The Politics of Priorities

The Politics of Priorities

Since last week, it has been the goal of the majority of senators (with a few dubious exceptions) to pass a bill that compromises the will of the majority, represented by President Obama, with classic conservative values. Obama has taken great pains to ensure both that both parties are intimately involved, and that the public has a good idea of what is transpiring. This bipartisan spirit is both needed and good, but the cuts of the compromise reveal an alarming trend: scientific progress is considered by many politicians, on both sides of the aisle, to be "useless" spending.

Take note of some of the cuts from the stimulus package as it existed 2 days ago:

NSF 100% cut ($1,402,000,000)
NASA exploration 50% cut ($750,000,000)
NOAA 34.94% cut ($427,000,000)
NIST 37.91% cut ($218,000,000)
DOE energy efficiency & renewable energy 38% cut ($1,000,000,000)
DOE office of science 100% cut ($100,000,000)
-Panda's Thumb

What astonishes (and disappoints) me more than anything is the short-sightedness of many in office. If we expect to continue to compete in the global economy, there are arguably few more important investments than in science, technology, and clean/renewable energy. We've tried simple tax rebates before and, as was expected by many economists, the majority of that money went to paying down debt or saving. The core of our economic decline lies in the consumer's inability or lack of desire to spend. So, if consumers aren't spending, and tax rebates only hand them money to save, what's left? In Obama's opinion, the government must "prime the pump" by spending on worthwhile programs that create jobs, aid crippled or collapsing industries, and invest in future growth.

While debate about the first two is mostly rhetorical, a large portion of what Congress considers pork is...well, see above. Also on the list are many programs designed to upgrade immediately the energy efficiency of government offices and vehicles. How this effort, which would stimulate purchasing and jobs for all the people creating the parts and carrying out the labor required, can be blasted as "non-stimulative" is mind-boggling. And if we begin to consider science as secondary in importance, what does that mean for music, theatre, and other arts programs that have continuously made America one of the most culturally diverse nations on the planet? Or are we, as a legislative body and culture, simply blind to anything but cold, hard cash (imaginary though most of it may be)?

And is this not the behavior that caused the landslide?

New Layout

New Layout

That's right. It was time. Due to my previous design's inability to post comments, I've been forced to redesign. Enjoy.

Why Operation Cast Lead Should Never Have Begun

Why Operation Cast Lead Should Never Have Begun

Day 18: I have, from the beginnings of this crisis, found little point in planting my flag on a side when both factions equally terrorize one another, yielding few military losses when compared to that of innocent civilian lives, many of which are children. It is clear that this greater war (now almost a century old) is based less on direct strife, and more upon past persecution, vehement religious fundamentals and a gross overvaluing of land and heritage. Asking the question, "Whose fault is the current Gaza conflict?" is no more than an invitation for renewed lobbing of verbal and ideological grenades, which solves nothing and casts light only on many humans' inability to weigh the consequences and values of their actions, as well as the importance of human life above all else.

My curiosity and issue lies in the timing of Operation Cast Lead and how it relates to the international community-at-large. The world is well aware that George W. Bush is adamantly pro-Israel, and has been since his presidency began. The fact that this push into Gaza coincides with his sunset in the White House should not be over-looked. After all, it is largely the United States' refusal to support a UN Ceasefire Resolution that emboldened Israel to continue on. Would you stop misbehaving when only one of your parents scolds what you're doing, while the other applauds it? Even though Obama's stances generally label him as "pro-Israel," the world waits to see how he will apply the US's enormous political and economic clout to the situation once in office, and it is in question if the conflict will last, in it's current form, through his inauguration. More likely it will descend into prolonged urban warfare that, as we've seen proven time and again in Iraq, is notoriously difficult to quell.

It is also worth noting that the refusal of Israel to allow international journalists into Gaza not only reeks of corrupt intentions, especially considering the death tolls that have yet to be verified, but has also left those journalists stranded and displaced, which seems to be a hallmark of the conflict thus far. Factor in the rapidly upcoming Israeli elections, and you have the recipe for a perfectly timed offensive.

To my dismay, these upcoming events were not secret, and the US has a strong intelligence network in the world (not to mention the bulk of our military in Gaza's back yard). The travesty that this offensive was ever allowed to occur without significant pressure applied to both sides prior to it represents a tragic failure of the current administration (and that of the rest of the world) to see the forest for the trees. When Barack Obama takes office in the coming days, it should be expected of him first and foremost to discard the reactionary policies of the last 8 years, and engage in swift and meaningful consideration of the world not only as it is, but what those factors can lead to.

Murder and warfare are not the answer for murder and warfare. Many conflicts have been solved through diplomacy, and it's failure thus far does not grant those involved carte blanche to undertake whatever means they desire to achieve their own selfish goals.

Bringing Music Back To The Grammys

Bringing Music Back To The Grammys

Imagine my surprise.  In an upheaval of modern tradition, not only was solid, independent music nominated for Grammys this year, but the nominees are even presenting themselves as icons for the viewer-declining awards show.  If I had to venture a guess, I'd imagine this is because the majority of people that would sit down and watch 2 hours of music awards (such as myself) aren't interested in seeing the peddled musical drivel that historically touts about at the gala and is shoved down our throats on pop radio.  

But now all that's changed.  Radiohead's "In Rainbows" and Lil' Wayne's "Tha Carter III" are both in the running for top honors at the Grammys, Record of the Year.  Seeing both independent and somewhat-unknown albums on the short list says, to me, that the music industry en masse are becoming uncomfortably aware of a few things.

First, it is clear that not only does a band not need a label to release an album, but that same album can transcend all other albums to become one of the best of the year. 

Second, the influence of music not produced by Clive Davis is reaching undeniable.  As the record conglomerate is forced to stop suing people and consider radical new avenues of sale, the reality of the new era of music is becoming abundantly clear, and it's very much like Billy Corgan and others predicted many years ago: music is becoming a more malleable and free commodity.

Thom's poster (and others) are visages of themselves made up of music that has inspired them, and that they themselves have written.  I was especially happy to see Björk's "Unravel" at the forefront, a song Yorke has said many times is one of his favorite songs.  The posters are effective and meaningful, which seems to represent what the Grammys as a whole are trying to become.  For the first time in recent memory, I'll be sitting down on Feb. 8th to see how deeply good music has permeated the industry.  With any luck, it won't be the last time.

The Freedom Agenda

The Freedom Agenda

George W. Bush will be leaving office in just under a week from now, and most people couldn't be happier about it.  As an article this morning in BBC News points out, however, some countries still carry a high approval rating for the man, despite his many and varied presidential blunders.  Bush has, almost since his inauguration day as president, aimed to spread democracy around the world, by force if necessary.  It begs the question: does democracy need to be spread?

Anyone can look at a country's governmental structure and unearth one if not many faults.  Is it any better, then, to judge other systems of rule inferior and use that "knowledge" as justification for it's eradication, given the above tenant that all systems can be found flawed?  To quote a recent Daylight Atheism article:

Ultimately, countries are not patches of ground, but structures of ideas. What most defines a country is not its geographical borders: after all, we don't consider ancient Rome and modern Italy to be the same nation, even though they occupied much of the same ground. What defines a country is its system of law and government, its way of organizing its people. The existence of separate countries allows the human race to test out a diversity of ideas on how best to govern ourselves, and when one succeeds, it stands as an example to all the rest.

It is a logical face-plant to say that anyone is worthy of imposing their beliefs on another, but one that seems heavily entrenched in minds around the world.  The vision of a one-world government style carries with it a heavy cost.  The world and humans are not just better for their diversity.  It is essential to our survival.  By minimizing risk (inherent to the overwhelming factors presented by any type of diversity), we rob our economies, societies, and families of the very thing that allows their great success.  It also leads to the question of who is going to spearhead such an effort.  The leaders that have thus far have failed miserably, and blatant continuation of this ideal promises to attract self-interested, irrational people to it's helm.

But why does a better government need to be spread, anyway?  The rationale that a more structured, modern government will fix the problems of the world is foolhardy and dangerous.  We can see numerous examples of prejudice, hate, greed and murder in our own, "democratically mature" nation, and recent events in Iraq show that democracy has done little to quell the sectarian, ideological violence in it's 3-year tenure.  Many might say that the deaths are worth the end result of a stable nation based on equality, but isn't war and death the hallmark reason behind the desire to spread democracy in the first place?  

We've spent far too long, almost 8 years now and more in spirit, chasing ghosts.  The evils of the world are perpetrated by people, not governments.  The key to solving heartache and suffering on our Earth is in the minds, not the ruling system.  The dismissal of religious fundamentalism and in-fighting, irrational viewpoints based upon nothing but speculation, hyper-partisanship and misplaced patriotism will be the change humanity so desperately desires and needs, as it is a question of when we will finally destroy ourselves carrying on this way, not if.

TalkOrigins Returns

TalkOrigins Returns

After an extended period of downtime, conceivably due to some manner of attack (it wouldn't be the first time), TalkOrigins is back up and running.  Good luck to them on keeping safe.

TalkOrigins.org