In the long history of man's favorite hobby, warfare, only twice have nukes ever been used. At the end of WWII the United States used nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The first called "Little Boy" was on August 6th 1945, the second known as "Fat Man" was used three days later. Reports have 80,000 people immediately dying from explosion related injuries, while the number increases to 120,000 when you include the effects of radiation on the Japanese people. Pretty impressive and quite staggering when you learn that most who died were not soldiers but civilians. No other country on the planet has since used nukes on the offensive and the U.S. use of them is still a hot topic of debate. Many influential, wealthy, and powerful countries have them, and some 2000 plus nukes have been tested since. The U.S. is a serious leader in the prevention of nuclear weapon use or possession. The country that chose to flex its nuclear power first, along with other members of the nuke club, work hard to persuade the world to boycott and demonize any entity or state that has aspirations of implementing a nuclear program. Nuclear weapons represent the worst in human beings. Unfortunately, because of modern warfare and dire times, they were employed. They say, what goes around comes around, lets hope not for the United States of America.
Is the U.S. being hypocritical or using hindsight when its comes to the prevention of nuclear weapon use today?
Is it inevitable that a nuclear weapon will be used again? If so, who, when and where do you think it will be used?
Trideology
With the election in the UK (a unitary state which employs a constitutional monarchy and a strong-serving of parliament) and the meltdown in Greece (a parliamentary republic with splashes of socialism and communism), there is proof that all systems and forms of government are capable of failing, and should be re-visited. There is a capitalistic cloud that gleefully looms over all of these forms and ideologies. Often you hear socialism and communism compared to, or categorized with, capitalism; even though capitalism is an economic system, not an approach to politics. There is an attempt to compare socialistic ways and communistic ideas to an approach that has one goal ($$$). Capitalism doesn't care about education or health-care for everyone. It doesn't even care about war. It cares about ownership, production, and profit; no matter the form. Until the ideal, theory, method, and definition of capitalism is re-defined and adjusted to compliment more socialistic and communistic ways; the bottom line will always win over the people's best interest.
Does capitalism meet its potential in the areas of social justice and human betterment?
What would the U.S. be like without political parties?
Does capitalism meet its potential in the areas of social justice and human betterment?
What would the U.S. be like without political parties?
Wise Words From A Dead Man
Optimism is something people are lucky to have.
This man was shot from behind in a public theater.
Would Abe Lincoln have a different opinion today?
If more people carried guns, would there be less crime?
"The way for a young man to rise, is to improve himself every way he can, never suspecting that any body wishes to hinder him." - Abraham Lincoln
This man was shot from behind in a public theater.
Would Abe Lincoln have a different opinion today?
If more people carried guns, would there be less crime?
Jolly Green Clone
Around forty million people in the U.S. spend their weekdays in cubicles. That is a lot of electronic communicating going on. The cubicle was actually designed to promote movement in an office. The idea being that movement leads to more creation and collaboration. But, how much synergy is actually taking place these days? Ever come across a term called "canned text"? Its probably a practice you have used hundreds maybe thousands of times, and have also been victim of. It is a way to communicate with as many people as possible at once, or over and over again. These are messages generated once, that are sent out to the masses numerous times, for years in some cases. You can ask two different people at a business or organization for information or a response to a question, and there is a good chance you will get the same exact text and wordage used in the answer they each give you. And, they probably cut and pasted that info from a fellow employee's communication or from a website or database. While technology is bringing the world together in an efficient manner, it may be creating shortcuts that will lead to the death of originality and personality.
While "canned text" is easy to use, should it be?
Is there value in giving every question or inquiry a unique response?
While "canned text" is easy to use, should it be?
Is there value in giving every question or inquiry a unique response?
There Was A World War II
The Arizona Immigration situation. There is much being said in all different directions on this topic. There is the argument that such laws will legalize racism and create a police state. Just as strong though are those of the opinion that it will cut down on crime, and decrease the size of classrooms and emergency room patients. There are good points that are made about people having to carry documents or IDs when they travel to other countries. There are those who still see it as a bottom line thing, and worry about convention revenue being pulled from the cities and state. What about those who live in Arizona and don't pay taxes? And, of course the Federal government's failure to manage the border situation. But, Article 1 of the Constitution, may only give Congress the opportunity to create immigration law.
Is the situation in Arizona about civil-rights or immigration?
Do you feel an issue such as immigration would ever encourage states to secede or take up arms against the United States Government?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)