Heather Annastasia's Blog: "Never Talk Politics or Religion"

Urinating Soldiers

2012-01-13T02:58:00.000-08:00

I'm assuming we've all seen the pictures of members of the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines out of North Carolina's Camp Lejeune urinating on fallen Taliban fighters.

My inclination is not to defend these guys because I admire that the US strives to maintain some level of civility in war.

While I hope that these soldiers are properly punished for their behavior, certainly we as a people need a reality check here. Until we can build robots to fight our wars, we can't be shocked when soldiers cross the line of professionalism.

I mean, their profession involves killing people.

Over the years, at the same that the civilian world has been pushing military culture to adopt a more humanitarian and professional attitude, the military has been finding ways separate young enlistees from their consciences in order to make them more efficient and reliable killers. One huge step forward was the move from practicing shooting a bulls eye to practicing shooting a human silhouette --because many soldiers who practiced shooting a bulls eye target hesitated when there was a human being on the other side of their gun. Another example is that snipers, like the ones in the pictures, cannot go on missions with less than two individuals --because if you leave a man alone with his conscience, he might hesitate to pull the trigger.

So I'm not saying the behavior of the soldiers in question is acceptable; I'm just irritated that everyone is so shocked when things like this happen. What do we as a nation think war is? And what kind of superhuman soldiers do we think are out there fighting? You can't run headlong into a kill-or-be-killed situation, kill, and then switch off the emotions necessary to perform such acts and suddenly have respect the sanctity of life and be reverent of the dead men who were trying to kill you ten minutes ago.

Rick Perry Parody

2011-12-09T12:04:00.001-08:00

To the 99% in San Diego and around the world who are being harassed by police:

2011-10-29T01:27:00.000-07:00

Stay strong. Stay calm.

You are doing a great service to this country. Many people are made uneasy by the thought of standing up to authority (particularly those in authority). This is just the way most people are wired, and this natural inclination to acquiesce to authority figures is largely conducive to a civil society. But those who have the ability and the will to challenge authority and the status quo must accept the responsibility to answer to a higher moral consciousness than the average sheep.

The cage rattlers, the agitators, the children who color outside the lines... this is our time to shine, this is our moment to serve our fellow citizens and change our society for the better.

Stay true to your principles. Walk with a righteousness that few can comprehend. Remember your duty to serve, even as those whose job description is to serve lose sight of that very duty. Be honorable, kind, upright and strong; because when such individuals are dragged away unjustly by frightened authority figures, the rest of the herd takes notice and we become stronger and stronger.

Thank you all!

We are the 99%, and we want... well...

2011-10-08T21:09:00.000-07:00

99% of the population is too many people to ever reach a consensus or a singular agenda. For now it is enough that we are coming together because those in power have worked so hard to keep us distracted with our petty differences. If we can unite, not on every issue or idea, but physically unite in the streets and join hands with one another; that simple act could send a shiver down the spines of those who look down on us from their priestly heights. They will have to face the reality they already know but have refused to acknowledge: that our current economic trajectory is unsustainable. Perhaps at that moment they will willingly move toward the changes they already know are just and right. And if they choose instead to dig their heels deeper into the poisoned ground beneath their feet... well, by then we will have had time to truly organize ourselves and set forth on our own trajectory... together.

The Day of Atonement

2011-10-08T08:59:00.001-07:00

As I fast for Yom Kippur, with each hunger pang that rattles through my gut, I am thinking about all the people, right here in San Diego, who are hungry today, not by choice, but because their wallet is as empty as their stomach. I am thinking of the mother in Somalia right now whose stomach has given up crying out to her for food, as has her child. She stares numbly into the distance as her baby quietly withers away in her arms. I am also thinking of the gluttons; the 1% of the population who hoard enough money to feed everyone who is hungry and would still have enough left over to live comfortable lives. We are the 99%, and if we don't take a stand for our brothers and sisters who go without food, clean water, and basic human dignity, then we will eventually join them. For the greed of the 1% is boundless and insatiable.

Fear Itself

2011-08-08T15:20:00.000-07:00

Who is Obama trying to placate with his perpetual capitulation to a small faction of Republicans with whom the overwhelming majority of this country completely disagree?

He's the president of the United States, not just the president of the people who voted for him; I get that. But the tea partiers are another story. They don't accept him as their president, they never will, and they are willing to drive this country into oblivion in the dim hope that Obama will be the one ultimately held accountable, and he will lose his bid for reelection.

Someone will be destroyed when this game has run its course.

Will the country blame Obama if our economy tanks and can't recover, or will most people see the Tea Party as a reckless back-seat driver grabbing the wheel and turning the country sharply into the nearest ditch?

The fact of the matter is that Obama should not be playing this game to begin with.

The moment that Congress was on a path to brinkmanship with the debt ceiling, Obama should have invoked the 14th Amendment and raised the debt limit himself. Problem solved. No circus, no bird-brained politicians strutting around, fluffing up their feathers, and making an international mockery of our entire republic.

Would the Right have cried foul? Of course! They are going to cry foul no matter what the president does. But when the majority of the country elects a leader, that person has been given the right and the obligation to lead!

Our government is not beholden to banks, and our president is not beholden to Congress. Sure there are checks and balances, but if Bush Jr. can get away with ignoring the will of 50% of the population, then I'm pretty sure Obama can get away with ignoring the will of 30% of the population.

Ultimately, the only thing that matters to people is knowing that there is someone in charge.

The fear-charged stampede that drove the markets down today was, I believe, all about uncertainty. What's going on? Who's in charge? Are the banks in charge? What does that mean for the future of our country?

Obama needs to stop trying to reason with people and take command (he's only slightly left-of-center, it's not like he'd do anything crazy). Those who hold left-wing views will abide, those who hold right-wing views will never abide no matter how reasonable he tries to be, and the vast majority of the people in the middle aren't interested in politics at all: they just want to know that someone is in charge, and when they don't know who, if anyone, is at the wheel, they flip-the-hell-out and, in a state of mass confusion and panic, will jump off the nearest cliff.

We Don't Need No Water...

2011-08-01T11:45:00.000-07:00

I, for one, am getting sick and tired of being threatened with financial doom by the government.

Fear mongering was the tactic I hated most by the Bush administration.

Where's the hope?

Where's the change?

Where is the leadership I voted for when I voted for Obama?

How is a tiny, crazed uber right-wing minority able to hijack our government and get everyone else to bend to their demands?

My initial inclination when this financial crisis first happened was why should we bail out the banks? Let them fail! Why should they get to play god with our economy and then get help from the very people they damage with their insatiable greed and reckless behavior?

Still, against my gut instincts, I conceded that a global financial meltdown was probably a bad thing, and though the alternative was disgusting, I felt that bailing out the banks was the safest action to take.

But this whole "global financial meltdown" threat is becoming straight-up blackmail: every time we clench our teeth and pay up, a new demand is made.

Now the Tea Party is refusing to raise the debt limit unless the Democrats give in to their demands in regards to cutting spending and not raising taxes on the rich. And we are being told that if the debt ceiling is not raised, we will be faced with...

wait for it...

financial collapse!

Oh, no! Say it isn't so! Who will save us?

And who will save us the next time the Tea Party people refuse to cooperate with some routine congressional procedure unless their insane list of demands are met? And who will save us the time after that?

When will we say enough is enough?

Financial crisis? That's the life I live everyday, along with most of the people in this country.

So, go ahead Obama; cut the programs we rely on; let the 3% of the population who owns 90% of the wealth refuse to pay their taxes; don't stand up to the Republicans; don't fight for the people who are counting on you.

Pretty soon there will be nothing left to threaten us with.

Wait... the Terrorist is... White?

2011-07-24T06:29:00.000-07:00

And he's Christian?

Blue eyes and gorgeous blonde locks?

I don't know why everyone is so surprised. Is Oklahoma City ringing a bell for anyone?

Well, I do know why everyone is so surprised because this is an issue I've been railing about since September 11th. Although Islam has become intertwined with terrorism in the minds of Westerners, the fact is that no one religion or ideology is more or less likely to produce violent terrorists than any other.

The key to understanding this kind of behavior won't be found in skin color, religion, or culture. There is one common thread; and that is extremism. Extremists are certain of the superiority of their beliefs (and/or race) and fearful of groups who have different beleifs (and/or skin color). Their self-righteousness and fear inevitably leads to hatred of other groups, which inevitably leads to violence.

In 2005, in my first published work, I imagined a scenario where we could rid the world of extremism by letting all the militants battle eachother to the death while leaving the rest of us out of it.

One can dream...

At any rate, I hope that the people of Norway will re-think who they consider "one of their own." For the moment, however, I am wishing them the best as they try to cope with this atrocity. My heart goes out to the families of the victims, heavy with the knowlege that so many of those victims were young, eager, and involved in the political process in a positive way-- unlike their vicious, hate-filled attacker.

Let's Play the Name Game: Republicans are Anarchists

2011-07-24T01:57:00.000-07:00

I once had a coworker who had grown up quite wealthy and pampered (seriously, she was only working for something to do until she got pregnant). She was extremely conservative in her political views, so she and I had a lot of friendly debates about politics. Her husband was an anarchist.

She thought taxes were an abomination. For instance, she went to expensive private schools, so why should her parents have to pay to send other people's children to school as well?

I tried to appeal strictly to her own self-interests, rather than talk about the greater good of society as a whole. I pointed out the fact that she needed the services of the working class; wouldn't she prefer mechanics and x-ray technicians who could read and write? And how about the doctors and nurses who would at some point have her life in their hands? Would she rather they be the best and the brightest society has to offer, or just the ones whose parents could afford them an education? I even tried appealing to her basest self-interests; if the masses are not reasonably educated and given an opportunity to be productive in society, they will become quite destructive. How safe could her home, car, or money be in a country full of ignorant, desperate, starving thieves?

But alas, no argument could sway her from the belief that the government should not have the right to take any of her money for any reason. She would prefer total anarchy to coerced taxation. Her arguments were rooted in trickle-down economics. If rich people were allowed to keep their money, she reasoned, they would willingly fund schools for the poor or the paving of roads or whatever their personal pet projects might be.

So... if rich people were not forced to share their money... they would share it willingly?

How can one argue with such sound logic?

Ultimately, what I'm wondering is why the Left doesn't play the name game. We are called "communists" and "socialists" because we believe that everyone should put a portion of their money into a common pot in order to assure that everyone in our society has a reasonable opportunity to be healthy and productive citizens.

Our opponents on the Right want to dismantle the social programs that have made our country great so that rich people and corporations can hoard even more of their precious, precious money.

Republicans elect government officials who run on the platform of hating government, and now, they are openly and unabashedly attempting to dismantle our government.

At first, their methods were a little more covert: dramatically cutting taxes for the wealthy while reasoning that such cuts would help the economy, because the "job creators" would have more money to "create jobs."

But they didn't create jobs; they just pocketed the money and left us high and dry. Now the bills are due, we don't have the money to pay the bills, and we need to raise the debt ceiling. But the same folks who cut the government's revenue are now demanding that we balance our budget before they will agree to raise the debt ceiling... oh, and we're not allowed raise more revenue (i.e. make rich people pay their taxes again).

The solution to balancing the budget according to the Right? Dismantle the government. Cut welfare, cut medicare, cut education, cut regulatory agencies, cut, cut, cut, and then cut some more.

We call them crazy, but only because the truth seems unfathomable. They are not crazy or stupid enough to believe that the government can function without revenue; they want to destroy the government. Republicans are anarchists. Let's start calling them out for what they really are.

"FREEDOOM" -Libyan Revolutionaries

2011-07-14T09:32:00.000-07:00

I know this is probably just a spelling error made by people for whom English is not their first language.

But perhaps a beautifully ironic commentary on war could be a brilliant accident.

Freedom isn't free and righteousness cannot guarantee success.

Never stop fighting the good fight, brothers and sisters.

Hasta la victoria siempre!

This is all a joke... right?

2011-06-06T15:50:00.000-07:00

Et tu, Weiner?

Really?

My first thought when I heard that Wiener had actually sent a picture of his wiener over the INTERNET...

you know, let me break in here just for second, I'm a little ADD, so pardon me for straying from my thought... can we have some sort of public service announcement or something... can we please drill it into everyone's thick skulls that

THERE IS NO ANONYMITY ON THE INTERNET!

Can all the high school kids and football players and public officials out there please understand that sending lewd photos of yourself into the cloud is the same thing as posting lewd photos of yourself on a metropolitan billboard along with your name, phone number, and home address?

OK, so when yet another man in public office was caught doing something stupid regarding his penis, my first thought was "That's it! All MEN must relinquish their control over all public institutions immediately!" Let's face it, there is apparently no man on earth capable of resisting his sex drive. It doesn't matter how educated he is, it doesn't matter how well-intentioned he is, and it doesn't even matter how beautiful his wife is. The moment an opportunity to present his penis presents itself, he is no longer capable of rational thought; he is reduced to a hairless ape with a hard-on.

My second thought was of Palin, with a dear-in-the-headlights expression, painfully stammering through an explanation of who Paul Revere was... He... warned the... the British... um... that uh... they weren't going to being taking away our arms... with... by rignin' those bells... and... and riding that horse through town... and sending those warning shots... by golly... darn tootin...

*sigh*

Whatever... I give up...

The State of this Blog

2011-06-01T10:10:00.000-07:00

I've been kicking up a little traffic lately, which is good, I guess...

But I was going over some older posts, back when I had more time to blog, and this place was hoppin! So many passionate arguments that nearly spilled over into name-calling. Those were the days...

Now I get an occasional comment, but always from someone agreeing with me, which I appreciate, but there's no conversation; no back and forth.

I think I'm going to try to rehash some of my more controversial subjects and see if I can drive some life and passion back to this place (which I will probably lose again in the Fall when I will be once again working full-time and going to school full-time).

Straight from the Horse's Mouth (who happens to be talking out of his ass)

2011-05-29T13:43:00.000-07:00

Glen Beck Stands with Israel

2011-05-23T08:03:00.000-07:00

I had a good laugh when I first saw Mr. Beck, so serious and dour, proclaim that, though it will be difficult in these trying times, we must stand with Israel, even as President Obama tries to destroy it!

ahhh... good stuff, good stuff...

Then my amusement turned to dismay when, on a Jewish blog, I saw someone actually defending Beck's sincerity, pointing out that Beck has always stood with Israel, and asking, "Why do Christians love Israel more than American Jews?"

I thought this was a no-brainer, but then, maybe my Christian upbringing has afforded me some insight that many Jews lack. Maybe some Jews really don't know why Christians are so emphatically pro-Israel.

So, let me explain:

Christianity was born in Israel as an apocalyptic messianic sect of Judaism. A good parallel is the people who thought that the world was going to end on May 21st: giving up worldly possessions, devoting what's left of their time on earth to proselytizing, and mostly adhering to their faith even after the world doesn't end.

Although many Christian groups over the centuries have set dates for the Apocalypse which have come and gone, there's actually nothing in scripture that alludes to any sort of date for the second coming, though the earliest Christians believed that Jesus would return within their generation.

The fact remains, however, that there are prophesies which must be fulfilled before Jesus can come back and oversee the end of days, and since Christianity was born in Israel, it follows that those prophesies would involve Israel.

Many evangelical Christians and Mormons (Beck's religion), believe that we are now living in the end times because the Jews have established a state in Israel (this is one of the prophesies that must be fulfilled before Jesus can return).

The next thing that has to happen, is that the Jewish Temple must be rebuilt on the Temple Mount.

The modern state of Israel was born in 1948, which means that you and I are part of the last-days generation (see Matthew 24:30-32). However, the Temple must once again occupy its place on the Temple Mount before the final major prophecied events of the last days can take place.

Then something about all the Jews of the world praying in unison, and then the Antichrist will be revealed, yada, yada, yada... it gets weirder the more you read... four beasts, or a beast with four heads... the Whore of Babylon, the Hounds of Hell... it's a scriptural acid trip.

The point being that Christians in general, and Beck in particular, are not standing with Israel because they love Jews; they are standing with Israel because they want the prophesies fulfilled so Jesus can come back and destroy all the people who don't worship Jesus (which includes all the Jews who don't convert to Christianity).

It's like the divine final solution.

And let's not forget that rebuilding the Temple would involve tearing down the mosque that's there now, so if Israel were to do that, it would certainly cause a lot of violence and strife, even by Middle-Eastern standards, which would only encourage the folks who are trying to bring about the Apocalypse.

Bar Mitzvah Project

2011-05-11T08:54:00.001-07:00

I don't have time to write a post, and I'm too exhausted to think of anything clever to say, so I'll just share my boys' Bar Mitzvah Project. They had problems with the video editor they were using, so they had to paste together a music program with Windows Movie Maker, so the song could have been put together better, but I think they did a great job for a couple of twelve-year-olds. Then, of course I'm biased...

On Shooting Bin Laden

2011-05-08T08:23:00.000-07:00

I appreciate that Michael Moore is a consistent contrarian. It's one of the things I like about him. Plus, I'm about as liberal as a person can get before they fall off the deep end (or maybe the political spectrum is more like a Jacob's Ladder, and if I got any more liberal I'd be conservative).

Anyway, I'm overwhelmingly busy these days, so I only caught a brief clip of Mr. Moore bemoaning the killing of Osama Bin Laden without American due process of law.

Now I get the gist of what Moore is saying. It's not about Bin Laden; it's about us, and who we are as a people. But if I may be completely pragmatic for a moment; why would we try Osama Bin Laden in a court of law? What purpose would that serve? Is it because he's innocent until proven guilty? Because he's already taken credit for and spent 10 years capitalizing on the September 11th attacks.

Would we try him in court so that we could parade him around the public square before we kill him? Drive up television ratings? Have opinion polls about whether he should face the electric chair or lethal injection?

Once captured, would there be a scenario that didn't end with his death? Should we house and clothe and feed him for another decade while we let the appeals process run it's course, and then kill him?

Let me also say that I'm opposed to the death penalty, and I think it should be abolished.

Let me go out on a limb here, just to verify my liberal credentials, and say that I don't believe Osama Bin Laden was an evil person. I think that he believed he was fighting for a just cause, and he was willing to die for that cause. I believe he was a human being, just like the rest of us. I believe he loved his family, was good to his friends, and loyal to his god (granted, I think gods are stupid, but then people like Bin Laden kind of prove my point).

So I'm not being spiteful or vengeful when I say that it doesn't bother me that he was shot in the head rather than taken into custody (if taking him into custody was even an option). Hell, I don't care if they creeped into his bedroom and shot him in his sleep. He made his own bed ten years ago.

Take that, Republicans!

2011-05-01T20:40:00.000-07:00

*sigh* I was going to do a "Ding-dong, the witch is dead" post, but when I googled that phrase, ten other sites had already done it. Really? The news of Bin Laden's death just broke like twenty minutes ago! Perhaps I'm not as clever as I thought...

Anyway, I'm eagerly waiting to see how Fox News and the Republicans are going to try to spin this; or will they be forced to grit their teeth and pat Obama on the back for accomplishing the task that Bush failed to complete?

Affirmative Action

2011-04-28T09:01:00.000-07:00

This country has come just far enough that public displays of hate and racism must be made in code. Gone are the days when a mild-mannered white person could simply say, "I don't think a black guy should be president." (Of course, the "one drop" rule still applies, since we don't recognize that our president is actually half white.)

So, since people like Donald Trump can't question the legitimacy of our president on the grounds that he is black, he hammers the ridiculous question of whether he was born in the United States. (It's not like Trump can be racist. He gets along so well with "the blacks.")

But Trump can no longer hammer the birth certificate issue now that Obama has produced the coveted long form version. (Personally, I don't think Obama should have dignified the question with a response.)

What now, Donald?

That's right, now we're going to question whether Obama should have gotten into Columbia and Harvard. After all, it's not like he had rich parents who could buy his way in. Where does he get off, anyway? Getting a top-notch education? There was a rich white kid who could have used that spot. Uppity. That's what it is.

Seriously though, I think Trump is doing a great service to our country. He's stirring up the filthy muck that rests in the depths of our society, lest we believe that the election of a person of color to our highest office is a sign of the end of hate and racism in this country. Keep stirring, Mr. Trump! Keep drudging that mud up to the surface and exposing it to the light of day. Keep proving that we still need Affirmative Action to level the playing field for intelligent minority kids whose parents can't buy them a good education or job.

Dear God,

2011-04-23T10:10:00.000-07:00

Now I lay me down to sleep,

I pray the lord my soul to keep.

If I should die before I wake,

I pray the lord my soul to take.

And if I may ask one humble favor:

Please, please, please, with sugar on top;

Please, please let Donald Trump run for president.

I promise to do all my homework and clean my room,

If I could just have this one thing. Please, please, please....

Amen

Inside the proposed EPA budget cuts

2011-04-04T08:42:00.000-07:00

[This is a guest article submitted by Nick Scott]

With an increased aim to cut the entire federal budget, the GOP is primarily looking to reduce the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The proposed cuts from congress would eliminate about a third of the EPA’s 2010 budget of $10.5 billion. This would likely cut down on some of the major initiatives of the EPA such as the monitoring of water contamination and the Clean Air Act. While those in support of the cuts see improved gas prices and more successful business as the end results of the takeaway, others like EPA administrator Lisa Jackson see the cuts evolving into increased health risks for Americans.

Jackson sees this reduction in resources as a major problem for the future, claiming “If Congress slashed EPA’s funding, concentrations of harmful pollution would increase from current levels in the places Americans live, work, go to school, fish, hike, and hunt. The result would be more asthma attacks, more missed school and work days, more heart attacks, more cancer cases, more premature deaths, and more polluted waters.”

The GOP leaders behind the bill see flailing business as a major issue in backing this cut of the EPA’s budgets. Many business leaders have been outspoken about the amount of money that EPA regulations are costing them in the long run. This is mainly involving the EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, refineries, factories and other sources. Of course, giving these factories free rein to bypass regulations would likely mean an increase in some areas of business revenue and more jobs.

While some of what Lisa Jackson of the EPA has to say is certainly frightening, some of these health risks are not to be taken lightly. Without the full pallet of resources for the EPA, air quality and pollution control will likely take a hit. That hit will likely accompany an increase in long term health risks such as cancer, mesothelioma, and some less severe risks such as breathing problems and asthma. The end result can also be risking lives, as mesothelioma life expectancy is usually under 14 months following diagnosis.

Lisa Jackson also points towards the fact that reducing health risks will also be saving citizens thousands in medical bills that would arise, given the increase in poor air quality and toxins. She says “changes would prevent 6,800 to 17,000 premature deaths a year, and save as much as $140 billion in annual medical bills and work days lost to asthma attacks and other breathing problems.”

It’s important to remember that many of the businesses losing money will indeed continue to push contaminants into the air if EPA emission restrictions end up being dropped. Certainly Jackson has her points and health risks would likely increase as well, with increased emissions, particularly in areas around these factories.

When it comes to federal budget cuts, they should be calculated and benefit the people of the country at the end of the line. The cutting of the EPA budget has certainly sparked a give and take debate with two sides that have valid points. While the thought of reduced gas prices and increased jobs in factories may fulfill happiness in the short run, the long term health risks associated with pollution, toxins and chemicals are not to be taken lightly.

Dear Afghanistan (and Muslims around the World),

2011-04-02T23:31:00.000-07:00

I don't know why no one told you this sooner, this is actually kind of embarrasing, and we really couldn't have expected you to know this, but here in this country... um, how can I explain this? OK, in America, we completely disregard anything said or done by people with mullets and/or handlebar mustaches.

They're what we call "rednecks" and "hillbillies." Basically, they tend to be ignorant, racist and hateful people. They love to go around waving the American flag and the Bible, but if you spend more than five minutes talking to them, you'll find out that they know very little about their country and their religion, and they are prone to regurgiate Fox News talking points in lieu of any thoughful political insights.

Yeah, so... I'm sorry to be telling you this after the fact, but "Pastor" Terry Jones has all the tell-tale signs of just being a redneck idiot (I'm not sure why our own media payed him any attention to begin with; they knew better). Anyway, I'm sure this must be very embarrasing for you; being manipulated into a violent frenzy by a gosh-darn hillbilly. Ouch.

In the future, to prevent this kind of thing from happening, it's always a good idea to avoid getting angry when someone who doesn't like you is trying to make you angry. See, if you get angry, then you are giving that person what they want; you are giving them power over you. It's one thing if you are going to hurt the person making you angry, but hurting innocent people, and eachother... well that's just stupid. I mean, that's the kind of thing you'd expect a bunch of rednecks to do.

Sincerely,

Heather

On Libya and "Western" Civilization

2011-04-01T13:42:00.000-07:00

Frankly, when it comes to Libya, I think we are doing the best we can with a bad situation. Unlike the Iraqis, the Libyan people asked for help. Unlike Iraq, the US is not the sole driving force of international intervention. And unlike the Iraq war, most of the world, including many Arab nations, support military intervention in this conflict.

I want to say that the political movements sweeping the Middle East are an opportunity for Western culture to take hold in that region, but I have a problem with the term "Western" culture. Here in the West, we have this notion that our culture was born in Ancient Greece, and from there it followed a straight path to Rome, then to Europe, then to America.

The problem with this notion is that it overlooks an important time in European history following the collapse of Rome. Do the "Dark Ages" ring a bell for anyone? You know, those hundreds of years after the fall of Rome when people forgot all about reading and math and science and the Earth being round?

People are forgetful; that's why we keep doing the same stupid things over and over. But it just so happens that after the fall of Rome, there was a group of people who didn't forget about math and science and reading... anyone out there know who I'm talking about, because it's another one of those things that our culture seems to have completely forgotten...

The correct answer is: the Muslims!

That's right, during our "Dark Ages" while Europeans had lost essential knowledge like the importance of washing hands and purifying drinking water, the Muslims flourished in places like Spain. They practiced the arts and sciences handed down from Roman culture, and even improved on it by inventing things like the number 0 (seriously, they were the first ones to think of 0, which is the basis of our modern numerical system, also known as the "Arabic" system).

It was only through our conflicts with Muslim nations that we were able to recover all that lost knowledge; and it was that recovery, and the education that followed, that eventually led to our culture's Renaissance.

So as we yearn for the prospect of "Western" culture taking hold in the Arab nations, I think it would be more appropriate and productive to view this process, not as us giving them something which is uniquely ours, but as us helping them find something they lost. We are not so much doing them a favor as we are returning a favor owed.

And may we all move forward together, hand in hand.

Dear Congressman Kucinich,

2011-04-01T13:08:00.000-07:00

   I'm an Ohioan and I have always liked you. I voted for you in the presidential primaries, and I had Kucinich signs on my lawn. So please don't take this the wrong way, but what the hell are you thinking? Going on Fox News to talk smack about the president? I'm not saying you have to support Obama on everything, and you have the right to your opinions about our involvement in Libya; but Fixed News? Really?

   And the comments you made about the situation in Libya were just below the level of intelligence that I know you possess. Do you really think that the Libyans can protest their way to freedom like the Egyptians did? Gadhafi is no Mubarak. He has no problem mascaraing civilians. There are times, unfortunately, when change cannot happen without bloodshed. Our own great country could not have been born through peaceful protest.

   Still, you are entitled to your opinions. Just, please, in the future, don't give Fixed News the satisfaction of ridiculing you and everything you stand for on a daily basis, and then entertaining you when you have a grievance with Obama. Have some dignity; not just for yourself, but for the Ohioans and the liberals you represent.

Sincerely,

Heather

National study of the role that emotion may play in politics

2011-03-07T15:14:00.000-08:00

Apparently, there are a group of researchers at Appalachian State University who are under the impression that this blog has a readership. ;)

Please take a few moments to take this political survey. I tried it, and it really does only takes a few minutes.

Plus, you'll be entered in a drawing to win a $20 gift certificate at Amazon.com.

Plus, you can help me keep up the appearance that I have readers, which would be nice.

Watching TV (My Yellow Rose)

2011-02-12T15:07:00.000-08:00

I keep thinking about this song as I think about the events that have unfolded in Tunsia and Egypt and how humanity has become more and more connected through technology.

We are such complex creatures. At our most animalistic level, we are driven to fight and kill one another on ever increasing scales. But even as we invent newer and more efficient ways to kill our fellow human beings, we are also inventing newer and more efficient ways of connecting with them.

I suppose art came first; cave drawings. Even hundreds of thousands of years later, we are able to connect with people we can never meet. We share the bond of knowing that those people were in so many ways just like us. We know this because they left behind messages that we can understand.

Writing was the next big leap in technology. Like every new technology, it had its skeptics and detractors. Socrates thought writing was a terrible idea. When you send your thoughts out into the world where people you will never meet can read them, there's just no telling what those strangers will make of your words. They could interpret something completely different than what you meant, and you won't be there to correct them. Of course, the only reason we have any idea who Socrates was and what he thought is because Plato, his student, wrote it all down. And although Socrates was absolutely right about the dangers of writing, he missed the point of writing entirely.

Human communication is not the process by which we transfer information accurately and completely, but the process by which we connect on the most basic of levels and understand that we are all the same.

There is no ideal more important than the understanding that we are all the same, because there is no idea more destructive and more exploited by those in power than the sentiment that those people are different than us.

You see, every cell in your body has a marker on it that identifies it as you. When a cell enters your body that is not you, it is immediately destroyed. We are programmed, all the way down to every cell in our body, to survive by destroying what is alien or "other."

But we are more than collections of cells. We are more than animals. We are not driven by survival alone. We are driven by love and hope and fear. We crave touch. We need to be connected to one another. We are forever inventing new ways to communicate, not just with the people next to us at the moment, but with people we will never meet on the other side of the planet and the other side of the next century.

Art, music, writing, the printing press, radio, television, the internet, Facebook and Twitter. Every new connection brings us closer to each other until one day, we will be as ready to kill a stranger in another country for the benefit of those in power as we would to kill our cousin or neighbor. This is why governments, religions, and dictators have always sought to control our means of expression, and why we must always fight for the freedom to speak, draw, write, blog and even tweet.

We must fight for the ability to love our brothers and sisters on every continent because the more we connect and work together for the benefit of mankind, the more we will prosper and flourish together; rather than allowing a select few to prosper at the expense of everyone else.

("Watching TV" is by Roger Waters on the album "Amused to Death." It's performed by Roger Waters and Don Henly)

Today, we are all Egyptians

2011-02-11T20:05:00.000-08:00

I was eleven years old.

The extent of my political knowledge was that I had been vaguely disappointed when Bush defeated Dukakis in the presidential election the previous year. I lived in a dilapidated blue-collar neighborhood, so there was a pervasive anti-Republican sentiment that I simply accepted without further thought. I also remember being occasionally worried that we might be nuked by the Russians, but beyond that, I had no awareness of or concern about international politics.

Yet there I sat, on my knees in front of the living room television, crying.

I knew very little about World War II, except that the Nazis were evil and had tried to kill all the Jews. I'm pretty sure that I thought the United States entered the war to save the Jews. I knew that Berlin was in Germany, I had become increasingly aware of the existence of a wall there, but I basically had no intellectual understanding of what was happening.

But I understood perfectly. I understood in the core of my being; the way an infant understands music. It was raw and pure. I sat there alone, with no adult explaining to me exactly what was happening. With tears streaming down my face, I watched as jubilant strangers on the other side of the planet tore down a once insurmountable wall with hammers and their bare hands. I watched people from one side of a wall putting their arms around people from the other side; and we all cried together.

At the completely ignorant age of eleven, I acutely appreciated that I may never witness another such moment in history.

And here I sit, my own children almost exactly the same age I was on the day we were all Berliners; but on this day, we are all Egyptians.

What a beautiful day to be alive.

Thank you people of Egypt; and may you continue to be a light of peace and justice to your region and the world.

Dear Egyptians,

2011-02-02T14:22:00.000-08:00

You have come so far. Don't give up now!

No system of government is perfect. There will always be selfish, greedy, short-sighted bullies trying to take for themselves what should rightly be shared. There will always be gluttonous monsters who will flood fertile green fields with the blood of innocents before they would give a single grain to a starving child.

And it will always be the tendency of the masses to live like sheep; quietly following the butt of the sheep in front of them, unwilling to expend the energy necessary to even lift up their heads and look at the world they live in.

But there are moments in history, however brief, when we shake off our docile stupor and risk our lives to take the reins of our own destiny. There are moments when we humbly accept our obligation to humanity, climb out of the herd, and refuse to accept anything other than justice and the free will granted to us by the magnitude of our frontal cortex.

I know this is terrifying. It's terrifying to watch, but you have our attention. Sheep from every corner of the globe are breathlessly watching your heroism in the face of tyranny. I can't tell you that what you eventually accomplish will be exactly what you hoped for, but it will be yours.

Rip your destiny from the hands of your oppressors, and it will be yours to mold and guard, and you will pass it on to your children with the hope that they will never allow it to be stolen away again.

It is that hope that you are fighting for, and it is more valuable than the blood, sweat and tears you will shed to get it. You can feel the hope at your fingertips, you are so close, and though it is barely in your grasp, already you are throwing its seeds high into the atmosphere where winds carry it to the rest of the world. You have already taken your place in human history and continued the germination of hope, justice, and freedom.

Now take what is yours and plant it in the waiting earth beneath your feet.

Sincerely,

Humanity

Obamamania - the Flip-side

2009-10-27T21:26:00.000-07:00

It's clear that the honeymoon is over and Obamamania -in terms of senseless worship from supporters- has given way to rational expectations.

Some of us are concerned that the president is not acting quickly enough to close Guantanamo, or that he is slipping on his pledge to end "Don't Ask; Don't Tell."

Regarding the financial crisis, I was more in favor of a "We don't need no water" approach, rather than a massive taxpayer bailout of the [expletive deleted] bankers who got us into this mess.

But there's a flip-side to Obamania -an equally senseless loathing from his detractors- that is not giving way to any measure of rationality.

There is just no logical explanation for such venom hissed at a president who has yet to be in office for a full year.

Let's look at just a few puzzling right-wing reactions to this president.

The President tells school children to work hard and stay in school: OUTRAGE!

The President tries to bring the the Olympics home and fails: JUBILATION!

The President wins the Nobel Peace Prize: INDIGNATION!

Now, we can always count on fringe groups to irrationally worship or demonize public figures. And sometimes such sentiments spill out into the general population; but it doesn't last.

Here's my concern: I think the Republican Party is becoming a fringe group. Has anyone bothered to tell them that they can't win elections with only the Southern states? Even if they whip every last WASP in the country into a raging, foaming-at-the-mouth, gun brandishing frenzy; there just aren't enough of them to win national elections!

Well I'm not going to tell them. I plan on taking a "We don't need no water" approach. We'll see how it plays out.

Shameless Self Promotion

2009-03-08T16:08:00.000-07:00

Please visit my San Diego Examiner site.

Subscribe.

Add me as a favorite.

Make my examiner page your home page so every time you turn on the internet, I get a hit (Okay, I haven't done that one, but I'm considering it).

Obamamania -The Pros and Cons

2009-01-31T09:36:00.000-08:00

The enthusiasm that President Obama has generated in the US and around the world has been mind-boggling. I even had to force myself to post a series of "Obama Gripes" to maintain my inner anti-authoritarian. The pro-Obama and pro-America feeling that has taken hold of the population is both exciting and worrisome.
First of all, we are recovering from one of the most hated administrations in American history. Part of our enthusiasm is because we feel like the good guys again. Our identity as a nation has been built on the idea that America is a place where justice will prevail in the end; no matter the odds. We fought for our right to exist as a nation. We have fought slavery and won human rights for women, minorities, children, immigrants, and laborers. The election of a black man to our nation's highest office is validation of the America we were taught to believe in back in elementary school.

It feels good to believe in America again.

And we need to believe in America now more than ever. In these dark economic times, faith in ourselves may be the only thing that sees us through another day. In my earlier explanation of our country's economic woes, I made a brief reference to the subjective nature of our money. The basic idea is this: a car will always have value as a car, a building will always have value as a building, but a dollar only has value if we all agree that it has value. A dollar is only worth what you can buy with it. Faith in our country is tied to faith in our money, therefore, Obamamania could play an important role in our economic recovery.

Now for the cons. I think most reasonable Americans are at least a little shocked at how Obama has risen to Messianic level worship.

I'll admit, I'm tempted to justify the mesmerization of the masses. I'm tempted to say that we need that level of unity and loyalty to weather the tough times ahead. On some level, I do believe that the sheep need to be herded, but I am still obligated to try to snap my fellow citizens out of their trance.

Faith, if allowed to give way to blind faith, can be very destructive. When the individuals in a group participate in "group think" by turning off their own conscience, sometimes called "drinking the Kool-Aid," the results can range from dismantling our own Constitution to invading other countries on flimsy justifications. When blind faith is complicated by tough times; the results can be even worse. Let's not forget that Hitler's rise to power was partly dependent on Germany's dire economic situation after WWI.

Fortunately, President Obama does not encourage such unwavering loyalty. He is not a "you're either with us or you're against us" kind of leader. He has gone out of his way not to appoint yes-men to his cabinet, and he seems more honest and straightforward than any politician in recent times.

But it is every citizen's duty to hold this administration accountable for everything it does and doesn't do. We must not be soothed by the romantic notion of the America we worshipped in elementary school. We must all be on edge and vigilant. This is our country, and this is our economy. We bear as much responsibility as those we elect to represent us.

Faith in America is not faith in Obama; it is faith in ourselves. So let us move forward with the positive energy and good-will of the times without letting our guard down and giving in to a pack-mentality.

Obama Gripe #2

2008-12-24T16:51:00.000-08:00

Maybe this is a petty gripe, but I have a few problems with Obama's pick of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

First, of course, is Warren's anti-gay stance. I understand that Obama may be trying to reach across the isle and win some evangelical support, but would he accept an invocation by a pastor who opposes interracial marriage? And let's not forget that Warren is not just opposed to gay marriage, but has said that practicing and unrepentant homosexuals cannot join his congregation. What if he didn't let black people join his church? Or immigrants, or the handicapped, or any particular group of people? Where should we draw the line on accepting those who perpetuate hate?

My second issue here is why do we have an invocation at the inauguration of our president? What happened to the separation of church and state? Can't we have an official state function, from Congress to the courts to the inauguration of our president, that doesn't begin with appealing to sky fairies?

Witness Bush's Cat-Like Reflexes

2008-12-15T11:03:00.001-08:00

Seriously, do you think this president walks around anticipating that someone is going to throw something at him?

Top Ten Healthiest and Unhealthiest States

2008-12-12T13:45:00.000-08:00

Forbes recently put out a list of America's healthiest and unhealthiest st ates.

They calculated categories which included: Prevalence of Obesity, Air Pollution, Lack of Health Insurance, Immunization Coverage, Primary Care Physicians, Poor Mental Health Days, Cardiovascular Deaths, and Cancer Deaths.

Here are the final top ten lists:

Healthiest States in the US
Vermont
Hawaii
New Hampshire
Minnesota
Utah
Washington
Maine
Idaho
Connecticut
Massachusetts

Unhealthiest States in the US
Georgia
Nevada
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Florida
Texas
Tennessee
S. Carolina
Mississippi
Louisiana

When I looked over the list, I immediately wondered why Forbes failed to point out one glaring indicator of whether a state is healthy or unhealthy: Whether it's a red state or a blue state.

8 of the top ten healthiest states are blue.

10 of the top ten unhealthiest states are red.

Here's a visual aid:

I have some personal theories about why blue states are healthier; Democrats are more likely to fund public programs for disadvantaged families as well as public projects like parks, and after school programs. (You know, those gosh-darned tax-and-spend Liberals, always whining about the general welfare and what not!)

But when it comes to making the case for why blue is just all around better than red, I can't top The Letter to the Red States, so I won't try.

Obama Gripe # 1

2008-11-24T15:41:00.000-08:00

In my new endeavor to find points on which to criticize Obama, I realized that there is one glaring irritation that I had willfully overlooked while rooting for him during the elections, and that is his willingness to lump Hugo Chavez together with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and at times even Hamas.

The anti-Chavez movement in this country is so ridiculous that it is carried out almost entirely as innuendo and vague associations. It is carried out in this Rovian manner because when pressed, no one can name any specific threat that Chavez has ever posed to his neighbors, the US, or anyone other than obsenely wealthy Venezuelans who prospered at the catastrophic expense of the general Venezuelan population for generations.

My gripe with Obama on this issue is not so much that he has pushed anti-Chavez sentiment himself, but that he has never attempted to separate Chavez from heads of state that actually pose a threat to the US or our interests when answering questions where all these leaders are lumped together.

The overall effect of associating Chavez with Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the same as when the Bush administration used Sadam Hussein in the same sentence with 9/11 over and over: the general public leaps to conclusions which have no basis in reality.

In a discussion on Chavez on this blog some time ago, I begged my detractors to come up with ONE specific reason for their feverish hatred of Chavez, and no one could.

I think it would be honest and honorable of Obama to say, "Look, whatever problems we may have relating to Venezuela, let's not include Chavez in the list of leaders of terrorist organizations and rogue states."

Say What?

2008-11-23T22:15:00.000-08:00

I'm looking over my blog and I'm shocked to see that it has become a love-fest for Obama.

I am way too anti-authority for this.

As of tomorrow, I vow to find something for which I can criticize our soon-to-be-President or his emerging administration.

Yes, I can!

Your Weekly Address from the President-elect

2008-11-23T21:59:00.001-08:00

Your Weekly Address from the President-Elect

2008-11-17T10:14:00.001-08:00

¡SI, SE PUEDE!

2008-11-04T22:21:00.000-08:00

Someone make a note of the day and time...

I am at a loss for words.

The Economy, Stupid

2008-09-19T12:28:00.000-07:00

The ailing US and Global economy has been an interest of mine for about ten years. Suddenly, everyone has this deer-in-the-headlights look on their face as they struggle to comprehend the grim sounding jargon spewing from talking-heads on the 24-hour news networks.

Now, I should be clear that I'm no math whiz or economics major, so if I can understand some of the basic principles at work here, anyone can.

First I think we can agree on some familiar colloquial gems: 1) That power corrupts and 2) That money is power.

So let's think of money as a bag of Halloween candy, and financial institutions as small children.

If no one is supervising a child with a giant bag of candy, what's the logical outcome? He's going to stuff himself with candy until he pukes, right?

This happened once before in our history; stock prices were over-inflated and banks were extending too much credit. Although these weren't the only reasons for The Wall Street Crash of 1929 and The Great Depression that followed, which were decades in the making, the important point is that there was little or no government oversight of financial institutions, and they gorged themselves on candy until their gluttonous waste was spontaneously purged all over the American economy.

In order to rebuild our country and ensure that such a chain of events was never repeated, FDR helped broker the Bretton Woods Agreements, which instituted domestic and global financial rules, and set up government oversight of financial institutions.

To put it simply, instead of trusting the child to regulate his own intake of candy, the government keeps a close eye on him and makes him account for everything in his bag. This is called REGULATION.

Okay, now here's the important part; over the last 30 years, the government has been involved in a systematic DE-REGULATION of our financial system. This deregulation led to things like gambling in the stock market and predatory lending practices. Gambling in the stock market led to inflated stock values, and predatory lending helped contribute to inflated home values since no price for a house seemed unreasonable as long as everyone could get financed.

With the upcoming Presidential elections, I am obligated to point out that McCain has been a driving force for deregulation for almost all of the 30 years that it's been happening.

For far too long, our legislators have operated under the Adam Smith principle of the Free Market: that corporations and financial institutions will do what's right, without oversight, because in the long run, doing what's right will bring them more success.
But this notion fails to take human nature into account. For instance, it's a fact that if a child eats a little of his candy at a time, his candy will last a lot longer and he'll get more enjoyment out of it in the long run. But even if the child is fully aware of this fact, he's still more likely to eat too much candy if no one is watching.

Republicans in particular like to present us with the notion that if corporations and financial institutions are allowed to make money without government restrictions and supervision, they will make a lot more money, and all that profit will naturally trickle down to the rest of us. That's the equivalent of saying that if you allow a child to fill his bag by snatching candy from smaller kids, he'll eventually have plenty to share with everyone!

The obvious action we can take immediately is to get Obama into the White House. He's going to need to invest unprecedented amounts of money into building our infrastructure, which only a Democrat (Like FDR) would be willing to do.

Why invest in infrastructure when we're already in debt?

1) Roads, buildings, train tracks and schools have actual value, as opposed to the subjective value of stocks or even money.

2) Building stuff puts people to work.

3) Putting people to work gives them confidence in themselves and their country, and when they get their paycheck, they'll go buy stuff, which will drive our economy back to where it needs to be.

See, when Republicans scare people with talk of "Big Government," they're talking about the kind of government that regulates corporations and protects the average citizen and small business owner. One example of this strategy is when they talk of universal healthcare: "Do you want a government bureaucracy standing between you and your doctor?" You mean in place of the corporate insurance bureaucracy that's standing between me and my doctor right now?? Why, yes, I do.

So, in conclusion, if everyone in this country votes according to their actual financial interests this November, then Obama should win 95% of the vote and McCain should win 5%.

Of course, that prediction is not taking human nature into account.

I'm a Bright

2008-07-13T10:11:00.000-07:00

I had heard of Brights once before, while researching Camp Quest for my kids, but I didn't know what they were until I read about them in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.

Afterwards, I checked out the Brights' site to learn more about them.

What is a bright?

A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

So, the basic idea is to put people under two umbrella categories: Brights and Supers (Supers include anyone who believes in the supernatural). The benefit of this is that everyone with a naturalistic worldview can come together under one banner.

My personal beliefs do not reflect the beliefs of the Brights community in general, except the qualifying naturalistic worldview that is free of mystical elements.

I like the noun "Bright" because it gives me the opportunity to talk about what I believe, where "Atheist" or "Agnostic" is more focused on what I don't believe, which leads most people to immediately assume that I believe in nothing.

I believe in everything that I can see and touch and smell and feel. I believe in most things that logically make sense based on what I have seen and touched and smelled and felt in my lifetime.

I believe that my life is as significant as I choose to make it.

I believe that life is rare and precious, and that the lives and feelings of others are every bit as important as my own.

I believe that everything in the universe is in a constant state of flux; that nothing remains unchanged. I believe that when we try to keep things the same, or try to make the world conform to some ideal notion of the way it should be, we are going against the natural flow of the universe. I believe that these conservative ideals are futile and counterproductive.

I believe that it would be immensely beneficial for humanity to let go of all of its conservative ideals and unite with the common goal of marching forward into the stars.

I believe that the universe is indifferent to our existence; that we must be our own saviors.

I believe that the future of our species absolutely depends on us working together for the future of our species.

More on Media Consolidation

2008-06-18T20:50:00.000-07:00

[It's been far too long since I put up a post, and in the process of answering a comment on my Blackwater topic, I realized that I had practically written another post. And since it clarifies my views on the issue of media consolidation, I figured I'd just put it up on the main page.]

Mr. Williams,

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I think "Bush controls the media and told them not to run a story about Blackwater," since that's not at all what my post was about.

I specifically said, "Of course, we don't need an official policy of censorship like North Korea or Saudi Arabia."

I went on to explain that all of our major media outlets are owned by six, count them SIX, corporations. I even went so far as to include a handy-dandy link so you could see the actual six corporations that own our news outlets.

See, the thing about corporations is that they exist to make money. Let me give you a really simplified but true example of how the bottom line can come into conflict with delivering important information to the public:

One of my professors at the University of Cincinnati was chosen to host a local weekly television program about health and sexuality issues. One of his proposed show topics was about why women should not use douches. He was told that he could not do a show on that particular topic because one of the sponsors of the show was a company who makes douches. Long story short; the program didn't air, but the point is that an advertizer's money was more important to the production of the program than giving important health information on a show that's purpose was to give health information. That's not to say that the producers were evil people who were willing to misinform women for a quick buck; as a matter of fact, it was a non-profit project, so the issue was that they simply couldn't afford to make the show without their sponsors.

But back to the for-profit sector:

You can buy a newspaper for $1, but that paper cost $5 to make. Granted, the newspaper company has to have readers if it's going to sell add space, but readers are a smaller factor in their equation to turn a profit than advertisers.

Now, if there are twenty other newspapers in town, the companies are going to have to work a lot harder to get people to buy their paper, and consequently, they are going to care a lot more about what you think and where you're going to spend your dollar.

But if there are TWO papers in town, or as in many cities these days, ONE paper, you and your dollar are significantly less important to them, since you have so few options, you're very likely to buy their paper no matter what they do.

Now, take that same scenario and play it out over ALL our media outlets. SIX for-profit corporations owning all our major news outlets is a HUGE problem. Providing you with information is not their primary objective; their primary objective is to make money. When the goal of informing the public about important issues clashes with the goal of turning a profit; turning a profit wins hands down.

Arrrrgh!

2008-04-07T19:45:00.000-07:00

I woke up this morning and my blog counter had reset!

I went from 6,000 and some hits to 3. (Not that 6,000 is a lot, but it's better than 3!!!)

Blackwater in the Shadows

2008-04-06T13:46:00.000-07:00

Often, when you talk politics, there's a certain disinterested glaze that comes over the eyes of the majority of people. Granted more people are interested these days; more people are seeing the connection between the politics in Washington and their own lives. Still, politics may be considered by many to be a boring subject.

But I can honestly say that I've never seen that glaze come over anyone's eyes when I mention Blackwater. As a matter of fact, I would argue that Blackwater, a private mercenary force hired by the US government that is in the midst of a serious investigation, is a subject that most Americans find very interesting.

I would even go so far as to say that if the government's renewal of Blackwater's license in Iraq were on the front page of a newspaper today, that company would sell more newspapers.

So the facts that a) Americans are interested in Blackwater, and b) the US has renewed Blackwater's license in Iraq, and c) you won't find that information in any major American news publication (let alone on the front cover) lead me to declare that this is a blatant case of censorship in the American news media.

Of course, we don't need an official policy of censorship like North Korea or Saudi Arabia. Fortunately for Bush and his cronies, all the major media outlets in this country are owned by six corporations.

So when something important happens, like the US renewing the license of a private militia that many Americans feel has too much power and too little oversight, where are Americans supposed to get that information? Fortunately for the American people, the government has not yet found a way to censor the internet. You could go to Al Jazeera English and find the Blackwater story on the front page under "Americas".

You could also find this information an at The News is NowPublic.com, MWC News, or Newstin, though it's worth noting that all these sources got the story from Al Jezeera.

So, what I would like to know is why a foreign newspaper is a more reliable source of important information than all our news outlets put together??

Oh, right; because ALL OUR NEWS OUTLETS ARE PUT TOGETHER!

Atheism and Morality

2008-03-30T08:44:00.000-07:00

For people who are raised with religion, it's hard to imagine morality without a god.

As a child I was told that God had a giant book with the names of every human being on Earth, and that he put a check next to your name every time you did something bad. Of course, since God is everywhere, even in your mind, you could get a check next to your name just for thinking something bad. When you die, I was told, God adds up all your check marks from your entire life and decides whether you go to Heaven or Hell.

This wasn't something I learned officially in Church, but for some reason, this was the version of God's judgment that made the most profound impact on me, probably because I'm a very visual person. Every time I even thought about doing something bad, I had a vision of God opening up that massive book and turning to the page with my name. This vision did a good job of keeping me from many little childhood sins like lying, stealing candy and what not (that's not to say that it worked perfectly).

But that's not morality. Refraining from doing bad things because you think someone can see what you're doing isn't the same as refraining from doing bad things because you're a good person.

As for bigger sins, like hurting others, I never had a desire to hurt anyone. When I hurt someone accidentally, I felt genuinely sorry for the hurt I caused that person. Fear of a god had nothing to do with it. So when people say things like, "Well, if you don't believe in God, then you can just rape and murder because there are no consequences," they are saying that their fear of a god is the only thing that keeps them from raping and murdering, and while that statement may be true for them, I don't think it applies to the majority of people.

The fact is that morality is hard-wired. On the broader points like rape, murder, or theft, we all know right from wrong. On the finer points like marriage or prostitution, opinions vary from person to person and culture to culture. How far an individual deviates from their own or their culture's accepted standards of behavior has nothing to do with any supernatural beings in the sky. Individuals, and sometimes entire communities, will either find a way to justify doing something they know is wrong, or they will feel guilty for doing it, but do it anyway. For people who are mentally ill, people whose hardwiring has short-circuited, no supernatural being can convince them to behave morally, even with the threat of eternal damnation. The BTK killer, for instance, was a pillar of Christ Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas, as well as one of the most horrific serial killers in American history.

If gods and religion have no impact on a person's morality, and atheists are just as moral or immoral as anyone else, then how can I say that Atheism is superior to a supernatural belief system?

The aspect of Atheism that is superior to religion is that it is rooted in logic and reason.

Children raised with religion are told not to do bad things because their parents say so; because the preacher says so; because God says so! Faith in authority figures is valued over rational thought. As a result, many children are not given the opportunity to develop their rational mind. They are trained to be motivated primarily by their fear of the wrath of authority figures.

My children are told why something is right or wrong. They shouldn't steal because they're hurting the person from which they steal. They shouldn't lie to their parents because their parents have more experience with the world and wish to guide them through the rough spots; every punishment is done with love and for their benefit, so they must be honest about what they've done and accept the consequences because they will be stronger for the experience. They mustn't lie because lying is weakness. They mustn't lie because there will come a time in their life when all they have is their word, and if they don't have their word, they will have nothing at all.

It is profoundly more difficult to explain the logic behind the values you are trying to instill in your children than to say, "Because God says so," but instilling rational thought as well as morality in a child is immensely more beneficial to them.

In the end, my kids will probably lie or steal as much as the children of the Christians next door, but what my children will not do is believe what they are told without rational explanations. They will not be led into a war on flimsy justifications. They will not follow authority figures simply because they are afraid to question them. They will not be capable of blind faith. They will not shut-up and get in line.

They will be strong-willed and capable of leading others, not as shepherds of mindless sheep, but as leaders of intelligent human beings.

Fighting Words: How to Humiliate -- and Convert -- a Right-Winger

2008-03-25T19:44:00.000-07:00

By John Dolan, AlterNet

I'd like to suggest a very simple strategy for American liberals: Get mean. Stop policing the language and start using it to hurt our enemies. American liberals are so busy purging their speech of any words that might offend anyone that they have no notion of using language to cause some salutary pain.

Why, for example, not popularize slogans that mock the Bush loyalists as "suckers"? Something like, "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." Put that on a few bumper stickers and I guarantee a lot of "South Park Republicans" will quit the GOP. They just smirk when you tsk-tsk at them for being disrespectful. They want to be disrespectful; every normal young male wants to be.

And this, of course, brings up a big issue: At some point liberal writers are going to have to decide if it's OK to be young and male at all. For better or for worse, millions of American men hold on to playground ethics long after they leave elementary school. For most of them, the 2004 election came down to a classic playground scene: Would John Kerry defend himself when attacked by bullies? Liberals, still stunned by the way a legitimate combat vet like Kerry was beaten by a combat-dodging spoiled brat like Bush, never understood that for millions of voters, the question wasn't how well Kerry fought in Vietnam but whether he would fight in 2004.

Would he defend himself when called out by the gang of disgusting bullies Bush had gathered around himself? It would have been so simple, so glorious, if he'd just turned on his accusers and reacted like a human being: "You're questioning my record on behalf of a skunk like Bush who spent the war with the Alabama National Guard, and then went AWOL from the Guard?"

Millions of American voters were waiting, hoping Kerry would react like any sane person would have. He never did. I don't know why not; I assume he was in the hands of some Clinton gurus who babbled about "rising above the fray." Well, that sure worked well.

And please, don't tell me you're above such gross playground considerations. The American people are the beneficiaries of centuries of serious Leftist violence, starting with the American Revolution and climaxing in the Civil War. Without brave Leftist warriors slaughtering British and Confederate soldiers in large numbers, the whole tradition of American liberalism would not exist.

And we are the sufferers from the most disastrous wimp-out in recent American history: Carter's debacle in response to the taking of American hostages in Iran in 1979. That refusal to use punitive force to free his country's diplomats may have made pacifists feel nice, but it was an expensive treat; it got Reagan elected, showed a host of evil right-wing PR staffers that all they had to do was talk tough to win, and convinced a huge number of disgusted American male voters that the liberals would not fight back.

Kerry could have turned that around in 2004; it was almost as if a Hollywood scriptwriter had arranged the perfect confrontation, in which the liberal champion could flatten his orc-like tormentors and show the voters that one can be a progressive without being a wimp. Instead, he confirmed a prevalent myth that liberals are "soft" on terrorism and the military -- in other words, like illustrator Gary Larson's Wimpodites: "Though skilled with their pillow arsenal, the Wimpodites were frequent targets of Viking attacks."

And so far, the liberal response, the liberal attempt to reach out to the guys in the big trucks is embarrassing "populist" essays using bad imitations of American slang. Let's be blunt here: "populism" is condescension. If you want male voters' respect, stop patronizing them. (It just creeps them out.) Far better to insult them -- to their face, in their face, telling them bluntly that the talk radio nonsense they parrot is pure crap. They know that themselves. Half of what they say is designed simply to reassure themselves and their friends that they're not the same sort of wimps their social studies teachers tried to make them into. So they're not afraid of being called cruel or insensitive; they're afraid of being suckers.

The minute we start calling them on their suckerdom, they'll change sides -- and we'll finally have some decent troops on our side. But as long as liberals speak in the language of Beavis and Butthead's Mister van Driessen, they'll despise you, even when they know you're right (which they do). We may not be the most systematically intellectual tribe on earth, but Americans are very verbally sensitive. They will not heed Mister van Driessen, even if he's telling them to evacuate a burning classroom. They'd sooner die. You may find this irrational, but when I think back to the progressive mindset I became familiar with UC Berkeley, I understand this reaction very well. I don't condone it, but damn! I sure do understand it.

Liberals aren't generally perceived as fighting the robber barons -- they appear as a secular clergy far more obsessed with cleaning up our gloriously obscene language than fighting back.

Note that I've used the word "fighting." Americans are a violent people -- and I mean that as a compliment. We are a magnificently violent people who value courage above all else. In this, the ordinary American is in total agreement with George Patton, John Paul Jones and John Brown. They were all violent leaders, who sent a lot of Redcoats, Nazis and secessionist slaveholders to an early grave. I consider that glorious; so do most Americans.

John Paul Jones said, "I intend to go in harm's way" and coined a boast that generations of Americans, and even Bugs Bunny himself, repeated with pride: "I have not yet begun to fight." John Brown killed and died to provoke a final conflict over slavery. When American liberals can appreciate, encourage and manipulate the violence of such people, maybe you can talk to your fellow Americans again.

A good first step would be accepting the fact that language is a weapon -- and using it effectively. Most liberals affect scorn for mere words, in the way that I affected scorn for mathematics after flunking algebra twice in high schools. And most of the hardcore academic progressives I've known have tin ears. Their sheer awfulness is adaptive within the academic ghetto, in the way that a lack of any olfactory ability is adaptive for carrion eaters; but it's disastrous when they try to talk to people outside their guild.

It's not really that hard, after all. Just stop trying to be "populists," because frankly you sound like North Korean infiltrators trying to pose as surfer dudes. Try smacking your South Park countrymen in their deluded heads with some bumper stickers of our own, just as down and dirty as theirs. Wanna get them out of their gas-guzzling Dodge extended-cab semis? Stop whining at them and try putting these four little words on the back bumper of your hybrid: "Big truck, small dick." Yeah, you might get yelled at at a stoplight; you might even get hit. You might even consider hitting back.

Liberals have always been good fighters, once they get going.

John Dolan is an editor of the Moscow-based English-language alternative paper, "The eXile." He is the author of, most recently, "Pleasant Hell" (Capricorn, 2005).

Sally Kern - Isn't She Just Special

2008-03-15T10:27:00.003-07:00

The Ballad of Sally Kern

2008-03-15T10:27:00.001-07:00

My Christian Duty

2008-03-14T17:01:00.000-07:00

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said “Stop! Don’t do it!”

“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.

I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”

“Like what?”

“Well … are you religious or atheist?”

“Religious.”

“Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?”

“Christian.”

“Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”

“Protestant.”

“Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”

“Baptist.”

“Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”

“Baptist Church of God.”

“Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”

“Reformed Baptist Church of God.”

“Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”

“Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”

To which I said, “Then die, heretic scum!” and pushed him off.

[This is not mine. It was copied from somewhere on the web and emailed to me.]

We're Getting Some Traffic!

2008-03-10T12:08:00.000-07:00

The current conversation is here.

I'll do a follow-up to the "Hillary or Obama" post soon.

Hillary or Obama? part II

2008-03-09T18:35:00.000-07:00

One word:

SUPERTICKET!

POLZOO

2008-02-24T23:17:00.000-08:00

This seems like an interesting politics site. It's just starting up, and I haven't had a lot of time to check it out, so let me know what you think.

What's interesting is that all you have to do is sign up with a polzoo account to be able to make blog entries. We'll see how well that works out in the end, but it certainly represents the entire political spectrum; left, right, center, and out there.

Have fun!

Sheep In Human Clothing: Scientists Reveal Our Flock Mentality

2008-02-17T10:56:00.000-08:00

OK, anyone who knows me or frequents this blog knows that this is an issue near and dear to my heart.

Sheep1
Sheep2

You get the idea.

I know it sounds arrogant to equate 95% of the population with sheep, but now I have genuine scientific validation.
"Results from a study at the University of Leeds show that it takes a minority of just five per cent to influence a crowd’s direction – and that the other 95 per cent follow without realising it."

Basically, they sent a crowd of people wandering through a building. They gave a small number of people in the group detailed instructions on where to go, but no one was allowed to communicate with anyone else. And the whole group followed the 'informed individuals' without even realizing they were doing it.

What's even more interesting is that, the larger the group; the fewer 'informed individuals' you need to lead the herd.

Of course, this has both useful and scary implications for crowd control, but surely this information could have more interesting applications.

I realize that our herd mentality exists because, in the past, it has helped our species survive in some way, but maybe this is something we should be trying to overcome. Maybe if people realized that they were marching through their lives with their nose attached to the butt of the sheep in front of them, they would wake up and shake it off. We could see a day where, instead of 5%, 50% of the population would be finding their own path through life, seeking out new ideas and new innovations.
Sure things would be more chaotic, but we, as a species, would be less frightened of chaos.

We could start small, maybe with a study on "black sheep." We could find out what happens if you send a group of artists and musicians roving through a building.

I'm sure the results would be interesting.

No More Fear!

2008-02-16T11:05:00.000-08:00

George H.W. Bush weeps and weeps and weeps

2008-02-16T10:17:00.001-08:00

I don't even remember this!

I Like to Draw

2008-02-15T17:21:00.001-08:00

And I don't feel like writing a post today.

Political Blogs

2008-02-11T09:52:00.004-08:00

We live in an exciting time. Maybe it's the ease of internet access or the volatile political atmosphere, but there is no shortage of conversation and debate, and blogs are a great way to find people with whom to toss around ideas.

Here are a few blogs I really like.

politickybitch

The posts are brief, witty, and to the point. Very enjoyable to read.

Libertarian Land

This is a new one. Very thorough and informative. I don't agree with many Libertarian positions, but I find them to be critical thinkers and always worth debating.

Reason

This is a big blog with lots of topics and lots of people. It's also libertarian, but there are a lot of points of view there.

Happy Blogging!

Meet Apollonius; My Daemon

2008-02-10T10:02:00.001-08:00

In the Navy!

2008-02-03T16:15:00.001-08:00

This is the Herndon Climb at the US Naval AcademyBasically, they send a thousand freshmen plebes scrambling up a 21 ft granite phalic symbol that has been coated with 200 pounds of lard.

Oh, and they hose the freshmen down while they're climbing.
"The scene is unforgettable to those who watch, as the sweating, grunting, red-faced midshipmen at the bottom, their arms linked, support a human pyramid surging to the top of the monument."

The Navy is thinking about doing away with this hallowed tradition in the name of "safety," though opponents are quick to point out that there's nothing that unsafe about the climb, especially when you consider that these young men are being trained for the military.

Somehow, I get the impression that some high-ranking Navy official saw this momentous occasion on a visit to the Naval Academy and thought to himself, "Now, this is just wrong on so many levels," and went back to his office and said, "I think we should put an end to the Herndon Climb because... it's... it's unsafe!"

Hillary or Obama?

2008-02-02T11:44:00.001-08:00

My first choice was Kucinich.

My second choice was Edwards.

sigh...

Hillary or Obama?As far as decent Democrats go, they're pretty equal. I think they would both make fine presidents, and I wouldn't think twice about voting for whoever gets the nomination.

I think Hillary is more electable.

I think a black man running for president is the one thing that would galvanize the evangelical base of the Republican party. Of course, most of them won't admit in public that they're raging racists, so they'll cling to the shameless Republican attack ads that will link Obama with Islam, and Islam with terrorism. I can hear them already finding clever couplets in which to rhyme Obama with Osama.

Okay, so in my opinion Obama and Hillary are pretty equal as candidates, and Hillary is slightly more electable (I think she's also capable of inspiring conservatives to get out and vote).

But as the California primary draws near, the question I've been asking myself is; what if I could bypass the whole Democratic process and ordain one of them president? All other things being equal, who would I choose?

Well there's all this experience Hillary has. In a few of the debates, she spoke about being realistic and practical in the face of Edwards and Obama's comments about hope and change. But is "being practical" really just a matter of being knee deep in the system for so long that you can no longer see beyond it?

But putting aside all practicality, I would choose Obama for everything he represents. What would it mean to have a black president? What would it mean to millions of marginalized minorities in the country?

As a school teacher, I have stared into the eyes of callous inner-city kids who don't see the point in learning how to solve a mathematical inequality. I pace the classroom trying to tell them, "Wake up! Participate! Learn something. This is your future. This is your life."

How inspirational would it be for all of them to see a black man leading our country? They would begin to see that they do have a future. That this is their country too.

Obama as president would bring us that much closer to the day when skin color will be as relevant to a person's life and social status as hair color or eye color.

Is skin color a good reason to vote for someone? Of course not. But it will be a reason for many people in this country to vote against Obama. And for that, as a country, we should be ashamed.

But for whom shall I vote this Tuesday in California?

The more likely Hillary?

The more inspiring Obama?

Six in one hand; a half dozen in the other.

I still don't know.

North Atlantic Warming Tied To Natural Variability

2008-01-05T10:14:00.001-08:00

ScienceDaily (Jan. 5, 2008) — A Duke University-led analysis of available records shows that while the North Atlantic Ocean's surface waters warmed in the 50 years between 1950 and 2000, the change was not uniform. In fact, the subpolar regions cooled at the same time that subtropical and tropical waters warmed.

This striking pattern can be explained largely by the influence of a natural and cyclical wind circulation pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), wrote authors of a study published Jan. 3, in Science Express, the online edition of the journal Science.

Winds that power the NAO are driven by atmospheric pressure differences between areas around Iceland and the Azores. "The winds have a tremendous impact on the underlying ocean," said Susan Lozier, a professor of physical oceanography at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences who is the study's first author.

Other studies cited in the Science Express report suggest human-caused global warming may be affecting recent ocean heating trends. But Lozier and her coauthors found their data can't support that view for the North Atlantic. "It is premature to conclusively attribute these regional patterns of heat gain to greenhouse warming," they wrote.

"The take-home message is that the NAO produces strong natural variability," said Lozier in an interview. "The simplistic view of global warming is that everything forward in time will warm uniformly. But this very strong natural variability is superimposed on human-caused warming. So researchers will need to unravel that natural variability to get at the part humans are responsible for."

In research supported by the National Science Foundation in the United States and the Natural Environment Research Council in the United Kingdom, her international team analyzed 50 years of North Atlantic temperature records collected at the National Oceanic Data Center in Washington, D.C.

To piece together the mechanisms involved in the observed changes, their analysis employed an ocean circulation model that predicts how winds, evaporation, precipitation and the exchange of heat with the atmosphere influences the North Atlantic's heat content over time. They also compared those computer predictions to real observations "to test the model's skill," the authors wrote.

Her group's analysis showed that water in the sub-polar ocean --- roughly between 45 degrees North latitude and the Arctic Circle --- became cooler as the water directly exchanged heat with the air above it.

By contrast, NOA-driven winds served to "pile up" sun-warmed waters in parts of the subtropical and tropical North Atlantic south of 45 degrees, Lozier said. That retained and distributed heat at the surface while pushing underlying cooler water further down.

The group's computer model predicted warmer sea surfaces in the tropics and subtropics and colder readings within the sub-polar zone whenever the NAO is in an elevated state of activity. Such a high NAO has been the case during the years 1980 to 2000, the scientists reported.

"We suggest that the large-scale, decadal changes...associated with the NAO are primarily responsible for the ocean heat content changes in the North Atlantic over the past 50 years," the authors concluded.

However, the researchers also noted that this study should not be viewed in isolation. Given reported heat content gains in other oceans basins, and rising air temperatures, the authors surmised that other parts of the world's ocean systems may have taken up the excess heat produced by global warming.

"But in the North Atlantic, any anthropogenic (human-caused) warming would presently be masked by such strong natural variability," they wrote.

Other authors of the report included Richard Williams and Vassil Roussenov of Liverpool University; Susan Leadbetter, previously at Liverpool University but now a postdoctoral researcher with Lozier; Mark Reed, a computational scientist who also works with Lozier at Duke; and Nathan Moore, a former Duke graduate student now at Michigan State University.

Adapted from materials provided by Duke University.

Mindless Sheep Herded into Religious Frenzy

2007-12-01T11:16:00.000-08:00

I'm assuming you know the story, but I'll break it down to the bear facts:

Gillian Gibbons, a 54-year-old British school teacher, was teaching a second grade class in Sudan.

She allowed the kids to name a class teddy bear "Mohamed," a common enough name in a Muslim country. The bear was used for a class writing project.

One of her colleagues turned her in for the criminal offense of naming a toy (or animal, or whatever) the name of the prophet.

She was convicted, and the court was extremely lenient, sentencing her to 15 days in prison to be followed by deportation.

Now there are riots in the streets of Sudan of Muslims demanding she be put to death.

This is exactly what is wrong with religion! Any human being who would stop for a moment and use their brain could easily see that this was a simple misunderstanding, not a willful insult.

But religious sheep do not use their brains. They have been conditioned against using their brains.

Instead, they gather together in groups and listen to a religious leader who speaks passionately and feverishly about infidels and crimes against god. The sheep allow themselves to be swept up in a senseless fervor of rage, and mass hysteria ensues.

Of course, the leaders are using their brains.

They know that there was no intended insult to the prophet, the religion, or the country of Sudan.

But they see an opportunity to further their agenda: war with the non-Islamic world.

This is why we as a species must throw off the chains of religion. Whatever good religion may do is first of all obtainable through reason, and second, nullified by the evil it does.

Pop Quiz

2007-11-10T10:18:00.000-08:00

Name the deity described below:

He was born of a virgin
His father was a carpenter
His birth was attended by angels & wise men
He was persecuted by a tyrant
He was of royal descent
He was baptized in a river
He worked miracles
He raised the dead and healed the sick
He used parables to teach
He lived poor and loved the poor
He was transfigured in front of his disciples
He died on a tree
He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven
He is the second person of the Trinity
He is considered "the Beginning, the Middle, and the End"
He is to return to do battle with "the Prince of Darkness"

a) Krishna
b) Christ
c) Horus
d) All of the above

For more information, visit Gnostic Media.

Keeping the Peace

2007-11-04T12:55:00.000-08:00

Here in San Diego, there has been a shortage of police officers since around 2005.

How scary is that?

Fewer officers on the streets to prevent crime.

Fewer officers to intervene when crime happens.

And what about traffic?

With fewer officers on the highways writing tickets, people will be out of control and there will be more accidents… right?

The officer shortage has gotten so bad, that this year the police are attempting to strong arm the city by denying liquor licenses to restaurants in the hopes that disrupting business will force the city to address this important issue.

But how important is it to get more cops on the streets?

First of all, car accidents have dropped so much here in California that insurance companies are giving us discounts.

And San Diego's crime rates have been steadily dropping all across the board.

I'm just going to come right out and say it: Fewer Cops = Less Crime.

Okay, but San Diego is just one city, right? Surely Fewer Cops = Less Crime can't possibly be the norm?

Actually, Fewer Cops = Less Crime is a national trend with most major cities experiencing a shortage of police coinciding with lower crime rates.

No, wait, it's an international trend! Tijuana lowered it's crime rate, not by getting rid of their police, but by disarming them.

For some of us, this data just makes perfect sense; cops are bullies with badges and guns who incite nearly as much crime and violence as they thwart.

But most Americans can't see the Fewer Cops = Less Crime equation even when the numbers are staring them in the face, so let me give you an example.

Several years ago when I could still stomach the fascist TV show COPS, I watched two officers on bicycles ride past a grungy long-haired man at a bus stop and spot an easy target. The officers stopped to question the man, apparently because it was well past the time that the busses run. The man looked alarmed and explained that he was just sitting there. At some point, the officers decided to search him and found a pocket knife in his back pocket. The scene ended with the cops wrestling the man to the ground and shoving him in the back of a cruiser.

Now, this is a perfect example of a "crime" that only occurred because the police were there to incite one. The man was not threatening or hurting anyone. He was literally just sitting there.

I'm not saying that we should completely get rid of police; they are a necessary evil. I'm just saying that we need to recognize the Fewer Cops = Less Crime equation and try to find the optimum ratio of police to citizens.

And the next time you open the paper and see a headline that says there is a police shortage, take a moment to call your mayor or city councilman and congratulate them on a job well done.

(Special thanks to Louis Netter for his "Keeping the Peace" illustration.)

Sorry About This

2007-11-03T10:30:00.001-07:00

My blog is getting spammed, so I have to put up the word verification thingy for comments. I really hate word verification, so I'm looking into other ways to block spam. Any suggestions?

Apples and Oranges -an editorial

2007-10-29T09:39:00.000-07:00

I would like to know how Robert Caldwell could possibly compare the San Diego fires to New Orleans in his article "Tale of Two Cities."

It's true that San Diego had New Orleans beat in preparedness, but only because we found out how unprepared we were with the 2003 Cedar fires. So our preparedness was not due to our "superior culture," but to our wake-up call just four years ago.

The only other way our situation could even come close to comparing to New Orleans would be if a massive fireball had descended from the sky and lit up the whole burned out area at once. This fire took days to advance; people had time to evacuate, and rescue teams had time to respond. New Orleans was under water in a matter of hours.

Comparing the order at Qualcomm to the disorder at the Superdome is also unfair. Most of San Diego was not affected by the fires, so we had an army of people ready to volunteer and organize the situation. Hurricane Katrina brought devastation not just to the city of New Orleans, but to the state of Louisiana as well as the neighboring states of Mississippi and Alabama.

The San Diego fires were a good example of a disaster where the chain of emergency response could be followed; local, state, then national. What happened in Louisiana was an example of a natural disaster of epic proportions, where the federal government needed to step in from day one.

I think it is an absolute outrage to completely trivialize the human disaster that happened in New Orleans and smugly pat San Diego on the back for rising to an occasion that in no way compared to Hurricane Katrina.

Now

2007-10-24T08:53:00.000-07:00

There was a time

When God filled the infinite expanse

Claiming everything striking and awesome

Everything beautiful and perfect

So much so, that I wondered if those who couldn't see God

Could truly be struck or awed

Now

The sunset is no less beautiful

The moonlit outline of rocky cliffs on a dark night is no less striking

Moments of wonder and awe and beauty and perfection

Are not claimed or owned

But infinite

In and of themselves

My imagination is free to wander

Into the immeasurable spaces of nothing

Which surround an envelop everything

Now

I can truly be struck and awed

Kirsten Price - Freedom

2007-10-19T04:49:00.001-07:00

I'd like to thank Wanda Acosta for submitting this video.

Karen Price has a beautiful voice, a smooth, funky sound, and a good message.

For more about Kristen Price, you can visit her YouTube page.

Rudy Values Corporate Ties Over Firefighters' Lives

2007-10-16T22:43:00.001-07:00

After you watch this video,check out this previous post on Giuliani's corporate ties.

UF Student tasered at John Kerry Speech

2007-09-18T22:48:00.001-07:00

"When they come for the innocent without stepping over your body, cursed be your religion and your life."
-Anon.

There are so many things I want to say about this clip. I really want everyone to listen to the entire thing (I say listen because the picture is terrible).

A few things I noticed:

The police are surrounding this kid very early in his question; the moment the question seems hostile.

This kid never once threatened Kerry or anyone else verbally, physically, or otherwise.

At the end of the clip, the student holding the camera begins yelling "police brutality" and "Rodney King," and is told by a police officer, "You better shut the fuck up."

(I saw a T-shirt at the mall today and thought of Kerry. It said, "If I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you.")

Okay, so the most hostile and inflammatory question that came out of that kid's mouth was, "Were you a member of the Skull and Bones Society?" Skull and Bones is a secret society at Yale (and Kerry was a member) that boasts such prestigious members as Bush I, Bush II, and Grandpa (Prescott) Bush.

The implication is that Kerry possibly conceded the election because he's down with that crowd, and that reminded me of something that's been pricking at me since the 2004 Iowa Primaries.

See, the thing is, according to polls taken between Jan 12th and 15th, John Kerry was pretty far down on the totem pole. He had 7% of the vote, behind Gephardt (11%), Clark (12%), and Dean (24%).

Then four days later, on January 19th, he won the Iowa Caucus with 38% of the vote. Of course, once you win the first caucus, the nomination is in the bag because people are sheep.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, honest, it's just something that's bothered me. How do you go from "Kerry Who?" to winning the caucus?

The important thing about Kerry, though, is that he stood there and let a college student who was grilling him get tasered by the police.

We like to think that we live in a country where a college student can ask tough questions of a politician, but that's the kind of right that is never a given. Each and every person must decide whether they will fight for such rights, or whether they will "shut the fuck up" and get in line.

George W Bush Battles Jesus Christ

2007-09-11T20:54:00.001-07:00

I've always found the hypocrisy of Christianity interesting, but the Bush Reign has been the scariest example of everything wrong with religion in recent times.

In Defense of Rove

2007-08-15T10:12:00.000-07:00

Anyone who knows me is going to think that I would never defend Karl Rove; that perhaps this post is going to be satirical.

As much as I enjoy satire, I'm sorry to say, I really am defending Rove.

The Bush-Rove marriage began with the 1994 Texas gubernatorial race against Ann Richards. The race was heated and hateful, but what eventually helped secure the Bush victory was a whisper campaign courtesy of Mr. Rove.

Basically, Bush staffers called up voters and said something like, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Ann Richards if you knew her office was staffed with lesbians?"

Okay, let's even forget the fact that the voters in Texas are retarded enough to base their vote for a governor on whether or not she employs lesbians-- let's just not even go there.

What I want to focus on is the fact that, time and time again, Rove has been able to engineer bold-face lies without even lying! That's how stupid our population has become. You don't even have to lie to us to convince us of something that isn't true.

When the Iraq war first began I argued with so many people, trying to convince them that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. I even pointed out that Bush himself never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. Sure, he used the words "Iraq" and "Saddam" in the same sentences with "9-11" and "Al Qaeda" over and over and over; but he never actually said that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

And what was Bush's defense when he finally had to come clean and say point-blank that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11? Was our country's justification for preemptively attacking a sovereign nation a figment of our collective imagination? Did Bush finally have to come forward and own up to his bold-face lie?

Well, that's just it.

Rove figured out a long time ago that you don't have to actually lie to people, and lying through implying has been the Bush strategy since that first race for governor.

So I'm not saying that Rove is a good person, or that anything he's done has been right; I'm just saying, how can you blame him? How can you possibly blame Rove for using people's own stupidity and prejudice and fears to his own advantage?

When we become a nation of courageous and competent citizens, we will deserve, no, we will demand leaders who respect us.

As long as we are a nation of spineless, cowering sheep crying out for our leaders to protect us from the lesbians, we will deserve, and we will get, leadership like the Bush administration.

Thank you Mr. Rove.

Thank you for giving us exactly what we deserve.

Taking a Break

2007-05-14T05:59:00.000-07:00

I did a Google image search on "Taking a Break," and this is one of the images that came up. For some reason, I find it hilarious. I'm not exactly taking a break, though, I just need to devote my time to some off-line projects.

Mother's Day Proclamation -by Julia Ward Howe 1870

2007-05-13T11:24:00.000-07:00

Arise, then, women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts,
Whether our baptism be of water or of tears!

Say firmly:"We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the bosom of the devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.
"Blood does not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil at the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel.

Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace,
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God.

In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And at the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

Of the People

2007-05-12T07:11:00.000-07:00

Our government has been hijacked and no one seems to care (enough). Our constitutional rights have been vanquished, our judicial system is being rigged, our economy has been on a twenty-year decline thanks to free trade (loss of industry, loss of the tax revenue from industry, and loss of tariffs), deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, and corporate welfare (which dwarfs the money spent on individual welfare by a long shot). The gap between the wealthy and the poor is widening and the middle class is disappearing.

The problem, I believe, is that our population is almost completely ignorant of the inner-workings of our own government. We vote based on the buzzwords that are spoon fed to us by the media. We vote for the politicians who are the best at whispering sweet nothings in our ear.

So I have a solution. It's an exercise in futility because few people will like it and it will never be put into practice, but I think it's worth mentioning.

The average citizen NEEDS a first-hand understanding of how our government works so they can be competent voters. We also need diversity in our government. We need more non-bureaucrats running the bureaucracy. We need more compassionate, non-control freaks working in our prison system. We need fresh minds and fresh ideas. Most of all, we need people in our government who would rather be doing something else. I know that sounds crazy, but you can't pull a cart out of the mud with people who have a vested interest in being stuck in the mud.

We need mandatory civil service by every citizen.

That's right, every citizen needs to serve a few years in the government in order to qualify for government services. In return for imposing on the lives and career tracks of every citizen, government services should extend to universal healthcare and higher education.

Not only would we be a country bursting with fresh ideas and renewed progress, but we would be a country of healthy, educated citizens.

Also, when Congress votes for a war, THEIR KIDS should be automatically enlisted in the military.

So now we would be a country of healthy, educated and involved citizens that would only go to war if there were an actual and serious threat to our nation's safety.

Oh well, it's a thought.

The Luck of the Draw

2007-04-30T09:42:00.000-07:00

Politicians.

Are they all liars?

Maybe not, but the majority of the successful ones are.

But that's our fault. We only vote for liars.

Well, not our fault exactly, it's in our programming. I watched this documentary on TLC years ago where they proved that the best leaders are the best liars. They took a class of five-year-olds and gave them something terrible tasting to drink. Then they sent the kids one by one into a room with a couple of interviewers and instructed the kids to tell the interviewers that the drink tasted good.

The kids who could, after nearly choking on that terrible drink, look the interviewers in the eye and say it was great were the outgoing leaders of the classroom.

One girl broke down and couldn't lie at all. When they showed a video of free play in the Kindergarten classroom, she was the one hiding under a table.

But the fact that liars are outgoing people who tend to be leaders still doesn't completely explain why we vote for them.

George Bush I was constantly ridiculed for saying "Read my lips, no new taxes," during his campaign, then raising taxes once he was elected, but how would we react if someone said, "Look, I want to be the President of the United States, not the Wizard of Oz; if you folks want the government to do stuff, you're going to have to cough up some dough!"?

So our natural inclination to elect the people who are the best at telling us what we want to hear (while openly doing the exact opposite) has gotten us into quite a pickle. We're stuck with a president we don't want, in a war we don't want, and we've been stripped of basic rights that have been in place since the Magna Carta.

Well I have a solution, and you're not going to like it, but hear me out.

We need a president with no strings attached (you know, lobbyists, donors, etc.) right? Under our current system, that is absolutely impossible. So I propose that we draw the next president randomly out of a hat!

(Not an actual hat, of course, but you get my point.)

We take every American citizen who meets the requirements for age, health, IQ, and education, and we put their names in a giant swirling drum. Then we have a random, blind-folded six-year-old pull out the names of our next President and VP!

Problem solved.

At the end of their four-year term, we could vote to keep them for another four years or draw from the hat again.

The next thing we'd have to do is put term limits on high-level bureaucratic positions. These people can have their jobs for decades and no one even gets to vote on them.

For my next post, I have a great idea that even fewer people will like.

Walls -part II

2007-04-27T08:31:00.000-07:00

It's only fitting that my post on walls, inspired first by the wall we're building in Baghdad and second by the Iraq memorial wall being built in North Carolina, be followed by a post on the world's premier graffiti artist, Banksy.

Everyone has their own idea of what art is, and few mainstream art connoisseurs would consider graffiti art, but Banksy's art has been featured in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Museum of Modern Art, Brooklyn Museum, and American Museum of Natural History... until museum staff discovered his work hanging on their walls.Banksy's art speaks for itself; his brilliant use of irony, his cutting social and political satire, and most of all, his unwavering commitment to nonconformity (which is being seriously threatened by his growing status as a beloved British icon).

But I'm thinking about walls and what he does with them.

He forces us to notice the walls we ignore.

He forces us to face issues we ignore.
Most interesting, was his trip to Palestine. 416 miles of wall, 26 feet tall.
Cutting Palestinians off from their jobs, schools, and family members.
His work there was met with some opposition.
Banksy's spokeswoman Jo Brooks said: "The Israeli security forces did shoot in the air threateningly and there were quite a few guns pointed at him."

He also received criticism from a few Palestinians who thought it was wrong to make something beautiful out of such a terrible and oppressive wall.I wonder if Banksy will make his way to Baghdad.
Long live the bleeding-hearts and artists!See more of Banksy's work on his website.

Walls

2007-04-26T12:45:00.000-07:00

Why do we build walls?
Are they a symbol of power,

or of powerlessness?

Do they solve our problems,
or create new ones?

Why do we continue to build walls?

And if walls are good, why do we celebrate when we tear them down?
Walls are barriers, containers of human beings.
Walls are symbols; they send a message to the people being contained.
But sometimes,
just sometimes,
they stand between us and the desire to move on and forget.
They stretch out into the distance as a physical measure of the magnitude of an event.
Why do we continue to build walls?
Go to www.iraqwall.org

A Quick Note on Imus

2007-04-18T08:55:00.000-07:00

I never liked Imus, so I never listened to his show.

Sure, what Imus said was vile and racist, but no more than usual, and no more shocking than the vocal feces that spews from the lips of Coulter or Limbaugh.

But that's what is so great about America.

Any damn fool can say any damn fool thing they want.

This is why I have a blog.

Actually, I think Coulter is to blame for the firestorm around Imus. Call it a delayed reaction. Like when a group of rowdy kids is getting out of hand, and one kid says something way over the top, but the adults are slow to react. You know those moments; when even the kids know they better shut the hell up. Then the next kid who says ANYTHING gets the wrath of God brought down on him.

But what's funny is how the other conservative pundits have attacked Imus.

I think the conservatives have taken to cannibalizing themselves to stay alive. The weaker rats have already jumped ship and now the languishing rats are resorting to desperate measures. Frankly, I think Rush Limbaugh would have been a more substantial choice, and I mean that on so many different levels. Imus is just a jerk who says things for shock value; Rush is a vile human being with enough real dirt to keep the 24-hour news networks busy for a week without repeating themselves.

But then, if they were interested in tackling issues of substance, they wouldn't be conservatives, right?

Sorry, Imus, looks like you got the short straw.

The Comfort You Seek in Permanence is an Illusion

2007-04-09T12:01:00.000-07:00

"Everything that is living will one day die."

I think I was about five when my grandma hit me with this particular philosophical ton of bricks. I don't remember if it was before or after my dad tried to explain the concept of eternity. I was a relentlessly inquisitive child, and my elders were not trying to instill deep metaphysical contemplation in my young mind, but a reverent and obedient awe of God.

And this approach worked for many years. The despair at the thought of this temporal existence was tempered by the knowledge that my true eternal existence lay waiting for me on the other side of my physical death.

Though this fantasy is comforting, it is ultimately counterproductive. It's like depending on Santa Clause to pay your rent. Not only is that not going to happen, but if you believe it will, you won't be getting the money together to pay your own rent.

But we have come too far to deny reality now: the key to our own immortality is us.

Only through science will we conquer death, or continue to fend it off by adding decades, and eventually centuries, to our lives.

But to truly embrace the mindset that will allow us to take the reigns of our own destiny, we must relinquish completely that concept to which we so desperately wish to cling: permanence.

Death is all that is permanent. And permanence is death.

Life is change. And change is life.

Chaos. Cycles. Patterns. Adaptation. Evolution.

The struggle to live, and it is a struggle, produces, and is a product of, relentless change. Our survival has always depended upon our willingness and ability to change.

And yet, even in science, we insist upon establishing "norms" and "ideals." We want laws that we can say for certain will never change, even though the very concept of "unchanging truths" exist only in our imaginations and holy folklore.

Do you know why Latin is a dead language? Because the authorities wanted to preserve the "right" "proper" and "true" Latin with rules, and they did. Meanwhile, the language that people actually spoke continued to change until it barely resembled the "real" Latin which had been preserved in books. But which is more real; that which is alive and being spoken in Italy, or that which is dead and preserved for scholars in books?

Death is all that is permanent. And permanence is death.

Life is change. And change is life.

All comfort you seek in permanence is an illusion, so let it go.

And be free.

Now Acceptng Submissions

2007-04-08T09:10:00.000-07:00

My friend Larry does this with CityBeat's Living Out Loud Blog, so I'll give it a try.

Damion, a recent commenter here, sent me a submission on WATER and it was pretty funny so I put it up.

So here are a few guidelines:

-Send submissions to sunshinehs@gmail.com

-I'm not editing the content, but I reserve the right to insert pictures at will.

-Try to keep posts under 500 words.

-I'm fine with linking the post to your site or your blog, but make an effort to contribute to the conversation you inspire here.

-I'm more than happy to post something with which I disagree. What I'm looking for is material that is brief, concise, well-written, and something with a clever angle. In other words, it's not so much what you say, but how you say it.

New Environmental Menace --Is Progress Worth the Cost?

2007-04-07T18:03:00.000-07:00

ICI has announced the discovery of a new firefighting agent to add to their existing range. Known as WATER ( Wonderful And Total Extinguishing Resource ), it augments, rather than replaces, existing agents, such as dry powder and BCF (bromine-chlorine-fluorine), which have been in use from time immemorial. It is particularly suitable for dealing with fires in buildings, timber yards, and warehouses.

Though required in large quantities, it is fairly cheap to produce and it is that quantities of about a million gallons should be stored in urban areas and near other installations of high risk ready for immediate use. BCF and dry powder are usually stored under pressure, but WATER will be stored in open ponds or reservoirs and conveyed to the scene of the fire by hoses and portable pumps.

ICI's new proposals are already encountering strong opposition from safety and environmental groups. Professor Connie Barrinner has pointed out that if anyone immersed his head in a bucket of WATER, it would prove fatal in as little as three minutes. Each of ICI's proposed reservoirs will contain enough WATER to fill 500,000 two-gallon buckets. Each bucketful could be used 100 times, so there is enough WATER in one reservoir to kill the entire population of the U.K. Risks of this size, said Professor Barrinner, should not be allowed, whatever the gain. If that WATER were to get out of control, the results of Flixborough or Seveso would pale into insignificance by comparison. What use was a firefighting agent that could kill men as well as fire?

A local authority spokesman said that he would strongly oppose planning permission for construction of a WATER reservoir in this area, unless the most stringent precautions were followed. Open ponds were certainly not acceptable. What would prevent people from falling in them? What would prevent the contents from leaking out? At the very least, the WATER would need to be contained in a steel pressure vesssel surrounded by a leak proof concrete wall.

A spokesman from the fire brigades said he did not see the need for the new agent. Dry powder and BFC could cope with most fires. The new agent would bring with it risks, particularly to firemen, greater than any possible gain. Did we know what would happen to this new medium when it was exposed to intense heat? It had been reported that WATER was a constituent of beer. Did this mean that firemen would be intoxicated by the fumes?
The friends of the World said that they had obtained a sample of WATER and found it caused clothes to shrink. If it did this to cotton , what would it do to men?

In the House of Commons yesterday, the Home Secretary was asked if he would prohibit the manufacture and storage of this lethal new material. The Home Secretary replied that, as it was clearly a major hazard, local authorities would have to take advice from the Health and Safety Executive before giving planning permission. A full investigation was needed and the Major Hazards Group would be asked to report.

Article by Norman Mischler (a dirty industrialist)
Post submitted by Damion

Submit posts for consideration to sunshinehs@gmail.com

Global Climate History

2007-04-03T08:40:00.000-07:00

It's been hotter; it's been colder.

Without any help from us.

Man and polar bear has managed to survive; the hard way.

Nothing on this planet remains constant, and who are we to say that it should?

Should we find alternatives to oil? Of course!

Should we care for this planet and all life on it? Of course!

But we should approach all our endeavors with a clear head and a steady hand. Be cool and calm in the face of fear mongers and doomsayers; be ever-skeptical of the all-knowing.

Life, the Universe and Everything

2007-03-30T13:49:00.000-07:00

I'm being lazy today and linking to the post of another blogger.

I'm sorry.

But in all fairness, it's a truly awesome post.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Complete)

2007-03-24T16:40:00.001-07:00

Watch: UK (C4) Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle

Don't listen to Gore. The sky is NOT falling!
Anyone who believes in global warming should at least watch this video.
I watched An Inconvenient Truth; I sat through the whole thing even though I think Gore can be a serious jerk. I even teared up when the polar bear couldn't find any ice to climb on.
Unless you are a scientist out there collecting and analyzing atmospheric data yourself, then you need to listen to scientists. And if you're only listening to one side of an argument, then you can't say your opinion is informed or well-thought-out.
Some Quick Facts:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring atmospheric substance.
CO2 makes up .054% of the atmosphere.
Volcanoes produce far more CO2 than humans.
Animals produce more CO2 than volcanoes.
Decaying vegetation produces more CO2 than animals (remember Gore's explanation for why the red line is so squiggly?; He left out half the explanation.)
The OCEANS produce more CO2 than vegetation, animals, volcanoes, and the puny, insignificant amount of CO2 humans produce.

Let's Get Philosophical -Part II

2007-03-24T08:02:00.000-07:00

In Let's Get Philosophical part 1, we laid one of the foundations for talking about society by defining the major roles people have in society.

Today, I'd like to stay at the foundation we're building and talk about morality. How do we know right from wrong and how do we convince people they should behave accordingly?

In every society in recorded history, this has been the job of the shepherds and the dogs. The shepherds (priests are an example) teach the spiritual laws, which are almost always focused on morality. The dogs (police are one example) are the enforcers of the political laws, which have a lot to do with morality, and in some cultures are one-in-the-same with the spiritual laws.

But what about morality on an individual basis? How does each person decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong?

Of course, the overwhelming majority simply follow the herd without a second thought. Most of the time, this strategy works out pretty well. But sometimes the dogs and the shepherds are evil. Examples: the Crusades, the Inquisition, colonialism, witch hunts, slavery, Fascism; you get the idea.

So moral authorities really can't be trusted entirely on the issue of morality, can they?

But what about the Ultimate Authority? The Big Guy?

My problem with using God as a moral compass is that everyone has a different idea about what God wants from us (and now we're back to having to trust the word of the shepherds and dogs). And what about the idea that God gives everyone what's coming to them? That doesn't exactly work out in this lifetime, does it? There are far to many evil people prospering and good people suffering for anyone to argue that life on earth is anything close to fair and just.

And if everyone gets what's coming to them when they die, well, that still doesn't have much bearing on or lives here on earth. I mean, it's not like we can see who's being made an example of; we just have to take the shepherd's word for it.

I once found a large wad of cash that had been dropped near my apartment. As easy as it would have been to put it in my pocket and keep walking, I took it to the apartment office. I told them where it was dropped and counted it-- $120. They told me to hang on to it and if no one called about it within a week, it was mine.

When I was a child, I thought that God was watching me and taking notes on everything I did. I could feel him in my brain, judging all my wicked five-year-old thoughts. Shame, shame, shame! But I don't believe that anymore, so with no human or divine eye watching or judging me, why not just keep the money? (I certainly needed it!)

My motivation in making some attempt to return the money was empathy. I know what it feels like to lose money. I don't need to go to church to learn how to behave like a human being. I don't need anyone to scare me with threats of hell or divine judgment. And anyway, if you only do what you're supposed to do because you're afraid of a god, are you really a good person?

So I'd really like to get some feedback here. How does a person know right from wrong? How does a society know right from wrong? More importantly, how do we persuade people to behave for the good of everyone around them if "behaving" conflicts with what they'd rather be doing?

Giuliani Thinks Bush is a Donkey

2007-03-19T10:26:00.000-07:00

The Houston based lobbying firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, has been lobbying for years on behalf of Citgo Petroleum Corporation.

Citgo Petroleum Corporation is the American subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, which means that Giuliani has been lobbying on behalf of Hugo Chavez.

Of course, the real problem here is that we have people who are both politicians and lobbyists: the people who make our laws, and the people who get paid by corporations to influence our lawmakers ARE THE SAME PEOPLE!!

But I digress...

Shh, darling... Let us not speak of true political issues when there is so much mindless political gossip at hand!

Giuliani is a partner in a firm that lobbies for Citgo.

And Citgo is run by Chavez!

And Chavez called Bush a donkey.

Therefore....

Giuliani thinks Bush is a Donkey!

Okay seriously, the way I see it, Giuliani has two options.

He can admit that there is nothing wrong with his company working with Citgo because whatever President Chavez's political persuasions, the fact is that President Chavez has never done anything that even remotely constituted a threat to the United States, or any of his neighbors. Ever.

Or Mr. Giuliani can admit that money trumps politics, and he doesn't care who's buying the laws, so long as they're paying in American dollars.

If nothing else, this juicy tidbit should only serve to endear Mr. Giuliani to his base because it's not just the fact that Chavez calls Bush a Donkey, it's the ostentatious show of machismo he exudes in the process. That's an attitude any New Yorker can appreciate.

The Garden of Eden

2007-03-16T16:41:00.000-07:00

Okay, according to the bible, God told Adam, Don’t eat from the tree of knowledge, or you will surely die that day. (Gen. 2:17)

Then the serpent tells Eve, You’re not going to die; God just doesn’t want you to know what he knows. (Gen. 3:4-5)

Adam and Eve eat the fruit and God says, Oh no, man has eaten from the tree of knowledge and now he knows good and evil as we do. Now we have to kick him out of the garden before he eats from the tree of life and lives forever, too. (Gen. 3:22)

So here’s my question: If you read it literally, who was lying to Adam and Eve, and who was telling the truth?

There’s this guy named Ken Ham who’s building a $25 million creationist museum in Kentucky, and his whole premise is that you have to read Genesis literally.

So just for laughs, I picked up Genesis and started to read it literally, which is when I reached my epiphany: that it was God who lied and the serpent that told the truth (also, there is no literal reference to the serpent being Satan).
(Here's a photo from Mr. Ham's museum of Adam chillin' with a razor-toothed herbivore before the fall of man courtesy of the Enquirer)

You want to see something really scary? Here's
Ken Ham "teaching" kids about evolution.

The WWFP Extremist Cage Match!

2007-03-15T10:06:00.000-07:00

This is an open invitation from the newly created World Wide Federation of Peace (WWFP) to everyone who is willing to kill and/or be killed for their ideology (and noncombatant supporters of extremist organizations).

Do you know that the world is doomed unless everyone converts to your religion and listens to your God?
Are you a member of the only race God truly loves?
Are you a born leader, willing to pretend to be religious in order to manipulate others for your own personal gain?
Are you willing to kill others, send people to die for you or be killed yourself in order to accomplish your goals?

Well, what's stopping you?

International laws?

The whining of innocent bystanders about collateral damage?

Or maybe it's just too difficult to convince the world that you're right when there are so many other groups out there claiming that they're right.

Well, here it is:

The answer to all your problems!

As you probably already know, the leaders of every country on the globe have unanimously agreed to settle all of the world's ideological conflicts in one monumental battle:

THE WYOMING CAGE MATCH!

The United States has graciously offered up the state of Wyoming to be evacuated and walled off for this, the greatest event in human history.

Yes, beautiful Wyoming!

Not only is it square and sparsely populated (making it easy to evacuate and wall the perimeter), you'll have 97,818 square miles of battlefield. Wyoming has everything you'll need to fight and subsist for decades. There are mountains, plains, and 714 square miles of water.

Finally:

No laws, and no innocent bystanders!

Just you and everyone else seeking world domination or the proliferation of his or her own religion. Here's your opportunity to prove that God really is on your side.

Time to put-up or shut-up.

So what's the prize?

The world!*

That's right, all world leaders have agreed to hand over absolute authority to the winners of this epic battle, as they will have proven their moral superiority. *

The Rules:

All extremist factions will be registered with the WWFP, including volunteers, individuals proven in an international court of law to be involved in terrorist organizations, and any world leaders who have sent their people to war for ideological reasons (i.e., religion, "freedom," to force sovereign nations to adopt the "right" form of government, or because God told them to).
The leader of each faction will be given one key.
After Wyoming has been evacuated and walled off, combatants and supporters will be flown into prearranged sites.
In order to ensure the integrity of the wall, combatants will be furnished only with primitive weapons such as knives, swords and arrows.
Cars, farm equipment and communication devices will be allowed, but no tanks or flying machines.
In order to ensure your fairest chance of victory and prevent your enemies from escaping, any individuals crossing the sensor lines within a half-mile of the wall will be electrocuted.
The winning faction must collect the key from every other faction, at which time they will be able to unlock an underground computer terminal located in the center of the state and establish communication with the outside world.

And the world belongs to the victor! *

But wait!

Don't be left out just because you're too squeamish for battle! If you support an extremist organization and want to see it victorious, you can support them from behind the front lines.

Each faction is going to need farmers to subsist in Wyoming for this decades-long conflict. They will also need communications experts, scouts, medical professionals and much more.

Don't miss this opportunity to finally prove that you know what's best for everyone else! *

THE WYOMING CAGE MATCH!

BE THERE!

*If, throughout the duration of the conflict, the world proves to have been better off without extremists, peace and moderation will be declared the ultimate ideologies, and the winning extremist faction will be given absolute authority over what is left of Wyoming (which will remain walled off).

More on the U.S. Attorney Bait and Switch

2007-03-13T12:30:00.001-07:00

The Senate will be debating legislation this week that will roll back the provision in the Patriot Act that gives President Bush the power to bypass congressional approval and appoint interim U.S. attorneys.

Who knows, maybe while they've got the Patriot Act in front of them, they'll do something really novel like read it.

So we have to give the Democrats some credit, they are doing what we sent them to Congress to do: check the Bush Administration.

According to the New York Times, the congressional investigation into the U.S. attorney firings has uncovered evidence that key White House staffers, including Harriet Miers and Karl Rove, have been scheming to replace U.S. attorneys with party loyalists since early 2005.

Miers' original idea was to replace all of the U.S. attorney with party loyalists, but that plan just wasn't practical. The plot evolved mostly through the course of Miers brainstorming ways to undermine the U.S. Constitution in favor of the bestest-president-in-the-whole-wide-world, and bouncing her ideas off of D. Kyle Sampson, a top aide to Mr. Gonzales.

All of this new information was obtained via Sampson's email records of the correspondence between Miers, who left the White House in January, and Sampson, who resigned his position on Monday, March 12th.

All of this just serves to prove that the people in the Bush Administration have no respect for our country, our laws, or our system of government. Their only concern is how they can best manipulate the system to their own advantage.

How Religion Creates Sexual Predators

2007-03-12T13:12:00.000-07:00

Life, death, sex and rebirth are all part of the natural order.

For human beings, the idea of death is so unbearable that we turn to the supernatural for comfort.

In most theologies, the natural and the supernatural coexist and counterbalance one another in harmony.

But in western theologies, Christianity in particular, the natural and the supernatural worlds are at war.

The most tragic casualty of this war on the natural world is sex. Sex, and everything associated with sex, is dirty and sinful.

But sex is an essential part of our selves. Without sex, we would literally cease to exist. Aside from being an essential component of our being, sex is wonderful. Sex is the direct or indirect motivation behind most of what we do. Sex is the reason we get up in the morning, and the reason we go to bed at night.

To pretend that sex is not an essential part of who we are is futile at best. To demonize sex, as Christianity has done; to make it shameful and villainous and dirty, is downright dangerous. No Christian church can compete with Catholicism when it comes to the demonization of sex, which is why no Christian church is as guilty of the level of sexual crimes against the innocent as the Catholic church.

When we take one of the most enjoyable pleasures in nature, as well as one of our most primal drives, and shroud it in a cloak of sin and shame, we are alienating a vital piece of our selves from our existence. We create a powerful kernel of self-loathing deep within our own psyche because we desperately want to enjoy that vile sinful act which God has forbidden us to have (except in the most practical of circumstances, and not for the sheer joy of it).

Of all the people who participate in this cycle of hating themselves for being human beings, the most dangerous are those in power. The laws of biology and physics have dictated that those in power shall be male, and the laws of the church have cemented this hierarchy into place. But it's difficult to have confidence in your own moral authority when you have that kernel of self-loathing gnawing at you from the inside; to chastise another human being for doing what you so desperately want to do yourself (or what you do, but have to hide because your trying to convince everyone that it's a terrible thing to do). Moreover, you can't be honest with yourself about your desires, after all, God can see right through to your soul!

Enter the scapegoat: Women.

The object of your own desire?

No!

Evil, lustful, temptresses! Pluckers of the forbidden fruit, beguilers of the faithful Adam. Witches: consorting in the moonlight with the vile serpent. They must be controlled because they are evil by nature.

So now, in a vain attempt to gain the favor of our supernatural god, we have twisted and suppressed our most powerful drive (without diminishing our desire to pursue that drive), and we have villainized half of our species (our mothers, our daughters, our wives, our sisters).

There's no way to come out of this without psychological damage. This is sexual predator psychology 101: self-loathing, women hating men in positions of moral authority. Of course children are going to get hurt! Children are easy to intimidate and manipulate, especially when their tormentor is a vessel of the almighty God.

Thankfully in America, we have a rule of law that is just secular enough that the church will not escape from these crimes unscathed. It is because of victims seeking justice in American courts against the Catholic church that we can all see the true spiritual sickness that western religion perpetuates in the form of systematic and institutionalized sexual assaults on innocent children.

But the San Diego Diocese may have found a way to slink out of the public spotlight by filing bankruptcy. Not to keep from compensating their victims, but to keep their victims from having their day in court; to keep all of us from witnessing the gruesome details of their crimes.

Because, let's face it, the surest way to end this sick and twisted cycle of sexual abuse is honesty; and that's the last thing the Catholic church wants.

Let's Get Philosophical -Part 1

2007-03-11T08:43:00.000-07:00

I want to have an ongoing discussion about government and governance. We can tie this discussion into current events, but it will be mostly philosophical.

Let's face it, it's the same scenario all throughout history: those in power war and scheme in order to gain or to stay in power. This is to the detriment or benefit of everyone else (though they rarely care whether they're helping or hurting the people they control). I'm a student of Pink Floyd, so we'll call this group the Pigs.

Then you have the servants of those in power: soldiers, politicians, bureaucrats. These people are either serving the rulers faithfully, or scheming for power of their own. These are the Dogs (Floyd again).

Then there's everyone else. Everyone else just wants to live and be reasonably happy. They don't want power or control; their natural inclination is to eat, sleep and breed. That's right, the Sheep!

Last, but not least, we have the subsets of the "everyone else" category. Artists, intellectuals, dissenters. These are the black Sheep. They try to talk sense into the herd, but are usually ignored. Sometimes they try to gain influence by becoming political, military, or spiritual leaders, but then they run the risk of becoming Dogs or Pigs and losing their connection to "everyone else".

The criminal element, we'll call the Wolves.

Spiritual leaders are Shepherds.

These categories are not rigid or static. A person can change from one category to another, or fit into more than one category at the same time.

The definitions I've established here will probably evolve with the conversation. Don’t worry if you're not familiar with Pink Floyd (though you should be ashamed of yourself), I'm not strictly adhering to their original concepts of Dogs, Pigs, and Sheep, I'm just ripping off their general idea.

Why Politics?

2007-03-09T05:38:00.000-08:00

In an attempt to become a successful blogger, I've been reading Mr. Steve Pavlina's blog. He's awesome, and I plan on incorporating a lot of his strategies, but his take on politics is disheartening.

He says that in the grand scheme of things, politics and current events are insignificant, and not really worth writing about. I get what he's saying, and I agree that people have very short attention spans, but I think that's why writing about politics and current events is so important.

I think it's the History Channel who has been running documentaries on Barbarians for the last week, and I've been riveted. I came to several epiphanies while watching these shows, so stay with me here, because I'm going to come full circle and make a point about the importance of writing about current events.

Rome warred its way right into oblivion, and I see the United States on the same track. If they weren't warring with someone, they were interfering in their politics; keeping neighboring regions in conflict with each other, staging coups from within tribes, assassinating troublesome leaders. All in the name of power, and where did Rome end up in the end?

Mr. Pavlina is right that scandals, even wars and tragedies, come and go, and if it's not one thing it's another. But I think that's why we have to pay attention to what's going on around us. We've all heard the old cliché that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

The human tragedy that is the Bush Administration is fleeting and temporal, but humanity's predisposition to allowing leaders like those in the Bush cabinet to come into power will remain eternal until more individuals start paying attention to what's going on around them.

See the Ball? See the Ball? Go Get the Ball!

2007-03-08T08:08:00.000-08:00

Here's my take on this whole issue:

Bush knowingly lied in the State of the Union Address when he said that Saddam had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium from Africa.

Joe Wilson knew it was a lie because he was the person originally sent to Africa to investigate the allegation, so he wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times detailing what he knew.

Cheney, Rove, Libby, and probably Bush, launched a campaign to discredit Joe Wilson and take everyone's focus off of what he was saying (that the President knowingly and willfully lied his way into a war, which is treason in my book since war compromises the security of our nation, and an unjustified war compromises our credibility as well).

Now, partly because Americans are ADD, and partly because we wanted to be distracted from evidence of our president committing treason (I mean really, couldn't Mr. Wilson have clued us in before we were knee deep in a war??), we took the bait.

His wife got him the job?

He wasn't really investigating anything!

He was sipping green tea coolers on the beach!

See the ball?

See the ball?

Go get the ball!

But they didn't even throw us a ball!

You know how sometimes when you're feeling really mean, you pretend to throw the ball to your dog, but you really have it behind your back?

So here we are out in the grass caught up in all the gossip and intrigue.

They outed a CIA agent!

Isn't that treason?

Well, classified and covert are two different things, and if they just leaked classified information, that's not treason.

Well it's bad!

Yeah, but it's not treason.

So what do we have them on?

Lying.

Is that all?

Yeah.

Did we get anyone good like Rove or Cheney?

No, just their lawyer.

Will he go to jail at least?

Probably not, and if so, not for long, and then he has a long, comfortable career ahead of him.

Meanwhile, the ball is behind Bush and Cheney and Rove's back.

The ball is treason; the original lie from which they were trying to distract us:

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

This lie is the most provable on the list of high crimes against the United States of America committed by the Bush administration.

Crimes against our security, our freedom, our young soldiers, our honor as a nation, our good will in the world, our decency as a civilized society.

Crimes that will only serve to make them and their cronies richer and richer.

And what are we doing about it?

We're wandering around the grass looking for the goddamn ball.

Anarchy

2007-03-07T16:50:00.000-08:00

I promised Sinincincinnati a post on anarchy, so here it is.

Anarchy would be the state of being without a state. No laws, no government, no social programs.

Who you gonna call?

Nobody!

The obvious benefits of anarchy:

No taxes
No speed limits (well, that could be good or bad, really)
hmm...
Squatter's rights! (I've got my eye on a couple of sweet unoccupied houses over by the beach)
Did I mention no taxes?

I think the majority of people who honestly believe in anarchy are good people. Too good. They have a lot more faith in humanity than I have, anyway.

Well, I'd really like to see some comments here. Anyone believe anarchy could work?

Tomorrow, we'll talk about Libby, and then on to drug decriminalization.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories -Was President Bush the real mastermind?

2007-03-05T06:08:00.000-08:00

I've never really gotten into the whole 9-11 conspiracy thing. It's not that I'd put it past the Bush Administration to orchestrate something like that, and it was certainly the best thing that could have happened to his presidency (I think his pre-9/11 approval ratings were in the mid 40's).

But I know for a fact that Bush himself couldn't have been in on the particulars. It's the subtle points that clue me in here.

Sure he had a suspiciously perfect alibi,

"Where was I? I was in a room full of school children! Where the hell were you?"

But, okay, I know Bush has seen enough movies to know how a president is supposed to act when he learns his people are in imminent danger. I mean, if you're expecting something like this, and you have time to plan your reaction, and you're planning on using this tragedy as a rallying cry for war, wouldn't you plan a more heroic (or at least competent) response?

"Okay, you come in while I'm with the school children and whisper it in my ear, then I'll sit there and look stupid for about seven minutes. When I tug nervously on my tie, that's your cue to come back in and get me. Make sure we get all this on tape, boys."

There is some footage on Wonkette that shows the BBC reporting the collapse of building 7 before it actually collapses. I don't know what that proves, but it's odd.

This administration has certainly used the events of September 11th to their full advantage, but executing a massive conspiracy with surgical precision just isn't their style.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre --that's the style of this administration-- with enough lawyers and political connections to carry out blatant crimes in broad daylight.

Check Mate

2007-03-04T06:36:00.000-08:00

The Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act give the Executive branch the power to:

Spy on anyone, including American citizens, with no warrant
Abduct anyone, including American citizens, with no warrant
Detain anyone, including American citizens, without charging them, without giving them access to an attorney, without telling them what they're suspected of, and without notifying anyone of their detention
Use "necessary," though not clearly defined levels of force to extract information
Prosecute anyone, including American citizens, in a military tribunal (not a court of law) without the accused person being present to answer the charges that are brought against them

These two Acts render the Constitution of the United States of America null and void (and the Magna Carta for that matter).

How can we fight for freedom if we have no freedom for which to fight?? (sorry about the tongue twister. Say that 5 times fast! (No don't, they may think you're chanting and come for you in the middle of the night.))

Luckily, we have a system of checks and balances.

The Democrats have taken control of Congress, and I'm sure this issue is on the very top of their to-do list.

... Oh, right. Those Democrats.

Well, we have the courts! No honest US. judge or attorney will allow this.

...Oh, right. The Bush Administration is in the process of firing U.S. Attorneys who don't tow the line and replacing them with party loyalists (bypassing congressional approval thanks to provisions in -come on, let's say it together- The Patriot Act!).

But we always have the Supreme Court to fall back on! The Supreme Court Justices are above party loyalties.

Great Moments In Presidential Speeches Compilation

2007-03-03T09:07:00.001-08:00

Hasta la Victoria Siempre

2007-03-02T10:48:00.000-08:00

In 2000, Venezuela's Annual Growth Rate was negative 7.2%

Now, I don't know exactly how the mathematicians and the bankers come up with these numbers, but I think we can all agree that Venezuela was in dire straights; starving people, homeless orphans huffing glue; it was a mess.

It was about that time that the IMF (International Monetary Fund), came to the recently elected President Chavez and said, "We're here to help your impoverished little country. We can give you a loan to get your public programs on track, and you can pay us back with your oil revenue...

Sign here, please."

But President Chavez could see the fire in the bankers' eyes and the way their mouths watered when the words 'oil revenue' oozed off their tongues. He looked around at all the other third world countries the IMF had "helped." He saw those countries straining to survive under the weight of crippling debts, and how the IMF had put so many restrictions on how the countries could use their loan money, that the leaders were powerless to truly lead their people to a better way of life.

"No, thank you" said President Chavez to the IMF. "I will find a way to help my people without making my country a slave of the western economic powers."

"You fool!" said the bankers. "You can't survive without us! We own the money by which your economy and every economy on earth is measured!"

"Then I guess we'll have to get rid of your money as well," said President Chavez to the bankers. "We will trade our oil for the services that our country needs."

"BARTER!!" The bankers laughed. "Okay then, Mr. Chavez. You go barter your oil! We'll be back when you learn how the modern economy works!"

Venezuela's Annual growth rate in 2006: 10.3%

The United States Annual Growth Rate in 2006: 3.2%

The Wrong Lizard -Who's you're 2008 presidential canidate?

2007-03-02T06:26:00.000-08:00

[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]

"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."

Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, "It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy?"

"I did," said Ford, "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, 'the wrong lizard might get in."

From So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish by Douglas Adams

Supreme Court hears challenge to Bush's 'faith-based initiative' -By: David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times

2007-03-01T16:15:00.000-08:00

In a closely watched church-state separation case, a Bush administration lawyer urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to shield President Bush's "faith-based initiative" from legal challenges in court.

U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement said taxpayers who believe the White House is unconstitutionally promoting religion should not be accorded legal "standing" to sue in court. It would be too "intrusive on the executive branch" to permit lawsuits contesting how a president and his advisers conduct their affairs, he said.

The case involves a Wisconsin group called Freedom From Religion that sued in 2004 to challenge the "faith-based initiative" on First Amendment grounds. The group said White House officials were using public money to help church-based groups win grants and contracts.

It is the first major religion case to come before the Supreme Court since Bush's two appointees took their seats. In their questions Wednesday, both Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito sounded as though they sided with the administration.

Overall, the nine justices seemed split during the hourlong argument. If they adopt the administration's view, the ruling could make it harder for critics to sue officials who use public money in ways that support religion. Roberts made clear he thought the group's claims should be thrown out of court. If taxpayers can sue the government whenever an official invokes God or religion, why couldn't anyone "sue our marshal for standing up and saying, 'God save the United States and this honorable court'?" asked Roberts, citing the invocation heard each day when the justices enter the court.

Taking the opposite view, Justice Stephen Breyer said courts and lawsuits are needed to enforce the separation of church and state.

"People become terribly upset when they see some other religion getting the money from the state" to subsidize their faith, he said.

This article appeared on page A - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle