Okay, so maybe this one isn't quite as serious as most of my other posts, but this issue came up a while ago and just blew my mind.
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGvObreAqtc
Wait... WHAT!?!
WHY DO THEY HAVE YELLOWCAKE?!?
*takes a breath, collects himself*
Okay. So there were three things that caught my attention in that little snippet:
1: That the back had the stuff at all.
2: That it got the license for it a month before going under.
3: Why they hadn't sold it.
So, giving them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure that people in banking, especially securities, need to back up their investments and cash flow with all kinds of collateral. Investing in any material which you could then sell to get yourself out of a pinch financially. I get that...
... but Uranium?
Sure the stuff can be handy (it's used in nuclear reactors as well as weapons) and it's all over the place, making it an easily accessible resource to buy and something that could be used world wide as collateral for anyone with nuclear reactors...
... or an in the works nuclear weapons program.
I just wonder what these guy were thinking.
"Well it looks like we're going under, but I know what will save us!" says one banker to another, "Let's invest in Uranium!'
Didn't someone at the table look at this guy like he was stoned?
Also, is it just me who thinks that, of the banks we let slip through the financial cracks, we let slip the one capable of selling nuclear materials. The only reason they haven't sold the stuff is because they're waiting for the market to make doing so more profitable.
This blows my mind. I mean what if they got desperate enough to sell them the stuff? how many enemies do we have that would love to get their hands on it? What would happen if it fell into the wrong hands?
Am I the only person who thinks this whole thing is like some kind of sad, twisted joke?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
... about my last entry (pt 2)
A while back I had a discussion with a professor of mine concerning the arguments I made concerning legislating morality. She managed to point out a few things that I feel I, as a sensible person, should address.
Part 2: Legislating Morality
I realize that it may be somewhat counter-intuitive to refute the central point of an entire argument as a form of revision, especially when the one revising is the one who wrote the argument in the first place. When I wrote my first entry on legislating morality I made the mistake of getting overly emotional and I believe it hurt my case and after some thinking I believe that I expressed myself incorrectly. I said "don't legislate my morality" without stopping to think what legislation actually is. Having spent some time wrestling with the subject I would like to make this argument:
All Laws are legislated morality to one degree or another.
While this comment may seem to derail my previous one entirely, and in some ways it does, allow me to continue.
What is an act of legislation? It is the signing of a bill into law and the execution of that law. This process is, ideally, a representation of the will of the people. Another option we have in California is the Ballot Proposition where people directly vote during on amendments to the State Constitution (for a look at the California State Constitution, see here). In both cases, the laws being put into effect (or being changed) are being done so by the will of the people. This is the very nature of the democratic process.
So how can my request stand in the face of this? With a few caveats I can say it in two words:
Moral Relativism.
Let me explain...
Firstly there is one interpretation of "don't legislate my morality" is one I can stand behind, which is the idea that people shouldn't tell me what I am supposed to think is right. We are a free society, one where everyone is entitled to their opinion and no opinion is favored over another, be it religious, political or your favorite sports team. So when laws are passed which restrict the freedoms of some based solely on the idea that a different group says the first group is being wrong/sinful/whatever, we have to be wary. If I could get away with taking away your rights just because I didn't like what you had to say/what you do/what you believe, such actions would be a travesty of freedom, and yet, with things such as bans on Gay marriage, we allow it to happen.
Secondly, (though this is really just an expansion on the first), in a free society, it is not the place of the government to tell me which religious ideals I should follow. If one religion says that I shouldn't eat red meat, and another says that I can it is not the place of the government to make that decision for me. The same goes with what is sinful behavior.
When determining what laws should be passed we must take into account what freedom we are limiting and why we are limiting them. All to often we take for granted that what we think is right is only what we each, individually, think is right. As a free society we are gifted in the fact that we are all able to believe, act, and follow whatever ideals or religions we want. We must also, however, be accepting of the beliefs of others and realize that they have as much of a right to believe what they do as we do ourselves. If you truly think that Gay marriage is a sin than I say again, don't marry someone of the same sex. Know, however, that whatever you may believe, it is not your place to make that decision for someone else, or judge them for it.
Let's not forget Luke 6:37
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven"
If there are any other perspectives you would like addressed, don't hesitate to ask. I'll do the best I can.
Part 2: Legislating Morality
I realize that it may be somewhat counter-intuitive to refute the central point of an entire argument as a form of revision, especially when the one revising is the one who wrote the argument in the first place. When I wrote my first entry on legislating morality I made the mistake of getting overly emotional and I believe it hurt my case and after some thinking I believe that I expressed myself incorrectly. I said "don't legislate my morality" without stopping to think what legislation actually is. Having spent some time wrestling with the subject I would like to make this argument:
All Laws are legislated morality to one degree or another.
While this comment may seem to derail my previous one entirely, and in some ways it does, allow me to continue.
What is an act of legislation? It is the signing of a bill into law and the execution of that law. This process is, ideally, a representation of the will of the people. Another option we have in California is the Ballot Proposition where people directly vote during on amendments to the State Constitution (for a look at the California State Constitution, see here). In both cases, the laws being put into effect (or being changed) are being done so by the will of the people. This is the very nature of the democratic process.
So how can my request stand in the face of this? With a few caveats I can say it in two words:
Moral Relativism.
Let me explain...
Firstly there is one interpretation of "don't legislate my morality" is one I can stand behind, which is the idea that people shouldn't tell me what I am supposed to think is right. We are a free society, one where everyone is entitled to their opinion and no opinion is favored over another, be it religious, political or your favorite sports team. So when laws are passed which restrict the freedoms of some based solely on the idea that a different group says the first group is being wrong/sinful/whatever, we have to be wary. If I could get away with taking away your rights just because I didn't like what you had to say/what you do/what you believe, such actions would be a travesty of freedom, and yet, with things such as bans on Gay marriage, we allow it to happen.
Secondly, (though this is really just an expansion on the first), in a free society, it is not the place of the government to tell me which religious ideals I should follow. If one religion says that I shouldn't eat red meat, and another says that I can it is not the place of the government to make that decision for me. The same goes with what is sinful behavior.
When determining what laws should be passed we must take into account what freedom we are limiting and why we are limiting them. All to often we take for granted that what we think is right is only what we each, individually, think is right. As a free society we are gifted in the fact that we are all able to believe, act, and follow whatever ideals or religions we want. We must also, however, be accepting of the beliefs of others and realize that they have as much of a right to believe what they do as we do ourselves. If you truly think that Gay marriage is a sin than I say again, don't marry someone of the same sex. Know, however, that whatever you may believe, it is not your place to make that decision for someone else, or judge them for it.
Let's not forget Luke 6:37
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven"
If there are any other perspectives you would like addressed, don't hesitate to ask. I'll do the best I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)