Creative Capitalism

Bill Gates presents his ideas on creative capitalism (follow link with title). Large companies with a diverse and extensive repertoire of resources can look to reach out to the poorest people across the world. Breakthroughs in banking, medicine, energy and nutrition developed by these companies can help to reduce impoverishment faster than government agencies. By having a ranking systems for individual companies detailing their level of philanthropy, young innovative thinkers that seek change will be drawn to these organizations, resulting in productive advances that can be utilized by those countries limited in resources. As the level of awareness for these companies rises, consumer support will also increase, thereby bringing the living status to an advanced level never seen before.

Seems Plausible? I dig the idealism as well. Not too sure I understand the philanthropic ranking system? Would assume people are going to be drawn to cheapest cost over the philanthropic ideals of some large corporation any given coupon day of the week.

The Better System

Is the free market system always the better option or are we being stubborn and blind? Should we look to the policies of the Chinese to better perfect our economy? former CEO of Intel thinks so. Only question i pose to author of opinion and Intel CEO is whether we really live in a free market society?

Roosevelt Conservative

Looks like Newt has much to answer for. Though he denounces Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in public debates, former Congress leader has deeper ties to the government-sponsored company than one initially would perceive. In response to his support, he states he is more of a Teddy Roosevelt and Alexander Hamilton conservative. Two men that were keen on state-run organizations and centralized executive power.

Sovereignty...Does It Exist?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is abysmal. Here is a reflection of how collective international organizations may serve to do more harm than good. Recent bombings by NATO forces on Pakistani soldiers for two hours (follow link with title) is a clear reflection of this boundless and boundary-less force. At the discretion of a majority, NATO was capable of taking up arms and violating sovereign space as they please...killing innocent citizens in the meantime. Neglect of these boundaries is comparable to property right violations and should be denounced by the US and other free nations. Further, the US should lead the way toward the disenfranchisement of this increasingly dangerous organization.

The problem with large multinational political organizations like NATO is the inability to achieve absolute collective goals. When the issue at hand is taking lives, the issue is ALWAYS absolute. With many variables existing at the individual to individual level, how is this expected to work when a collective group of countries must all come together and work toward the same goal? If collectivism is difficult to handle at the basal level, then handling it at a larger level would become extremely difficult. What additional benefit does NATO offer that each country cannot handle on its own? Perhaps its the small voice, calling out for collective retaliation if they are invaded. In this case, are the more powerful countries like the US not likely to respond to unjustified invasion? The ultimate decision then would come down to self-interest and national security on a country by country basis. If countries acted out according to their own country's interest then they are less likely to be drawn into a conflict under a nationless organization that is supposedly serving everybody's interest and their resources can be used for more viable causes.

Back to the Horse and Carriage

Alex Epstein of Industrial Progress discussing Energy with anti-nuclear and anti-carbon fuel protestor. Which is it: save the planet, save the animals or advance mankind?

The Lord's Resistance Army is atrocious. So too are thousands of other events around the world...What possible benefit does the US gain from helping this country? What possible benefit does it gain from not helping?  A country extended as much as it is does not need to squander troops for "training missions". Even if there is minimal risk to our troops, there is a risk nonetheless...Link

A True Hero

In this day in age where we glorify reality tv stars and corrupt pop-stars, may we remember the individuals that truly drive the progress of humanity.

Construction costs aren't going down anytime soon...CA goes further in the toilet.

Brown Sides Approves PLAs - Sides with Unions

Middle East: How Did It Spread So Fast?

Turn on the t.v. and you are likely to find another anti-government uprising in the Middle East. I am left to wonder: how did this happen so fast over such a wide area? Did the government implement just one last law that reduced its citizens rights and was the straw that broke the camel's back. Or is there something else at play? It wouldn't be do far off to consider a secret intelligence cyberspace endeavor to help promote this change. Just think. People are more likely to get involved if they know others are doing. Humans are social animals, the lone ranger is few and far between these days. All it takes is a pseudo group to implement a detailed list of grievances against his or her government. This is spread consistently, perhaps over years, to the local population. In time, 'natural' citizens take on to the idea and begin to develop the animosities of the government in their own mind and the minds of their friends and children. This escalates, and the movement begins.

What News from the Left?

Amidst the US-backed military intervention in Libya, I find it peculiar that we hear no opposition from the left. Where are all the anti-war protesters? It appears that as we carry forth with another US military escapade, the inconsistent anti-war liberals have turned their back to their binding doctrine of a peaceful and loving world. And for what? As we become bogged down in another futile war, we are left wondering where the line will be drawn. How long can the United States extend its resources? What inherent importance do we obtain with a rebel takeover of Libya? Even after a successful coup of Gadahfi we have not the slightest clue as to where the country's leadership lies. Something tells me that a rebel opposition that seeks to continue with a theocratic government based on Islam is not that 'Progressive'. Any government that does not seek to separate church and state is set to fail. Under no circumstances can a government based on law intertwine with a religious one, for the latter will come to dominate the former, and religious Imams will dictate the terms on what should and shouldn't be law. Are we to become involved as the internal battle ensues among different religious sects? Where this leaves us in terms of stability, I am still not certain? But I do not want to take the risk. Too many variables and if we become involved now, we are certain to stay involved for time to come.

To all Americans I ask: "Is it worth it?" To all those radical left anti-war protestors: "Be consistent!"