politics

A picture is worth a thousand words

Jacob Redding — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:17:23 +0000

Political Olympics

Jacob Redding — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:01:41 +0000

Every time I write a political entry I start it off with a disclaimer that I don't write political pieces. I guess I just need to come to grips that I do write political pieces.

I have been biting my lip, tongue, cheek, hog-tied my hands, and locked myself in darkened closet in an attempt to not write this entry but my stubborn self combined with a sincere love for talking forced me to write it.

The Olympics are a political platform.

That's it. Nearly everyday there is a press release from Beijing as well as numerous blog entries, twits, etc. that call for people to not "politicize" the games or that question why people are "politicizing" the games. I don't understand why people have confused the Olympics with a sporting event.

The Olympics is an amazing event that does what few other events in the world can do; gather people from around the world to watch a sporting event. Yes, I just contradicted myself. The Olympics is a sporting event for two full weeks but the 7 years before those two weeks its a full on political event.

This entry doesn't state an opinion on the recent events in t-i-bet, xinjiang, Taiwan, Beijing pollution problems, food supply, human rights, animal rights, or any other dispute that China is currently in with, what seems to be, the rest of the world. I will make my argument that the Olympics is a political event as quickly and succinctly as possible.

First the quick history.
Moscow, Melbourne, and Germany (do I need to link to this) were all protested and boycotted.
but, of course, those were all exceptional cases.
but what about....
Atlanta, Georgia (USA) was protested against
Salt Lake city, Utah (USA) was protested against

I could probably list protests and/or boycotts of every single Olympic event if I spent more than 2 minutes on a google search but I digress.

That would leave us with the current Olympics and here is my "evidence" that this Olympics has always been a political event.

#1: The Olympics committee has consistently maintained that the Olympics are a "force for good" in opening up the country.

That sounds like one heck of a non-sporting and heavy political statement to me.

#2: I'm in Beijing and I am watching the Chinese news, reading their papers and witnessing the massive billboards around the city. More often than not they are advertising the country's strength and its development and how it is "coming out to the world".
These statements are not about sports, they are political statements.

#3: Having traveled to China over the past several years and seeing first hand the dramatic changes brought to Beijing and throughout China because of the Olympics makes it extremely hard for me to believe that its only about sports.
If it were only about sports.
Why were the coal plants moved out of town?
Why are plants being shut down to reduce airbone pollutants?
Why can I see people cleaning the city's rivers everyday? They are not being used for the sports.

#4: The IOC calls out China

The list could get rather large but the summary is that the Olympics are being used to help China become a developed country and to start playing nice with the rest of the world. This particular Olympics will only be a sporting event for two weeks but for the next 120 days it is highly political and will only become increasingly so.

Of course this does beg the question. Why are we at such strong odds. What we have right now is two things
1) The world saying China is wrong
2) China saying the world is wrong

Now that I live in China and I've had wonderful opportunities to speak to people directly about the situation(s) as well as to read the local news, see the local press releases, etc. etc. I would say that I truly believe that China is sincere in their words.

but... the rest of the world won't believe it until they can see it for themselves.

Freedom of Speech and information is a basic human right and must be protected. If China wants to prove to the world that what they are doing is right and just they simply need to allow the cameras, reporters, journalists, and tourists in and unrestricted.

Blog Action Day, Al Gore, and Saving the Environment

Jacob Redding — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:33:52 +0000

If you haven't heard today is "Blog Action Day" an annual event where blogs from around the world write up a short entry on a specific topic; the environment. This is my little contribution.

I am an American and I love the United States. I have to ask though. What the hell is wrong with our president?!? More research? More research?!? Did I hear him correctly?

Global warming is a problem. It has been proven up, down, left, right, sideways, inversely and on a 4th dimension (however you do that). We do not need more research into this what we need is action. But, for the sake of argument, lets suppose that it really wasn't a problem and all of that air pollution, smog, water pollution wasn't warming that planet at all. Wouldn't taking action just make our lives better?

I don't believe that I am the only person that would like to swim in the Hudson river or breathe clean air while sitting on a park bench in Los Angeles. When we go camping don't we want to be able to drink cool, crisp, clean water from the lakes, streams and rivers? Or is air and water pollution something that is desirable? Smog alerts and no-swim zones are a wonderful part of life (it makes it fun!).

Again. I'm asking. Is he joking? More research into this?

Now Al Gore and the UN Committee have been nominated for the Nobel peace prize because of their work in getting the world to recognize that global warming is a problem. Of course, like all nominations, there is a bit of controversy over it. I throw my hat into the ring that I believe his work is worthy of being nominated for the Nobel peace prize. Al Gore's work is more than simply advertising. He has helped to create numerous policies and standards that, collectively, have helped and will continue to help reduce worldwide carbon emissions while still allowing us to live a "civilized" life.

If we lose a few bucks in the short term due to lost productivity I'm OK with that because long-term we all win. The human life is worth more than anything an accountant or actuary can calculate.

Now I'm living in one of the countries that "forced" Mr. Bush's hand into not signing. China. How do I reconcile this? China is a huge offender of carbon emissions and is currently on track to exceed the world is emissions by 2012; which isn't that far away. China, however, HASN'T exceeded the U.S yet. They can still change course and fail to meet that expectation. Unfortunately huge strides aren't being taken but strides are being taken. You can seem them in everyday life all around China.

As an American I will do my best in my everyday choices to reduce my personal footprint. The same as I would have in the U.S. I'll buy products that can be easily recycled, are made with recycled materials, or with reduced waste product. I'll also try to ensure, as I did in the U.S, that I'm buying local. Fortunately I'm in China, it is much easier to buy local in China than it is in the U.S.

Think about it.

My strides may be little but if I can serve as an ambassador and get others to follow the strides get bigger. I just wish that I had the support of my Government behind me but instead they would like to play tit-for-tat games.

Vietnam

Jacob Redding — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:10:00 +0000

I normally shy away from politics on my blog but I don't think this is a political issue. As everyone knows today was the deadliest day in Iraq (37 U.S. soldiers died), which is interesting especially since the war has been "officially" over for quite some time now. I have but one comment and I know that I'm going to get some nice emails and comments for this.

When I am reading about the war in Iraq why do I feel like I'm reading about the Vietnam war?
For those of you that will write to me just please keep this in mind. Explain the difference between this war and the Vietnam war as explained to the American people?by the President of the United States of America. The similiarity between the two wars is eery and I hope, I truly hope that the outcome is much better than the outcome of Vietnam.

Cheerleading Pyramids

Jacob Redding — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:47:00 +0000

On occasion I have thought to myself, if I were to become a lawyer what would I do if I was required to defend a client that I knew was in the wrong. What would I say? How would I defend the client?

After reading a WSJ article?about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal trials I now know what not to say in?a courtroom. Defense Lawyer Guy Womak, representing Spc. Graner, said this about Spc. Graner's actions at Abu Ghraib.

"Don't cheerleaders all over America make pyramids?", "It's not Torture".

I see Mr. Womak's point. When I was in high school I remember seeing?the 35-40 year old?male teachers acting as cheerleaders, stripping nude and clammering on top of each other to make a human pyramid. Apparently Mr. Womak and I went to the same school.

Reference: "Prison-Abuse Trial Begins for Alleged Ringleader" Associated Press January 11th, 2005

Going Upriver

Jacob Redding — Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:42:00 +0000

Last night Jenson and I went to see the movie Going Upriver at the Cinemagic theater here in Portland. Cinemagic is a one screen theater that tends to play more independent and out of mainstream movies although occasionally they do play mainstream titles.

My review on the movie:

The movie is incredibly informative albeit biased in favor of John Kerry. The movie focuses on Kerry's time in the Vietnam war and the anti-war efforts he led upon returning from the war. I enjoyed the movie because I not only learned more about John Kerry's time in Vietnam but I also learned more about the Vietnam war.

Who should see this movie? If you are going to vote for Bush and you believe that John Kerry is a liar and that his war record in Vietnam is pathetic at best, I would recommend that you do not see this movie. It will not persuade you and you will likely throw your keys at the screen. However, if you are neutral, on the fence, or are voting for Kerry you should see the movie. It offers a different perspective about the war,?the anti-war efforts of the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War), and John Kerry as a soldier and as a politician.

The next movie I want to see is "Faith in the White House" the republican retort to Fahrenheit 911.?I am curious to hear the other side of the story after haven already watched Fahrenheit 911.

My Flip Flops fell off...

Jacob Redding — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:23:00 +0000

One year ago when I started "blogging" I made a decision to steer clear of political and religious topics on my blog because of the strong opinions they would certainly generate. As you have probably already guessed I am going against that decision and this blog is about a political topic more of an annoyance.

Every citizen of this country (of a reasonable age) is aware that every candidate purposely ?spins? news stories and the words of their opponent(s) to disparage their opponent and place themselves in the lime light. The latest spin on the Bush campaign, however, has me quite annoyed simply because it is against a very simple rule we were all taught in grade school. When you use a quote you must either use the full quote or paraphrase the quote. You can not pick and choose word or portion of a sentence, if you use a full sentence contained within a paragraph the sentence must be reflective of the paragraph and not change the message that the speaker/writer is conveying. This is an example of misquoting:?

In a speech, given in 2002, regarding the war on Iraq President Bush said this about Saddam?s Hussein?s ability to create nuclear weapons ?Well, we don't know exactly? just a few seconds later he said ?The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb?. Is the president confused or has he not made of his mind if Saddam can create weapons or not. Does Saddam have or not have the ability to create a nuclear bomb?

This is what the president actually said:
?Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites.?
Reference:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

This of course makes a lot more sense and the president is supporting his words and not contradicting himself. Now take a look at what the Bush ad campaign is saying about John Kerry.

Kerry: ?It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision I supported him.?

And then later

Kerry: ?I don't believe the President took us to war as he should have?

? Ok. What is wrong with this?

The First Quote

??It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision I supported him.?

This is a partial quote and is a small section of a much longer sentence. The full sentence reads.

?George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

The full sentence shows that Senator Kerry supported disarming Saddam but under different methods than utilized by president Bush.

The Second Quote

?I don't believe the President took us to war as he should have?

The first problem is that this quote is a response to a question and the question was neither paraphrased nor mentioned in Bush?s campaign ad. This is misleading to the reader and does not place the quote in the correct context. The second problem is that it is again a partial sentence. Here is the actual question and answer response:

Q: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

A: Kerry: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris.
Reference http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=269.html

Yet again Kerry showed that he position is still the same that he believes that the president did not handle the war in a correct manner. It is the same message that was given in the first quote and is the same message that is continued throughout all of Kerry's quotes used in Bush's campaign.

The campaign ad quotes many examples of Kerry flip-flopping on the issues and each and every one of them is misquoted and misleading. Take a few minutes out of your day to read the factcheck.org article on the topic and ensure that you are an informed voter and will not be swayed by a fraudulent charge against one of the candidates.

Disclaimer: I am aware that rules do allow for the quoting of partial sentences, however, it remains true that the meaning of the quote can not be changed and if a partial sentence is quoted an ellipsis must be used (i.e. ...) to inform the reader of the missing portions.??
Also Note: This blog entry has in no manner?endorsed either of the two major candidates instead it has merely informed readers of misleading information being putting forth in campaign advertising.

Music for America [dot] org

Jacob Redding — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:18:00 +0000

A week or three ago I was poking around on the internet looking for George Bush's cover of U2's Sunday Bloody Sunday. I was able?to find George Bush's cover song and in the process I also came across this song (click)?by the artist?Rethuglikan.?I just liked the first sentence.?

"Yo this is Rethuglikan CPA, checkin' in"?

That is so good, a CPA rapper. Oh so funny. The song is somewhat decent for a political song, I like the words.

You should also listen to George Bush's cover of U2's song "Sunday Bloody Sunday"?It is VERY good.

Schweitzer and Terrorism

Jacob Redding — Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:13:00 +0000

Last night I came home from the last snowboarding trip of the season, this time I headed up to Schweitzer, Idaho. The club left on thursday afternoon but I had class on friday so I had to drive up by myself on friday. The trip took approximately 6.5 to 7.5 hours and it was an incredibly boring drive. I arrived at the cabin at approximately 8:30 at night. Everyone was worn out from riding that day and from driving all day on thursday so they weren't very active. Friday night we all just sat around watched TV, listened to the radio, kicked back in the hot tub and just relaxed.

Saturday was the day, however. Nick, as always, woke up at 7am and the lifts didn't even open until 8:45am. I do not know why this boy always gets up early but he does. Slowly everyone else in the house began to wake up and by 8:30am we were all waxing down our boards and getting ready for the spring conditions. Nick, Charlie and I headed out to the lift lines at approximately 9:30 or so, leaving behind 7 or so other members. It was a late start but the lines are much much smaller in the spring so it doesn't really matter. The weather was nice, around 40 degrees, sunny with very low winds. I had donned all my normal winter gear and was sweating like crazy within an hour. At noon Nick, Charlie and I headed back to the lodge to shed some of our winter gear in favor of lighter clothing, eat some lunch and pick up the rest of the crew. By 1pm the whole crew was up on the mountain minus two females that decided to not ride that day.

It was a good day for riding. The snow was slushy as was expected but at least it wasn't icy. The slush did make for a ssslllloooowwww riding day BUT we stayed on single and double black diamonds all day since the steepness makes up for the slow, sticky snow. The lift lines closed at 4pm and we all snaked through the trees and made our way back to the cabin. Ski-in, Ski-out lodges are the only places to stay!!

As this was the last trip of the season and our school terms had just started I think we all decided to hit it pretty hard that night. Since I had driven my personal vehicle up we were able to use it drive down to the bars in town. We hit the first bar at approximately 8pm. There were nine of us hitting the Sand Point Idaho "scene". When we walked into the first bar we tripled the population of the bar. There were two old men and two young women sitting at the bar when the nine of us walked in. Normally you would think that this would be really lame, but think about it. We dominated the bar, we essentially had two pool tables, a foosball table and a bar at our disposal. One of the people in our crew had met the cute bartender the night before and she was hooking us up all night, drinks were cheap. It was good times.

After kicking back at the bar for a few hours we added four more girls to our group. The two cute girls from the bar, the bartender from the night before and the bartender's friend. Our count was now up to 13. Sand point doesn't have much of a scene, so we hit the VFW Eagles lounge next. Yes I do mean the Eagles as in the old-man eagles club. We quite honestly walked in the door, looked around and walked back out. The next stop was a bar called the backdoor, because it was located behind another bar (hhmm.. I wonder if that bar was called the front door). The backdoor was an interesting bar, they served hard alcohol had nothing on draught and played alternative rock and industrial music. The lighting was dim and the furniture was very industrial/modern looking. Very interesting. The rest of the crew was definitely into the bar though because they served shots in 3 ounce glasses and the shots were cheap.

Just in case you were wondering, I was the DD so I was drinking soda and water all night while at the bars.

Sometime around 10:30 or 11pm we decided to migrate the party back up to our cabin which was nine miles up the mountain (Sand point is in the valley below Schweitzer resort). The 13 or so of us made it up to the cabin and kept the party going, it made for good times. I, again the DD, took a "shuttle" service back to town around 3 or so in the morning to take a few of the girls back home. People may have been drunk but they were still respectful of the opposite sex, we didn't have a "girls gone wild" house. After I got back the party was pretty much done and over with, I watched some TV to get myself to sleep and finally dozed off around 4 or 5am. I woke up the next day (sunday) at 8am, helped clean up the house and then made my way back to Portland.

I am glad I went, it was a much needed break and I feel refreshed and ready to tackle another term of school.

OK, Ok. I'm sure you're wondering about the title "Schweizter and terrorism". Well during the evening I was kicking back in the hot tub with this girl Jess, sitting opposite of each other. We were talking about all kinds of stuff and then she brought up the infamous topic of politics. The topic started out by referencing talk-radio shows. She is a regular listener to Rush limbaugh, Lars Larson, Michael Savage and a few others. Her few points definitely reflected her listening too. Wow, I hope and pray that she never votes or we're all screwed. Ok, so what's the point of the word terrorism in the title. Well the topic of course veered over to that of war and she expressed deep concern over the fact that there is mass immigration from the middle east to France (and also to Germany but she didn't mention Germany). Her reasoning was that France and Germany are harbouring large terrorism networks to specifically attack the United States.

I, of course, asked a very simple question. "Do you think that some of those people that immigrated to France and Germany are simplying trying to escape their own war torn country, to essentially save their own life?" Of course not!!! that can't be it, Why would anyone from a middle eastern country want to save their own life?!? I mean they are born to kill other people by blowing themselves up, right?? She actually honestly believed that was what people from the middle-east did. They had no regard for the life of others nor their own, they were born to kill (notice the word born and not the word raised, she argued for born). Seriously now, just take a step back and think about that statement.

Request: Can someone out there find this study for me because I can't locate it. She stated that someone had done a study in which a 2 yr old child from the middle east was placed in a room with a 2 yr old american child. The 2 yr old child from the middle east immediately attempted to harm the american child. Supposedly this "experiment" was repeated and the results were the same. She stated that the study concluded that the effects of the "hundred years" war are deep rooted into every child born in the middle east.
****Note: The hundred years war had everything to do with western europe, but that's what she said and that's what I am trying to figure out. Personally I think this study was done by some whacked-out republicans with too much free time on their hands (note: I am registered open, and I don't adhere to a republican/democrat/green party title because all the parties are off their rockers, it's just that republicans seem to have utter disregard for others so I'm not fond of the modern hard-core conservative republican.

Ok so moving on. She also stated that what America really needs to do is to close its borders and get themselves out of the UN. I will only say a few words on this.

Closing our borders: (1) This defeats the entire purpose of America. (2) 80/20, 80% service 20% goods, that is what makes up our economy. If you close our borders other countries might not be as keen on trading with us or more specificially importing to us. What will that do to us.... think about it. We make hardly anything in this country instead we buy from other countries (or outsource), yes that makes us dependent. Is that good? I don't know how much do we rely on the other parties?

Also to me, this statement demonstrates the complete selfishness of the person making the statement and that person's utter disregard for the happiness of others. But then again maybe those of us currently living in America were chosen by a higher being to always be better than everyone else in the world.

Get the US out of the UN: I won't even comment... it's a silly idea.

I'm not going to spend anymore time refuting this girl's ideas, because they simply aren't worth the time. I can only hope and pray that she does not vote.

Ya'll have a nice day now, ya hear!