Given the majority of Iranians are dissatisfied with the recent “dubious” June 12, 2009 presidential election, will the time for another Iranian Revolution with a scale like that of 1979 is nigh?
By: Ringo Bones
Like many people around the world, I too am envious with the Iranian people’s vigilance against tyranny – unlike the “majority” of Americans who stood idly by as George “Dubya” Bush stole the 2000 US Presidential Election from Al Gore. But the question in everybody’s mind is will the scores of on-going demonstrations in Iran eventually lead into a revolution that will rival in scale to the one that eventually ousted the Shah back in 1979?
The Twitter-fueled scores of protest against the disputed Iranian presidential election of June 12, 2009 probably gained legitimacy of becoming a larger revolution. When one of the protesters - Neda Agha Soltan - was shot by an "inexperienced" Basij Militia sniper while her gristly slow death was broadcasted around the world via You Tube. Given that she only wanted freedom and democracy in Iran in which the disputed presidential election had utterly undermined only shows how dedicated Iranian citizens are when it comes to patriotism.
The possibility of the repeat of that iconic 1979 Iranian Revolution that eventually ousted Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi could be more than likely now than ever. Because the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi had already shown her support for the opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi during the historic July 17,2009 protest rally. Given that Shirin Ebadi holds so much political clout to the “Iranian Diaspora” worldwide, Iran’s Guardian Council would now be working overtime convincing the Iranian people on why they should accept incumbent hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The International Community has been condemning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s heavy-handed crackdown of demonstrations by opposition supporters who cited election irregularities. The condemnation over the heavy-handed crackdown of opposition supporters had now reached another level as Shirin Ebadi rallies the Iranian Diaspora around the world to never stop their peaceful resistance against the June 12 sham presidential election of Iran. If were lucky, today’s generation too young to remember the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 could once again witness another – hopefully more peaceful – Iranian Revolution in the 21st Century.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party: Hypocrisy Par Excellence?
Everyone has a right to express their anger, but does the affluent-yet-ungrateful Anglo-Saxon Protestant community of America really in a position to protest against the Obama Administration’s tax structure?
By: Vanessa Uy
After America’s reputation as the only superpower on the face of the Earth was reassured yet again by President Barack Obama’s decisive action that freed Captain Richard Phillips after being held captive by Somali pirates. Sadly, the jubilation was rather short-lived because the affluent-yet-ungrateful lunatic fringe of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant community surprisingly managed to sum up the courage to protest against the Obama Administration’s “taxation without representation”.
Though in my opinion, rich spoilt white folks protesting their government’s unfair tax structure by reenacting the 1770 Boston Tea Party really is a big improvement. After all, aren’t these the same people who used to truck bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and firebomb planned parenthood clinics during the Clinton Administration? An improvement in expressing one’s disdain against the government like this year’s Tax Day Tea Party really brings a whole new meaning to the phrase “Yes we can.”
Probably the only good thing that has come out of the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party demonstrations is that it has done the job that is supposedly should have been performed by every sixth-grade social studies teacher in America were paid to do. Which is teaching America’s young impressionable kids about the original Boston Tea Party of 1770. Though I often confuse this historic day with the Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770. I just hope that the teabags that they used in this year’s Tax Day Tea Party were bought at fair trade prices.
But still, the thought still haven’t left my mind if the Fox News Channel had given Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols their own shows back in 1995 – like the one currently done by Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly on Fox News Channel. Those Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building employees would have been happy living out their lives till this day, instead of dying needlessly back in April 20, 1995.
By: Vanessa Uy
After America’s reputation as the only superpower on the face of the Earth was reassured yet again by President Barack Obama’s decisive action that freed Captain Richard Phillips after being held captive by Somali pirates. Sadly, the jubilation was rather short-lived because the affluent-yet-ungrateful lunatic fringe of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant community surprisingly managed to sum up the courage to protest against the Obama Administration’s “taxation without representation”.
Though in my opinion, rich spoilt white folks protesting their government’s unfair tax structure by reenacting the 1770 Boston Tea Party really is a big improvement. After all, aren’t these the same people who used to truck bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and firebomb planned parenthood clinics during the Clinton Administration? An improvement in expressing one’s disdain against the government like this year’s Tax Day Tea Party really brings a whole new meaning to the phrase “Yes we can.”
Probably the only good thing that has come out of the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party demonstrations is that it has done the job that is supposedly should have been performed by every sixth-grade social studies teacher in America were paid to do. Which is teaching America’s young impressionable kids about the original Boston Tea Party of 1770. Though I often confuse this historic day with the Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770. I just hope that the teabags that they used in this year’s Tax Day Tea Party were bought at fair trade prices.
But still, the thought still haven’t left my mind if the Fox News Channel had given Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols their own shows back in 1995 – like the one currently done by Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly on Fox News Channel. Those Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building employees would have been happy living out their lives till this day, instead of dying needlessly back in April 20, 1995.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Is Nationalization Killing the Protestant Work Ethic?
Critics called nationalization of the banking industry in America as nothing more than rewarding failure, but will it ultimately kill the Protestant work ethic in the long run?
By: Vanessa Uy
President Obama really did scored big during the London G20 summit back in April 2, 2009 for leading the way in allowing the attendant countries to reach a consensus in tackling our on-going global financial crisis. Even though France, Germany and the rest of the EU were very reluctant at first in “throwing money at the problem” via economic stimulus packages – given that this is the very thing that saved Japan from her economic “Lost Decade”.
But back in America, populist anger has been brewing since the start of 2009 over TARP-fund misappropriation through overly extravagant executive bonuses of the likes of AIG and their ilk. Many now see the nationalization of ailing banks and other financial institutions as nothing more than rewarding failure. The question now is will nationalization – which many economic pundits believe mark the death-knell of American capitalism – is now poised to kill off another cherished American value – namely the Protestant work ethic?
Even though the Protestant work ethic had become inexplicably linked to the Reagan-era “greed-driven” economic prosperity of the 1980s, even though the concept already reached full-bloom in 20th Century America where everyone – especially the “Turn of the Century” (1900s) immigrants – stating that anyone who works hard will be rewarded handsomely. But Capitol Hill’s current flirtation with nationalization, where failing financial institutions are unfairly rewarded through the TARP funds, does sound just like a repeat of the dubious concepts of the past. Like the Johnson Administration-era redistribution of wealth of the mid-1960s - a.k.a. “War on Poverty” which usually just resulted in a heavier tax burden and fewer crucial services for the working poor and the middle classes.
Hastily set-up ill conceived government programs like the outgoing Bush Administration’s TARP funds to bail out ailing banks and other financial and corporate institutions became the focus of populist anger. Especially during the first few months of 2009 were economic and financial issues are as politically polarizing as religious extremism – given the ever-increasing number of job losses and home foreclosures.
Poorly executed government programs of “social service” – especially the TARP funds which to me are nothing more than welfare of billionaires who are taking too many risky financial decisions for their own good – do more harm than good. Especially when the American taxpayer are now the underwriters of their ill-conceived high-risk financial adventurism. They tend to undermine the Protestant work ethic that made the post World War II American economy the gold standard of capitalism. Nationalism – especially when it is poorly executed – will ultimately lower productivity. Which only serves to bolster the idea harbored by socialist-leaning anti-capitalists who think that capitalism cannot reform itself. Looks like those Ché Guevara T-shirts will never go out of fashion.
By: Vanessa Uy
President Obama really did scored big during the London G20 summit back in April 2, 2009 for leading the way in allowing the attendant countries to reach a consensus in tackling our on-going global financial crisis. Even though France, Germany and the rest of the EU were very reluctant at first in “throwing money at the problem” via economic stimulus packages – given that this is the very thing that saved Japan from her economic “Lost Decade”.
But back in America, populist anger has been brewing since the start of 2009 over TARP-fund misappropriation through overly extravagant executive bonuses of the likes of AIG and their ilk. Many now see the nationalization of ailing banks and other financial institutions as nothing more than rewarding failure. The question now is will nationalization – which many economic pundits believe mark the death-knell of American capitalism – is now poised to kill off another cherished American value – namely the Protestant work ethic?
Even though the Protestant work ethic had become inexplicably linked to the Reagan-era “greed-driven” economic prosperity of the 1980s, even though the concept already reached full-bloom in 20th Century America where everyone – especially the “Turn of the Century” (1900s) immigrants – stating that anyone who works hard will be rewarded handsomely. But Capitol Hill’s current flirtation with nationalization, where failing financial institutions are unfairly rewarded through the TARP funds, does sound just like a repeat of the dubious concepts of the past. Like the Johnson Administration-era redistribution of wealth of the mid-1960s - a.k.a. “War on Poverty” which usually just resulted in a heavier tax burden and fewer crucial services for the working poor and the middle classes.
Hastily set-up ill conceived government programs like the outgoing Bush Administration’s TARP funds to bail out ailing banks and other financial and corporate institutions became the focus of populist anger. Especially during the first few months of 2009 were economic and financial issues are as politically polarizing as religious extremism – given the ever-increasing number of job losses and home foreclosures.
Poorly executed government programs of “social service” – especially the TARP funds which to me are nothing more than welfare of billionaires who are taking too many risky financial decisions for their own good – do more harm than good. Especially when the American taxpayer are now the underwriters of their ill-conceived high-risk financial adventurism. They tend to undermine the Protestant work ethic that made the post World War II American economy the gold standard of capitalism. Nationalism – especially when it is poorly executed – will ultimately lower productivity. Which only serves to bolster the idea harbored by socialist-leaning anti-capitalists who think that capitalism cannot reform itself. Looks like those Ché Guevara T-shirts will never go out of fashion.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Can Capitalism Really Reform Itself?
It has lately become a target of populist anger due to the policymakers’ inability to rein in on financial executive excesses, but is it possible for capitalism to reform itself?
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since that AIG executive bonus debacle received round the clock press attention, populist anger in America and across the world has now been directed at the excesses of capitalism. Not to mention the Bernard L. Madoff’s hedge-fund-as-a-pyramid-scheme financial scandal and Sir Allen Stanford’s equally dubious investment scheme. The state of the global economy – as of late – has now turned into an issue as politically polarizing as that of religious extremism. But given that every head-of-state around the world are now pledging to do their part to reform the excesses that plagued capitalism since back in the days when Ronald Reagan ruled the free world, is it really possible to reform capitalism – or create policies to make capitalism reform itself?
The G-20 Summit in London, England has been touted by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of rising to the challenge to reform capitalism for the better. With the promise to reform the world’s financial system through international regulations and tighter controls of hedge funds and mortgaged backed securities, as it’s main goals. There is literally a lot of money riding on the G-20 Summit in London. Though the warm-up protests last Saturday March 28, 2009 only highlights the concern that now capitalism really is the target of global populist anger. But the question now is whether our “enlightened” world leaders choose quantitative easing at the expense of their citizen’s economic well-being – or will there be a repeat of 1999’s Battle in Seattle?
The problem with our existing capitalist framework of our global economy is that it is very dependent on the existence of financial disparity between populations – i.e. it only works if there are poor people working for the rich people. And this is the very reason why the world’s “significant” population of multi-millionaires and billionaires are extremely reluctant to commit to “Going Galt” – i.e. mimicking John Galt of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged where über-rich people formed their own commune in a secluded island. Imagine billionaires employing multi-millionaires as gardeners and landscapers. Or how about multi-millionaires peddling 5-dollar MSRP (manufacturer’s suggested retail price) devilled eggs and selling them to their billionaire customers at 30 thousand dollars for starters. Maybe Karl Marx and W.E.B. DuBois were right in stating that capitalism cannot reform itself. Or as I see it – capitalism is extremely reluctant in reforming itself. Even if it means it’s very survival is at stake.
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since that AIG executive bonus debacle received round the clock press attention, populist anger in America and across the world has now been directed at the excesses of capitalism. Not to mention the Bernard L. Madoff’s hedge-fund-as-a-pyramid-scheme financial scandal and Sir Allen Stanford’s equally dubious investment scheme. The state of the global economy – as of late – has now turned into an issue as politically polarizing as that of religious extremism. But given that every head-of-state around the world are now pledging to do their part to reform the excesses that plagued capitalism since back in the days when Ronald Reagan ruled the free world, is it really possible to reform capitalism – or create policies to make capitalism reform itself?
The G-20 Summit in London, England has been touted by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of rising to the challenge to reform capitalism for the better. With the promise to reform the world’s financial system through international regulations and tighter controls of hedge funds and mortgaged backed securities, as it’s main goals. There is literally a lot of money riding on the G-20 Summit in London. Though the warm-up protests last Saturday March 28, 2009 only highlights the concern that now capitalism really is the target of global populist anger. But the question now is whether our “enlightened” world leaders choose quantitative easing at the expense of their citizen’s economic well-being – or will there be a repeat of 1999’s Battle in Seattle?
The problem with our existing capitalist framework of our global economy is that it is very dependent on the existence of financial disparity between populations – i.e. it only works if there are poor people working for the rich people. And this is the very reason why the world’s “significant” population of multi-millionaires and billionaires are extremely reluctant to commit to “Going Galt” – i.e. mimicking John Galt of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged where über-rich people formed their own commune in a secluded island. Imagine billionaires employing multi-millionaires as gardeners and landscapers. Or how about multi-millionaires peddling 5-dollar MSRP (manufacturer’s suggested retail price) devilled eggs and selling them to their billionaire customers at 30 thousand dollars for starters. Maybe Karl Marx and W.E.B. DuBois were right in stating that capitalism cannot reform itself. Or as I see it – capitalism is extremely reluctant in reforming itself. Even if it means it’s very survival is at stake.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Was Abraham Lincoln a Racist?
As the only “White Guy” with enough clout to deserve mention during Black History Month, do most Americans harbor an overly rosy view of the 16th president of the United States?
By: Vanessa Uy
As the closest thing to America having her own Jesus, is the book written by Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. titled Lincoln on Race and Slavery serve as a polemic as damning as the Nag Hammadi Documents? Given that an overwhelming number of Americans have an overly rosy view of America’s 16th president, it might as well be.
As the Director of the W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University Professor Gates has the unique position of having access to very important - and the not so pertinent – knowledge. On how then-President Lincoln’s policy on the emancipation and drafting of former African-American slaves to fight for the Union Army during the civil War. In his book, Professor Gates managed to use the not so flattering aspects of then-President Lincoln’s policies with great effect in his warts-and-all biography of Abraham Lincoln.
Compared to recent biographies about Abraham Lincoln, Professor Gates’ view on America’s 16th President is a stark contrast compared to the overly rosy view harbored by Adam Gopnik’s book titled Angels and Ages: A Short Book About Darwin, Lincoln, and Modern Life. While Adam Gopnik praises Lincoln’s “Liberty for All” idealism even to the black African slaves, Professor Gates paints a somewhat more somber view on Lincoln. Especially on his not so popular policies instituted during his presidency, not to mention Lincoln’s well-documented racism against black slaves.
While Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin is probably the “book-of-the-moment” when it comes to biographies about Abraham Lincoln. Not only because it influenced President Barack Obama about Lincoln’s “emotional temperament” of living through and resolving crises, but also because Goodwin’s book concentrates more on the aspects of Abraham Lincoln that most Americans hold dear.
In recent years, books and movies that portray the less flattering aspects of Abraham Lincoln – no matter how historically accurate – never seems to attain mainstream success. Even the relatively popular movie titled Cold Mountain. Which is about then President Lincoln’s questionable policies during the Civil War was remembered more for Renée Zellweger’s overuse of BOTOX – rather than the movie’s historical merits. Though the movie did inspire a few Americans to voice out that Abraham Lincoln should be tried posthumously for war crimes under the rules of the Nuremberg Convention.
Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is no less flattering when it comes to Abraham Lincoln’s “human frailties”. Historical documents did cite Lincoln’s racism. Not only on Lincoln’s vehement opposition of interracial marriage, but he also harbored grave doubts about the intellectual capacity of African Americans, publicly used the “N-word” until at least 1862, enjoyed “darky” jokes and black-faced minstrel shows. All of which a middle-school civics teacher in the United States would rather wish their students never learn about Abraham Lincoln.
Even though Lincoln finally freed the slaves and drafted them to fight for the Union Army. But whether this was all in the name of political expediency or a genuine concern for African American welfare at the time is anybody’s guess. Professor Gates was leaning towards the political expediency angle. Nevertheless, the Civil War redeemed then President Lincoln - which was nevertheless a miracle in itself.
By: Vanessa Uy
As the closest thing to America having her own Jesus, is the book written by Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. titled Lincoln on Race and Slavery serve as a polemic as damning as the Nag Hammadi Documents? Given that an overwhelming number of Americans have an overly rosy view of America’s 16th president, it might as well be.
As the Director of the W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard University Professor Gates has the unique position of having access to very important - and the not so pertinent – knowledge. On how then-President Lincoln’s policy on the emancipation and drafting of former African-American slaves to fight for the Union Army during the civil War. In his book, Professor Gates managed to use the not so flattering aspects of then-President Lincoln’s policies with great effect in his warts-and-all biography of Abraham Lincoln.
Compared to recent biographies about Abraham Lincoln, Professor Gates’ view on America’s 16th President is a stark contrast compared to the overly rosy view harbored by Adam Gopnik’s book titled Angels and Ages: A Short Book About Darwin, Lincoln, and Modern Life. While Adam Gopnik praises Lincoln’s “Liberty for All” idealism even to the black African slaves, Professor Gates paints a somewhat more somber view on Lincoln. Especially on his not so popular policies instituted during his presidency, not to mention Lincoln’s well-documented racism against black slaves.
While Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin is probably the “book-of-the-moment” when it comes to biographies about Abraham Lincoln. Not only because it influenced President Barack Obama about Lincoln’s “emotional temperament” of living through and resolving crises, but also because Goodwin’s book concentrates more on the aspects of Abraham Lincoln that most Americans hold dear.
In recent years, books and movies that portray the less flattering aspects of Abraham Lincoln – no matter how historically accurate – never seems to attain mainstream success. Even the relatively popular movie titled Cold Mountain. Which is about then President Lincoln’s questionable policies during the Civil War was remembered more for Renée Zellweger’s overuse of BOTOX – rather than the movie’s historical merits. Though the movie did inspire a few Americans to voice out that Abraham Lincoln should be tried posthumously for war crimes under the rules of the Nuremberg Convention.
Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is no less flattering when it comes to Abraham Lincoln’s “human frailties”. Historical documents did cite Lincoln’s racism. Not only on Lincoln’s vehement opposition of interracial marriage, but he also harbored grave doubts about the intellectual capacity of African Americans, publicly used the “N-word” until at least 1862, enjoyed “darky” jokes and black-faced minstrel shows. All of which a middle-school civics teacher in the United States would rather wish their students never learn about Abraham Lincoln.
Even though Lincoln finally freed the slaves and drafted them to fight for the Union Army. But whether this was all in the name of political expediency or a genuine concern for African American welfare at the time is anybody’s guess. Professor Gates was leaning towards the political expediency angle. Nevertheless, the Civil War redeemed then President Lincoln - which was nevertheless a miracle in itself.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
George W. Bush: Worst US President Ever?
From his ill-advised prosecution of America’s War on Terror to the Hurricane Katrina relief fiasco just to name a few of his major blunders. Is George W. Bush really the worst US president?
By: Vanessa Uy
When then US President George W. Bush managed to create his own link bomb on cyberspace back around 2005 – i.e. the “miserable failure” link bomb – via his own incompetence. Many around the world wondered if the “insightfully challenged” US president can claim the title as the worst elected US president of all time. And yet, actions proving his utter disregard to what makes an enlightened world leader continued unabated.
The shoe-throwing incident by concerned Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi back in December 2008 – a sign of expressing one’s contempt to another person in the Arab world – only serve to highlight the Islamic world’s disdain on the actions and policies underwritten by then US President George W. Bush. Worse still, President Bush then feigned ignorance when interviewed by reporters moments after the incident. But what does make George W. Bush the worst US president ever? Was it the lack of insight or just plain “sins of commission”?
Remember the few weeks after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks when the whole world was very sympathetic to America? Back then, most – if not all – of us would be ready to “conveniently overlook” every Human Rights, Civil Liberties and Geneva Convention violations committed by the Bush Administration in order to bring those responsible of the 9 / 11 attacks to justice.
But sadly, it all went downhill from there when the Western World’s waning and dying Islamophobic sentiments were enthusiastically revived by the Bush Administration Neo-Conservatives in order to be used as a “valuable tool” on the War on Terror. From the unlawful violation of Iraqi sovereignty back in March of 2003 in order to search for non-existent weapons of mass destruction to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal were only the minor players were ever brought to justice. The then US President George W. Bush was indeed on a fast track to infamy. Sadly, all of which were never hindrances for his reelection back in 2004. Which then made everyone wonder if then Vice President Dick Cheney ever performed a “Virgin Sacrifice” in order to delay Hurricane Katrina’s arrival for a year. All of which eventually became fodder for that Internet “miserable failure” link bomb of then US President George W. Bush back in 2005.
The newly elected US President Barack Obama may have inherited a monumental mess left over by the outgoing Bush Administration. Though in spite of this, the American people – and the rest of the world – can now wake up from the 8-year nightmare that is the Bush Administration. By promising to put science back to it’s rightful place, President Obama now makes it easier for scientists and policy-makers to start tackling the problem of global warming. Which during the Bush Administration was made very difficult by mobilizing resources to promote bad science – i.e. the NAZI-leaning science of Creationism and Intelligent Design. If President Obama manages to fix what former President George W. Bush did to the perception of science in America within the first 100 days of his presidency. Then President Barack Obama could easily earn my vote as one of the best – if not the best – elected US president of all time.
By: Vanessa Uy
When then US President George W. Bush managed to create his own link bomb on cyberspace back around 2005 – i.e. the “miserable failure” link bomb – via his own incompetence. Many around the world wondered if the “insightfully challenged” US president can claim the title as the worst elected US president of all time. And yet, actions proving his utter disregard to what makes an enlightened world leader continued unabated.
The shoe-throwing incident by concerned Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi back in December 2008 – a sign of expressing one’s contempt to another person in the Arab world – only serve to highlight the Islamic world’s disdain on the actions and policies underwritten by then US President George W. Bush. Worse still, President Bush then feigned ignorance when interviewed by reporters moments after the incident. But what does make George W. Bush the worst US president ever? Was it the lack of insight or just plain “sins of commission”?
Remember the few weeks after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks when the whole world was very sympathetic to America? Back then, most – if not all – of us would be ready to “conveniently overlook” every Human Rights, Civil Liberties and Geneva Convention violations committed by the Bush Administration in order to bring those responsible of the 9 / 11 attacks to justice.
But sadly, it all went downhill from there when the Western World’s waning and dying Islamophobic sentiments were enthusiastically revived by the Bush Administration Neo-Conservatives in order to be used as a “valuable tool” on the War on Terror. From the unlawful violation of Iraqi sovereignty back in March of 2003 in order to search for non-existent weapons of mass destruction to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal were only the minor players were ever brought to justice. The then US President George W. Bush was indeed on a fast track to infamy. Sadly, all of which were never hindrances for his reelection back in 2004. Which then made everyone wonder if then Vice President Dick Cheney ever performed a “Virgin Sacrifice” in order to delay Hurricane Katrina’s arrival for a year. All of which eventually became fodder for that Internet “miserable failure” link bomb of then US President George W. Bush back in 2005.
The newly elected US President Barack Obama may have inherited a monumental mess left over by the outgoing Bush Administration. Though in spite of this, the American people – and the rest of the world – can now wake up from the 8-year nightmare that is the Bush Administration. By promising to put science back to it’s rightful place, President Obama now makes it easier for scientists and policy-makers to start tackling the problem of global warming. Which during the Bush Administration was made very difficult by mobilizing resources to promote bad science – i.e. the NAZI-leaning science of Creationism and Intelligent Design. If President Obama manages to fix what former President George W. Bush did to the perception of science in America within the first 100 days of his presidency. Then President Barack Obama could easily earn my vote as one of the best – if not the best – elected US president of all time.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Dioxin Contaminated Irish Pork: An Al-Qaeda Attack?
No terrorist organization had claimed responsibility yet, but pork products seem like a very inviting “soft” target for a terrorist attack. Will there be a “Happy Christmas” for this year?
By: Vanessa Uy
If – hypothetically speaking – I was an al-Qaeda operative, attacking one of the most “holy” symbols of Christendom and Christmas, like pork and pork products, could probably produce the most “psychologically paralyzing” damage to the West. Though the current dioxin-contaminated Irish pork is yet to be linked to an attack by an established terrorist group, the incident is by no means still “relegateable” to every major newspaper’s “page 23” spot. Especially when / if the “alleged” attack happens this time of year.
Back in the days when “Ike” was still the President of the United States, Santa Claus was often portrayed unabashedly feasting on a piece of ham intended for a dozen people by himself. Often with strips of bacon on the side, a symbol often hijacked by meat / pork producers portraying Santa’s “corpulence” as being healthy, often to usher in the Christmas / Holiday Season. So, other than the Nativity Scene, Santa Claus, and the Christmas Tree, ham and other pork products are not only post WWII symbols of the Christmas Season, but also – if you will – of post 9 / 11 Christendom.
Dioxin is a carcinogenic and a teratogenic (can affect developing human fetuses) chemical that can be created in our contemporary urban lifestyle via burning unsorted garbage, especially if those garbage / municipal waste is a heterogeneous mix of paper and an organic halide-based plastic like polyvinyl chloride. This method of “making” dioxin is the number one reason of how groundwater tables near major metropolitan areas are contaminated by dioxin via mismanaged municipal waste landfills.
The other one where dioxin can be “accidentally” produced is by faulty and hasty industrial processing of crude oil sourced products. Like the Agent Orange defoliants used in Operation Ranch Hand during the Vietnam War. Or in today’s Irish pork scare, the dioxin-contaminated lubricant used in the machinery that grinds up swine feed. Even some pork samples produced in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland test positive for PCB s.
The dioxin levels found on suspect Irish pork products contain on average 80 to 200 times above the minimum safe limit established by the US Environmental Protection Agency and its EU counterparts. Given that when it comes to the risk assessment of absolute minimum levels of dioxin in food products deemed fit for human consumption can readily become a “political” issue since there are still no binding limits set on “absolutely” save dioxin levels. But everyone of us alredy knows by now that threat assessment / risk assessment studies have already become a political issue in our post 9 / 11 world.
Given that the coming Holiday Season is very dependent on pork and pork products. The worldwide supermarket recall of Irish pork products manufactured during the month of September this year and onwards spells disaster. Not only for pork aficionados, but also for Irish pig farmers as well. Vegetarianism or being vegan might be good for one’s body and for planet Earth’s environment. But an overwhelmingly large number of us won’t be having a joyous Christmas Season without pork.
By: Vanessa Uy
If – hypothetically speaking – I was an al-Qaeda operative, attacking one of the most “holy” symbols of Christendom and Christmas, like pork and pork products, could probably produce the most “psychologically paralyzing” damage to the West. Though the current dioxin-contaminated Irish pork is yet to be linked to an attack by an established terrorist group, the incident is by no means still “relegateable” to every major newspaper’s “page 23” spot. Especially when / if the “alleged” attack happens this time of year.
Back in the days when “Ike” was still the President of the United States, Santa Claus was often portrayed unabashedly feasting on a piece of ham intended for a dozen people by himself. Often with strips of bacon on the side, a symbol often hijacked by meat / pork producers portraying Santa’s “corpulence” as being healthy, often to usher in the Christmas / Holiday Season. So, other than the Nativity Scene, Santa Claus, and the Christmas Tree, ham and other pork products are not only post WWII symbols of the Christmas Season, but also – if you will – of post 9 / 11 Christendom.
Dioxin is a carcinogenic and a teratogenic (can affect developing human fetuses) chemical that can be created in our contemporary urban lifestyle via burning unsorted garbage, especially if those garbage / municipal waste is a heterogeneous mix of paper and an organic halide-based plastic like polyvinyl chloride. This method of “making” dioxin is the number one reason of how groundwater tables near major metropolitan areas are contaminated by dioxin via mismanaged municipal waste landfills.
The other one where dioxin can be “accidentally” produced is by faulty and hasty industrial processing of crude oil sourced products. Like the Agent Orange defoliants used in Operation Ranch Hand during the Vietnam War. Or in today’s Irish pork scare, the dioxin-contaminated lubricant used in the machinery that grinds up swine feed. Even some pork samples produced in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland test positive for PCB s.
The dioxin levels found on suspect Irish pork products contain on average 80 to 200 times above the minimum safe limit established by the US Environmental Protection Agency and its EU counterparts. Given that when it comes to the risk assessment of absolute minimum levels of dioxin in food products deemed fit for human consumption can readily become a “political” issue since there are still no binding limits set on “absolutely” save dioxin levels. But everyone of us alredy knows by now that threat assessment / risk assessment studies have already become a political issue in our post 9 / 11 world.
Given that the coming Holiday Season is very dependent on pork and pork products. The worldwide supermarket recall of Irish pork products manufactured during the month of September this year and onwards spells disaster. Not only for pork aficionados, but also for Irish pig farmers as well. Vegetarianism or being vegan might be good for one’s body and for planet Earth’s environment. But an overwhelmingly large number of us won’t be having a joyous Christmas Season without pork.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
