A blog on life, current events, politics, the environment, and other things worth knowing, written by an American college student. Please -- respond and debate!
"Police have detained over 100 reformers, including a brother of former President Mohammad Khatami, a leading reformer said. A police official denied Khatami's brother had been arrested."
"Speaking at a news conference Ahmadinejad described the election as "clean and healthy" and dismissed complaints by defeated candidates as sour grapes."
""Some people want democracy only for their own sake. Some want elections, freedom, a sound election. They recognize it only as long as the result favors them," Ahmadinejad declared."
"A spokesman for Mousavi said his newspaper, Kalameh-ye Sabz, and its website had been shut down. Mobile telephone text services have also been interrupted in Tehran for several days, and the British Broadcasting Corporation said Iran was using "heavy electronic jamming" to interrupt its widely watched BBC Persian television service."
"U.S. Vice President Joe Biden cast doubt on the election result but said Washington was reserving its position for now. "It sure looks like the way they're suppressing speech, the way they're suppressing crowds, the way in which people are being treated, that there's some real doubt," he told NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked if Ahmadinejad had won the vote.""
Every step of the Iranian election process was predictable -- the high turnout, the Iranian-government blocked participation, the suspicious election results, and the violent response.
Friday's election in Iran is indeed a large step forward in the political participation of Iranians both abroad and within their country, as indicated by estimates placing overall participation at upwards of 80% of the electorate, with international participation by Iranians abroad increasing 300%.
The run-up to the election was extremely exciting, especially to the rest of the world that witnessed the social fervor that swept across Iran as the younger and well-educated populace became involved. Also, challengers to Ahmadinejad dared to use English U.S. slogans, such as "Change" (used incessantly in the recent U.S. elections) in a country whose government has long promoted an anti-American position.
There were other remarkable "westernized" election procedures, such as a televised debate between Ahmadinejad and his leading challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh.
However -- little that has happened amidst the turmoil in the past three days has surprised me, and I hope that few others were either. Mousavi's campaign really took off in the last few days before elections, and his high-tech campaign (using Internet sites like Facebook and 21st century communication tools like mass-text messaging) was well utilized by the increasingly educated and more pro-western college-age youth and other supporters of Ahmadinejad's opponents.
But as predicted, the Iranian government limited Internet access to social networking sites in the few days before the election. And they shut down all text-messaging within the country. And there were reports of polling stations turning away would-be voters. And no independent monitors were allowed inside the polling stations.
What did the world expect from a country controlled by the elderly and extremely conservative Islamic religious leaders?! (View a BBC exploration into Iran's system of government)
Listen to this day-old CNN report in which Ahmadinejad is questioned by CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour. One must bear in mind that his quotes are indeed translated, but given the dire situation in his country, President-elect Ahmadinejad seems ridiculously flippant, overly praiseful, and sounds like an idiot puppet. He purposely refrains from ensuring the safety of opponent, and his reference to the odd traffic accident to me sounded a bit ominous.
Even if the elections weren't rigged and Ahmadinejad wasn't the puppet of the ruling religious elite, one would think that he would at least acknowledge that Iran IS NOT the most secure and stable country in the world.
The fact that there are four distinct parties involved in the riots -- Ahmadinejad's civilian supporters, Ahmadinejad's civilians opponents, Iran's religiously-controlled government, and the armed police and military encharged with keeping order -- provide a curious and dangerous imbalance.
I would hazard a guess that the majority of Ahmadinejad's opponents are younger and more liberal, more of the recent college graduates -- they will have learned of the effects of a 30% unemployment rate coupled with high inflation rates. They will be more familiar with the West and the economic and political difficulties that Iran faces in the world should they continue on their isolationist path. They will possibly even include less-religious individuals and those who believe in a more honest and transparent religious rule -- not that which is currently in place and holds its power through cover-ups, deceit, and unspoken fear.
I would also postulate that Admadinejad's supporters are the more conservative, more old-school Islam, more fearful of opposing their "beloved government" lest they or their loved ones be harmed, and fearful of any change -- they probably remember the 1979 revolution.
We shall see how far this fiasco continues. Let us hope that the Iranian people's fervor and energy so witnessed by the world in these past few days stirs itself into a more stable and respectable government, and not a bloody repeat of the 1979 revolution.
Here are a few concerning videos uploaded onto YouTube that I consider a few of the most informative:
A BBC and Associated Press Report
Huge crowds protest the election results. The crowd is orderly, but things could easily turn very nasty.
A compilation of still images -- Please note that the pictures are more graphic.
I'm a bit impressed with this movement -- the Indian Community Welfare Organization is apparently training the female sex workers for free. According to the BBC article mentioned above, there are about 90,000 sex workers in Tamil Nadu state alone, so the group certainly has their work cut out from them!
Although I don't support any kind of sex industry on the grounds of basic morality and its ability to corrode the familial and societal structure of a civilization (this would require another posting in and of itself), the free karate lessons are a great way to aid the women in their on-the-job safety (on woman described being stripped naked left that way), and are a good way to increase their self-esteem -- leading to the possibility of them one day leaving the trade itself.
(But based on the video on the BBC article, the women have some work to do themselves in actually learning the moves....)
I love discussing things with people. I love sharing my ideas and hearing feedback, and I love giving feedback to others.
Our relationships and in fact our entire society is based on a process of give-and-take, and thus, so is what we know and believe.
I've come to realize that there are very few things that we come to know for ourselves -- we know what we're told growing up. Our basic understandings are based on those that our parents or teachers believed, our political beliefs are strongly influenced by the news we hear on TV and other media, and our friends greatly influence our behavior. Our religion is usually that of our family.
How much do we really know for ourselves? How much do we know that we've learned independently? What do we know that we have decided for ourselves? Should we trust what we think we know?
Hopefully some of the things I write about and some of the discussions that begin and continue on The Threshold can help us -- you and me both -- to move towards a personal understanding of things build on a solid foundation. And the better we understand our world, our beliefs, and our traditions, the more important they become to us the better decisions we can make.
We might even be able to make this world a better place...
So, what is The Threshold?
According to Webster's Dictionary, a "threshold" is defined thus:
thresh·old noun 1. doorway: a doorway or entrance 2. starting point: the point where a new era or experience begins 3. level at which an effect starts: the level at which a psychological or physiological effect or state starts
This blog is meant to serve as a window to important news events, interesting topics, and fresh intellectual insights. In essence, after experiencing it, everyone should leave more informed and more intellectually satisfied; The Threshold can become a new "starting point" to a more informed life journey.
There are so many instances that I come across news articles, other blogs, etc. all over the Internet that make me want to scream in rage, jump for joy, rant until I'm blue in face, or simply share and discuss what I've come across. This blog is somewhere for me to act on that desire, and a place for the world to communicate directly in reponse.
Please -- the point is not only for me to express my vision and my views, but for everyone reading what I'm writing to do the same! Debates and responses are encouraged -- in fact, they are the goal. I firmly believe that the best way to a better and stronger understanding of what we know is to discuss things with each other -- to bounce ideas off of one another.
(I should note that you don't have to have an account to comment on postings!)
America and the world needs a better understanding of what we're doing and where we're going. Honestly, it's hard to not be scared to death at our future as humankind if you pay attention to the news.
Who are you and where do you come from?
I grew up outside of Detroit, and am now a college student living in Michigan, USA, studying Political Science, French, and Environmental Studies.
I am a retired performing pianist, and am now a photographer, an editor for my college newspaper, and the founder and past-president of my college's independent political group (HCI Blog) -- among other things. You can view my profile to the right.
Oh yeah -- I'm just turning 21, so I'll be around for a while! Everything I learn and know today further enriches my life and hopefully that of those around me.
Why should anyone care what you have to say?
Here's where I could list my academic standings, awards, honor societies, etc. and try and convince everyone that I'm super-special, super-smart, and the biggest inflated ego East of the Mississippi. But I won't -- that's niether true nor is it the point. :-)
Sure, I'm opinionated -- isn't everyone who has a blog?
The amazing things about blogs is that everyone with an ability to access the Internet can publicly comment on anything. Too often, however, there's no rationale behind what people are saying -- I will, when possible, cite sources and supporting information when addressing a controversial or in-depth subject.
The point is that everyone should be able to voice their opinion -- however, if they desire to be heard and their opinion carefully considered, then they should return the favor. That's why I'm doing this -- I can comment, someone else can comment on that, I can respond, etc.
Let's start the discussion!
How to use this blog:
Obviously, my posts are in this section, and you can easily read them, comment on them, and share them with the "sharethis" button at the bottom of each post.
In a December 16th, 2008 post, there appeared a post on the Wired.com blog about "dark energy" and Einstein's theories of general relativity and what came to be known as his "field equations." Apparently, scientists now postulate that “dark energy” (not to be confused with “dark matter”) is responsible for filling in the until-now-unidentified reality checks in Einstein’s equations.
This article is quite different from my usual. I don’t know enough about astrophysics to comment authoritatively on such findings, but below is provided a quick article/commentary/question that I typed after having read the Wired.com post. Hopefully, someone with similar interests or even hopefully someone of some expertise in the area of astrophysics would be able to comment on my observations, theories, and questions, thus providing answers to more of “life’s persisting questions,” as Garrison Keillor (of Prairie Home Companion fame) would say.
When Einstein was creating his theory of general relativity, he included as the coupling constant in his equations k (kappa) -- then an unknown entity -- which he later dismissed as a fault. Now, with the discovery that this "dark energy" exists and could very well be that field equation constant, it's mind boggling just how accurate Einstein was almost 100 years ago when his "field equations" were originally published (1915).
Because the “dark energy” is what is keeping the universe from collapsing upon itself and is apparently responsible for the anti-gravitational force propelling the universe farther and farther apart (seen via the redshift effect), I wonder how the dark energy or "k" (if it is really found to be that) factors into the big bounce theory....
My questions are, first and foremost, from where does dark energy and dark matter actually come? If dark energy is essentially the fabric of space-time, where and how is it created? Because it essentially has an anti-gravitational force and it fills the area in which the universe expands, it must be either expanding itself (and ergo would be “decompacting”?) it must be in the continual process of being created or, more significantly, it is continually “introduced” into our universe via another route – i.e. from another source.
Also, as some scientists have suggested (and I had theorized since I was a kid), there must be multiple if not many many other, “parallel” universes out there. Perhaps this “dark energy” is really the “k” among them all, imbued into the “interuniversal” space-time continuum – especially as the “amount” currently understood and observed is minute compared to the expected, per the multiplying factor (for the stress-energy tensor) in Einstein’s equations!
Lastly, I don’t quite understand how the stability of “k” can really be that stable and constant when factored into the big bounce theory, as I don't quite understand how the dark energy, being as forceful and as extant as it is, can ever be overpowered or stretched to create an unbalance responsible for a collapse necessary to propagate the next universe “rebirth.” Are the two theories at odds with each other, or is there an explanation here that I’m missing?
And finally -- this would solve my question about the expansion of the universe that I was asking a while back. I just couldn't figure out how the universe was expanding at an ever-increasing rate if nothing was continually acting upon it. After all, how could something traveling though a void, having been set into motion once, be increasing in its speed?
I used to wonder at the mechanics of the Big Bang / Big Bounce theories. It just didn’t make sense how the universe could be continually expanding at an ever increasing rate, if the only force exerted upon the matter in the universe was at the Big Bang itself. But now, everything seems to come together: dark gravity is pushing/pulling/acting on matter, and countering (even overcoming) the more commonly-known force known as gravity. I was right in my assumptions that led to my confusion -- matter traveling though a void WOULD NOT increase in speed, having been acted upon only once. Something IS acting on it, and that thing is “dark energy.”
Even in July 2008, when the extreme negative effects of global warming are well established and accepted as scientific fact, Cheney and the Bush Administration are trying to downplay the environmental report indicating such -- even going so far as to physically alter scientific documents and government agency findings before they are released.
Unfortunately, these actions are nothing new. As early as 2002, there were documented instances in which White House officials altered a government climate research draft, and in the following document, Phillip Cooney, then the White House chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality (formerly a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute), severely edited findings warning of extreme consequences to finally be no more than suggestions of possibilities.
View the drafts appearing in Sierra Magazine here.
View the drafts uncovered by the New York Times here.
After his editing became highly publicized, Cooney resigned and joined ExxonMobil.
One of the individuals at the center of outing Cooney's actions and brining the Bush Administration's desires to alter and restrict scientific findings on global warming was Rick Piltz -- a former senior associate on the U.S. Climate Change Science Program who resigned in 2005 in protest to interference in the program's reports.
The news blitz sparked by his resignation and by his congressional testimony on the matter has created much headway in exposing the scientific fraud being commited by the Executive Branch of the American government.
Read Piltz's memo describing his reasons for resignation here.
Read Piltz's testimony before the U.S. Congressional hearing here.
However, despite the continuing legal battles and negative publicity, it is surprising that the Bush Administration continues to try and alter public scientific documents on climate change. Even more surprising is that their actions are really not widely reported and realized. Unfortunately, probably due in part to the lack of general knowledge of the administration's action, it is entirely plausible that the White House's fraudulent activities aren't relegated to just climate change documents.
According to the deposition of Jason K. Burnett, a senior advisor on climate change at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Vice President Dick Cheney and "the Council on Environmental Quality were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning)... any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change." According to CNN, Cheney's office pushed for major deletions out of fear that the information, if released, would make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gasses."
Why the same legal ramifications are not in place for Cheney and his office as they are for Cooney, one can only guess.
What's more frustrating is that, even when faced with unalterable and undeniable evidence, the White House refused to act on the effects of global warming.
In a recent Supreme Court decision (ironically staffed by conservative judges, a couple of whom were themselves appointed by President Bush), the Court ruled 5-4 that if the EPA were to find evidence that global warming did indeed pose a threat to the public health and future of humans as whole, that the EPA under the White House must act to enforce restrictions on the harm.
(The Supreme Court, as the Judicial branch of United States Government, tells the President's Office, known as the executive branch, what laws to enforce and how. The White House is obligated to follow the Court's directions.)
In a surprise twist, the White House refused to act on the EPA's warnings -- by NOT OPENING THE EMAIL sent by the EPA. They simply refused to read it because if they did, they would be legally obligated to act.
According to the New York Times, "The White House succesfully put pressure on the EPA to elimate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation. including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years."
The obstinacy of the Bush Administration is simply amazing.
Americans should realize by now that gas prices aren't going down anytime soon. Instability in the Middle East as a whole is increasing and is not headed towards a resolution short of a violent collision of ideas, ideals, religion, and cultures.
America's untapped oil resources in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, nor the offshore oil reserves, nor even the Green River Valley have anywhere near enough oil to assist the American dependence on oil -- what's more is that it would take at least 5-10 years for ANY of the domestic oil to even hit the market. As such, if the intention is to lower the current prices at the pump, any new domestic exploration and drilling would be ineffective.
President Bush and John McCain have good intentions in attempting to relieve America's dependable on foreign oil, but what what must be done to solve the problem is to relieve America's dependence on oil in general -- its usage is simply unsustainable.
As worldwide oil consumption increases year after year, with the United States being no exception, one must be conscious of the fact that oil takes millions of years to form -- and that it is not a renewable resource. One day it will run out. One day, humans will be forced to find an alternative; why not start now?
Nancy Pelosi, to her credit, has fought against offshore oil drilling since she joined congress in 1987. Disappointingly, however, she has an ill-rationed plan to lower the current gas prices: to release some or all of the 700 million barrels in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Bush counters that doing so would harm America's national security -- to good reason. The oil reserve is in place to protect against a national emergency, such as another terrorist attack or a natural disaster. It is not in place to ease gas prices for the average consumer, especially when the prices are simply a reflection of a sinking American and world economies and current events.
As of spring 2007, the United States uses near 21 million barrels of oil PER DAY. If America had to suddenly depend solely on the Strategic Oil Reserve, it would last for only one month. Gas prices reaching $4 a gallon is no justification for opening the emergency kit. The current situation is a grave problem, but it is not a national emergency.
So what is the answer? It is not a simple one, and is not one that is likely to appease the many Americans complaining of the high gas prices and the subsequent rise in the cost if living: to reduce America's dependency on oil and to increase our abilities to utilize American ingenuity and creativity to find and implement alternative forms of energy.
Gas prices aren't going anywhere, and Americans should get used to them now -- if not now, then when? Besides, Americans should still consider themselves lucky: consider these per-gallon prices from around the world.
Even the supermajors (commonly known as Big Oil -- Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Total) know that the future for oil is bleak and will require ever-advancing technologies to simply locate and produce it. Perhaps they might place some of their record-breaking profits towards the development of new, alternative, and sustainable energy, leading the world not simply in oil production and profits, but in energy production for the betterment of civilization and mankind as a whole.
Alternative sources of energy won't instantly solve the problem -- it has taken America decades to dig itself into this dependancy, and we won't easily nor quickly dig ourselves out.
We should look at using a multitude of different sources for our energy; each region of the United States has different natural resources and a different climate, and there is no miracle energy cure. As such, American's should consider utilizing many different sources at once, or have transportation devices uniquely suited to certain regions (i.e. solar power out west, wind power on the coast, etc.).
I’m an independently-minded college student studying Political Science, Environmental Science, and French. In my "spare time," I'm a photographer, a pianist, and a studier of people -- among myriad other interests and hobbies.
Posts
