaths EVERY MONTH!!!

Think about it, if the U.S went in, it would stop the killing for the most part.

And you know why there were insurgents in Iraq, BECAUSE we weren't fighting for the people, but for WMD'S which didn't turn up, and caused 100,000 IRAQI deaths.

BUT if we fight for the Sudan, we will literally stop all killings by the Janjaweed, and help stem the tide of the Genocide.

NO ONE has taken a look at the refugee camps so let me give you a refresher on how it looks over there!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THIS IS PRE WAR IRAQ!!!



How in the world do you get the two mixed up?

One is a rich, prosperous nation.

The other is a 3rd world country with a civil war destroying 10,000 people a month.
That's about 357 Deaths on average each day, or 2,500 a week.

I knew people would come here and try and put the two countries together, but they are nothing alike.
Sudan is not stable, like Iraq was, and people weren't being killed left and right as we see in Sudan.

I hope you understand my point, and why we need to stop the Genocide.
It's not Yankee imperialism, we have nothing to gain from going to the Sudan.
That's why we're probably not going.
Because there is not much there for us, unlike Iraq, that had Oil, and gave us a Base in the Middle east besides Israel and quwait.
Our relations are still shaky with turkey.

We must stop this genocide, it will not end like Iraq, the people will side with us, and there will not be more than 10,000 deaths a month.
Response to people who say that the kurds being murdered is a good reason to go to war with iraq:

You were saying:

Hey sadam killed the Kurds
How dare you say that's not a good reason for war. Cursing


I said....
Guess what.
It's not a good reason for war.[insert long post here with all evidence]
Thank you for not replying to [long post here with all evidence]
Thank you for not reading all of [long post here with all evidence]
Your sentiments will be met equally.

Sudan is a good reason for war.[insert economic post here and 10,000 dead each month]
[insert pre war conditions of Sudan]
[insert witty joke about how Sudan can't get any worse]

Pre war Sudan... is bad... really bad... how in the world.. could it get worse?

You can use the information i provided to make informative decisions about the Sudan's future.
Or you can continue to say, Sudan=Iraq, with zero facts and evidence.

Oh and your kurdish deaths, again, not a good reason for war with Iraq, that horse has been beaten to death.

Someone else comes back to the point where they thinking going to war to protect Sudan would be just as bad and it's better not to help the Sudan, horrible comments like that prompted me to re reply, read their comments in quotes first and then my response:

But the answer is not "US military to the rescue" . The answer is not another war .

Another war against some country that can`t defend it`s self . Stop the desaster curently going on there and start another one . Cause yet another increase in world wide extremism and anti-american feelings .

The only way to stop this kind of things imho is to educate people and change the way they relate to eachother . Not by war!!



Your sentiments, as i read them were:
Don't have a war, your going to start another problem.

I ask for proof where we helped a country like Sudan, and it collapsed?
Where a civil war was going on, we stopped it, and the people fought us to death?
When did we ever go through that?

Germany anyone? That was a success. Japan? Yes success as well. Poland? Yes we did well there too.
No civil wars there, but we had wars with them, and they are successes today thanks to U.S intervention.
We owe japan more money than every other nation, but china.
I hate to mention this, but Quwait owes us a bit too Wink

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I like how you said, education is the key.

Long term key yes, short term no.
Education takes Decades, it could take a Century before the people are all getting food and water and have time for eduction.
Also you can't have education without your Needs, i refer to evidence of that thanks to Maslow:

Remember the 5 steps to Human Actualization
Also known as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs:


Education is subservient to food, shelter, water, and safety.

Right now... They have very little food, water, shelter, and no safety.
Education is not the key, education comes when Safety, water, food, and shelter have been provided.

You need to fill up your NEEDS(safety, food, shelter, water) before you can have your wants(education).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So i ask you, i plead with you my friend....
What do you want us to do, you are the head of any government you want, be it the U.S if you so wish.
What should be done?

Education? Impossible, as I've already mentioned.
What would you propose?
HOW would you bring stability?

I now yield to you. I'd like to hear your idea, if you have one, about how to stabilize the region without military intervention.
For me, i say, if at any time there was a need for war... this is the time.

~~Phoenix (my fingers are dying... lol ) Cheesy

Genocide in Sudan

Old 2006 thread of mine, but i thought I'd share again, getting this blog caught up to today :)

I'm not an expert here...

I came with a plea to the forums, to ask a simple question.
What can, I, or anyone else, do here, to help?
And i mean really help, not just let our concerns be shared, which is simple... but help.


I want to accomplish something in this thread, besides talking.
Basically i have 3 goals.

1) Education
I want to eduacte myself more about the problem.
I want to know who to talk to and how to make a difference.
What exactly is the problem... and who is instigating it?
Is there a group, or person, who may be able to stop this now?

2) Support:
I want to support them in some way.
Whether that be monetary, spirtually, or maybe through letters.
Speaking of letters... who might we send one to?
Could the people recieve it?
What about the president of sudan?
Can we send any other type of support?

3) Recruit:
See if i can get anyone, to help me, along the way.
It doesn't have to be anyone here, it could be in RL, or maybe a senator.
Maybe my representative can help.
But find some other people to walk with me, through this. It's a big task, one person alone isn't enough, we need more.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So first things first.... knowledge, I should share what i have thus far, i hope you all share your info as well.

The website to coordinate our energy:
http://www.savedarfur.org/content

Here is a nice read, about the conflict.. please, if you do nothing else, read this:
http://www.savedarfur.org/pages/background

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Know your enemies:

The sudanese government itself, and the Janjaweed militias. An alliance that has caused most of the destruction of the civilians.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Support:

All i found and thought of was finding a support group, near your area, if you are in the U.S.

Suprisingly, my small city did have one, maybe i'll find that person and help organize an event.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Final thoughts:

Quote
“400,000 dead, 2.5 million displaced, 10,000 dying every month”
The latest UN estimates say that between 10 and 15 thousand people are dying every month.


Quote
“Every few months we are driven away from one refugee camp to the other, so far in the desert where nothing, nothing at all exists. This is no way for a human being to live. No way to live in such a shocking place – uncultivated, waterless, treeless and barren region...! Everything is burning, Lord, around me, around us ... in me, in us ... Everything is barren, hell, hell...!” ~~ A darfarian women

Quote
Fertile land continues to decrease as desertification (growth of the Sahara Desert) becomes more of a problem. Tensions between nomadic Arab tribes and African farming communities began, in part, because of the scarcity of usable land.


Quote
As a response to the long-standing abuse from the government, rebels in Darfur rose in opposition to the government, attacking a government installation. President Al-Bashir responded by giving governmental support and money to Islamic militias, also known as the Janjaweed – or ‘Devils on Horseback’ in Arabic – to combat the rebels and civilians in Darfur instead of sending the military to intervene.
These militias have been accused of ethnic cleansing by systematically eliminating entire communities. Government air strikes frequently precede the militias’ vicious raids. Villages are razed; women, men, and children are raped, tortured, and murdered. The Janjaweed also target and destroy Darfurian food and water supplies, threatening the victims' hopes for their future survival.


Quote
The Janjaweed militias steal cattle, destroy wells, and pursue a scorched-earth policy, where crops and buildings are destroyed. (UNICEF and the New York Times, 2005).

Quote
Civilians who have survived village destruction have fled to camps lacking adequate food, shelter, sanitation, and health care in Darfur and across the border in neighboring Chad. Hundreds of thousands of Darfurians are at risk of starvation and disease.


Quote
“Every day, women are sent outside the IDP camps to seek firewood and water, despite the constant risk of rape at the hands of the Janjaweed. Should men be available to venture out of the camps, they risk castration and murder. So families decide that rape is the lesser evil. It is a crime that families even have to make such a choice. Often women are sexually assaulted within the supposed safety of the IDP camps. Nowhere is really safe.” – Brian Steidle, former AU advisor

Quote
80% of the children under five years old are suffering from severe malnutrition. Seventy percent of the deaths in the camps are children under five.
Quote
Children, as well as young women, are abducted by Janjaweed, often with the complicity of Sudanese troops. Women are often forced into sexual slavery, and young boys are made to watch over stolen livestock. (Amnesty, Save the Children).

Quote
Currently, the only security on the ground is an undermanned African Union (AU) force that cannot protect civilians or aid workers. Currently, the AU lacks adequate numbers of personnel and has limited logistical capacity. Currently, the AU’s mandate is to monitor the failed ceasefire in Darfur, not to protect civilians. Therefore, to be effective, the AU will need a stronger civilian protection mandate, a major increase in the number of troops on the ground, and a much larger logistical and monetary contribution from the UN, the EU, and NATO.


Quote
Despite some action on behalf of the world community, more action is needed. Ten thousand people are still dying every month, and if nothing is done, two million people could perish. We need to act if we want this crisis to end.

Quote
Look beyond the headlines, understand that a genocide is occurring right now, look for how we can support a solution – and ways in which we may be contributing to the problem.
These people need our help. As humans, we owe them our support and prayers. As Americans we owe them our courage and experience. We must do something to help those who suffer, and this time we can.


~~~~All quotes taken from the Save Darfur Powerpoint presentation, a must download.

Arm yourself with knowledge.... post a response on how we can help... actually help guys, don't b.s me.... and recruit each other to the side of the innocent civilians.

Thank you for your time, as always.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Questions about whether this was a futile effort or not arised

In this case though, i must try and help the defenseless in some way i can, anyway really. Even if it ends in futile effort, some effort by my part must be tried.

Thank you all for your replies so far, help me to help stop this problem, I'm still lost in a confused world, wondering what to do next.

Someone shares their pain of the situation and their hopelessness:

It really pains me to think of the injustices that are being done here. To think of a poor, starving family huddling together in their one-room huts, as a firing squad blows their brains out one by one... the children killed first, to stop them from running away, and to shock the parents into hesitating, so they can be slaughtered in turn. (Eh... I'm pretty messed-up though... it might just be me)

That's why I don't want to think about it, really. There's nothing I can do, so I'm content to lead my sheltered life, playing RPGs on high-powered laptops. Me having nightmares about a country I've barely heard of doesn't help anyone. Even if I become a politician, or a peacekeeper, there's ultimately nothing anyone can do if people want to kill each other. Until we have infrared satellites that can identify a crime being committed anywhere on the face of the earth and fry the criminal with a microwave beam at any time, 24/7, there's nothing anyone can do about it.


United states admits to genocide:

The United States won't admit to a genocide being comitted in darfur, because it'll have to act once it does.

It actually has, it's the U.N that won't admit to it, basically because if it tries to draft such a resolution, it knows someone will veto it, specifically china.

There a little commentary about this on the savedarfur website, and I find it interesting.

Finally America admits there's a Geoncide.... yet does very little.

Darn that whole Iraq war and our currupt president for lying us into it.

If we only had the troops to help heal REAL problems, instead of lining corporate pockets.

~~Phoenix

Click Daily to Feed the Hungry