Gee-Twenty

Well, looking at this article, I see that Obama's got a lot to handle. However, people are giving him some good marks for his taking charge of talks on nuclear nonproliferation, and Iran's continued defiance of everyone else's demands. I'm not surprised that Iran is defiant, nor am I particularly upset. I mean, America's looking out for its money, really. If Iran starts a war, people are going to take sides, and Saudi Arabia (who supplies tons of our oil) might not side with us. However, Israel is definitely looking after its back. Iran's president has made quite a few threatening statements towards Israel, and now that they're seeming to get the technology to pull through with their promises, Israel is thinking of striking first. Iran's got plenty of people nervous. When you call France about military matters, you're scared. That's what Obama did, judging from this.

Well, the whole G-20 wasn't about military issues, but those are just more interesting.

What's Rep. Norton Up To?

According to this article, Norton spoke on the allowance of Rotunda use, for a decidedly non-governmental purpose. I like that this man is getting honored for this, although I don't actually see something he really DID that should win him a medal. I mean, he got elected, which lies more on the people who elected him. Anyway, I won't complain about a black dude getting a medal, as long as it's not illegal.

Norton's also introduced a bill, info found here, that would, if passed, encourage and even include Pre-K in curricula. She said that schools pass up the "most fertile years" for learning, and that Pre-K is important. The bill would also make it easier for less wealthy families to get Pre-K education for their children.

Thawing a "Cold" Shoulder

Well, I read this article, about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech at Moscow State University. In her speech, she said that the US and Russia need to move past the cold war, and try to trust one another. With different cultural and historical backgrounds, she insinuates that we have more to learn from each other than fight about.
I think she has a point. Russia is still a power in the world. They have a history of great military might, and they have some powerful allies as well, whom we wouldn't want to be in bad standing with. Therefore, good relations with Russia will be a must, in the future.

Table's turned on the other shoe, eh?

Well, I was reading a small article about representation, and the demographic shift that has occurred. You can catch that here, by the by. At any rate, I find this rather interesting. I'm not sure of the logical reasoning, myself, but I think that it might have to do with the revelation that's shocked the nation. The hypocritical special-interest conservatives who tauted values they didn't practice themselves were always dishonest douche-bags. Instead, they began to realize that if they wanted their money to be worth anything, they'd need to act in the best interest of the nation. I think this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but does it really matter?

Thank Obama On Friday

I heard about this long before I read this, but it's still buzzworthy.

Many find the award unwarranted, as Obama has done "very little" in his time in office. This, however, isn't true. Obama spoke to "the Muslim world", and spoke to the world with more respect, and honesty, than any other president has. This in itself fostered good relations with nations. His background alone made him more accessible in the minds of people alienated by America. Also, he's signed the closing of Guantanamo Bay, and he's updated nuclear proliferation laws. He made a republican Supreme Court Justice look a fool, and he's planning on more. That's pretty good for his minimal time in office. He's not Jesus; Obama actually exists. (It's not like Obama can ignore Congress; if he did, we'd really be upset.)

The Bigger They Are...

Well, I read the Watergate implications: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/watergat.htm, and I think the effect it had on the public was quite obvious. The effect it would have now would be even more catastrophic, I think.

See, no one stops to think about the amount of control our government has. It's very rare that someone sues the government, due to the popular notion that you "don't F with" Uncle Sam. People don't seem to be aware that people DO win against the (US) government, when there's precidence. Korimatsu v US, Brown v Board, those are just a few readily available examples.

However, the Government could control a lot of things, without us even knowing. Many of the complacent Americans just ate the spoonfed nonsense about communists being evil, and never questioned the government. They looked with derision at anyone who DID criticise the government, and never thought twice about the justness of governmental actions. It sure shook up those who followed without question to learn that they had contributed to an illegal surveillance and sabotage campaign, I bet.

As to what effect would come of it today? Well, first of all, I'm not sure we'd learn of it. People then were VERY sloppy. After all, there was only paper, then. Now, you can be silenced very quickly, via the interwebs. However, assuming we did learn of it, the effects would be global. Countries would lose whatever small faith they still hold in us, and while we wrangled with what we should do, it's possible another, less stagnant economic power *cough cough* (China) *cough*

could take our place as the most powerful. (What, you thought I'd say France? Get real.)

The Crazy and the Lame

Today I was reading a few articles, one about the speech Muammar Qaddafi made at the U.N., another about Steve King, and his irrational and potentially damning remarks on same-sex marriage. In the first article, it's summed up pretty well how Qaddafi sounded throughout his hour long speech. Even with a comical twist on the article, they pretty much nailed it. Qaddafi appears to me to be a rather power-hungry, irrational leader, who is dangerous whenever he's within 100 yards of power. He also seems so irrational that he's more likely to nuke his own house than to carry out a threat against a nation. However, it seems like Qaddafi is quickly sounding suspiciously similar to Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the amzingly insane president of Iran. Their tirades against western society, and their sweeping claims of wrongdoing make them more of an attraction for comedic relief, than respected leaders.


The second article I read was about Iowa's decision to allow gay marriage, and more specifically, Rep.(R-IA) Steve King's comments on the new ruling. He called the ruling "unconstitutional," and said that Iowa would become the "gay marriage mecca." He also came to far-fetched conclusions linking gay marriage to incest, and stating that once gay marriage was allowed, there would be group marriage, in order to evade taxes, or get benefits. Apparently, my roll of the interweb dice has landed me two nutters for my entertainment. Representative King seems not to notice, or care, that 96% of Iowans that the Des Moines Register polled said that gay marriage has "brought no real change to their lives." He even claims that gay marriage is a purely socialist concept. In my OH so humble opinion, he's seriously going to screw up his chances of election if he doesn't shut up and move on.

Both of these articles, on both of these sites, seemed very neutral. There wasn't much of a tonality to them, to make me think that they were liberal or conservative. Really, all I got from the sites was the news, and that works.