July’s biggest losers (4)

1. G8: This body’s inability to address pressing global issues with any measure of success was especially highlighted during their annual summit. It’s time to change the G8 to better reflect the new geopolitical order.

2. Pakistan: India signed a nuclear deal with the United States, and now links have surfaced between suicide bombings in India and the Pakistani intelligence service. These results have cast the coutnry in a more negative light, and both are likely to make it a less welcomed member of the community of nations.

3. Microsoft: It loses one of its founders, Bill Gates, to charity work, and has to compete with the threats of open source software and a resurgent Apple. After its Windows Vista debacle, what can the company do right? Both of its choices are bad: scrap Windows and start anew in infrastructure, or continue backwards compatability, with all of the associated security risks.

4. FARC: Shown to be ineffective and weakening, FARC lost key leaders, hostages and power this month. It is unlikely to recover any time soon.

The constant need for change

Aside from being Barack Obama’s campaign theme, the need for change is always self evident. Why is it obvious? It is not because change for its own sake is good: it is because change is the necessary mechanism by which the problems of the day can be resolved. Without changes in policies and governments with new ideas, stagnation and the deepening of current problems is all but guaranteed.

This point might seem redundant, but in today’s society, with its constant push to return to “better ideas of the past”, sometimes the need for change is often forgotten. Yes, sometimes a return to a former status is better, for example returning to a United States that doesn’t torture, but too often people use the excuse to try and return to a supposedly more ideal time, like the 1950’s. What they forget, however, is that every era had their tradeoffs and even their favorite time periods were oftentimes worse than the present day.

Political parties advocating for regressive measures thus never realize that the only possible way to find a better solution is to move forward: only by trying new combinations can the best solution be found, especially since problems have persisted current solutions. Thus, we must always look towards the future, and to new ideas.

Space?

This upcoming Wednesday, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) will turn 50. Having been around for 50 years, this is a cause to celebrate. NASA has accomplished a lot in its relatively short lifespan, including sending men to the moon, sending probes outside of the solar system, visiting several planets, discovered signs of water on Mars, and given us many new products, including Teflon. It has fueled incredible growth in the American economy and science in general. So why does it seem to be in such a dismal state?

NASA’s funding has fallen from a high of 4% of the national budget to about 0.5%. As a result, it is often forced to choose missions very carefully, and the slightest of overruns can become incredibly damaging. Add to the fact that the Space Shuttle program has been a disappointment in terms of cost, and the fact that the general public doesn’t see much use in NASA nor in missions that could get people killed, there is little wonder that NASA is in danger.

But NASA is vitally important. It serves as the best outlet for science in a practical sense. Its attention to detail is second to none in any agency, and its political neutrality is something to be envied. The services it provides, especially its monitoring of global conditions, is absolutely critical to the United States. Its missions towards other planets will provide the technology of the future. Funding into NASA will fuel future economic growth.

So NASA is still necessary, because it isn’t done providing the best of the technological and economical future. New inventions and technologies, jobs and services are yet to come. Congratulatiosn to NASA on 50 years, and here’s hoping the next 50 are just as good.

A scary thought

United States military expenditures for 2008: 583,283,000,000

United States budget deficit for 2008: 400,000,000,000

Current ranking for military expenditures among nations: 1

Ranking if 400,000,000 were to be subtracted from our current military budget: 1

The three biggest winners of July

1. Barack Obama: His world tour helped to both erase a lot of doubts about his leadership capability and to relegate John McCain’s campaign to a sidenote. It also helps that his appearances abroad marks one of the few times Americans got an excellent reception from foreign citizens.

2. Terrorism: Over 100 dead and over 1000 injured in one month? Progress as usual for the next methodology of fighting.

3. Íngrid Betancourt: After six years she’s finally free, and in a classic military operation to boot. No loss of face for anyone besides FARC, and a positive boost to the ability of governments around the world for fighting insurgencies.

Five companies as powerful as nations

1. Wal-Mart: Its control of such an enormous supply chain across the world allows it to force the hands of governments, both of the United States and foreign countries.

2. Microsoft: Since this company owns Windows, and Windows runs on about 90% of the world’s computers, Microsoft essentially controls the computers of the user world.

3. BAE Systems Land and Armaments: It produces the weapons the United States uses. Enough said.

4. McDonald’s: Used both by the Economist as an indicator of currency overvaluation/devaluation and as the premise of a peace theory, McDonald’s also has worldwide operations, many of which border on the unethical, and control of a huge part of the world economy.

5. ExxonMobil: It is the world’s largest company. It sells oil. What else is there to say?

Seven United States Senators that are so bad they should just leave

1. Ted Stevens

2. Larry Craig

3. John McCain

4. Jon Kyl

5. Harry Reid

6. Joe Lieberman

7. Mel Martinez

Impeach Bush

Clinton was impeached for far less, and Bush has done more harm than Clitnon.

Clinton was impeached for:

1. Lying to the American public about a sex scandal

Bush ought to be impeached for:

1. Lying to the American public about a war

2. violating civil liberties

Quantity and quality both work against Bush in this count.

A parliamentary government for the United States?

In American election years, the electoral system that picks our next president tends to get the most attention. However, sometimes the very federal system of government operated by the United States also seems to get some attention. Specifically, every year a few individuals tend to call for the United States to move away from a federal system of government and towards a parliamentary one.

The arguments are based primarily from observations of other countries: almost all other nations on the planet use some form of parliamentary system for their government, and it seems to be working relatively well. Furthermore, a parliament would allow more third parties to be represented, and would reduce legislative deadlock.

But in the American system of lobbying, a parliamentary government would be deadly. It would firmly entrench special interests all the time and would destroy any semblance of political independence of many government organizations. Hence, it is easy to answer this question: the United States must retain its federal form of government instead of switching to a parliamentary one.

The best educational system?

It is not hard to say that the American high school educational system is bad. While there are some advantages over its European counterparts, for the most part the students who graduate from American high schools know less and do worse on international tests, getting beaten by almost all other developed nations’ students. While this might be partially attributed to the fact that American high schools give the same education to everyone (even those that are not college bound) and thus has the problem of slowing down its most gifted students.

The solution to this problem is relatively simple: reform the public high school system to mirror the public university system. Though the latter has many problems of its own, its functionality is much better than that of the former. In essence, give individual households yearly cash vouchers good at any high school, private or public, and then simply make the cost of public high schools cheaper. The effect should be to make effective public high schools.

Granted, this plan might seem odd, but it has a high chance of success. At the very least, it allows the United States to maintain its systems benefits (flexibility) while reaping some benefits of better educational systems.