petrrr is here!
.intermediate.shuffling.
.notes.of.wisdom.
.it.is.now.
oh, some songs i like: http://iampetrrr-music.tumblr.com
so this was the first story on Yahoo! front page ….
i understand the budget needs to be fixed. i am actually not going to go into that … what bothers me is the picture posted above …
why do they have to PRINT the budget books as bound books. send them DIGITAL COPIES, such as .PDF, .DOCX, etc. THIS IS ONE WAY TO SAVE MONEY! it must come from someone’s budget …
i am very pleased to read this.
Thank you General Ban Ki-moon for stating:
“In these circumstances, the loss of time means more loss of lives,” Ban told the 15-member body Friday.”
link taken from [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_korea_north1]
well, after 60 years of issues and 57 years since the hiatus, it appears that problems are brewing in the Pannumjom [38th parallel]. as it was, north korea attacked the island of Yeonpyeong, which lead to the death of 4 individuals as well as many injured. as a result, many (if not all) of the residence of the island left and not thinking of returning as well as the south korean gov’t stating that all media personal leave due to their safety.
however, i personally do not believe that a ‘war’ will break out. first, it does not make sense for either nation-state to cause havoc on its people or in the region. south korea most likely will not attack as there is a lingering fear of a backlash from the rest of the world. in the last decades, there really is no such thing as a ‘just cause’ or a ‘just war.’
just cause is a bit of a trickier situation. just cause “for war is a wrong that is of a type that can make those responsible for it morally liable to military attack as a means of preventing or rectifying it. This claim has many implications that conflict with assumptions” (McMahan, http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/journal/19_3/articles/5270.html). there is the key word, assumptions. in the modern day and age of intelligence gathering, there cannot really be a case of ‘just cause’ for war. the common argument that i read for this revolves around the fact there is enough evidence to go into war. HOWEVER, if that is the case, why not sit at a table and negotiate something?! let us be CIVIL; civility differentiates us from the past.
just war is a theory developed to, which might sound dumb, justify a possible declaration of war. Brook and Epstein do a great job defining just war:
“theorists correctly criticize this view on the grounds that evil aggressors exist who seek to kill and dominate the innocent, and that force is often the only effective way to stop them. War, they hold, is therefore sometimes morally necessary” (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp).
so, again, i personally think that rawls and his people’s views on ‘just war’ makes no f*in sense. first of all, war ≠ progress. war kills people, damages infrastructures, and hurts int’l relationships. there are only losers, no winners. there are nations that will take sides, hurting their relationships with other nation-states, etc. war causes all sorts of tangles that endangers the whole world — REMEMBER THE COLD WAR? yeah, i will leave it at that.
well, i guess i will conclude with a quote from the Yahoo! article written by Ki & Jo:
“I am worried, but not that worried that I need to stay at home,” said Eunhye Kim, an usher showing people from a packed theater in the capital. “They don’t really want to make war …there’s no gain for either side” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_korea_north1).
Reference:
- Brooks, Y. & Epstein, A. (2006). “Just war theory” vs. American self-defense. The Objective Standard. Retrieved from http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp.
- Kim, D.G. & Jo, Y.H. (2010). North Korea “readies missiles” as China seeks talks. Yahoo!. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_korea_north1.
- McMahon, J. (2005). Just cause for war. Yahoo!. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/journal/19_3/articles/5270.html.
![[Source: The Economist, May 29 2010, p.28 & http://sabhlokcity.com/2010/06/black-and-white-proof-against-socialism]
I thought this would be a great graphic of the difference between the two koreas. further, this can also differentiate the ‘growth’ as well.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcm89ybT3A1qalucyo1_500.jpg)
[Source: The Economist, May 29 2010, p.28 & http://sabhlokcity.com/2010/06/black-and-white-proof-against-socialism]
I thought this would be a great graphic of the difference between the two koreas. further, this can also differentiate the ‘growth’ as well.
![(this is a repost from another blog of mine. sorry!) I think I am going to just permanently move my thoughts onto tumblr.
I came across this political cartoon while looking at time.com. Unfortunately, I would like to state for the record that this is the reality that we are all living in today. However, let me make very clear — I am not blaming anyone or anything as the reason why we are in this. Rather, this should stimulate a bond between everyone in the world. This is not just affecting the ‘developed’ nation-states or just the ‘underdeveloped’ nation-states — this is affecting all of us living today. Thomas Friedman is correct that The World is Flat, where all of us are interconnected, no matter what we do. It is what it is.
Back to the cartoon; sadly, that is also on the lines of “it is what it is.” I state this because the tax cuts do not seem to work. I am not an economist, I am just an individual who is utilizing deductive reasoning. To me, the idea of providing a tax ‘cut’ to the highest 1% of the population does not make sense. Although (it is great to see capitalism in action) by not taxing these individuals, it would seem that these citizens are short-changing the government on its ability to provide for its citizens. The main argument that I hear for tax-cuts revolves around the fact that by not taxing the large corporation or venture capitalists, it allows either or to have more flexibility to ‘venture’ further and pump more money into itself in order to generate more potential jobs to the general public.
I still believe that is hard to comprehend. Unfortunately, there have been too many instances where a corporation or an individual gets [going to state either or as “X” from this point] indicted on federal charges of ‘such and such.’ If this happens, the 99% of the population’s tax hard-earned tax dollars goes to bring X to trial and to sustain the trial until a decision renders. Whatever the decision might be, X will not be able to continue to prosper as it once did, hurting its worker-base, people losing their jobs, their product, etc. It is a lose-lose for all parties.
Well, for fun, I decided to search for an article that defines the effects of a tax-cut to the wealthy. Aron-Dine and Kogan found that:
“despite recent statements by the President, Vice President, and certain Congressional leaders that tax cuts pay for themselves, economists from across the political spectrum — including the Administration’s current and former chief economists — reject this notion. Further, the Treasury Department’s own analysis of the President’s tax cuts confirms common sense and conventional wisdom; it concludes that, even under favorable assumptions, the tax cuts would generate added growth that would offset no more than 10 percent of their long-term costs” (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165).
So, in a nutshell, if the Treasury found that there was not much of a benefit of a tax-cut, I am not 100% what to really think of it. If the government’s own department does not believe is not the answer, I would hope that the leaders would listen … oh wells. Aron-Dine and Kogan conclude that “in [their] final analysis, the idea that tax cuts can spur sufficient economic growth to pay for themselves sounds too good to be true because itis too good to be true. In tax policy, as in other aspects of policymaking, there is no “free lunch.” Well, there never is a ‘free’ lunch but it would be nice …
Reference: Aron-Din, A & Kogan, R. (2006). Claim That Tax Cuts “Pay For Themselves” Is Too Good To Be True: Data Show No “Free Lunch” Here. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcbiu8S4q21qalucyo1_500.jpg)
(this is a repost from another blog of mine. sorry!) I think I am going to just permanently move my thoughts onto tumblr.
I came across this political cartoon while looking at time.com. Unfortunately, I would like to state for the record that this is the reality that we are all living in today. However, let me make very clear — I am not blaming anyone or anything as the reason why we are in this. Rather, this should stimulate a bond between everyone in the world. This is not just affecting the ‘developed’ nation-states or just the ‘underdeveloped’ nation-states — this is affecting all of us living today. Thomas Friedman is correct that The World is Flat, where all of us are interconnected, no matter what we do. It is what it is.
Back to the cartoon; sadly, that is also on the lines of “it is what it is.” I state this because the tax cuts do not seem to work. I am not an economist, I am just an individual who is utilizing deductive reasoning. To me, the idea of providing a tax ‘cut’ to the highest 1% of the population does not make sense. Although (it is great to see capitalism in action) by not taxing these individuals, it would seem that these citizens are short-changing the government on its ability to provide for its citizens. The main argument that I hear for tax-cuts revolves around the fact that by not taxing the large corporation or venture capitalists, it allows either or to have more flexibility to ‘venture’ further and pump more money into itself in order to generate more potential jobs to the general public.
I still believe that is hard to comprehend. Unfortunately, there have been too many instances where a corporation or an individual gets [going to state either or as “X” from this point] indicted on federal charges of ‘such and such.’ If this happens, the 99% of the population’s tax hard-earned tax dollars goes to bring X to trial and to sustain the trial until a decision renders. Whatever the decision might be, X will not be able to continue to prosper as it once did, hurting its worker-base, people losing their jobs, their product, etc. It is a lose-lose for all parties.
Well, for fun, I decided to search for an article that defines the effects of a tax-cut to the wealthy. Aron-Dine and Kogan found that:
“despite recent statements by the President, Vice President, and certain Congressional leaders that tax cuts pay for themselves, economists from across the political spectrum — including the Administration’s current and former chief economists — reject this notion. Further, the Treasury Department’s own analysis of the President’s tax cuts confirms common sense and conventional wisdom; it concludes that, even under favorable assumptions, the tax cuts would generate added growth that would offset no more than 10 percent of their long-term costs” (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165).
So, in a nutshell, if the Treasury found that there was not much of a benefit of a tax-cut, I am not 100% what to really think of it. If the government’s own department does not believe is not the answer, I would hope that the leaders would listen … oh wells. Aron-Dine and Kogan conclude that “in [their] final analysis, the idea that tax cuts can spur sufficient economic growth to pay for themselves sounds too good to be true because itis too good to be true. In tax policy, as in other aspects of policymaking, there is no “free lunch.” Well, there never is a ‘free’ lunch but it would be nice …
Reference:
Aron-Din, A & Kogan, R. (2006). Claim That Tax Cuts “Pay For Themselves” Is Too Good To Be True: Data Show No “Free Lunch” Here. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=165.
