Just One More Reason Why 'I Love NY!'

In the wake of the "coup" in the New York Senate we are all left with an uneasy feeling that many of our older generation remembers from the days of the mob and 'real' corrupt politics.  In addition many are left wondering what now? What is going to happen with the agenda of the Democratic party?  

One particular bit of legislation comes to mind, that of the gay marriage bill introduced by Governor Paterson not long ago.    We have been lucky enough to see the Assembly again pass the bill with flying colors, but have all been waiting worriedly to see what the Republicans, which held a much stronger minority in the Senate would do with the bill. Now the Republicans have taken over again, and we are left with the question of whether the bill will even make it to the podium to be voted on. While the new president of the Senate, Pedro Espada (one of the two guys who jumped ship) is a co-sponsor of the bill, Dean Skelos (the returning majority leader) is against it. Unfortunately if this quote taken by the Observer Dispatch is anything to go on, we're back on for a long fight, all over again.

“Time spent on issues such as gay marriage would have been better spent on solving the state’s fiscal problems.  Maybe now they can extend the session so they can get some real work done,”

This is a quote from the Oneida County Republican Chairman. This quote is ridiculous all over, but strikes me badly for two main reasons:

1. It's Funny the Republicans have been in power for 40 years, but the Democrats get blamed for not fixing the state's fiscal policy in the six months that they have been in power. (Admittedly, they weren't doing all that great though.)
   
2. (More importantly) I find it slightly absurd that a civil rights vote such as that for gay marriage is considered so unimportant that interrupting further deliberation on a monotonously failing fiscal policy is considered a hindrance to “real work.”

I understand that it is a hard concept to grasp for some people, but there are issues that are more important than money. If we could just get the senators to vote under the basis of equal rights, and remind them that RELIGION and TRADITION should have no part in law, they could actually protect a minority and get back to misusing our tax dollars, and making faux-promises to make things better for tomorrow, before they knew it.

But they're right, who are we New York Citizens to ask for equality? It's all about them right? They're flim flamming around figuring out who's going to be in power, when a minority is continuing to be oppressed against their strong protest for equality.

Shame on you gays, sit down and shut up, we need to be thinking about fiscal policy! Don't you realize we're in a recession?

Where is our Brown vs. Board?

There is no shortage of people who have drawn the parallel between the separate but equal system of the post Civil War era and the current plight of the gay couples being offered civil union which "hold all the same rights and powers as marriage" while withholding actual marriage from them.  If they deserve all the same rights, then why must they be separated?

----------------------------------------------------

55 years have passed since "separate but equal" was a legal standard for black and white people.  How is it that any court today could possibly decide against gay marriage while completely barring from their decision making one of the most important and relevant cases the Supreme Court has ever seen?  We need a new Brown vs. Board, and we shouldn't have to wait any longer.

----------------------------------------------------

It is quite shameful that Proposition 8 has passed by the 52% majority of California voters, but what is really shameful is the California Supreme Court's 180 degree turn-around in supporting the limit on marriage.  Only last year it was this same court that opened up gay marriage, and now it's Justices don't even stand up in opposition when the door is slammed shut once again.

----------------------------------------------------

It was up to the Supreme Court to control the tyranny of the majority, and they failed miserably.

----------------------------------------------------

Now we New Yorkers must hope that our State Senators will follow on the coat tails of Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut, and Maine and ignore the sinking of California into the ol' south when deciding our own marriage policy.

 ---------------------------------------------------

I apologize for the spacing, blogger is messing with me today.

A Reciprocating Saw Tearing Through California

I mentioned before in my Prop 8: Enough Already! entry that prior to this past election day gay marriage had been shifted back and forth in legality six times.  Well thanks to a conservative, religious and traditionalist population, the lucky gays in California have been blessed with lucky number seven.  All the gays in California should walk into as many churches as you can and shake hands with everyone, thank them for dragging you back and forth like a rag doll.

I prophetized in that entry that if Prop 8 was enacted into law that within eight years the courts would again take up the case and possibly pull the power back to the side of the gays. Remove eight years, insert two weeks and I was EXACTLY right. 

Yes at the urging of Attorney General and Former Governor Jerry Brown (his aura always smiles and never frowns [bonus points if you get that]) the supreme court is again going to take up the gay marriage question.  The case is slotted for March and will answer the question of whether this was a proper use of an initiative. Unfortunately all gay marriages remaining on hold at least until a decision is made.

It is painfully sad and a little scary that this battle has come to this.  We are back to the courts, how many times can this go back and forth?  It can not be healthy for the legislature and now the people to be fighting for control of the constitution with the supreme court.  Is this not asking for a breakdown of democracy in the state of California? Should we have written rules as to when one branch of the government supersedes the others?

It is hard for me to be unbiased in weighing whether the Supreme Court should be again looking at this case, because I have a direct hope for an outcome that can only come from them doing so.  I know that if Prop 8 had been voted down, and the supporters of it had proceeded to bring the case to court I would be extremely annoyed, but yet I'm advocating just that for my side.

The only way that I can defend this belief is in saying, as I have in the before mentioned entry, that this is a case best left to the courts.  The reason being that it is a case of extending the rights of a minority against the tyranny of the majority.  It was wrong for the majority to hold a popular vote against a minority in the first place, therefore their taking it to court would be furthering the wrong.

I was going to write more about the reasons that this was a case best left to the courts, but I found this article by Kermit Roosevelt which makes my arguments seem like the fourth grade abridged version. Here is a taste:

"Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, what's troubling
for US citizens in the California case is the idea that an equality
guarantee could not be effectively enforced against the will of a
majority. The point of such a guarantee is precisely to protect
minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority."

I encourage you all to read the article, it gives quite a compelling argument for the supreme court intervention.

Come Rednecks, Join Us...

In the 21st Century.

We on the "liberal" side of American politics have spent the last eight years banging our heads on anything hard we could find trying make sense anything that president George has done. 

In that time he has wiretapped our calls both home and abroad.  Endorsed torture and shredded the rules of the Geneva Convention.  Increased the powers of domestic spying, and reduced the rights of the people to defend themselves in front of a jury of their peers. Deregulated business into our current financial ruin and alienated us from countless more nations than we could ever imagine.

I don't remember at any time during any of these ridiculous oversteps of power a liberal or a Democrat threatening to kill Bush.  Do you know what that is called?  Democracy.  Or more accurately Civilized Humanity.

For some reason now that the Democrats have finally been able elect a president from their own party, death threats, attempted assassinations and general squabbling about "how long he'll make it before someone shoots his ass" seem to be everywhere.  Can't you guys just grow up?  You lost, deal with it.  You get another chance in 2012.

Honestly there are many people that have been predicting the downfall of the Republican party after this election because of their "disconnection" with the highly educated "fake Americans."  I don't know if I can believe all of this hoopla, but I do have to say that a party that has this many supporters who in 2008 think "killin' 'im" is the best way to get what they want politically tells me that the predictors just may be on to something.

Now leave Obama and the Democrats alone for awhile, it's their turn to fuck everything up, then it'll be your turn again.

Uncle Tom

First of all Obama won. Lati-frickin-da. I guess he's the one that I wanted to win out of the TWO choices, but I voted for Nader. He would make a good president.

Second of all gay marriage is now unconstitutional in Florida, Arizona, and California. In Arkansas it is now illegal for a gay couple to adopt children. Great job, America fucked up again. Only this time it isn't the governments doing, it is us, the citizens who have failed. We are a shameful people.

I guess while I'm on this angry trip I might as well add another name to my list of stupid Americans who are a complete waste of oxygen, Shepard Smith.



Honestly I've had to watch this video a bunch of times so I would know what to write about here, and I have to say I am very near an aneurysm.

Ralph Nader asked whether Obama was going to be an Uncle Sam for the people or an Uncle Tom for the giant corporations. This can in no way be construed as being a racist question. Basically it is just a problem because Obama happens to be black, because Nader could have made this same comment about any of the white men who have become president. He didn't make the statement to mean that he was going to pander to white people over black people, he clearly stated in the quote that Obama has to decide whether he is going to stand up for the poor, or pander to the wealthy.

But in true television news character Smith had to go on in complete bewilderment that Nader could say such a thing and then proceed to completely ignore every great point that the man made.

Smith repeatedly made stabs at Nader for being a spoiler in 2000 and then becoming "irrelevant" since then. He is not irrelevant, he is one of the last stands against an all out two party system. Sure he will never be elected, but he stands for a very good cause just being a third party candidate.

It is people like Shepard Smith that have made America's democracy a joke. In many European democracy there are actually more than two parties to select from, oh the thought! It is people like Smith that caused us to elect Barack Obama as president. Is he qualified? Eh maybe. Is he the best person for the job, No.

We are stuck with what we have, between to losers. A mule or an elephant. A big business lover or a big business luster. A gay disliker or a gay despiser. A party that will walk all over the poor or one that will run them over with a tractor.

Fuck you Shepard Smith

Write to Marry Day

*UPDATE* Contributed posts are up


I just wanted to pass along a some information I found at the Caffection blog about Write to Marry Day. This is an organized write-in of anyone interested in blogging against Proposition 8 in California. If you write or have written a blog against prop 8 before October 29 you can submit it at Mombian and together we can help show Californians why this proposal is despicable.

In related news the New York Times and Fox News (links are to the articles not main sites)each printed articles Sunday about the extreme attention (and $$$) this California Proposition is getting state, nation, and international wide.

I'm feeling a little short-winded tonight so I'll just leave it at: good reads, dig in. Even the Fox News one, hell even they can put out a fairly unbiased piece of news occasionally.

Proposition 8: Enough Already!

The California gay community has some of the strongest legal power in the country over their right to marry, however they have been dragged back and forth through the dirt more times than in any other state. The legal right for them to marry has been given to, and taken back from them, around six times. Five of which have been since 1977.

It is great to see that Apple and Google have stepped up to the plate in opposition to Prop 8. But let's be honest, it is quite sad that they even have to.

Prop 8 in essence does the same thing that Prop 22 did back in 2000. Prop 22 was found to be unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in May 2008. So just why are we going in circles? Should we expect that if Prop 8 gets passed on the ballot next month that the supreme court will come around in the next eight years and also find it unconstitutional? It seems as though at some point we need to draw the line on wasting all this time and money.

It is in my opinion that this is an issue best left for the Supreme Court. Obviously I have a biased view as I am supportive of gay couples right to marry, but the purpose of the Court system is better suited for this kind of decision. Voter initiatives and congressional votes serve the purpose of keeping the government running as a democracy. Unfortunately, in allowing for majority rule, sometimes the minority gets stepped on a little too much. In these cases, which include the current, the court system is a much better place to determine constitutionality.

UCLA estimates that over 11,000 gay couples have been married since the floodgates were opened in May until mid September. God hasn't sank it out of spite yet, so why not just leave the gays alone?

All Americans need to get behind the 'anti-anti-gay marriage movement' and help get prop 8 voted down. Even if the rest of us in the other 49 can't make the vote we need to make it clear that this proposition is a terrible thing. As I have said before, only 4% of the United States allows for gay marriage (that's two states for you math buffs), losing California would be a great loss to the cause.

See also my earlier, mostly relevant blog: The Hypocrites Dilemma

Voting isn't for Idiots

In the world in which we find ourselves under a constant barrage of media from news stations, political satire shows, the blog-o-sphere and any other media outlet you can think of, we have become a culture in which voting is more difficult.

Some would argue against this statement,claiming that with such great coverage it is now possible to know more about the candidates than has ever been known before. This of course is a very good argument. The seemingly infinite number of outlets creates an infinite number of angles against the candidates. Information is going to come up that people wouldn't have even thought of 50, 75, or 100 years ago. Sure there have always been the sex scandals in politics, but only now can news articles, news programs, spin shows and bloggers all converge on topic of “Why Obama turned down a cup of coffee and asked for an orange juice instead”

Unfortunately it is this that is destroying so many people's ability to make an informed choice in the voting booths. This is not to say that I want the news, bloggers and satirists to stop what they're doing. That would be idiotic they need to continue to do their jobs. It is just unfortunate that to the untrained ear and eye this very news is increasingly turning candidates into celebrities with every election. There is so much information out there that people are reluctant to even try to dive down into it, instead they surf along the top of it absorbing a little information here and there. Unfortunately that information is more often than not the sketchy, superficial rumor mongering that caused the Great Orange Juice Controversy of '08. Or better yet they vote for whomever doesn't seem to be the biggest idiot when played by the actors of SNL.

This is not to say that everyone is an idiot and can't understand how to use the media to their benefit. There is certainly no way to calculate such ignorance anyways. I'm simply saying that those who are thinking about voting in this coming election should seriously consider if they are doing so under the proper knowledge.

A couple weeks ago Howard Stern featured a guest who did a street experiment, much like the Jay Walking part of the Tonight show. His experiment followed the premise that many black voters were going to vote for Obama simply because he was black. Obviously in listening to this you have to take into account the show it is on and the fact that this was in no way a scientifically controlled experiment. Certainly more people were interviewed than were put on the show, and of course it was the best ones that made the cut.

I'm not going to repeat what the goes on in the clip in it's entirety because it's not very long and I've included the link. But basically the guy asked the black participants who they were voting for, all of which said Obama for various reasons related to his presumed ability to be a better leader, or his agreement with them on issues. He then preceded to ask them which of two “Obama views” they agreed with more strongly. The twist was that the issues were actually of McCain's view and those interviewed fell for it, bad.

This was a dramatization that unfortunately probably appears in society more often than we would like to admit. (Oh and it's unfortunate that I have to say this, but no I am in no way trying to say that black voters aren't as qualified as white voters.)

We have been pushing to get young voters to the voting booths for a long time and in this election due to the Obama camp we may even see record numbers of them doing so like we did in the democratic primaries. Unfortunately we should be pushing for young INFORMED voters. If the young people of the country are too lazy to get out and vote just once, isn't it also a pretty good assumption that they weren't able to find the time in their busy schedules to actually follow the debates, news, blogs, other commentary? We vote on a Tuesday for Christ's sake, Monday isn't even one of the big party days. My opinion is that if they don't want to vote, don't make them because they're just going to make a stupid decision anyways.

And just to bring this whole issue to a head Orange County California opted today to allow a one day only drive-thru registration and voting system. The same way that we have managed to become fat, sloppy and lazy Americans through the fast food assembly line, now we can vote! And to no surprise at all it had a great reception. We need to keep this from spreading.

If people are too lazy to vote the old fashion way they probably shouldn't vote at all. Is voting really that hard? For most we're talking about once every four years. For the most dedicated voter twice a year. All you have to do is walk into a building sign a book and vote in the booth. Occasionally lines get a little lengthy during peak hours but districts do the best they can to keep these under control. If you can not do that once every four years, you shouldn't vote. I'm sorry, you're are lazy and would be better off following the rest of us around anyways. Stop fooling yourself, leading isn't for you please, please don't waste your time or mine.

We're better off with a tiny percentage of informed voters than a mass of ill-informed, lazy morons.

Reagan's Dead for Good and What That Means for You.

Sure his mind left us long ago, and his body left us a few years ago, but outlasting both were his treacherous financial plans. Now as we all sit back and watch our investments fall, college graduates unable to find jobs to pay off their student loans, senior laborers calculate the increased number of years they will have to work if their 401k's don't turn around, and the newly unemployed wonder if they're going to make rent among hundreds of more dismal stories, we can take to optimism in the fact that the Reagan era is over.

Apparently the problem is, is that human nature causes us to be-live for the moment idiots. Otherwise why would we repeatedly allow ourselves to be duped into allowing for less controlled markets for temporary gain? Reagan certainly wasn't the first Head of State to masturbate to The Wealth of Nations and unfortunately will not be the last.

It certainly is hard to say no to great economic gain. The Internet bubble of the '90s made a lot of people phenomenal amounts of money. Unfortunately the fall afterward cost many of those same people most or all of that money back. The current bank situation is just another example of how, when allowed to, greed takes over good sense and lot of people get hurt.

The reason that these greedy bastards running the banks were willing to make such shaky business decisions is because they knew that in a “pinch” the government would step in to save them. The same expensive suit wearing, limousine riding, caviar eating assholes that have been touting free market capitalism knew that if their greed got out of control socialism would step in to protect their investment. Suddenly Socialism isn't such a bad word.

It is an atrocity that the American taxpayers are forced to bail out multi-billion dollar companies because they are unable to make good business decisions. Isn't that the reason that they have boards make financial decisions rather than singular people? A room full of well dressed, white businessmen weren't able to realize that giving loans to people who have no chance in hell of paying them back was a bad idea?

This of course isn't to take all of the attention off of idiot American who borrowed too much and can't pay it off. I sometimes wonder if maybe the term “adjustable rate” only rings a danger bell in my head. If you're taking out a fifteen year loan with an adjustable rate, wouldn't it seem likely that somewhere along the line the rate would increase creating a situation where you couldn't afford your premiums? In fifteen years?!

But alas we were left with the decision, very possible financial ruin or a $700,000,000,000 federal bailout. It was a complete necessity, a shameful necessity. Not one penny will be seen by the millions of common people suffering joblessness, homelessness, and 'furturlessness,' This bailout is set up only to help those that already have to much money and want more. Unfortunately the way the system is built, without them we all go down.

So the moral of the story is, we as Americans need to stop being short sighted idiots. Sure we might not see skyrocketing profits when we have a little extra socialism stirred into our economy but at least when the time comes for the cyclical downward slope of the economy it drops like a bunny hill and not like the Atom Bomb.

How is your 401k doing? Aren't you glad we didn't privatize Social Security yet?

Update: "The stock market's prolonged tumble has wiped out about $2 trillion in Americans' retirement savings in the past 15 months [401k], a blow that could force workers to stay on the job longer than planned, rein in spending and possibly further stall an economy reliant on consumer dollars, Congress's top budget analyst said yesterday."~Nancy Trejos, The Washington Post

The Hypocrite's Dilemma

Starting today, officially 4% of the states in the Union allow a gay couple to legally marry. Bay-bee steps. California's leap onto the official homo-scene of course coincided with a very important Observer Dispatch article which highlights, quite well, why we are going to be pushing for legalized gay marriage far beyond the time when I move into a nursing home. The article was a comparison of the policies of the men running for the 24th district congress seat, the incumbent Democrat Michael Arcuri and his opponent Republican Richard Hanna.

The question was framed as follows: "Should there be a federal law mandating that all marriages should be between a man and a woman? Why?" Of course it couldn't have been stated better, such as "what do you think about a gay couple's right to marry?" but who is splitting hairs? Anyway both men took the fairly safe position that it is not up to the feds to make a decision, that the issue must be taken up by the individual states. Arcuri went on to say that although he does agree that 'civil unions' should be allowed he felt that there are more pressing issues to be dealt with on the national scale such as health care, energy costs, and trade policies.

So to better highlight the plight of a group of people, who's request is only to be considered normal citizens: There are a ton of people who completely disagree with their request and most of the rest think is just not important enough to address.

To argue with those that outright disagree is, of course, laborious and a fruitless task which certainly leads to insanity, or at least stupidity. You may as well go yell at the bible itself because that is apparently where much of the justification for intolerance comes from. I am repeatedly dumbfounded every time I am confronted with a biblical argument when debating U.S policy since I swear I read somewhere that the U.S was founded as a secular nation. Couldn't these people just try to develop their own moral code based on the bible and argue with that, rather than telling us about the rules set forth in the bible?

If only they could let the rest of live in sin around them without interfering with their rules, we could live in harmony and just all get our eternal damnation in the afterlife. After all we're not asking to sacrifice your babies, we're asking for gay couples to be allowed to legally marry, like they do. But hell, that's silly, even if they did allow that then there would be a bunch of fags running around with their fair share of the taxes they pay, and that's cutting into God's people's change purses. We can't have that.

For those that do not completely disagree with gay marriage, but feel that there are much more important tasks to attend to, you're wrong too. Granted, health care and keeping the poor fed are very important issues among many that can not be discounted. However, how many senators and congressmen are single? It seems funny for a group so disinterested in marriage rights to all stop and get married before they got on with their important policy making. How many congressmen and senators kiss their husbands or wives on way out the door in the morning to go save the sick and the poor? Are they completely blind to the irony?

Now obviously this issue is going to have to be started by the individual states as it has, unless of course the South decides to secede again (we really should have just let them go). But those that think that this is not an issue best addressed on the national scale are crazy! The very reason for the development of our government over independent states was to aid in the relationships between those states. Like shipments over state lines, married couples are constantly moving from state to state. This leads to the inevitable cluster-fuck that we are seeing today, gay couples who are married in one state are not in the next, within the borders of their own country! Nothing travels over state lines more than people, so to say that this is not a national decision is to stamp yourself an idiot.

Congratulations California.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation

By Timothy Rice

The U.S has repeatedly expressed that it doesn't like the idea of Iran gaining nuclear weapons. Iran says it is simply trying to get nuclear-electric power, while the U.S and other U.N. countries think otherwise. To be honest in 2008, with a growing number of countries gaining nuclear technology, Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Unfortunately for the U.S it is caught in tough situation it has seen many times since 1968 when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was first signed, how can the U.S expect other countries not to develop nuclear weapons when it's own stockpile is of ridiculous proportions?

The NPT was in itself a tool of proliferation. A collection of the most powerful states, all nuclear armed, signing an agreement that they would not aid in the proliferation of nuclear weapon technology. If this doesn't send a message to the rest of the world that the keys to world dominance lay in nuclear technology, then what does? In India, Israel, and North Korea, three new comers to the nuclear scene, regional dominance is thought to be a major pushing factor into nuclear technology. Iran is now poised to be the next nuclear regional power, and little is going to stand in its way of making that happen.

Unfortunately for the U.S as it leads in the quest to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, it has very little in it's arsenal to do so. In the examples of North Korea and Pakistan the U.S has done little more than subject the states to unilateral economic sanctions. The U.S has found it difficult to convince other states who are part of the NPT to impose their own sanctions on these states. In Iran there is an even greater quagmire, the U.S has had Iran under economic sanctions ever since they took over the U.S embassy there in 1979, long before they began developing nuclear technology. In an attempt to force Iran to halt their nuclear development the U.S has attempted to hold Russia and China accountable through economic controls so that they too will sanction Iran. Unfortunately neither state is very interested in doing so, as they are both major weapons traders with Iran, including much of the materials needed for their nuclear program. By trying to force these two world powers around, the U.S is actually further eroding its power of persuasion over them.

Lack of a bargaining chip isn't the only problem the U.S faces as it tries to force the world into adherence to the NPT. Two other factors greatly diminish its influence, it's own interest in breaking nuclear treaties and it's very real threat of willingness to use nuclear weapons against other states. First for it's treaty breaking, the U.S has in 2006 proposed a program which will replace its current nuclear stockpile with more updated warheads and delivery devices. This replacement can only be considered ethically wrong, not lawfully as no more nuclear weapons are being created than are already owned. However, the situation becomes problematic when dealing with the treaties signed by the U.S and other nuclear states against the further testing of nuclear weapons because of the known negative effects on nature and humans. The U.S would never create an entirely new stockpile without testing. So what will it do?

Beyond redevelopment the U.S, the only country in history which has used nuclear weapons against an enemy, still considers nuclear weapons an option in times of war. Furthermore, this option has been considered for Iraq a non-nuclear armed country. After decades of the Cold War, where at least Mutually Assured Destruction somewhat protected both the U.S and the Soviet Union, the U.S has now plunged the world back into 1945 with threats of nuclear strikes against countries who do not have comparable devices.

Although the U.S has made some substantial movement to decrease its number of nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War it still harbors the best equipped nuclear arsenal in the world by far. Those who attest that the U.S must have a far superior arsenal in order to retain its police power over the world are out of touch with human emotion. Nuclear weapons may be able to deter countries from using other forms of conventional warfare, but they in no way can stop their own proliferation. With every day that passes that smaller states feel threatened by the U.S' ability to completely decimate them, they will want more to create a comparable weapon.

If the U.S really wants to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world it needs to stop meddling with pointless sanctions and needs to take the first step to changing what defines power in the world. Cutting it's arsenal in half after the cold war ended had little effect around the world, when what was left still greatly dwarfed what every other state had (with the exception of Russia).

The U.S needs to drop is arsenal to near zero in order to get other countries up to the table, and to get them to consider their own dismantlement. No one is going to put down their gun until the biggest gun gets put down. America, it's our move.

Paying For Their Grandparents' “Wrongs”

By Timothy Rice

The recent less-than-drastic political shift in Cuba from Fidel to Raul Castro has brought back into the American public light a little fact: In 2008 we still have to drive to Canada to get Cuban cigars.

In one of the longest running economic embargoes of modern times, totaling 46 years (enacted in 1962), the U.S. continues to cut off imports from, and severely limit exports to Cuba. Can you remember why the U.S. put these sanction on Cuba in the first place? Not surprisingly after all of these years, many people have forgotten why.

In short: It was 1957 and Fidel and the other communist revolutionaries began to take state control of private businesses in Cuba, many of which were owned by U.S. companies. Once the U.S created its embargo Cuba was left in a trading vacuum which the U.S.S.R quickly came to aid. Cuba needed a place for their exports to go, and a source of much needed supplies. The U.S.S.R needed an ally within the realm of the U.S. This partnership further eroded amicable ties between the U.S and Cuba and apparently hardened a dislike that prevails even today. But how appropriate is it to continue economic sanctions nearly 50 years later, after the fall of the U.S.S.R, the end of the Cold War, and now the stepping down of Fidel Castro?

Not appropriate at all.

Many political scientists agree that economic sanctions hurt those on the bottom tier of the economic ladder the most. Those at the top, the ones that are most often targeted by the sanctions, have the means to get around the hardships caused by them. Therefore, the only way that sanctions could ever really have an impact, would be a popular uprising against the ruling class for getting the people “into the mess.” Unfortunately this rarely, if ever happens. Evidence of this can be seen in the past by the Bay of Pigs disaster in 1961: the Cuban people were not ready for an armed upheaval and after 47 years of nothing different, probably still are not.

It is appalling that after 46 failed years of sanctions the U.S. Government still thinks that either, the people of Cuba still must be punished, or that the Cuban government is going to suddenly relinquish the U.S. owned companies. Over the years some concessions have been made by the U.S government to allow some humanitarian-type trading with Cuba, including food and medicine. At the same time stronger rules have been created including attempts to punish other countries that trade with Cuba.

So how do these sanctions hold up to the U.S' pledge to bring democracy to the world?

The U.S has specifically said that it wants democracy in Cuba, just like it wants everywhere else. Certainly if Cuba showed signs of democratization the U.S would be much more forthcoming with a repeal of the embargo. But isn't that embargo seriously hampering the country’s ability to become a democracy? Is the U.S putting Cuba in a Catch 22?

There are many things that are important to an internal creation of a democracy, Internal (as opposed to the external type propped up by the U.S e.g Iraq and Afghanistan.) Two of those things, and possibly among the most important are money and free information. By lifting the sanctions with such a geographically near neighbor, money would quickly filter into the country- even if to only a few hands outside the government to create a private monetary base that would begin to grow power.

As for free information, currently the Cuban government heavily filters the information available to the people, including state run media and extreme restrictions on the Internet. However since taking over Raul Castro has relaxed many of his brother’s laws including those on high tech devices such as DVD players, cell phones, and computers. In this digital age this relaxation could become comparable to that of Mikhail Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost in the Soviet Union.

These high tech devices are however only as useful as the information that you put into, or can access by them, currently this information remains restricted by the government. However, if the U.S. were to remove their sanctions and a steady barrage of information began to constantly be available to the Cubans, some information will get through. As computer and Internet access grows more people will have access to Cuba's already running underground media. That media can create a revolution much more effectively than economic sanctions and do so in a humane way.

The U.S has the power to create a revolution that is much to it's own liking, but unfortunately it needs to get over its grudges of yesterday, and look at what would make a better tomorrow.

Support Our Troops?

By Timothy Rice

Four years ago the magnets were everywhere, everyone was slapping them on the back of cars, on their front doors, mailboxes, and businesses. Now it is 2008 you really have to wonder how many people are paying attention to them, and to the bigger picture, their namesake, Our Troops.

“Shell Shock”, “Battle Fatigue”, and “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” different names which all highlight a troublesome fact: many soldiers can not readily reintegrate into society after deployment. The term shell shock was applied to the soldiers who managed to return home from WWI,physically, but mentally the war had taken something from them. Ninety years, six major wars and countless smaller conflicts later, we've obviously figured out how to cope with this situation.

Or have we?

The military certainly has programs in place. Disability payments are awarded to those tested and failing psychological tests. Numerous government programs run on an opt-in basis including Military Onesource, Courage to Care, and Operation comfort offer a wide array of help ranging from finding a temporary home for pets before deployment, information for families about helping their soldier cope with reintegration, to available suicide hotlines.

But the problem with these programs is that they are largely opt-in. Some soldiers are found early on as having a high chance of developing PTSD and are pushed into treatment, others ask for it, but still others fall through the cracks, a life shattering situation that often ends in suicide and at times also put the lives of the soldiers loved ones in danger. It is time for the government and military departments to step up mandate psychological testing early and often.

Critics attest that the suicide rate of returning soldiers from Iraq is no higher than in the general population. Hogwash. If you look at the statistics of the returning soldiers from Vietnam with the knowledge that little more has been set up to help soldiers cope, you know that there is a pending crisis. The numbers for post-returning suicides range from 20,000 to 200,000. The discrepancy of the large range has been explained by many doctors, that the cause of death has often been misrepresented out of respect to the families.

Many psychologists have highlighted two reasons why Vietnam created such a horrid situation for soldiers upon returning home. First, that the prevalence of guerrilla war is more detrimental to the human mind because it lacks a front line to show progress and creates a soldier who must be constantly “hyper-vigilant” about their surroundings, a situation which often doesn't immediately go away upon returning home. This situation is certainly occurring again in Iraq and Afghanistan as each of these wars are fought largely in city streets. The other cause that is often blamed on the increased prevalence of battle related psychological disorders is the expedited reintegration since the world wars. Before mass aviation transportation the soldiers' trips often took weeks on ships and trains during which could converse with other soldiers easing their stress with those that could understand before returning home to a relatively oblivious home and society.

Although very undesirable, delayed re-integration, may be a viable and helpful action that could in the end help soldiers. In addition across the board psychological testing needs to be completed in the warzone, at the time of homecoming and at times thereafter depending on the degree of need. Sessions with psychologists need to be more than offered, they should be mandated. More programs for group help need to be opened and strongly advertised. Soldiers need to get out of their houses and talk to other soldiers. Family members need to be better informed on their task of helping the soldier reintegrate.

In this digital age the military is unfortunately relying heavily on Internet and phone based opt-in helping programs. Psychological problems cannot be solved by the sufferer with research offered by the military on PTSD. Sufferers need actual personal contact help, and the military needs to take a more active role in opening up these roads to recovery and encouraging soldiers to seek help.

The military needs to learn from its mistakes in Vietnam. Beyond the fact that the United States lost a war, many soldiers who fought in have suffered from depression leading to drug use, homelessness, and suicide and even murder.

These same things are happening with the Afghanistan and Iraq veterans. These veterans have the added fear in the new smaller military ,of re-deployment, even repeated re-deployment. The excuse that this is an all volunteer army and therefore they knew what they were getting into is no longer an argument. USA Today reported last month that the use of Military Onesource, a military jack of all trades helpline, has increased every year by 40%, this shows that there is a strong need for this support out there.

The military has been stressed far beyond the expectations of everyone and new programs need to be put in place to protect these soldiers from themselves upon returning. Ignoring the knowledge that we learned from Vietnam is harmful to the soldiers themselves,their families and our society.

Columbia: The U.S' Spoiled Child

By Timothy Rice

Thankfully, last week the tensions between Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa and Colombian president Alvaro Uribe ended amicably, calming fears that the area would erupt into war.

After the Colombian military crossed Ecuador's border in search of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), a rebel group against the government of Columbia, Ecuador and neighboring Venezuela stepped up military operations on their borders with Colombia.

Ecuador had all rights to step up their military preparedness- the very premise of the modern international state is its sovereignty within its borders. Venezuela also has substantial reasoning to flex some military muscle, as a fellow neighbor of Colombia and also an ally of Ecuador. Hugo Chavez certainly dramatized the event for his own political gains, but none-the-less Venezuela also had reason to fear that its sovereignty could be intruded on by the Colombian military.

But the United States was not justified in any way in its strict unabashed support for the Colombian government.

The U.S certainly has a history with Columbia, and their alliance now goes back for decades. The U.S has repeatedly sent aid to the country in order to help build law and order. In turn it has hoped that a more controlled Colombia will not send so much cocaine to us, which is so expensive to track down once it gets here. The U.S has grown quite fond of its little child Columbia, but must remember one important fact: even our favorite children can really mess up sometimes. And although we still love them we can not condone this behavior.

Unfortunately, the U.S has a history of these unsavory alliances. We like to make ourselves inseparable with other states and their leaders, expecting that if we give them aid, and promise protection, they will be by our side in a conflict in their state neighborhood. -Think Saddam Hussein, The Shah of Iran, Cold War Afghanistan and even the development of Israel.

Since 2001 we have clearly learned that our support of Saddam and the Afghanistan government were both bad ideas, obviously. In addition supporting the Shah of Iran turned out not to be such a great idea since he also was an unelected dictator. In recent years the U.S has even realized that Israel, a long time ally may not be the all time good child, and may actually be unjustifiably causing much of the turmoil with Palestine.

So why is it that the U.S cannot realize these mistakes when it wholeheartedly endorses and protects its allies of today?

Colombia is a troubled state, corruption and lawlessness are rampant. It contains some of the most dangerous cities in the world. There is no shame in helping such a country mature. Indeed financial , social, and educational aid given by the U.S to Colombia are commendable, no matter how selfish the reasoning may be (remember our own drug war).

However-The U.S testified that actions taken by the Columbian military inside the borders of Ecuador were OK. Clearly, the U.S would not feel the same if it were our border which was crossed.

The U.S as the hegemon owes it to the world to stop playing favorites. Obviously a good part of the reason the U.S even took the time to speak at the conference was for political reasons against Hugo Chavez. Chavez has personally made himself and his country an enemy of the U.S, mostly for his own political reasons. Standing up to the U.S as little Venezuela has a way of making him look strong to his people. The U.S however does not need to look strong in the international arena, it is strong, there is no question.

The U.S has vilified Chavez as an enemy. In truth however he affords more to his people than Uribe does to the Colombians. Rather than playing political games and standing up for Columbia's wrong doing, the U.S could have taken the opportunity to take the higher road and make amends with Venezuela. Admitting that Columbia, although an ally, was at fault would have helped boost our diplomatic relations with South America and just may have helped re-polished our tarnished international reputation.

But alas, we failed again.

Politics.

It's not supposed to be a bad word, but why is it? A definition of politics is as follows "The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs." That certainly seems friendly enough. I'm a political science major, I learn about politics, a very necessary set of actions that allow us as human beings to coexist (or not, upon their failings). Why is it then that most of you upon reading this title probably let out a sigh of annoyance.
"Ooh great, p o l i t i c s"

I think it might have something to do with the fact that defining politics on paper and implementing it into the real world, with real people (ahem assholes) become two very different things. Granted the job of a politician isn't easy, distributing finite resources to infinite hands (another definition) is not a job easily undertaken. If we gave the job to a computer it would freak out like Rainman trying to figure out who's on first and probably blow up.

If debating and making decisions on who gets what, when, and how was all that the modern politician had to do, their time would be pretty filled up. Instead they leave this decision making to about 25% of the time and spend the rest mudslinging each other. (Oh yeah and they manage to get ridiculous vacations) And it's getting worse as we get nearer to the next presidential election.

I heard two such mudslinging comments today on the news, equally stupid, misleading and sad. They both came straight from the horses ass. George Bush today referring to an ad placed by moveon.org stating "General Patraeus or General Betray Us" said that it was "disgusting" and a "sorry deal" and went on to explain that it was not only a strike on the governor but a strike on the whole military. Strike one and two, It's a god damn free speech advertisement by an organization, cant get much more free speech than that. And there is no mention of the military, helloooo many of the people in the military don't agree with what their generals do. And for strike three he took it upon himself to condemn the democrats for "being more afraid of irritating a left wing group like moveon.org than the american military." Nice mudslinging tactic dickface, like it's their job to silence free speech. Strike three you're out.

Oh but he wasn't out, he still managed to find time to "take the offensive" on the democrats who were apparently trying to build up the national child health insurance program, which Bush would obviously have to veto, which would make him look bad. Yes make the president with a 30% approval rating look bad. Why would it be so necessary for him to veto it? Well because when you increase the funding for a program, while simultaneously allowing more children in (ones with moderately higher parents' income) it will obviously hurt the poor children already on it. Oh yeah totally makes sense, shame on you democrats for wanting to harm the POOR CHILDREN...wait a minute....Allow more children in AND increase funding, that would help more children.........

Yes mr. bush you managed to invent a story of dirty politics from the other side and trump it with your own. Damn it must feel good to be gangsta.

Traditionalists are lower than Gonorrhea discharge

My intention is for this to be a short essay, about a small subject, that is causing a big aneurysm to form in my brain. We'll see if it ends up that way, can you now see that editing is really not important to me at all? Yeah I don't read these things after I write them, big surprise. Anyways the problem that I am having, albeit a recurrence a thousand times over, is tradition. The circumstances which have prompted this particular aneurysm are the protest of Keith Ellison, the first Muslim congressman's wish to say his oath accepting his position with his hand on the Koran rather than the bible.

The funny thing is that Ellison has another thing going for him in this quest, he wishes to say his oath on the Koran which belonged to Thomas Jefferson. The argument is that this will break tradition, but it doesn't get more “american tradition” than Thomas Jefferson. So representative Virgil Goode of Virginia I say to you, you're an idiot.

Honestly though my rejection of his tie to tradition isn't based on the fact that it was Jefferson's Koran, Come on, you know me better than that, my gripes go much deeper. My problem is with this fact of tradition in general (I know I alluded to it earlier) Honestly though was swearing on the bible ever supposed to be a tradition? I'm not even going to bother looking this up, I'm going with my gut feeling, you know, truthiness* on this one. Anyways, hear me out. The idea of swearing on the bible is to say that if you do so, and you act against that oath you would be, in essence acting against that thing that you swore on. So maybe the first group of people who did so were Christians, I guess it would then make sense for them to swear on the bible, if its close and dear to their hearts, that's what I want them swearing on. But what about the people who are not Christian? I don't want them swearing on a bible, because to them its like swearing on a turkey sandwich, they have no ties to it, so swearing on it means nothing. If you're a Muslim I'd rather have you swear on the Koran because obviously it means something to you otherwise you wouldn't call yourself a Muslim. If you are not a part of a religious organization, such as I, I would rather you picked something else which is close to your heart. I would swear on a picture of my mother for instance. To me swearing to the Koran or the Bible would be like swearing to Green Eggs and Ham.

So to you Mr. Good, take your head out of your ass. Your dissent seriously just makes you look like a fucking idiot.

Anyways this essay obviously has no relevancy, because swearing an oath to serve and protect those that you represent is really just a silly formality, right american government?


*Truthiness is a word created by Steven Colbert, who is one of my few heroes

Hi My Name is Minority and I've Been Under-appreciated for Too Long...

I vote. It doesn't count. Why should I bother? What I mean by this is when elections are being out and out stolen by political parties such as that little incident in 2000 my vote continues to have no significance. In 2004 I stupidly voted for Kerry, I had no interest in the guy, he's nearly as stupid as Bush but my fears of the splitting the liberal vote and giving the election to Bush won me over and I voted democrat. I forgot about that one little point however that the state of New York has been voting democrat for years and will for years, so it doesn't matter whom I vote for, my vote is already cast for me. That's great, you know how that voting thing is supposed to make me feel empowered and all-american? It doesn't.

You see neither presidential choice will ever excite me because in order to get a freaking majority vote under this democratic system you have to be so close to the center that you can't tell who you're voting for. I'm sure a good chunk of the country would feel this way, and would probably vote for politicians other than the Democrat and Republican if they felt they had the choice. How many times have you heard, "That's just throwing your vote away?" Is that right, should you be forced to vote for someone that you don't want to rule your own republic and represent your country in the global world? It seems a sham to me, I know that I will never be in this "majority" (quotations because I kind of just said that I don't believe that it really exists) therefore at times I feel as though my government is pulling me around, much like its tyrannical. I can voice my opinion all day just like J.S Mill tells me I must do as the minority, but I will be lucky if I can change one mind on one issue. Sure social change has occurred but only after exhaustive efforts have been put out by the minority. It seems as though at some points that the giving in of the majority just occurred when it was good and ready to do so. Should it really have taken thousands and thousands of protesters to end legalized segregation? Shouldn't it have just struck us as wrong right away? It seems so obviously wrong now but it was a tireless effort of a minority just to get an institution ended that was blatantly against the constitution.

So we have this government that we all seem to be slaves to, with limited choice of who we want to rule over us and all. We choose the representative that doesn't seem to suck so fucking much as the other and they make all of our decisions for us. These people then extract money from us that they use to fund all the programs that they choose with very little oversight by us as the donors of the said funds. Sadly all governmental action can be traced back to money, without money the government can't do anything. Money is truly the root of all evil but if put to a proper use can be the root of at least some goodness. It has been said that money can't buy you happiness, that seems true. In a governmental standpoint however happiness isn't the end that we are looking for. The democratic government was put in place for the sole reason of giving its citizens the options that they can not give themselves. In essence beyond the life of cave dwelling, human beings are not self-sufficient. Governments set up by the people allow for the regulation of building, transportation, etc. we all know what the government does, and all of these services help keep us in cooperation within the borders of our country.

Beyond the services that are provided to us it should be obvious that the government could be doing other things for us that they are not, and could do so without stepping over the borders of privacy that we (for good reason I think) hold dearly. Many of these services are constantly being brought to the forefront of political discussion including universal health care, welfare reform, increased funding of primary and secondary schooling. These systems however seem to be pushed aside without much attention being applied at all. Privately it seems that the people in power are probably laughing at our meager attempts at getting our money distributed in the way that we want.

The point that I have been trying to make, using far to many words is that this republic style voting is never going to be fair. Possibly if there was a chance of 10 or 20 candidates for each election it would be more fair but they would seemingly all be about as far apart politically as the two that we have now. It seems that we would be better off voting for the tool of these politicians we must half-heartedly put into office. This tool is of course as I said before money, money is the single most important tool to any politician. If we as citizens could just gain control of where we wanted our tax money to be spent we would enormously increase our power as democratic citizens. Voting could be completed after the general elections in which each citizen gave their input for each of the taxes that they pay (local, state, federal) as to what proportions they wanted where. It would be an enormous undertaking to figure out the percentages in the end, but would it not be worth it in order voice your own opinion on the country and the world rather than the person's whom you voted for?

This system would of course not be perfect, in a perfect system everyone would be satisfied but unfortunately at least with current knowledge that is impossible. It does however bring up the power of the minority and allow it a loader voice than that of a single speaker on a soap box or as this new generation seems to take....blogs....

All of this talk of money really does make me sick though, you know?

An Unquestioned Democracy Will Inevitably Become Tyrannical

I will never call myself a patriot because I never plan on swearing allegiance to any country, unless of course the perfect one comes along. On the other hand I find it ironic when I am called unpatriotic when I bash the workings of this country. I have a hunch that the flag waving, parade watching, anthem singing super patriots are missing a very important part of what makes up "being patriotic"

Sure anyone could blindly follow a government and feel that it is doing everything just perfectly, but we all know that its not true. Humans are fallible and they will never be perfect, and when you put these humans into a government they tend to be even less perfect. There are a lot of things about the American government that are just plain fucked up, but at the same time we have some pretty cool privileges that come along with the package too. One of these being the right to free speech, even in elementary school the most one sided conservative peace of shit teaching establishment ever, I learned that if I wanted to call the president a goon I could because I have that right. That is not completely true however when society tries to bring itself together so strongly that exercising that free speech becomes unpatriotic.

I hear all the time "what's the problem with Bush wiretapping phones, If you don't do anything wrong there's nothing to worry about" The problem is that it's your right to privacy that they are infringing on. The more you allow them to do this the more rights they will try to take away. We only have so many rights separating us from fascism, do we really want to be like Nazi Germany? Is that really the direction that we want to head towards? I want more rights, not less and I fight for them.

I can't help but think that the more civil rights that you exercise on a regular basis the stronger a patriot you are. I once read on a bumper sticker that "the highest form of patriotism is descent" and I can't say that I disagree. Descent simply means questioning, questioning if things we are doing are morally right, and if they're not, fighting to get it changed. That's what democracy is. Democracy may not be the all time, answer to all our prayers, perfect system but it just might be the best thing we can do right now. We can choose to use it, or lose it, I choose to use it.

There's a state named South Dakota? HA! news to me...

Well I guess there is, and boy are they trying to fuck things up. Abortion. Abortion. Abortion. Oh what a hot topic, I hate talking about it myself because its misuse even makes me sick. However a few misuses can not be constued into a total failure of a quite beneficial system. In most cases the fetuses that are being destroyed a being saved from a not so great life because their mother was not ready for them. Abortion isn't birth control, but it is a backup if birth control fails. As I have said before telling teens not to have sex makes about as much sense as telling them not to eat, its not going to work and they're probably going to die if it does.

My main problem with the pro-life movement is that the main power house still lands in the hands of the males. Ya know the 50% of the population that will never experience childbirth, or have to worry about it. Thinking completely selfishly men can easily say that all conceived children must be birthed but thinking selfishly has never really worked out that well. Women play an extrordinarily important job in our society and because they do not have as strong a hold on the political arena, the men making these laws need to take into consideration the needs and wants of them. Yes I realize there are women in the government, don't fuck with me.

As for not making an exception for women who are victims of rape I can very easily become angry. I ask supporters of stringent no-exception right to life programs, how would you like it if a man tied you down and injected his parasite into you? A parasite? Wow did I go too far? I think not, an unwanted child, who was created by force, who will now feed off and deteriorate your body for 9 months and then depend on you for moral, phycological and financial support for upwards of 20 years. Its hard to take on that responsibility when you planned on it, let alone love a child that was concieved through hate. You "no-exceptions" assholes need to open your fucking eyes.

The idea of Abortion sickens me but the idea of lives being ruined because parents are not ready sickens me even more. Children learn by example and if they are conceived when their mom was 12, chances are their sex life will start off early too. That's the facts, besides the fact that immature parents who don't know right from wrong themselves will have a very hard time teaching these things to their child. I think the saying "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a baby" says it all.

Next chapter:
What happened in America before Abortions were made legal? Oh thats right they occured anyways only more dangerously and mothers bled to death often when they had them done. Just because somethings illegal doesn't mean it stops, it just gives you assholes a clear conscience because you're not allowing it anymore. A clear conscience while mom and baby are now dieing together. Well good thing your ticket to heaven is golden stamped, or is it?

Ain't it funny that the people who want financially insecure mothers to have their babies are the same people who want to cut funding to help them out?

If I find a government anal probe in me, I'm going ape shit on someone

What's the big deal if the NSA is spying on american citizens? If you're not doing anything wrong there's nothing to be worried about.

Well I'll tell you what is fucking wrong with that, for starters who gets to decide what "wrong" is? For instance I'm pretty sure protesting the government is a pretty acceptable practice, it being stated in the Bill of Rights and all, but it seems to me that the government is not a big fan of it. What if they decide that protesting the government is wrong? If they do they have full right to investigate anyone that is protesting them. I suppose that doesn't matter though anyways since its already being done.

The problem is folks is that we can't just allow them into our house to sleep on our civil liberties couch because when we're not paying attention they're going to become "the guy" they're gonna get real comfortable on that couch and they're not gonna leave. Next thing we know they're gonna take control of the civil liberties remote, eat all the civil liberties in the fridge and stink up the civil liberties bathroom. It's not gonna be good. In all seriousness though every time we allow the government to step on another civil liberty (sick of the term yet?) we take another step towards fascism. That's not my cup of tea and I would hope that it isn't yours either. I'd rather be the judge of what I want to share about my life, I don't want a spy satellite watching me pee. In fact if I knew this was happening I'd be in trouble because I get serious stage fright, but that's not here nor there.

So no matter what your president says about "fishing with a very small net" don't fucking believe him. If they're only spying on people that have ties to al qaeda (which may I add, nice name drop by the president to get people all worked up. Apparently al qaeda is the only group of bad guys around now) then why is their evidence of them spying on peaceful protests around the country lately? Why is it only us, the citizens that have to follow the laws?

One of the foundation principles of Democracy (Republicanism) is that there can be no one above the law, even those that create the laws. Unfortunately ours is failing.