Lost Ramblings

May 26, 2008

The Nukes Will Come Again

Filed under: General — Tags: , — admin @ 11:17 pm

Note:  I found this in my drafts section from the middle of last year and thought I’d put it up here.  It’s a bit different from my normal style.

Yes, nukes will be used again.

Why?  Well we could infer from various prophesies, both Christian and otherwise, but that isn’t realy what this blog is about, and besides, I see it happening for a much more pragmatic reason.

August 9, 1945 was the last time a nuclear weapon was used in war.  Over sixty years have passed, and within about forty years every single person who was alive at the time will be dead.  We won’t have any first hand accounts.  We have very few left already.  We likely won’t even have any seccondary accounts.  All we’ll have is what’s in the history books.

We like to say that we will never again do something.  We will never again use nuclear weapons.  We will never have another Vietnam.  We will never violate such and such rule/sanction.  But we do them.  The US is currently in a war which bears more than a passing similarity to Vietnam.  And no rule or sanction is sacred when it comes to progress, threats, or convinience.  And these examples are taken from a country that is more or less thinking about the future when using it’s military (less, recently).  What about countries, organizations, and states that don’t care about things like the geneva convention?

The use of nuclear weapons is enevitable.  Humans want to use the tools they have at their disposal.  It’s why nuclear weapons were used in the first place.  Eventualy someone will use them. My hope is that it will be several hundred years before they are used again.  There are currently eight or nine nulcear armed countries (Isreal’s status is unknown).  Eventualy someone will make a mistake.  A nuclear weapon will be used by one of the 9 countries, or be stolen or purchased from one.  And it will be used.  Why?  Because humans can’t help but use a tool they have been given.

Proposed Republican Action Plan examined

Filed under: News and Politics — Tags: , , — admin @ 12:50 am

I came across an interesting tidbit today at the Washington Times.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, sent a memorandum to colleagues in advance of today’s conference meeting, where party leaders and rank-and-file members are expected to clash over the party’s direction.

The memo called for the party to adopt the following action plan and reaffirm conservative principles, including fiscal restraint, lower taxes, family values and national security:

You can take a look at it here, but I’m going to post my favorite bits.

AN ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSE REPUBLICANS: BOLD, SIMPLE, AND DIFFERENT THAN THE DEMOCRATS (yes, that’s realy what it was called.  I didn’t make it up.)

1) THE END OF PORK-BARREL SPENDING

House Republicans are committed to ending pork-barrel spending… We also pledge to uphold any future veto of a non-defense spending bill that is pork laden and does not lead to a balanced budget.

They want to cut back an all non-defense spending.  They are going to push for a balanced budget in all aspects, except military spending… doesn’t that meant that they’re not going to be pushing for a balanced budget at all?

4) A FAMILY-FOCUSED, PATIENT-CENTERED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

House Republicans will reform and improve our current health care system, by 1) providing a refundable health care tax credit to every American to purchase affordable health care coverage,

Hmm… poor people normally don’t have to pay income tax.  Now lets assume that the tax credit amounts to 10% of your taxes back.  So, let me work out the math.  10% of nothing is… now lets see… carry the one… oh, nothing.  Which would mean that a tax credit for health care would give those who can’t afford health care because they don’t make enough money absolutely squat.  Great plan.  Worthy of Catbert.

5) AMERICAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE THROUGH INCREASED EXPLORATION

House Republicans are committed to increasing American energy supplies to lower prices and reduce dependence on Middle Eastern Oil by allowing energy exploration in Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf, as well as the development of cleaner coal technologies and alternative fuels.

Ok… I”m fairly certain that they’re joking here.  They are going to achieve energy independence through drilling in the protected areas of Alaska, and burning more coal… instead of clean sources like hydro, wind, tidal, and solar.  Or maybe reducing the amount of energy used by the country.  Hmm… lot of forethought there.

6) A LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT ALLOWS US TO PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACKS

House Republicans are committed to preventing terrorists from attacking America. House Republicans will empower our intelligence agencies to intercept terrorist communications with sources outside of the United States without the lengthy process of getting a warrant that could jeopardize the ability to thwart an attack.

Yes, because what we need is more power for the intelligence agency which already abuses the power it has.  I think we should get them black shirts, I think it would really give them something to live up to.  I’m always a bit leery of those who would gladly give up my liberties for me.

7) A MORAL APPROACH FOR PARENTS TO PROTECT AND EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN

House Republicans are committed to supporting parental rights, by 1) ensuring that a child cannot be transported across a state border for an abortion without the consent of a parent or legal guardian, and 2) empowering parents to maintain control over their family’s personal education decisions.

I’m not sure what they mean by “child” in the first part, but it seems odd that it is a parent’s right to determine if their child will have a child.  Are we talking 13 year olds here, or 17 year olds?  In regards to the second point, I feel that I should state my opposition to what they are implying.  It seems that they are supporting the voucher system, where you can go to any public or private school and the government will pay a certain amount toward the schooling.  This is a problem for two reasons.  First, it is the government stepping back from their responsibility to ensure that all of the youth in their country are being educated enough to participate in a democracy.  Second, when you think about it, it’s like saying that a doctor’s opinion of a medical problem isn’t as valid as a parent’s.  If the government doesn’t feel that they can adequately address how education should be done, maybe they should leave it to the professionals.

May 15, 2008

Clinton and Commas

Filed under: Education, News and Politics — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 6:23 pm

Hillary Clinton

I felt like being geeky today, so I thought I’d take a look at Sen. Clinton’s mistake.  Normally I wouldn’t care, but after all of the fuss over Sen. Obama’s comments about clinging to guns I figured she’s fair game for slips.  So, without further ado here is the comment:

“There was just an AP article posted that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

And of course the most important part:

“Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again”

If you want to jump down past the grammar discussion click here.

Now a comma is used for several things.  And I’d like to point you to this site from which I got my examples.  First is the listing use.  For example:

Noun:  He brought coffee, sandwiches, cheese and soda.
Verb:  She caught, cleaned, cooked and served the fish.
Adjective:  The weather today is cool, dry and windy.
Verb phrase:  I closed the door, started the car, pulled out of the driveway, and switched on the radio.
Clause:  Mayuki made the sushi, Yung-Hee cooked the meat, and Izabella chopped the vegetables

There is one thing that you must remember when using a list.  At the end, before the last item, you MUST use the word “and”.  Without that, it’s not a list.

The next use of the comma is for conjoining two clauses:

It was raining, so I took my umbrella.

To do this you need to use one of the coordinating conjunctions: and, but, or, so, and several more.

Most of the rest of this will have the examples taken from Wikipedia.

Commas can also be used for introductory phrases: Once upon a time, I didn’t know how to use commas

Parenthetical phrases are those bits that can be pulled out of a sentence without changing the meaning.  They fall into restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.  I’m not going to go into it much, but if you’re interested, I have a lovely worksheet I do with my students.  But, there are several forms of parenthetical phrases.  The following are the ones which interest us right now:

My father, a jaded and bitter man, ate the bagel (appositive)
My father, chewing with unbridled fury, ate the bagel (free modifier).
My father, in a fit of rage, ate the bagel (prepositional phrase).
My father, with no regard for his health, ate the bagel (adverbial phrase).
My father, despite his lack of teeth, ate the bagel (adverbial phrase). 

It is also used to separate dependant and independent clauses: “After I brushed the cat, I lint-rollered my clothes”.

And back to the politics.  The most important parts of this discussion on grammar are Parenthetical Phrases and Listing.

“Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again”

The only two possible types of comma that this could be are Parenthetical and Listing.  Lets look at listing.  As we know, a list is a number of points joined together by commas, and ending with the word “and” before the final.  Now we can assume that Clinton was attempting to give a list, meaning:

“Obama’s support among hard working Americans [of all colours], and white Americans [in particular] is weakening again.”

After listening to her comments though (which you can do here), I’m afraid that that’s not what she said.  She used the distinct pauses which indicate commas.  Also, she lacks the all important “and”. 

Before we continue, it is important to remember that her comments were full of “ums”.  Thus, I’ll rewrite what she said slightly.

She said “among working, hard-working”, but, from that, and from the “ums” which are included in it, she said “working” but then changed that to “hard-working”.  Her comment then is:

 ”Obama’s support among hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again”

Now, as we said, this is not, much as she might wish otherwise, a list.  It is a parenthetical phrase.  With the commas as they fall, she is saying:

“Obama’s support among hard-working Americans, is weakening again”

But, in order to assume this, we need to think that the introduction of the words “white Americans” does not change the sentence.  If it did change the sentence, the commas would not need to be there in that order.  Which means that “white Americans” is not adding to the sentence, but rather defining “hard-working Americans”.  Thus she has said:

“Obama’s support among hard-working Americans, [and they are] white Americans, is weakening again”

And that is where the problem happens.  She has verbally equated white with hard-working.  Which on the flip side implies that Obama’s largest ethnic group (black Americans) are not hard-working.

To be clear, when I started this I felt that people were simply taking their prior ingrained racism and applying it to the quote, seeing racism simply because it was a white person making a comment about white people.  However, after looking at the comma use, I feel that I must conclude that the comments made, though I’m sure it was a slip of the tongue, are in fact saying that hard-working Americans are white.

May 11, 2008

Light at the end of the tunnel?

Filed under: News and Politics — Tags: , , — admin @ 9:01 am

US PoliticsI can see the light at the end of the tunnel.  But beyond that I can see the next tunnel.  Yes, though we’ve all waited way too long for the fight over the Democratic nomination to be over, that was just a warm-up.

Obama will likely be the next candidate, though it took longer than I expected.  Of course, it isn’t over yet, but unless there’s a major change in the next few weeks, this is over.

The nomination process, though, is just the appetizer.  Next up we get to see Obama vs. McCain.

Originally when McCain started running, I thought: “well, that’s the only candidate who doesn’t seem completely repulsive.  Too bad they’ll never nominate him.”  And then, they did.  Of course since then McCain seems to have changed his principles and gone on to kiss the shoes (and probably other locations) of none other than the Christian Right, in the form of John Hagge.  Yes, the same Hagge who is famous for saying:

 ”I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.”

Remember, that McCain in 2000 after being denounced by Robertson and Jerry Falwell McCain stood up and made the following remarks:

“They distort my pro-life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters.”

“Why? Because I don’t pander to them, because I don’t ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message.”

“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”

(see the rest of the transcript here)

 And yet, here we are.  Mr. McCain, your actions remind me of Pat Robertson last November when I accused of selling out his principles.

Don’t get me started on McCain an his boot licking of our beloved president or the whole Karl Rove thing.

 Of course none of this will even matter until Clinton decides on what she is going to do.  Personally I think she’s just waiting for a high point so she can withdraw with dignity.  She may just stay in till the last primary, and then concede, but I don’t think we’re going to get any major attack adds or speeches from her for the next while.  I hope.

Powered by WordPress