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.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Idealism and what's wrong
In today's society, especially in the government, people follow idealism rather than what is right. I am probably guilty of this, but nevertheless, it's not a good thing. What I mean is, that if what you're trying to follow doesn't work, stop following it. For instance, if you believe that cutting taxes while fighting a war will not affect the US economy, which it clearly is, change your policy and raise taxes. Learn from your mistakes.
Too many people will not admit they're wrong when it comes to certain issues. And way too many people will not change what they're doing if something is wrong. Going back to another one of Mr. President's issues, cutting taxes for the filthy rich does not give them an incentive to create companies to produce jobs. Mr. President is very bent on this, and he will always follow this down to his grave. But what you have to realize is that, he dismisses any criticizm that goes his way. So of course he's not going to listen to you. Figures, Mr. President doesn't even watch the news.
Which leads me to my next point. Our current president doesn't seem to be out there for the people of the United States. More or less, Mr. Bush is only following his own set of ideals. If he quit firing those critisizing him, maybe he'd see the flaws in his policy, and maybe he would change. Of course, if you did that, many people would probably start poking at your political agenda, but isn't helping your country worth more than your second term? Is sticking with your policy which continues to draw America down for your second term worth it? If you really care for your country, you'd learn from your mistakes, you'd learn what's going on in the world, and you adjust. You're actually out there for the people, not your own warped ideas. The people may not like the fact that you flip flop a lot, but if it's for the good of the country....and it produces results, so much the better.
This is why I hold George Bush Seinor in higher respect than I do George Bush Junior. George Bush Seinor actually taxed the Americans, and fought a war correctly. He did what was right for America. Much of President Clinton's success comes from Bush Seinor. George Bush Seinor was not elected for a second term. BUT, he did good for the United States. Knowing that the general public wouldn't like the high taxes, he followed his advisors, and realized that fighting a war with less taxes would be bad. Something our current Bush does not realize. Now George Bush Seinor...HE, was out for the people. He wasn't there to win his second term, it would seem he could care less. What he did was for the better of the United States, and that's all that really matters about being the president.
Now, I'm not specifically picking out George Bush Junior, he just serves as a decent example. There are many people like this.
1 + 1 will NEVER EVEVER equal 3.
However, a lawyer can always explain how it does.
Keep an open mind.
Don't follow idealism when it fails.
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.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Geneva Convention
Yes, I still live. And so will this website.
We, Americans, have this little thing we must follow during the times of war. This is called the Geneva Convention, which is basically the rules of the battle field agreed upon by almost ALL nations, including our enemies. Outlined in the Geneva Convention, are many things such as, do not kill civilians, do not torture, etc.
So in a war, both sides are expected to follow this little piece of paper. Say, if we ever had a war with our allies, like Great Britain (even though that's never going to happen), both sides would follow the Geneva Convention. They kill our soldiers, we kill their soldiers. No nukes are thrown, and no carpet bombing entire cities unless they have war factories. Civilian losses are low. It would only be a duke out between two armies.
Well, I have one really big problem with this piece of paper. Not many countires follow it. Britain does, so war with them would be better than say..a war on Iraq. They don't follow the Geneva Convention. I'm not even sure if they know what the Geneva Convention is. So, we have a problem here. They can run airplanes into towers, use chemical warfare, and do whatever they want to antagonize the US civilians. Yet, we can't do anything less than say, "Get onto the ground!" to Iraqi civilians.
Now, the terrorists know this. So they put emplacements on hospitals, churchs, and stuff. We can't destory it, because of this piece of paper. But they like ramming air planes into our towers. We can't carpet bomb them, or do anything. Sometimes we are a little ignorant of their emplacements, and we bomb them anyways. So....We just get labled has horrible animals. Well, it was your fault you were putting a fire team on top of a god damn mosque. If you don't want to get it blown up, move. Mind you, if you don't want to get shot, stop shooting back.
Now, this basically means their not following the rules of warfare. Why should we? Why are we even playing? It's pretty much like playing against a person online with an AIMBOT. A really....bad...aimbot. Now I'm not saying Iraq is beating us, since we have certainly beaten the bulk of their army (or at least the stupid ones who stood and fought). But why should we stick with these rules while they don't?
Another thing. Human sheilds. They use women and children in order to protect the guys with the guns. When we hit them, they are like, "Oh no. That is so bad." Now lets sit down and thing. Wall. Guy behind wall with gun. You have gun. He is shooting you. What do you do? Any sensible guy, would just open up. Now, a human sheild is the same thing. If your going to be an ass and hide behind a human, you will get shot. Or atleast the CS players will. Damn hostages getting in the way.
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.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Boys falling behind in education
I was reading about this in Newsweek a few weeks ago, and quite frankley, I don't see what the big surprise is. Call me sexist, but this is largely due to the product of femminization. Yes. I said it. It's called the Femminization of America. Too bad Masulization of America doesn't sound quite right. The reason why males are dropping behind in education, is because Americans now look more towards a girl than a guy. Naturally, you will prefer one gender over another. For example, a teacher may call on 10 boys, but only seven girls. It's a small stretch, but Natural selection dictates that even a small advantage will cause a great stretch.
Now, I'm not saying that this is bad. Heavens no. I don't care. It was bound to happen some day. In this society, men are not allowed to beat their wives. Rape is considered male only, and there are more career women around (no offence ladies, just trying to draw a point). Women of today are also finding more control in society. They are allowed to vote, they can pursue their own careers without anyone dictatating them, etc. These all contribute to the Femminization of America.
So how does this tie into edumecation? Simple. Before the Femminization of America took place, the Males dominated the school system. More males graduated, more males went to college, and males made money. As an old sexist term may outline, "A women's place is in the kitchen." However. Now that America no longer has this male dominated society, the Women have more freedom to do as they wish.
However, the main contributing factor to the Femminization of America comes from Education. As you may realize...even today, the majority of the Elementry school teachers are Women. Many of those women were young during the Women Rights movement. Because of that, they naturally choose the female over the male. Hard to see, but as I said before, even a small advantage is meaningful.
What does this mean in the long run? Women start to gain the advantage over men. They do better in school. More women go to college. This my friend, is a product of the Femminization of America.
Now, it's not like I'm trashing out against that such as how Tyler Durden would do. I don't see the morals beating wives, or locking them in the households. I don't see why they shouldn't pursue their careers, nor do I see why they shouldn't go to college, or why they shouldn't vote. This would eventually happen when the women started asking for rights. Not saying they shouldn't have any, but this isn't anything to be surprised about.
The Femminization of America, is the reason why boys are falling behind in education. No more, no less.
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.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Omnicent vrs Omnipotent vrs Logic
Okay, so we have Omnicent, and Omnipotent.
Omnicent: All knowing
Omnipotent: All powerful.
Logic: You should know what this is.
Given:
God = Omnipotent
God = Omnicent
If god is Omnicent, god knows his future def: Omnicent
If god is omnipotent, he can change his future def: Omnipotent
However, god already knows that he will function: Omnicent
change his future.
But at the same time, god can make it so he function: Omnipotent
can not know his future.
Something is wrong here.
Lets throw in free will.
Free Will: Ability to make choices.
Given:
God has free will:
God already knows his future Def: Omnicent
God has free will Given
God's future is already set out for him. Def: Omnicent
Something is also wrong here. Do you have free will if I tell you that you must do this and that? In god's mind, he knows that he will do this and that, and any changes in his thinking he already knows (Adams Gods Debris).
Okay, we'll throw in people.
Given:
People have free will.
God gives you the choice of hell or heaven.
God already knows the future Def: Omnicent
People have free will Given
God gives you the choice that you Given.
can go to hell or heaven.
God knows what your choice will be Def: Omnicent
This also makes no sense, because god isn't giving you a choice. He knows where you're going to go beforehand.
And so. I leave you off with this thought.
And another one.
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."
Monday, January 23, 2006
Stop trying to justify yourself unless you're actually in it.
Recently, many politicians justify the War in
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
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
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
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.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Republicans cheer and I lose a few more brain cells.
Anti-porn laws.
First thing: It's depressing that people actually fight for this.
Anyways.
1. Several of the highly conservative people are considering the restriction of the internet. Namely, porn. This is under the, "Child Protection Act," which will be hitting the courts soon. And all I have to say is, I think American politicians are being especially retarded when they came up with the idea of this.
As a disgruntled disheveled person would say,
"Don't you have anything better to do?"
Making laws against porn is a new low for America.
2.
Parents, your kid is FINE if he sees a set of breasts. Okay? He's not going to socially impaired, he's not going to be mentally scarred, there JUST BREASTS. I mean, there are things out there that you should be wary of. Such as internet stalkers, hackers, that guy who comes and goes dumpster diving through your trash. THERE IS STUFF THAT CAN HARM YOUR CHILD. Porn is among the ones that wont.
Furthermore, if you're going to complain about this, you only have yourselves to blame. If you're so worried about your child seeing porn, don't give them internet access. Or better yet, hang over their shoulders while they're on the net (Would probably solve net-stalker issues). You get my point?
3.
The government budget is better spent on other things than this. If you're so bent on solving the internet problem, give it a security overhaul. The internet is crawling with these viruses and stuff because the creators of it never thought the internet would go public. More or less, it was just a research tool that everybody would use (similar to JSTOR). You can fix that with the government budget. But passing bills like this is just a waste.
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.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Intelligent Design is NOT SCIENCE
For those of you readers (If any of you still remain), who believe in Intelligent Design as science, get that out of your head. Because it's not. Even if Intelligent Design is the reason of our existence, it is still not science.
Science:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomenon.
Intelligent Design:
A theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance
Now look at the definition of Science closely, and the definition of Intelligent Design. There is no observation, identification, description, or experimental investigation. The closest thing Intelligent Design comes to is theoretical explanation, but that alone cannot hold intelligent design up as science.
As I will state again
Even if Intelligent Design was the reason of our existence, it is still not science. Therefore, it should not be taught in science.
What many of you must realize is that people use Intelligent Design as a panacea of all scientific flaws. For example, one of the leading arguments of Intelligent Design is the bumblebee. The basic premise surrounding the entire controversy is that a bumblebee does not agree with the laws of aerodynamics. It shouldn't fly.
However, recently (as in this month), scientists have discovered how a bumblebee flies. The bee basically functions as a racecar. It burns a lot of energy to achieve flight.
So as you can see, many people use Intelligent Design to patch up holes. However, what you must realize is that there are things that Science has yet to discover. If we do not have the information now, you cannot say, "Hey look, this is Intelligent Design!"
Furthermore, Intelligent Design cannot be considered a theory. A theory must correlate with several boundaries.
The theory must be:
· Guided by natural law,
·Explanatory by natural law,
·Testable against the empirical world,
·Tentative, and
·Falsifiable
Now, right then and there, Intelligent Design cannot work with any of those definitions given. It is not guided by natural laws, nor is it explained by natural laws. The entire point of Intelligent Design is that some thing or some one came down and created nature. That is purely artificial. Intelligent Design is not even testable, for the reason that we have nothing to test with. Darwinism at least has observation and can place animals in a scenario where we can observe how they change. But Intelligent Design has neither.
Furthermore, it cannot be falsifiable. Even with the lack of any evidence, we still cannot get around the entire problem of.....something that leaves no traces behind. For example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease. accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course"
What is sad about this example is that it fits every description of Intelligent Design. So by teaching Intelligent Design, you can also teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only difference of either, "theory," is that one has a somewhat accepted name, and the other one is outrageous.
Furthermore, there is no legitimacy behind ID. Like I stated before, it is just a panacea of all scientific holes that have yet to be discovered. They state that there is evidence, but the flying spaghetti monster also has evidence behind its existence.
" I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."
Friday, January 13, 2006
Stop Complaining about Engineers
Year after year, companies complain about the lack of Engineers.
Well, stop complaining.
Truth be told, many view the engineering department to be a waste of time. In America, no one wants to be an Engineer. They're not paid enough for what they do. Your Engineer, has to be making at LEAST 70k a year on a 9-5 basis (Not even Masters here). Why? Because there's a lot of work gone into an Engineer. If you're going to study 10+ hours a day and get a 40k job, it's not worth it. Many ask, "Why is that Business Major making more money than me? Why does that person with a Teaching Degree have a job already?"
Business, you're partly to blame for this. You over-pay your management section, and you outsource your RnD section.
Another problem with being an Engineer is the entire American mind-set. Some may realize that foreign countries, especially those from the East graduate more Engineers. Reason being, the people in the East like engineers. Here, the engineers get the crap kicked out of them. For example, in Japan, the person who does well in school is respected. The people here who are bright are the one's who write pathetic posts on friday nights. Main point being: America, you are to blame for your lack of Engineers.
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.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Who Needs A Military When There's McDonalds?
It is a well established fact that as of this writing, no two countries that have a McDonald's in them have gone to war since that McDonald's opened. This theory has stood true in the Middle East, South America, and other conflict heavy regions such as the former Soviet Union. Historical enemies, such as France and Germany, or China and Japan, have yet to go to war after McDonald's introduced them to fattening American foods. The key word in that last sentence was American.
The greatest strength America has lies not with its military power, but rather with its economic and cultural strength. The way to peace throughout the world and excellent foreign relations isn't to fight a "War on Terrorism," but to instead promote US culture everywhere to make other countries more receptive to the US message. If they begin to consume the US culture, they will be more receptive to US ideas.
The US should turn its attention away from using military might for its foreign policy to using its economic might to make the people of countries like the US. If the Cubans began getting Big Macs, they too might turn towards democracy.
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.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Beggar Republicans and Deficit Spending
Before the Republicans managed to gain control back in the late 70's , they were known for quite a few things. First, they were known as war hawks. Second, they were anti-affirmative action (and some, against other races in general). Finally, they were anti-social service spending. But most importantly of all, Republicans were known to be fiscally responsible, wanting to cut so called "wasteful" spending by the government.
Those days are over. Today, after a takeover of the House, Senate, and Presidency since 2002, we see that the Republicans, when it comes to fiscal policy, have no fucking clue what they're talking about. For years, Republicans have been decrying "tax and spend" liberals. Now they've shown that they don't "tax" and "spend", they just spend other people's money. For years now, the Republicans have been driving up a deficit, a deficit that we will have to pay later. By we, I mean my generation and following generations.
And they have the balls to say that it doesn't matter! That's the worst part. It's as if they failed basic economics entirely, or lack the competency to even hold office. According to them, the deficit doesn't matter because:
1.) Everyone loves America's economy
2.) Reducing it would hurt our economy
3.) It's needed for lower taxes
Each one of those is total bullshit, and here's why:
1.) Everyone loves America's economy
They do, but only right now. Other countries' economies are on the rise, and at the rate some of them are going, America has the distinct chance of not being the only superpowerful market in the world. It's only because our economy is extremely powerful that foreign companies invest heavily in it. Without these investments, we wouldn't be able to finance our debt at all and our economy would crash. Here's where two problems come it. First, current foreign investment, at best, can only finance a deficit at half of our current rate. Secondly, if another country arises that comes even close to rivally the US's economic strength, we're screwed. No other nation is racking up nearly as huge a debt as the US currently is, and therefore would carry much less risk. Foreign investments would suddenly go towards that other country, and we sink. We have to prepare for this possiblity.
2.) Reducing it would hurt our economy
So would not reducing it. As the debt gets larger, interest rates have to go higher in order for the US Treasury to better finance this massive debt. These interest rates will rise higher and higher, making loans harder on the average American.
3.) It's needed for lower taxes
The current share of the national debt for each person is over $27,000. For every single member of the US, that is the amount, from young babies to the oldest senior citizens. An average family of 4 owes over $100,000 in debt to foreign nations, thanks to the spending of the Republicans. That's a lot of money that will have to be paid in taxes.
Haven't the beggar Republicans done enough? Can't they find a way to finance their fiscal policy? It's time to find people who truly are fiscal responsible and don't just claim to be.
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.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Farm Subsidies Suck
$143 billion. That's the amount the American public has paid to failing agriculture industries in the United States. How much growth has resulted from this investment? $0.
That's right, none. Agricultural economic growth has been seen out of this at all in the last 10 years. American tax dollars have given $143 billion in help to US farmers, and yet it takes Ben and Jerry to save small farms. This is just sad.
Why are farm subsidies so bad? It's because no matter how the agricultural season turns out, the government loses. Shortages on the crops? The federal government loses as farms across the nation default on loans. Surpluses in crops? The federal government loses as well. How? It's because the farmers are afraid of inflation, and have all crops set at an "ideal" 1929 adjusted price. Guess what the US government has to do? It has to buy up all of the surplus so the price stays the same. Either way, we lose.
That's $143 billion wasted for nothing. There must be something done. I propose an immediate end to all farm subsidies now and the removal of "ideal" price. We can't afford to waste $143 billion again.
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.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Wow. An update.
I know I havn't updated in awhile, but this is partially to blame on school, and partially to blame on my own lazy ass for cramming every test.
Anyways, we go back to an age old debate about...abortion. Quite frankly, I think this argument is pointless in terms of science, and all of that nice stuff. Conservatives state that it is life because it's growing, brain waves are detected in X amount of weeks. Liberals state that it's not alive, because it can't sustain life on it's own. This is pretty much all meaningless. For one to truely evaluate whether or not Abortion should be legal, one must look for the different arguments dealing with this sort of stuff. For the lack of better terms, in order to avoid a definition war on, "life," we respond to the contradictions in the opponent's idea. Due to the fact that I'm fairly liberal, I shall fight against the conservative side.
Putting all moralities aside, conservatives support the banning of abortion. However, in doing so (with their current argument), one must realize that you must also ban fertility clinics for those who are unable to have kids. Many republicans state that as soon as a sprm unites with an egg, it is now, life in their definition. However, for a fertility clinic to work, multiple eggs are injected into a women's uterus due to the fact that many of them have a high chance of death. It's technically killing embryo's isn't it?
This same argument can go with stem cell research. While it may be, "killing," embryos, you still cannot ignore the fact that fertility clinics still do the same thing. If you lose one, you lose the other.
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.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Discrimination!
In today's society, we have what we term, "jocks." These people play sports, they're physically fit. They waste hours upon hours playing sports such as basketball, soccer, and football. They will go, they will win, and if they're good, they will get a school scholarship to an Ivy League school. After that, they will join the school football team, and they will lead their team to victory.
Also in today's society, we have the term, "Cyber jocks." These people play computer games, but they are not physically fit. They waste just as many hours playing games such as Counter Strike, Starcraft, and Quake. They will go, they will win, and if they're good, they will beat Fatality(World famous CS player).
But wait. Something is wrong. What ever happened to the college part? Oh yeah, that's right. The person, who has managed to beat fatality, has just been kicked out of college due to his suffering grades. Whereas the football player still has his scholarship, and is still in school despite his suffering grades.
Kids, who waste hours upon hours playing Counter Strike, do not get their scholarship, even though they placed fourth during the world cyber games. Kids who waste hours upon hours playing Quake, do not get their scholarships, even though they placed twelfth in
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."
Conservative Media: Destroying America
It's no secret that Rupert Murdoch is evil. He has managed to offend both Democrats and Republicans. For the Democrats, he is the epitome of white male conservative idiocy (in their own words). For the Republicans, his shows on FOX push the borderline between Sesame Street and Paris Hilton's sex tape (not in their own words). It's no doubt that he's a menace to society overall. That's why him and his neocon media conglomerate machine must be stopped for the good of mankind before it wipes out the United States democracy.
To begin with, Fox News, or as Jon Stewart would put it, "finally, a news channel for middle aged white men." Now, I have no problem with the conservative media machine. Really, I don't. I don't mind the occasional Scarborough country since the only way to fight one of your enemies is to know what they're thinking. Furthermore, they occasionally make sense. Fox News, however, is just needlessly evil.
Here's the thing: News is not supposed to be biased. When one source declares its political alignment, it automatically shifts all others to the polar opposite a bit. Thus, although in normal circumstances MSNBC and CNN might be considered only moderately left at most (because of bipartisan shows ans Scarborough country), Fox News has created the notion of the liberal media. That's right: Fox News manufactured its own worst enemy.
It's a simple premise: once Fox News because the far right station, all other statiosn would appear farther left by default. It would be similar to putting 2 pieces of candy on a piece of taffy and then dragging one piece of candy to the right. The other piece will appear farther left even if it hasn't moved. The end impact is that Fox News created this country's so called Liberal Media.
Nobody needs a reminder that Fox News always points to this omnious source of information as part of society's ills. However, it fails to mention that the only reason the liberal media is so liberal is because Fox News made them that way. To all the conservatives who hate the liberal media: It wouldn't exist without Fox News. Thank them today.
Furthermore, how could this happen? How could the liberal media be created out of thin air thanks to Fox News? There had to be some source pervading Murdoch. This is where wild speculation comes in. I theorize that because the liberal media had to be created from some source, that source was likely the conservative media machine. This conservative machine exists unnoticed due to a few large factors: Fox News playing itself as the only conservative channel, and their focus on the self created liberal media instead of their own bias. What occurs as a result is a world where whenever a liberal brings up a complaint, it's "shrill wining." When a conservative brings up a complaint now, however, it's "a new and insightful look at the issues facing America."
Note to conservative media: You exist. Don't pretend like you don't actually are there. There's still only 52% of you.
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.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Lori vrs me.
So I'm sitting on the bus, and Lori, my friend, brings up a point, actually, several points.
One of which includes, "You're applying for MIT right?"
Quite frankly, no I wasn't. I'm pretty sure that I'm no where smart enough to attent MIT or Cal Tech. Or at least I hope I don't else my brother will become the janitor and school my ass to make me study. But the point she was trying to make is, "You can do it as long as you set your mind for it." I don't really believe in that. Reason being, I know this girl. She is in my math class, we will name her...Bobalina. Bobalina studies for more time than I play games during the summer, cries when she gets a bad grade, etc. Bobalina works her ass off and gets straight As. I do not work my ass off, and I'm getting half decent grades. Right now I have mostly Bs and As. And a C in math...but that's my own stupidity. Regardless, it shows how little work I do, and I get half decent grades, vs. how much Bobalina's work, and the grades she gets.
I think I am smarter than Bobalina, but she is only there to prove my point. People who go to MIT are much smarter than me. I mean, you have kids there who are like, "Uh yeah. I'm playing blackjack instead of studying," and gets Bs. Yes, there are people who work hard, but the intelligence level between me, and someone who may be able to get into MIT are grand. But that's only my thought. I do not believe that you achieve all your goals through just hard work.
The people in MIT are phenomenal in intelligence. Some of the people there do no work, and pull out a C average, where I would have to work my ass off to pull a D. Actually; I'll probably fail after the first week. I have no mentality for that type of work. The point being, not only will MIT most likely reject me, but the intelligence difference is just too steep. They are looking for people who get the same grades as Bobalina, but works just as hard as.....me (not very hard).
Another point she brought up. My philosophy/doctrine/whatever states, "It's better to be phenomenal in one area, than good in the rest." Lori states, "It's better to be phenomenal in all areas." Again, I disagree. I don't think it is possible to be phenomenal in all areas, for the fact that humans have a limited life span. Most of your learning effort goes into your first 30 years of your life (grad school, etc). Then the rest are devoted to working. So in 30 years, you cannot be phenomenal in 8 different subjects, unless you learn how to stay awake 24/6 and sleep on only holidays and Sundays. My take is, it's better to have 1 or two majors, rather than five minors.
Carmack, would not have been such a great programmer...okay bad example. He's like uber programmer and he's got a high school education.
Hmmmm.
Okay. Einstein devoted most of his life for physics. I'm pretty sure that none of his books were ever very popular for the general population. Whereas Clinton, who's a liberal arts major, writes a book that is instantly popular. The difference is that
Sunday, September 25, 2005
School Rules. Fair at all?
- 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
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.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Seperation of Church and state.
"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
Said by Thomas Jefferson.
I fully agree with what he said about the separation of church and state. It's a bad thing. For example, the bible will start dictating what should be done with
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
Sunday, September 18, 2005
For the Last Time, Free Speech is a Right Given at Birth
Nobody has the right to take away from whatever I want to say. That is the essence of free speech and the very first constitutional amendment to the United States. This right is not earned, it is natural right that is given to you at birth. You don't have to do anything to earn it, and nobody can ever take it away from you even if they want to. If they do, they're violating your rights. They leave their own rights to as many violations as you can think of.
Free speech is a difficult right to protect, however. The only way to do so is to exercise your own views. To protect free speech you must use free speech. Only once you use it is it impossible to take it away.
Trying to draw a "borderline" on free speech can never succeed in an American society. We are not Europe. We are not most of Asia. There is no worry about Nazis, ethnic tensions, or a dictator. This is part of the reason I believe the Patriot ACT to be unconstitutional. Allowing the FBI to monitor our activities is just plain wrong. There is no "if you've got nothing to hide, why are you scared?" logic. If the FBI or CIA so much as senses a whif of the mere chance that you're a terrorist, they can put you away forever, period.
So what am I saying? First, lobby your local congressman and senator to pass legislation stopping PATRIOT ACT abuse. Secondly, I'm saying no successful limit on free speech will ever happen.
The fact is, in this day and age, information doesn't stay still. Unless the information is a top secret classified government project involving military technology or Canada, it will find its way to somebody who shouldn't know. Even more so, most groups are harmless.
Take a look at NAMBLA. The North American Man Boy Love Association. Some people would assume that such a sick organization should be shut down. However, those people are idiots because they don't know what NAMBLA does.
Ok, to clear things up, NAMBLA members don't actually practice homo-pedophilia. They are still law abiding citizens, for the most part. They don't print "homosexual propoganda" (an idiotic phrase since homosexuality is not a life choice but literally a physical and mental trait), they do not go and sodomize young children. Their goal is to pass legislation making pedophilia legal. While this might sound bad, in practice they have no power anyway. Outlawing them would set a bad precendent to allow the government to outlaw groups "in the name of public decency." Give them their free speech. It doesn't hurt you, unless you're a homophobe, in which case screw you (not literally).
Then look at the KKK. This group is just pointless. In these days of terrorists and skinheads, the KKK is obsolete. If it so much as moves a finger every member is arrested. Let them have their free speech, they're just dogs barking.
What I'm trying to say is that you really can't limit free speech effectively. The "fire in a theater" example is about as close as anyone will ever get. Less is just anarchy, which doesn't protect free speech at all, and more would lead to a slippery slope.
If you advocate more restrictions on free speech, you are advocating a system that, slowly but surely, will lead to the US government being able to quash dissent. When that day arrives, not even the 2nd amendment will save you.
Free 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
