Sunday, March 22, 2015
Friday, March 13, 2015
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Venezuela oil and US interest on the news recently (2015)
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=97&l=en
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/03/obama-declares-venezuela-national-security-threat-150309164808710.html
“US President Barack Obama has issued an executive order declaring Venezuela a national security threat, and slapped sanctions on seven officials.
According to a White House statement issued on Monday, the new set of targeted sanctions excludes the Venezuelan people and any trade relations with the oil-rich nation and are instead specifically aimed at government officials the US accuses of violating human rights.
"Venezuelan officials past and present who violate the human rights of Venezuelan citizens and engage in acts of public corruption will not be welcome here, and we now have the tools to block their assets and their use of US financial systems," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in the statement.
"We are deeply concerned by the Venezuelan government's efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents. Venezuela's problems cannot be solved by criminalising dissent," the statement said.”
If Barack Obama has given sanctions to seven Venezuelan officials then the government of the US is wrong. My first reason for arguing this is that they used the word “slap” and “slapped,” as if the Venezuelan officials and also the Venezuelans are some sort of subordinate person to the US government. Therefore, they are disrespectful. If the US government is disrespectful then it does not have good moral practice. If the US does not have good moral practice then it should not lead the world, especially countries with more resources than them. If the US should not lead the world, then it should lessen its complaints against others.
If the US accuses of violating human rights then it is being hypocritical. The government of the US tortured many in the middle east in the attempt to establish liberal democracy there, particularly in the replacement of the Islamist socialist totalitarian government of Saddam Hussein. Also, historically, it has tortured many others and invaded and taken what is not theirs. For example, in Guatemala the US government ordered the end of the Communist revolution that was about to occur. Today, still there are many poor - which would have been prevented by Guatemalans’ having more independence over their resources and infrastructure - for example, the electricity generators and the fruit companies, especially the land. If still there are many poor in an area that the US government tried to stop then the US government should not act in the area any more. Therefore, it failed. Therefore, because its world mission is to spread liberal democracy, which is an ideology of creating prosperity - then it is hypocritical. Therefore, they shouldn’t interfere with human rights violations.
Venezuela has one of the largest reserves of oil in the world. It should keep it and possibly share it with the other latino countries.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/03/obama-declares-venezuela-national-security-threat-150309164808710.html
“US President Barack Obama has issued an executive order declaring Venezuela a national security threat, and slapped sanctions on seven officials.
According to a White House statement issued on Monday, the new set of targeted sanctions excludes the Venezuelan people and any trade relations with the oil-rich nation and are instead specifically aimed at government officials the US accuses of violating human rights.
"Venezuelan officials past and present who violate the human rights of Venezuelan citizens and engage in acts of public corruption will not be welcome here, and we now have the tools to block their assets and their use of US financial systems," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in the statement.
"We are deeply concerned by the Venezuelan government's efforts to escalate intimidation of its political opponents. Venezuela's problems cannot be solved by criminalising dissent," the statement said.”
If Barack Obama has given sanctions to seven Venezuelan officials then the government of the US is wrong. My first reason for arguing this is that they used the word “slap” and “slapped,” as if the Venezuelan officials and also the Venezuelans are some sort of subordinate person to the US government. Therefore, they are disrespectful. If the US government is disrespectful then it does not have good moral practice. If the US does not have good moral practice then it should not lead the world, especially countries with more resources than them. If the US should not lead the world, then it should lessen its complaints against others.
If the US accuses of violating human rights then it is being hypocritical. The government of the US tortured many in the middle east in the attempt to establish liberal democracy there, particularly in the replacement of the Islamist socialist totalitarian government of Saddam Hussein. Also, historically, it has tortured many others and invaded and taken what is not theirs. For example, in Guatemala the US government ordered the end of the Communist revolution that was about to occur. Today, still there are many poor - which would have been prevented by Guatemalans’ having more independence over their resources and infrastructure - for example, the electricity generators and the fruit companies, especially the land. If still there are many poor in an area that the US government tried to stop then the US government should not act in the area any more. Therefore, it failed. Therefore, because its world mission is to spread liberal democracy, which is an ideology of creating prosperity - then it is hypocritical. Therefore, they shouldn’t interfere with human rights violations.
Venezuela has one of the largest reserves of oil in the world. It should keep it and possibly share it with the other latino countries.
Monday, March 9, 2015
A comment/analysis of the protest in Wisconsin about black man Tony Robinson Jr.'s death
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31801192
“Protestors in Wisconsin took to the streets for a third day over the shooting of an unarmed black teenager by a white police officer.
More than 100 people marched to the state's Capitol in Madison on Sunday, beating drums and holding placards.
Nineteen-year-old Tony Robinson Jr was shot on Friday evening in an apartment. He was unarmed, but police say he attacked the officer who shot him.”
If protesters in Wisconsin are taking to the street shooting of an unarmed black teenager then according to the community the police did something wrong. If according to the community the police did something wrong there then both groups should be questioned. If both groups should be questioned then both groups lack credibility. If both groups lack credibility then the one with most education should be trusted. If the one with most education should be trusted then it is the police. If the police have traditionally been informed longer with reference to the law then the police should be trusted. Therefore, the case conclusion is to be in favor of the police side.
‘More than 100 people marched to the state’s Capitol’ so there is a great effect. The people there are beating drums and holding placards. If they are beating drums and holding placards then they are making a lot of noise and trying to send messages. If they are making a lot of noise and trying to send messages then they are trying to establish something. If they are trying to establish something then they are doing it through noise and traditional means. However, traditional means will not work. They are trying to send a message by holding signs. The message is obsolete. Recently, the Occupy Wall-street protests were a failure. Therefore, so are these protests. Furthermore, if they are attempting to do a protest they are only making sound. Therefore, their goals have failed already. Compared to the police, who are only doing their job by ending a loud protest; the protesters may have made noise over an untrue point.
Tony Robinson Jr. attacked the officer who went into his apartment. Therefore, Tony Robinson Jr. was wrong. If the police officers were allowed to go in then Tony Robinson Jr. only had to let them do their work. If Tony Robinson Jr. only had to let them do their work then he made a mistake. If Tony Robinson Jr. made a mistake then he was wrong. If Robinson Jr. was wrong then because Tony Robinson Jr. had made armed robberies, as the article shows, then he deserved to die. If he deserved to die then the protests are void.
In my judgment, if a person takes another’s items by force then the person deserves death. Therefore, the protests are void and Tony Robinson’s Jr.’s death is unimportant.
“Protestors in Wisconsin took to the streets for a third day over the shooting of an unarmed black teenager by a white police officer.
More than 100 people marched to the state's Capitol in Madison on Sunday, beating drums and holding placards.
Nineteen-year-old Tony Robinson Jr was shot on Friday evening in an apartment. He was unarmed, but police say he attacked the officer who shot him.”
If protesters in Wisconsin are taking to the street shooting of an unarmed black teenager then according to the community the police did something wrong. If according to the community the police did something wrong there then both groups should be questioned. If both groups should be questioned then both groups lack credibility. If both groups lack credibility then the one with most education should be trusted. If the one with most education should be trusted then it is the police. If the police have traditionally been informed longer with reference to the law then the police should be trusted. Therefore, the case conclusion is to be in favor of the police side.
‘More than 100 people marched to the state’s Capitol’ so there is a great effect. The people there are beating drums and holding placards. If they are beating drums and holding placards then they are making a lot of noise and trying to send messages. If they are making a lot of noise and trying to send messages then they are trying to establish something. If they are trying to establish something then they are doing it through noise and traditional means. However, traditional means will not work. They are trying to send a message by holding signs. The message is obsolete. Recently, the Occupy Wall-street protests were a failure. Therefore, so are these protests. Furthermore, if they are attempting to do a protest they are only making sound. Therefore, their goals have failed already. Compared to the police, who are only doing their job by ending a loud protest; the protesters may have made noise over an untrue point.
Tony Robinson Jr. attacked the officer who went into his apartment. Therefore, Tony Robinson Jr. was wrong. If the police officers were allowed to go in then Tony Robinson Jr. only had to let them do their work. If Tony Robinson Jr. only had to let them do their work then he made a mistake. If Tony Robinson Jr. made a mistake then he was wrong. If Robinson Jr. was wrong then because Tony Robinson Jr. had made armed robberies, as the article shows, then he deserved to die. If he deserved to die then the protests are void.
In my judgment, if a person takes another’s items by force then the person deserves death. Therefore, the protests are void and Tony Robinson’s Jr.’s death is unimportant.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Four points about Christianity, Liberal democracy, and Social Mobility
1. “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over th birds o the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female created them.”
If men are made in the image of God then men should be good. According to Christianity, God is good.
2. From The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama Page 143.
“What is at stake for people around the world, from Spain and Argentina to Hungary and Poland, when they throw off dictatorship and establish liberal democracy? To some extent, the answer is a purely negative one based on the mistakes and injustices of the preceding political order; they want to get rid of the hated colonels or party bosses who oppressed them, or to live without fear of arbitrary arrest.”
If what is at stake during transition from dictatorship to liberal democracy is oppression and freedom from arbitrary arrest then liberal democracy is good. If liberal democracy is good then it is like Christianity. Therefore, according to the political theory, men of liberal democracy are good. Therefore, it is superior. Therefore, it should exist.
3. The End of History and The Last Man by Francis Fukuyama Page 199.
“For Hegel, the French Revolution was the event that took the Christian vision of a free and equal society, and implemented it here on earth. In making this revolution the former slaves risked their lives, and in doing so proved that they had overcome the very fear of death that had served originally to define them as slaves. The principles of liberty and equality were then carried to the rest of Europe by Napoleon’s victorious armies.”
If the French Revolution was the event that took the Christian vision of a free and equal society, that is, if it made a “utopia” on earth, then it is perfect. If liberal democracy and capitalism are perfect then there should be no suffering. However, there is, therefore, it is not perfect. Therefore, the Christian vision of a free and equal society does not exist on earth. If in making this revolution the former slaves risked their lives then there were slaves. If there were slaves then in liberal democracy and capitalism they are no longer slaves. However, there is suffering, for example crime and psychological torture, therefore there is still slavery. So, the result was no change. Therefore, the men of liberal democracy are not good. Therefore, they do not deserve to exist.
4. With reference to social mobility and degeneracy, because liberal democracy was originally not very moral and prone to corruption then social mobility will only result in more degeneracy. However, this will not necessarily result in a revolution because if people who commit crimes get into power, like Barack Obama, then there will be only more corruption. The corruption is legitimate because it is allowed by law or is the law, and The Communist Party is banned. Therefore, only rightness will come about by the unban of The Communist Party or by another group externally forming it here. Barack Obama and his group, his employees etc. are not good people and their lives are in contradiction with what their society was supposed to be. They are failures. Therefore, they do not deserve to exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)