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.

Survival of the fattest?

It was once thought by population experts that by this time the amount of food produceable on earth would be far surpassed by what was needed by the exponentially growing population. It turns out that through the use of science, food production has actually remained in step with the continued growth in population.

On a slightly unrelated subject there is one main reason that world trade and globalization have shown so much success in the twentieth century compared to previous centuries. That reason is that "The world is shrinking" or in more literal terms innovations in transportation have made world travel a nightmare of the past. It is no longer a problem to manufacture something in one part of the world and ship it all the way over to the opposite side.

So can someone please fucking explain this to me?

Just think... Everyday the world is becoming more open to free markets. For every fat kid, how many kids starve to death in countries who can't keep up? Survival of the fittest is for animals, not us.

P.S the photographer of the second picture commited suicide shortly after returning to the states. I wonder why.

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?

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.

Nu-uh! Am not!

In reaction to a recent comment that I received I feel as though there are some misconceptions of me that I should clear up. Do not take this in any way to mean that I do not want comments, to the contrary I love them and would like to receive many more, I am simply disheartened when I am accused of being someone that I am not, and in this case truly strive against.

1.This site is not by any means solely an Anti-American government blog. I thought this was quite clear even by a quick scan of my titles but apparently not. Do not try to tie everything I write into being against the american government, I try to critique every part of human interaction including government, society, beliefs, religion, faith,education, democracy, philosophy....

2.A formalized mass religion is not a belief. At least from the perspective that I am looking at. Getting mad at me because I attacked “your beliefs” is silly. If they were “your beliefs” I would try my hardest to leave you personally alone. They are not your beliefs you are borrowing them from the authors of the bible, koran, and other holy books. I will put out my opinion on a lot of things, and if I think you are wrong I will tell you that. However as long as you have a personal belief and you are not following faith blindly I will at least respect you. I only lack respect for those who follow the heard blindly.

3.My purpose in writing is not not to be a jackass. I realize I come off negatively very often. I also however promote the ideas that I feel are right. I do this because I think it is important pool ideas to come up with answers. It's a concept of a collective individual who absorbs and radiates ideas and personality which anyone who has read Walt Whitman's poems will recognize. One of these days I will write a little something about it.

4.I'm not “liberal” or “leftist.” And I am definitely not a democrat. I strive to be as close to a humanitarian as I can, and attempt to do and promote things that are best for people. Sometimes I'm wrong, I try to admit those times. Please though, help me realize when I am. But on the flip side don't be afraid to be enlightened or corrected yourself.

5.I am not stupid. My mom said so.

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.

The pull-out method

So it’s commonly known that there is an ideological problem with democratizing Iraq. Commonly known to everyone but George Bush, and his millions of followers. It seems safe to say that democracy is a better system in the protection of individual rights than Authoritarianism. Just by the very fact that our standard of living is much higher and freer than any authoritarian state, at least yet. There are of course (I repeat) ideological and religious reasons that democracy is unacceptable, but lets not forget that there was a time when the separation of Christianity and the state was considered ridiculous. There are obviously Muslims today that are living under democracy, so as George understands, it is possible for Muslims to democratize. Anything is possible… with time and energy. Time in Iraq is not being considered. Energy is, but its type is certainly questionable for the effect being striven for.

Lets first look at the need of time. Iraqis are not democratic and they never have been. There is a political theorist named Harry Eckstein who developed something called the congruence theory. Without getting into great specifics, for those of you who aren’t theory nerds, the basic premise is, for a democracy to succeed there must be a congruency or sameness of institutions all through society (from government, to schools, small governments, clubs, families and down to the people.) All of these things need to be somewhat democratic for a democracy to work. It really makes sense, if all parts of a society are organized democratically, it is a sign that the people of that state are thinking democratically (they feel that they have the right to influence their own future.) This is not the case in Iraq. We can not expect to stop and old authoritarian government and have a democratic one take its place overnight. Even if everyone in the state wanted it (they don’t) it still wouldn’t work because the people don’t know how to be democratic. How to educate people is a question that I and anyone else is hard pressed to answer. The only thing known is that democracy seems to be learned better by example than by schooling. Since the U.S (a democracy “ish”) has invaded Iraq and occupied it very undemocratically it can be safely assumed that the example we are showing is not a very good one. I would go so far as to say this might be the worst way to try to democratize Iraq. Which leads me into the next section, “energy.”

It takes energy to make a democracy, but who should do it, and how should it be done? The biggest problem with democratizing is that it seems nearly impossible to jump start it without the use of violence (is it?). Saddam was not going to one day say “ok make a democracy” to his people. People are most likely going to die, and war may ensue. I will leave it up to you to decide whether you think war for freedom is moral. I might venture to say that it is more moral if it is for your own freedom. This isn’t for the U.S’s freedom. The greater problem in Iraq, more so than moral (wow, more than moral?!?) is the strategic problem of outside force. The prospective citizens of a new democracy first of all must want to democratize, it cant be decided for them, (that’s undemocratic!.) The force that we use against the Iraqis will cause them to run from democracy, not internalize it. You can’t force someone to not want to be forced anymore.

I’m obviously looking at a very narrow section of the Iraq situation, there are many more variables effecting it. I think however that it is important to point out these problems. I think it shows that what the U.S wants and what they are actually doing in Iraq are counter-intuitive and counter- productive. Iraq isn’t our toy. It’s a state full of people that are going through a lot of shit. They have been going through shit for a long time, but we have changed what kind.

Now that we have changed things should we really pull out and leave them to settle it themselves? Yes and no. That’s my opinion anyways. We’ve done the harm, we’ve put the country into shambles, we can’t leave it that way, look into the U.S history of war, when we do that, it's not so good for the other country. On the other hand we would really like to see Iraq democratize, and its fairly safe to assume that in time they will want it too, but that transition has a much smaller chance of occurring if a democratic state is enforcing a will on them violently. We need to stay there but change our course. Demonstrating democracy while helping stabilize and re-build the country wold seem to be a better sort of operation.

The cause to pull out our troops now, is backward. (sorry Cindy) It’s a nice concept but doesn’t make a lot of sense. Certainly leaving completely now would save American lives, but if we are truly to be moral beings we must weigh consequences pan-nationally. Us leaving now would cause more death to the world. If America is going to use its army to help other countries liberalize (this is considering that this is not simply an excuse) then we are going to have to update our military. Our old methods are not going to be able to appropriately manage our new goals. If we want to liberalize countries we are going to need a peaceful, democratic army that expresses those very attributes which we wish other countries to emulate. That is something to strive for. I would join that army. It’s too late to pull out, the damage has been done, now we have to do what we SAID we were going in for.

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

Death Toll, ON THE RISE

Since the Iraq study group papers came out a few weeks ago it has been the goal of democrat congressmen, senators, and journalists galore to try to get George Bush to admit, as did the papers, that we are not winning the war in Iraq. Well he finally did (kinda), in a turnaround from the November election's “Absolutely, We're winning” he now says “We're not winning, We're not losing.” First of all we must realize that George Bush is a complete idiot, I'm sure that we are exactly “tied” with the Iraqi's. Damn another CAT game! Seriously though what could not winning, not losing mean? Is it that we killed a whole lot more of them than they've killed of us, but we just can't seem to make them stop hating us, like the Vietnamese? I certainly hope so! Lets see we entered Iraq in 2003 so by Vietnam standards the US should get sick of getting its ass handed to it in about 2018. Gee by then ill be in my early thirties, aging to the far right of the spectrum and be ready to support the war!

What is more absurd is the mindset that we could have ever been winning, nor could the Iraqis. Lets be honest with ourselves we have a meat grinder in Iraq, it's top of the line, can grind up more meat than any other, unfortunately it takes about 10 billion dollars a month to power it. The Iraqis also have a meat grinder, it's older, American made left over from the cold war, its cheaper to run but can't grind up as much meat. The meat that they grind up are the bodies of the American and Iraqi soldiers. The money that they spend running the grinders is supposed to feed their people, keep them healthy and educate their children. Instead the people are hungry, dieing of disease, and the children's education is being replaced with brainwashing nationalism. Don't think that I am just describing Iraq either, these things are happening right under our noses. Our raised up to the sky, “I see no evil” American noses.

I hate to be all “wimpy” about this but it is just impossible for any winning to occur in war. I hate death counts, it's what kept American support behind the Vietnam war for so long, We were winning! Or were we? Are the Vietnamese children any different than the American children? Different from the Afghani children, Iraqi children? I bet if you put a child from each country in the world together in a room they would play as if there was no difference. How could it then be ok that we are killing children in Iraq now and setting them up for years of hardship in the future (depleted uranium, minds, bombs, weapons, general instability) when we are so hell-bent on protecting the children of this country. If a child goes missing in Indiana the whole country goes on alert looking for that child, very few of us know that child, we just care because they are an innocent being and they deserve to live. How are Iraqi children any different? They are born into the world just like ours are, born ignorant of the worlds problems and prejudices. Ignorance is not only bliss in the eyes of children it should be a picture of God to us.

“Its going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to triumph over the ideology of hate”- Bush, speaking to press encouraging support of another permanent expansion of the military. Are we really going to be able to teach people out of the habit of hate with the use of hate? This really does put the final piece into the puzzle. Bush has now lived up to Reagan's prestige as the worst president ever. Economics, corruption, ignorance, and war mongering....

In an effort to try to be more legal about this blog the title is a lyric from a song by The Casualties. The random quotes throughout are from these news articles on truthout, Pentagon wants $99.7 billion more for wars and Bush calls for larger military

Right to Life.

Fox News: Military Draft: Good for stock market and good for America!
I shit you not, this was the title of a show that I saw while watching the new. They were comparing world war II to the present and showing that the draft did such a good job back in the 40's raising the economy, why not do it now?

Why not? Ahh, seriously you can't figure out why we shouldn't start up the DRAFT again? Am I living in a nation full of fucking idiots? (Yes) Here's an important question, is it good for the 18-24 year olds who are actually going to be drafted? The answer of course is yes! You will get a yes from many, many old men who have been in the military before, they say that its a great learning experience, that you will never find anywhere else. Just out of curiosity how much did the draftees learn that died in combat in World War II? For those that did have time to learn something, how much did it matter after all of their blood was spilled out of their bodies and their hearts stopped beating? It is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. For those that choose to do it, its just that, its their choice. For those that have been tricked into it after being fed lies, I'm sorry. As for forcing us young people to put our lives on hold and in horrifying danger, to fight a war that has nothing to do with us, No thank you.

I would love a chance to tour the world, see some new views and learn some new cultures. I just don't want to take part in the destruction of these things while I'm doing it. Can't I just do what I want to do in this country? They've restricted us enough already, the “free country” slogan makes me laugh. Most of us can't afford an education without going deeply into debt. Kids get tortured with tasers because they don't whip out their ID immediately when they're not doing anything wrong anyways. Their satellites can probably see us through our roofs now. Re-instating the draft would just be the keystone to it all, we would formally have no rights left. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Those are all really hard to do when your body explodes because of a car bomb.

Granted it is very unlikely that the draft will be re-instated, but what if it really was. What would happen? The protesters in the sixties did an impressive job the last time the draft was in effect, but the movement slumped into a pile of garbage because most of the protesters were doing too many drugs to remember what they were fighting for. Could we even hold out as well as they did? There certainly doesn't seem to be any unity today, and this shit is getting pretty bad already. If our situation gets worse will the young people of this country band together against these fascist policies, or are we all just too brainwashed from too many years of booze and conservatism? I am trying not to lose faith, but if something like the draft went down, I would be very worried...

Gut wrenching...

This is a little against what I usually use this blog for, but that in itself is more than enough reason to do it, I don't want any expectations on my formats. (Goddamn it!) I found this video last night or so and was completely amazed and shocked. I have found that some of the most creative shock inducing art will come from the type of people that you would least expect. This is a music video from a "thrash metal" band named Slayer. Shock value seems likely for a thrash metal band, creativity like this, maybe not so much. Anyways watch the video, don't worry if you're not into the metal sound, I'm not either. The first time I listened to this I hardly even heard the words, that being said however, watch it twice the words do add a lot to it. It's a little gross at times, get over it. Oh and pay special attention to the last few seconds....

Apparently the embedded video was screwing up the layout of the whole blog...so heres a link instead......Link

Maybe we can stop this insanity soon?

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?

Pride Will One Day Kill Us All

The American flag is supposed to be a direct symbol of America, that's why people put so much crappy pride into it. That's stupid. It's a piece of cloth people, get over it. Beyond this fact however i have repeated it here many times, there is yet another little quark about this symbol. It's a horrible symbol of America! Red for blood, white for purity, blue for justice. Purity, justice? Am I hearing this correctly? This corporate whore that we call America. I elect that we create a better symbol for this great democracy. Since we are none to shy on the blood concept I think this attitude calls for a plain all red flag, with maybe a nice backdrop of an IRS form 1040. Kind of a nice positive symbol that says “we'll suck you dry of your money while making you kill, for as long as you can keep from dieing yourself”

As for the way that we must treat our flags in order to not get dirty looks from old WWII vets, this does not symbolize the way America works either. If we treated the symbol of America like we treat the people of America we would have to drop it on the ground, kick it, scuff it, burn its corners, rip it, never fix it, and leave it to rot into oblivion. I will treat that piece of cloth with respect when this country starts respecting itself and other countries. When people aren't unnecessarily hungry and sick in the world's most prosperous country. When people are equal and the poor don't have to work themselves to death trying to get themselves a piece of the pie when the rich already have the whole thing. When color stops mattering and true personal compatibility takes over. When the lying and deception from the people we set to protect us stops, and when the misappropriation of funds gets changed from making bombs to kill children to making food to feed children.

That's bare minimum. I shouldn't be worried about how my government is going to ruin the lives of my friends, family and I everyday, I should be wondering how my government is going to help me tomorrow. Remember? The government we put in place here was to protect and serve us, not the other way around.

Pride is their tool. It is how they get us to do the unthinkable. Our military is filled with men and women who have killed tons of innocent people. Most wouldn't kill people here at home, but feel that its ok that they are doing it for their country. How does this country deserve the right to kill innocent people anymore than each of us does individually? I really don't think it does, but the stronger the pride in this establishment, the more people are willing to put there lives at risk doing the unthinkable, and that's disturbing to me. I'll hold my pride thank you very much.

I fear nothing more than pride, as it has seemingly infinite control over us.

P.S For the statement “America's society is great it's the government that is fucked up” which I will almost certainly get from someone. I would like to say this, that's a lie. Americas society it largely made up of racist pride-filled jerks. I'll give society a 40% approval rating. I'll give the government a 1% for those random good things that accidentally slip through the legislature.

Hey carny this ride sucks give me my money back

I don't mean to get all depressive on here, but I'm going to anyways. This topic also has very little to do with what I write this blog for, but then again maybe it has to do with everything in this blog. You see I'm setting off on my 16th year of formal education, very close to being finished with a part of my life that has taken up 75% of my life to date. I just can't help but as why? And I mean about fucking everything!

Why do we work 8+ hours a day? Why do we train for 17 years just to do it? Why do we work more than 50 years of our lives away? We continue to build up our lives more and more with increasing amount of refinements that which we consider necessities, but at what cost? Do we have time to enjoy them before we die? Its like getting your very own puppy and not ever playing with it. What's the point? Many of us will spend most of our lives working to pay for a house that we can call our own. Why should we? After a hard days work you have merely a few hours to enjoy that house and the rest of the time is spent sleeping in it. You can sleep in a shed. Why bother?

People are living longer! Oh are they? I see tons of obesity, drug dependency, and diseases that continue to become stronger? How much longer do you think we can hold out this living longer trend? Theres already prediction that it will go the other way in a matter of a couple generations. Life will get shorter, and its already to short. We're killing ourselves to lavish ourselves to death. The longer we work the shorter our lives will become. You can work from the stroller to the wheelchair. It's life!

Speaking of death and destruction and the premature death of us all, how about that little game we like to play where we just go out and kill each other? I wouldn't mind if that stopped. Life is short enough without getting your brain blown out with an M-16. Eighteen year old kids in War deserve to die about as much as Star Jones deserves another piece of cheese cake. Now I'm off topic...fuck you....

Basically what I'm saying is death sucks, but not living life sucks harder. But do we even have the chance to live life, or are we just living under an illusion of what is really good for us?

Fucking Think for Yourself

I've been on this topic lately called religion, its been floating around in my head a lot and at times spewing out of my mouth like fire. It's occurring to me that my hatred for organized religion which I find to be growing in me more and more every day is actually only a side effect of a bigger dilemma I see this world in. I think I would actually consider this problem and epidemic. The problem is faith, not just any faith because we all have some otherwise we'd have put the guns to our heads long ago, my problem however lies with a special kind of faith. Blind Faith. From now on this should be called "faith for idiots."

Faith for idiots consists of sitting at home reading your book, be it the bible, the Koran, or any other holy book and believing every possible thing in there with no questions asked. Correct your mom and dad and pastor and religion teacher all seem to be really nice people, but did you ever consider thinking outside the box? Possibly considering other people ideas comparing them with the ones of your religion, maybe formulating your own? Personal hatred can stem out of peoples inability to see outside of the church, that is not a newsflash.

The problem is, is that there is no perfect religion. Every one has contradictions within itself and each is made out of fallible people which make up a fallible network. If for instance Islam had all the answers everyone would be a Muslim, it only makes sense if all of the puzzle pieces fit together it would be stupid not to be one. Unfortunately Muslims don't have all the answers and neither does anyone else, I know I don't have them but I'm satisfied with that. Reading one book and feeling that you have all the answers makes about as much sense as listening to one person talk, who happens to be in the kkk who tells you "niggers is bad" and you going out and spreading the word around to the whole world. You have to think for yourself first, why are they so bad, do I have any evidence? Hmm just an afterthought.... kkk:blacks, Christianity:gays?

Mahatma Gandhi once said when he was asked if he was a Hindu "Yes I am, I am also a Christian a Muslim a Buddhist and a Jew." Gandhi realized the core values in all of these religions were the same, love and peace. Therefore he realized that fighting between two religions that have the same values is retarded. All religions can be right and all can be wrong simultaneously. Your faith doesn't have to be the same as your best friend, nor your spouse. Faith is a personal thing, but for the sake of the sanity of the world, believe what YOU feel is right not what one books says. Explore, ponder, consider, and be willing to evolve, and lastly stop fucking asking me when the last time I went to church was!

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.

Don't get sick, capitalism says you can suck its left nut.

The other day I was blessed with an infection in my eye. I can't say enough that I am glad that I still get health insurance from my parents. I do feel horrible however about the poor bastards that don't have it, and worried as I only have a couple years before I have to get my own. Health care in this country is so fucked up, I know I've said it before but this infection was a prime example of how capitalism is killing the American people. The doctor I saw prescribed to me medicated eye drops, two tiny little bottles of medicated eye drops 5 milliliters a piece. The grand total for these pieces of crap that in the end did no more than saline solution...$168. I can't even imagine if this was actually a medicine that I absolutely needed and didn't have insurance. I decided to crunch the numbers to find out how ridiculous this price actually was. At $168 that is $16.80 per milliliter, put into terms of 20oz mountain dews thats a $9,928.80 bottle. Somebody is making too much money and it is making my brain bleed. It goes like this folks, the pharmaceuticals raise there prices, so the insurance companies raise their rates, so employers drop their policies and the employees have to pay for the full prices of medicine, or they die. Greed doesn't work for everyone, there's always a losing side, and they have children that need to eat too.

I've heard the argument over and over about why America's capitalist economy is the best system that there could ever be. Unfortunately I must be dumb or something because I can not for the life of me understand how that could be. If its so high and mighty why is it that some people don't have to ever use the same toilet for 2 shits in a row but other people can't afford to eat? It's not that the poor person isn't working as hard, they're actually probably working much harder. So how is it justified that the basic principle of capitalism, that you earn more money the harder you work, doesn't even begin to work out?

My oh so favorite quote as for why capitalism is the best will always be that “it is the best economic method because it uses people's inner most pull, greed.” I was told by my high school economics teacher that greed rules the world, and without it humans would still be living in caves. I can't argue with that, but at the same time I think its important to point out that if we didn't also have the ability to control our greed we would still be eating our young. Greed might very well be a central part of our minds as humans but we have also evolved quite a ways since our caveman days. Just like the Geico commercials point out, cavemen are stupid, should we really be basing the system that allows us get food and medicine on a cavemanian way of life? Do you think maybe we should be looking to evolve a little bit, maybe towards not allowing the children of our human race to starve? I'm not to keen on competing for anything, especially when its resources that sustain the lives of people. There's is plenty to go around if we can just learn to share.

Sharing and Caring it can be fun.

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?

We'll be laughing at you all the way to your grave

NEWSFLASH: The Muslims are not ignorant mountain gorillas. I know that might come as a surprise to some, but for real, they are people just like you and me.

Recently there has been a lot of commotion over some Dutch cartoons of the prophet Mohammad with a bomb strapped to his head. The Muslims are pissed, and the rest of the world is laughing at them because of their 'ignorant' reaction to it.

To start off, it goes without saying that to kill over a cartoon is just plain stupid, to kill over just about anything is stupid, but comedy is about the worst. I don't support the riots, the blood or the death that is occurring in reaction to this in the least, but I do want to point out a few things that I feel are necessary to understanding this situation. First of all we in the western world are used to making fun of each other on a daily basis. We use comedy in a way to smooth uneasy situations and differences we have over. The Arabs don't necessarily have this custom that we have grown into for generations. We listen to racial comedy on an almost daily basis now, it has been taking this country by storm. I wholeheartedly support this use of humor to help bring people together, if we are laughing about our differences we are less apt to hate each other for them. With our history I'd say that it's more easy for us to "take a joke" than it is for them.

We also have a diverse religious background here which has exposed us to ridicule from other religions and non-believers. The Muslim religion is by far the most prominent religion in all of the Arab countries (yes there's different sects, but they are very similar). They are just not as used to people who would have unfriendly thoughts about their prophet.

It does however deserve to be brought up that people in America would be significantly outraged if a horrible cartoon was created depicting for instance Jesus performing an abortion. Fucking with peoples beliefs tends to bring outrage to a new level. I would not be surprised if a cartoon posted at the "right time" could spark huge protests or even riots even in this so comedy oriented place we call America. If we look over at Iraq right now, I think we could conclude that it is the "right time" for a riot to take place. They have been destroyed by a country of mostly non-Muslims. I bet there's a little bit of anger stored up in these folks...

I have rambled on for far too long, but in short I ask take a minute to think about the circumstances before you consider a whole people barbarous, and don't forget to take a look at yourself either, you might just find the same faults there.

I hate hate.

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.

The good ol' days SUCKED

I'm talking to my buddy Dan from work the other day (by buddy i mean person i usually can't stand but when I'm completely alone with him I'm forced to talk to him) he explained to me that my opinions were "wrong" and that as I grew older I would change and ya know become "conservative". After screaming at him "shut up FUCKER!" about five times we went back to regular arguing. He claims that the ol' days were so much better because people took responsibility for there actions like not getting abortions and raising their kids when they weren't ready and stuff, ya know all that good glorifying the past stuff. I thought to myself, was the past all that great that we should be glorifying it so much? What about slavery? segregation? sexism? Were these all good things that we should wish could still be happening? I think the answer is NO even to hardcore conservatives, which brings me to my point, the past isn't perfect so stop living in it. When you look at the present with feelings of loath your probably just comparing it to a stupid glorified version of the past. Don't forget that humans are usually looking for happy circumstances and when making memories you pretty much remember what you want to. Lets be honest marriage at 18 where the man takes control and the woman cleans the house and raises the kids, basically the man's servant sounds like a great idea but hey why don't we think about the woman's task in this? Not that the job of child rearing should be at all negated as being menial, the woman should have an equal chance of being the "breadwinner" or whatever she wants. Just because she gives birth to the child doesn't mean she has to raise it alone.

Basically when looking back at the family structure of the ol' days on the surfaceit looks great, no divorce, no question on who does what, but in most cases the women are getting shafted. I think the future although having its own flaws can only be considered a step in a continuous track toward a "perfect" civilization which is in my mentality a world of people who think for themselves but are willing to work together no matter who with, black, yellow, white, or red or any combinations, male female, transgender blah blah blah for the common good of the whole. Is it such an unrealistic dream folks? A world of people who looks past physical, emotional, and psycological differences and becomes a stable society and only want the best for itself? I think not, why fight? We all live on one planet, why divide it? why not share it? Its just god damn stupid!

My intoxication stands out in this post a bit...

America... FUCK YEAH!

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

Guess who has all the answers! ME!!!

Ever since Bush started his war on 'Teer,' America has been going at it at the wrong way. When we went to Afghanistan we found some of those terrorist because we were able to take them by surprise, but not as many as we expected. Then we went to Iraq to get the 'dubya-em-deez'(weapons of mass distruction), but I think that was just a cover, I think the real reason we went to Iraq was that the terrorists escaped Afghanistan and went to Iraq and Bush just didn't want to admit that they were getting away. So once we went to Iraq the terrorists already knew that we were coming so they stole the the dubya-em-deez and ran out of Iraq too. This would explain why we havn't found any sign whatso ever of alqueda in Iraq or dubya-em-deez. Yeah so now we have some real danger on our hands, but its ok because I know what to do.

What we need to do is invade all the countries that they could hide in, at the same time. I'm thinking Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia pretty much all those towelhead countries, and the ones with oil because im getting sick of being raped at the gas pump. Well were at it lets invade North Korea, and China, I don't think we can trust them anymore, Oh and Venezuela, and France because they're mean to our president. Yeah thats about all, if we invade all these countries at the same time the terrorists won't have anywhere to run, we'll get 'em!

Now I know what you're thinking, 'i would love to invade all these countries but we don't have enough people in the military now to stay in Iraq safely, how can we invade all these other countries?' Thats just stupid, the only reason we have shortages in the military is because we haven't used the draft yet. There's 250 or so million people in America, and if you take out the elderly, the babies and the rich you still have a good 100 mill to go to war with, it worked in the old days, why can't it now? This is America! We stand for freedom, and its our duty to liberate these people from the terrorists that are in their countries! Even if we have to liberate them to death, atleast they're free!

I'm proud to be and American, where atleast I know I'm free, and I won't forget the men who've died to give that right to me, and I'd gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today, cuz there aint no doubt I love this land, GOD BLESS THE USA!!!

P.S fuck you Bush, Cheney, most of the democratic party, almost all of the republican party, Pat Robertson, and Ann Coulter (haha warartist you have me on a tangent), among others.

America:Making people hate us one forced feeding tube at a time.

I can't take this anymore, how could there possibly be a debate in 2005 about whether prisoners of war held by the US should be tortured? We're not even trying to look like we give a shit about human beings any more we blatantly just say that we like to kick the shit out of everyone weaker than us, kick them when they're down, and then when they're die spit on their bodies.

The house passed a bill last fucking month that would have protected POW's in US prisons from torture, now the fucking republicans are freezing the house so that the bill that its attached to won't get passed. On top of this the white house has already pledged to veto it, on what grounds you ask? "it would restrict the president's ability to fight terrorism and protect the country" FUCK YOU! How can human beings not care about other human beings? Ok they look different, we got that already, GET OVER IT! I want to rip out so many hearts right now with my bare hands. I feel so bad for these people, its not fucking right, criminals or not they deserve a trial, decent conditions and they shouldn't have fucking feeding tubes shoved up their noses that haven't been washed since they were shoved in someone else's nose! (allegedly)

As for the white house's stupid reason that it will not allow us to protect our county from terrorists, I offer this. Beating the shit out of the people that hate us only makes them hate us more, now they will just try harder to kill us, thanks.

How about the rules of the Geneva Convention? America hated the Vietnamese because they didn't follow them when we invaded them. Now America can't even show that respect, whatever fuck this, I hate my country blah blah blah if Hitler was around he'd be so amazed at Bush he'd probably suck his dick.

If it makes any difference Arab world, I care.

I'm being watched, I'm being watched by the CIA

So awhile ago I wrote a blog about how much I hated the Patriot Act and that still stands, but yesterday I finished up my 6 page report on the workings and opinions with some additional supporting facts. Now I could post the whole thing, but lets be honest, nobodys going to get passed the first couple of lines because you have short attention spans. Instead I'm just going to post my conclusion, its the best part anyways. Oh you may have noticed that I've changed my point of view on the acts a little bit, deal with it, It'll probably happen again anyways. Most of the points of my old article still stand though, just not my conclusion.

________________________
The Patriot Act is a highly controversial set of laws not only because of it's own doing, but because of an underlying schism that has been in America since its own beginning. Since America was built on an idea of freedom, explained relatively vaguely in the Bill of Rights, citizens of different points of view have opposing ideas about where the limit should be between freedom and safety.
There are those who strive for their individual freedom more, who are willing to trade in security for their freedom while there are others who would much rather trade some of their freedoms so that their government can protect them better. I fall in with the former category the best but not whole-heartedly, in my point of view I would rather take my chances with terrorists than have to fear the people who are supposed to be protecting me. At the same time however I am plagued by the thought that even if total freedom were given, it would still be hard to practice that freedom in a world without order. Compassionate anarchists can say what they want about the centrally good nature of people, there are always going to be some people that want to hurt or at least take advantage of people weaker then themselves. I also have to take into consideration the feelings of my close friends and family, and how I would feel if any of them were hurt in a terrorist attack.

With these thoughts in mind to me it becomes apparent that the system of investigation before the 9/11 attacks was flawed and a repair on that system was needed. The Patriot Act however has gone to far, it has broken too many freedoms that Americans have held to so tightly since the establishment of the Constitution. We only need to look back to the Alien and Sedition acts of 1917, and McCarthyism to see what happens when the government attains to much power and oversteps its boundaries. The Patriot Act should not be repealed in its entirety, its purpose is clear, the intelligence institution in this country needed to be re-examined. Instead we need to build in new limitations in the law so that America can continue with what it was built on, Civil Liberties.
________________________
That's probably the nicest post that I'll ever put up here, enjoy it I'll be back to my old self soon.

PS -Read this money for Katria recover coming out of welfare, its ridiculously biased but it has some huge relevance, and its disgusting.