Clearly I'm not as good at sticking to what I say as I should be. This blog has very nearly come close to suffering a slow and painful death in the graveyard that we all know as the world wide web, like countless other blogs and websites. Something about the Internet is unique; it's a great place to quickly post your ideas and get them out to the masses, but it soon becomes such a mundane task that it's not worth doing and we all forget about it. The quality of being able to post something in a minute or less actually seems to work to our disadvantage. There isn't really a point to getting on the Internet solely to put a quick post, and so I'm forced to do so only when I'm online for something else, which isn't all that often.
That being said, I refuse to promise weekly posts--or even monthly. But I will promise to come and write you all a lovely and compelling piece on whatever is going on in the world whenever i happen to be online and feel like doing so. Good day to you.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Friday, December 4, 2009
A Lovely Letter
Dear Nouri al-maliki,
The best way to make yourself not seem like an autocratic leader is to not crack down and silence the media when you don't like them calling you authoritarian.
The best way to make yourself not seem like an autocratic leader is to not crack down and silence the media when you don't like them calling you authoritarian.
Love,
Braden
I know I'm very late on that. Shut up.
Braden
I know I'm very late on that. Shut up.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Jumping On the Indian bandwagon
Seems Obama finally has the sense to acknowledge India as a world superpower. He invited Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the White House Tuesday. My favorite part was this quote from Singh:
Can I just say, I love how world leaders always kid themselves. This meetng was supposed to be used to discuss trade, counterterrorism (in reference to the Mumbai attacks), the long-delayed India-US nuclear agreement and technology. Yes. The Indian PM did just visit, and they are talking about all of those, but will they honestly make any progress with any of it? Probably not. This is all just to satisfy the people. The two leaders are discussing current issues, so something is going to be done about them, right? WRONG.
"India and America are separated by distance, but bound together by the values of democracy, humanism, rule of law and respect of fundamental human freedoms."
Can I just say, I love how world leaders always kid themselves. This meetng was supposed to be used to discuss trade, counterterrorism (in reference to the Mumbai attacks), the long-delayed India-US nuclear agreement and technology. Yes. The Indian PM did just visit, and they are talking about all of those, but will they honestly make any progress with any of it? Probably not. This is all just to satisfy the people. The two leaders are discussing current issues, so something is going to be done about them, right? WRONG.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
A Victim of the Corporation
I know I haven't exactly kept to that one post per week idea, but I've been busy...
Walking through Kohl's earlier, I realized something. Looking around, I saw nothing but bright, flashy colors and big, attention-grabbing letters. I remember being a child, and falling victim to the cool little animations and pictures plastered on everything down the toy aisle, and being subjected to the idea that having one of them would make me just as awesome as whoever was in the picture on the box. Looking back on that, a thought came to me.
Advertising sucks.
I know I'm not the only one who was fooled by fake images and the false messages they convey. Everyone was. And because if that, we've wasted more money, more time, and more resources than we care to remember. So maybe it's time to cut back on it, you know? Force advertisers to send a more realistic message with more creative means. It's doable. Plenty of companies have done it. Why not every one of them?
Walking through Kohl's earlier, I realized something. Looking around, I saw nothing but bright, flashy colors and big, attention-grabbing letters. I remember being a child, and falling victim to the cool little animations and pictures plastered on everything down the toy aisle, and being subjected to the idea that having one of them would make me just as awesome as whoever was in the picture on the box. Looking back on that, a thought came to me.
Advertising sucks.
I know I'm not the only one who was fooled by fake images and the false messages they convey. Everyone was. And because if that, we've wasted more money, more time, and more resources than we care to remember. So maybe it's time to cut back on it, you know? Force advertisers to send a more realistic message with more creative means. It's doable. Plenty of companies have done it. Why not every one of them?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
And Now They See It!
What am I talking about? Why, the new report from the European Union that states Georgia provoked Russia in the 2008 South Ossetian conflict, of course!
Not a lot of people took the time to do any research during the mini-war to find out exactly what happened. I did, and I've been trying to tell people this for months. Basically, Russia was supplying small guerrilla groups and rebels in the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which declared independence from Georgia a while back. Mikhail Saakashvili, the President of Georgia, didn't like this, so he invaded the capital of Tskhinvali, killing 1400 civilians. Russia called an emergency session of the UN after the attack, which was denied. Once word of the invasion reached the major news outlets, all hell broke loose. mainstream media placed all the blame on Russia, saying that it was in fact the Russian army who was invading Georgia and trying to retake the lost territory. However, reprts from eyewitnessess sprouted up all over the internet saying the truth: the Russians sent in troops to protect South Ossetia (losing ten soldiers in the process). I would post a link to one of them, but I can't find the URL I'm looking for.
This is a testament to the anti-Russian feeling spread about by the media. When something bad invloving Russia comes up, they're immediately the ones to blame. Why? Is this still a continuation of the propaganda started during the Cold War? Are Americans still predjudiced against the "Reds?" How can you people be so stupid as to believe one of the world's greatest superpowers with wonderful foreign relations would actually invade two soveriegn nations? It's blasphemy.
For the first time ever, I'm going to thank Fox News for something that the other networks should have done: bringing in an eyewitness. After the invasion, a twelve year-old South Ossetian girl was brought on and interviewed. She said Georgia started the whole thing, and the Russians deserve to be thanked. It's a shame Fox News has such an idiotic base of viewers and such a bad reputation, or someone may have actually paid attention to this.
Not a lot of people took the time to do any research during the mini-war to find out exactly what happened. I did, and I've been trying to tell people this for months. Basically, Russia was supplying small guerrilla groups and rebels in the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which declared independence from Georgia a while back. Mikhail Saakashvili, the President of Georgia, didn't like this, so he invaded the capital of Tskhinvali, killing 1400 civilians. Russia called an emergency session of the UN after the attack, which was denied. Once word of the invasion reached the major news outlets, all hell broke loose. mainstream media placed all the blame on Russia, saying that it was in fact the Russian army who was invading Georgia and trying to retake the lost territory. However, reprts from eyewitnessess sprouted up all over the internet saying the truth: the Russians sent in troops to protect South Ossetia (losing ten soldiers in the process). I would post a link to one of them, but I can't find the URL I'm looking for.
This is a testament to the anti-Russian feeling spread about by the media. When something bad invloving Russia comes up, they're immediately the ones to blame. Why? Is this still a continuation of the propaganda started during the Cold War? Are Americans still predjudiced against the "Reds?" How can you people be so stupid as to believe one of the world's greatest superpowers with wonderful foreign relations would actually invade two soveriegn nations? It's blasphemy.
For the first time ever, I'm going to thank Fox News for something that the other networks should have done: bringing in an eyewitness. After the invasion, a twelve year-old South Ossetian girl was brought on and interviewed. She said Georgia started the whole thing, and the Russians deserve to be thanked. It's a shame Fox News has such an idiotic base of viewers and such a bad reputation, or someone may have actually paid attention to this.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Good Times
Obviously I have been very excited and happy all week because of two things:
1. The meeting of the 64th UN General Assembly, and
2. The G20 Summit, which is conveniently being held in Pittsburgh this year.
The General Assembly has turned out to be both enlightening and hilarious so far. If you hadn't heard anything of Muammar Qaddafi's ridiculous speech (and I'm sure you have), here are a few highlights:
-George Bush should be investigated by the UN and put to death because he started the Iraq War.
-Swine flu was made in a laboratory by the companies that make the vaccine as a large capitalization scam, and the "fish flu" is next.
-The proposed two-state solution regarding Israel and Palestine should be thrown out and the new state should be called "Isratine."
-Mines make a great defense tool. His argument: If you invade then you die, but that's okay because you're invading me. He also mentioned his website.
-The Taliban is okay.
-The General Assembly should be moved from NYC, because he suffered from jet lag on the trip.
-If the European nations do not pay reparations of exactly $7.77 trillion, Africans will come to Europe and take the money from them.
-Obama is a "son of Africa."
After the speech? Well, the American diplomats who watched mainly sat with shocked and stunned faces. However, one Chinese diplomat was cracking up in laughter. I wonder why.
The G20 Summit has pretty much gone as planned. Now, you may be wondering why the G20 is beginning to replace the G7 and G8. Simply put, the G7 and G8 are too small; they consist mainly of the most powerful western nations, and do not include some of the biggest emerging economies. Twenty is just a better number. The G7 and G8 will be used primarily as a political forum rather than an economic one. By doing this the G20 has supposedly helped balance the world economy by giving emerging nations greater say. Is this true? I guess we'll have to find out during the next two G20 Summits in Canada and South Korea next year.
There weren't a lot of particularly new or interesting things that happened at the G20. One thing popped out a bit, though. With the recent discovery of TWO nuclear facilities in Iran, Obama was reluctant to say much at the General Assembly. At the G20, however, Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown decided to take a stronger stand. This is what he said:
"Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the nonproliferation regime."
Technically, Iran does not have to alert the International Atomic Energy Agency about their nuclear enrichment facilities until at least six months before they start up. Ahmadinejad says there are 18 months left until become functional, i.e. Tehran has a year before it is required to say anything. The problem here is that the plants apparently do not contain enough material to produce energy, but do contain enough to produce a weapon. Also, according to Obama, the structures do not fit the description of a peaceful nuclear power facility. This may turn out to be a major inhibitor of peace talks between the US and Iran.
Aw well. Not like we're doing anything right on that front anyway.
1. The meeting of the 64th UN General Assembly, and
2. The G20 Summit, which is conveniently being held in Pittsburgh this year.
The General Assembly has turned out to be both enlightening and hilarious so far. If you hadn't heard anything of Muammar Qaddafi's ridiculous speech (and I'm sure you have), here are a few highlights:
-George Bush should be investigated by the UN and put to death because he started the Iraq War.
-Swine flu was made in a laboratory by the companies that make the vaccine as a large capitalization scam, and the "fish flu" is next.
-The proposed two-state solution regarding Israel and Palestine should be thrown out and the new state should be called "Isratine."
-Mines make a great defense tool. His argument: If you invade then you die, but that's okay because you're invading me. He also mentioned his website.
-The Taliban is okay.
-The General Assembly should be moved from NYC, because he suffered from jet lag on the trip.
-If the European nations do not pay reparations of exactly $7.77 trillion, Africans will come to Europe and take the money from them.
-Obama is a "son of Africa."
After the speech? Well, the American diplomats who watched mainly sat with shocked and stunned faces. However, one Chinese diplomat was cracking up in laughter. I wonder why.
The G20 Summit has pretty much gone as planned. Now, you may be wondering why the G20 is beginning to replace the G7 and G8. Simply put, the G7 and G8 are too small; they consist mainly of the most powerful western nations, and do not include some of the biggest emerging economies. Twenty is just a better number. The G7 and G8 will be used primarily as a political forum rather than an economic one. By doing this the G20 has supposedly helped balance the world economy by giving emerging nations greater say. Is this true? I guess we'll have to find out during the next two G20 Summits in Canada and South Korea next year.
There weren't a lot of particularly new or interesting things that happened at the G20. One thing popped out a bit, though. With the recent discovery of TWO nuclear facilities in Iran, Obama was reluctant to say much at the General Assembly. At the G20, however, Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown decided to take a stronger stand. This is what he said:
"Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the nonproliferation regime."
Technically, Iran does not have to alert the International Atomic Energy Agency about their nuclear enrichment facilities until at least six months before they start up. Ahmadinejad says there are 18 months left until become functional, i.e. Tehran has a year before it is required to say anything. The problem here is that the plants apparently do not contain enough material to produce energy, but do contain enough to produce a weapon. Also, according to Obama, the structures do not fit the description of a peaceful nuclear power facility. This may turn out to be a major inhibitor of peace talks between the US and Iran.
Aw well. Not like we're doing anything right on that front anyway.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Why Are We There?
"Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires." -David H. Petraeus
There is no better way to put it. Afghanistan is and always has been an unconquerable land. Genghis Khan couldn't do it, Britain couldn't do it, the USSR couldn't do it, so what makes the US government so confident that change can be brought to one of the poorest and war-torn nations in the world? Donors and foreign investors pour money into the country, but do it such an inept way that it all goes to those at the top of the food chain. The citizens with the least education and wealth are forgotten. In a country where only one-third of the population is literate and half of the GDP comes from opium exports (Afghanistan singlehandedly set and broke the record for the most amount of heroin produced in the entire world... ever...), it should be obvious that any real change has to come from an organized central government, which doesn't exist. When foreign nations intervene a conflict of interest arises; we become interested in the resources and economic opportunities available, rather than the establishment of a functioning government.
I feel a bit sorry for poor ol' Karzai. His country has gone to Hell because of the exact countries that supposedly try to assist him. Can anyone honestly say that they would appreciate armies bombing their nation, even if it is for a good cause? Quit trying to destroy the Taliban; they aren't the problem. Afghanistan is filled with rogue warlords who set up their own spheres of influence and control their own parts of the nation, and with a small, untrained army, there's not much Karzai can do about it. When other nations target the wrong enemies and cause innocent deaths, it leads to more people wanting to join the resistance. This is simple logic, people. C'mon now.
Maybe we should try something we gave up on not too long ago: compromising with the Taliban. We never had a problem with them before, and they used to be considered a friendly force. Now with the rumors of al Quaida* and other Middle Eastern threats, our government is trying to eliminate anything that even ranks as a low-level threat. Of course, if we compromise then the Taliban, which happens to hold a fairly strong influence in Afghanistan, could fight the warlords for us. Problem sloved.
*Just a little fact: al Quaida is nowhere near the threat it's made out to be. The organization has been around for years, and spans worldwide, yet they rarely actually do anything that classifies as a terrorist act. The entire group is completely disorganized; there is no central leadership, and it's not as if members of al Quaida hold meetings or anything like that. By the time a plan actually does go underway, the communication has taken long enough for the authorities to have been tipped off. Quit worrying about them.
There is no better way to put it. Afghanistan is and always has been an unconquerable land. Genghis Khan couldn't do it, Britain couldn't do it, the USSR couldn't do it, so what makes the US government so confident that change can be brought to one of the poorest and war-torn nations in the world? Donors and foreign investors pour money into the country, but do it such an inept way that it all goes to those at the top of the food chain. The citizens with the least education and wealth are forgotten. In a country where only one-third of the population is literate and half of the GDP comes from opium exports (Afghanistan singlehandedly set and broke the record for the most amount of heroin produced in the entire world... ever...), it should be obvious that any real change has to come from an organized central government, which doesn't exist. When foreign nations intervene a conflict of interest arises; we become interested in the resources and economic opportunities available, rather than the establishment of a functioning government.
I feel a bit sorry for poor ol' Karzai. His country has gone to Hell because of the exact countries that supposedly try to assist him. Can anyone honestly say that they would appreciate armies bombing their nation, even if it is for a good cause? Quit trying to destroy the Taliban; they aren't the problem. Afghanistan is filled with rogue warlords who set up their own spheres of influence and control their own parts of the nation, and with a small, untrained army, there's not much Karzai can do about it. When other nations target the wrong enemies and cause innocent deaths, it leads to more people wanting to join the resistance. This is simple logic, people. C'mon now.
Maybe we should try something we gave up on not too long ago: compromising with the Taliban. We never had a problem with them before, and they used to be considered a friendly force. Now with the rumors of al Quaida* and other Middle Eastern threats, our government is trying to eliminate anything that even ranks as a low-level threat. Of course, if we compromise then the Taliban, which happens to hold a fairly strong influence in Afghanistan, could fight the warlords for us. Problem sloved.
*Just a little fact: al Quaida is nowhere near the threat it's made out to be. The organization has been around for years, and spans worldwide, yet they rarely actually do anything that classifies as a terrorist act. The entire group is completely disorganized; there is no central leadership, and it's not as if members of al Quaida hold meetings or anything like that. By the time a plan actually does go underway, the communication has taken long enough for the authorities to have been tipped off. Quit worrying about them.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Shortest Post I'll Ever Do
So today I rediscovered the genius that is the Wendy's hamburger. It blew my mind, and it tasted divine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
- Burdy
- The world could experience the nuclear apocalypse as I sleep, and I wouldn't even wake up to experience it all.