President Obama Visits China

Early Monday morning, President Obama gave a speech at the first Strategic and Economic Dialogue where he spoke of a number of things pressing both the US and China. The two nations are not only the most powerful countries in the world, they also have the biggest international trade relationship between themselves. But listening to President Obama speak, one cannot help but consider how his Chinese counterparts will react to his rhetoric as well as the items and issues that President Obama withholds in order to maintain a positive tone.

 

The speech covered just about everything one would imagine coming from a US foreign diplomat, which Obama is now the highest in the land, except for one major topic; Democracy. To understand the importance of Democracy to the US, think about this. The United States became a global super-power in the 1940s and has not had a bigger foreign issue until 2001. 64 years of global dominance in total, of which 56 of them had the US foreign policy centered on promoting Democracy and about 61 years where democracy was a bi-focal issue. Only the three years following the September 11 attacks in 2001 was promotion of Democracy not very important. Of course, all of this Democracy talk having a massive importance in US foreign policy is misleading to a degree. The US has never really mentioned Democracy in conversation with the Chinese government ever since Nixon’s 1972 trip. If it’s not known by now, China is not a Democracy and surprising to this author at first discovery. It is one of the only nations that is globally relevant that makes absolutely no attempt to feign democracy. Knowing this, it would indeed be foolish to bring up the issue with the Chinese government, but it really must be in the back of the minds of the men and women who have lived under Democracy.

 

The US, however, has tried to discuss the issue of “Human Rights” with the Chinese. And Obama’s speech was no different. And in this, an interesting principle arises. China is not Democratic yet the international community perceives that the nation can be kept in line by using trade relationships; a sort of international Democracy.  This idea may have importance but it seems clear that it would only have any weight with states already heavily involved in the global system, which by all means makes the policy nearly impossible to make credible. Nations like North Korea or Syria or Sudan, even, merely laugh at such ideas. Yet, states like Iran, which the idea would most likely have some effects, are nearly immune from being isolated from international trade. And that brings us back to China because another issue that President Obama discussed heavily was nuclear weapons or nuclear proliferation.

 

Anyone who’s been attentive to international affairs over the last decade knows that there are only two states that come up in every discussion of nuclear weapons; Iran and North Korea. And the Chinese, perhaps not so coincidentally, are major players in the foreign relations of these two states. This brings us to how the Chinese reacted to Obama’s speech that covered this issue of nuclear weapons. They nod and listen publicly, but laugh and mock behind closed doors, so to speak. The Chinese couldn’t care less about Iran’s military might. And in fact they have replaced the US as Iran’s biggest advanced arms supplier.

 

NOTE: Many would use America’s old relationship with Iran to justify or diminish China’s wrongness in having a pretty similar relationship now, but even just looking at it in a very narrow light… when the US supported the Iranians, Iran posed absolutely no threat to any other nation; in other words, the US stepped on the toes of no state by holding a relationship with Iran in the early 1970s, whereas China cannot make that claim.

 

China has one, perhaps two, large concerns about foreign military threats; Japan and partly, maybe, Russia (Other than the US, ironically). China’s fear of Japan is the sole reason the state doesn’t hold the same indifference about North Korea’s nuclear arsenal as it does with the Iranian ambitions to attain one. The more hostile the North becomes toward Japan and the US, the more interested Japan will become about developing a excellent military and perhaps its own nuclear weapons.  Not only is that bad for China  on a physical level because of the history between the two states (A little like Russia’s dislike for Germany having military might)… it is also bad for China  on an image level. Japan is the electronic powerhouse of the world and thus easily southeast Asia, but China is quite simply the powerhouse. It does not want to lose that role, which it fears it’ll lose, and rightfully so, if Japan undergoes serious military development.  This brings up the two ways that the US can further develop good relations with China.

 

One thing worth mentioning is that China is as indifferent about any state having nuclear weapons as it is indifferent about any state not having them. In other words, China does not care if the North or if Iran have nuclear weapons, except for the fact that they profit from the two states getting the technology from China, itself. So, now that the North has given to China all it can regarding payment in exchange for nuclear advice, it is actually in China’s interest to disarm the north because of Japan as well as the benefits it gets through the US improved relations as it helps in the process. But back to the two topics of improvement.

China, as should be clear by now, is mostly looking inward. Like every non-Democratic nation, the Chinese government’s biggest concern is revolt. On a minor note, this fact is something that makes the US and China unnatural political allies; unlike the US and India. But on a bigger note, the ability for China to force its population into cheap labor , makes the Chinese labor very attractive to US capitalism, which at first was a mutual relationship. But as technology separates further the poor from the wealthy, especially in weaponry, major revolution becomes nearly impossible within states that have any kind of wealth. As well as the more wealth that China acquires from the US, the less China will need the US for its economy, yet the more the US needs China for its. However, there are two sectors of economics that China will never have a comparable grip on like the US; Agriculture/Water and Medical Care. Because of its huge population, much of which is in need, China is heavily affected by viruses and disease. And here it is that its biggest trade partner is the world’s leading source of medical technology, especially when it comes to pharmaceuticals. It seems a very nice fit, but there has not been much said about it. It may just be giving the Chinese government too much credit that it cares that its population is so severely affected to the point that it will spend its money on US preventions, especially if it can manipulate aid organizations to burden the costs. And the same problems arise with China buying US agriculture, which to some may seem backwards because the US actually purchases Chinese food, yet it would be best if this relationship reversed… 1) Because the US has excess food and only buys from China because its less expensive 2) China exports its food because of the profits despite having the 2nd largest number of people dying from starvation.

 

Even worse than food is of course water. And while the US is not in a position to trade water, it will be at the forefront of technological advancement, which China will be extremely interested in. Not for the health of its population, exactly, but because industry needs a extreme amount of water.

 

The reason it seems that discussing the discussion of Sino-American relations is this. It needs to stop. Gradually, of course, but ceased nonetheless. Why would this be? China’s need for the US in every aspect is decreasing. China sells technology it gets from the US to rogue nations. China is not a democracy. China shares no interest with the US, except the interest of its population getting US aid free. China is actually adversarial because of the power balance still in the very early stages. Our biggest trade partner will usually hold a great deal of our debt (as long as the US trades using debt) and that being in the hands of an adversary is unwise.  There is an excellent alternative who… 1)shares security interests 2) doesn’t have a history of selling military technology to US enemies 3)is a democracy 4)cares about its population it seems 5) is not militant toward the power of the US whatsoever 6) It’s likely that they’d be much more receptive to US requests about environmental reform if they were trading with the US as much as china 7) Most importantly, access to cheap labor is wide spread. These six and realistically seven elements make India far better to have with the biggest trade relationship the world’s seen.

 

There is one reason, and to be fair it is major, that this break from China is unlikely and somewhat inadvisable; China’s growing military presence. The closer an ally China is of the US, the less they pose a direct danger to America. Trade with China has made them more receptive, even if that isn’t to the military threats they’ve caused indirectly through providing the North and Iran with nuclear information.  So, developing a stronger tie to china is not utterly foolish, however, continuing to do it with a relatively blind eye as if China is the only option for labor when in fact, is not advisable. The only interest China has in the US is the revenue it receives and on a miniscule level China may need the US to keep Japan invenomous. And US foreign policy needs to keep that in hand.

The Ethics of the Evolution of Science

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6175797.html

This seems to be far more about abortion than ‘eugenics’ — as it is, the only party opting out of having the presumed disabled child is the parents (the mother) and I seriously doubt they are doing so with any thought of the human population as a whole.

So, the real question is if it is ethical to abort a fetus that one intended on carrying to term until it was discovered that the fetus would mature into a child with a serious disorder?

This is the only important question because challenges of accuracy here are rather the same to challenges of accuracy on any medical test; the only difference is the implication of action taken by the mother. If the fact that “[e]ighty to 95 percent of women who receive a Down Syndrome diagnosis after such screening abort” did not exist, these test’s accuracy wouldn’t be so strongly questioned.

And I cannot say so easily one way or the other.

On one hand, I mildly support a woman’s right to abortion, so a woman deciding to abort only after receiving this sort of news… is in no way doing anything illegal or the like. And it does not seem like such an action should be anything but legal.

On the other hand, it does seem a fine-line. But it is a line that I believe, for a mother, is not easily blurred. The choice to abort seems not simple for a pregnant woman that wants a child, and I do not think such women will cross the line of “Well, I don’t want a red haired… IQ of only 107… below average in sports… less than attractive… child.”

A few last points:
Even if you disagree with my last point, any argument that includes the expressive idea, “Where will it stop?” is a very faulty argument. We are human beings, and we have the innate ability to consciously choose, so it stops where we want it to stop. To use future debates as hurdles for currents debates is, by definition, “getting ahead of oneself.”

Secondly, for those who read this article and also fear that “…the testing will mostly be utilized by affluent people, leaving disabled people primarily a phenomenon of the poor,” you are wrong.

In part, this goes to the primary question of the discussion, but if it is decided that abortion can be used as a ‘luxury’ based on ‘pickiness’ and not “what is best for all involved” than it becomes the same as all other luxuries.

Society should always strive to give every human the world’s high end medical care, however, no one should resist such things simply because it can be provided to those who can afford it. There is not anything inherently wrong with inequality.

Obama talks to Larry King

Barack Obama answers Larry King’s questions, sporting the Larry King Live 2008 red tie; round two. 

Talking about Iraq, Obama:

<blockquote>John McCain, who supported the war from the start, said we’d be greeted as liberators, has really focused on the tactical issues in Iraq. And the surge has no doubt reduced violence. And I think all Americans are thrilled by that.

But what George Bush and John McCain have missed consistently from the start of this process is the broader strategy.

You know, was it a wise thing to go in there and what are the costs and benefits of staying there indefinitely?

We’re spending $10 billion a month there. We’ve spent $200 billion since the surge began. Meanwhile, the situation where — you know, where the central front against terrorism should be taking place, in Afghanistan, the situation has deteriorated. And we had this brazen attack on a U.S. base where nine servicemen were killed.

And we’ve got to recognize that perpetuating the strategy that we have in Iraq is costing us elsewhere, not only in Afghanistan, but also investments that we could be making here at home. </blockquote>

A) We were greeted as liberators.
B) Be consistent and ask, what are the costs and benefits of the Afghanistan War?
C) If you’re going to ask a question and then answer it, please humbly answer it fully. You gave a detailed response to the costs of Iraq, where are the benefits?

 

<blockquote>Imagine what we could have done with $200 billion invested in clean energy technology and figuring out how we’re going to raise.</blockquote>

I do not have to imagine, actually.  and it was as wasted as you think it has been wasted in Iraq. The world invested just over that amount; 200 billion dollars. It’s expected to grow greatly over the next decades. But did new wind technology, more efficient or anything, come out of 2007, half way through 2008? Not that the American public knows about. And if it’s simply about building wind plants, that’s uterly stupid.

<blockquote>Where Senator McCain I think is confused is the difference between tactics and strategy. I am absolutely convinced that, strategically, it is time for us to bring this war to an end.</blockquote>

The second sentence compares to Obama’s January 10, 2007 statement, “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going solve the secartarian violence and in fact I think it’ll do the reverse.”  
When he’s not persuaded, he couldn’t have been more wrong, but now he’s absolutely convinced… Of course, what would be strategically best, will actually never come into light, as whether or not the world is better off without Saddam ruling Iraq.

 

   In conclusion, Obama continues to politicize the Iraq War by over playing the negatives of any war while downplaying the success of the specific war, simultaneously treating the Afghanistan War with reality based outlooks, expressing what he thinks is best regardless of financial costs or strain on the military. And on energy, the economy, he continues the long used Democratic strategy of saying to do what’s already being done by President Bush or by the country without government aid. That is, we’re investing huge amounts of money into solar, wind, and even bio fuels; basically Obama says to through more money at it and this is not really a policy. He says about the part of the broken economy he actually has a solution for,
<blockquote>And so much of this could have been prevented if we had had stronger oversight on the subprime lending market, if we had implemented some simple reforms around Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, if we had had some serious efforts to curb predatory lending, a lot of these problems that we’ve seen could have been prevented.</blockquote> 
I’d have to research it, but how many times over the last four years has Democratic Congressional official attempt to pass laws to prevent the current crisis? I know how many they passed since taking control of Congress in 2007; 0. A new kind of politician, change the way Washington works, thousands of words, zero action.

Obama the Liar

johnMcCain.com released an attack advertsiment on Obama’s Iraq record beginning in November 2003 and ending this month.

It’s a fair portrayal of Obama’s political nature. A tid bit over drawn about his flip-flopping on the success of the surge.

 At one point, during an interview, (due to what seems to be feedback delays) nods and says ”sure” to the question, “you said you would leave a small force” and once the reporter finished the entire question said, no he didn’t intend to leave a force tofight terrorism. This isn’t significant but just ironic.

Offshore Drilling in New Light

Certain aspects of off-shore drilling are debateable. Will it be 5, 7,10 years or 2030 before benefits are seen? How large would those benefits be?

But one benefit that seemingly has been overlooked is not the affect on the price of gasoline more supply will perhaps have, but instead the affect of more supply from American companies will have on Iranian oil.

Isolating Iran is the indisputed path taken by the western countries concerned about Iranian nuclear ambitions, however, China and Russia have resisted the isolating sanctions from the U.N. up to this point.

With more oil of its ‘own’ in its arsenal, the US has the option available to supply a certain amout of oil, or even refined gasoline to China or Russia in order to remove each nations’ opposition to west’s wishes regarding Iran.

If the Democrats are correct in their assesment of how offshore drilling will affect prices at the pump, perhaps this option would be extremely attractive for America and if it can be made attractive to China and or Russia, then it would seemingly be a tremendous step in the right direction for the west in ending Iran’s nuclear program without relying on military action.

One element that seems to be left out of the offshore drilling debate is the notion that not only is it important for America to drop its dependency on Middle Easten oil, but the entire world to do the same.

The Political Issue of Cuba

Today, Barack Obama spoke in southern Florida, and in so doing strived for three apparent goals. These goals are strengthen his grip as the candidate of change perception, continue his and his counter-part John McCain’s struggle against one another in the debate over what direction American foreign policy should take, and lastly his strove to undermine the Republican Party in general when it comes to the issue of Cuba. Obviously only in the hours following his speech, it would be unfair to assess the success or lack thereof of his three ventures, however, it is only fair to assess the quality of his attempts, which is what I have decided to do with the rest of this article.

Obama begins his speech, first with an attack On the President and blames the Iraq War for a vacuum in Latin America.

Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been… incapable of advancing our interests in the region. No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum.

This is what one gets when he makes such divisive claims, language that comes across as condescending and overly nationalist. This language continues on as he seemingly claims the United States has sole responsibility to challenge such figures as Chavez. One can only conclude this is an accidental jab at the rest of the Americas as being helpless in regard to challenging Chavez’s “stale vision.” And because the rest of the Americas are in such a helpless state, that is why the United States can no longer “continue as a bystander” but must lead the Americas.

Besides seemingly condescending the role of Latin America in order to emphasis the failures of President Bush, and John McCain’s endorsement of said failures, Obama goes on to advocate hawkish Republican foreign policy. He goes as far to quote Martin Luther King Jr. saying that, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Before I move on to the more political savvy section of Obama’s speech, a footnote for the record, Hugo Chavez assumed power of his current position 23 months prior to President Bush taking office, and during those months made great progress in changing the government of Venezuela into its modern day form. So, this section of the speech was nothing but political punches by blaming for Latin America’s development, no one but a Republican party that had very little responsibility in Latin America’s development over the last decade.

Then, Obama narrows his punches to McCain, as he moves onward to Cuba, and he does so so cleverly, conveying the height of the nature of politicians.

I won’t stand for this injustice, you won’t stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba. Now I know what the easy thing is to do for American politicians. Every four years, they come down to Miami, they talk tough… That’s what John McCain did the other day. He joined the parade of politicians who make the same empty promises year after year, decade after decade… That’s the political posture that John McCain has chosen, and all it shows is that you can’t take his so-called straight talk seriously.

This is clever because he gives his words and his promises legitimacy by accusing past politicians of doing the exact same thing he himself is doing. Even if you’d like to argue that Obama deserves his chance, at the time of his speech, his promises were as empty as McCain’s were the other day. Basically, if John McCain makes promises and there isn’t any change one week later in Cuba, well then it was all political posturing because he’s forgotten, already about the Cubans.  

This is because, Barack Obama, not John McCain, is the candidate of change. And therefore, regardless of time passed, McCain’s promises of change are nothing but empty promises, while Obama’s from the time they come from his mouth are whole-hearted guaranteed to happen.

Lastly, I would like to challenge everyone to listen to or read the speeches given by Obama and McCain and closely compare the language and style each man uses. McCain is short and very to the point, and Obama is lifted and elegant. That is, I claim, why Republicans and Democrats, alike, think of McCain when they hear the expression “straight talk.” Even in his brief attacks on his opponents, McCain didn’t make claims, he criticizes the facts on their policy, and Obama typically makes claims, such as the empty promise claim.

As it might be in the world of today, the Cuban issue is hardly visible it’s so meager, but however small it is, the two speeches given by the two presumed candidates for president conveys very well my reasons for endorsing McCain over Obama.

That said, however, I am entirely opposed to the positions of both men. Cuba is an enemy of 1960 America, not the America of 2008. There is no quality argument that claims it threatens America more than Venezuela, which America trades with normally (albeit because of oil, mostly).

I am for an entire lift of the Cuban embargo. The country of Cuba is not at all a security threat to America, I view trade with Cuba as producing the same kind of results in regards to diplomatic relations as it has done with China. The dictators do not subscribe to the violent extremist views of a religion, such as the dictators of Iran do, and thus trade can be used as leverage and should be used because in my mind it is the best way to get Cuba to give its citizens more liberty.

So, it is with that, the notion that I probably agree more with Obama than I do with McCain on the issue of how to grant Cubans liberty, that I end my segment of why I’ve become more distant from Obama and closer to McCain. Because of the way each man plays the game of politics.     

Getting gritty with legal rulings

Loving v. Virginia is a famous court case in the late 1960s that made all state marriage laws unconstitutional that restricted marriage based on racial difference between the two marrying parties. However, the Loving ruling was misguided. The majority opinion, given by Chief Justice Earl Warren, made the conclusion that marriage was, “fundamental to our very existence and survival,” when in fact this is not causal. If Americans stopped marrying one another (not marrying any, regardless of nationality), the basic status of being alive or  existing for Americans (or for that matter man, humans, as a whole) would not be affected. The actual requirement for existence, sexual reproduction, is not so connected to marriage that, whereas marriage ceased to exist, so it would follow.

The Warren Court’s ruling also established (or reaffirmed) another principle, which some may wish to argue depends on the above clause;”fundamental to our very existence and survival.” This principle is the idea that, “[m]arriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man.’ ” And this, I concur. Marriage does seem fundamental in the ability of people to express their thoughts and feelings, which would be covered by the first amendment.

By that ruling, seemingly same-sex marital bans are not only an argument relevant to the 14th amendment, but added are relevant to the first amendment, as well.

Some have applied the right of marriage to the ninth amendment, which is more established legally, than a 1st amendment argument. And since it means the same thing regarding the 14th amendment, this is fine.*

But the misguidance in the majority opinion stating, “fundamental to our very existence and survival“ allowed the future ruling of the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker V. Nelson, and such a ruling is the binding precedent on same-sex marriage bans regarding the U.S. Constitution, however wrong.

Justice Peterson of Minnesota opines: The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state’s classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination.

And if a ban on same-sex marriage is not motivated by irrational or invidious discrimination, there is only one other motive for such a ban. The protection of the thing, as by law established, that is “fundamental to our very existence and survival“; marriage. The petitioners tried to say that under that notion of marriage that only a couple willing or able to procreate should be granted a marriage license. Not an entirely unruly argument, however, it is weak and vulnerable. The response of the justices was that this was imperfect; basically that it would violate the fourth amendment as evidenced in Griswold v. Connecticut. This can only be seen as the justices using the correct interpretation, the one of which should obligate them to accept same-sex marriage, of the law to dismiss the notion that procreation is fundamental to tradition marriage. Albeit the justices’ logic is inconsistent (like I said the petitioners’ argument was fair enough), my initial criticism of the legally establish notion of marriage as being connected to our existence seems to be more sound. *

In 1996, the Rehnquist Court, albeit Rehnquist dissented, ruled on Romer v. Evans, opening the door for argument in support of same-sex marriage beyond Loving v. Virginia. Justice Kennedy gave the majority opinion, which coincidentally could merely be pasted into the argument against the current state definition of marriage because it fits so perfectly. Justice Kennedy opined,

In any event, even if, as we doubt, homosexuals could find some safe harbor in laws of general application, we cannot accept the view that Amendment 2’s prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.

This opinion made unconstitutional Proposition 2, a Colorado law that forbid anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. Particularly interesting in regards to the argument in support of same-sex marriage is the last clause, “Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.” The idea portrayed by the word ’safeguards’ seems very relevant to the idea of marriage. There are numerous benefits, as well as a few safeguards, given to an individual when he or she goes into a marriage, which because of the marital oaths that are required a homosexual person cannot do legitimately. Such an argument appears weaker than other arguments because homosexuals are still able, however illegitimately, to marry the opposite sex. And, perhaps unfortunately, the only route used to justify this argument affects polygamist marriages, as well. The justification for restrictions seemingly has to be involved to a degree of state’s interest. And while polygamy gets into a complicated bout over taxes, and social wellfare programs, same-sex marriages in no reasonable manner harms the interest of any state, and therefore excluding homosexuals from a marriage, other than those null and void is unconstitutionally irrationally discrimiatory.

*Stanza was added April 25, 2009

The Struggle for Liberty through Marriage

I have become torn between what I know is rightfully acceptable and what appears to be legal in the United States.

I know that it is right for a 90 year old man who is in his right mind to marry a 22 year old woman.

I know that it is right for a white man to marry a black woman, or vice versa.

I know that it is right for a rich woman to marry a poor man.

I know that all of these marriages should be acceptable regardless of what state the two people live, however, if a state was to amend its constitution to ban any of the above marriages, it seemingly would not violate the US constitution, and thus would be completely legal all around.

It seems clear that these things are discriminatory, but discrimination isn’t illegal on the face of it. Or is it?

Somewhat obvious, as none of the above are controversial issues, this is about same-sex marriage. It really tears me apart that there remains legal discrimination within this very good system simply because of the men and women who continue to control the system.

Regardless of how illegal is a law, it will never be overturned by judges who rule based on tradition, which is based on politics.

 State bans on same sex marriage is illegal, unconstitional, not because it discriminates based on sexual orientation, but because it discriminates based on sex, which is clearly covered in civil right acts and through supreme court rulings based on the 14th amendment. Well, that’s legally, but ethically, the 14th amendment should cover protection that includes things that are not harmful or illegal.

If Marriage is a 1st amendment right, which it really should be, then restricting marriage beyond doing so for the direct safety of human beings is unlawful infringement.

The Roger Clemens Story

Hall of Fame for Clemens? Try Hall of Shame
Clemens fails in attempt at damage control 
Clemens shelled by Congress

   Now, admittedly, this isn’t very important news, which means I really haven’t been giving much time to keeping up with the updates. I didn’t even know that Clemens testified today, until I saw the headline on yahoo, and as a very big baseball fan, I’m a little interested in it, so I read the yahoo story (the 3rd headline) and while reading the article and having no idea what actually was said other than the quotes in the article, it became painfully obvious that something was amiss. It was late and it took me a second or so to realize I was reading a yahoo news story, and yahoo isn’t a “news” company, so that certainly had something to do with it. So, I went to MSNBC.com, which is my usual source of news in print. And to my surprise, both stories I read there, as well, were full of very opinionated negatives about Clemens’ testimony, without actually reporting what was said specifically. So I watched a clip of the actual testimony and finally got to some actual facts, and certain things came to me immediately, that the journalist didn’t mention, out of three.

     There seems to be two major issues with Clemens’ being the one telling the truth. First, Mcnamee accused two other players, who comfirmed his accusations as true, so why would he tell the truth about two and lie about the other? And, second, Andy Pettite, a neutral party from all we know, has given testimony against Clemens. Now to the first issue: If anyone has ever studied the art of persuation, they know that this technique (if it were a technique used by Mcnamee) is one of the best. It’s such an important element of persuation, in fact, I bet it actually has a name, which unfortunately I’m unaware of. You want someone to believe a really big lie, so you tell the truth about smaller irrelevant things to build credibility. That’s why it’s completely irrelevant what Mcnamee said about anything else, except Clemens. If Mcnamee has a motive to lie about giving Clemens HGH, then he has a motive to lie. Telling the truth about something else doesn’t do away with that. And this is where I become irrate with the journalists.

   Roger Clemens is a dull, chubby, middle aged millionare whose never had to think to make his way in his life. His inability to come up with a reason why Mcnamee would lie in his case, just means Clemens is stupid, not guilty of HGH use. But the journalist are not supposed to be as stupid as a guy who can make a buck throwing a ball into a glove well. They’re supposed to clearly see that this Mcnamee guy supposedly saved the syringes from 6 or 7 years ago. If he knew what Clemens taking HGH in 2001 meant at the time enough to save syringes, he surely knew whenever he was interviewed for the Mitchell report. Now I’m not saying I don’t believe Mcnamee, I’m just saying that it painfully obviously possible that he knew he’d given Clemens’ wife HGH and knew he’d become very well known if he threw in a BIG name into the hat along with the miniscule Chuck Knoblauch and pretty good sized, albeit not ”arguably the best pitcher of our life time”, not even (in my book) a hall of famer… Andy Pettite. They’d just be more names in the 88 names named in the report. So, when asked the question why would Mcnamee tell the truth about Pettite and Kboblauch, but lie about Clemens, my answer is to become famous, and possibly to shift the “your a criminal” spotlight off of himself, which the smaller two names couldn’t do. This goes to a question asked by Congressmen Elijah Cummings about Mcnamee pridicting the future. Clemens said he didn’t know, but I say it all goes back to the saved syringes! Mcnamee knew what was going on, and he knew he was a big time drug mover, and obviously he’s smart enough to know those sorts of people get into trouble with the law. So, all in all, to me using the fact that Mcnamee named two people truthfully along with Clemens is a bugus way of measuring if he’s told the truth about Clemens.

So, to the second issue facing Clemens, Pettite’s testimony. Well, this will be short because it’s utterly straight foward. Andy Pettite, like Roger Clemens, is not an intellectual, he doesn’t necessarily have an above average memory, or even an average one at that. After all, he’s gone an entire baseball career taking all kinds of medications, pain killers, muscle relaxers, and even HGH (which admittedly i have noidea if it worsens the memory) but the point is twofold. If we assume that Clemens’ wife did get injected with HGH, which I haven’t heard anyone deny, so it’s completely fair to assume so, then a conversation that went something like:
Roger: Hey, Andy, can you believe my wife got HGH for a photo shoot from Micky?
Andy: HAHA. I used that for my leg, it really helped, I ain’t ever heard of something like that.
Roger: Did it really help that much without any side effects?
Andy: Yeah, it did. You thinking about?
Roger: Yeah I’m thinking about it, doing this shit at 40 is hard.    

Very possibly gets distorted after 5 years of thinking nothing about it. To an outsider it may seem like an event that Andy would remember forever because of what would be at stake, but these two guys are supposedly really close and both famous enough to feel invincible… not to mention that Andy took the same stuff, so he wouldn’t have reacted so strongly to it…

Again this isn’t to say that what happened was Pettite used HGH explicitly because Clemens told of his use, so a good memory of the conversation wouldn’t be out of the question at all. So, again my not being updated on this whole story is a hinderance to actually judging whether or not Clemens used HGH or not… which I’m actually kind of lean toward that he did use it.

Luckily, all that I meant to do with this is rant about how bias the coverage on the story really is, and that it’s pitiable that the media so badly wants Clemens to be lying that they see everything he does and says as evidence of his lies.

Why I don’t understand Liberalism, and…

Perhaps the most mainstream American liberal, right now, is a man running for the United States Presidency named Barack Obama. So, I will use his stance/voting record on issues as my source of an example of liberal agenda.

Now, the central idea of this article is the role of government and the motivations for why people think it should take a certain role. In general a liberal is defined as someone who wants government to stay out of moral (day to day activities) issues, an extreme of this, for example, is no censorship at all on television/in movies, etc., and also wants government monitored economy; for example the most liberal of a person is a socialist, a system that gives control of all production (of all the economy) to the government or “whole of society”.  

   Now, there are a few reasons for someone to be liberal (similar to conservativism) and probably more than I can imagine, but I conceive of two broad reasons. First, (and I want to take the time to point out that I speak to true liberals, not the people who simply want to do whatever they want. I think there are differences)… First, it speaks to how a person wants to live. Government monitoring standardizes, and if government monitered every day life, every day life would be standardized. And standardization is really only good for certain ideas and usually efficiency is central, and I think that’s a key idea in the liberal ideology, that of opposing the idea that efficiency is important enough that the beauty of and in the world gets forgotten, for its sake. And it is there, that there exists beauty in every day life, on the ‘nuts and bolts’ level of how people interact and go about their lives, that a liberal person cherishes, to a degree. Perhaps best said in short that human choice is beatuiful. Second, is a variation of the first and drives more toward politics. Fear of political government corruption. This is separate from concerns that efficiency will take away from personal choice, because it’s stronger, conveying the idea that government has to be restricted by law because if it isn’t, then it will discriminate and oppress, inherently. And here is where I’ll bring in Senator Obama to talk about certan specific issues; health care and FISA (national security), at least.

    Obama, like previous mentioned, is a beacon for American Liberalism, which admittedly isn’t very competitive with European liberalism, but nonetheless I am in America and 3 or 4 days a week would willingly call myself so, so I’m exlimplifying Obama. (My point encompasses all liberals to the left of Obama, though). On the issue of health care, Obama, like liberals, want to reform laws to permit the government the scope of giving health care universally to those who cannot afford it; this would include lowering the price of health care, as well, I think. Simultaneously, Obama and liberals alike,  condemn the idea of reforming laws that would give this same government more scope in monitoring suspected threats as a means to strengthen national security. And here is where I say big government doesn’t fit, sensibly, into the liberal ideology. People cannot fear government… at the same time they want to trust it with more of their and other’s money, can they? No, it’s idiotic, absolutely. If people are going to be cynical of government when it comes to what government would do with the new FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), then shouldn’t a cynic keep that mindset when it comes to what the government would do with more money? A good example of this could be the border security act of 2006 that allowed a 700 mile fence to be constructed, but was not funded for a while and then is now being constructed at a controversial pace. Should not a cynic be a cynic?

  Health care and FISA amendments would reform laws because right now both would probably be unconstitutional. Government ran health care, grinding the line with the 9th or 10th amendment, somewhat at least, and FISA amendments the 4th amendment.

 I’m not suggesting that universal health care legislation should be opposed because of fear of big government, what I am saying is that things like FISA should not be opposed because of fear of government. And I’ve tried to say this by pointing out the contradiction in liberal ideology in expecting the government to making life better with one issue, but fearing how bad life will become if that same government does something else with a separate issue. Civil liberities and rights are not dependent on government restriction. But back to the point, even if you believe that they are dependent on government restriction, you cannot then unrestrict that same entity, it just doesn’t make any sense.

In conclusion, the second reason to be a liberal, I gave, doesn’t make sense when thinking about the general idea of what makes a person liberal. You cannot fear big government in everyday life, but want the same government to be big in the economy. And likewise, if the second reason to be a liberal is to be ignored because it isn’t sensible, then, we still have the first reason, and that reason wouldn’t oppose FISA amendments because the amendments do not affect 99.9% of the American public’s way of living day to day activities in the minds of those who aren’t cynics.

And a more recent development, I’ve come across two conservative issues that I’m concerned about. For a very long time, Conservatives have been screaming about their second amendment rights. But more recently, they’ve began screaming about God’s will and how there needs to be a 28th amendment restricting marriage to a man and woman. Now, I’ve yet to attain enough infomation to state a firm stance on these two things, but on the face of things, I’m asking how’s owning a gun holy? And even further, how’s it not unholy and indeed very secular? And if it is so, then you must choose on which foundation you use to form your principles. I’ll be asking devout religious people about guns and so on, and come back to this, hopefully, later on.

   For the sake of transparency, I guess, I disagree with universal health care because I think it would require too much money from certain people, and take away from the individuality of Americans, even more, taking that much money from someone; but I do think reform is needed in health care and the insurance industry as a whole, something noone is talking about. I support the FISA amendments because I trust the government to use them for security purposes and not oppresive purposes. I don’t necessarily want to ban guns, but I think great reform is needed. Oh, and same sex marriage has my vote. I think the term marriage is religious, but I don’t have any problems with the government using the word in spite of that, but the point for me is the rights that go along with a “marriage”. So, whatever it’s called I’m in favor of two adults getting married and getting those rights.