Pamphlets of the New Generation

Moving

2009-01-11T16:30:00.003-05:00

To those who still read this poor corner of the website, we have merged with the Citizenship International. Henceforth, the new address for future pamphlets is....

www.derivepolitics.com

What? We've Moved!

2009-01-07T02:49:00.001-05:00

This website is pretty much done. You can find us now at Derive Politics.

Happy reading.

Jumping on the bandwagon? Hardly.

2008-11-04T01:01:00.000-05:00

It is true that earlier in the election cycle I had endorsed Ralph Nader for President. This is because I believed that at the time he offered the best possible policies for the country. After all, he was the only candidate who would have implemented single payer health care and attempted to kick out the massive agricultural pork we have been handing out. Those two issues I considered to be the major differences between him and Barack Obama and John McCain. Though Nader had no realistic shot of winning, a vote for him would be a vote for my conscience back when I realized that whether I voted in New Jersey or Illinois my vote wouldn't matter.

As time went on, however, Nader's anti-free trade position began to eat away at me. This might have thrown my vote towards John McCain, except that now I was left with 3 candidates, none of whom I agreed with perfectly on the issues: I agreed with Nader on health care and special interests but not economic or foreign policy, I agreed with Obama on special interests and foreign policy, but not on economic policy or health care, and I agreed with John McCain on economic policy and special interests, but not on foreign policy and health care. In a sense, all of these issues were a wash.

But with the coming of the economic crisis I realized something: these issues don't matter as much as the expectations of who we elect. Voting for Nader would not symbolize the necessary direction this country needs to go in. Voting for McCain would send the wrong message to our allies abroad. Voting for Obama would both create a new direction that I can generally agree with and reinforce our world standing abroad. A vote for Obama would be a vote for calmer economic times and a better foreign policy.

It was based on that alone that I am voting for Barack Obama (assuming, of course, that my voter registration actually got through). I am endorsing him for change we need.

On the Federal Reserve's rate cute

2008-11-03T03:21:00.000-05:00

The Federal Reserve's lowering of the Fed Funds target rate to 1% is the latest in a series of moves attempting to keep liquidity flowing in the financial markets. This one, unlike previous moves by the Fed, comes through its main channel. It was completely expected, which explains the stock market's relatively muted response. The Federal Reserve, however, is approaching the bottom of its bag of tricks.

At 1% the Fed Funds target rate is at the lowest it has been since 2003-2004. Because of the huge amount of liquid assets the actual target rate is lower than 1%. If the Fed somehow bottoms out and makes the interest rate reach 0%, they face the same problem that the central bank of Japan faced when it committed similar actions. The Federal Reserve cannot go much lower. It has to resort to alternative measures.

What this means is that the Fed Funds target rate's days as the primary tool of Federal Reserve policy are over. During this crisis alternative tools, like credit swaps, will replace the target rate in primacy. It is unlikely that the target rate will return to prominence except during inflation fighting. Thus, it is very likely that the Federal Reserve has effectively split its tool chest for achieving its two directives of economic growth and controlling inflation: the target rate will be used primarily for the latter now.

This is a welcome change. No longer will interest rates be used in a desperate attempt to boost economic growth at the expense of inflation as it was in the past. We might be seeing the rise of a new era of controlled inflation and economic growth through alternative tools at last.

The future of the newspaper

2008-10-31T03:04:00.001-04:00

The biggest news of the day in the media world is the revelation that starting in April of next year, the Christian Science Monitor will no longer be a daily newspaper. It will instead switch to being mainly an online presence and a weekly publication. In this regards, it will become more like the Economist rather than USA Today.

This is a sensible move to counteract the major weakness of the CSM: its lack of a consistent base. Unlike other publications who are able to become national, like the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor has no major city from which to draw a relatively steady stream of readers. That leaves it in a competition with the USA Today and other papers for a national audience, something which it is hard pressed to do. The Christian Science Monitor, after all, is best known for relying less on the wire services than other papers and its analysis. It doesn't compete on breaking news, unlike other papers like the Washington Post. Thus a weekly magazine-esque paper with an online presence best allows the CSM to attract a wider audience more suited to its own strengths.

The collapse of the CSM as a daily, though, brings up interesting questions about the future of the newspaper in general. Though large papers might continue to see their circulations shrink, there is almost no chance of the medium as a whole disappearing. The major newspapers of the cities will still survive, albeit in a smaller form. It is those small-town newspapers, however, which are in danger of being eliminated the most.

Small town newspapers have only one strength: their locality. Because they are relatively small they can target local business advertisements and local news stories that wouldn't otherwise be picked up. This might be enough to save newspapers in towns that can sustain a relatively moderate circulation. But as the economy goes, so do the newspapers: revenues from advertisements fall with falling economic times.

Papers of all kinds are likely to survive nonetheless. Because, and so long as, they provide a service unavailable elsewhere, newspapers will be able to withstand the rise of the Internet. If they can't, well, they can look to the examples of the New York Times and Christian Science Monitor for a post-newspaper era.

The end game strategy for John McCain

2008-10-26T13:14:00.000-04:00

It is often comical that the most accurate predictions of who the candidates will be before the Presidential election were those that simply focused on who was the most electable in the general election. After all, the prevailing narrative before primary voting began on the Democratic side was that Hillary Clinton had it locked up, but would most likely lose the general election, which Barack Obama, who was not going to win in the primaries, would have locked up. On the Republican side, everyone acknowledged that John McCain was probably the most electable combination of Republican and independent ideology - but that he would never make it to become the candidate. In less than 2 weeks we will get the Obama vs. McCain matchup that back before this season started seemed to be the best for both parties' chances of getting into office. It appears that the voters for both parties ultimately only care about electability, and not much else.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, factors have not broken their way. The Republican party's best shot of being elected after 8 years of President Bush was John McCain, but those odds have been greatly reduced, partly out of luck (economic problems) and partly out of choice (hiring the guy who got Bush elected in a season where Bush is toxic was not a good idea). With less than 2 weeks to go, McCain is down in the national polls and losing states that he cannot afford to, like Colorado and Virginia. He is limited by money and time and enthusiasm, all of which favor Obama. There is honestly very little chance that he can still pull out a win.

At some point McCain must look towards the future. This election cycle needs to be a rebuilding year for the Republican party. McCain has a chance to redefine the party in much the same way Barry Goldwater had the chance to during his election loss to LBJ. While McCain's loss might not be as great, it is likely to happen.

McCain's natural political positions are very much appealing to the electorate. His shift rightward was unnecessary and harmful to his chance of being elected. If McCain were to have run on a platform of his natural positions, he could have realigned his party to ensure that even though he might have lost this election, the Republicans would become extremely competitive in future elections. Sadly, he is avoiding this chance. While he might have lost the election while securing the future of the party, he is likely now to lose the election and the party's future as well.

The fragility of the market

2008-10-14T00:45:00.001-04:00

There is no need to state the obvious: the world's financial markets are in serious trouble. After all, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost something on the scale of 2000 points within 2 weeks, a fall that probably hasn't had an equal in history. Other stock markets, ranging from Japan's, to Hong Kong's, to Indonesia's, to European stock markets are all feeling the aftershocks. The entire financial structure of the country of Iceland has failed. These times are truly extraordinary: as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan proclaims, such a devastation is usually seen only "once in a century".

Why did this happen? After all, it is said that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. And for the sake of the next century (the third time's the charm?), it is necessary to examine why this financial crisis happened.

Though it is difficult to compare this crisis to the Great Depression, due to the differences in how monetary policy was conducted and how money was supported, it is the only event of comparable scale for the current global financial meltdown. Here, a major difference appears: while the Great Depression was the cause of credit being too tight, the initial cause of the current financial crisis was too much loose credit.

Two causes of the current crisis are evident, one of them being more important than the other. The most important cause of the current financial crisis was the Federal Reserve's policy of keeping interest rates incredibly low throughout the 90's. Though it would appear that such a policy seemed justified at the time and helped contribute to the United States' incredible growth during that period, the policies were not reversed quickly enough once the growth began slowing. Indeed, the Fed did what they saw as necessary in keeping interest rates continually low once economic slowdown seemed to arrive. However, with a lack of investment opportunities in new technologies due to the Internet bubble bursting, there was a lot of freely available credit without a lot of places to hand it out.

This changed once Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given mandates to provide mortgages to individuals traditionally disadvantaged individuals. The merits of wanting greater equity in home ownership can be debated later. Needless to say, though, that these two reasons led to a massive extension of credit in the housing sector.

A housing bubble has one uniquely devastating affect on the economy. For example, while normal recessions have housing related spending falling first, a housing bubble prevents that. This makes recovery that much harder. More problematic, though, is that the extension of so much credit has drastically changed expectations: bankers expect this much credit to always be available: once it's not, bankers panic, investment greatly falls and the economy slows down.

Now we have a situation in which the Fed is caught between a rock and a hard place: if it continues to extend credit, it preserves the economy but creates a long term effect of an inherently riskier market. If it tries to correct expectations now the world economy could quite literally collapse.

Fortunately, there is a way out. If the world governments start by continuing to extend credit and gradually reduce that credit, then the damaging effects should be mitigated and the world economy can return to normal. If it does not, then economic collapse will not just be a doomsday scenario: it will be reality.

Bitches Ain't Shit: Commentary on the Vice Presidential Debates

2008-10-03T20:53:00.000-04:00

Mistake number 1: Sarah Palin: "Has this been a good time or a bad time in our economy?"

And with that Sarah Palin's readiness for the Vice Presidency fails.

To be fair, the Vice Presidential debates have rarely affected election outcomes. Even Lloyd Bensten's attack on Dan "Not Jack Kennedy" Quayle did not significantly change the outcome of the 1992 election. But tonight, for once, that might change. Because Sarah Palin, not John McCain, has been the focus of the Republican campaign for the past few weeks, this debate will be key. If Palin appears to have won this debate, then Republican momentum has a chance to shift towards a victory this November. Failure here will mean that there is no chance for the Republicans to change the outcome of this election: the loss of this debate will mean that no more opportunities to shift the election narrative will exist for the Mccain campaign.

Biden started off strong, slamming Palin on several key points. He appeared to be more in control and ran a narrative more conducive to American voters. Palin did not make huge gaffes, but because she stuck to many standard attack points of Republicans, she was unable to connect with more voters.

On the topic of energy, Biden managed to successfully turn Palin's argument about her accomplishments in Alaska with regards to oil companies (like the windfall tax) against John McCain, continuing the job that he has to do in this debate. As long as he focuses his attacks on McCain, Biden is creating a win-win situation: he gets to attack the ticket, but he also manages to avoid charges of sexism.

As the debate got on longer, Palin's hand strengthened simply through her continued ability to not screw up. Biden weakened slightly as his responses continued to get longer, but he held on to still be the leader in this debate. Palin appeared to be more knowledgeable than expected, and as a result she improved her image regardless of what else she does.

Mistake number 2: Sarah Palin: "There have been huge blunders in this administration."

One of Palin's strengths was her ability to rally the base, but with a comment like this, Palin risks alienating conservatives who were excited by Palin while providing fodder for the Democrats.

Palin's strategy shifted towards diverting attention away from George Bush before the debate became more substantive. In the end the debate became a serious fight between two candidates, though because of the early strong start by Biden, he has clearly won this debate.

More of that Republican magic

2008-09-16T00:38:00.000-04:00

It is now the middle of September. John McCain’s candidacy, which up until this summer seemed doomed to certain failure, is now likely to lead to the next President of the United States. Barack Obama, for whom the office of the Presidency had been his to lose, is losing it. In all of the most recent polls, what was once a relatively comfortable lead for the Demcratic nominee is now either a dead heat or a prediction of victory for the Republicans. If the election were to happen this very moment, the most likely outcome would be a Senate and House controlled by the Democratic party while the White House belongs to a Republican. Those with a sense of humor might note that we, as citizens, will be receiving the worst of both ends.

How is this even possible? Why do Republicans have such an advantage when it comes to running campaigns? The most likely reason is twofold: first, Republicans were ahead of the curve when mass media came out in terms of utilizing new technologies and have held that advantage up until now. Secondly, Republicans tend to treat elections more like games in which the only thing that matters is more votes.

The tactics they utilize, from smear campaigns to outright lying, are usually good enough to succeed. However, such tactics ultimately fail when an overriding issue, namely the economy, comes into play. There is nothing to be done when the economy becomes the central issue, because that inherently gives a huge advantage to the Democrats. As such, it seems likely that for once, despite Republican tactics, a Democrat will ultimately prevail in the White House.

Sarah Palin Fails ABC Interview

2008-09-12T12:18:00.001-04:00

Sarah Palin's interview does not go quite as well as expected.

While she did present some positions consistent with Republican ideology, she lacked the general understanding of some other key points. Specifically, she had no understanding of what the "Bush Doctrine" in foreign policy, instead refusing to answer the question twice before going to a stock response. Additionally, Palin linked September 11th to Iraq instead of Al-Qaeda, a position that has thus far not been validated through facts or even accepted by the current Administration. She also purposefully skirted a question about whether she believed that the Iraq War was a "mission from God", turning to an Abraham Lincoln quote to deflect away from her own comments.

It is clear from this interview that Palin is not yet ready to be Vice President. While she herself might be proud of being a Washington outsider, her lack of experience or even knowledge of national politics and issues makes it impossible to say that she is ready to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Ultimately she showed that she was more like Dan Quayle as a VP nominee, and the fact that she accepted the nomination unquestioningly shows either hubris or a lack of ability to clearly evaluate herself.

A fair view on the invasion of Taiwan

2008-09-01T11:20:00.002-04:00

When it comes to the invasion of Taiwan, one must actually go to the island and see rather than speculate. Similar to how the Persians lost to the Greeks, the Chinese will be unable to hold Taiwan as an islands, if Taiwan runs an insurgency. This is due to several reasons. First, is that the Taiwan military is better equipped than the Chinese military. The new Taiwanese rifle is reputed to have the accuracy of the M-16 with the reliability of the AK-47. I believe China still operates with the AK-47. The Taiwan Military also has M-1 Abrams in order. Retired tank from the Canadian arsenal are being shipped to Taiwan. Other than the random talk about the Equipment, there are more pressing matters that state why Taiwan cannot be held by China.

Second, is the fact that Taiwan specializes in Urban combat. Due to the fact that Taiwan is concentrated mainly in cities and not suburbs, the Chinese military will have to go through cities to hold Taiwan. There are several problems with this. First, is that everyone can shoot a weapon. Due to the fact that every male in Taiwan must serve in the military for at least 2 years, everyone in Taiwan needs to shoot. As demonstrated by the Iraqi war, a full blown insurgency inside of a city is incredibly hard to occupy no matter who you are (U.S. Marines). To make this matter worse, is the fact that every building in Taiwan is built to earthquake standards. Hence, Taiwan is fairly resistant to artillery. Furthermore, Taiwan is built with many sketchy alleys. Since these are only wide enough for say, 2 people and both sides with concrete, it wouldn't be difficult to establish a kill zone.

Third, is that Taiwan has more mobility than probably any other place. Since the island is populated with an incredible amount of scooters, moving small arms and people effectively through tight corridors will not be a problem. Hence, any insurgency will always be supplied. On the same note, since Taiwan is a tropical islands, food is outside. Yet again, Taiwan will be well supplied.

Hence, to hold Taiwan, merely requires an excess of small arms.

Unfortunately, I am unsure of the resolution of Taiwan to hold and fight against China. True, that China will be unable to hold Taiwan, but Taiwan has much more to lose than China. At the moment, Taiwan is on the cutting edge of technology. If there is anything that Taiwan has to brag about, is high end infrastructure. Unfortunately, these would be lost in an air strike. Hence, I am unsure of the people are willing to rebuild everything in the name of independence.

To further support this view, is the take over by the KMT party. The KMT party has always tried to press closer relations with China as well as the eventual reunification of China. This shift on politics shows that the Taiwanese people are less concerned about their nationhood, and more concerned about their economical success. In other words, Taiwan has very little Nationalism.

Despite the fact that Taiwan is probably the most defensible islands in the world, the lack of Nationalism makes me believe that Taiwan will not fight tooth and nail against a Chinese occupation. Rather than supporting their independence, Taiwan believes in their own economic prosperity.

It's a choice, and you can rarely have both. Economic growth, or nationhood. And at the moment, Taiwan has picked economic growth. In the event that China does start firing missiles, Taiwan will have two choices. To make themselves a nation, or to mitigate any further damage to their infrastructure.

The best educational system?

2008-08-03T03:23:00.000-04:00

It is not hard to say that the American high school educational system is bad. While there are some advantages over its European counterparts, for the most part the students who graduate from American high schools know less and do worse on international tests, getting beaten by almost all other developed nations’ students. While this might be partially attributed to the fact that American high schools give the same education to everyone (even those that are not college bound) and thus has the problem of slowing down its most gifted students.

The solution to this problem is relatively simple: reform the public high school system to mirror the public university system. Though the latter has many problems of its own, its functionality is much better than that of the former. In essence, give individual households yearly cash vouchers good at any high school, private or public, and then simply make the cost of public high schools cheaper. The effect should be to make effective public high schools.

Granted, this plan might seem odd, but it has a high chance of success. At the very least, it allows the United States to maintain its systems benefits (flexibility) while reaping some benefits of better educational systems.

Post War Planning and Why its important

2008-07-31T12:02:00.002-04:00

When going into Iraq, the United States made one critical error. No post-war planning. In terms of strategy, the great American military crushed the Iraqi military. Yes, we won the war. We decimated the Iraq army. Never again will they pose a threat to Kuwait or Israel. Iraq has lost its ability to wage war. But I didn’t say defend? The problem is that Iraq still has a large amount of weapons stockpiled. Hence, invading into Iraq will serve little more than tying down the military. Aside from the French, it is impossible to fight against a nation with a dedicated militia.

Now go back to World War 2. Why didn’t Germany and Japan continue fighting? They still had people. And I know that Japan at least, were willing to fight down to the very last citizen. The reason is that we occupied Japan for the time being, we built schools and hospitals. We built infrastructure. We offered the Japanese a better life than us being gone. Same goes with Germany. Why is Berlin such a modern city? Because when we were occupying Germany post-war, we built it.

Northern Iraq is relatively safe, because it is occupied mostly by the Kurds. Now, the Kurds haven’t exactly had the greatest time. They’ve been constantly attacked, gassed, bombed, attacked, gassed, bombed, you get the point. However, the American military offers them a better life. They aren’t being attacked. And look at what we have, the Kurds are now one of our strongest allies in the Iraqi region.

The major flaw in fighting in Iraq, is that we have not offered any of them a better life. Quite frankly, we’ve offered them a very convoluted wife. Between the Americans blowing up buildings and shops, the firefights between terrorists and Americans, the general Iraqi had one thing before the Americans came through. Stability. Maybe they had fear, but they were at least stable under Saddam’s rule. Democracy does not provide stability for a nation. Terrorist organizations are able to recruit in Iraq because people see the United States and someone who pretty much came in romping through everything that was important.

Instead of fighting terrorism, we really should be rebuilding infrastructure. We should be providing them food, water, and shelter. Even if terrorist organizations are not convinced, at the very least, there will be people who will give us information. If we give the Iraqi’s a better life, then we have won. This is something that should have been planned beforehand. We should have secured funding for this before the war. Admittedly this would have required much more manpower and non-military personnel, but this is war. And war is never cheap.

Why global warming no longer matters

2008-07-29T23:55:00.001-04:00

Despite whatever Brian Wynne says about how Global Warming is just a lie that Al Gore has created (such as the Internet) there comes a point that we must understand that global warming does not matter. Why you might ask? Because the scientific community has already accepted it. This poses a few problems to those who do not believe in global warming. If clean energy is the next boom in science, you might as well go with it. This is similar to saying that it is impossible to connect everyone to the Internet when everyone is hooking into it. The debate for global warming is over. Clean energy is now.

The final push towards renewable energy is of course, the oil crisis. We know that there is still oil. We also know that we can use coal. However, natural resources will always run out. Remember, that a seemingly limitless amount of energy gives us the ability to advance as a society. As such, renewable energy should still give us the ability to advance in the future. This is a problem that should have been fixed back at the last oil shock, and is now being fixed now.

Now in my personal opinion, I believe that limiting greenhouse gasses is merely a secondary effect. I believe that cheap energy is more important, and it would appear that all renewable energy sources are green.

Hence, we must note that those who say that Global Warming is just a hoax are doing more than just harming the environment, but they're holding back the next scientific boom.

Now when we look at the last big scientific boom (computers), our economy shot upwards. New jobs were created. We were able to land on the moon. A new industry opened around making computers games. Or even Microsoft Excel for that matter. Those against global warming are only caught up in what they think is untrue, rather than what the future may entail.

Industry has been shifting towards Green Energy. Not merely because of the global consequences, but also the economic growth that will follow afterwards.

Felon disenfranchisement

2008-07-29T00:42:00.000-04:00

America has many unique phenomenon, some of which seem strange to outsiders. After all, the American love of baseball, basketball, and its own form of football and ice hockey over association football can be seen as a curiosity for strangers from other parts of the world. Most of these differences seem harmless to people not used to American eccentricities. However, at least one of these phenomenons, felony disenfranchisement carries serious implications for American democracy, not only because of its implicit restrictions on universal suffrage, but also because of the lack of justification for it.

The only supposed reason to prevent former criminals from voting is the fact that they were criminals at one point. However, in a democratic society, this is not a justifiable reason. Though it could be argued that their violation of the state’s laws justifies punishment, that punishment was given out in the form of the restriction of their freedoms, either through mandatory service or jail time. As a result, to further restrict their freedoms in a manner unrelated to their crimes is unnecessary and an infringement of rights. Unless the criminal committed electoral fraud, restricting his right to vote is arbitrary because the punishment in that format doesn’t fit the crime that the criminal has committed.

Indeed, these days the only reason to restrict the right to vote is a sense of disgust at criminal behavior: such a feeling cannot be the sole basis for restricting suffrage. Furthermore, it just doesn’t feel right: restricting a person’s right to vote based on a crime they committed 10, 20, or even 50 years ago seems to fall under the definition of cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. As a result, the answer is clear: remove ban on voting due to a felony record for crimes other than electoral fraud and related violations. It’s the democratic thing to do.

Nationhood as a concept

2008-07-25T15:49:00.000-04:00

The need for nation states must be legitimately questioned in today’s day and age. Though in past centuries it was well established that nationhood was not only a legitimate institution, but a right of all peoples, today the necessity of the nation-state has come under attack from new institutions, including international organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union, and other groups, such as NGO’s and corporations. Thus, for the first time in history, it is possible to ask the question: is the nation-state still necessary?

It would be difficult to answer yes. After all, it would appear that many of the vital functions of the state could be provided by institutions outside of the current national apparatus, with a variety of differing options. State defense and peacekeeping forces could be provided by what are currently now supranational organizations, or they could be provided by private corporations and groups. Almost every service feasible on this planet could be provided by some combination of private industry.

However, private industry is not always preferable. Most corporate services are much higher priced than those of governments, because corporations must maintain a profit margin. Additionally, corporations tend to offer less in their services in their attempts to avoid servicing relatively unprofitable markets and their push for growth. Hence, although a private mailing service is possible, it would be prohibitively expensive to places such as rural counties or more unsettled locations.

Thus, the trend of the world must continue. Though the nation-state might be obsolete, the world must move towards larger organizations. Institutions like the EU represent the most likely future of what are currently the nations of the world, and their super reach might discourage racism, xenophobia, and war. If that should happen, it will truly be a day to celebrate.

Taiwan-China Relations

2008-07-18T00:41:00.003-04:00

When they say that Taiwan will fight until American's last soldier, that's a little inaccurate. Try America and Japan, which are the obvious. Try Hong Kong being rather unhappy. And then try Britain, Russia, France, Germany, Australia, Philippines, South Korea, Singapore. Any country that has any sort of trade to port cities in China will be very unhappy if China ever invades Taiwan.

Despite what anyone says about Taiwan not being its own nation, one must realize that the waters between Taiwan and China are international waters. Meaning that ships can pass through them freely. No tolls. The Taiwan straits is in fact a major trade artery that deals with most of Asia. That said, if China does ever take military actions towards Taiwan, trade to China will suddenly explode in cost. Given China's action in the World Trade Organization, you can be assured that the economic burden on the rest of the world will be grave.

And China's will be graver.

If China does ever invade Taiwan, massive trade barriers will be placed against China. Due to the fact that China is based mostly on imports/exports, the economic ramifications of such an action will devastate China. Also looking into China's history of revolutions, it will be very bloody. I predict that China will then split up into several nations, the Dali Lama will be allowed to come back to his, "own," nation, and East China will be similar to Japan without the neuroticism. In either case, the overbearing oh crap force of China will be broken. East China might actually be a democracy. And the rest of China will probably go to hell at this point.

So what can China do? To be honest, I won't say that it's impossible for China to join Taiwan. I don't believe it is a wise move. I don't like China. But I won't throw it out due to the recent Taiwan elections. On that note, the unification of Taiwan to China will have to come politically rather than militarily. In which case, the rest of the world will be unhappy, but there will be no excuse to attack China. The WTO will probably take a much harder step, but the same fact remains, China remains intact. That being said, the unification of Taiwan and China will not be based by China, but Taiwan.

Yes, there are people who disagree that Taiwan is an actual country. But one major fact remains, that the Taiwan straits have and will remain as international waters. That and National Geographic are enough to qualify Taiwan as a country. Perhaps not a major country, but still a country. Other countries may not recognize Taiwan, but every country recognizes money.

US Iran Relations

2008-07-16T21:25:00.001-04:00

As you know, the US has sent an envoy to Iran to promote peace talks. As you know, Iran has become more aggressive in terms of their military, indicated by their use of Photoshop. And to be honest, I think that we’re going the wrong way with talks. We may try to negotiate with arms and trade, but this is ultimately useless.
It’s not like Iran has a real problem with America. To them, we’re just an overly aggressive nation with a taste of oil and war. Not the image I think America should have, but it’s not the worst. On the other hand, what Iran DOES know is that America and Israel are connected at the hips. And that Iran views Israel as an aggressive nation who can walk to Iran with tanks and guns. As seen in the actions of Israel during the decade, Israel hasn’t been the world’s most happy nation. Instead of America sending an envoy, rather, America should drag an envoy from Israel to Iran. Then talks can begin.

Much of America’s image has been tarnished by Israel. While America has treated Iraq in a very poor fashion, Israel treats the entire Middle East in the same fashion. Let’s look at it in terms of an Equation.

Israel = America

Hate = Israel

Hate = America

Q.E.D. What harms the relation of America and the Middle East is because of Israel.

Now, I’m not against the state of Israel. Heavens no, Israel has been a state long enough where you really can’t say it isn’t a state. What I am against is Israel’s lack of accountability. Because Israel and America are on such, “To the death,” terms, America will never try to control Israel. Israel is free to do whatever they wish because America will always support them. Hence, the reason why Iran is talking to America is because they know that if Israel invades Iran, so will America.
I’m not even talking about feasibility here. I’m just trying to improve American-Middle East relations, that of which must start from Israel. So what is it that I propose?

Israel is a very powerful military nation. No country in the right mind will bring the fight to Israel. So aside from the missiles, Israel is in fact fairly safe. Though on the missile part, if Israel stops acting like Israel, chances are that the missiles will stop. Israel needs to start talking to Middle East nation on trade, relations, and so on. Israel needs to stop attacking other nations.
And America?

We have two choices. Either abandon Israel and let them pick their own course. This makes it so that we are no longer accountable for Israel’s actions. And this puts the major powers of the Middle East on relatively equal grounds with Israel.

Or

We continue aid with Israel, but if Israel does something we don’t like, we default to the first choice. If Israel seriously believes that they need our backing, then they should listen to what we think. Much of what Israel does in the Middle East is counterproductive to our relations with the Middle East.

Our talk with Iran is nothing more than show. It is just us ignoring where the problems really lie. Make Israel accountable for their actions, and our relations with the Middle East will dramatically increase.

The New G8

2008-07-15T02:02:00.000-04:00

The strength of countries wax and wane. Once powerful nations lose their standing, and countries that were originally vassals to stronger powers begin to assert themselves. Economically, luck and the ingenuity of the citizenry make the changes in GDP standings obvious. Today the modern G8 does not necessarily represent the strongest economies in the world. To do that, a new G8 should be formed with the following countries:

Countries

1. United States - Obvious. This country has the world’s strongest economy.

2. Japan - This country has the world’s 2nd strongest economy by nominal GDP and has been this way for a while. It is also 3rd by purchasing power parity.

3. China - This country is not only already 4th by nominal GDP, it is 2nd by purchasing power parity and is likely to continue high (that is, double digit) economic growth well into the future.

4. Germany - This country is 3rd in nominal GDP and 5th in purchasing power parity, and has also historically been an economic power in Europe.

5. United Kingdom - A financial capital of the world, this country is also 5th in nominal GDP and 6th in purchasing power parity.

6. France - Despite recent stagnation, France is still 6th and 8th in nominal and purchasing power parity GDP measures, respectively. It, along with Germany and the UK have been the traditional European economic powerhouses.

7. Brazil - Though plagued by problems and only 10th in nominal GDP (and 9th in purchasing power parity), Brazil is the only South and Central American country in both of the top 10 rankings.

8. India - An abysmal 12th in nominal GDP is offset by a ranking of 4th in purchasing power parity and a strong growth rate of 9% that is likely to be maintained.

In essence, this version of the G8 would include India, China and Brazil as official members and would exclude Italy, Russia and Canada, countries that while still strong economically are unlikely to grow quite as quickly as the former 3. Of course, all of these countries are already included in G8 talks, but changes in the group would still be welcome.

Much ado about Iran

2008-07-13T23:17:00.000-04:00

Iran has not been known as a country that has been satisfied with the status quo in the 20th and 21st centuries. In the last 100 year period, the country has going through phases where it has overthrown its shah, established a radical Islamic republic, and taken on one of the world’s superpowers in a hostage crisis. In this century, Iran began to exploit its oil wealth, despite an embargo by the United States and others, and started a nuclear program. It has uranium enrichment facilities, and despite a report by the CIA that indicates the Iranians stopped trying to produce nuclear weapons in 2003 released earlier this year, the prospect for future developments in the nuclear department are enough to send oil prices soaring and regional tensions flaring. Iran’s recent test firings of 9 missiles in response to Israeli and American war games shows that the Iranians aren’t yet ready to settle into a peaceful state.

The goals of both sides are obvious and similar: intimidation. Israel hopes to make it clear that it could strike at an Iranian nuclear reactor with ease. America seeks to demonstrate that no country can cut off its oil supply. Iran wants to show that neither Israel nor America will be able to do what it wants in the region without a fight. This obviously raises the potential for war, but not seriously.

Yes, it seems like war is possible now, but there are several limiting factors. America is unlikely to engage in any more full scale wars for a long while after the Iraqi one ends. Israel’s military is not designed to be able to take on long term operations. Iran, meanwhile, is not strong enough to take on either of two of the world’s most advanced militaries. All sides realize that they are incapable of serious sustained military action.

So the most likely result of these shows of strength would be a setback in negotiations. Diplomacy might be sidetracked a bit, and oil prices might rise, but otherwise no serious long term harm is likely to result from this episode. It is, after all, one that has been repeated many times over.

Obama and FISA

2008-07-13T01:42:00.000-04:00

Voters are a contradictory bunch. They want their leaders to be principled, but at the same time they also want them to be able to solve the majority of the problems plaguing the world. However, as people know, these two wants are almost always fundamentally irreconcilable. After all, many solutions require compromise in order to get anything done, but a principled politician will rarely compromise on issues, which would otherwise make him appear to be unprincipled. And yet when forced with the most difficult decision of his Senate career, Barack Obama made the pragmatically sound decision, but the politically wrong one.

When it came time to vote on a bill to renew the passage of FISA, an important government document regulating wiretaps by the federal government, Obama voted for the bill. This was really a lose-lose situation for him. There was no way that he could have gotten out of the measure without losing standing in the political community. The bill itself did offer new regulations on the wiretapping of American citizens, but it also greatly expanded the powers of the federal government in its monitoring capabilities. Most controversially, it gave retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had complied with illegal wiretaps for the government. Obviously such a measure was unacceptable to Obama, and he did vote for an amendment that would have stripped out immunity. However, the bill passed anyway, and Obama was one of the 62 votes in favor.

Looking at it from a political perspective, Obama should have voted against the bill. The difference between his voting for it and not voting for it in terms of the number of votes the bill had was negligible: had he voted “No”, the bill still would have been veto proof. But Obama feared being viewed as weak on national security. The problem is that no matter what he does, he will always be viewed as the weaker candidate on that issue: it is nearly impossible to beat a Republican war hero on national defense credentials.

Instead, Obama angered his base for no reason. His attempts to become a centrist are undermining the very support that won him the nomination in the first place. His only distinguishing factor between him and older politicians is the way that he has garnered support. The policies he are advocating as part of his move towards the center will lose him that difference, and lose him the election. Hopefully Obama will realize that before it’s too late.

What about the League of Democracies?

2008-07-11T11:08:00.002-04:00

The UN was an organization founded over 60 years ago by the biggest victors of the last major World War. While throughout the Cold War it was able to serve as a relatively functional method of assuring world peace (mainly through the group’s split along Communist and Western lines), the end of the Soviet Union has exposed weaknesses in the current system. Though China and the United States remain globally relevant (and the inclusion of the People’s Republic of China only came about during the 1970’s), Russia, Great Britain, and France no longer hold the power they used to. It is likely time to either expand the services of the UN or go an entirely different route by supporting the League of Democracies championed by John McCain. Would either idea be worth it?

Expanding the UN’s Permanent Security council seems like the more obvious idea. After all, the UN is still a very much functional organization, but it lacks some important voices. Most notably, no major country from South or Central America (Brazil, Argentina, or Mexico), Africa, and several other countries such as Germany, Japan and India are excluded. Some of these current exclusions are bizarre given global realities. Germany is one of the world’s strongest economies and a critical member of Europe. Japan is 2nd in the world in terms of GDP. South and Central America having no representatives excludes somewhere on the scale of 400 million people in the world. Africa, despite being one of the continents in which the UN must complete many of its most pressing functions, has no voice. Expansion would be the obvious solution were it not for regional complaints about potential members (notably Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and an African country) and the reservations of the current permanent members. One possible compromise would be to make permanent members without veto powers, an idea that would likely garner hostility by potential permanent Security Council members. The most likely and viable solution would be to make new permanent members have half of a veto, thereby ensuring that if two countries united their interests, then a veto would be assured. This would also allow countries to be later upgraded to a full veto pending evaluation.

The League of Democracies seems like the sounder idea. After all, democratic countries would tend to be more likely to see eye to eye on issues and be more willing to tackle problems of global human rights and relief efforts. Yet simply being democracies doesn’t make countries more likely to work together: many democracies opposed the Iraq War. Further, what constitutes a democracy would be hard to define: technically, almost every country in the world runs in a democratic format.

Ultimately, the best solution would be to simply reform the UN. A new League of Democracies would be difficult, if not impossible, to formulate, and would only be seen as a group of like minded individuals setting up another talking-shop. After all, if an organization wants to address problems (for example, democratic regimes wanting to end the Sudanese genocide), not including groups critical to the solution (like the government of Sudan) would lead to almost certain failure.

Drinking and the what the hell?

2008-07-08T22:41:00.004-04:00

During the break, I've turned 18. Eighteen. I prepare for college. I'm allowed to vote (though I choose not to). I'm allowed to smoke (something like that, it might be 19). I'm allowed to join the military. But wait, I can't drink?

For the lack of better terms, what the fuck is with this shit? (I'm not angry)

America has had a strange relationship with Alcohol. For one, we had the prohibition. And for another, I'm still allowed to bar tend. But what I realize the most is that America has yet to step out of the prohibition state. As we know, America has the drinking age at 21. Yet at the same time, teenagers are still allowed to drink willy nilly. For example, Randolph High School's great senior Vermont trip was busted for alcohol. However, this bust wasn't exactly what you would consider a,"bust." If under age drinking was truly illegal, every police jail cell from Vermont to Randolph should have been filled. Instead, it was merely a price tag and a class.

Note: No one pays attention during health class.

While the price tag was truely heafty, this is merely a slap on the wrist. I guarantee you that more than those busted at Vermont has consumed alcohol at one point of his/her life. This loosely enforced laws does nothing but......increases underage alcohol consumption?

When someone tells you to do something over and over and over again, there comes a point where you do something to spite something else. On the note of Alcohol, we've been told not to drink alcohol for such a long time that at one point or another, we wonder, what exactly is wrong with it?

Do not confuse this with crack, cocaine, or heroin. Consumption = Death.

But Alcohol? The problem with Alcohol, is that parents consume it and tells their kids not to. This makes little sense considering consumption still occurs. Rather than telling kids not to drink alcohol, the most important thing is to do is to preach responsible drinking habits. For example, when drinking, drink in moderation. When drinking, always have a designated driver. These are easily enforced, considering most parents do the same. These make sense.

Ironically enough, those who consume alcohol with their parents have a much lower rate of binge drinking than those who don't. Let the evidence speak for itself.

Ressurection

2008-07-08T22:38:00.003-04:00

After a long hiatus, Pamphlets has been resurrected.

News on the Staff:
Eli has been Eli. He will probably not update anything.
Jihan has been annoying as of late. On that note, LA sucks. Don't look for his posts either.

Starring:
Roger Yang
Alex Zhao

And whoever guest writer we have in the future.

These Peripheral Devices Are So Stupid

2007-10-02T22:45:00.001-04:00

The reason people play video games is to simulate real life. Now, this means that they want some degree of attachment away from reality. Obviously if you had to actually, you know, learn how to operate a controller that simulated a real gun perfectly just to play Doom, we wouldn't have one of the best selling games ever. That's why for console games, whose goal is to entertain you while you're lying on a couch in front of a TV, ease of use of controllers is important.
Well, apparently some new developers aren't getting that message. While bad game input devices have littered history (Power Glove, anyone?), some newer developers (and some older ones who've been in this business for a long time) still haven't learned their lesson yet: too many of the peripheral devices released have too limited purposes.
An example of a relatively useful peripheral would be the DDR pad. Yes, it only works for one type of game, but it works for the entire genre. A bad example that's coming out soon, however, are the different instruments for Rock Band. Guitar Hero's use of a guitar peripheral makes sense because the guitar could simulate a bass as well, but having drums, guitars, and microphones all bundled with one game is going to be extremely expensive, not to mention as burdensome as the Steel Battalion add-on.
Worse still are Nintendo with their Wii add-ons. Do we really need a case so that the wiimote looks like a gun? Link's sword? These aren't items that help game play in any way, and all they do is make your product look like a cheap gimmick.
So lay off all of these peripheral devices. They're only hurting your product, and they're damaging the essence of video games.

Drug Laws Increase Possession Among Minors

2007-01-25T22:49:00.000-05:00

The goal of government is to do as the people wish it to. However, like everyone else, the government creates consequences whenever it decides to enact laws. Some of these consequences are very much intentional: laws against murder, for example, are intended to stop people from killing others. Other consequences, however, are completely unintended, and can cause havoc with people’s lives as well as various societal and economic institutions. One law in India that paid a bounty for rat pelts, intended to reduce the number of rats, has ended up encouraging rat farming. These problems are categorized under the law of unintended consequences: despite the best efforts of any organization or government, certain consequences of their actions will be unintended and will end up having adverse affects on people. This is especially true in the case of laws preventing individuals from engaging in voluntary behavior that may harm them.

The most obvious case of laws intended to protect people going wrong is that of anti-drug legislation. While intended to prevent people from using drugs, which have adverse health effects, the current “War on Drugs” and anti-drug legislation has ended up creating a bigger drug problem, with stronger cartels, more sales to minors, and a host of unintended consequences. While intended to decrease the amount of illegal drugs sold and to stop its trade, the War on Drugs has failed. By making the drugs illegal, it has limited the sale of such substances to only those involved in already illegal activities, giving gangs a new source of funding.

One unintended consequence of anti-drug legislation has been the increased sale of drugs to minors. Because drug sales are illegal to both adults and minors alike, dealers have no incentive to avoid selling to children. In fact, they have a greater incentive to sell it to minors, because minors are less likely to rat them out, since minors have very few avenues of recourse against the dealers. Because youths are unable to legally purchase weapons, or pursue other judicial means, it becomes much harder for them to retaliate against drug dealers. As such, it becomes safer for drug dealers to sell to minors rather than adults, because it is safer for them personally. If anti-drug legislation were replaced merely with laws allowing only the sale of drugs to adults, dealers have an incentive to not sell to young people. However, because anti-drug legislation considers all sales equally, dealers sell more drugs to minors.

With the increase in drug trade, people are made worse off by the law. Increased drug sales means increased revenue for criminal organizations and gangs. Like in the era of Prohibition, criminal cartels make vast amounts of money selling drugs and circumventing the law. More funding for criminals means more crimes, more murders, deaths, and violence. The problem is especially bad in areas such as the cities, and has even crept into places normally considered far removed from drug problems. Even suburban areas and rural towns now face a drug problem.

There are, of course, better alternatives. Legalizing the sale of drugs will cut off drug dealing as a source of revenue for criminals. Drug users can get treatment, since using drugs will no longer be a crime that they are punished for. People who sell drugs will not sell to minors, because it would be disadvantageous and unprofitable. Legislation that doesn’t restrict drugs entirely, but rather sets a minimum age, would increase individual freedom to use drugs. It would also reduce the current drug problem in the United States, by mitigating the effects of shady criminal dealers with unsafe drugs and ties to members of gangs. The end result is greater freedom for the individual, and a better life for all.

Anger Over Accepting Pesos is Ridiculous

2007-01-14T16:11:00.000-05:00

The debate over immigration has shown up in the business world, this time in the form of death threats and angry letters to the owner of a pizza chain in the South and Southwest. The Pizza Patron chain of stores began accepting Mexican pesos as official payment along with United States dollars. All of the change is given in dollars. This is a very common practice in towns that are close to the national borders of the US, like certain stores near the Canadian border who normally accept both American and Canadian dollars.

The difference here is that many of the pizza joints are far from the border, in places like Dallas, more than 400 miles away, and Denver, more than 700 miles. There’s therefore controversy over whether this kind of action would be catering to illegal immigrants from Mexico. This claim, however, is absurd. The stores already have 60% of its customer base as Hispanic, so the likelihood of some of their customers having pesos is very high. This doesn’t mean, however, that any of the customers are necessarily illegal immigrants. It makes perfect sense in Dallas, in Phoenix, in Denver areas far from the border that have significant Hispanic populations.

The money they’re trying to pull in isn’t in huge quantities, so it would have been inconvenient to convert it back to dollars on the way back. Chances are the pesos would have gone around simply sitting in somebody’s sock drawer and have been unused. If the company wants to make more money this way, then let them do it. Don’t drag them into a debate over illegal immigration just because they’re accepting some foreign currency.

Freedom of Speech? Hardly.

2006-11-24T14:19:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-29T20:43:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-04T18:03:00.000-04:00

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

2006-09-18T18:47:00.000-04:00

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!

2006-09-14T17:57:00.000-04:00

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

2006-09-11T18:02:00.000-04:00

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

2006-09-07T18:45:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-21T19:21:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-15T19:14:00.000-04:00

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

2006-07-15T16:41:00.000-04:00

Feedback loop

2006-07-15T13:59:00.000-04:00

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

2006-07-09T13:11:00.000-04:00

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

2006-07-05T18:58:00.000-04:00

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

2006-06-27T17:16:00.000-04:00

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

2006-06-26T13:08:00.000-04:00

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?

2006-06-01T17:48:00.000-04:00

Games and the slippery slope

2006-05-24T14:44:00.000-04:00

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

2006-05-22T14:41:00.000-04:00

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

2006-05-10T21:13:00.000-04:00

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!

2006-05-06T01:27:00.000-04:00

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

Skip the first 50 minutes.

Conservative Media Defeat Educational Experience

2006-04-20T22:24:00.000-04:00

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

2006-04-20T21:44:00.000-04:00

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

2006-03-30T17:57:00.000-05:00

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

2006-02-14T16:23:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-25T22:33:00.000-05:00

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.

2006-01-23T19:44:00.000-05:00

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.

2006-01-19T14:42:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-17T19:19:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-13T20:28:00.000-05:00

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

2006-01-01T00:24:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year

Who Needs A Military When There's McDonalds?

2005-12-31T14:32:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-26T20:27:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-11T16:41:00.000-05:00

$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.

2005-11-08T19:44:00.000-05:00

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.

I liked my paper.

2005-10-10T22:52:00.000-04:00

This is my post for the month. Some of you may know the teacher Ms. Wills, and she is having us do a homework essay. Reading it, I realized that it belongs on this site. I even have footnotes!

"Elijah Bohorquez

Period 2 English II-A

10-11-05

Being an American

Americans get the heat[1], Americans get victimized by chaff[2], Americans are the sufferers of bigotry, racism, hate crimes, murders, the sickest pedophiles on the market, and the most up-to-date drugs[3].One must wonder what the Europeans think of them… though that is neither here nor there. Americans are the cause of their own suffering, and are the most easily defined of all the countries, at least if we were to compare them to people. There is definitely no writer who put it better than Douglas Adams… “Britain, or the U.K., is a dignified thirty year-old librarian woman. She is intelligent, knows what is going, but not much really happens in her personal life. Australia is Jack Nicholson, laughing very loudly and very aggressively into your face. America is closest to a desensitized eight year-old boy”… who is, actually, the bastard (illegitimate) child of the librarian[4]. Fancy, that.

Americans follow the standard rules of life. If you win, you write the history books. You will never see the Aztecs write about how they felt being oppressed by the Spanish, because they lost. You won’t see the Germans saying that they were “invited” into Poland, because they lost (also, because it has been proven false)[5]. There is nothing wrong with this, mind you, and I support it fully. Americans simply have the wrong idea of it. Being a Cosmopolitan[6] I like to imagine I may be offered clemency in that manner, though I digress...

The love for this country is so strong, that the hypocrisy is almost weighted out! Wait, surely Americans are the purest of all? We were here first! Sure, we did what the Nazis couldn’t do[7]… and the Native Americans can’t write their story about it either. Well, how come? Because they lost[8].

One isn’t at all saying that he isn’t thankful for this country. He loves it, dearly, but it isn’t America that bothers him. It’s the people. What have they done? Polluted, corrupted, and passed blame! Americans can’t go a week without killing each other, and are probably the only civilization ever who has this one, single trend… they don’t listen. They don’t cooperate. They don’t get along. If Gaea[9] was a teacher, she would give America a ‘0’ for the day, and send a note home saying “Does Not Play Well with Other Children, or Self”[10]. America would grow up to be that kid who dresses in dark colors and hurts itself for attention. America would masturbate to pregnant women. America would grow up to be a drug-user, and then blame music after it goes postal, and shoots up the school.

Let us do the math. What is it like for me to be an American? Disgraceful, but it isn’t all bad. I love the country, as I said, and I hate the over-sentimental conservatists. America has enough of it’s own personal problems, and I don’t feel that the leaders (dictators) of the country are doing the proper things to alleviate them. I feel insecure when around more than five people, and I have a seven digit Sonic high score. I am a Cosmopolitan, and I refuse to be American. The standards are too low.

[1] This isn’t referring to any heat waves currently, this is more like how everyone is all “Yarr, Americans are self-obsessed jerks!” and apparently everyone is a pirate too.
 

[2] Not like how it is in “In the Hands of a Hateful God” or that stuff. Literally “banter”
 

[3] Who needs terrorists, when we can do this to ourselves?
 

[4] She consequently swore never to do acid again.
 

[5]  Poland was serving punch!
 

[6] That is a citizen of the world, and you can take that to the bank! Swiss Bank! Yes, I am one… not a Swiss Bank
 

[7] We destroyed a civilization that could have stayed here, even if they were here first. The Hebrew would never see it coming! 
 

[8] Some people say that the Native Americans voice their opinions, but honestly they’re all just holed up in casinos, making me cigars and passing the peace-pipe.
 

[9] That’s Mother Earth, to you unappealing folk.
 

[10] Remember, America’s mother is Britain, and the British give wicked spanks."

Discrimination!

2005-10-04T15:18:00.000-04:00

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

2005-10-04T07:30:00.000-04:00

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.

2005-09-28T21:05:00.000-04:00

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?

2005-09-25T19:41:00.000-04:00

Click the title if you have yet to figure that out.
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.

2005-09-23T14:57:00.000-04:00

"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

2005-09-18T21:36:00.000-04:00

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.

2005-09-16T06:03:00.000-04:00

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]

Leave your Faith with the Faith you Love

2005-09-14T18:49:00.000-04:00

Venus was a jealous goddess. That's nothing new. Love is jealous too, isn't it? Aren't we all peaved when our loved when talks to an ex? When our sweet heart hugs another? Suspicion grows, and this is what the story is all about.

Venus, the jealous goddess, grew loathe for a girl. The girl was beautiful, and the people in her tribe, city, or what-have-your fawned all over her! So many claimed that she was more beautiful than Venus herself, that a fury grew. She demanded that her son, Cupid, sneak into her room, and prick her with one of his arrows of love, then setting it so the next man she sees is a cripple, a lame, or an ass.

He does this, and she is pricked, but woken up. She sees him, in the dark, and he is started. He slashes himself on his arrow, immedietally falling in love with Psyche (as was her name) and Psyche with he.

Later, he flew her to his own palace, but she grew lonely. Wandering around for him, until he appeared (invisible) at night. She loved those nights, but was so lonely, and she begged for him to bring her sisters. They came, and growing jealous of her lofty palace, they spread rumors to her ears.

"He doesn't reveal himself because he's an ugly fool."
"He only visits at night because he loves others!"
"He uses you for warming-between his sheets."

She was hurt, abashed, and astonished. That night, she went on her suspicions, and snuck to Cupid in his rest. Cupid, who had shown only love for her. Cupid, who was wholly true. She saw him out of the dark, realizing who he was, and he was enraged!

Her beliefs made her lover shun her. She had only need to trust her love, and shrug off her disbelief.

Why do I tell the story? I tell the story to alert the world, do not grow jealous by family or friend, but do not put hos before your bros. Walk the middle line.

Protests, Riots, Massacres, and rocks.

2005-09-14T17:37:00.000-04:00

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)

2005-08-25T17:47:00.000-04:00

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

2005-08-22T22:56:00.000-04:00

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

2005-08-19T17:15:00.000-04:00

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

2005-08-10T18:47:00.000-04:00

"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.

Hugs not Drugs

2005-08-09T12:14:00.000-04:00

To Roger's friend, Serene. I am terribly sorry for my rash behavior in my earlier post. Unexcusable, it is true, but the women who are brutally brunt are the good ones. They don't lie. I don't mean to pick a fight with the fairer sex, but the men who "skirt" around truths (I am sure you know I am one of these) don't simply beat around the bush. It's an age old moral. A lie is when you tell something that isn't true. If I were to say "I have two apples" when I had no apples, I would be lying. If I have two apples, and you don't know it, is it a lie? You never asked, and I never told. It's a rather facetious example, excuse me.

Formalities aside, we've all heard the phrase "Hugs not Drugs" right? It's cute, it makes us smile just a little. It's one of those simple rhymes throughout our lives that make everything a little bit nicer, but who knew it was so true?

I used to be an upstanding drug-liberationist. I had never done drugs (abuse of legal, or use of illegal) and never wanted to. I just understood there were people who simply had easier lives through the meager use of drugs and alcohol. I drink, I will admit... but not anymore.

They are both toxins.

It's how they work, and the reason we are so thoroughly drawn to them is because of their (pardon the pun) intoxicatingly chaotic appeal. The use of them makes the world so much more "interesting" and "incredible", but our senses are always DULLED. Isn't it ironic, you think?

Consider again, the heinous acts those who are on drugs perform. Rapes, murders, beatings, muggings, assaults, terrorism, robbing, arsony, larceny, bigotry, suicides, and kidnappings come to mind. You would say "But normal people do that too!" Which is true... but in a much more moderate example. Is it not true that most people who perform these iniquitous things have imbibed alcohol? Are they not under the influence (directly or indirectly) of drugs? Have they not had their senses dulled and their blood pressure enhanced? Why make the human condition worse with narcotics, opiates, and just plain illicit medications?

I just don't know why.

The furious anger that wells inside me at the abominable deeds pushes almost to violent rage... but I... we can be better than these dopers, these harlots, these philistines! I abolish the use of drugs, medicinal or not, I abhor the use of alcohol, and I hate these malignant men and women who plague and infect us.

I had taken a very low standard of valium yesterday, and there is no excuse for it. I didn't need it, I hardly wanted it, but I took it, and with every beat of my heart I regret it. I forgive all for their sins, but I shall repent mine. I am not a saint, but in the name of Elijah I shall work the ways of gods.

I will not be one of you odious men,
and I will not hide behind my pen.
This is now and that there was then.
Escape the grasp of your opium den.
I said it once, now I say it again.
Amen.

Karl Rove

2005-08-03T18:09:00.000-04:00

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

2005-08-03T17:12:00.000-04:00

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.

Just to cover.

2005-07-27T20:03:00.000-04:00

Just incase you didn't know, my tardiness in this facade of intelligence is by no fault but my own. Forgive me, for I have been on hiatus!

Now then, where was I last time? Nevermind. Bone it. Lets shiv the problems in society right now. RIGHT now.

Women are not to be trusted, and neither are men. That is equality. We all know this... but it's a lie. Women's Untrustworthiness > Men's Untrustworthiness.

Women lie, cheat, and hypocritisize things of all calibres. I'm through with women. Women I know lie about what they've done, to appease the people around them. Excellent dramatists, masters of malice and filth! DESTROY THE FEMINAZIS!

If they want equality so bad, why don't they pick up their end of the bargain? I'll revoke their rights to vote before I listen to another bitch-fest. A little bug in your hair will make your day shit.

Get over it.

rawk out - women suck - I'm gay now

London Bombing

2005-07-15T09:04:00.000-04:00

Terrorists have bombed London.
This is indeed unfortunate.

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

2005-07-01T11:52:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-27T17:21:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-27T10:04:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-16T18:02:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-06T17:32:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-06T14:40:00.000-04:00

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.

FIGHT THE POWER

2005-05-19T20:34:00.000-04:00

I love movies. I love cult movies. Evil Dead rocks my socks, Road Trip made me laugh, I never saw Napolean Dynamite, Star Wars amazes, Star Trek impresses, and the Matrix made me cry (after the first one, at least).

So, why not write my own? I figure, everything in the world can be considered a cult. I mean, after all, what is the definition of a cult? We're all, intrinsically, connected to each other through a massive cult!

Where's the electric kool-aid?

Really, think about it! Christianity is all about how when you die, you go to a place in the sky that is happy. Sound familiar? There was this one cult in around 2000 that did just the same thing. They killed themselves all at the same time, dressed exactly the same way, and wearing the same Nike shoes.

Nike was going to put an ad of a videotape of all their bodies, focused on the shoes, and then saying "Nike, Just Do It."

Why haven't we stopped this cult? This menagerie?

Fight back against the cult that is the Human Race! Keep us all from killing ourselves together!

America Is Dead: Real ID Passed

2005-05-11T11:24:00.000-04:00

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

2005-05-04T11:37:00.000-04:00

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!

2005-04-30T21:43:00.000-04:00

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.

Whiny Poetry

2005-04-20T15:12:00.000-04:00

I'm usually attacking nations, states, religions, or people. Time to go for people again.

I am, myself, a writer (or else I wouldn't be on this site) so I know how difficult it is to do so adequately. I understand the hussle and bussle of the competition, and I have a rather (If I may say so myself) radical understanding of things. I understand the new Pope is in the Nazi Youth, I understand the Swastika (if reversed) is an Asian symbol for luck, and power. What I don't understand is why these people, high school or not, are writing shitty poetry?

If you are in middle school, I feel it is okay. You're young, you're dumb, so that is your excuse. But welcome to High School, you're going into the real world soon. Suck it up, and stop cutting yourself for your boyfriend. It's icky.

As I lay inside my room,
I ponder slowly about my doom,
the shadow of fate slowly looms,
around my head,
and now I'm dead.

Bull-CRAP! I'm all for rhyming, I can't stand poems that don't rhyme (and sometimes I even rhyme in my essays) so at least this one did that. People's free-from poetry is rubbish.

A lightbulb is something shiny
and tasty and new
So where are the re-fried beans?

I dunno, I couldn't even bother with that one. It didn't rhyme.

Idiocy of the Human Shield

2005-04-18T18:25:00.000-04:00

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

2005-04-14T15:30:00.000-04:00

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.

Homogenous Cultures like Japan

2005-04-13T09:25:00.000-04:00

They always stare at you. Aaaalways. Unless you fit in. Frankly, I don't look a lick like an Asian, so I felt a bit like a billboard. It's always good to know that bigotry isn't exclusively white, at least.

In Tokyo, due to the lack of cars, people walk in the streets.

Racism, it has always been a touchie subject, and it has always existed. No matter where you are, people (even if they are of your own race) are going to make biased decisions against you. It's indefinite, and based on reality. It is almost unavoidable, and nobody knows why. It is either negative or positive, and either way not everybody enjoys it. Chinese people are good at math, Black people run fast, Spaniards can wield a knife, and Whites are superior. It's all crazy.

But nonetheless, some racism is okay. If it's funny.

"Eli: Are you Chinese, or Taiwanese? Come to think of it.
Roger: Taiwan.
Eli: Is it said Taiwanese?
Roger: Yeah.
Eli: Do they put "made in taiwan" tags on the babies there?
Roger: Yes. "

*senseless giggling*

Tainted Religion: The Justification for Evil

2005-03-22T11:11:00.000-05:00

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.

Expensive Fashion

2005-03-16T19:25:00.000-05:00

Ever notice all these expensive clothes? I mean, real low quality ones too. Can't get a decent run out of any of these. Honestly, I used to have a pair of these 78$ jeans and they hardly lasted three months!

I'm a semi-active guy. I'm in okay shape for my age, and I can almost do a back flip. I run on walls, and I can juggle... I need a pair of jeans that will last. Frankly, my brother's jeans that are almost as old as I cost 20$, and have only one, itty bitty tear in the knee. I gave them that when I slid 10 feet down a hall.

The worst things around are pre-ripped jeans... they're even worse than pre-faded!

I don't get it. I mean, it's a bunch of pants ripped exactly the same way, in exactly the same places, to exactly the same degree. I can see somebody on the street and think "Hey, I have those too!"

Americas are the (second) biggest cowards on the battlefield

2005-03-07T14:52:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-25T18:21:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-15T14:43:00.000-05:00

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

2005-02-09T16:43:00.000-05:00

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?