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?

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

Kill a Pundit, Save our Sanity

Last Friday the New York Times spoiled a delusion I was purposely keeping myself under. The Delusion: That Pundits were just an accident, a quark, God's little joke on us all, and that soon they would fade away. Or maybe all be shot. (This is in no way a threat, I'd like to keep myself happily out of the FBI target list for as long as possible)

The article which brought about the demise of my sanity was titled "At pundit school, learning to smile and interrupt"

There is a frickin' school teaching people how to be pundits? I am left in aww.

Lets be clear, the word Pundit hasn't always been a curse word, and the person filling the position not always an ass. The first "pundits" were local Indians who advised the English judges on Hindu law in India under the colonization era. No, punditry became terrible upon the advent of the 24 hour news station.

For some amazing reason 24 hours is not enough time to pack all of the news into, which can hardly be argued against when Joe the Plumber, one of the least relevant celebrities in our time gets hours of time on-air a week. Since 24 hours just isn't enough time, there is no way to allow for two people to go on air separately and state what they think and support it. It is obviously necessary to put two, three or four pundits on screen at the same time and have them yell at and over one another, effectively offering less intellectual debating than the Jerry Springing show.

For this reason, in order to get a step ahead of the others, pundits are enrolling in classes which teach them how to destroy what was once the beloved debate.

Pundits need to "carve...[their] philosophy into bite-size nuggets — preferably ones that end with a zinger — and to avoid questions he doesn’t like."

Those three things are just terrible. Nuggets don't get the audience anywhere, we need substance, we need explanations. Nuggets are causing us all to go the way of the mentally retarded.

The school is teaching the students how to interrupt, avoid questions they don't like and steer a conversations in a direction where they can get their message across. This is just what we need, an off topic message for the simple reason of self-promotion. What we are looking at is the professionalization of a tactic most often employed in Ms. Teacher's third grade class.

My conclusion to the whole thing is that the pundit does not represent what journalism is all about. It is one of the very few professions which is supposed to work for the audience to inform and at times educate. The pundit in trying to break information down into nuggets, smiling while you're on the attack, and adding catch phrases like "flip flop" in to attract attention is simply distracting the audience from what is really going on in the world.

There is a reason that the debate as been beloved for so long, it allows for the free exchange of ideas and when done correctly can inform an audience on multiple side of an issue. Unfortunately in many ways it seems that the debate is going down the proverbial shitter and with it goes all of the benefits.

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.

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.

Honey I love you, but ooooh that porno!

I really started to pay attention to this thing a couple months ago when I was watching a special on the life of Reverent Billy Graham, the world renowned televangelist. They were telling the stories of peoples lives he had touched. One such story was about a man, with a problem, an addiction, and addiction to something so unholy and sinful that it nearly tore his marriage apart. His addiction? Porno. Yes when they were showing blurbs of what was to come later in the show "the addiction that nearly tore a man's marriage apart", I admit it, I was thinking heroin. Oh boy was I wrong, it was something much worse.

Since then I have noticed that many church groups are raging against the porn industry for spreading sin and destroying our very natural monogamous relationships. Yes marriage is natural, and lust is a sin. As an alternative they could keep their noses out of where they don't belong, but obviously that's not an option. If they can't control what their sheep do, then they go after the ones that supply them with a reason to sway. Or is it because us porn loving, lust wielding criminals are the reason that God allowed the terrorist attacks? (Oh yes Jerry Falwell went there.)

To get back to the story of the man addicted to porn, the problem was that he couldn't control his lust, he had a big collection of porn hidden in the basement, and when he drove by cute girls jogging he had to look. His wife's reaction to finding out about the porn, and catching him looking at other girls? Something to the effect of 'I started to think that I wasn't pretty enough for him.'

My verdict? She's and idiot, and he's a lying asshole. If she really believes that her husband is not going to look at other girls, flirt with them sometimes, and fantasize about other women then she better take that rock that her head has been under all her life and slam it down. She's in for a rude awakening.

As for him, a little honesty goes a long way. Some people just have high sex drives. They think about sex more often. They need to go look in other places. If he loves his wife then he should tell her that, but explain to her his situation. He shouldn't have to stunt his sex drive just because he's married, it's bad enough he has to remain monogamous.

Now I'm no marriagologist, but porn doesn't tear marriages apart, dishonesty and unrealistic expectations do. People need to be open, honest, and educated on sex. People need to know about sex, because everyone has some desire for it.

These groups however continue to harp on the ridiculously unrealistic view of human sexuality. Expecting people not to watch porn? Not to fantasize? Masturbate? They teach children to abstain from sex, thinking that it is the best method. Not for nothing, they are obviously not paying much attention. The God damn priests of the catholic church can't keep their hands off the alter boys! Trained religious scholars who have committed their lives to God, and taken vows of celibacy can not handle it. (I am in no way advocating pedophilia, simply going on the assumption that the high rate of it within this group practicing celibacy group is probably due to a build up of sexual desire that in time becomes uncontrollable.) How on earth are teenagers then expected to do it? Their hormones are raging, drives are multiple times higher, are at a time of body experimentation, and have peer pressure. Yes nice choices idiots. Are you even paying attention?

Fascism, Ignorance, and Religion

In Italy and Germany before WWII there were no questions. What Hitler or Mussolini said was right, duh. People were murdered by the millions, lands were concurred, armies were built up larger than ever seen before, police states were created. There were to be no questions.
In religion class I was taught to have faith, everyone was unsure sometimes, but I should have full faith in God. If you question the bible you are a sinner. It is against the very moral fabric of religion to question that religion.

I hope it's not to hard to find the similarity between these two stories. Religion is Fascist. It's a disgusting institution that has been built around keeping itself alive because it falls short of the very thing that it promises. Religion is supposed to give us the answers to the questions of the world. It doesn't, it give us the answers to the obvious things and tells us the rest either isn't important, or maybe that we'll find out after death. Great, that'll do the world a lot of good now won't it. So since religion doesn't do what it is supposed to, in it had to be created a self-protection mechanism so that people get mad if you ask questions.

If we don't ask questions we don't learn. If we accept the answers from yesterday we don't learn more. Without a constant quest for truth the world becomes stagnant and hateful. If we are going to have a chance we can't be held back by these old ideologies. We no longer think that the world is flat but we feel that without marriage a couple shouldn't be living together. And god-forgive that couple be of the same sex!

Religion is a haven for ignorance, choke on that when you're wearing you expensive easter dresses with your pretty flower hats, so you can “impress god.” The world is having a hard time stepping forward with ¾ of the population standing with their heads up their asses.

Fuck your easter.

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

Stupid people deserve to be rusty hooked.

This will be a short post, and the only purpose of it is to toot my own horn because that's what I like to do. Found this comment on ifilm as part of a forum on the Jon Stewart video when he verbally assaulted the hosts of crossfire. This jerk was bashing a previous authors post who claimed Jon Stewart was a "shining picture of what anarchy should be" I later came to a draw with someone arguing over the definition of an anarchist but that's less fun.

Apoc68 said: I agree with almost everything you said except for the ignorant title of your post. Anarchy? Jon Stewart is liberal, which supports a more powerful government. Was that just a typo?


Me: Apoc68 your comment is burning a whole in the side of my brain. Please don't ever wave the word ignorant around until you've done a little research, it makes you look, well, ignorant.
I think what the problem might be, is that you are confusing the liberal tag that has been given to democrats, with the liberal side of a much greater spectrum that incorporates anarchists, along with communists, and fascists on the other side. Yes the general consensus is that democrats want stronger government, but democrat ideals are about as liberal as Bill Gates is poor. Democrats and Republicans fight over a section of the spectrum that is almost negligible. Neither deserves a label of liberal or Conservative, they could form one party and just debate among themselves. Anywho don't jump to conclusions to say someone automatically wants a certain thing to happen simply because you feel that they fit neatly into a political party's agenda, the world doesn't work that way and never will.

haha im cool cuz i read books. *snort*giggle*snort*

P.S A rusty hook is when you stick your finger up your butt and then hook the inside of someones cheek with it.

Jesus loves the little children all the children of the world white and white, white and white...

Ever since I was a litlin I've been told by adults and most importantly my religion teachers that its not murder if you kill somebody in war, that its ok to kill for your country. Is it? I'm not trying to start a fight with the troops, well ya know if more of them refused to fight we might have to come up with new ways to settle arguments but that's just splitting hairs right? What I was saying though was, is it really ok to kill people for your country? Are the people that you are killing any less people? Do they not have families? Friends? Children? Don't they strive to live like everyone else? I fail to see a line, for those soldiers that are christian for instance, doesn't it seem suspicious to them that politicians get to make a decision on whether the 6th commandment is relevant or not? Maybe someday a president will tell me I no longer have to obey my father and mother. What it all comes down to is, any human life that is ended prematurely at the hands of another human is a tragedy, and until this gets realized this world is not going to work out.

There's another point I want to make, this one about my "superior" white race. I've noticed that just about every redneck piece of shit racist likes to point out that black have a higher murder rate than any other race. Since I just proved that killing in war is murder too (yes, PROVED mother fucker) I think that the white race might just possibly have a lead on the black race. Actually I'm pretty sure that if every black person in the world killed a person a day for the next 20 years they still wouldn't bypass the caucasian slaughter numbers. We're mean green killin' machines, but its ok when we do it.

Ya see how this works? White people don't commit murders because they get to make up the rules for what a murder is. As long as you declare war, or belong to the cia, or are friends with someone very important, or have a lot of money you can't commit murder. The people just died at your hands, but ummm.....its ok cause, it was a for a good cause. Amen to that my brothers, amen to that. The more people we kill today, the less people we have to deal with tomorrow!

Read this poem ---->America-Allen Ginsberg

Your big truck doesnt make up for your small penis

Stop it with the fucking trucks and SUVs, JESUS CHRIST. i swear to god the next time i see a ford expedition pull into a parking lot, take up 3 fucking parking spots, carrying only a 100 pound woman driver im going to throw a fucking rock at her. It should be mandatory that if you are going to drive a big fucking wasteful piece of shit like that you should have to carry eight people in it at all times. What the fuck? Your eight cylinders are burning more gas while you leave your suv running in the driveway than my car uses driving to syracuse. "i feel safer in my big truck" well the rest of us would feel a lot safer if you'd get off the road with your huge bulldozer of a car.

I am just completly dumbfounded at the wastefulness of this country. In every other nation in the world the trend is towards more energy conserving methods of transportation, NOT here. Americans are so fucking smart let me tell you, now i wasnt born yet but i hear we had a little thing called a fuel shortage in the seventies where gas prices went crazy and there wasnt even enough to go around. Did we take this as a wake up call? NO, we continued to buy big ass gas guzzleing cars, and now that the price of gas is going crazy again its the same god damn people who went threw the shortage in the seventies that are complaining about the prices now when theyre filling up their huge SUVs! Most advanced nation in the world? No i think weve officially smoked ourselves retarded.

Why don't presidents fight the wars? Why do they always send the poor?

FUCK YOU DOC

I am an adult therefore you are not higher then me! I don't care if you have 10 years of medical school under your belt or you are the president of the united states (hypothetically, if he was actually human) you are my peer and you have to fucking deal with that. If your name begins with a "DR." and i start it with an "MR." thats because unlike you i find you to be my peer. For the life of me i can not figure out how people who go to college manage to become "higher" in society than those that dont. We all work together in society, when were sick we have to go to the doctor which is a very important job. On the other hand if the garbage wasnt picked up, houses wernt built, roads wernt made, we'd all be kinda fucked eh??

If we dont agree with the Caste system in India we sure as hell better not have a system of hierarchy in America. We do not designate the people in power as being higher than us, they brainwash us into do so. STOP! Its just a way for them to control you, the ruling elite deserve no more respect than you deserve from them. They can only demand it as long as you give it to them.

Why doesnt Wal*mart sell upside down american flags?