I have to admit that I’m a partial addict to BBC News: it’s the first thing I check out everyday when I load up Firefox. I like the BBC because they’re mostly objective: they present a mostly balanced view and tell both sides of a story.
However, without a doubt, BBC News is what some would consider the “Western Media“. There are numerous cases and examples of their bias, especially during the Tibetan riots earlier this year.
A while ago, I was browsing through the BBC’s “In Pictures” section. Here’s what I saw:
It is captioned: “A Chinese paramilitary policeman stands guards near the National Stadium also known as the Bird’s Nest, as a thick haze of heat, dust and pollution covers Beijing.”
It’s really interesting how they specifically chose to capture a photo of the Bird’s Nest on a particularly gloomy day, and how they especially emphasized and enlarged Beijing’s pollution situation.
Now I feel quite indignant. Pictures really speak better than words, so I’ll let you make your own judgment:
Now… the fact that the BBC chose to place this photo of the Bird’s Nest, one taken on a particularly hazy day AND the fact that they made an effort to make the “pollution” situation more obvious by captioning it… really ticks me off. There’s a hundred million photos out there with a hundred million different perspectives. Why must they choose that particular one? Why must they caption it in such a particular way? I think the answer’s obvious.
After my last post (the extremely long one) about Obama being the “lesser of two evils“, I’ve come to the realization that I’m becoming… apathetic: with all the chants, the campaigning, the whole system. Think about it: Americans have, unfortunately, chosen a candidate that will take them down the same old path… the path of policing the world and printing the Dollar out of thin air
I don’t really care anymore; there’ll be no more of watching CNN and hearing the hosts telling their stories as if Ron Paul doesn’t even exist. Something’s not quite right with the system (just to put it nicely) .
Well… on a brighter note, I present you: Obamillary
Way back in December 2007 (I know, it’s been a while), there was hope for change, hope for the Ron Paul RE[EVOL]UTION (remember,$6-million in a single day?).
Now, as reality starts to kick in, we’re faced with two choices: either Hillary Clinton/John McCain, the neocon warmongers (it’s quite obvious that the neocons have no faith in McCain winning over Obama, since tons of them — including Ann Coulter (gasp of horror!) — have openly shot McCain down and endorsed Clinton), or Barack Obama (unless you’re been living in a cave, for the past two months, he’s been chanting over and over “Yes we can [change]! Yes we can!”), who the media has falsely portrayed as the “last hope”, who the masses have adopted a way too romanticized view on, and who, in my opinion, is the lesser of two evils.
Obama, the Lesser of Two Evils
The lesser of two evils?! You may continue to chant “Yes We Can!” all day long and call me a cynic all you want, but here’s my two cents.
Obviously, he is for change (to a certain extent), I’m not arguing with that. He openly speaks against the politics of fear (unlike Kerry, who not once spoke openly against George Bush’s rhetoric in 2004) and wishes to change the system by being friends with people (i.e. Republicans), taking to people (i.e. Iran), and trading with people (i.e. changing NAFTA). Sure, to a certain extent, to the masses, he is for change.
Let’s Look Under the Sheets
Numbers and solid facts speak better than words and opinions. Let’s have close look at Obama’s campaign site, shall we?
Here’s where my beef with Obama really comes in:
Economy
Hooray (sarcasm)! Obama wants to cut taxes:
Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
That sounds like a sweet deal! So sweet at deal that it simply doesn’t make any sense. If you were to “provide 150 million workers” up to “$500″ per person (hmm… let’s see… 150,000,000 x 500 = 75,000,000,000), or $75-billion worth of tax relief, how would you continue to fund the American empire (military bases in Turkey, UK, Germany, South Korea, Japan… just to name a few), the so-called “War on Terror” (wow…), the regular spending that keeps the country running… without breaking the already recessing economy that’s NINE TRILLION dollars in debt?
“Yes We Can! Yes We Can!”. Am I the only one hearing the irony in that? Yes, you can, do what? Change? What’re you kidding me? You call Obama’s economical policies “change”. That is definitely not change. This is change, according to Ron Paul:
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future and yours.
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to we the people.
Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.
We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.
Real change, Mr. Obama, will.i.am, “Yes We Can”-ners, would be to cut spending by withdrawing all America troops home from all over the world (interesting how people think that the Americans are only in the Middle East). Real change would be to change America’s school-yard-bully foreign policy; stop being the policeman of the world, stop nuking people, stop interfering in the self-determination of others. Real economical change, after cutting spending, would be to address the issue of the Dollar and change the economical system: the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air to fund the empire, increasing inflation as a result.
Foreign Policy
Iraq
I’ve briefly talked about this in the previous section. Does Obama want real change? Let’s have a look:
Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Okay, this is interesting. He will have all of the “combat brigades” out of Iraq. Define combat. Are peacekeeping brigades combat brigades? This sounds a bit vague to me. Simply pulling the troops out of the streets of Baghdad could mean that they’re no longer in “combat”, yet they could still remain for “peacekeeping” purposes.
Ah ha! I’m a bit surprised that Obama keeps this stuff on his website for the world to see: he will “keep some troops in Iraq”. All right Mister. Some troops? How many troops would you consider as “some” troops? 10? A dozen? A couple thousand? Ten thousand?
Oh please, this is sounding a lot like George W. Bush rhetorics here. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq under the iron fist of Saddam Hussein. It can be argued that al Qaeda and other forces, who undoubtedly consider Americans invaders and label themselves as “freedom fighters”, entered Iraq just to fight back the Americans.
This is clearly rhetorical: he wants to pull troops out of Iraq yet will “keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region” to attack al Qaeda. But because Americans are there, al Qaeda and others will definitely remain to fight back. This is like… quantum physics, insightful philosophy, an infinite loop.
By now, if you don’t get what I’m saying, you better then get off the computer, turn on the TV, and watch some “Fair and Balanced” (hahaha I can’t help laughing at that) Fox News.
Iran
I applaud Omaba for not banging the war drums like Hillary and the neocons.
Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress including Kyl-Lieberman gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.
That makes him the lesser of two evil. He is right on many things, not banging the drums of war being one of them. However:
The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That’s why Obama stood up to the Bush administration’s warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.
“Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region” — excuse me? Yes, we know that Iran’s after nuclear weapons. For crying out loud, our real concern should be with Pakistan — with an American-imposed military dictator on the verge of loosing power and losing controlling of the nuclear arsenal.
Oh please! “Iran supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region” sounds completely like words out of George Bush’s mouth. If anyone can find the tiniest bit of evidence that Iran’s killing Americans in Iraq and support “terror”… go watch Fox News.
I thought Omaba is change. I thought Obama is for getting rid of the politics of fear.
“But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them” — though again, I must applaud him for diverging from the Bush mentality and promising to talk to Iran, to use diplomacy instead of bombs.
(On another thought, for those currently watching Fox News, go take a 20th-century world history course and browse around Wikipedia)
Failing Economy + Increased Spending = ?
Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
I’m sorry Mr. Obama, but… where’re you getting the money to increase the size of the military? Oh, I have forgotten, the Federal Reserve will print the money out of thin air.
Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt: maybe he wants to increase spending but doesn’t realize that America’s already nine trillion dollars in debt; maybe he doesn’t know that the Dollar is devaluing before his eyes, the housing markets crashing, and inflation rising; maybe he wishes to pull troops out of Iraq — but to keep them in there to fight “al Qaeda”, who are ironically there just to fight back the invading Americans. Maybe he is, and we are all, just too busy chanting “Yes We Can!”
Today is Jan. 4, 2008 (yeah! New year!), a day after the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. As some of you may know, I’m a huge fan of Congressman Ron Paul, a republican running for President of the United States.
Yesterday’s results really didn’t surprise me all that much. First of all, I’ll talk about Ron Paul, then then Democrats, and finally the Republicans.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul’s 5th place finish was very predictable. Even though he had raised $6-mil in a single day (the highest Presidential race fundraiser in history, by the way), there was no way he could convince the highly religious, elderly Republicans in Iowa to support him. Though I must say, the 5th place finish of getting 10% of the votes was highly encouraging. Nationally, he’s polling at about 5-6%, in single digits. Yet yesterday, Ron Paul defeated Giuliani (”Mr. 9/11″) by over 6%. What does this tell us? This tells us that Ron Paul is doing better than previously thought, that the nation-wide polls conducted by the media is biased and inaccurate, and that considering that 40% of the voters in New Hemisphere (Primary to take place there in a few days) are independents, Ron Paul could catch a few more votes.
What an inspiring sight to see Obama claiming victory and giving his speech?
That is by far one of the more powerful speeches I have seen! No wonder Hillary Clinton came in third! The people aren’t stupid. She voted for the Iraq war, pretends to be against it nowadays, yet supports the permanent creating of bases. She claims to, unlike Bush, talk to Iran through diplomacy, yet she voted in favour of framing the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a so-called “terrorist organization” (for your information, the Revolutionary Guards is the official Iranian military). Hilliary Clinton is such a hypocrite! Now that people recognize her rhetoric, her true self behind the cackling voice, her overwhelmingly bloated war chest… Obama really has a chance at this. Just think about it… standing behind Obama in the speech above are all white people. If Obama can win like that in a white state like Iowa, what can’t he do?
Ahh… good’ol Neo-cons (not including Ron Paul of course)! All I have to say here is that I don’t want to see a police state. I don’t like wars. I’m not religious. I don’t want a society controlled by fear. I want freedom given back to the people.
Current Events 
Comments (13)
