Freedom of Speech? Hardly.

They’re small, confined areas surrounded by cage wire, usually designed to look like detention centers. They’re used on dissidents against the current presidential administration as well as the protestors of the government at large. People are often crowded inside of them, shackled or handcuffed to each other, and left there for hours and sometimes even days without a real reason for arrest. They have been used as political tools to suppress popular protest against the leaders of the economic and political world internationally. Democrats can usually be found within them. This description isn’t of the jail cells at Guantanamo Bay, but rather so called “free speech zones” put up across the country for protestors across the nation at major international summits and meetings of world leaders.

These zones, more accurately described as cages, are an affront to the American way of life. Their purpose isn’t crowd control, as so often cited by police departments around the world. While many supporters of the meetings and summits are allowed to stay next to or very close to the location of the meeting or convention of world leaders, freedom of speech cages are oftentimes kept up to half of a mile away from the intended locations of the conventions, parades, and summits. Their most prominent use these days is political: freedom of speech zones are often placed at locations in which President Bush intends to appear, in order to allow local authorities and the Secret Service to take out individuals with anti-Bush apparel or posters to locations far away from the press and the President. In other words, these cages are used as nothing more than places to put away people who disagree with the President so that the media manages to avoid showing actual opposition to Bush and instead ends up portraying the President as if he actually had popular support from the people.

On what grounds are these protest zones even legal? The justifications are very shaky at best. Many times police will simply arrest people who refuse to go such zones with charges of trespassing, despite the fact that in these cases those arrested will oftentimes be surrounded by supporters of the President. At one incident in Pittsburgh, at which the Presidential motorcade made a stop in 2002, a 65 year old- retiree was singled out from a crowd of hundreds and ordered to go to a baseball field one third of a mile out of the way, simply because his sign criticized the Bush Administration’s policy towards the poor. It was, of course, much easier to send that retired worker away than to actually face the criticism.

The only federal law used to justify these cases is one that is so rarely used that it is hardly known to anyone. This law allows the Secret Service to arrest people who willfully enter areas cordoned off for the President. Regardless of what statutes or laws used to justify the zones, several trials at many levels of federal courts on the subject have ruled that restricting people at major appearances of the President simply by the content of their protest is illegal, and yet it’s still done anyway. Freedom of speech zones are in direct violation of judicial authority in this nation. Allowing them to continue will only help to undermine the US court system’s authority.

But even more so, these zones fundamentally undermine the United States Constitution. Not only does the First Amendment to the Constitution not come with a qualifier that says that “this law only applies to cages set up far away from public notice,” but it specifically prohibits Congress and by extension the federal government from violating the freedom of speech. No federal law can therefore be used to justify sending people out of the way to exercise their rights inside of cages and far away from the media. But even worse is the implication that this has for freedom of speech in general. If freedom of speech is only limited, as implied by the name, to those specific areas at all times, does it mean that we live in a country where we can’t exercise our inalienable constitutional rights unless we’re confined to prison-like conditions? What good are these rights if the only place we can exercise them is in cages? What kind of message does it send to the world when America proclaims that the only place in which you can truly be free is inside of a chain linked cell?

The only conceivable reason that these zones could possibly be used under any circumstance is extreme crowd control. But this is clearly not the case, as every event in which the Presidential motorcade or a summit of world leaders in the United States occurs requires these zones. They are nothing more than political tools for those in power to both ignore and silence their critics from the American people. At the very best they highlight the incompetence of police departments in being able to control protestors. At the worst they exist as physical affronts to the United States Constitution and to Americans as a whole. The freedom of speech zone is a concept that must be eliminated immediately, because every time one is used, it sends out a message to the rest of the world: America is no longer the land of the free, no longer the land of opportunity or self-expression. Instead, America becomes a land of irony where the only true way to be free is to be imprisoned in cages.

NJ Ruling Does Nothing for Republicans

It would appear that the Republican Party is grasping at straws. They are seeking any possible reason to try and rally their conservative base. The recent ruling in the New Jersey Supreme Court that gay couples have the same legal and financial rights as heterosexual ones is their latest attempt to try and garner some votes from their demoralized supporters. It’s not going to work this time, unlike in 2004, because the issue has already been played out, and because it’s seen clearly as a ploy by the Republicans to simply gather more votes, not to do anything on the issue.
The biggest reason that this issue isn’t going to work is because the court actually stopped short of getting into the “gay marriage” issue by not mandating the state give that title to unions for gay couples. This means that the ruling doesn’t necessarily offend anyone in particular. In fact, very few social conservatives will be that concerned, since bigger issues like the war in Iraq and health care play on their minds. Gay marriage seems like a small issue compared to those, especially when it’s not actually involving the word marriage.
Another reason why the New Jersey ruling won’t seriously affect change in the polls is because of the damage and fallout from the Mark Foley scandal. This scandal has been a big, big problem for the Republicans. It managed to obscure the news of the launching of nuclear weapons by North Korea. It’s hurting the Republicans on this issue now. The party is seen as the one who harbored a homosexual pedophile. Regardless of their views on gay marriage, conservatives are now much less likely to vote with their party, or at all.
What this all means is that the Republican Party’s attempts to try and make this whole ruling a big issue will fail. They’re not likely to excite their base anymore after Mark Foley. The chances of them winning the House and Senate elections are now slimmer than ever, and committing themselves to this issue is not going to help them one bit.

Russian Nukes for Sale, Terrorists Inquire Within

On September 26, 2006, is a day that you should learn about. Had the judgement of one man failed, the world as we know it would no longer exist. In fact, the world as we know it would consist of the smoldering nuclear ashes of the US and the Soviet Union. That man was Stanislav Petrov, and he stopped a nuclear retaliation against a faulty warning by the USSR’s computer systems. Unfortunately, if our current policy towards former Russian nuclear scientists continue, no one man will be able to stop nuclear destruction.

The problem is that since that day onwards, the Soviet Union has ceased to exist. However, their nuclear arsenal, still ready to be used at a moment’s notice and powerful enough to wipe cities off the map, are readily available. Compounding the problem of shoddy security, corruption, and the general unworthy character of the Russians is the fact that Russian nuclear scientists are unemployed and willing to work for very low pay. How low? Al Qaeda could afford to hire them.

Now, it doesn’t take a genuis to realize that starving Russian nuclear specialists + terrorists with money = nuclear terrorists. Clearly then, since a nuclear program by a terrorist organization would be catastrophic, the United States, in its vaulted war on terror, would be working to stop these Russian scientists from not having work? Not anymore. Now with no program in place to hire former Soviet scientists, their knowledge goes to the top bidder, and despite the elapsed time, Soviet nuclear technology is still as potent as it once was.

What I’m saying is this: that the if Russian scientists are not given employment, they will do anything to get money to feed their families and themselves. People are willing to survive no matter what the cost, even if it means giving terrorists the technology to make 9/11 look like a game of paintball. What I ask, then, is that you never cease to remember that should effort be made to contain this threat the world will literally end.

This isn’t hard to do. It’d take less money than funding the Iraq War and does more to make the world safer. So why aren’t we doing it?

Alex Zhao is foxchasefive’s self-appointed expert on nuclear proliferation.

Stop Rioting. It's not that bad

The pope quoted a medieval author, saying something like the Muslims have only brought evil upon the world. Something along those lines, I’m not really quite sure. But the fact remains is, after the apology and re-explanation from the pope, many Muslims are still up, demanding for the pope’s apology, after receiving one. I for one am completely against those who protest against the Muslims on this one. Not only because the Muslims, who want to prove they are not evil, are causing riots and advocating a holy war against the west, but the fact that the Muslims aren’t treated that badly. One statement by a religious figure is not enough to cause a huge riot.

I know some of you may think, “Well, what would you do if your beliefs were attacked?” For that, I say fuck you. I’m an Atheist/Agnostic. I’m treated like crap. They don’t like us in the military. Something like, “There is never an Atheist in a foxhole.” Only recently have they allowed the atheist to have something on their grave stone. The Jews have a star. The Christians have the cross. And I finally get the Atom. But even with that, the atheists are treated far worse. Many people state that the Atheists are just a bunch of communists. Recent surveys indicate that Atheists are on the bottom of the trusted totem pole. This puts them below gays, terrorists, Muslims, and Jews. This basically means that an Atheist will never hold office. At least until this religious period passed.

What does this exactly mean? When was the last time an Atheist waged a war because their beliefs were attacked? Repeatedly, we’re stomped on and distrusted, even if we advocate the separation of church and state. Many atheists wouldn’t even agree if the words, “There is no god,” was inscribed everywhere. Unlike several radials located in the US, who believe that if we don’t like it here, we can just pack up and leave for China. So apparently, we’re fairly reasonable people. And I say fairly, because there’s always the communist thingy, which I also don’t agree on. But the main point is, we don’t walk around with AK-47s about it. Or any weapon for that matter.

Naturally, I give sympathy to those who are not militant, and would rather get on with their lives rather than be screened for plastic explosives.

Now, I believe that Islam is a fairly peaceful religion. The Jihad is something that happens when an intruder comes in and destroys thing. It’s something that you do in order to protect yourself (Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what I’ve picked up so far). However, this entire, “protect yourself,” doesn’t exactly seem to coincide with the definition of the Holy War. Neither does the outrage against the Pope’s quote. If anything, the Muslims should be pissed off at history.

Then again, what does that say about Atheists?

It was worse back then, granted. The Medieval ages were very Christian oriented, and Heresy was a big topic.

Yet even so, Atheists seem to remain fairly peaceful people. The Muslims in America at least get funding for their religious organizations. The Atheists get nothing. Yet we don’t blow shit up about it, and we don’t raise riots. We don’t go out to anger the other side. Get on with your freaking life; you have more important things to worry about. You have to worry about food, water, and shelter. Your kids. Your house. And if it means anything to you, the people kicking down your door too.

THAT'S FALSE ADVERTISING!

False Advertising

False advertising is a crime in the United States. However, this is run by politicians. So does false advertising apply to politicians as well? What happens of a politician directly slanders and lies at another? Does this count as false advertising? So say you’re running for president, and the other person directly attacks you. The attack is based only on false information, saying that you were a drug dealer. Or that you had a bastard child. Or even worse, they said you were an atheist(1). So you two are going at it, and there’s a lot of people who were going to vote for you. However, after the opposing party ran these false claims, you suddenly have a drop in votes. Is this illegal? Should I be able to directly attack my opponent with things I pull out of my ass? If you said no, then I demand George Bush be impeached.

If you paid attention to Bush’s run for primaries back in 01, you know that John McCain was one of the fore runners in the republican primaries. John McCain. Nice guy. He was a captured pilot. He knows how to run the military. He knows what’s going on. Since he’s in air force, he’s intelligent enough to do whatever he really wants.

For the start of the run, McCain schooled Bush in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In an act of desperation, Bush started spreading rumors about him, saying he had an illegitimate child with a black woman. This caused a lot of, “Moral,” Americans to switch their primary votes from McCain to George Bush. Now how is this moral? Aren’t we all about a fair race between two presidents? Instead of getting calls saying, “Would you vote for McCain if you knew he was fathering a bastard(2) child?” This, my friend, is direct propaganda. For one thing, McCain did not father a bastard child. He adopted a child. But just the entity itself was proof enough for everybody to agree with George Bush’s campaign team.

John McCain also came out with something like….

"I hate the gooks, and I will hate them for as long as I live . . . and you can quote me."

Now, gook looks no where close to chink, but you could just as easily twist that and say that McCain is a pretty racist son of a bitch. Personally, I think he’s pretty moderate because he doesn’t exactly hate all Asians. If I was a downed fighter pilot and was tortured for 4 years, I’d be one pissed off person.

What is sad that Bush’s campaign worked. Not only did he win the Republican primaries, but he also took a large percentage of Americans as fools. Everybody knows that nobody reads the news. Fox Chase Five and Pamphlets probably accounts for 3% of the population who reads the news. By playing the card of ignorance, he stole the republican primaries, and ran away with Presidency.

_________________

(1)Atheist: Apparently, they would vote for a gay Muslim before they would vote for an Atheist.

(2)bastard: You know, pregnancy before marriage?

Halliburton

Halliburton

One may wonder why we went into the Iraq war. All leads we have linking Saddam and Al Qaeda only uncover distrust between the two. Saddam’s WMDs have disappeared; his nuclear program has been air-struck by Israel. All of his large purchases relating to nuclear weapons have uncovered, “scams,” of red mercury. Morality is low in the Intelligence Agency. So why did we go into Iraq? After some digging, some very suspicious links started to appear.

For one, Halliburton seems to have just as much dirt on them as Wal-Mart. That in itself is a little scary.

During a time of war, it is not unusual for an arms contractor to have a sudden stock jump. But further research indicated that one of the companies that profited the most happens to be Halliburton. When you link company with politician, it turns up with the name Dick Cheney, who had retired during the year of 2000. In 2001, he ran with George Bush for presidency. While some may state that Halliburton had a very small profit margin, the fact of the matter is that Halliburton’s stock jumped from 9 measly dollars, to a stunning 69. Coincidence? So one would hope. Connect the dots and something strange appears. That or I should take off my tin foil hat.

The thing that surprises me the most is the benefits Cheney gets from Halliburton. This includes somewhere between 50,000 to 150,000 dollars worth of pension, and 18 million dollars worth of stock. The fact that he’s donating all 18 million dollars worth of stock to a charity seems to be the shadiest thing out of all. For one thing, it mirrors the RIAA, “Sympathy,” case. In this case, the sympathy donation is just there to clean up the image. The entire fact that the Republicans killed an investigation of Halliburton’s military profits just seems a little…..strange. The more you dig, the stranger it gets. The fact that Halliburton won with a low bid seems strange. But Cheney’s bribery actions as the CEO of Halliburton as well as the evidence stated linking Saddam and WMDs just makes the hole deeper.

Bomb Thy Neighbor

Hey everyone, I’m alive and this will probably be the first of many posts from me until I make friends out here and start being more socially active. Los Angeles is fine and all, but I miss you guys a lot. Well, some of you. You know who you are. My new school has a more diverse student body than RHS (gasp). Oh, and if you think that knowing Khalil will prepare you for dealing with black people, you are dead wrong.

Anyway, lots of things happened over the summer. For one thing, Israel invaded southern Lebanon. Let’s go over that whole situation, shall we? Hamas took an Israeli soldier captive, follow by Hezbollah capturing two more Israeli soldiers. Both organizations wanted negotiations, but Israel went on the offensive. A brave and assertive move, I would say, but someone at Israeli high command needs to be fired. At. With rifles. Everything went wrong. In Lebanon, Israel started the attack by spending a week destroying bridges, power plants, water plants, airports, highways, and otherwise crippling the infrastructure of the country. Afterwards, they started moving ground troops, who should have been able to defeat Hezbollah’s guerilla fighters easily. Instead, Hezbollah lost about 1 man for every 3 Israeli troops. Civilian-wise, however, the Lebanese suffered greater losses, with about 10 times more than Israel. One might point out that Israel told the Lebanese people to leave their homes, but didn’t the Israelis stay put whenever they were attacked in the past? Exactly. Unfortunately, Israeli’s goal of rescuing its troops was not accomplished and now they are in the process of withdrawing their ground forces from southern Lebanon. Hopefully the UN negotiators sent by Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the UN, can do something about the captives. Oh, and speaking of the UN, they actually did something more than just talking. A UN peacekeeping force is being deployed along the Israeli-Lebanese border, mostly comprised of French, Italian and Turkish soldiers.

Ok, that’s it from me. I’ll go be anti-social now.

I am disgusted by France

But my respect to the Italians has gone up.

US and France, are the two leading figures in the Israel-Hezbollah problem. However, we know that the US army is currently locked up in its own affair, so they won't be able to fight. The US has enough problems with warm bodies already. But France I believe hasn't seen a major engagement since the Vietnam War. So when France said they would go help settle the fight between Hezbollah and Israel, I thought it was something good.

France is taking on a role against a major dispute. France is actually going to help. France has lost it's snobby attitude. And I'm wrong. So far, France has pledge 200 soldiers.

What the crap.

France was expected to supply between 2,500 to 4000 troops to the campaign, due to the fact that they're the leading figure to the conflict. The US deployed the majority of their troops to Iraq, because they're the major player. Some countries only deployed maybe 1 company of men, but that's expected coming from a teir 3 country. But the French deployment of UN Peacekeeping forces falls short of the countries with a weaker army.

Right now it seems, that Lebanon is in need of a peacekeeping force more than before. It would seem that with Lebanon deploying 15,000 troops to combat Hezbollah, a civil war is imminent. In order to save this country from becoming a basket case (again), they need a peace keeping force, and not one that's bent on demolishing anything that movies (America, Israel).

As the leading figure in the role against the Hezbollah/Israeli conflict, France should be commiting at least a quarter of their army to mediate the conflict. That's a 3 month tour for the French military, which I believe is more than enough.

Bottem line is, that if you want to stop a war, your going to have to donate a large amount of troops in order to do so. By not doing so, you only prove that you're merely talk but no action.

I however, tip my had towards Italy. While you're not the leading figure, nor the best army, you are still willing to take the responsiblity. I wish you luck.

RIAA and other industries

It's been a while since I've written something about a company. Well, anything about corporations for that matter. And republican readers (who pass by this thread), can also agree with me on my strikes against the RIAA.

Recording
Industry
Association of
America

Seems to be one of the most demonic, manipulative corporations out there. I'm not kidding about the demonic part either. If I had to guess who the spawn of Satan was, I'd either say Cheney, Karl Rove, or the CEO of the RIAA. Now, pushing away all the law stuff, I would like to say that the RIAA are a bunch of unethical pricks. Recently, the sympathetic RIAA pushed back a file-sharing trial for 60 days because the defendant DIED (I would not be surprised if it was because of stress).

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060815/015216.shtml

Of course, after the HATE mail started flowing in, they dropped the case. Alright, so it was the step son who did it. But the fact remains, they didn't drop it until their public relations was in jeopardy. "Abundance of Sensitivity," if I may quote. For the lack of better terms, what a bunch of pricks.

This isn't the first time the RIAA has suggested these things. An MIT student, who was forced to pay 3750 in settlement fees. In the process of, "negotiations," one of them actually had the GUTS to say, “In fact, the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements.”

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N15/RIAA1506.html

First thing, puthing ethics aside, you DON'T screw your intelligent. It's not something you do(I'm against malpractice costs). And it's MIT, one of the best colleges out there to date. If I had a say in ranking, they would Rank third, TokyoU coming first and Cal Tech coming second. Especially as something as small as filesharing.

Now, one of the arguments from the RIAA is that, "it deprives them from sales." Now, already they seem to portray music as some sort of heroin that everybody must have (it's not). With that reasoning, me not buying music CDs at all deprives them of sale. Hell, playing the piano for music deprives them of sale. In both cases, they are not making any money off of me. I believe that they also don't realize that people who download music, are just as likely to buy CDs from the next person. When putting something onto the internet, it undergoes a bunch of encoding. Stuff that affects sound quality. .mp3 format is not the best format to have music in. It's just easy and small. But the CD quality is much better. This argument can also be said about pirating movies. I still go to the movies, bust 10 dollars, and watch it because the quality is better.

The people who wouldn't, are people who think everybody else does this because they're the people who won't (For the record, if I see a CD of one of my favorite bands on the shelf, I'll buy it).

Like the what the MIT student said, the RIAA takes those who file share, and go salem-style on it. They noose your neck and hang you up to the public for everybody to see.

Not only that, but the RIAA uses their virtually limitless amount of funds to prey on those who can't afford it. Of course the RIAA is going to win. They have more money, they can hire better lawyers, and they can drag out the case. It's pretty much, either you pay, or your clothes on your back goes to the lawyer defending you. Why don't you think they go after .mp3 making companies under the reasoning, "They influence people to download music?" Because companies like Sony can fight back with just as large a cash pool. But no, they go after the working class, who work their ass off for their life.

I would also like to say that the price of making music is sickiningly cheap. It costs less than a dime to press 1 CD. Movies I can sort of understand, so I won't attack them as vhemently (they cost a ton of money), but making a song is cheap. Music videos are endorsed by MTV, which are then funded by commercials. So what do you have to really pay for? Electricity? The RIAA makes a sicking percentage for every CD you buy.

RIAA, You're now ON NOTICE (wonder's if he can get Steven Colbert to do that).

Finally, it's not illegal to download music. Or file share. Or anything of that nature. Why do I say this? I have NEVER seen a sting operation conducted by the police to take down a torrent server.

hey.mpaa.and.apb.bite.my.shiny.metal.ass.thepiratebay.org

Something that you should be aware as a citizen

=O

Feedback loop

When one side gets a better gun.
The other side gets better armor
which leads to one side to get a better gun
and the opposing to get better armor.
Clean cut, not the way it is, but it serves as an example of the Israeli mindset.

As you know, Israel is going down the war path again, invading Lebanon and attacking the Gaza Strip. While I think it's over reacting with just 2-3 captured soldiers, I believe that in the state Israel is in right now, it is understandable.

You see, Israel is in a powdered keg. Every country around that area hates the Israeli's, and Israel knows about it. Likewise, Israel is willing to attack at any given moment. Any reason is a good reason for the Israeli's to cripple the opponents military, and they will take that reason.

So we ask the question, "Why can't we get along." The answer is back with my gun/armor example. As Israel has the best equipped, best trained military, every country around it feels threatened. So they start building up their military. Israel gets nervous, starts calling for defcom whatever. The other countries start mobalizing their military. Israel hits them with an air strike, crippling their military. The arabs start bitching about it. It's been going this way for some time now. And Israel isn't willing to step down from that position.

Like the old saying, "If you can't beat them, join them." If the arab states stopped pointing their stuff towards Israel, the Israeli's would also let down. This will take time, but the Israeli's need to see that you are no longer a threat. The same goes to the Palestinians. Put down your Quassam rockets, but down your opens, and just sit in the corner for a while. You bitch about how Israel puts curfews on you, but that's because all you do is attack Israel during the night. If you want that curfew lifted, get off the streets during the night. For the lack of better terms, START BEHAVING.

The arab countries around them, start using your brains. Give Israel their demands. Don't make rockets and point them at Israel. And please...PLEASE don't make nuclear weapons. Why? The Israeli's have working ones, and they're all open to using them before you do. Both sides are at fault for the feedback loop, but the Arabs and palestinians should be the ones ending it. You may say I think this way is because I live in a jewish community, but the fact of the matter is, THEY CAN KICK YOUR ASS.

Lack of Current Events

While I may not be the best read person, I'm certainly well read enough to know whats going on behind things. And for the most part, I'm starting to agree with one of Steven Colbert's sarcastic comments.

"THEY'RE SUPER DEPRESSING."

After reading several books about the current US, I agree that it is super depressing. I read about how the global class divide is growing larger. I read about slaughter houses and their conditions. Hell, I've even read about how large corporations use some sort of psychological warfare on their employees who are not in management. Now, I was never one to like the phrase, "Ignorance is bliss." But after reading said books, I realize it, ignorance IS bliss.

The true question behind this is, why isn't anyone doing anything about it? Why isn't the government putting more restrictions on the beef industry? Why is the government continuing to spend while cutting taxes? Why is the government pushing laws that are obviously unconstitutional, even by federalist standards? Why is it that nobody sees the entire fight we had to go through to actually set up our constitution and bill of rights? Why is it that nobody actually knows the true meaning behind each statement?

There are a lot of whys. And the reason is because people don't read about important things. Sure, I like trash science fiction as much as the next person. But I will still pick up books such as, Reason. There are books out there that try to reveal the black face behind the government and social classes. Granted, they're SUPER DEPRESSING, but how is the advancement of US citizens going to continue if the government can continue to do such things? I have a good idea about our stances and their problems. But what I cannot figure out is why so many people are oblivious to said fact. (Whichever idiot tells me it's because I keep on taking out all the poly-sci books out of the library deserves to be shot)

For the lack of better terms, catch up on what's happening with the government. While the writer's voice may not say anything, a large crowd of people will. But as the large crowd of people are stuck in the state of bliss, such changes cannot happen. Perhaps I'm the one who'se wrong, and I should be happy as a carefree person. But like the Matrix, "Once you know the truth, you can never go back."

The era of moral Americans

Abortion. Many democrats believe this to be perfectly fine. We believe that it's not life until it actually comes out (with some variations). Republicans believe it is immoral. They believe that life starts straight when the two cells meet. Something about the World Health Organization says the same thing.

Gay Marriage. Many people believe this to be a mental disease. Many people believe that marriage should be between a man and a women. Many people believe that the union of homosexuals is completely immoral. Many people believe that such a thing cannot be legalized.

Iraq War. Many republicans believe this is fully just. They believe that such a thing should be done, because Saddam was a dictator and a sadistic bastard (I think his sons are worse). And many people believe that we should finish off the war, and install a great democracy in Iraq. Furthermore, they are willing to give up certain rights for this protection against terrorism.

"Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither" __Thomas Jefferson

"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free" __Benjamin Franklin


Anyways,
You my countrymen, have been manipulated by the wealthy class of citizens. Those who tell you that gay marriage is immoral. That abortion should be illegal. Those who tell you that we should finish the Iraq war. People who told you to vote for George W. Bush. People who even funded his campaign.

When I ask a person about why they voted for Bush, they usually say:

"Because I believe in his views."
"I believe he is doing what is right for the moral community."

Since when does abortion, Iraq war, gay marriage, take greater precedance than that of fiscal responsibility? As a republican said after being shown the results of Regen and the steel industry,

"Oh, we know about that. We lived through that time. We just voted for Bush because he gives tax cuts."

A little pinch of reality for you people. The rich are trying to make money. They do not care about abortion. They do not care about gay marriage. They don't even care about the troops dying on the other side. All they care about is their money. Their tax cuts. Their investment taxes (Bush cut that too). They don't care about what you people are staging protests about.

I see signs of:
"NO ABORTION! BABY KILLERS!"
"MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE!"
"GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE! NOT ADAM AND STEVE!"
(a funny quote)

I also hear things like:
"We should really get in there, kick some ass, and fix that basketcase."

Now, one of the reasons why I don't support the Iraq war is the fact that we can't pay for it. I'm only sixteen. It means sooner or later, the burden of the debt falls on me. If the rich screw it up and the economy collapses, I'm going to be the one who gets hit with the full force. If the economy screws up so much that I cannot attain a living pay, I might not even have kids.

One of the reasons why I'm against the tax cut is because the national debt becomes larger. It becomes heavier. And like I stated above, the burden of that debt will fall on me.

One of the reasons why I'm against free trade is because without tariffs, we're at a huge trade defecit. Again, the burden falls onto my generation. That burden will affect every single generation after that.

So you may ask, what about the rich? They don't care. They have a huge insurance fund stocked away in their bank, under the name of 401k. They're set. Their kids are set. They can live an easy life, and still have more than enough left over for their kids and then their generation.

But you see, most Americans who support Bush are oblivious to the fiscal basketcase America is in right now. I saw the presidental debates, and Abortion was one of the issues. Why the hell is this an issue? Why is it that nobody asks about our financial future? Why is it that nobody asks about investment taxes? It's because you people are too preoccupied with your so called morals. You are distracted from the real problem of America. You're distracted from the future.

I believe that Republicans are either retarded (BURN THE FAGS), or super smart (Tax cuts FTW). So who leads the republicans? Politicians. Rich people. The very people who say, "we voted him for tax cuts."

Listen people. Your morals are not as important as your children. And if the world comes tumbling down on them, and your era's debts becomes theirs, you have failed as a parent.

So I leave you with this, which every good christian should be quite familiar with:
The anti-christ is someone with great financial power

Wouldn't it be ironic if Roger ended up fighting for God?

Flag Burning

I think I'm pretty patriotic when it comes to America. If they call for me to go fight, I'll go without hesitation. If there's a major war going on, depending on where I am, I'll either be designing laser guided bombs (Mencia: It's the ASIANs fault. Who the hell do you think designs those bombs?) or I'll go join the military. Likewise, because I'm patriotic, it means I'm believe in the constitution. Likewise, I believe Flag Burning ammendment is wrong.

First thing is first, most of the people who are burning flags are over there. Not over here.

Second thing:
Since when is it wrong to protest against the government? Sure it's just burning flags, but burning flags is a sign of protest. A sign of discontent. A way to get the government to go, "I wonder what they're protesting about." More specifically, the burning of the flag is like the burning of the government. When someone burns it, it means theres something wrong. By saying we're not allowed to burn flags, means we're not allowed to protest against the government. Why is it that I cannot protest against the government? Does this make my website against the law?

Yes, I know that it's not really protesting against the government, but what you have to realize is that to restrict flag burning, is infringing upon the freedom of speech, the one thing that seperates us from Red China.

I also realize that burning a flag probably means you don't like the government. But because we're in America, we're forced to deal with the bad side of Democracy. The ability to critisize everything and anything. Likewise, we cannot be punished for such actions.

Bush is really starting to scare me

Aside from the incompetence
His thing about, "God told me so."
Abortion
Gays

He's taken a new step towards the breaking of the constitution which really scares me (click link for full story).

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America, makes it harder to win this war on terror."

"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do, You try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."
-Both said by George Bush himself.

Republican Peter King actually suggested Mr. Bush to prosecute the New York Times.

And for all you idiots who can't figure it out yet:
The fact that Bush critisizes a newspaper, saying they shouldn't do it, and then actually having someone urge the administration to cancel it, is a sign of unconstitutional actions. Namely, the Freedom of the Press. Granted, some of the things we release is a little boneheaded (Black Hawk Down: You need night vision goggles to see painted targets), but we can't do anything because of what we call the first ammendment. Quite possibly, the most important ammendmant. Thinking that we should start restricting it, makes us no better than those Red Chinese people I despise. This attacks our very views of liberal democracy, and strikes at the heart of the constitution.

And the last time I checked, the terrorists don't want to attack our constitutional liberties. If anything, the terrorists want to kill us. How can we be opresssed if the terrorists aren't in our government? The only one who can opress us is the government (Such irony, especially with prosecuting NYTimes).

Don't You Know Who I Am?

Games and the slippery slope

As you know, many people support not only the censorship of video games, but the banning of video games. For instance, Jack Thompson blames shooters such as Halo as training toolers for next generation Columbine. He also believes that many of today's world is warped by the world of gaming. Crimes are caused by Grand Theft Auto, etc.

My opinion? It's unjust, and it doesn't affect kids. But that's for another article.

What you may also know is that some states ban the sales of certain rated computer games. By taking these off the shelves, it reflects one things. Censorship. Yes, Censorship. This occurs on TV, since we're not allowed to put in high quality porn during peak hours. The internet is also the same thing with the new .xxx domain. But isn't the freedom of speech, expression, and information what seperates us from the Chinese? I should hope so.

By restricting these things, they rail out against what makes America so great. When is it so bad that I cannot play the games that I want? Call me a warped son of a bitch. Call me the next generation colmbine. Hell, call me a pedophile (RE: The Sims. Apparently Jack Thompson doesn't know anything about computers either). But one thing sets me different than the people who say this: I believe censorship is bad. And by this, I hope that America will understand how this is censorship.

So I leave you with this.
"Censorship started with little things, when the government controlled cartoons and the Radio. Then it went to the regular TV, school system, and finally the print."
-A badly remembered quote from Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451.

Anti-intellectual Television

Thinking back of my childhood, I remember watching TV. Some of my favorite shows included the Animaniacs and the Pinky and the Brain. Thinking about it, I realize that many things were a lot funnier than what I took them to be. Sure, I thought it was humorous back then, but even now I think it's humorous.

For example, I remember a part where you see Noah playing with a paddle ball, and he's talking to god. Those of you who have read this the entire time (if you exist), may remember,

"What about spiders?"
"ESPECIALLY SPIDERS."

Now, I can remember bits and pieces of that episode. One of which that I remember was Noah saying

"So I pretty much have to go 40 days and 40 nights in the cold, rain, this area is supposed to flood, and then I can get into heaven. Though I heard the food isn't very good up there."
*Noah gets zapped for saying that*

Now just thinking about that, made me realize the hilarity of that comment. The fact is that that statement is utterly hilarious. Of course the food isn't going to be very good in heaven, glutton is a sin. Now extending that thought, you realize that heaven can't be that good, because the things that we enjoy about life itself is a sin. Money. Power. Sex. Food. Gloating. Since you're in heaven, you're not allowed to do any of this. They're all sin.

Pinky and the Brain had a similar thing. I remember one where the person rings a bell, and both Pinky and the Brain does some sort of acrobatic trick. Keywords: Bell.

Bell = Pavlo.

You know, that experiment with the Pavlo ringing the bell and the dog coming to it?

So what does this have to do with anything? Read the title: Anti-intellectual Television.

Now a days, television no longer reflects the value of being well read. The boob tube has been taken over by reality TV, which has no hidden knowledge under it. It asks no philosophical questions, it does not relate to sociology, to science, not even to history. How the hell does American Idol relate to any of this? It doesn't. What it does serve is entertainment for the idiots of America.

So now I go back to the words that you should have remembered in the beginning of this essay:
back to my childhood. I turn on TV, and now I see spongebob. I saw spongebob two years ago, I didn't get anything. I see spongebob now, I still don't get anything. Why? There's nothing to understand. Like I stated before, there isn't any underlying intelligence behind whats on TV now. For the lack of better terms, its about two buffoons going around with their life. Kids find it funny, but to an adult, there is nothing fun to watch about it. It's just about this sponge character making a fool out of himself.

At least with the Animaniacs, it critisized everything about society. Even shrinks!

Such TV is now a forgotten cause. Renments of it still live on, such as the Simpsons, and Futurama. Why, a few days ago, I saw an episode of the Simpsons making fun of the movie, "The good, the bad, and the evil." Shows that require intelligence are dying. I mean, they even cancelled Futurama, which also did a good job making fun of society.

They say Shakesphere is a good interpretation of life back then.
Now, the Simpsons is the good interpretation.

But with this anti-intellectual society that's going on, such shows are dying out.

Of course, there are modern shows that still reflect intelligence, such as Battlestar Galactica.
A. It talks about greek mythology
B. It talks about the relation between polytheism and monotheism
C. Discrimination.

Such things are applicable to todays society. Spongebob? No.

This is why I switched to watching Japanese TV. Their cartoons have underlying messages behind them, and by watching it, sometimes I do feel like the idiot. For instance, Ergo Proxy deals a lot with mythology. The doctor is named freaking Daedalus (shame on you if you don't know who that is), but at the same time, I do not understand the symbolism behind the talking statues, Real, or the two demolished cities. Had I understood it, my appreciation for the show would dramatically increase.

Mythology not your taste?
Kino's travels often asks sociological questions. One of the most memorable questions talks about religion. One holy book was written for one city. But the combination of it spreading, and people talking about it, gradually led to the utter anihilation of a city. Sound familiar? Shoot yourself if it doesn't.

Orson Scott Card and Michael Crichton, Bad for Humanity

Media, and authors especially, must be very responsible, knowledgeable people about the topics they write about. It's too bad that Orson Scott Card and Micheal Crichton, two very famous science fiction writers, have no idea what they're talking about. These two are nothing more than very good writers, but they are not scientists, have no idea what science is, and are both doing a disservice to actual science for the public.

Let's start with Micheal Crichton. Skip past his books, which, while entertaining, are mere stock science fiction. Let's go to his public advocacy, in this case, of global warming (or lack thereof). His views, shown in his book State of Fear, include evidence, but not strong evidence, as it has been refuted by specialists in the field, including Dr. Jeffrey Masters, chief meteorologist at The Weather Underground. His evidence, therefore, is still very much under dispute.

The problem is that people are beginning to accept what he says as fact, simply because he wrote it into an "action-thriller" book. He has been called to testify in a Senate committee hearing. He has giving speeches attacking not just global warming, but the entire idea that the environment needs to be protected. But with his evidence itself still under dispute, how can he claim them as definitive sources?

As for Orson Scott Card, I think the essay I linked to says it all. What gives Card the authority to dismiss all of science as "invent[ing] plausible stories of automatic processes by which natural events, systems, and objects come to be as we see them"? What gives the authority to dismiss science, the process, as science, the Aesop's Fables of the Modern Day? Nothing. He creates a straw man position of science, and proceeds to "destroy" it. No wonder, considering that he is indeed an active member of the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Leave the theories of what might happen to the earth and what has happened to those who have actually studied the subject. Gain an actual background first, see their reasoning, and you'll see why evolution has become a dominant theory in science. It's not because it's convenient or because it's the atheists pushing it out. It's because rationally, it has been shown to be the best explanation for the data collected.

Even science fiction authors have a responsibility, and that responsibility is to not purposely destroy the foundations of science. Every time Chrichton writes an implausible story about the spread of a deadly virus, panic can ensue. Every time Card writes for the creationists, they get more irrational.

Bush gets WTFPWNED. Must See Tv!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4973617448770513925

Skip the first 50 minutes.

Conservative Media Defeat Educational Experience

It’s normal for teachers to ask students to participate in projects. It’s part of an important learning process. Sometimes these projects might draw complaints from the students for their difficulty, but rarely do parents or others complain about the actual project being done. That all changed for the worse when a mock trial that put President Bush on trial for "crimes against civilian populations" and "inhumane treatment of prisoners" was conducted in a Parsippany High School AP Government class.

The right became very angry. Conservative media pundits everywhere were in a fit. Freedom of speech and educational value be damned, they weren’t going to let this go on. How dare these students even suggest that any laws limited President Bush’s powers? Who would even think that our President, the savior of democracy, freedom, and apple pies, be put on trial? The answer is that the trial is an important exercise of free speech, educational freedom, and a vital lesson on the powers of the executive branch.

The trial is indeed a very important exercise in the powers of free speech. Criticism of government officials is necessary to the democratic process. Public discourse helps to inform the citizens of the country on important issues and sides that parties are taking. Even views that some would consider extreme, such as Bush being put on trial, need to be tolerated in order to further public discussion and discourse on important topics. Limiting this trial would be sending a message to the future citizens of America saying that criticizing our President at all would be wrong, and that anything that tells us to the contrary is treason.

But more importantly, the trial should continue to protect academic freedom. When parents and outside administrators are allowed undue influence over the classroom, the end result is a bad education. Teachers aren’t allowed to teach the material because they always have the threat of parents hanging over their heads. Tests would be abolished because of whiny students complaining to their parents. Nothing would ever get done in a classroom again. Public schools would truly become failures.

But lastly, people must learn more about the United States government, especially about the powers of the President. In fact, the only thing that the majority of the US knows about the President is his name. Furthering knowledge on the powers of the executive branch will make these students better citizens for the future.

Why would such an issue become huge then? It’s because the conservative talking heads tacitly think that if Bush were to be put on trial, he would be convicted. In their minds, the evidence against Bush is very strong. They don’t want a trial, even a mock one, to reach a verdict because they fear the chance of a guilty verdict. What is ignored is the fact that without this trial continuing as it should, neither side of this debate, including the defense of Bush, will become known to the public. People will just assume that Bush would have been guilty had the trial gone on. If the conservatives really believed in the innocence of their president, then they would have let a verdict be rendered, and if they had, then there’s a chance that they could have won. It’s too bad that this event, as usual, was botched by the Republicans who overreacted.

Idealism and what's wrong

In today's society, especially in the government, people follow idealism rather than what is right. I am probably guilty of this, but nevertheless, it's not a good thing. What I mean is, that if what you're trying to follow doesn't work, stop following it. For instance, if you believe that cutting taxes while fighting a war will not affect the US economy, which it clearly is, change your policy and raise taxes. Learn from your mistakes.

Too many people will not admit they're wrong when it comes to certain issues. And way too many people will not change what they're doing if something is wrong. Going back to another one of Mr. President's issues, cutting taxes for the filthy rich does not give them an incentive to create companies to produce jobs. Mr. President is very bent on this, and he will always follow this down to his grave. But what you have to realize is that, he dismisses any criticizm that goes his way. So of course he's not going to listen to you. Figures, Mr. President doesn't even watch the news.

Which leads me to my next point. Our current president doesn't seem to be out there for the people of the United States. More or less, Mr. Bush is only following his own set of ideals. If he quit firing those critisizing him, maybe he'd see the flaws in his policy, and maybe he would change. Of course, if you did that, many people would probably start poking at your political agenda, but isn't helping your country worth more than your second term? Is sticking with your policy which continues to draw America down for your second term worth it? If you really care for your country, you'd learn from your mistakes, you'd learn what's going on in the world, and you adjust. You're actually out there for the people, not your own warped ideas. The people may not like the fact that you flip flop a lot, but if it's for the good of the country....and it produces results, so much the better.

This is why I hold George Bush Seinor in higher respect than I do George Bush Junior. George Bush Seinor actually taxed the Americans, and fought a war correctly. He did what was right for America. Much of President Clinton's success comes from Bush Seinor. George Bush Seinor was not elected for a second term. BUT, he did good for the United States. Knowing that the general public wouldn't like the high taxes, he followed his advisors, and realized that fighting a war with less taxes would be bad. Something our current Bush does not realize. Now George Bush Seinor...HE, was out for the people. He wasn't there to win his second term, it would seem he could care less. What he did was for the better of the United States, and that's all that really matters about being the president.

Now, I'm not specifically picking out George Bush Junior, he just serves as a decent example. There are many people like this.

1 + 1 will NEVER EVEVER equal 3.
However, a lawyer can always explain how it does.

Keep an open mind.
Don't follow idealism when it fails.

Geneva Convention

Yes, I still live. And so will this website.

We, Americans, have this little thing we must follow during the times of war. This is called the Geneva Convention, which is basically the rules of the battle field agreed upon by almost ALL nations, including our enemies. Outlined in the Geneva Convention, are many things such as, do not kill civilians, do not torture, etc.

So in a war, both sides are expected to follow this little piece of paper. Say, if we ever had a war with our allies, like Great Britain (even though that's never going to happen), both sides would follow the Geneva Convention. They kill our soldiers, we kill their soldiers. No nukes are thrown, and no carpet bombing entire cities unless they have war factories. Civilian losses are low. It would only be a duke out between two armies.

Well, I have one really big problem with this piece of paper. Not many countires follow it. Britain does, so war with them would be better than say..a war on Iraq. They don't follow the Geneva Convention. I'm not even sure if they know what the Geneva Convention is. So, we have a problem here. They can run airplanes into towers, use chemical warfare, and do whatever they want to antagonize the US civilians. Yet, we can't do anything less than say, "Get onto the ground!" to Iraqi civilians.

Now, the terrorists know this. So they put emplacements on hospitals, churchs, and stuff. We can't destory it, because of this piece of paper. But they like ramming air planes into our towers. We can't carpet bomb them, or do anything. Sometimes we are a little ignorant of their emplacements, and we bomb them anyways. So....We just get labled has horrible animals. Well, it was your fault you were putting a fire team on top of a god damn mosque. If you don't want to get it blown up, move. Mind you, if you don't want to get shot, stop shooting back.

Now, this basically means their not following the rules of warfare. Why should we? Why are we even playing? It's pretty much like playing against a person online with an AIMBOT. A really....bad...aimbot. Now I'm not saying Iraq is beating us, since we have certainly beaten the bulk of their army (or at least the stupid ones who stood and fought). But why should we stick with these rules while they don't?

Another thing. Human sheilds. They use women and children in order to protect the guys with the guns. When we hit them, they are like, "Oh no. That is so bad." Now lets sit down and thing. Wall. Guy behind wall with gun. You have gun. He is shooting you. What do you do? Any sensible guy, would just open up. Now, a human sheild is the same thing. If your going to be an ass and hide behind a human, you will get shot. Or atleast the CS players will. Damn hostages getting in the way.

Boys falling behind in education

I was reading about this in Newsweek a few weeks ago, and quite frankley, I don't see what the big surprise is. Call me sexist, but this is largely due to the product of femminization. Yes. I said it. It's called the Femminization of America. Too bad Masulization of America doesn't sound quite right. The reason why males are dropping behind in education, is because Americans now look more towards a girl than a guy. Naturally, you will prefer one gender over another. For example, a teacher may call on 10 boys, but only seven girls. It's a small stretch, but Natural selection dictates that even a small advantage will cause a great stretch.

Now, I'm not saying that this is bad. Heavens no. I don't care. It was bound to happen some day. In this society, men are not allowed to beat their wives. Rape is considered male only, and there are more career women around (no offence ladies, just trying to draw a point). Women of today are also finding more control in society. They are allowed to vote, they can pursue their own careers without anyone dictatating them, etc. These all contribute to the Femminization of America.

So how does this tie into edumecation? Simple. Before the Femminization of America took place, the Males dominated the school system. More males graduated, more males went to college, and males made money. As an old sexist term may outline, "A women's place is in the kitchen." However. Now that America no longer has this male dominated society, the Women have more freedom to do as they wish.

However, the main contributing factor to the Femminization of America comes from Education. As you may realize...even today, the majority of the Elementry school teachers are Women. Many of those women were young during the Women Rights movement. Because of that, they naturally choose the female over the male. Hard to see, but as I said before, even a small advantage is meaningful.

What does this mean in the long run? Women start to gain the advantage over men. They do better in school. More women go to college. This my friend, is a product of the Femminization of America.

Now, it's not like I'm trashing out against that such as how Tyler Durden would do. I don't see the morals beating wives, or locking them in the households. I don't see why they shouldn't pursue their careers, nor do I see why they shouldn't go to college, or why they shouldn't vote. This would eventually happen when the women started asking for rights. Not saying they shouldn't have any, but this isn't anything to be surprised about.

The Femminization of America, is the reason why boys are falling behind in education. No more, no less.

Omnicent vrs Omnipotent vrs Logic

Okay, so we have Omnicent, and Omnipotent.
Omnicent: All knowing
Omnipotent: All powerful.
Logic: You should know what this is.

Given:
God = Omnipotent
God = Omnicent

If god is Omnicent, god knows his future def: Omnicent
If god is omnipotent, he can change his future def: Omnipotent
However, god already knows that he will function: Omnicent
change his future.
But at the same time, god can make it so he function: Omnipotent
can not know his future.

Something is wrong here.

Lets throw in free will.

Free Will: Ability to make choices.
Given:
God has free will:

God already knows his future Def: Omnicent
God has free will Given
God's future is already set out for him. Def: Omnicent

Something is also wrong here. Do you have free will if I tell you that you must do this and that? In god's mind, he knows that he will do this and that, and any changes in his thinking he already knows (Adams Gods Debris).

Okay, we'll throw in people.

Given:
People have free will.
God gives you the choice of hell or heaven.

God already knows the future Def: Omnicent
People have free will Given
God gives you the choice that you Given.
can go to hell or heaven.
God knows what your choice will be Def: Omnicent

This also makes no sense, because god isn't giving you a choice. He knows where you're going to go beforehand.

And so. I leave you off with this thought.
And another one.

"First, we postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving?
I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant.
There are two possible conditions:
One, if hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase exponentially until all hell breaks loose.
Conversely, if hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.

We can resolve this question with the 1990 postulation of Theresa LeClair, the girl who lived across the hall from me in first year residence. Since I have still not been successful in obtaining sexual relations with her, condition two above (hell freezing over) has not been met, and thus it can be concluded that condition one is true, and hell is exothermic."

Stop trying to justify yourself unless you're actually in it.

Recently, many politicians justify the War in Iraq as, "to free the people," and, "Saddam is a dictator." However, what you fail to realize is that, those two justifications coming from a politician (Bush as an example), is just playing the people. I offer my condolences to those who have lost their sons, daughters, brothers, mothers, etc in Iraq, and I can understand why you would say both of them. You would say such things because you lost a family member or a close friend on a fool’s errand. And by saying this, it makes you feel better that he hasn't died in vain.

I agree with that. What I don't agree is the politicians saying that it is fully justified to say such things. And that we're fighting for American Freedom. Look Mr. President; unless your daughters are blown apart, or decapitated on the front lines, you have NO right to say, "We did this to protect our freedom." You have nothing to justify with your loss. Why? Because you havn't lost it.

Now, I'm not going all out Michael Moore on this, because quite frankly, I hate him as much as the next republican (Yes, it IS possible you jackass). Especially after he started asking mourning senators if they would send their sons to Iraq when that actually did happen and they actually did die. And then saying, "SEE? HAHAHAHHA THEY DON'T WANT TO SEND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS OFF TO IRAQ!!!!"

Michael Moore, do some research before you make it more painful for those who DID lose family members.

But really. Unless you HAVE, you have no right to say, "For freedom." Because quite frankly, people who lost close people want to justify their act. And yes, I did say Justify, because the War in Iraq is a Fools Errand.

1. It's not for American Freedom. American Freedom is staying here fighting off the Ruskies when they invade.
2. It's also not freeing the people of Iraq. Okay, maybe it is, but there are countries that are in dire need of such, "liberation." Iraq is by far not the worst of it.
3. Saddam oppressed his people. Blah blah blah. African war-lords oppress their people. They make Saddam look like a benevolent dictator.
4. I'd rather let the terrorist train in their camps with paper targets than give them actual combat experience.
5. It's not for oil. And I remember the days when we were pissed that we were spending more than 2 bucks a gallon.

So really. I hope you've learned from this, that justifying the war in patriotic words is just disgraceful. You have no right to do so. Those who DID lose family members do.

Republicans cheer and I lose a few more brain cells.

Anti-porn laws.

First thing: It's depressing that people actually fight for this.

Anyways.

1. Several of the highly conservative people are considering the restriction of the internet. Namely, porn. This is under the, "Child Protection Act," which will be hitting the courts soon. And all I have to say is, I think American politicians are being especially retarded when they came up with the idea of this.

As a disgruntled disheveled person would say,
"Don't you have anything better to do?"

Making laws against porn is a new low for America.

2.
Parents, your kid is FINE if he sees a set of breasts. Okay? He's not going to socially impaired, he's not going to be mentally scarred, there JUST BREASTS. I mean, there are things out there that you should be wary of. Such as internet stalkers, hackers, that guy who comes and goes dumpster diving through your trash. THERE IS STUFF THAT CAN HARM YOUR CHILD. Porn is among the ones that wont.

Furthermore, if you're going to complain about this, you only have yourselves to blame. If you're so worried about your child seeing porn, don't give them internet access. Or better yet, hang over their shoulders while they're on the net (Would probably solve net-stalker issues). You get my point?

3.
The government budget is better spent on other things than this. If you're so bent on solving the internet problem, give it a security overhaul. The internet is crawling with these viruses and stuff because the creators of it never thought the internet would go public. More or less, it was just a research tool that everybody would use (similar to JSTOR). You can fix that with the government budget. But passing bills like this is just a waste.

Intelligent Design is NOT SCIENCE

For those of you readers (If any of you still remain), who believe in Intelligent Design as science, get that out of your head. Because it's not. Even if Intelligent Design is the reason of our existence, it is still not science.

Science:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomenon.

Intelligent Design:

A theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance

Now look at the definition of Science closely, and the definition of Intelligent Design. There is no observation, identification, description, or experimental investigation. The closest thing Intelligent Design comes to is theoretical explanation, but that alone cannot hold intelligent design up as science.

As I will state again
Even if Intelligent Design was the reason of our existence, it is still not science. Therefore, it should not be taught in science.

What many of you must realize is that people use Intelligent Design as a panacea of all scientific flaws. For example, one of the leading arguments of Intelligent Design is the bumblebee. The basic premise surrounding the entire controversy is that a bumblebee does not agree with the laws of aerodynamics. It shouldn't fly.

However, recently (as in this month), scientists have discovered how a bumblebee flies. The bee basically functions as a racecar. It burns a lot of energy to achieve flight.

So as you can see, many people use Intelligent Design to patch up holes. However, what you must realize is that there are things that Science has yet to discover. If we do not have the information now, you cannot say, "Hey look, this is Intelligent Design!"

Furthermore, Intelligent Design cannot be considered a theory. A theory must correlate with several boundaries.

The theory must be:

· Guided by natural law,

·Explanatory by natural law,

·Testable against the empirical world,

·Tentative, and

·Falsifiable

Now, right then and there, Intelligent Design cannot work with any of those definitions given. It is not guided by natural laws, nor is it explained by natural laws. The entire point of Intelligent Design is that some thing or some one came down and created nature. That is purely artificial. Intelligent Design is not even testable, for the reason that we have nothing to test with. Darwinism at least has observation and can place animals in a scenario where we can observe how they change. But Intelligent Design has neither.

Furthermore, it cannot be falsifiable. Even with the lack of any evidence, we still cannot get around the entire problem of.....something that leaves no traces behind. For example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

"Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease. accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course"

What is sad about this example is that it fits every description of Intelligent Design. So by teaching Intelligent Design, you can also teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only difference of either, "theory," is that one has a somewhat accepted name, and the other one is outrageous.

Furthermore, there is no legitimacy behind ID. Like I stated before, it is just a panacea of all scientific holes that have yet to be discovered. They state that there is evidence, but the flying spaghetti monster also has evidence behind its existence.

" I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."

Yeah. That's it.

Stop Complaining about Engineers

Year after year, companies complain about the lack of Engineers.

Well, stop complaining.

Truth be told, many view the engineering department to be a waste of time. In America, no one wants to be an Engineer. They're not paid enough for what they do. Your Engineer, has to be making at LEAST 70k a year on a 9-5 basis (Not even Masters here). Why? Because there's a lot of work gone into an Engineer. If you're going to study 10+ hours a day and get a 40k job, it's not worth it. Many ask, "Why is that Business Major making more money than me? Why does that person with a Teaching Degree have a job already?"

Business, you're partly to blame for this. You over-pay your management section, and you outsource your RnD section.

Another problem with being an Engineer is the entire American mind-set. Some may realize that foreign countries, especially those from the East graduate more Engineers. Reason being, the people in the East like engineers. Here, the engineers get the crap kicked out of them. For example, in Japan, the person who does well in school is respected. The people here who are bright are the one's who write pathetic posts on friday nights. Main point being: America, you are to blame for your lack of Engineers.

Happy New Year

Happy New Year