http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6947716.stm
Al-Queda is suspected to be behind a bombing killing 200. The attack was targeted at non-Muslim people, "Once a mosaic of religious and ethnic groups who mostly coexisted peacefully, Iraq is increasingly falling prey to sectarian intolerance."
First I wonder if Al-Queda is really behind this or the US is just blaming them because they want to detract from what kind of genocide they are committing in Iraq.
The quote describes how war and the so called "liberation" of the country in Iraq has become a war that pits people against people. There is no organization by the people in the country. I think these groups need to step back and look at who they should really be fighting against, and that is the institution that is trying to "liberate" them. Maybe one day they will be able to live together in peace again.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Chavez seeks support from Russia trip
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6245984.stm
Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, is really being proactive in his fight for the people. His socialist activities may be frowned upon by the western world, but South America and other developing countries are beginning to trust this type of development rather than what we see in the west;
"While at home Mr Chavez has concentrated on building a socialist republic, when it comes to international relations his main objective has been to push for a multi-polar world."
I really like his whole approach when it comes to building alliances with other countries, he is addressing countries that are being marginalized by the west. I wonder if Latin America will one day represent something like the European Union.
The United states feels very threatened by Hugo Chavez, they attempt to demonize him and his country:
"Washington sees Mr Chavez as the main source of instability in Latin America, a role previously assigned to Fidel Castro's Cuba."
As far as the relationship that Russia and Venezuela are building has to do with a fight agianst neo-libralism:
"Russia, like Venezuela, believes in a multi-polar world and is seeking ways to curtail the influence of the US."
Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, is really being proactive in his fight for the people. His socialist activities may be frowned upon by the western world, but South America and other developing countries are beginning to trust this type of development rather than what we see in the west;
"While at home Mr Chavez has concentrated on building a socialist republic, when it comes to international relations his main objective has been to push for a multi-polar world."
I really like his whole approach when it comes to building alliances with other countries, he is addressing countries that are being marginalized by the west. I wonder if Latin America will one day represent something like the European Union.
The United states feels very threatened by Hugo Chavez, they attempt to demonize him and his country:
"Washington sees Mr Chavez as the main source of instability in Latin America, a role previously assigned to Fidel Castro's Cuba."
As far as the relationship that Russia and Venezuela are building has to do with a fight agianst neo-libralism:
"Russia, like Venezuela, believes in a multi-polar world and is seeking ways to curtail the influence of the US."
Monday, August 13, 2007
Chavez signs Ecuador oil accord
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/09/ap4006755.html
Hugo Chavez is looked is an outcast in the United States eyes. He believes in socialism, therefore he is a threat. Ecuador and Venezuela have a wealth of oil, that for years has been exported by US companies. For a country like Ecuador, they don't contain the cappabilities to refine their oil, therefore they depended on the US. Hugo Chavez is offering aid in order to create refineries in ecuador. The indegenous people and the mestizos alike agree that this is a good plan. Kicking American oil companies out of ecuador and venezuela would be a huge step for these countries of south America. The question on everyones mind is, will this agreement lead to a socialist ecuador? I personally don't see chavez as a political influence on ecuador, I see his visit rather as a statement toward forigen oil companies who have exploited these resources for too long. Helping another south american country gain independence from the exploitation of capitalism.
Hugo Chavez is looked is an outcast in the United States eyes. He believes in socialism, therefore he is a threat. Ecuador and Venezuela have a wealth of oil, that for years has been exported by US companies. For a country like Ecuador, they don't contain the cappabilities to refine their oil, therefore they depended on the US. Hugo Chavez is offering aid in order to create refineries in ecuador. The indegenous people and the mestizos alike agree that this is a good plan. Kicking American oil companies out of ecuador and venezuela would be a huge step for these countries of south America. The question on everyones mind is, will this agreement lead to a socialist ecuador? I personally don't see chavez as a political influence on ecuador, I see his visit rather as a statement toward forigen oil companies who have exploited these resources for too long. Helping another south american country gain independence from the exploitation of capitalism.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Sierra Leone ready to vote
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/08/09/dougherty.us.china.trillion.cnn
This piece addresses the current state of affairs in Sierra Leone regarding upcoming elections. The reporter illistrates how the 2002 elections followed a civil war, and how this upcoming election is peaceful, she believes this is attributed to democracy. She says that the country looks like a carnival,
"It is proof that democracy is taking root."
I love that to further emphasize her point CNN shows a clip of the Hollywood movie, "Blood Diamond," as if this were some sort of evidence. I watched the movie, as did many Americans, but this should not be used as News. I was really irritated with this whole story, I felt that this story showed how democracy is the best system, by marginalizing any other form of development.
This piece addresses the current state of affairs in Sierra Leone regarding upcoming elections. The reporter illistrates how the 2002 elections followed a civil war, and how this upcoming election is peaceful, she believes this is attributed to democracy. She says that the country looks like a carnival,
"It is proof that democracy is taking root."
I love that to further emphasize her point CNN shows a clip of the Hollywood movie, "Blood Diamond," as if this were some sort of evidence. I watched the movie, as did many Americans, but this should not be used as News. I was really irritated with this whole story, I felt that this story showed how democracy is the best system, by marginalizing any other form of development.
U.N. votes to expand Iraq role
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/10/iraq.main/index.html
The Bush administration and UN officials are trying hard to establish peace in Iraq. I feel that this is always important, but for some reason peace has to be established after a war. I do not see why war has to lead to peace. The other thing that bothers me, is now that there is peace talk, the people who have the most say in the matter are outside forces. If peace talk started before war, the agendas of many outside officials would not be satisfactory. The new development of Iran's influence in the war is leading to threats from the US,
"President Bush on Thursday said Iranians who smuggled bombs to insurgents in Iraq would face "consequences" if they continued."
What kind of consequences? Is he threatening war?
Development from the west imposed on other countries can be compared to McDonald's. America goes into a country to develop it and because Americans are so drivin by fast results, in the end we see results, but they are not good quality outcomes for the people in the country such as Iraq. We fail to see the production process, and the people who benefit are the consumers in the west, not the people who are living in a McDonald's built world. A world that was built in a year, rather than 100. How is westernization different from imperialization?
The Bush administration and UN officials are trying hard to establish peace in Iraq. I feel that this is always important, but for some reason peace has to be established after a war. I do not see why war has to lead to peace. The other thing that bothers me, is now that there is peace talk, the people who have the most say in the matter are outside forces. If peace talk started before war, the agendas of many outside officials would not be satisfactory. The new development of Iran's influence in the war is leading to threats from the US,
"President Bush on Thursday said Iranians who smuggled bombs to insurgents in Iraq would face "consequences" if they continued."
What kind of consequences? Is he threatening war?
Development from the west imposed on other countries can be compared to McDonald's. America goes into a country to develop it and because Americans are so drivin by fast results, in the end we see results, but they are not good quality outcomes for the people in the country such as Iraq. We fail to see the production process, and the people who benefit are the consumers in the west, not the people who are living in a McDonald's built world. A world that was built in a year, rather than 100. How is westernization different from imperialization?
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Aid workers hustle as South Asian villagers rush home
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/08/08/flood-aid-south-asia.html#skip300x250
This article addresses foreign aid in the case of the floods in northern India, Bangladesh and Nepal. I think it is good that foreign aid is providing drinking water, matches and other necessary supplies for these people. I think it is interesting how often we use technology to try to aid foreign countries like dropping things from helicopter,
"Authorities stopped dropping water pouches from helicopters after complaints they broke upon landing, said R.K. Singh, who is co-coordinating the relief work there."
I think the best way to aid a country in times of disaster, is rally together those in the country who were fortunate enough not to have their lives devastated by the disaster with those foreigners who want to help. Together all the people can help each other instead of relying on foreigners. I still think providing basic needs is essential, but I think rebuilding of these areas needs to be approached from the people residing in it.
This article addresses foreign aid in the case of the floods in northern India, Bangladesh and Nepal. I think it is good that foreign aid is providing drinking water, matches and other necessary supplies for these people. I think it is interesting how often we use technology to try to aid foreign countries like dropping things from helicopter,
"Authorities stopped dropping water pouches from helicopters after complaints they broke upon landing, said R.K. Singh, who is co-coordinating the relief work there."
I think the best way to aid a country in times of disaster, is rally together those in the country who were fortunate enough not to have their lives devastated by the disaster with those foreigners who want to help. Together all the people can help each other instead of relying on foreigners. I still think providing basic needs is essential, but I think rebuilding of these areas needs to be approached from the people residing in it.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
63% of Iraqis Oppose Privatizing Nation's Oil Resources
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/07/130246
The majority of Iraqi's feel that the oil company should not be privatized. The bill that US is pushing to be passed by September would allow foreign multinational corporations to be allowed a share in the countries natural resources. Many Iraqis do not feel adequately informed on the bill, and most feel that they should not consider it until US is out of the country.
I think it is very interesting how this war was "not based on oil," but it just seems so obvious that it is about oil. I think the Iraqi people recognize this too. If the Iraqi people, and the American people who oppose this war banned together to fight this injustice, would we see the nationalization of oil companies in Iraq?
My favorite quote pushing this bill comes from a representative of the International Crisis Group,
"The Shiites and the Kurds do not want to cede power to people they don't trust. But if they don't, there won't be reconciliation. Then all we can look forward to is civil war."
Is this some sort of threat to the Iraqi people? Do you agree that this is the only way to bring development and peace to the country, to cede power to people they don't trust!? What a ridiculous request.
The majority of Iraqi's feel that the oil company should not be privatized. The bill that US is pushing to be passed by September would allow foreign multinational corporations to be allowed a share in the countries natural resources. Many Iraqis do not feel adequately informed on the bill, and most feel that they should not consider it until US is out of the country.
I think it is very interesting how this war was "not based on oil," but it just seems so obvious that it is about oil. I think the Iraqi people recognize this too. If the Iraqi people, and the American people who oppose this war banned together to fight this injustice, would we see the nationalization of oil companies in Iraq?
My favorite quote pushing this bill comes from a representative of the International Crisis Group,
"The Shiites and the Kurds do not want to cede power to people they don't trust. But if they don't, there won't be reconciliation. Then all we can look forward to is civil war."
Is this some sort of threat to the Iraqi people? Do you agree that this is the only way to bring development and peace to the country, to cede power to people they don't trust!? What a ridiculous request.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Planet in Peril
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/planet.in.peril/
In this special report done by CNN there is a virtual globe that addresses environmental issues on each continent. I thought this was a very interesting medium of education until I started clicking on each of the dots. In South America it talks about degredation to the rain forest, in Africa it talks about lake chad dissapearing, in Greenland it talks about ice caps melting, in China it talks about population growth increasing pollution ect. What caught my attention was what it said for the United States. My expectation would be, uses the most energy, water, produces the most waste, contributes mass amount of Co2, something along those lines but no, it says,
"The reintroduction of gray wolves into Yellowstone has become a rare success story in the battle to save endangered species in the United States. In the early 20th century, the gray wolf was often hunted by settlers in the western United States who said the predators were killing off their livestock. By the 1970s there were no reports of a wolf population, according to the park's Web site."
I could not believe it, this is all that it said about the US contributing to a Planet in Peril. Why do you think Americans are so unwilling to take ownership of the negative contributions we have had on the environment? Some people do not even believe that global warming exists? How can we make people aware of how they impact our world?
In this special report done by CNN there is a virtual globe that addresses environmental issues on each continent. I thought this was a very interesting medium of education until I started clicking on each of the dots. In South America it talks about degredation to the rain forest, in Africa it talks about lake chad dissapearing, in Greenland it talks about ice caps melting, in China it talks about population growth increasing pollution ect. What caught my attention was what it said for the United States. My expectation would be, uses the most energy, water, produces the most waste, contributes mass amount of Co2, something along those lines but no, it says,
"The reintroduction of gray wolves into Yellowstone has become a rare success story in the battle to save endangered species in the United States. In the early 20th century, the gray wolf was often hunted by settlers in the western United States who said the predators were killing off their livestock. By the 1970s there were no reports of a wolf population, according to the park's Web site."
I could not believe it, this is all that it said about the US contributing to a Planet in Peril. Why do you think Americans are so unwilling to take ownership of the negative contributions we have had on the environment? Some people do not even believe that global warming exists? How can we make people aware of how they impact our world?
Friday, August 3, 2007
China's Healing Power
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1649133,00.html
It seems as though in an attempt to protect China's own economic well-being they have helped the Sudanese government to accept UN support in Darfur.
"China is Sudan's largest trading partner, buying 65% of its oil. Until now Beijing has protected Khartoum from the Western world, which was crying genocide and demanding intervention and sanctions. Now China has helped persuade Sudan to accept a new United Nations-led peacekeeping force of 26,000 military personnel and police, subsuming the 7,000 African Union peacekeepers who have failed to have any significant impact on the conflict."
There is a number of things that led to this transition of support, recently nine Chinese oil workers were killed, another reason may be that China wants to be like the other "big boys" and follow the developed countries lead, the last reason is China wants the 2008 Olympic games to go smoothly in Beijing. I think this is interesting because none of these reasons have to do with the well-being of humanity. What does it take to get people to care about other humans? It seems that it there has to be some sort of gain individually or economically for one community to care for another.
It seems as though in an attempt to protect China's own economic well-being they have helped the Sudanese government to accept UN support in Darfur.
"China is Sudan's largest trading partner, buying 65% of its oil. Until now Beijing has protected Khartoum from the Western world, which was crying genocide and demanding intervention and sanctions. Now China has helped persuade Sudan to accept a new United Nations-led peacekeeping force of 26,000 military personnel and police, subsuming the 7,000 African Union peacekeepers who have failed to have any significant impact on the conflict."
There is a number of things that led to this transition of support, recently nine Chinese oil workers were killed, another reason may be that China wants to be like the other "big boys" and follow the developed countries lead, the last reason is China wants the 2008 Olympic games to go smoothly in Beijing. I think this is interesting because none of these reasons have to do with the well-being of humanity. What does it take to get people to care about other humans? It seems that it there has to be some sort of gain individually or economically for one community to care for another.
On the side of the peacemakers
I just watched a pretty good documentary called "on the side of the peacemakers," Michael Franti travels through the Middle East with his guitar, I donno check it out if you want to.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
The Bottled Water Lie: As Soft Drink Giant Admits Product is Tap Water, New Scrutiny Falls on the Economic and Environmental Costs of a Billion Dollar
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/01/1435240
First off, if anyone would like to hear or read news that is independently ran (IE not one of the 8 privately owned corporations that control our media) than I suggest www.democracynow.org.
I have been following the implications of the privatization of water for a while now, and this article has a lot to offer as far as how privatization of water affects the world. Due to the recent scandal regarding Aquafina (pepsi owned) and Dasani's (coke owned)admission to using tap water for bottled water a lens of scrutiny has been placed on the bottled water industry questioning the true intensions of these corporations. Millions of dollars are spent on advertising for the health and safety of bottled water. I know personally that I have felt more secure in drinking bottled water over tap water, that it somehow tastes better, this is just a lie and proof that everyone is contaminated by advertising. In the environmental realm the increasing security people feel from drinking bottled water has led to such waste,
"Each day an estimated 60 million plastic water bottles are thrown away. Most are not recycled. The Pacific Institute has estimated 20 million barrels of oil are used each year to make the plastic for water bottles."
What I really want to talk about is what the implications of these corporations have abroad. India has seen the impacts of the bottled water industry as the rivers dramatically decrease. Already we see water shortages in places like India, but hardly do we point a finger at companies such as Pepsi and Coke who are honing in on our blindness. Farmers are not able to irrigate their land, because there is such a shortage of water. Not only are they taking the water from India they are then dumping toxic pollutants back into the rivers.
July 2nd there was a rally in El Salvador against the president’s agreement to decentralize water (the first step of privatization) 14 people were arrested and are being charged with terrorism. They were arrested on their way to a peaceful rally. Interestingly enough the World Bank was the one who gave El Salvador a loan to decentralize the water.
Would you really feel safer if corporations owned our water rather than the public?
Many people would argue that we would have safer water if it was controlled by corporations, but the fundamental rule about being a capitalist is all about profit gain, how could we trust corporations to care about the well-being of the recipients.
Is it right that a basic need such as water be owned by a company that profits from our fear as consumers?
First off, if anyone would like to hear or read news that is independently ran (IE not one of the 8 privately owned corporations that control our media) than I suggest www.democracynow.org.
I have been following the implications of the privatization of water for a while now, and this article has a lot to offer as far as how privatization of water affects the world. Due to the recent scandal regarding Aquafina (pepsi owned) and Dasani's (coke owned)admission to using tap water for bottled water a lens of scrutiny has been placed on the bottled water industry questioning the true intensions of these corporations. Millions of dollars are spent on advertising for the health and safety of bottled water. I know personally that I have felt more secure in drinking bottled water over tap water, that it somehow tastes better, this is just a lie and proof that everyone is contaminated by advertising. In the environmental realm the increasing security people feel from drinking bottled water has led to such waste,
"Each day an estimated 60 million plastic water bottles are thrown away. Most are not recycled. The Pacific Institute has estimated 20 million barrels of oil are used each year to make the plastic for water bottles."
What I really want to talk about is what the implications of these corporations have abroad. India has seen the impacts of the bottled water industry as the rivers dramatically decrease. Already we see water shortages in places like India, but hardly do we point a finger at companies such as Pepsi and Coke who are honing in on our blindness. Farmers are not able to irrigate their land, because there is such a shortage of water. Not only are they taking the water from India they are then dumping toxic pollutants back into the rivers.
July 2nd there was a rally in El Salvador against the president’s agreement to decentralize water (the first step of privatization) 14 people were arrested and are being charged with terrorism. They were arrested on their way to a peaceful rally. Interestingly enough the World Bank was the one who gave El Salvador a loan to decentralize the water.
Would you really feel safer if corporations owned our water rather than the public?
Many people would argue that we would have safer water if it was controlled by corporations, but the fundamental rule about being a capitalist is all about profit gain, how could we trust corporations to care about the well-being of the recipients.
Is it right that a basic need such as water be owned by a company that profits from our fear as consumers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)