Y We Want Our World Back

New Blog Address

Bedeo — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:12:00 +0000

I've begun to use wordpress, and host my blog myself. While I will attempt to keep this version updated regularly, I suggest you take a look at the new one as well.

http://www.ywewantourworldback.com

Enjoy

Presented By

Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:12:00 +0000

Libby Pretty Much Pardoned

Bedeo — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:11:00 +0000

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence pleased but did not fully satisfy restive conservatives, while enraging his liberal critics. Libby himself can breathe a sigh of relief that he does not have to serve prison time, but hardly anybody else is all that happy.

Bush overturned the sentencing of an experienced federal Judge in this case in order to keep Libby out of jail. This was to be expected, though the timing is somewhat earlier than predicted. While there has been a long history of presidents handing out pardons and commutations, this one comes at a time when one would expect Bush to be less heavy-handed with his use of executive privilege.

Proponents of The Bush Administration cite the fact that this is the first time in his 7 year tenure that Bush has used executive privilege to grant clemency in a political case. However, one simply has to look at the administration's use of executive privilege to attempt to avoid subpoenas to realize that this will certainly not be the last.

Clearly, The Bush administration has -and will continue to have- a horrendous and corrupt 'old-boy' mentality that is more reminiscent of an English public school than the office of the President of The United States.

Indicating that we will have more to come if he gets into office, Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani called President Bush's actions "Correct."

Just how much of this are our representatives, and through them the US people, going to take before this comes to a head?

I sincerely hope that congress has the spine to follow through with citing The Administration with Contempt for Congress in regards to the subpoenas they issued.

Credit Scores, how much do you know?

Bedeo — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:32:00 +0000

FRONTLINE -- Credit Scores, what you should know about them: The vast majority of Americans don't know their credit score -- or even how to find out what it is. A July 2003 survey commissioned by the Consumer Federation of America found that only 2 percent of Americans said they knew their credit score. And only 3 percent could, unprompted, name the three main credit bureaus. (Malgorzata Wozniacka and Snigdha Sen)

With credit scores affecting everything from whether you can get a loan to purchase a house, to how much you pay for car insurance, to what rates you pay on your credit cards, credit scores are undoubtedly an important and vital part of a persons financial world. A good credit score will help you move through life smoothly; a bad score may well cause you to stumble and fall.

For Millenials who are only now taking our first steps into the imposing world of finance and credit, it is vitally important that we start our on the right foot. Building a good credit score now will save untold amounts of work in the future.

However, with so many predatory lenders, liars, outright thieves, and con-men out there, how can you know what is actually happening to your credit? Many people make promises, but how many of them actually deliver? Furthermore, with the recent instability in the White House, and the drive to deregulate 'big business' I believe that it is foolish to trust that the government will protect our rights.

The answer is, as always, to become informed. Learning how various actions affect your credit, and more importantly, how to take the right ones, is an invaluable tool in running your financial life smoothly.

Did you know that a missed payment on ONE credit card may trigger a chain-reaction, causing ALL of your credit cards to switch to their default rate?

There are many such traps and pitfalls out there, and the best way to avoid them is to know what they look like. I hope that you find the resource helpful, it not only offers free advice on how to get a free credit report, but also a chance to find out much more about the warped world of credit.

http://www.debtfixonline.com/

If you have any more questions, please post here, or contact me via the email available on the website.

I also HIGHLY reccomend watching or reading the full documentary by Frontline, titled "The Secret History of the Credit Card."

Presented By

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:32:00 +0000

Lets Get Ready to Rumble...over a subpoena?!

Bedeo — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:06:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush set up an anticipated court battle with the Democratic-led Congress on Thursday by refusing to comply with subpoenas in its widening probe of fired federal prosecutors.

My last article suggested that the possibility of a lengthy and high-profile battle between congress and the office of the Vice President. It seems even more possible now, with the White House refusing to comply with Subpoena's for information on the firing of nine U.S Attorneys.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has thus far enjoyed the support of the Bush administration, and it seems as though he will continue to do so, despite calls for him to resign. One can only conclude that if President Bush is willing to exercise executive privilege to defend Gonzales, that it is more than likely he will go to bat for Vice President Dick Cheyney as well.

The implications of this upcoming court battle may be staggering. Should the Bush Administration lose this fight, it may well sound the death knell for any resistance to other subpoena's in the future. Should they win, it may well entice them to continue in such a vein.

White House Counsel, Fred Fielding, in defense of the decision stated that, "Presidents would not be able to fulfill their responsibilities if their advisers -- on fear of being commanded to Capitol Hill to testify or having their documents produced to Congress -- were reluctant to communicate openly and honestly in the course of rendering advice and reaching decisions,".

In my opinion, advisers should not fear being commanded to Capitol Hill to testify. Nor should they fear having their documents produced to Congress. However, this lack of fear should not come from Presidential protection and secrecy; rather, it should come from the knowledge that their actions are ethically, morally, and legally upright.

read more digg story

White House, and VP's Office Subpoenaed

Bedeo — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:02:00 +0000

The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrant-free eavesdropping program.The repercussions of this subpoena will be interesting, to say the least. Throughout his tenure as V.P, Cheyney has shown that he tends to be reclusive and somewhat secretive. This habit was particularly obvious during the hunting accident that he was involved in recently. The Senate Judiciary committee, however, may not take kindly to Mr. Cheyney being obtuse, or skirting their questions. Should Cheyney continue this typical behaviour, it will make for an interesting and somewhat noisy showdown between these two powerful governmental representatives.-Bedeo

read more digg story

Presented By

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:02:00 +0000

The OTHER victims of 9/11

Bedeo — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:21:00 +0000

We all remember it, that horrific day when a small group of people perpetrated such a horrific act against their fellow man. In my minds eye, I can still see the first plane striking the building, and the dense black plume of smoke that rose from the shattered tower. I can still see the people jumping, in a futile attempt to escape. I am sure we can all dredge up memories of the attack, and the weeks and months that followed it; grime-covered fire-fighters staring with dead eyes at the camera, utterly exhausted; police morning the loss of a fellow officer, and red-eyed relatives near collapse, hanging on to someone for support.

I can still see these images, and many others. We saw them on the T.V, heard about them on the radio, read about them and watched them on the Internet; we all know about the struggles surrounding that day, about the horror, about the heroic actions.

What we don't see, are the heroes who are still dying, the heroes who are suffering and struggling still.

We see Giuliani standing at a podium, attacking Ron Paul about his reasons for the September 11 attacks; we see him tout his achievements, his responses to the tragedy; we see others do the same, but Oh Rudy! You are so very good at it.

We do not see the fireman hooked up the a respirator, his family tearful at his side; the policeman, coughing up blood, scar-tissue throughout his lungs; we do not see Giuliani, or The Administration offering aid, support, and their thanks to these people.

The Mt. Sinai Medical Center reports that of 20,000 people studied after the attacks, 70% of rescue workers suffer from some sort of respiratory illness. A separate study released last month reported that firefighters and rescue workers contracted A study of more than 20,000 people by Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York concluded that, since the attacks, 70 percent of ground zero workers have suffered some sort of respiratory illness. A separate study released last month found that rescue workers and firefighters contracted sarcoidosis, a serious lung-scarring disease, at a rate more than five times as high as in the years before the attacks. (Miami Herald)

If -as we are told time and again- the September 11 attacks were an attack on the entire country, then it is the responsibility of the ENTIRE country, to support, care for, remember, and help those who even now, 5 years later, suffer still.

Even you, Rudy.

Oh the FCC won't let me be....

Bedeo — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:37:00 +0000

It seems that the UN's WIPO broadcasting treaty has been fairly well blocked by the US delegation. Buried amongst the jargon and officious language, was one simple and immensely important change: If you wanted to broadcast another's work for parody or criticism, you would need to get an exemption under the Broadcast Right. (thanks to Boingboing's Cory Doctrow for this definition and phrasing in his article).

As Doctrow correctly points out, this slight change threatened the Internet as we know it. It would require that all podcasters and users of similar media attain an exemption.

One of the leading proponents of this bill was the North American Broadcaster Association. However, they lacked the backing of -many- members. Two of the major dissenting member organizations were NPR and PBS.

As it seems the treaty is going to be put aside, the point may appear moot. It is not! Why? Because this is a prime example of what happens if an organization turns a blind eye -or ear- to its members, and listens to the sound of money instead.

What can we do about stopping such things happening in the future? As users of the Internet, it is in our best interests to keep it as open, competitive, and cheap as possible to access and use it. The only way for us to do this is to make our opinions known to the regulating bodies that control it.

One such regulatory organization is the FCC, who -while not possessed of a stellar decision making history- do offer us a means of contacting them about various issues. Of particular note at the moment is the auction of the 700mhz spectrum. If the FCC requires the winner to split up some of the spectrum, and distribute it to other broadcasters (broadcasters who could potentially use this spectrum for broadband Internet) then there is the potential for much greater variety and choice in the Internet service that we choose.

You can let the FCC know what your opinion is on this, and many other matters HERE take the time to do so!

You can also find more information out about the 700mhz spectrum auction at Publicknowledge.org

-Bedeo

Presented By

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:37:00 +0000

Of Paul and Paris, Redux

Bedeo — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:14:00 +0000

People are asking me questions and challenging me on my recent statements regarding Ron Paul's plans, excellent!

I'm certainly not an economist, but my reasons for not throwing my weight -albeit somewhat minuscule- behind his plans are simple; large American businesses have a history of treating their workers poorly, paying little or no attention to government controls, and of having generally deplorable morals. One only has to look at the horrid business practices of the early to middle 19th century to see this.

A -very- brief history of government controls in the form of anti-trust laws
The U.S began to institute anti-trust laws in approximately 1890, when they created the Sherman Anti-trust act. These laws were strong enough to break up the monopolies of the day, such as that of Rockefeller and The Standard Oil Company, but not strong enough to challenge many other institutions later on, further laws were required. (If you are unaware of how Rockefeller treated unions and the like back in those days -and later on- then it would make for some eye-opening reading.)

While the Sherman Anti-trust act worked against Rockefeller, it was also used as an anti-union tool. In 1914 it was revoked and replaced by the Clayton Anti-trust act. Those tricky corporations.

Why am I mentioning all of this? Well, as you can see, the U.S has a long history of corporations -needing- to be controlled. The fact that the Sherman Anti-trust act was abused shows us that they have a history of doing their best to stop workers having many rights; today, companies such as Wal-mart still attempt to stop the unionization of their workers, for what I believe to be the same reasons.

My reference to Paris Hilton, and the possible rise of others like her.
I am talking about the old-money heirs that did nothing to achieve their status, and nothing with that status to serve their contry and fellow man. I do believe that a completely free market will cause an increase in this kind of person over a period of time. Certainly Paris's are a small side-effect of a free market, but I believe it to be a reflection of a larger problem: the fact that there are individuals and corporations with so much money that they don't know what to do with it all. The idea of not taxing these people heavily, taking their money for public works, is ridiculous. Why, if people such as Hilton are able to live a life of luxury without any employment what so ever, should others who are working their asses off suffer and be unable to pay medical bills? Because their parents earned it? Pffh, ridiculous reasoning. Because they have a large corporation that earns millions a year, that they built up? Pfffh. Why exactly do they need so much and yet give so little?

The only thing that a completely free market economy would do is create more profits for the rich, and allow them to continue to oppress their workers (as Marxist as that sounds, I am not a socialist, Marxist, or communist, nor will I ever be one).

Of Ron Paul and Paris Hilton

Bedeo — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:09:00 +0000

Why are we so fascinated by people such as Paris Hilton? Other than being born into money, being somewhat good-looking, and managing to a variety of incredibly stupid things, Hilton has no outstanding or interesting qualities. Yet she remains one of the most popular search terms on both Google and Technorati. Perhaps there is something amusing in predicting or guessing what she'll manage to do next.

For goodness sake, Paris! At least do something with your undeserved stardom; find a charity to support, donate some of that money you never earned. However much one may dislike the celebrities of Hollywood, at least a fair amount of them give their name and face to worthy causes.

And what of Ron Paul, that relatively amusing Texan Senator, who is also a rather popular search these days? However little I agree with his aims, I admire Paul for his honesty, and also for standing up for his principles, the man refuses to back down.

That being said, his stated goals of abolishing Medicare, Medicaid, the IRS, along with a host of other institutions are, laughable and scary. They are founded on the belief that unbridled capitalism, a so-called 'free-market', will increase the competition between various businesses, thus driving the prices down. However, I believe that introducing a completely capitalism economy will do nothing more than eliminate the middle-class of America. We will begin to see more people who have large amounts of money, yet contribute nothing useful to society -such as the aforementioned Paris Hilton-, as well as more people who are unable to adequately support themselves.

In short, the rich will get richer -and stupider- while the poor will get poorer. Those in the middle will probably continue to watch the worthless heiresses of the world make humanity look bad.

Perhaps my earlier admonishment of Hilton should go out to everyone reading this as well. Get out there and do something worthwhile, help your fellow man, learn about the world...rather than about the Paris's of it.

-Bedeo

Presented By

Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:09:00 +0000

Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Vote blocked in Massachusetts

Bedeo — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:45:00 +0000

BOSTON -- Massachusetts lawmakers blocked a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it.

It is wonderful to see law-makers supporting the people's rights. The U.S constitution is designed to protect against the oppression of minority populations by larger ones. Putting such a decision to a "Vote of the people" is simply an attempt to circumvent the constitutionally protected rights of minorities.

more digg story

Violent Hate Crime In Indiana, Why no Coverage?

Bedeo — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:14:00 +0000

This has received some coverage on DIGG.COM and on a various Blogs. http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2007/6/12/85425/2909/displaystory//

Three young men in Jackson County Indiana said they were so freaked out when 'propositioned' by Aaron Hall on April 12th, that they proceeded to beat the 100 pound, 5'4 man for hours, using their fists, boots, dragging him down a staircase while his head slammed into each step, and then throwing him in a ditch and leaving. Aaron managed to crawl out of the ditch and out into a nearby field, where he died, alone and naked.

Sound familiar? A bit like the story of Matthew Shephard? Then why no coverage outside of Jackson County, Indiana?

Thanks for feduphoosier on The Daily Kos for the above, hope you don't mind me copying it!

Aaron Hall deserves better than this. The lack of media coverage, the lack of attention paid to this heinous crime, and to his death, is disappointing to say the least. It is only by exposing this dark deed to the light of day that other crimes of this sort can be stamped out. I urge you to contact your news service, and tell them that you -want- to hear more.

I also urge you to support The Matthew Sheppard Foundation.

It is only through working together that we can be assured that such things do not continue to happen.

Presented By

Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:14:00 +0000

AT&T 'Spy Room' Documents Unsealed; You've Already Seen Them

Bedeo — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:19:00 +0000

"A civil liberties group suing telecom giant AT&T for allegedly installing illegal secret surveillance rooms in its internet facilities at the behest of the National Security Agency published substantial portions of long-sealed case documents Tuesday."

These unwarranted spying and survelliance programs have long been known about. However, it seems that -for now- some positive progress has been made in the federal district court

"The government argues that the case must be thrown out since it involves national security matters, while AT&T says it can't defend itself without spilling classified information. Federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled last July that the case could proceed, because President Bush has admitted the existence of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping of Americans' overseas communications."

While I assume this ruling will eventually head upwards, or be appealed, it shows that at least the judicial branch is willing to step up and say "that's enough, Bushie."

I do wonder, though, how much information was collected, and what it was used for. Hopefully this will come out as the case proceeds.

I applaud the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as Wired news -and the other news organizations- who sought to have them unsealed earlier.

Keep it up, guys.

read more | digg story

Senator Lieberman advocates military strike on Iran

Bedeo — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:13:00 +0000

"I think we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," he said. "To me that would include a strike into, over the border into Iran where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers"

Escalate a war that isn't going so well in the first place. Brilliant.

The problem here, is not that Lieberman wants to make the world safer by getting rid of terrorists (an admirable goal in my mind), but that he is doing so without thinking. The Iraq war is a debacle, it was initiated with inaccurate, incorrect, or invisible evidence and intelligence. At the moment, the only good thing one can say about it is "Well, at least it's not as bad as Vietnam."

For god's sake, folks... since your politicians can't think, do it for yourselves! Question your elected officials, make them aware of what pisses you off, of what makes you happy. Don't listen to the drivel that comes out of the T.V, read, learn, think critically. And please, get out there and vote next year, elect someone who will be at least mildly informed about the world! Whether it's a Democrat or a Republican, just choose someone who is capable.

In this case, Lieberman is advocating escalating the Iraq war. It is my opinion that the U.S have voters made it quite clear that they want out of Iraq; they did this by voting for the senators that did not support the war, rather than those who did. This caused a massive power shift in congress, and we are only now starting to see the effects of this. Why then, is Lieberman trying to expand and extend a war that the U.S people clearly do not want to be involved in?

read more | digg story

Presented By

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 02:13:00 +0000

The Creation Museum. Fundamentalists: 1, Logic: 0

Bedeo — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:07:00 +0000

Ars Technica goes to look at the new Creation Museum to see what the fuss is about.

A museum like no other.

Here at Ars Technica we've written about the US creationist movement and its attack on science quite regularly. From attempts to alter the way science is taught in different states across the US to statements from potential presidents, there's no denying that creationists garner a lot of column inches. So when I found out that they were building their answer to a science museum about an hour's drive away, I knew that I'd have to go and take a look.
---------------------------------------------------------------
This particular Museum received a lot of flak on Digg.com, and so it should! Many people are misunderstanding WHY it is being laughed at, though.

I don't think anyone is laughing at this "Museum" because it attempts to explain where the world came from, nor is anyone saying that evolution provides a completely reliable reason for what/who created everything at the start.

The fact of the matter is that this "Museum" is an attempt to rationalize an illogical theory that a group of people have taken from a book that was compiled over a period of 3000 years. This is fine, they're allowed to come up with support for their theory; however, in doing so, they're not only attempting to refute evolution, but virtually every discovery about the history of our world that science has made for the past two thousand years or so; discoveries in the fields of Geology, Physics, and Anthropology.

This Museum, and many other young-earth creationists, are not arguing that God created a world that was 10 billion years old -hence giving a somewhat coherent reason for the existence of fossils, coal, and all of these other things-. They're arguing that the world is 6000 years old, literally, in every sense. They are then coming up with incredulous and unreasonable theories as to why things such as fossils exist.

This is the problem that people have with the museum. This is the problem that people have with young-earth creationists. I think you'll find that most people do believe in some sort of god, or higher power, they simply don't believe in this...trash.
Have a read one of these theories carefully:

"Today we find evidence of exotic plant fossil es in regular sequence, from small plants, to trees. Evidence of a huge floating forest" they then go on to say that "4,350 years ago, when the flood waves became large enough, they began tearing apart the floating forest from the outside edge inward, in sequence reflecting the forest structure, plants torn from the ground became waterlogged, sank, and were buried on the bottom."

So, we have a floating forest, that has trees made from a wood that sinks when it gets wet (all the plants sank, every one of them? Remember, that dove Noah released didn't find any plants until the flood waters receded, so everything must have sunk). This forest has tiny little plants in the outside, giant big ones in the center, and no small ones in the middle at all. C'mon, look at a forest one of these days, they have undergrowth all through them, they don't all just have small plants on the outside and big ones on the inside. Furthermore, trees are heavier than small plants. Over a long period of time, heavy things sink to the bottom, it's the main idea behind panning for gold, and the separation of DNA; large heavy things go down, small things don't, if a floating forest had been torn apart, and everything had sunk, over the period of hundreds of years, the bigger, heavier trees would have ended up at the bottom. But we don't see this, even the 'museum' admits that.

Just this one theory is full of holes. the majority of what young-earth creationists come up with fly in the face of almost every scientific discovery that has been made about the history of our world. Failing that, they are resorting to ad hominen attacks, or the tried and trusty "It's in the bible, it must be true."

In short, they are coming up with reasons, and what they call evidence, that supports their perspective, and throwing out anything that disagrees with them. Science generally tends to accept that it can be wrong, unfortunately fundamentalists have yet to learn how to do the same.

read more | digg story

Presented By

Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:07:00 +0000

"For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"

Bedeo — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:55:00 +0000

The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

Http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

Let's be clear here, what Shikwait should really be saying is not "Stop the aid." but "Start doing smarter things with it. Stop sending us worthless or harmful aid." The idea of simply packing up and abandoning Africa is ridiculous. Changing the form and function of world-aid is not.

Africa is being flooded with surplus grain from around the world; this aid is then touted as "What we are doing for Africa." The solution? Cut the farm subsidies in mid-west America and Europe, lower the tariffs on imported produce, and allow the important of grains and other produce from Africa. In other words, give them a market to sell to!

The "Overstated AIDS problem": In all honesty, I cannot understand -how- you can overstate the spread of AIDS in Africa. You can, as recent studies have shown, mismeasure the spread of the disease, or place its epicenter in the wrong place; However, you cannot overstate the spread of a disease that takes the lives of millions.

The numbers of Africans being treated for AIDS by world-aid-organization is in the tens or hundreds of thousands, the number of Africans infected with the disease is in the millions. Once again, Shikwait's grandstanding misleads his audience. African NEEDS this aid to fight AIDS, however, it does not need it in the form of uncontrolled, untracked, and unlimited amounts of money. It would be better to ship stocks of anti-retrovirals and *gasp* condoms, along with providing education programs to Africans.

Stop sending aid? What a silly notion. How about simply thinking about how we spend it first?

read more digg story

Reporter Arrested on Orders of Giuliani Press Secretary

Bedeo — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 01:34:00 +0000

Manchester, NH - Freelance reporter Matt Lepacek, reporting for Infowars.com, was arrested for asking a question to one of Giuliani's staff members in a press conference. The press secretary identified the New York based reporter as having previously asked Giuliani about his prior knowledge of WTC building collapses and ordered his arrest.

Lepacek's behaviour did not warrant his arrest for felony criminal trespass. Lepacek possessed press credentials from CNN at the time, and in this footage, he was not asked to remove himself from the event. New Hampshire law states that "a person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place." clearly, his arrest was wrongful. I hope that any charges bought against him will be dropped or dismissed.

However, his behaviour was aggressive and obnoxious, and he certainly should have been asked to leave, or removed from the building.

The rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of The Press, come with many responsibilities. Foremost among these is the responsibility to use the freedom and power that these rights provide effectively and positively. It is the duty of The Press, indeed, all Americans, to use these privileges to instigate positive and meaningful change. Lepacek's intentions were admirable, he asked difficult questions that he felt needed to be answered, I applaud him for that. However, his methods were ill-thought out, and ineffective; clearly, there were many better approaches that he could have taken.

Watch the video, read their article, draw your own conclusions:

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/050607_reporter_arrested_giuliani_orders.html

-Bedeo

read more | digg story

Presented By

Thu, 07 Jun 2007 01:34:00 +0000

For those of you with less time on your hands

Bedeo — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:52:00 +0000

The previous article is rather long. If you've only a short time to read, take a look at this one instead!

At G8, Bush and The Vatican are both urging and promoting the fight against HIV/AIDS. The Vatican refutes the argument that contraception is a moral and effective tool in this fight, instead preaching abstinence-before-marriage as a solution. The Bush Administration, which recently asked congress to extend their relief funding to Africa, has stipulated that 7% of the funds given to africa (which is about one third of the funds earmarked for the AIDS/HIV fight) must go to abstinence-before-marriage programs.

These programs, along with being ineffective, only target those who are not married. They do nothing to lower the risk for married couples who suffer from HIV/AIDS, nor do they do anything to protect newborns, nor limit the birth rate of unwanted and infected youngsters.

This bull-headed stance sets a course that will cost millions of lives.

Presented By

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:52:00 +0000

Fighting with your hands tied, AIDS in Africa

Bedeo — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:24:00 +0000

Recently, the G8 summit was urged by pope Benedict XVI to follow through with its promises to fund and support the fight against the spread of AIDS in Africa. I applaud the generosity of the United States in responding to the threat of AIDS. Thus far it has donated over $1.9 billion dollars to the cause. President Bush also stepped up to the task recently, when he asked congress to extend his emergency relief fund for another five years -a large source of funding for the fight against HIV/AIDS) meaning that they will contribute another $30 million during that period of time.

Yet both the Pope and Bush have allowed doctrine and personal beliefs to greatly hinder the fight against AIDS. Their inability to react fluidly to a changing world, and their bull-headed refusal to back down or compromise threatens the lives of millions.

The Presidential relief fund stipulates that 7% of the money contributed to Africa (about one third of the total that is tagged for AIDS/HIV prevention) MUST be spent on abstinence-before-marriage programs.

Pope Benedict, in 2005 also stuck to his dogma refuting the arguments of his fellow clergymen that the use of condoms would be the lesser of two evils, stating that, "It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality."

The overall message from Bush and The Vatican is clear. Neither are interested in compromising -even the slightest bit- their personal values to save the lives of millions.

While personal values are fine, neither The Vatican, nor Bush, are able to take into account the myriad of different influences that affect the citizens of Africa. Abstinence before marriage would certainly slow the spread of AIDS, if all AIDS sufferers were unmarried that is. The fact is, that this is not the case. Furthermore, giving birth -along with the breast feeding of young- also spreads the disease. Lets not cover our eyes because of the dirty words; married couples have sex. They do so because they enjoy it, and both sexes have the urge. Pro-creation is a result of sex, not the end goal every time we go at it. Without the use of contraception, many married couples will not only infect each other, but will also likely pass the virus on to any children that they have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following portion of text was taken from an editorial that appeared appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Tuesday, June 5. The full version can be accessed at the following link:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/17330758.htm

A recent report by the Institute of Medicine gave the emergency program strong reviews. But an obstacle blocks the president's emergency program from being even more effective: About 7 percent of the money - one-third of what's earmarked for HIV/AIDS prevention - must be spent on "abstinence-until-marriage" programs.
That's a fine ideal to preach, but it is wrong to impose such an ideological agenda.
Groups might choose to make abstinence education part of their mission, but local health professionals should be the ones to decide the best way to save lives locally with those funds.
Congress should renew the president's emergency program and drop that requirement.
There are countless more AIDS victims like Sichinga's brother, all with families that grieve their loss. The battle against AIDS is fought for them all. It is right that the G8 nations help lead the fight.

Who cares?

Bedeo — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:11:00 +0000

So many people are probably wondering what the hell I'm talking about. Where did I come up with all of this self-righteous sounding stuff about generation Y? Well, it wasn't actually me, there are a number of decent books out there that drawn on some fairly seriously sized sociological studies. The World According to Y, Rebecca Huntley, and the previously mentioned Millenials Rising: The next great generation, By Howe and Strauss.

Still, that still leaves the question of who cares? The answer is simple: You should! You, generation Y! Why? Well, the oldest among us (1982 or so) have now graduated college, and have moved into the workforce, we're adults, and it's time to start influencing our world in positive ways. Time to start making the changes that we want, so that the world reflects our values, rather than those of previous generations.

Cheesy as I am sure it sounds, it really is your world now.

Do something!

Presented By

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:11:00 +0000

What makes us different

Bedeo — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:00:00 +0000

Welcome back.

In the previous post I posed the question "What makes Millenials different, special?" It was somewhat of a rhetorical question, we're all individuals, and I don't believe that we can really quantify all of the different aspects that make us special. Having said that, there are some traits that can be generalized to the Millenial population as a whole.

We're Moral, non-judgemental. Our parents tended to raise us to be accepting and open minded. We're generally not racist or sexist or homophobic. This sometimes comes back to bite the older generations in the ass. They raised us to it, but oftentimes tended to look upon it with a "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude. Take Don Imus, for instance. Many boomers found him funny, and sniggered at his comments. Me, I just fout his jokes pathetic and biggoted.
We're connected. Oh yes, you know you are. I check for my cellphone before I check for my wallet and keys, every time I leave the house. We use IM's, Email, Skype, VOIP to keep in touch. Many of us Blog, or read Blogs, and the net is the first place we turn to for our news. We're in touch with the world, ALL of the world.
We're big! Well, our generation is, personally I'm a massive 5'6". There are more of us than almost any other generation. Because most of our parents were baby boomers (the biggest generation in history) there are more of us than any other generation also. This means we have -power- my friends. Just think for a moment, about how much the Baby Boomers shaped the world as they moved through it as a generation. They wrough change on a massive scale, and most of it happened simply because there were so damn many of them. Well, there are a lot of us too.

Not a bad list of qualities to have really, if I do say so myself. It's a promising start for us, at least.
-Bedeo

So what IS a Millenial?

Bedeo — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 03:13:00 +0000

You may've heard the term before, in the news or on the web, or, you may've even read my first post on this blog. Wherever your first encountered the term, it probably confused you as much as it confused me. I never thought of myself as part of a generation before, I'd always considered myself well, me.

As it turns out, it's not just me, and I am part of this Millenial thing. But what IS a Millenial?

Anti-Boomers, Generation Y, Millenials, they're all the same group. According to Neil Howe and William Strauss (Millenials rising: The next great generation), to be one, you should've been born somewhere between 1982 and 2000, approximately. Our parents tend to be Baby Boomers (Those born between 1946 and 1964) and because of this, we're one of the largest generations ever.

But what makes us different from our older siblings in generation X, and our parents, The Baby-Boomers?

What makes us special....?

Think about it for a while. Mabey you'll discover something.

-Bedeo

Bedeo — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 22:25:00 +0000

I've been playing around with Technorati and Blogger to enhance the look of my blog. Hopefully this will get a few more people in there to read and discuss! Enjoy!

Bedeo — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:49:00 +0000

WASHINGTON, June 2 — President Bush’s advocacy of an immigration overhaul and his attacks on critics of the plan are provoking an unusually intense backlash from conservatives who form the bulwark of his remaining support, splintering his base and laying bare divisions within a party whose unity has been the envy of Democrats. (NYtimes.com)

It isn't often that I and Mr. Bush agree on foreign policy, yet it seems to me that this time he is working on a proposition that may well bring about some positive change.

It is estimated that there are currently 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S (Martin, Express-news) . Clearly, this indicates that the present border security measures and immigration policies are not working. Yet the bill faces opposition not only from the left, who tell us that it will cause issues for families attempting to reunite (certainly an issue, and something that the left needs to fight for), but also from Bush's generally staunch right-wing base. Their issue with the proposed legislature? That it will allow illegal workers to pay fines and fees to achieve residency. They're calling it amnesty.

Dictionary.com defines amnesty as: 2.Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.

One struggles to see how paying a fine, that is, an individual providing restitution to the government for past offenses, comes under the heading of amnesty. A fine, my fine friends, is a punishment.

Personally, I am unable to understand the issue here. Is it a problem because these workers came into the country illegally and 'stole' jobs and money by not paying taxes? Or is it because they're from another country, and those of the right who oppose the bill simply don't want them here? Is it something else?

Of course, I don't have the answer to this question. However, if -as I suspect- the first suggestion is the problem, then perhaps it is time for opponents of this bill to sit down and consider just what they are fighting for.

You see, this bill appears to provide a remedy to one of the more common arguments regarding the problem of illegal immigrants. The argument generally goes something like this: immigrants enter the country illegally, work for less than minimum wage - thus 'stealing' the jobs from American citizens- and then do not pay taxes, all the while eating up public services. This is a bad thing. Certainly, I can see the logic behind this argument. Yet, if this bill allows immigrants to pay restitution for their past 'misdeeds' and also put their names on the tax roll -so that they can be taxed- the bottom falls out of it entirely. Formerly illegal immigrants now become tax-paying green-card-carrying residents.

However! We then get to the tricky subject of morality. With the job-stealing tax-ducking argument out of the way, opponents of this bill will most likely fall back on "Yes, well, they -came- here illegally, and that's just...wrong." Please people, enough of the Dogma! It is time for change, time for a solution, not time to hide behind morals that we don't follow ourselves half the time, morals that achieve nothing. It is time to stop being so ethonocentric, so nationalistic, so judgemental, so that -no matter our past differences- we can work together to solve what is quite obviously one of the more serious issues facing the U.S today.

I remember a story, from the bible in fact -and you'll not often hear me quote the bible, let me tell you- of The Good Samaritan. I am sure you all know it, but in short, a wounded man was passed by and ignored by a priest, and a levite, both of whom were so tied up in the rules and dogma of their lives that they failed to help a fellow human-being in distress. It took a Samaritan who was willing to ignore the 'rules' and everyday restrictions, to help someone in distress.

What are you? Samaritan, or Demagogue?

U.S. government fights to keep meatpackers from (FROM?) testing all slaughtered cattle for mad cow

Bedeo — Thu, 31 May 2007 19:13:00 +0000

In this Afternoon's special, the government brings you, "How not to keep your population safe from Virulent Disease"

Tune in tomorrow, for the two part mini-series, "Your friend Avian flu, and its benefits as a population control device."

Article found at Digg.com

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/29/america/NA-GEN-US-Mad-Cow.php

WASHINGTON: The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.
The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. A beef producer in the western state of Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows.
Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well.

I really cannot believe this! The government, those folks who run the country and keep us safe from terrorism, is putting the interests of large mean companies ahead of not only our health, but also the rights of small business.

Ahh, the almighty dollar!

Not only is the administration (and the meat packing companies) saying that the profits of the meat industry are more important than our health, they're ALSO sticking their nose in the way a smaller company runs their business. By battling this, the government is not only saying "Money is more important than you!" but also "Large companies are more important than smaller ones!"

The only argument posed against widespread testing is that it will produce a false positive, and hurt the industry. Now, some of you may call me on a false analogy, but, do we limit testing of HIV in fear of a false positive? How about our other diseases, or our testing of food additives to make sure they're not harmful to people? Of course we don't, it makes little sense to avoid taking a safety measure on the basis that it 'might give a false positive'. If it gives a positive, re-test it to make sure, if it's a false one, then everything is ok! If it's not false, then you may've saved someone's life!

I am not sure how many people remember the catastrophe that Mad Cow Disease caused in the U.K around five years ago, but the impact upon their economy was serious, tens of thousands of animals were slaughtered and dumped. What happens if Mad Cow Disease hits the massive cattle 'farms' of the US? It seems that the government seeks to limit testing so that the larger corporations can gain a competitive edge against the smaller ones (remember, these corporations need every advantage they can get when they take over from Mom and Pop), and that they are ignorant, or at least ambivalent, of the risks that this may pose!

Personally, If Creekstone starts testing all of their cattle, they'll have my business for some time to come. I'm a fan of moral corporations and companies, and I certainly -don't- want to catch mad cow disease!

A Belated Look at Imus

Bedeo — Thu, 31 May 2007 17:57:00 +0000

I'll keep it short for my first ever blog.

The creation of this blog was in part, inspired by the following two articles, which came out at the start of this month. For me, they provide a positive and heartening look at what can be achieved by our generation. Call us Anti-boomers, millennials, generation Y, it doesn't really matter what the label is, it never has. What does matter is that we are beginning to see evidence of just how much of a force we are becoming, evidence of what we can do in the future, and how positive it appears these achievements will be.

For your perusal, from BullnotBull.com:

The Fourth Turning, part 1:

http://www.bullnotbull.com/archive/fourth-turning.html

Rise of the Anti-Boomers, part 2:

http://www.bullnotbull.com/archive/fourth-turning-2.html

-Bedeo