“Ain’t it a wonderful country?”
By B------M--
Front Page Editor
Four emotions drift through my mind after reading about what this country’s senators are up to: attaching spending appropriations to legislation that is fiscally irresponsible. I feel initial interest, momentary impassivity, infuriation, and then hopelessness. Up until the time I picked up the newest GQ issue with Jake Gyllenhaal’s face plastered on the front, I chose to be aware of only a certain amount of information about what goes on in the world outside of my own.
There are times when I really read up on international and U.S. politics, and there are times when I simply don’t care about the world around me when I am pit deep with my own troubles. I don’t directly feel the repercussions of this country’s $9 trillion national debt, nor do I really face many social problems like racial mistreatment and economic challenges. Let’s face it; most Americans are living in the same state of indifference that I am.
The more you know, the less you know. What am I supposed to do with the information I attain from reading? These past few years have taught me that I can’t do anything, nothing that will really make a difference. I find that really sad. What am I supposed to do with the anger towards the Bush administration and the direction this country has turned to? Nobody ever talks about action.
The word “revolution” is always used and the word “fight” is also thrown around a lot whenever I hear someone talking about change. I don’t see the reasoning in being aggressive. What is it going to get me? To get anyone? It’s insured you will lose. Look at Cindy Sheehan. As far as I can see, she hasn’t really changed the Bush administration’s grip on continuing to send troops to Iraq. She goes out and tries to make change. I haven’t seen much change as far as I can tell. I can’t sacrifice myself for society. Fear of failure wins over any “change” I desire. And maybe therein lies the problem to the citizens of the United States: Ignorance is bliss.
Information is useless if we don’t care for it. Why is it that the public doesn’t talk about the $500 billion we borrow from China every year even when up until a year ago almost every major U.S. newspaper publication was accusing them of building up their nuclear weapons to prepare for a “cold war” with us? These accusations were highly exaggerated and that isn’t important to the people here because we’d much rather talk about what happened last night on Grey’s Anatomy and American Idol. Why dwell on these grim topics when the Senators and Congressman in this country are supposed to do that for us?
The simple fact is U.S. Senators and Congressmen are taking advantage of our indifferences. Last year, something was slipped under the 2006 Transportation Budget: a personal project in Alaska that allocated $223 million on a bridge connecting 50 people of Gravina Island to the coast. Do 50 people really need a bridge worth over $200 million so they can get to the coast when this money could be spent on something more important for people who really need the money? For example, people who really live in hopeless poverty in this country.
I understand how some Senators push for their personal state projects to be passed that are within reason, e.g. the large amount of money that will be directed to the municipal system in San Francisco or other such projects, but there are a whole lot of personal projects that should never see the inside of the Senate floor. Does Senator Robert C. Byrd really need an expressway, drive, industrial park, high school, or international transportation center named after him? How big of an ego can you have to use your taxpayer’s money for such superficial things?
The American people should be extremely discouraged to read up on issues they should be taking seriously. With all the power and control these senators have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on these personal state projects that are government waste, what can we really do to stop them?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Saturday, March 18, 2006
The U.S. and China: A Looming Checkmate
The U.S. and China: A Looming Checkmate
Date: March 20, 2006
The two leading countries of the 21st century are the United States and China. They are poised to self-destruct the world as we know it. This article will explain, from my point of view, why I believe this and why I think they will be playing an ongoing chess game with the other for decades to come.
First things first, China will not be able to match up with the United States’ air force and military capabilities for a long while. While the rest of the world’s combined warships only add up to 3.04 million tons, America has a full load displacement of 2.86 million tons. How much does China have? Their navy’s warships only add up to 263,064 tons. China has zero aircraft carriers while the United States has twenty-four. Having this in mind, why would Bush’s administration and the American media continuously stress about China’s 14 percent increase in military spending like they were preparing to declare war on say hypothetically the United States or Taiwan? They want to create fear in the American public. The reason? The Bush Administration has switched China’s status from strategic partner to enemy. With the military advancements China is establishing with the diesel-powered and nuclear-powered submarines, America feels they have lost their footing with the containment of China’s progress into the 21st century.
Second thing you need to know, I am a rookie. Everything I have said so far is not even close to a U.S.-China policy expert’s analysis. I can only tell you what I know. So if you feel like everything you have read so far is completely idiotic, feel free to stop reading now.
You’re still with me here? Wow, I had no idea a 17-year-old could hold your attention. Let’s move onto economics and world trade now shall we? America sees China’s economic and technological improvements as a threat. China is building better relations with regions in Asia and Australia. There is a huge invested interest in China from corporations and industries. China is a huge appeal to the world market because of Beijing’s race to catch up with the rest of the world as long as economics and drastic improvements of living within the country are concerned. They are on a non-stop race to meet the requirements of a First-World country standard for their country.
Ok, I’m almost done here. Just stay with me for a couple more minutes. The U.S. Pacific Command, otherwise known as PACOM, will be strategically attempting to create alliances with nations surrounding China. It is a chess move to isolate China’s alliances with Asian countries. A big part of the chess game between the United States and China right now is Taiwan. The only hold the United States have on the nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran is through China while it is the same case with China on the issue of Taiwan’s continuous attempts to declare independence. These games will continue for decades with military build-ups, economic markets, and strong disposable chess pieces. The only question is when will someone call checkmate and one powerful nation loses.
---
Article Clippings
"... functional substitute for NATO of the Pacific already exists... the U.S. Pacific Command, known as PACOM. --- PACOM represents a much purer version of Bismarck's imperial superstructure."
"China, unlike the Soviet Union of old, boasts soft as well as hard power. Businesspeople love the idea of China; you don't have to beg them to invest there... China's mixture of traditional authoritarianism and market economics has broad cultural appeal throughout Asia and other parts of the world... because China is improving the material well-being of hundreds of millions of its citizens, the plight of its dissidents does not have quite the same market allure as did the plight of the Soviet Union's Sakharovs and Sharanskys."
"China has committed itself to significant military spending, but as navy and air force will not be able to match ours for some decades. The Chinese are therefore not going to do us the favor of engaging in conventional air and naval battles, like those fought in the Pacific during World War II. Instead the Chinese will approach us asymmetrically, as terrorists do. In Iraq the insurgents have shown us the low end of asymmetry, with car bombs. But the Chinese are poised to show us the high end of the art. That is the treat."
(How We Would Fight China by Robert D. Kaplan - The Atlantic Monthly)
"On the US side, by redefining China as its rival rather than strategic partner, the Bush Administration indicates that China is not at the key position in its Asian and Pacific policies. However, in China's foreign policies, the United States is important both economically and strategically, especially when dealing with the Taiwan issue."
(China and the US: A Unique Relationship by Zhu Shida - China.org.cn)
"Bush's recently agreement to condone India's nuclear weapons program and supply nuclear aid to India, has also underscored concerns in Australia that the United States is trying to forge closer military cooperation with countries that encircle China."
(U.S and Australia Take Different Tones on China's Rising Power by Steven R. Weisman - The New York Times)
"A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director of national intelligence --- blames excessive secrecy on China's part --- of growing Chinese military capabilities. --- Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames intelligence collectors for not gathering solid information --- and for failing to plant agents in the communist government."
(Analysts missed Chinese buildup by Bill Gertz - The Washington Times)
Date: March 20, 2006
The two leading countries of the 21st century are the United States and China. They are poised to self-destruct the world as we know it. This article will explain, from my point of view, why I believe this and why I think they will be playing an ongoing chess game with the other for decades to come.
First things first, China will not be able to match up with the United States’ air force and military capabilities for a long while. While the rest of the world’s combined warships only add up to 3.04 million tons, America has a full load displacement of 2.86 million tons. How much does China have? Their navy’s warships only add up to 263,064 tons. China has zero aircraft carriers while the United States has twenty-four. Having this in mind, why would Bush’s administration and the American media continuously stress about China’s 14 percent increase in military spending like they were preparing to declare war on say hypothetically the United States or Taiwan? They want to create fear in the American public. The reason? The Bush Administration has switched China’s status from strategic partner to enemy. With the military advancements China is establishing with the diesel-powered and nuclear-powered submarines, America feels they have lost their footing with the containment of China’s progress into the 21st century.
Second thing you need to know, I am a rookie. Everything I have said so far is not even close to a U.S.-China policy expert’s analysis. I can only tell you what I know. So if you feel like everything you have read so far is completely idiotic, feel free to stop reading now.
You’re still with me here? Wow, I had no idea a 17-year-old could hold your attention. Let’s move onto economics and world trade now shall we? America sees China’s economic and technological improvements as a threat. China is building better relations with regions in Asia and Australia. There is a huge invested interest in China from corporations and industries. China is a huge appeal to the world market because of Beijing’s race to catch up with the rest of the world as long as economics and drastic improvements of living within the country are concerned. They are on a non-stop race to meet the requirements of a First-World country standard for their country.
Ok, I’m almost done here. Just stay with me for a couple more minutes. The U.S. Pacific Command, otherwise known as PACOM, will be strategically attempting to create alliances with nations surrounding China. It is a chess move to isolate China’s alliances with Asian countries. A big part of the chess game between the United States and China right now is Taiwan. The only hold the United States have on the nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran is through China while it is the same case with China on the issue of Taiwan’s continuous attempts to declare independence. These games will continue for decades with military build-ups, economic markets, and strong disposable chess pieces. The only question is when will someone call checkmate and one powerful nation loses.
---
Article Clippings
"... functional substitute for NATO of the Pacific already exists... the U.S. Pacific Command, known as PACOM. --- PACOM represents a much purer version of Bismarck's imperial superstructure."
"China, unlike the Soviet Union of old, boasts soft as well as hard power. Businesspeople love the idea of China; you don't have to beg them to invest there... China's mixture of traditional authoritarianism and market economics has broad cultural appeal throughout Asia and other parts of the world... because China is improving the material well-being of hundreds of millions of its citizens, the plight of its dissidents does not have quite the same market allure as did the plight of the Soviet Union's Sakharovs and Sharanskys."
"China has committed itself to significant military spending, but as navy and air force will not be able to match ours for some decades. The Chinese are therefore not going to do us the favor of engaging in conventional air and naval battles, like those fought in the Pacific during World War II. Instead the Chinese will approach us asymmetrically, as terrorists do. In Iraq the insurgents have shown us the low end of asymmetry, with car bombs. But the Chinese are poised to show us the high end of the art. That is the treat."
(How We Would Fight China by Robert D. Kaplan - The Atlantic Monthly)
"On the US side, by redefining China as its rival rather than strategic partner, the Bush Administration indicates that China is not at the key position in its Asian and Pacific policies. However, in China's foreign policies, the United States is important both economically and strategically, especially when dealing with the Taiwan issue."
(China and the US: A Unique Relationship by Zhu Shida - China.org.cn)
"Bush's recently agreement to condone India's nuclear weapons program and supply nuclear aid to India, has also underscored concerns in Australia that the United States is trying to forge closer military cooperation with countries that encircle China."
(U.S and Australia Take Different Tones on China's Rising Power by Steven R. Weisman - The New York Times)
"A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director of national intelligence --- blames excessive secrecy on China's part --- of growing Chinese military capabilities. --- Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames intelligence collectors for not gathering solid information --- and for failing to plant agents in the communist government."
(Analysts missed Chinese buildup by Bill Gertz - The Washington Times)
Monday, February 20, 2006
Half-Year Review Time
Best Two Films I've Seen in the last 6 Months:
Casanova
Going into the movie, I had a confident feeling it would not disappoint the impression it created from the trailer. Happily, I was right to think so and far surpassed what I was expecting. Throughout the movie, the dialogue did not let up for one second. Casanova has a great supporting cast who all contributed to hilarious one-liners. Heath Ledger and Sienna Miller's performances kept the movie going in a satirical race to the finish. All kinds of identities with a great all-around cast and fast-pace dialogues mixed into one film? How can you not love it?
Match Point
Being a first-timer to Woody Allen's films, I realized why he has the reputation that he does. What drove the movie forward was Scarlett Johannson's character development performance turns from being seductive to lust to need/desperation. Woody Allen brought out the desperations a lower class upbringing does to a human who is willing to do anything to maintain a social status. What is it with society forcing the idea to attain riches and stability? Other social issues depicted in the movie involved blocking out the truth in situations, a psychological fight between comfort/status and lust/human hunger, and how much you really fake life.
Worst Two Films I've Seen in the last 6 Months:
Good Night, and Good Luck
Coming from a generation whose main focus is technological advancements and being self-involved, I could not relate to the era this movie is based on. There was too much dialogue for my own taste and wished a bomb could have exploded on-screen to bring some excitement to my movie experience. On the other hand, David Strathairn and Ray Wise both received my attention with their performances. Other than the black and white cinematography, I was almost asleep by the time the movie finished. Unfortunately for the movie, my dad has fallen asleep long before it reached its ending.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Oh where do I start here? How about all the scenes they cut out of the movie from the book? What were they thinking with the whole Yule Tide Ball? And why was there a scene with Harry and Harmione sharing some kind of love-lorn moment in the movie? Walking into the theatre with high hopes of being entertained, I left the theatre extremely disappointed. The cgi was overdone. Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint had horrible hair stylists. The underwater scene was a huge letdown. All in all, I think I am going to be sticking with the books if the movie series continues in this direction.
Casanova
Going into the movie, I had a confident feeling it would not disappoint the impression it created from the trailer. Happily, I was right to think so and far surpassed what I was expecting. Throughout the movie, the dialogue did not let up for one second. Casanova has a great supporting cast who all contributed to hilarious one-liners. Heath Ledger and Sienna Miller's performances kept the movie going in a satirical race to the finish. All kinds of identities with a great all-around cast and fast-pace dialogues mixed into one film? How can you not love it?
Match Point
Being a first-timer to Woody Allen's films, I realized why he has the reputation that he does. What drove the movie forward was Scarlett Johannson's character development performance turns from being seductive to lust to need/desperation. Woody Allen brought out the desperations a lower class upbringing does to a human who is willing to do anything to maintain a social status. What is it with society forcing the idea to attain riches and stability? Other social issues depicted in the movie involved blocking out the truth in situations, a psychological fight between comfort/status and lust/human hunger, and how much you really fake life.
Worst Two Films I've Seen in the last 6 Months:
Good Night, and Good Luck
Coming from a generation whose main focus is technological advancements and being self-involved, I could not relate to the era this movie is based on. There was too much dialogue for my own taste and wished a bomb could have exploded on-screen to bring some excitement to my movie experience. On the other hand, David Strathairn and Ray Wise both received my attention with their performances. Other than the black and white cinematography, I was almost asleep by the time the movie finished. Unfortunately for the movie, my dad has fallen asleep long before it reached its ending.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Oh where do I start here? How about all the scenes they cut out of the movie from the book? What were they thinking with the whole Yule Tide Ball? And why was there a scene with Harry and Harmione sharing some kind of love-lorn moment in the movie? Walking into the theatre with high hopes of being entertained, I left the theatre extremely disappointed. The cgi was overdone. Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint had horrible hair stylists. The underwater scene was a huge letdown. All in all, I think I am going to be sticking with the books if the movie series continues in this direction.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
List of 2005 Movies I've Seen
I'm just going to get straight to the point. The list I'm looking at is sourced from The New York Times and a couple of other sources.
- Aeon Flux - Good
- Batman Begins - Ok
- Bewitched - Ok
- The Brothers Grimm - Good
- Casanova - As Good As It Can Get
- Coach Carter - Good
- Crash - Very Good
- Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story - Ok
- Elizabethtown - Very Good
- The Family Stone - As Good As It Can Get
- Fantastic Four - Very Good
- Fever Pitch - Very Good
- Good Night, and Good Luck - Barely Ok
- The Greatest Game Ever Played - As Good As It Can Get
- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - Bad
- Herbie: Fully Loaded - Good
- Hitch - Very Good
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Bad
- Howl's Moving Castle - Very Good
- Hustle and Flow - As Good As It Can Get
- In the Mix - Good
- Initial D - Very Good except for the vomit-like romance parts
- Just Friends - Good
- Kingdom of Heaven - Very Good but I wouldn't watch it again
- Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang - As Good As It Can Get
- A Lot Like Love - Good
- Madagascar - Bad except for the penguins
- Memoirs of a Geisha - Very Good
- Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous - Barely Ok
- Mr. and Mrs. Smith - Very Good
- Munich - As Good As It Can Get
- Must Love Dogs - Good
- Oliver Twist - Good
- Pride & Prejudice - The Too Perfect Movie of the Year (it is unratable)
- Prime - As Good As It Can Get
- Robots - Ok
- Rumor Has It - Very Good
- Sin City - Very Good
- The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants - Very Good
- Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith - Ok
- Syriana - Good
- Tim Burton's Corpse Bride - Ok
- Transporter 2 - Very Good
- The Upside of Anger - Good
- Walk the Line - As Good As It Can Get
- Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit - Good
- Zathura: A Space Adventure - Very Good
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Saturday, December 10, 2005
something corporate
that was just a random title. um.. what to talk about. *scratches head* oh yes... the Bush Administration completely screwed up America's economy.if anyone would like to debate about this, feel free to start it up. yes, i do have a life but that doesn't mean i don't spare time to talk about important issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)