Who Needs A Military When There's McDonalds?

It is a well established fact that as of this writing, no two countries that have a McDonald's in them have gone to war since that McDonald's opened. This theory has stood true in the Middle East, South America, and other conflict heavy regions such as the former Soviet Union. Historical enemies, such as France and Germany, or China and Japan, have yet to go to war after McDonald's introduced them to fattening American foods. The key word in that last sentence was American.

The greatest strength America has lies not with its military power, but rather with its economic and cultural strength. The way to peace throughout the world and excellent foreign relations isn't to fight a "War on Terrorism," but to instead promote US culture everywhere to make other countries more receptive to the US message. If they begin to consume the US culture, they will be more receptive to US ideas.

The US should turn its attention away from using military might for its foreign policy to using its economic might to make the people of countries like the US. If the Cubans began getting Big Macs, they too might turn towards democracy.

Beggar Republicans and Deficit Spending

Before the Republicans managed to gain control back in the late 70's , they were known for quite a few things. First, they were known as war hawks. Second, they were anti-affirmative action (and some, against other races in general). Finally, they were anti-social service spending. But most importantly of all, Republicans were known to be fiscally responsible, wanting to cut so called "wasteful" spending by the government.

Those days are over. Today, after a takeover of the House, Senate, and Presidency since 2002, we see that the Republicans, when it comes to fiscal policy, have no fucking clue what they're talking about. For years, Republicans have been decrying "tax and spend" liberals. Now they've shown that they don't "tax" and "spend", they just spend other people's money. For years now, the Republicans have been driving up a deficit, a deficit that we will have to pay later. By we, I mean my generation and following generations.

And they have the balls to say that it doesn't matter! That's the worst part. It's as if they failed basic economics entirely, or lack the competency to even hold office. According to them, the deficit doesn't matter because:

1.) Everyone loves America's economy
2.) Reducing it would hurt our economy
3.) It's needed for lower taxes

Each one of those is total bullshit, and here's why:

1.) Everyone loves America's economy

They do, but only right now. Other countries' economies are on the rise, and at the rate some of them are going, America has the distinct chance of not being the only superpowerful market in the world. It's only because our economy is extremely powerful that foreign companies invest heavily in it. Without these investments, we wouldn't be able to finance our debt at all and our economy would crash. Here's where two problems come it. First, current foreign investment, at best, can only finance a deficit at half of our current rate. Secondly, if another country arises that comes even close to rivally the US's economic strength, we're screwed. No other nation is racking up nearly as huge a debt as the US currently is, and therefore would carry much less risk. Foreign investments would suddenly go towards that other country, and we sink. We have to prepare for this possiblity.

2.) Reducing it would hurt our economy

So would not reducing it. As the debt gets larger, interest rates have to go higher in order for the US Treasury to better finance this massive debt. These interest rates will rise higher and higher, making loans harder on the average American.

3.) It's needed for lower taxes

The current share of the national debt for each person is over $27,000. For every single member of the US, that is the amount, from young babies to the oldest senior citizens. An average family of 4 owes over $100,000 in debt to foreign nations, thanks to the spending of the Republicans. That's a lot of money that will have to be paid in taxes.

Haven't the beggar Republicans done enough? Can't they find a way to finance their fiscal policy? It's time to find people who truly are fiscal responsible and don't just claim to be.

Farm Subsidies Suck

$143 billion. That's the amount the American public has paid to failing agriculture industries in the United States. How much growth has resulted from this investment? $0.

That's right, none. Agricultural economic growth has been seen out of this at all in the last 10 years. American tax dollars have given $143 billion in help to US farmers, and yet it takes Ben and Jerry to save small farms. This is just sad.

Why are farm subsidies so bad? It's because no matter how the agricultural season turns out, the government loses. Shortages on the crops? The federal government loses as farms across the nation default on loans. Surpluses in crops? The federal government loses as well. How? It's because the farmers are afraid of inflation, and have all crops set at an "ideal" 1929 adjusted price. Guess what the US government has to do? It has to buy up all of the surplus so the price stays the same. Either way, we lose.

That's $143 billion wasted for nothing. There must be something done. I propose an immediate end to all farm subsidies now and the removal of "ideal" price. We can't afford to waste $143 billion again.

Wow. An update.

I know I havn't updated in awhile, but this is partially to blame on school, and partially to blame on my own lazy ass for cramming every test.

Anyways, we go back to an age old debate about...abortion. Quite frankly, I think this argument is pointless in terms of science, and all of that nice stuff. Conservatives state that it is life because it's growing, brain waves are detected in X amount of weeks. Liberals state that it's not alive, because it can't sustain life on it's own. This is pretty much all meaningless. For one to truely evaluate whether or not Abortion should be legal, one must look for the different arguments dealing with this sort of stuff. For the lack of better terms, in order to avoid a definition war on, "life," we respond to the contradictions in the opponent's idea. Due to the fact that I'm fairly liberal, I shall fight against the conservative side.

Putting all moralities aside, conservatives support the banning of abortion. However, in doing so (with their current argument), one must realize that you must also ban fertility clinics for those who are unable to have kids. Many republicans state that as soon as a sprm unites with an egg, it is now, life in their definition. However, for a fertility clinic to work, multiple eggs are injected into a women's uterus due to the fact that many of them have a high chance of death. It's technically killing embryo's isn't it?

This same argument can go with stem cell research. While it may be, "killing," embryos, you still cannot ignore the fact that fertility clinics still do the same thing. If you lose one, you lose the other.

Discrimination!

In today's society, we have what we term, "jocks." These people play sports, they're physically fit. They waste hours upon hours playing sports such as basketball, soccer, and football. They will go, they will win, and if they're good, they will get a school scholarship to an Ivy League school. After that, they will join the school football team, and they will lead their team to victory.

Also in today's society, we have the term, "Cyber jocks." These people play computer games, but they are not physically fit. They waste just as many hours playing games such as Counter Strike, Starcraft, and Quake. They will go, they will win, and if they're good, they will beat Fatality(World famous CS player).

But wait. Something is wrong. What ever happened to the college part? Oh yeah, that's right. The person, who has managed to beat fatality, has just been kicked out of college due to his suffering grades. Whereas the football player still has his scholarship, and is still in school despite his suffering grades.

Kids, who waste hours upon hours playing Counter Strike, do not get their scholarship, even though they placed fourth during the world cyber games. Kids who waste hours upon hours playing Quake, do not get their scholarships, even though they placed twelfth in Cal-I. They make more money than football players, but they still do not get scholarship.

This is discrimination. Both Football, and Counter Strike, waste the same amount of time. With football, it requires peak physical condition. In counter strike, it requires peak motor skills. So why is it that football player receive full scholarships, and Counter Strike players receive a blacklist?

I'll tell you why. It's discrimination. Today's society frowns upon 1337 computer gamers. Both activities are games, and both require immense amount of time. However, we prefer football players over, "lazy counter strike players who just waste all their time in front of their computers." Well, why can't we say the same thing to football players. "Lazy football players who just waste all their time on the field."

It's discrimination I tell you!

Conservative Media: Destroying America

It's no secret that Rupert Murdoch is evil. He has managed to offend both Democrats and Republicans. For the Democrats, he is the epitome of white male conservative idiocy (in their own words). For the Republicans, his shows on FOX push the borderline between Sesame Street and Paris Hilton's sex tape (not in their own words). It's no doubt that he's a menace to society overall. That's why him and his neocon media conglomerate machine must be stopped for the good of mankind before it wipes out the United States democracy.

To begin with, Fox News, or as Jon Stewart would put it, "finally, a news channel for middle aged white men." Now, I have no problem with the conservative media machine. Really, I don't. I don't mind the occasional Scarborough country since the only way to fight one of your enemies is to know what they're thinking. Furthermore, they occasionally make sense. Fox News, however, is just needlessly evil.

Here's the thing: News is not supposed to be biased. When one source declares its political alignment, it automatically shifts all others to the polar opposite a bit. Thus, although in normal circumstances MSNBC and CNN might be considered only moderately left at most (because of bipartisan shows ans Scarborough country), Fox News has created the notion of the liberal media. That's right: Fox News manufactured its own worst enemy.

It's a simple premise: once Fox News because the far right station, all other statiosn would appear farther left by default. It would be similar to putting 2 pieces of candy on a piece of taffy and then dragging one piece of candy to the right. The other piece will appear farther left even if it hasn't moved. The end impact is that Fox News created this country's so called Liberal Media.

Nobody needs a reminder that Fox News always points to this omnious source of information as part of society's ills. However, it fails to mention that the only reason the liberal media is so liberal is because Fox News made them that way. To all the conservatives who hate the liberal media: It wouldn't exist without Fox News. Thank them today.

Furthermore, how could this happen? How could the liberal media be created out of thin air thanks to Fox News? There had to be some source pervading Murdoch. This is where wild speculation comes in. I theorize that because the liberal media had to be created from some source, that source was likely the conservative media machine. This conservative machine exists unnoticed due to a few large factors: Fox News playing itself as the only conservative channel, and their focus on the self created liberal media instead of their own bias. What occurs as a result is a world where whenever a liberal brings up a complaint, it's "shrill wining." When a conservative brings up a complaint now, however, it's "a new and insightful look at the issues facing America."

Note to conservative media: You exist. Don't pretend like you don't actually are there. There's still only 52% of you.

Lori vrs me.

So I'm sitting on the bus, and Lori, my friend, brings up a point, actually, several points.

One of which includes, "You're applying for MIT right?"
Quite frankly, no I wasn't. I'm pretty sure that I'm no where smart enough to attent MIT or Cal Tech. Or at least I hope I don't else my brother will become the janitor and school my ass to make me study. But the point she was trying to make is, "You can do it as long as you set your mind for it." I don't really believe in that. Reason being, I know this girl. She is in my math class, we will name her...Bobalina. Bobalina studies for more time than I play games during the summer, cries when she gets a bad grade, etc. Bobalina works her ass off and gets straight As. I do not work my ass off, and I'm getting half decent grades. Right now I have mostly Bs and As. And a C in math...but that's my own stupidity. Regardless, it shows how little work I do, and I get half decent grades, vs. how much Bobalina's work, and the grades she gets.

I think I am smarter than Bobalina, but she is only there to prove my point. People who go to MIT are much smarter than me. I mean, you have kids there who are like, "Uh yeah. I'm playing blackjack instead of studying," and gets Bs. Yes, there are people who work hard, but the intelligence level between me, and someone who may be able to get into MIT are grand. But that's only my thought. I do not believe that you achieve all your goals through just hard work.

The people in MIT are phenomenal in intelligence. Some of the people there do no work, and pull out a C average, where I would have to work my ass off to pull a D. Actually; I'll probably fail after the first week. I have no mentality for that type of work. The point being, not only will MIT most likely reject me, but the intelligence difference is just too steep. They are looking for people who get the same grades as Bobalina, but works just as hard as.....me (not very hard).

Another point she brought up. My philosophy/doctrine/whatever states, "It's better to be phenomenal in one area, than good in the rest." Lori states, "It's better to be phenomenal in all areas." Again, I disagree. I don't think it is possible to be phenomenal in all areas, for the fact that humans have a limited life span. Most of your learning effort goes into your first 30 years of your life (grad school, etc). Then the rest are devoted to working. So in 30 years, you cannot be phenomenal in 8 different subjects, unless you learn how to stay awake 24/6 and sleep on only holidays and Sundays. My take is, it's better to have 1 or two majors, rather than five minors.

Carmack, would not have been such a great programmer...okay bad example. He's like uber programmer and he's got a high school education.

Hmmmm.

Okay. Einstein devoted most of his life for physics. I'm pretty sure that none of his books were ever very popular for the general population. Whereas Clinton, who's a liberal arts major, writes a book that is instantly popular. The difference is that Clinton will always be able to write better than Einstein, and Einstein will always be better in physics. There is no one human being who can be equally phenomenal in two subjects, and better than a person who is phenomenal in one subject.

School Rules. Fair at all?

1. Click the title if you have yet to figure that out.
2. 
   Shocking News.
   
   Old news, but still good news. When I read this particular article, I was especially shocked.
   
   So the story goes, this kid gets a call from his mom in Iraq, who he probably hasn't seen for at least 4 months. This happened during lunch time, and he goes outside to gain a better reception. A teacher catches him, and attempts to take away the phone. He accidentally turns off the phone, and the kid is sent to the vice principle's office.
   
   Forgive my profanity.
   wtf?
   
   The kid receives suspension till the end of the year. I believe this includes him losing credit.
   
   Forgive my profanity again.
   WHAT THE FUCK?
   
   Even if this happened during class, and the kid realized it was his mom, the teacher should not have confiscated the cell phone. The kid is under a lot of stress due to the fact that tomorrow his mom might be dead. If I were that kid, I would have punched the teacher. Yes, I do believe in education, but family matters come first.
   
   Eventually that kid was re-allowed into school on account of a many hate letters, and a bad reputation. But the fact that the school had to wait for the kid to release his story to the press is just...disgusting.
   
   That is all I have to say. The rest of you can make your own opinions.

Seperation of Church and state.

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Said by Thomas Jefferson.

I fully agree with what he said about the separation of church and state. It's a bad thing. For example, the bible will start dictating what should be done with America. I do not want the bible stating we should not be able to do this and that. For example, the bible should have no say what so ever when it comes to gay marriages.

Yes, it is true that in the bible, god did not create Adam and Steve.
Note: I am agnostic/atheist.

But it is also true that the people who are fighting for gay marriages are fighting for their civil rights, as stated in a previous post.
http://rainyraver.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_rainyraver_archive.html
It's somewhere on that page. I did not argue gay marriage on the religious terms. I argued on the basis of civil rights. Yes, I would be fine if there was, "gay mariage," in which they can attain their civil rights.

Prayer should not be taught in school. Note: I am not against someone praying during school. I am perfectly fine with that. However, there is no reason to make the entire class pray. They're kids, and they will believe anything they are told. I know this, because throughout my life, I have recited the Pledge of Allegiance. I say it's brain washing, through I'm not against it. I have full loyalty for my country. The effect of mandatory prayer in school would be a massive conversion of children into religion A.

Furthur more, yes; it is true that the exact words, “Separation of Church and State,” do not appear in the Constitution. HOWEVER, the first amendment forbids several things.

• Establish a state religion or prefer certain religion
• Prohibit the free exercise of religion
• Infringe the freedom of speech
• Infringe the freedom of the press
• Limit the right to assemble peaceably
• Limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances

The first two apply to this post. It does not specifically say, "Separation of Church and State," however it does draw the same point. The government will not can not and must not establish a state religion or prefer certain religion. This is important. Yes, it does state that in the first amendment.

WHICH MEANS THERE MUST BE A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

For the Last Time, Free Speech is a Right Given at Birth

Nobody has the right to take away from whatever I want to say. That is the essence of free speech and the very first constitutional amendment to the United States. This right is not earned, it is natural right that is given to you at birth. You don't have to do anything to earn it, and nobody can ever take it away from you even if they want to. If they do, they're violating your rights. They leave their own rights to as many violations as you can think of.

Free speech is a difficult right to protect, however. The only way to do so is to exercise your own views. To protect free speech you must use free speech. Only once you use it is it impossible to take it away.

Trying to draw a "borderline" on free speech can never succeed in an American society. We are not Europe. We are not most of Asia. There is no worry about Nazis, ethnic tensions, or a dictator. This is part of the reason I believe the Patriot ACT to be unconstitutional. Allowing the FBI to monitor our activities is just plain wrong. There is no "if you've got nothing to hide, why are you scared?" logic. If the FBI or CIA so much as senses a whif of the mere chance that you're a terrorist, they can put you away forever, period.

So what am I saying? First, lobby your local congressman and senator to pass legislation stopping PATRIOT ACT abuse. Secondly, I'm saying no successful limit on free speech will ever happen.

The fact is, in this day and age, information doesn't stay still. Unless the information is a top secret classified government project involving military technology or Canada, it will find its way to somebody who shouldn't know. Even more so, most groups are harmless.

Take a look at NAMBLA. The North American Man Boy Love Association. Some people would assume that such a sick organization should be shut down. However, those people are idiots because they don't know what NAMBLA does.

Ok, to clear things up, NAMBLA members don't actually practice homo-pedophilia. They are still law abiding citizens, for the most part. They don't print "homosexual propoganda" (an idiotic phrase since homosexuality is not a life choice but literally a physical and mental trait), they do not go and sodomize young children. Their goal is to pass legislation making pedophilia legal. While this might sound bad, in practice they have no power anyway. Outlawing them would set a bad precendent to allow the government to outlaw groups "in the name of public decency." Give them their free speech. It doesn't hurt you, unless you're a homophobe, in which case screw you (not literally).

Then look at the KKK. This group is just pointless. In these days of terrorists and skinheads, the KKK is obsolete. If it so much as moves a finger every member is arrested. Let them have their free speech, they're just dogs barking.

What I'm trying to say is that you really can't limit free speech effectively. The "fire in a theater" example is about as close as anyone will ever get. Less is just anarchy, which doesn't protect free speech at all, and more would lead to a slippery slope.

If you advocate more restrictions on free speech, you are advocating a system that, slowly but surely, will lead to the US government being able to quash dissent. When that day arrives, not even the 2nd amendment will save you.

Free Market. Capitalist.

Karl Marx is a commie. Sad to say, I agree with his one point that capitalism will eventually destroy itself. His idea is basically, "The rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer." Right now in America, this is true.

The free market idea is basically where the government does not touch the market at all. The market runs however it wishes. However, this may cause many problems. For example, in the US, if you have a monopoly, you play by different buisiness rules rather than the standard. If there are two companies, equal in size, one company may undervalue their product in order to gain more customers. However, a monopoly cannot do this. This is due to the fact that the monopoly has just so much money to spare. Thus, the monopoly cannot undervalue their product in order to give smaller companies a foothold.

Well, right now our all mighty, great ruler president (*sarcasm*) believes in this system. He also thinks that the richer the rich get, the more jobs they will create. Big problem. The rich are already filty rich, and you're giving money to the filty rich. This doesn't work. Explination: Filty rich. They already have alot of money. The only thing is that you don't know that due to swiss bank accounts. However, that is beside the point.

Part of the reason our economy is failing is because the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. This is the problem with capitalism. However, the government should switch to a utilitarianism type of view, where the government only interfears to benefit the most amount of people (key word, most. Not aristocracy).

--

Oh yeah, does anybody think our economy is just mysteriously messed up? They predicted that the US economy was supposed to coolapse during the 1950s, though right now it's 2004 and has started to dwindle. Well, there's some really weird stuff when it comes to our economy. First thing, everybody pegs to our dollar. China does it. Japan does it. Many countries do it. Why? To keep their stuff artifically cheap? Another oddity. Alot of countries invest in our US bonds. But it's more like, "I lend you money to buy our stuff."

Does anyone think that's weird at all? More or less, it's a bowling ball balanced on a needle. Nobody is quite sure how it works, but everybody sees it. So what the hell?

I mean, I'm not saying everybody, unpeg your dollars. Japan did something like this and it all bubbled up. Japan's economy became a basket case (I predict this will happen with China if they ever decide to fully unpeg it's dollar in the near future). Japan's currency is still pegged, but not as much.

Okay. Conspiracy theory.
I think this is all a big plot to screw over the US. When our economy goes into the shit hole, we'll start owing alot of money because all the countries invested in our bonds.

Okay, so maybe they aren't plotting to do this against us. But this will probably happen unless someone does something about the dollar pegs, us bonds, and our freaking trade deficiet.

[sarcasm] And all mighty Bush will magically solve this problem. [/sarcasm]

Protests, Riots, Massacres, and rocks.

I'm sure you've heard of this. A bunch of people are protesting, and then the military opens up. Well, you people who say that should think about what the soldiers think. Do you really think they want to shoot civilians? Last time I checked the Geneva Convention was against killing civilians. Well, time after time, you always hear about some protest, and then the military firing on them.

Well, first thing is first. Their intent was to keep the protest under control, not to slaughter dozens of people. Let’s have a hypothetical situation. I am a soldier. There are 29 men around me, whom I've gone through training school with. Anyways, we're assigned to keep a protest from getting out of hand. However, the protest turns into a riot, and rocks are thrown. My buddy gets struck in the head and he's passed out. Meanwhile the riot is getting more and more violent. I'm going to fire back.

Think about it. The average soldier is not trained for crowd control. More or less, it is a poor judgment on the soldier's part. But really, the person is just scared. Now stop saying they were out for blood. Stop saying all they wanted to kill people. This discredits the military. What you have to remember is that all it takes is one rock to snap an uneasy soldier. Unless the soldier is trained in crowd control, he will be especially jumpy during a protest.

So really, stop blaming the soldiers for opening up. It's what we call poor judgment. It's not like their minds are crystal clear during the protest. Oh, and please leave the rocks on the ground.

Software Preview: Google Talk (Beta)

Let me begin by saying that Google is indeed trying to take over the world.

As of now, they have:

-A search engine for everything
-A usenet client
-A free email service
-A customized homepage
and now
-An instant messenger client

To clarify a few things, this isn't actually a new proprietary format. Rather, it's just a google client to connect to a Jabber IM server. Of course, that doesn't matter, because Google makes it work better anyway.

Only people with Gmail accounts can use the client at this time, and since it's so new buddy lists will be small. You can invite your gmail friends onto it, and chat with those already on your list.

The features are pretty simple. You can email contacts, and IM them. You can minimize IM windows easily, and if it is minimized, a popup will show up when new messages appear.

The greatest feature, however, is voice chat. It's seemless, lagless, and perfect. Once again simplicity makes things perfect. It works seemlessly with a microphone, and I can personally attest to its ease of use.

There are some problems, however. While you can check your inbox, I have yet to find a way to disable a popup when a new message arrives. You can't talk to more than 1 person at once. However, these are minor issues. In the end Google shows once again that it can take something that's been filled with useless trash and turn it back into the simple thing it once was. Google Talk will be the best IM client out there...if it gains users.

News:Pamphlets of the New Generation

No, I'm not closing the blog.
However, I have created a message board.

http://s13.invisionfree.com/Pamphlets/index.php

Videogames Don't Kill People: Parents Do

The world's problems with videogame violence would be solved a lot quicker if parents actually payed attention to what their kids were doing and also did some research.

To begin: video games are not responsible for teenage violence. Not now, not ever. Even more so, it has been through the ignorance of actual video gamers that has led to this. Most parent's conceptions of gaming are so old that it drives them into bad stereotypes, allowing 12 year old kids to buy games geared and marketed towards adults.

Let's start with something: even with video games and the supposed tools of killing from the US military, juvenile crime has been on the decline, at one of its lowest levels in 30 years, as of right now. What does this say? Well, for starters, video games surfaced in the 1960's, about 40 years ago. If the crime rates have been dropping for 30 years, then it's obvious that video games aren't causing more crimes. This is just fear mongering on the part of senators clamoring for time and those who say "think of the children" when they're merely looking out for themselves.

Moving on, we encounter the main problem with video games today: not enough parents know what they're doing. They buy into a bad stereotype, the one of a video game industry still geared towards the little kids, boys specifically, in which nothing bad is supposed to ever happen. This might have been true...20 years ago, but today, that is the saddest and most incorrect stereotype ever created by man, dare I say it even more incorrect than the male female stereotypes.

Fact: A very large part of the video game market today is those people 18 or older. Get over it. There are a lot of video game players who are legally adults, and game developers will target them, no matter what you do. The only effective tactic you have is to not let your own children play the games you dislike. Nothing more.

Fact: The video game industry has a very strong governing board for ratings in content, the ESRB. This group, in fact, was stronger than the MPAA ratings, introducing brief textual descriptions of content found within video games. Movies took that from video games, not the other way around. The ESRB ratings are also similar to those of the MPAA, look here for yourself.

Fact: The studies done to prove video games cause violence are inconclusive at best. All they say in the end, because they don't actually have games in their context, and because the studies themselves reached inconclusive results lead to this: agressive people like agressive games. It doesn't show that the games create the agressive people, it just shows that those people like the games. They were agressive before they played the games, nothing more. Don't claim these studies as proof, because the end result is that they're not.

Fact: Video games are extremely social nowadays. Almost every game in existence comes with multiplayer options, most of which on the PC include online multiplayer options. People meet friends, enemies, and even lifelong partners through these games nowadays. Face it, adults. More people play video games today than ever before, and they're meeting up. Video games are now social tools, used to meet others. They are no longer just the 1 kid sitting alone by himself playing. It's that one kid, who goes to school the next day and talks about his adventures, the one kid, who forms clubs and websites. Video games are no longer single player activities.

Fact: Girls play video games, a lot of girls, in fact. See above mention of people meeting up as life partners through games. Add to that casual games like The Sims and you have a formula where girls are bound to be found. Even more so, games almost always have a strong feminine role, which is more than you can say for movies and television.

Fact: Parents need to take more responsibility. The standards are there. The rating are there. The facts are there, all it'd take is for some parents to take greater responsibility, and video games would not be any problem. They've become an accepted part of today's society, so it's time for parents to step up and take up the mantle that belongs to them. It's not the video game company or the government's job to regulate this new form of art/entertainment, it's yours. If you don't think it's appropriate, then don't let your children get it in the first place. It'd save us a lot of trouble.

Different Theories

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

It is well know that Bush wants to teach creationism in school. However, instead of blatantly stating it out, he goes along the lines of, "different theories." This pretty much violates the separation of church and state.

Well, there are several problems which arise with the theory of creationism. First, it has nothing except a black book backing it up. Evolution has scientific evidence backing it up, DNA evidence, fossil evidence, etc. The only thing that evolution is missing is well, a few more fossils to fill in missing gaps. Creationism also has the problem of inbreeding. For example, my family has bad eyesight. If have kids with my, "sister," my daughter will also have bad eyesight. Now if this is done for many years.....well, my family is basically blind. Evolution does not have this problem, because there are many people with many different traits, bad traits are not reinforced.

Now, creationism is found in a black book we like to call, the bible. It states that Adam and Eve had two sons, and three daughters. Some one must have had sex with a family member for us all to be here. Also found in the bible: incest is a sin. So even if we did use the bible as a source, it contradicts itself.

Evolution is not based on religion. There is no set religion out there that says, "Evolution is right." There isn't even a cult that states evolution is right. This does not include atheists and agnostics, for the reason that they are not part of a set religion (Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc).

Further more, if Bush wants to teach different theories, I want him to teach all the other theories. Including the Egyptian religion, where the world was created by the great god jacking off. How's that for a different school of thought.

My solution? Leave evolution for biology. Creationism, as well as any other religious explanations should be left to history, culture study, or English. They're just STORIES. I mean, which is more accurate, a scientific paper on evolution, or the story of Adam and Eve? Last time I checked, a scientific paper is more accurate than some crap sci-fi book I read in the bookstore.

Karl Rove

Bad Eli.

Wife of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson played a key role in sending him into Africa in order to investigate possible sales of Uranium to Iraq. Her maiden name is Valerie Plame, which was revealed on July 14, 2003. Joseph C. Wilson, during his time in Niger, found little evidence to support Bush's claim of Iraq obtaining nuclear material from Niger (which was made one year later mind you).

Yes, Valerie Plame is a CIA operative. No, I'm not a spy for another country. I did not hack into the CIA mainframe, this I found off of the New York Times. I thank you Karl Rove, for leaking this information. Now the whole world knows that Valerie Plame is related to the CIA.

Karl Rove, if you didn't know, is one of those right winged extremist. Him and Dick Cheney are two of the scariest republicans around. Quite frankly, I think they are manipulating Bush. Well, Karl Rove leaked the name of a CIA operative to a person known as Mr. Cooper on July 13, 03. Hell, two of Karl Rove's aides testified to the CIA leak.

Now, I think Karl Rove should at least have his position revoked. Especially because he is a threat to national security. Valerie Plame is a CIA operative, and will probably not lead a semi-safe life again. She may be hunted down and kidnapped for classified information. What Karl Rove did, is bordering treason. I would vote to have his head cut off, however it was an accident. Or so we hope. Nevertheless, at the very least, Karl Rove should have his position revoked.

And Bush should listen to his Intel.

Read Philosophy

Today's decisions are based too much on 24 hour news networks. While channels such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC allow an instant access to almost all the information you can handle, it needs things to fill the time. And so they invented the political show.

Now, don't get me wrong, political shows serve a good purpose. Without them, there'd be even less insight into our current government, and people like Karl Rove wouldn't have eyes watching them. But they aren't always useful for actually understanding what the goal of the political actions are.

I mean, look at Crossfire. It was just a bunch of people yelling at each other. Look at Hardball, there's even less intelligent talk on that. Most of it is left into partisan bickering about nothing important, all it deals with is a random assortment of clashing facts. Nothing ever gets accomplished on those shows.

Even worse, they take away from questions about the actual government. Foremost among these is: What is its actual function? What should the government do?

That's not what today's politics deals with. No, they deal with "What were they thinking when they did this?" and maybe, just maybe if you're lucky enough, they'll deal with the possible implications.

That's where philosophy comes in. This is not a nation founded under one god, it was a nation forged through the ideals of the modernists, and the modernists were great philosophers.

Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau. Find some books by them, read them to truly understand what our government should do. Go even further. Read post modernists such as Michel Foucault or even Classicists like Plato and Aristotle. In the end, not only will you have gained insight into a government's job, but also gained a new perspective of such endearing traits of humanity such as justice, equality, and society.

London Bombing

Terrorists have bombed London.
This is indeed unfortunate.

Sandra Day O' Connor Retires From The Supreme Court: Implications

Oh, boy. Here we go. News sources have just announced that Sandra Day O' Connor, a judge on the Supreme Court, has retired. If you have been paying attention to the current political climate, you'd know how dangerous this is. If you haven't, here's a brief overview.

It's no secret that the Democrat and Republicans are divided throughout the federal levels of government. The House and the Senate are almost split evenly along party lines. Every action is scrutinized. A single appointment by George W. Bush has taken a long time, especially highlighted with the John Bolton case, Bush's pick for UN Ambassador. He has yet to clear the Senate, first because of Democratic filibustering, and now because the Republicans, thanks to the filibustering, can't rally enough votes.

The Supreme Court has been another highlight of this struggle. With many of the justices over 70 and Chief Justice William Rehnquist becoming increasingly frail, the chance that Bush would need to appoint new justices was evident. Once again, Democrats kept on filibustering every single one of his nominations. This almost lead to the nuclear option in the senate, which would have completely wiped out the rules.

Now with O' Connor gone, real problems arise. Bush now HAS to appoint a new justice. That doesn't mean that the Democrats will cooperate, quite the opposite. If they so much as dislike the candidate's hair color, they're going to send him or her to kingdom come.

Finding the right person is going to be a balancing act for Bush. His goal, of course, is to appoint a conservative Bible thumper who'd be his puppet in rulings. The Democrats don't like this, but the Republicans sure do. There is going to be an all out Senate war to see which candidate will make it through.

Perhaps Bush will be smart, and will instead choose a candidate that satisfies both parties. Perhaps he will become wise and choose a moderate to replace O' Connor. But then again, this is Bush that we're talking about. We're all doomed.

Homeland security

Okay. We have this thing in the United States of America called homeland security. Well, I propose that instead of wasting all of our money on homeland security, we spend it all on giving guns to everybody above the age of 16 (I'm not 16 right now). There is a saying, "An armed society, is a polite society." And I believe that. I also believe that if someone starts shouting, "ALLAH AKABAR!" He will be shot, hopefully before the guy hits the detonator.

Well, the reason why I'm writing this, is because we have this thing in the US called homeland security. And we have this thing in schools called the lock down. For the lack of better terms, it's a bunch of bullshit. Basically, all the lights turn off, everybody gets into one corner of the room, and the door is locked. We aren't allowed to make any noises, walked out, or even go outside when the fire alarm is pulled.

Well, in the event of a true terrorist attack (though why my town I know not), keeping everybody in a corner of the room is not the best idea. What? Your going to pile the bodies which get hit first on top of you so they don't see you? No. The terrorist will just shoot the door open, walk in, and strafe everybody with an AK-47. We will be dead. Yay.

Another scenario, a terrorist plants a BOMB in the school. A teacher sees it, and pulls the fire alarm to get everybody to evacuate. Sure, some of us will die from AK-46 fire, but I'm pretty sure unless it was a full scale invasion, some of us would make it out. Well, we aren't allowed to answer the fire alarm. Bomb goes up, so to all the students.

Or, how about this. THEY LIGHT THE BUILDING ON FIRE. Yeah. That would be ironic. Though very unpleasant.

So, this got me thinking. My friend is in one of the dumber classes. The one's with super seniors, ghetto kids, etc. Well, he said, "I felt pretty safe. All those Hispanic ghetto kids who carry knives are in my class." Yeah. ARMED. Terrorist walks in with an AK, gets a hail of bullets. He dies, we live.

This isn't the first time homeland security has come up and introduced an ineffective way to protect us. For you older people, you remember those nuclear bomb drills? Get under your desk, and put your head over your head. Or get near a corner of the wall if your in the hallway. This was during the cold war. However, MAYBE if it was a bomb drill. But a nuke? You won't feel anything when it hits. It's that, or it will feel like you have drizzle on your face. And that means you'll die painfully in a week of radiation poisoning.

I say, do homeland security right. Don't do any of this, "lets hide in a room where there are WINDOWS." Issue us guns, or build a bunker to protect the students. And above all, please, please, PLEASE do not put suicide proof windows on the first floor. What the hell? Someone's going to jump out the first floor window? I think that's a GOOD way to escape.

In Post Cold War US, Dictatorships > Democracies

Containment. That one word was the entire US foreign policy around the globe. Back when communism was still a threat and the number of superpowers was even, containment was all the justification Americans needed to act anywhere around the globe. This oftentimes resulted in bad situations, such as the ones in South America, most notably Chile, where US support backed cruel dictators just so that the communist guerilla fighters wouldn't win. We even backed Saddam Hussein and his enemies in Iran, both at the same time.

That wasn't a very good policy.

Although it was an admirable effort, the effects of containment leave us today in very bad shape. It turns out that since we won, those dictators and other notorious people who at the time seemed better than communism are still in power. The United States in now in a position where the majority of the people living under those countries hate us.

Even if we hadn't backed these governments, we would have won the Cold War anyway. Simply by following Reagan's policy of outspending the USSR, we won. It wasn't through containment, it wasn't through warfare. It was through spending money. And as soon as the USSR had fallen, what do you think the communist countries would have done? They would have instantly lost their biggest trading partners and supporters, within fractions of a second.

But then, hindsight is 20/20.

So now we come to today's day and age. The dictators are still there, and we have to wage a War on Terror. Instantly, we need allies for every action. But due to an unfortunate side effect, we're now turning to the same people we supported during the Cold War.

That's right. America's valuing those dictator allies.

Why shouldn't we? It makes logical sense. We supported them in their time of need, they OWE us, don't they?

But such alliances must be made against the backdrop of morals and ethics. If we, as a nation who claims to support freedom and liberty, back countries who brutally repress people and then seek their help, what kind of message are we sending? Go ahead, oppress your people, just don't be communist?

On top of all that, we're shunning our oldest and most democratic of allies. France, Germany, and all the countries of Western Europe whom we were friends with during the Cold War are now being turned away easily. Instead, we support countries like Pakistan, a known military dictatorship, Saudi Arabia, a regime known for repressing human rights, and China, soley because US corporations make money from them.

In the future, will the United States be remembered for losing its democratic principles to side with the dictators?

American Education

Now. I'm no big fan of affirmative action. Quite frankly, I hate affirmative action. Yes, I am the minority. Maybe not for engineering schools, but never the less, I think affirmative action should go away. Why do you ask? Especially if I am the minority? Simply because, if you didn't earn it, you don't deserve it.

For example.
We have Mike here. Mike is white. Mike got 1 480 on his SATs, comes out with a 3.8 GPA, has a good amount of community work, work experience, activites and such. No, Mike does not play sports.

Now we have Ekim. Ekim is black. Ekim got a 1340 on his SATs, comes out with a 3.3 GPA. He doesn't do alot of community, but he does have some work experience. Ekim does not play sports either.

Ekim gets into a highly respected college, because of affirmative action. See the problem? Mike is obviously a better student, but Ekim, because of his color, has an advantage. Ekim gets a full scholership, sits there for 5 years and graduates. Mike's application was thrown out. Therefore, it is not fair.

You do not scream for racial equality, when you advocate affirmative action.

Rich daddy affirmative action is worse. I have this teacher. We will call her Mrs. Smith. Her son went to Drexel uni, with low SAT scores (he filled in half the reading), respective math score, half decent grades, etc. He gets in, because a family friend phoned in and said, "Let this person in and I will donate money." Actually I think it was more along the lines of, "Let this person in, or I will not donate money." Well, the guy gets in.

Rich daddy affirmative action is seen everywhere, mostly in the Liberal Arts department because most kids can't cut an engineering/science degree. What do I propose? I think everybody should just take a freaking test to get into their schools. Many countries do this, including Japan and Taiwan.

Yes. No name, no nothing. Only address, and social security number. This way the decision will be based only on your score.

The Right Protests, Left Speaks Back

Ever seen a living member of the Right not fight? Well, if you haven't, either you've been living under a rock, or you don't know your America.

ProtestWarrior.com, a website dedicated to the political right, has very few goals. But these goals are very important to the site's members, among them: support for the conservative right, support for the war in Iraq, against government regulations, the UN, France, and Muslims.

Anyone see a problem with this message?

Of course, they should be allowed to have their own message, but only up to the point where they violate the laws of libel, and I think they've reached that with their website's posters.

Their site claims to combat the "left's" views on the world, because those views are narrow minded and don't reflect the entirety of the world.

However, just by looking at their posters, they are no different. They are much worse than the people they claim to be attacking. I guess it just comes to show that those who decide to attack their worst enemies become ever worse than those that they attacked.

These guys play off the stereotypes that they see in their limited media and use it as a weapon. They claim that all socialists are evil (without realizing that socialists only want benefits for people), and also state that 100 million people have died because of Communism, and yet fails to mention that over 75 million have been killed in wars since World War I because of involvement by the United States.

Of course, onto a more personal note: Forget the myth that the right is for minorities.

Just today, I talked with this girl who was a staunch conservative. She would have made their leaders proud, constantly talking about how "those f**king dirty liberals supported other countries besides the U.S." Ok, so I asked her, when had this happened?

Her response? "The f**king liberals supported f**king Mexico when they filed f**king lawsuits against Arizona!"

So she was mad about illegal immigrants. If you've read one of my previous columns (Look for America Needs Immigrants), you'd realize that because the US economy's working population is getting older, we need replacement workers, and the only place that we are currently gaining younger workers is from Mexico. This alone justifies allowing them across.

When I explained this to her, she cut me off, got even more mad, and said something along the lines of "those f**king dirty mexicans don't help the economy. They just take dirty, smelly jobs."

Somebody's a psycho, and I was keeping a rational voice.

She went on to a rant about how it decreased "national pride", how the mexicans were weakening our economy. I pointed out how these weren't true, but she didn't even listen. She even went on to state that America was the greatest country in the world and that it was filled with those who said bad things about it.

Remember: the very reason America was founded was because people said bad things about the British, so her view would be against the founding of the British empire. So remember: she'd be FOR Britain and against America. Americans never got anywhere by not questioning leadership, be it good or especially bad.

She also said that nobody was willing to fight for it anymore.

My response? Tell that to the 150,000 US troops in Iraq.

Sex Ed

Okay. It's not like I have been laid, I've been getting laid, or I will be getting laid in the near future, but quite frankly, this new sex ed thing just doesn't work.

So Bush plans to invest money in sex education. He advocates abstinence. This means no condoms are passed around during health class. Nothing to learn about birth control. Just abstinence. Oh, and this includes cutting some funds to AIDs because, "just don't have sex." No teen sex, no sex before marriage, etc. You get the point.

I don't care if this is just some weird protestant view, and quite truthfully, I don't care of it is. Face it people. Teenagers will always have sex. It's called hormones. Teenagers are horny. Nothing you can do about it. So the pope is against condoms, but at least he advocates some sort of birth control.

The truth is, this new sex education thing just isn't working. Yes, you do want to advocate abstinence because society looks down on pregnant teenagers. But, they are going to have sex anyways. You might as well make them use a condom. We don't want the girl pregnant now do we?

"What did we learn in class?"
"Don't have class. Oh yeah, here's come condoms."

Yes, this is basically how health class should be taught. Don't have sex. But because I can't stop you from having it, use birth control and don't get pregnant/STDs. States that only teach abstinence have a very high abortion and teenage pregnancy rate. Ironically, those are all the states who are anti-abortion. It is going up, because teens are having unprotected sex now.

Think about it. If you can't get them to not have sex. At least get them to have protected sex. If they want to go unprotected, damn. That girl has some guts.

America Is Dead: Real ID Passed

It's not enough that the America Public has been cheated out time and time again by Congress and it's obsession for money. After all, Americans who elect their representatives and senators must pay 80% of all taxes, while the corporations who give them money for their "campaigns" only have to pay 20%.

But the line stops here.

The Real ID bill, recently passed by being attached to the back of an Iraq War Supplement bill (read: It was pork) has started the process of complete and utter civil rights removal. From this point on America's core values are now dead.

Great job, you conservatives, for destroying America.

Why was this bill passed with a 100-0 vote? Because they attached it to a completely unrelated war bill that was necessary AND would make the senators look bad if they didn't vote for it. Strategic maneuvering by conservative lawmakers has finally done what they've always wanted to do: Track each and every single person within the United States whereever they are at any given time.

Big Brother is Watching You.

The bill is supposed to stop illegal immigrants AND terrorists, but accomplishes neither. Why would terrorists try to register with authorities in the first place? Would they want to get caught? Just because you pass such a bill doesn't mean that they are going to comply, register, and then suddenly get caught. It especially doesn't stop Timothy McVeigh type terrorists, those who suddenly go mad and decide to bomb buildings. So what does it do? Screw over every single person living in the United States.

Before you are allowed to travel, open bank accounts, apply for work, or anything important, you will have to show this ID card. Not only that, but the bill allows a provision that grants Congress the ability to overrule the Supreme Court at anytime.

For the sake of dignity, it might be too late to stop them. But do whatever you can. Nobody in America can live with this bill. We would have created the new Soviet Union.

Message to Congress: Stop it. Now.

New Pope Doomed to Failure

Due to circumstances beyond human control, Pope John Paul II died on April 2, 2005. His successor is left with a difficult task that he has no chance of succeeding at. Despite anything that he may do, any allies that he may find, and any actions that he will take, there will be failure.

To begin with, the previous Pope left the Catholic Church in a declining state. Church attendance is dropping in many parts of the world. The once predominantly Catholic stronghold of Latin America has been lost, as now there are more Protestants in the region than before. Overall church attendance is down, and predictably, funding for churches are down.

Throughout the period from 1970 until now, church attendance has dropped due to society’s general attitude. Anti-establishment feelings in the 1970’s carried over to the Church, where people stopped attending in order to rebel. The 1980’s saw no change in this decline, as not even greater economic benefits could restore faith in the Catholic Church. During the 1990’s and early 2000’s, the Church’s stance on certain issues, such as birth control lead many to believe that they cannot both be faithful Catholics due to their own personal beliefs, and as such attendance dropped rapidly. In order for this situation to be remedied, the Vatican would need to take a less conservative stance. However, as Benedict XVI has been described as a hard line conservative, few changes are likely, allowing the continued drop due to the fallout of the 2002 sex abuse scandals to have a diminishing effect. With Church attendance down, donations to the various Catholic churches themselves will drop, forcing some churches to close due to lack of funding.

On top of all of this are the recent scandals involving sex abuse within United States Catholic Church branches. Although these incidents are few and far between, their mere existence makes them harmful to the reputation of the Church. Pope John Paul II had enough problems with the difficulty it took to deal with this scandal, there is even less chance that Benedict XVI will be able to.

The Church’s political stances are harming it as well. Many people see the recent conclave as a sign of what direction the Church’s top officials were taking with policies regarding issues such as abortion, birth control, and homosexuality. Pope Benedict XVI helped John Paul reinforce his very conservative doctrines. His past shows that he is unlikely to change the policies fueling the political division that has ground progress to a halt within the US. With continued support from the Vatican, radical conservatives across the United States will have yet another excuse to pursue policies and agendas that could end up hurting this country badly. These conservatives will try to find any excuse to justify their actions, and the continued support of the Catholic Church is more than enough for some.

On top of all this, the new Pope may not even last very long. He is seen as “transitional” Pope, one whose role is limited by his old age. At 78, he is unlikely to be Pope for long, and this combined with the many problems facing him, will make him be remembered as the Pope who stood by and watched the Catholic Church fall into ruins.

Anarchists Land!

Okay, so I'm a pessimest. I could have a more optomistic view on the world, but quite frankly, we why is it that GOD has become more important than ECONOMIC STABILITY?

Okay. So I'll start with Bush.

George W. Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Actually, I don't even think he is in a shed. I actually think he's been forgotten. And me? I think I actually made it into the shed. But that is not the point. Well, I have low expectations for Bush. Which doesn't exactly match for my high expectations for the US. Bush was in the best position a president could be. 9/11 just happened. The entire world is pissed, and we're unified. For once, we all agree on one thing. We're pissed. The economy was going on a slow decline. Some minor modifications to some economic things could have made the US economy MUCH stronger.

But no. Bush lowered taxes. National defecit goes up. We fight a fools errand for a country that hates us. We don't even fight the war properly. And guess what? Our economy goes down.

The 300 billion dollars spent on Iraq, wasted for the reason of, "Saddam is a nut. Lets get him." Or, “Because god told me to.”

There’s also the drilling in Alaska. Okay fine. I can make sense to that. But, are we going to live off of oil forever? I don't think we'll have enough to make it to the next century. I quote Bush, "oil will never run out." Well, this is my first problem. The 300 billion dollars wasted on Iraq could have been spent on alternate power. So, I predict that once oil will run out, we will have a sudden shock. There will be an energy problem. And since we have nothing to power our vehicles, we will descend into anarchy. No body can work. Transportation is down.

In simpler terms, we will be out of power. Why? Because Bush had to fight his god given war.

Anyways, I predict the US economy will fall in the 50 years because I'm being optimistic. And that’s if we get a half decent president by 2008. Not too good, not too bad. Maybe if we get a really good president, my entire post will be useless.

Well, we have another problem.
I don't think there has been a time in history that there has been one sole super power. There was Sparta and Athens. Germany, Brittan, France (psh). USA and Russia (for a time). And now it's just the US. If the US continues on its current path, who will take the next spot as a super power?

Some people say China. Well, I almost agree with this. China can become the next super power. The current leader of China is trying to get China's act together. However, China has some serious problems. For example, the high male vrs female population. The constant pirating. Corrupt government. Communism. So, China may become the next super power, but it's duration will be short. If my thoughts are correct, in about a decade, we are all back to square one. US economy has collapsed. China has been broken up into several countries. And the rest of the countries aren't close to becoming super powers.

Maybe Brittan because their British, or the Japanese, because they have one huge economy, and an actual military tradition.

(I mean. Bushido, Kendo hand to hand combat, uber navy, and the miracle stomach ache pill?)

Unfortunately, both Brittan and Japan are small countries. And that is a setback.

Well, I don't think there is anyone who actually rivals the US in terms of power. And yes, having a super power is a good thing. So the US is unrivaled. What happens when we collapse? Who takes the next super power position? This is the problem.

And this is why I think everything will descend into Anarchy. Once the US economy collapse, the entire world's will. Maybe if we had world war three, a new super power will arise. But world wars are never good.

And why is this caused? Because Bush had to use his god given right to fight his god given war. The oil crises will cause a large uproar in the entire world. That will be one problem. Two, our economy is dwindling. Bush fought the war wrong. He spent the money in the wrong areas. And because we don’t have any other country that can rival the US, we will be screwed. No other country can effectively take our place as a superpower.

Idiocy of the Human Shield

Okay. In the Middle East, they have this thing called the human shield. Basically kids or women who get in front of the guy with the gun. Now, the point of this is, you will not shoot an innocent bystander. However, if they were innocent, why are they in front of the guy in the first place? It's like they want to be in the cross fire.

Okay. Call me a heartless bastard.

If anyone goes, "HOLLAH HOLLAH HOLLAH," in the middle of a firefight, he will get shot. Very quickly. It's that or he lives and he's a lucky bastard. So, that's one thing. Another thing. This happens in Israel. Now, some of the soldiers in Israel have just turned 18. They are still kids. Now, lets label one guy, A, and another guy, B.

Now, soldiers A and B are best friends. They went to school together. They grew up together. They did through training together, starved together, basically a bunch of buddies. Now, soldier A says, "Gun fire." So now bullets are whizzing everywhere. Both guys are hunkered down behind a wall, scared to death. Soldier B gets the guts to take a look to tell Soldier A.

Okay. So we have two soldiers scared to death. Soldier B gets drilled in the head. Now, masses of enemy forces...with human Shields, are advancing to his position.

Stop. Think.

What would you do? You have a screaming mob, backed up by guys with guns. Your best buddy's head has just exploded, and your covered with his brains. You can either die here next to your buddy, or you can fight.

Continue

Soldier A fights. In the crossfire, women and kids are killed. The other side goes, "OHHHH, LOOK AT HOW HORRIBLE THEY ARE!!!"

Dude, the soldier is scared to death. Any soldier would be scared if his best friend got drilled in the head. And there's a mass of people advancing to his position. People he doesn't know. No hostages, just people.

Human Shields are just an excuse to get your people to say, "look how horrible they are." It's just a bunch of freaking bullshit. Sure, you should minimize civilian casualties, but as far as I'm concerned, if their civilians are willing to walk in front of the guns, they aren't civilians anymore.

Parents: Take Your Own Responsibility

Throughout history parents have always been given control over most of their children's activities. So why is it when it comes to violent and mature video games that parents want the video game industry to stop their children from buying the games for them?

Does it make any sense that the parents who give their children permission and oftentimes provide them with the money for the violent games to blame someone else? Would you blame McDonald's if you ate there daily and got fat? So why would you blame an entire industry based on your actions?

Many people cite an example with the tobacco industry. Yet in this case the parents have told their children not to buy cigarettes. The kids are simply disregarding what their parents are saying, not asking nicely and getting them. It makes no sense for parents, who blatantly say "OK" to violent video games to then turn around and snap at the industry as a whole? It's not as if there are no warnings. The front of the video game box clearly shows an "M" for mature. It even lists the types of violence. And yet these parents continue to buy the games they themselves say are bad for kids.

Parents, face it. If you can't control your own children and prevent them from buying video games that you wouldn't approve of, then you've failed at your jobs as parents.

Tainted Religion: The Justification for Evil

If it weren't for some of religion's most twisted influences, mankind would be better off.

Let's face it, religion hasn't had the world's best track record. I'm not saying that we should even get rid of religion, in fact, I think that religion does great services. But there are times when religion goes horribly wrong.

Take, for example, the Crusades. Using religion, the Pope and many European and Middle Eastern leaders justified killing each other to death, creating a hostile environment and tension that lasts to this day.

Or look towards Nazi Germany. Someone following a particular religion was enough to justify their deaths. In fact, not only was following that religion harmful, but this opened up the way for a vast multitude of people's death to be justified. Everyone from Slavic peoples, to different political parties, to people of different sexualities were murdered.

Even worse is when religion is used to justify actions that promote one religion over another. When communities in places like Dover, Pennsylvania decides that teaching intelligent design, they are willingly putting forth an idea that advocates the belief of a higher being, or a god. Not only are they insulting scientists with an unproven and untested theory, they are specifically promoting monotheistic religions like Christianity over others such as Buddhism. At this point they are no longer being tolerant of other viewpoints from other religions, defeating their purpose.

Religions can be good, and yet at the same time religious causes have been the main reasons for most of the world's conflicts. From Al Qaida to the Middle East to Bosnia to terrorism to just general discontent, the abuse of religious ideals has created the failing world as we know it. We must put all religions under heavier scrutiny, and only then will they be able to truly serve their purpose without being twisted for evil causes.

Americas are the (second) biggest cowards on the battlefield

Today we do something different. Something, shall we say, less serious.

Americans are the biggest cowards on the battlefield. This is evident throughout the history of America. For example, the revolutionary war. The British fought like the Swedish, everybody line up, and shoot. In the end, you would basically make a shotgun machinegun. Constant fire, lots of rounds. Etc. Us Americans were like, "I don't wanna die!" and came up with a new way of fighting. In the trees! Behind rocks! Everywhere! Just not infront of your fire. And with this, we actually won the Revolutionary war. When George Washington crossed the Trenton river, we were also cowards. They are all asleep, not ready, not deployed. And we won. Guys in the other countries are probably saying, "Those barbaric Americans! They won't stand up and fight properly!"

Fuck no. We'll get owned.

American militeristic weapons also support this fact. For example, bullet proof armor. Yes, we were the one's who developed it. We didn't want to die. It was efficient, it did save lives, people didn't die, but we are still cowards. Yes, it was for the better, and we are a ton stronger, but really. We can't face the risks like everybody else did at that time. We got under kevlar.

Or nightvision. Developed by, guess who? You know it, and your right. Us, Americans. Now we can see in the dark, and you can't. So when your all sleeping, we will rush you, and kill you. It's worse now. Because it can be midnight, and your throat would be slit.

You see, Americans are cowards on the battle field. Well, second, first is the French. But we don't retreat, instead, we make things that you can't beat. We don't fight on your grounds, you fight on our grounds. Your AK can't go through our body armor? You can't see us in the night? You all wanna line up and fight? Tough. We're good at killing people. Just not in the conventional way.

Ah yes.
And we lost the War of 1812. No, it wasn't a stalemate. We didn't win. We got owned. This proves that the British at the time did have a better army. We just won the last battle...which was after the peace treaty was signed.

Separation of Church and State

I challenge anyone here to tell me that separation of church and state is a bad thing for a democracy.

To clarify, separation of church and state is an institutional separation. It's when neither side is part of the other. For example, the church doesn't become the "Holy Government of Jesus's Moses." This would NOT be separation of church and state.

What are the benefits of separation? We can better protect each person's individual freedoms. In a society without separation, churches (religions in general) could become part of the government. With this influence, who knows what they could do. Possibilities include banning and oppressing other religions, favoring members of their religions, or generally just wreaking havoc. So that being said...

What if we don't want the separation?

We have to have it. No matter what, having no separation means that we will turn into the next Iran, where groups of religious zealots take control of the government and make it impossible for there to be a democracy. We would have a theocratic society where only religious beliefs rule. This is bad for everyone else and human rights.

Separation doesn't help us!

Yes it does. No matter which way you look at it, no separation can only hurt a democracy. Either we become a theocracy as above, or else religions will discourage minorities and uproot them. If you have a dominant religion without separation, there is absolutely no chance that there will be no one state religion. With a state religion, people will have serious problems following another religion. Minority groups following these religions would run away from the country or be oppressed. Now without a minority, it will be a pretty damn boring democracy.

You're wrong!

No, you're wrong.

Oh yeah!?

Yeah.

Damn you. I'm leaving.

Good for you then.

Moderation

Everything has something good, and something bad. Unless your talking about air. Because you can never have too much air. Well, so you can. But that is besides the point. Or maybe gold. Wait, that makes stuff screw up with the gold economy and your gold becomes dirt cheap or something. Oh whatever.

Anyways, among the things that should be taken into moderation, religion appears to be a really big problem. This, if anything, should be taken into moderation. There comes a problem when you start being a screaming Christian. This would include going around shooting the disbelievers. So thats a little extreme, and is probably not going to happen here. So we move on to a more...realistic example. Take creation, and then take evolution. Creation is to geocentric, as evolution is to heliocentric. So, evolution has its own holes. So now, we go onto ANOTHER example. Going around, damming everybody to hell, saying your religion > than everybody elses, tapping people over the head with bibles, etc. So the list goes.

Well, going around saying your religion is > than the other religions causes a problem. Especially if you bring it up with another highly religious person. Plus, it's a big deal when the other guy has a friggan 45 and an AR-14. And if pushed too far, you will be shot, stabbed, etc. See the problem with people who do not take religion into moderation?

Religion is like a pill. It's good when you take one. But when you take two, you kinda feel sick. Three, four, five. Now your just getting high. Six, seven...etc. Your going to die, or get addicted to it.

Religion is what caused the Spanish Armada. And guess what? The Spanish Armada was sunk. Many people died (England won). The point isn't who won, but the point is the number of people who died. All because of religion, that is still kinda flickery when it comes to what happened, and what didn't happen.

Put religion aside. Yes, It can be very powerful. At times, it can unite everybody to strike the opposing force, but be sensible.

The Pope, and evolution

Many people believe that creation is what started humanity. Well, if you think it logically, without this panacea for all unknown things called, "god," you'd think there would be something that would snag your mind about creation. Without a panacea, you have nothing supporting Creation. There is no scientific evidence, there is no boundries, there is nothing supporting the creation cause.

Saying you think creation is the way to go, is also saying you believe in geocentric ideas. Back then, people have proved that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and the orbit was eliptical. However, nobody believed it at that time. The point I'm trying to make is...Have our level of thinking not expanded over the years?

THIS IS NOT PROPAGANDA

"Today, more than a half century after this encyclical [Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis], new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis."

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm

As you can see, the pope certainly thinkgs evolution is more than just a stupid thing us liberals made up in order to make you all go to hell. Sure, there are some problems, but look, the Pope thinks evolution is more than just a hypothesis. So what does that make you? A heretic? What does that make the your holy leader? A heretic?

Think for a second. Just sit down and think. Do you believe in something thats backed up by a book? Or do you believe in something that has a little evidence?

The Tax, and The Rich

So, what many people don't seem to realize is that the really really rich Republicans, are only republicans for the sake of money. Despite what you believe, it's true. A very rich republican votes for Bush, so he/she can get that little tax cuts to make his/her numbers go up. Thats really annoying.

Not only do they get tax cuts, but they already pay very little in taxes. Many rich people are very succesful stock brokers. They don't pay taxes because well, stocks aren't taxed anymore. So thats one problem. The second problem is that rich people can hire army of accountants to grab every single penny the government, "takes," from them. Ok, so I'm exaggerating, but they really do find every single penny possible. With enough pennies saved, it becomes a dollar. And so on. Other times, they just, "donate," their money to a non-profit organization and lists that as a donation to the government. However, their so called non-profit organization is something like their little golf club. That by it self, means that they save alot of money. They don't pay taxes, and the money their supposed to pay taxes are just returned to them.

Bush gives tax cuts. At notoriously bad times. But that has already be written. Bush's idea of a tax cut is the guy on the bottom benefits the most. The person who gets paid minimal wage gets something like a 50% tax cut (not real number), and the person on top gets a 2% tax cut. Well, a guy who gets the highest tax cut saves maybe around...500 ish dollars? The person with the lowest tax cut gets something around, 20 000 dollars. Saved.

Not only that, but Congress has also cut funds for the IRS. Resulting in MORE rich people getting away with tax evasion. The IRS can't catch everybody. If they get little funds, they can't catch anybody. This was caused by politicians (rich people) in congress. Damn politicians.

So I say, we should have a flat tax. Everybody pays whatever percentage, regardless of their income. Not only that, but the money made by stocks should also be taxed. All the money from this, would go a really long way in paying out national debt...That was caused by Bush.

Conservatives Are Stupid

At least, all of the ones in my school.

One who justifies the invasion of Iraq with "freeing Iraqi people from a dictator and making their lives better," when it's obvious that thanks to the insurgents, they have a shorter expected lifespan. Their lives are also much more dangerous and fear filled since they are never sure of when someone will blow up a car they try to get into or fire a rocket at a nearby vehicle.

One who doesn't think that 400 tons of explosives is "a lot." One who probably doesn't realize that 400 tons is enough to level New York entirely. One who claims that Democrats live in a "imaginary world, where everything is safe and happy." One who doesn't realize the true problems of the world.

And the last. This one can't seem to grasp the concept of "the rich want to pay less taxes" theory. He seems to think that only John Kerry found legal loopholes within the tax code to prevent the payment of much of his taxes. He doesn't understand that people don't like taxes, especially people like George W. Bush, who gets a tax writeoff from a lumber company that he owns which is a "small business."

These three can't seem to get the fact that other arguements exist, and their interpretation of anything is not the final truth.

CEO...WHY?

We have this omnipotent figure in todays world. The CEO. He/she has the ability to utterly own your company. So my question is, why would you even want a CEO? You hire a CEO in order to run your company. Where did the boss go? Where did the guy who was EDUCATED in the field go?

We have many problems with it comes to CEOs.
First thing is that CEO's get paid around 50 million dollars a year. Thats over kill. The president doesn't get paid that much. A CEO should get paid around 700,000? That would be ok. You save millions of dollars that you can use to spend on other things, such as research.

Two, CEOs are usually not E-D-U-C-A-T-E-D when it comes to their field. Look at the CEO for HP. Does she know anything about computers? No. She doesn't. She ran HP into the ground. Look at the CEO for Apple? She ran apple into the ground. Now that the boss has come back and kicked her out of the CEO position, Apple is doing decently now. Why? Because the owner of the company actually knows something more than Excel about computers.

Management is highly overrated. Sure, it is important to some point, but certainly not 50 million dollars worth. Too much management and too little workers will not run a company. Especially if the leaders don't know jack about their field.

Take this example. You have a CEO that tells you to make a computer can float. You can't do this. Why? It's impossible with todays technology. Not only is it impossible, but it is also impractical. What the hell are you going to do with a floating computer? The CEO won't care. He/She will just fire you if you don't want to do it. If you do a bad job at it, he/she will fire you.