I'm Back

I thought that I'd return to enlightening my few readers by discussing something of a topical nature. A few days ago Dr. Kevorkian was released form prison. He was incarcerated for eight years for committing - what the conservatives call - "assisted suicide." Rather than debate his ethical doctrines, I'd like to discuss a disturbing trend that I've witnessed within our esteemed "Grand Ol Party:" the slanted epithets that they have so nobly bestowed upon us.

First, let's begin with "assisted suicide." This term can be misleading, especially to a narrow minded person. Dr. Kevorkian did not assist anyone in their endeavors to commit suicide - rather he helped a terminally ill person to speed up the process of death, thus, alleviating much of their misery. When the Religious Right terms such things in such a way, they, purposefully, use a coined phrase - "suicide" - that is inaccurate to the actual act, yet it infers an amount of "sinfulness" that, as a good Christian, one must oppose.

The second term that the Religious Right has given us is "partial birth abortion." Really? They are aborting a partially born child? Or rather are they aborting a child that is still in the first phases of pregnancy and is lacking senescence?

Whether one supports "a woman's right to choose" or "assisted not living miserably," one should, at least, consider the epithets that the act itself has been given and, most importantly, if the term describe accurately what is actually happening.

A Depressing State of Affairs

Throughout the LA Times today, I was witness to numerous disappointing pieces of news that I thought I'd share with the few readers that I may have.

First, five years ago the Federal Government disbanded a Muslim charity group for seemingly donating to Hammas, a terrorist organization, according to the US. The Holy Land Foundation, the charity accused of funding terrorism, was attributed to anti-Semitic remarks concerning Israel. These remarks were gathered from wiretaps that, after becoming declassified, were nowhere to be found. In short, what this means is that a charity organization was falsely accused of terrorism because of the use of wiretaps. This raises numerous questions: is the US government trying to scare its citizens into believing that "home grown terrorism" is worse than it really is? Are government institutions using wiretaps for their own unethical gain? Is the US blindly backing Israel while knowingly bashing Islam? Since we are trying to save Israel from hateful neighbors (and rightfully so, as long as the Israeli government isn't participating in questionable acts) is the US trying to make the Middle East seem more anti-Semitic than they are? This is an especially important question considering our current fears of Iran.

Second, the Diocese of San Diego has filed for bankruptcy. There has been so many sexual abuse cases against priests that San Diego has had to become the fifth - yes, the fifth! - catholic region to have to file for bankruptcy. Five metropolitan regions have filed and numerous others have tried. The astonishing thing about this is the sheer number of victims: how many people need to be abused and compensated to make the richest religion (or rather corporate entity) in the world file for bankruptcy? Also, this is disheartening because by filing for bankruptcy, the church is, in essence, failing to admit and address the atrocities that have occurred. Once again, let's all give a round of applause for the amazing amount of consideration and concern that the catholic church continues to show to its own members!!

Well Spent Tax Dollars

Last week The House of Representatives had a four day debate concerning the troop increase. After every member of The House spoke for five minutes, it was decided that the majority of our congressmen and women were decidedly against the war. That's it. That's what they decided - that they didn't like it. No legislation was passed, nor was there a plan to pass any. That is what I call effective governance and well spent tax dollars: four days of our elected officials bitching and moaning with no real plan in sight.


The only saving grace to this debacle are the republicans in the senate. Yep, I said it, the republicans have saved us. Because they derailed the debate in the senate, the dems. have vowed to create an onslaught of anti-war legislation, somewhat similar to what happened in Vietnam. So hopefully the blind patriotism and reckless disregard for the lives of our troops, Iraqis, and the American poor who are being sent to fight this imaginary "war on terror" that the GOP has, will light a fire under our weak-willed and politically-pathetic democratic party's ass.

Bush vs. Clinton

The left has recently stepped up its efforts to demand the impeachment of Bush. Only two presidents have ever been impeached: Nixon, just before he resigned, and Clinton. I would like to compare the wrongs of Clinton to the wrongs of Bush.

Bush, in his many mistakes, has done irreparable damage that I think both conservatives and liberals alike can acknowledge. He left the residents of New Orleans to die - a gross mistake that should indeed be enough to question his competency (he also hasn't addressed what he plans to do about it); he enacted the Patriot Act which restricts many rights of American citizens; he overrode FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) so that he can bypass it in the "war on terror," only later to admit that it didn't need to be done; he authorized the abuse and torture of detainees at both Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gahraib prisons by suspending, in essence, Habius Corpus; he supported Tom Delay and his gerrymandering; his vice president, Dick Cheney, has been in court recently, testifying in defense his chief of staff, Scooter Libby, because he has been indicted for purgery for lying about his office's involvement in trying to smear the name of an anti-war CIA operative; and he blatantly lied about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Now, let's look at Clinton. He lied about getting a blow job. Yep, that's it. He cheated on his wife and lied to the American Public about something they didn't need to know. And what's worse is that he was caught because of a Conservative conspiracy against him led by the noble Kenneth Star.

Many people would say that Clinton should be impeached because "If he's lyin' about this, what else might he be lyin' about?" But can't that be applied to Bush as well? At least Clinton never broke the law.

An interesting pole that I'll leave you with was done recently by the Washington Post. It shows that 51% of Americans think that impeachment of Bush should be a priority; 44% entirely opposed it. Compare this with a poll done by the same organization in the fall of 1998 that reported a whopping 63% of the public opposed Clinton's impeachment.

LOOK AT THAT BUM!

A Few Cool Facts

1) The universe was formed 13.7 billion years ago.

2) Our galaxy, The Milky Way, is a collection of billions of stars. It was formed 12 billion years ago. This means that - although this is obvious, I think that it's important to actually say it - our universe was already around for 1.7 billion years before our galaxy was created.

3) The Milky Way is 120,000 light years across and 10 light years thick; that is unfathomably enormous.

4) The Andromeda Galaxy, our closest neighbor, is 2 million light years away. At the speed of light, it would thus take 2 million years to for the light to reach our eyes (Again, this is obvious, but I think that, so as to later emphasize the point of all this, I should actually say it, not just infer it).

5) Just as our galaxy is comprised of innumerable stars, the universe is comprised of innumerable galaxies, all containing, similarly to The Milky Way, billions of stars.

6) Our solar system, along with Earth, was formed 4.6 billion years ago.

7) There has been an estimated 8 mass extinctions since the creation of the Earth; more than just the dinosaurs were wiped out, all for a number of different reasons.

8) The first human fossil, that of the infamous Lucy skeleton, has been dated back to 3 to 6 million years ago.

9) Homo Sapiens have inhabited earth for 200,000 years.
--Just think about that: the universe has been here for 13.7 billion years, yet intelligent life has been here for a measly 200,000.

With that said, how can any person in his right mind, knowing what was described above, believe that we, human beings, have been created by a god and that we were indeed his intention. Granted, the statistics above in no way disprove the existence of a creator; but it does make the belief in a religion that infers the importance of humans absurd. We are more minuscule and a less important than a grain of sand; and our lives, indeed the life of the whole human race, is but snap of the finger in the great scheme of things. First of all, to believe our creator (if indeed you choose to believe in one) finds us to be important at all seems like the utter epitome of selfishness. Second of all, even if he, the creator, does care about us, our infinitesimal existence couldn't possibly be offensive to him. Remember that next time you take your lord's name in vain.

This picture, from the Hubble Telescope, is of galaxies. All of the star like images are actually galaxies, each one containing numerous other solar systems, stars, planets, moons, and suns.

Bush and Evidence

Humans seem to have three main systems of belief which all others are born of. (There very well be more, but it seems as though these are the most obvious and important.) They are: personal, sociological, and political. I would also like to acknowledge that these are easily intertwined. Most people would agree that it would be advantageous to come to these beliefs with a certain amount of physical evidence to back them before national policy is to be created with them in mind. Let's examine our president, George W. Bush, and how much evidence supports his beliefs.

1) Personal - Bush's most prevalent personal belief seems to be that of religion. His national policies regarding both stem-cell research and abortion are direct consequences of this belief. Does religion contain enough evidence for a law-maker, a "decider", to base his policies upon? And no, biblical miracles do not count as evidence.

2) Sociological - Bush believes that gay marriage should be outlawed because it would undermine the sanctity of marriage. First of all, human beings, specifically our Western Civilization, has defined marriage as what it is. If there are flaws within its definition, all we must do is call Webster and have him change it; definitions do not stay static. Second, does marriage today seem like something to aspire to? Britney and K-Fed. Need I say more? Thirdly, where is the evidence that gay marriage would undermine anything except the delicate psyche of prejudiced conservatives. God forbid they couldn't sleep at night because two other people - that conservatives believe are beneath them - might be happy.

3) Political - Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. I think that those two things speak for themselves.

I LOVE YOU LINDA CARDELLINI!

(OOPS. I mean Velma)

Oil Tax Breaks

I have an idea that can alleviate the debt that we have got ourselves in because of this "war on terrorism." I was always somewhat confused about the fact that America went back to the Middle East after the Oil Embargo of the 1970's. After all, we did find numerous alternative fuel sources. But that was just a poorly thought out economic mistake - nothing like what's happening today.

Oil is responsible for this war in a way that most people don't see. We have known for decades that many countries in the Middle East were totalitarian states that were thriving on American capital and, in turn, using it to either become embroiled in wars with neighboring countries or systematically slaughter its own population. The American oil corps. have been personally funding Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria, Sudan, etc. etc., thus providing their regimes the means to commit their heinous acts of violence. Should a mother give money to her son or daughter if she knows that it will be used to buy drugs? Should a world power give a poor country money if it knows that it will be used for genocide and terrorism?

Because American oil corporations refused to acknowledge this and decided to continue to do business with genocide and terrorism, they should flip the bill for this debacle. The oil companies are turning such a profit that they themselves could pay for this whole war - past, present, and future - and still make enormous profits. One of the things that the democratic congress failed to do - that they said they would in "the first 100 hours"- was to take away the tax breaks from the oil companies. The oil corporations get upwards of 32 billion dollars a year in tax breaks! Take a minute to soak that in. 32 billion dollars. The congress cut a measly 5 billion.

I think that we should take away all the oil corporations tax breaks - since they are responsible for the war - and use that money to fund the endeavors in Iraq - preferably to pull out our troops and pay past debts.

Mary Cheney's Pregnancy

I have an issue (what a surprise, huh?). Conservatives and The GOP repeatedly say that couples of the same sex, whether married or not, should not be able to raise a child. They continually argue that this would be greatly disadvantageous to the child, confining its ability to have a normal childhood. The only way that this could possibly be valid would be to outlaw divorce, thus preventing children from growing up in a single parent home. If their belief is based on the fact that a child should have both a mother and father at home, because of the rate of divorce today, this would not be a sound argument. If their argument stems from the teasing that the child may encounter growing up, this is fervently restricting the growth of the American culture: instead of trying to teach tolerance, The GOP would rather wipe out any situation where intolerance may arise. This seems decidedly narrow-minded and, more importantly, like the easy way out. Are conservatives incapable of teaching their children to not have prejudices, especially to the homosexual community? Or do they not want to teach their children tolerance because they themselves are void of any? Moreover, there are two arguments that are even worse. The first being that of religion. As anybody that has read my blog before knows, religion is not an appropriate way to argue a political or sociological belief. Not only is religion lacking in all forms of evidence but it relies so heavily on such an ancient belief that it should be viewed as an embarrassment - not a quality. Second, the person that argues for old American, traditional values - like Bill Orielly - is forgetting a very important fact: some American values are something that should looked at with disdain, not satisfaction. For example: slavery, sexism, imperialism, and religious fanaticism. (Yes, America possesses that too. The KKK didn't just target African Americans; they focused on Catholics and Jews as well.)Why should we view all American institutions as infallible. Yes, I love America. But that doesn't mean that I should just accept all of its traditions because they are labeled as traditions. Many of our traditions, just like those of other countries and cultures, are an embarrassment, such as the intolerance of homosexuality. If someone is to believe - as many of the people that I know do - that homosexuality is inappropriate for the sole reason of being out of the norm and, in their minds, disgusting, their argument is no longer valid either: they are now basing their beliefs on an uncomfort that avoids the issue all together.

Adult Swim

What's the deal with this Boston spectacle? The creators of Aqua Teen Hunger Force were arrested yesterday for putting a number of advertisements up for the show that depicts one of the characters based on a Nintendo personality. The character is in neon lights and giving the finger and is shown below. Because the advertisements were put in obscure places and looked mechanical, so to say, they were mistaken for bombs. FOR BOMBS! Has our post 9/11 paranoia put us in such a fear that old people that can't keep up with the times will dictate how our culture should progress? These advertisements look nothing like bombs; they looked new, innovative, and original.

The Nation

On the cover of the new Nation magazine (February 5, 2007) is a fantastic analysis of the president's predicament:

"World opinion is against the US escalation in Iraq. The American people are against it. The Iraqi people are against it. Congress is against it. The Iraqi government is against it. Can a single man force a nation to fight a war it does not want to fight, expand a war it does not want to expand? If he can, is that nation any longer a democracy in any meaningful sense?"

Indeed, is it a democracy? We voted for George Bush (well, I didn't) so that he may enact the will of the people; the same goes for the Congress. What then, may I ask, is the purpose of the non-binding resolution that Congress is implementing? Are the members of Congress fighting for this because they want to seem as though they are against the war, but in reality they are afraid to enact any real legislation restricting the president's actions? Do they think that if they seem as though they agree with the American public they can be reelected again? They were elected originally to do as we, their constituency, wished, not to dance around the issues and manipulate the country into thinking they are doing their jobs. So this does indeed beg the question: do we live in a democracy or do we live in a neo-fascist state - as my friend, Will, put it? That seems like somewhat of a harsh word and usually does nothing more than turn people off, but if one were to really think about it: has the government, either the president or congress, done what the people want?

Have I mentioned how unbelievably gorgeous Emmy Rossum is?

Do you do what you belive in? Do you do what's habit?

About two years ago I discovered a philosophy that changed my life. The Spanish philosopher Miguel De Unamuno describes our actions as thus: "...our ethical and philosophical doctrines are nothing more than a posteriori justifications of our conduct, of our actions." This implies that we justify our actions a posteriori, or after we participate in them. For example, think of something that you take for granted. Let's say, driving your car. Many of us would justify this by rationalizing that even though it causes pollution and it's most important ally, oil, causes war and death, we still, nevertheless, must drive: how else would I get to school? Work? The doctor? It would be much too inconvenient to move somewhere so that driving is no longer necessary. Hence, we justify our beliefs in driving after we have included it in our "philosophical and ethical doctrines." This axiom can be easily applied to numerous other beliefs: what we eat, what we wear, our religious beliefs, our economic and political ideals.

If nothing else, because of this implication, we can now see and admit our hypocrisy, our duplicity.

I'm not sure that I want to explain this theory in any greater depth; his idea can't be forced upon anyone. If a person honestly examines his surroundings, this quote will have more meaning. Hopefully at least someone can see the importance of this philosophy; hopefully they can be brave enough to put it into action.

State if the Union and Address and the Most Beautiful Woman Alive

A few comments:

• Eliminate the deficit in five years? How can we eliminate a debt that has been present for decades in five years when we spend so much on the Iraq war? Are we not about to spend more of that money in our influx of troops?
• Did he just really mention the "No Child Left Behind" bill as if it was a good thing? People don't really believe that that works, do they? Did he have the nerve to say that that bill raises standards? Shame on all of you who voted for him - both the first and the second time! Congress, please don't reauthorize this ridiculous law.
• I do like the idea of federal funding for states that are trying "innovative" ways of providing basic health care for all residents. But don't forget that last year he said that he was going to end America's "addiction to oil." We've seen how much he's done for that.
• Why do people think that the only way to reduce the amount of immigrants "sneaking" in is to create a guest-worker program? Instead, let's do our best to better the developing countries that are sending us their unwanted: maybe this way immigrants won't want to "sneak" in; maybe they can be happy in their own country.
• Terrorists. Terrorists. Terrorists. Terrorists. Terrorists. Shut up. Stop pumping the country full of unneeded and unfounded fear.
• Wow. He just mentioned our addiction to oil again. First of all, shouldn't this have been dealt with in the early 70's during the Saudi Arabian Oil Embargo? If not then, at least last year when he mentioned it? Oh yeah, I forgot that this is nothing but a show by a president that has already proven that he won't do what he promises.
• "America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will make it less dependant on oil." The verge? We found alternative sources during the oil embargo of the 70's.
• Terrorists. Terrorists. Terrorists.Terrorists. Homeland. Terrorist. Terrorist.
• The Sunni's have a "harsh and narrow ideology" says Bush. Do we know anyone else that might have such an ideology?
• Damn, Hilliary Clinton looks bored!
• Does anybody else think that half of the stuff Pelosi and the Dems. are applauding for is not at all what they actually believe? That they are just putting on a good face to not look "soft" to the American people? Wait. That was a stupid question. Of course they are - just like the all those people in red that stood and cheered for the guest-worker program.
• "We must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred..." says Mr. B. I agree: religion - in all of it's hypocritical, duplicitous, narrow-minded, and reason-hating beliefs - must be obliterated to end blind hatred.
• "Free people aren't drawn to malignant ideologies." Is that right? Have we not had American terrorists? Bundy, Dahmer, Kazinscki (or however you spell his name)? What about Catholics who believe that Protestants are going to hell, and vice versa? Is that not malignant?
• This looks like the Roman Senate: on one side people are clapping and standing; on the other, complete silence.
• "We are deploying reinforcements...to Iraq" - no applause on either side.
• Dick Cheney has an enormous head!
• All of his rhetoric about supporting the troops seems as a "sneaky" way of making everyone feel as though the desire to withdrawal troops would be so awful, so unpatriotic.
• Last note: what is this an award show? Why is everyone clapping? While going to the podium, Bush and other politicians looked like celebrities.

Pascal's Wager

Blaise Pascal, the French philosopher, had a simple simple reason to believe in God. It's not as complex and bizarre as the Ontological Argument, nor is it as ridiculous as the argument from religious experience. Nevertheless, it seems to have two innate flaws.

His argument, more commonly known as his wager, goes like this:

You believe in God.
1) If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
2) If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
You do not believe in God.
3) If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite and your gain is zero.
4) If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

Therefore, it is better to believe in God.

The two problems are:
FIRST: Most notably, this is in direct violation of the nature of Christianity. It seems as though believing in the All Mighty based on the statistical probabilities of being right or wrong, isn't exactly what the God of The Holy Bible had in mind. Also, on the note of making a wager, we can note Bertrand Russell's argument that even if there is just one religion that has it all right, just observing the vast number of religious institutions should, statistically speaking, lead one to wager that his belief is destined for damnation. (I guess that statistics class I took was good for something.)
SECOND: Premise number two has a biased and narrow point of view thus proving it fallacious. The problem is that if you choose to believe in God and He proves not to exist, your loss may be finite, but the loss of others may be infinite. Pascal infers that a belief will effect none but the believer. Religion has proven through thousands of years of history that an individual's belief is more than enough to cause the death of thousands. Before Christianity came about, pagan religions warred amongst one another; Christianity is responsible for the mass slaughter of Jews, Muslims, and other factions of its own faith such as Lutheran, Protestant, or Calvinist; and now more than ever we see Islam warring against Christianity, Judaism, and against differing factions within its own system of belief. Moreover, a belief in God has a certain political sway that can hinder sociological and scientific progression. Consequently, if one is to believe in God and He proves not to exist, the loss may indeed become infinite.

Now What?

This is not one of my normal rants. Honestly. This is nothing more than confusion and worry. The president wants to send more troops to Iraq - mainly, to Baghdad. The democrats want to derail any funding for such a measure. This is a serious dilemma with more at stake than people are acknowledging. As I have said before, sending an influx of troops to Iraq will do no good. Our American soldiers will be caught in the middle of a civil war, fighting on one particular side, getting nothing done, and fueling the Middle Eastern hatred for the west. But if we send no troops, refuse any more funding, and let the soldiers that are already there figure things out on their own, we will be, in essence, leaving them behind to die.

The president won't pull our troops out, and the congress won't send any more in. Our elected officials have put our men and women in arms in a serious predicament. The Senate and The House would probably say that what needs to happen is more bipartisan legislature; that republicans and democrats alike need to work together. But this is a cop-out that further confuses the American People. For things to work smoothly in a bipartisan fashion, a large group of democrats must come to a consensus with a large group of republicans. Herein lies the problem: the democrats must agree with the republicans - or vice versa. Last I checked, our elected officials are supposed to vote for what their constituency wants, not what their party dictates. There may be some republican districts that are pro-choice; similarly, there may be some democratic districts that are in favor of the troop surge. Hence, the decisions made in Washington should be made non-partisan; they should be made as the people wish them so.

Sorry, I guess that this did turn in into a rant. I guess I just can't help it.

Man, Bush Sucks

A few thoughts on the Presidential Address:

First: the thing that struck me was the president's ignorant comment that if we were to lose this war, Iraqi insurgents would be able to further their cause with oil revenues. Here's an idea: how about we just stop buying oil from nations that may use that revenue for totalitarian rule and terrorism. If this was done twenty or thirty years ago, we wouldn't be here now.

Second: President Bush still harbors the idea that you can have a war on terrorism. Terrorism is something that can't just be destroyed. We have terrorists here in America that have nothing to do with radical Islam. So first, Bush must reword his war to a war on radical Islam. And still, even if this were the case, the beliefs that others hold that have stemmed from their faith are here to stay. You can't just kill everyone - beliefs must be changed. If we really want to end terrorism, we must invade and occupy every country on earth and stay there for eternity. Terrorism has been around since the beginning of time and will be around until the end of time.

Third: I'm just about sick and tired of hearing people talk about winning and losing the war. Wars are always lost by both sides: America has lost more than 3,000 brave young men and women; Iraq has lost more than 20,000. Just looking at the numbers, sure, we've won, but 3,000 dead American boys and girls are more than enough for me to call it a loss.

Fourth: I know this is nothing new, but I can't get over his constant rhetoric about building a democracy in Iraq. Because of the very nature of democracy, it can't be created at gun point. It must be wanted and formed from within.

DNA, Rape Victims, Our Shitty Governor, And Heather Graham

Wow. I just watched a live hearing on public access concerning California justice. A rape counseler at UCLA described the process which rape kits must go through before the DNA is ever actually looked at. In California, due to a massive back log, a rape kit must sit on the shelf for an averge of 6 to 8 months, during wich, the offender is still on the streets, possessing the opportunity to attack more victims; indeed, the statistics showed that these offenders were commiting more sexual assaults. While in California it takes 6 to 8 months to assess a rape kit, it takes a mere 8 hours in London. This is absurd! Imagine if you or one of your loved ones were raped, only later to discover that your assaulter was a repeat offender who could have been behind bars months ago if it were not for the snail speed at which the DNA labs work. The reason for this is that the states DNA labs are extremely underfunded and understaffed.

While this is happening to our California women, Arnie wants to afford state wide health care to all California residents and illegal immigrants! Are you kidding? We can't even protect our own legal residents due to the lack of state funding that they recieve. Why would we just dole out massive quantities of capital to illegal immigrants? Universal health care for California residents. Ok. The same for illegals. Give me a fucking break!

For Scotty

A history lesson with a modern parallel:

Post WWI, America was looking to isolate itself from world politics. During the twenties, a commission was created to investigate how the US had found itself in the first world war. It was discovered that it was a consequence of our foriegn policy and the fear we had that some nations may go bankrupt, thus harming the American economy. To keep this from happening again, the US took many precautions: The Kellog-Braind pact was enacted, The Washington Conference was held, the nine-party treaty was signed, the Stimson Treaty was signed, and, most notably, the Neutrality Acts were passed. The Neutrality Acts were a collection of legislation that refused any economic aid, any importing, and any exporting of goods to countries that waged a war which broke any of the above mentioned treaties and pacts. So when Japan invaded China, which directly went against the nine-party treaty that Japan had signed at the Washington Conference, we cut them off. No importing or exporting. Beacause America was so important to Japan economically, Japan started to deteriorate. Not knowing what else to do, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor; who knows why they thought that would help, but, nevertheless, they did.

So is this how we want to deal with North Korea and Iran? North Korea, especially, is extremely unstable. I don't even feel like it's necassary to discuss the intracacies of Kim Jong Il. Sanctions could only further antagonise an all ready unbalanced leader - I don't pretend to know how to deal with the North Korean dillema; I only notice that if history does nothing else, it should at least show us what not to do.
You know what really grinds my gears? This Lindsay Lohan. Eh? Lindsay Lohan with all these little outfits, jumping around there on stage half-naked, with your little outfits. You know, your'e up there jumpin' around and I'm just sittin' here with my beer. So, you know, what am I suppose to do? What do want? You know, are we gonna go out? Is that what your'e tryin' - why are you...leaping around there, throwin' those things all up over in my face. What do you want Lindsay? Tell me what you want! Well I'll tell ya what ya want. You want nothin'. You want nothin'. Alright? Because we all know that no woman anywhere wants to have sex with anyone, and to titillate us with any thoughts otherwise is just bogus!

Troop Influx

This evening, President Bush is to outline his new plan for Iraq. It is suspected that he will call for a surge in troops, focusing the influx, largely, in Baghdad. Senator Mccain has been purporting this for years now, understanding that the current troop count wasn't getting the job done. If the surge was approved two, or even three years ago, it may well have worked. But now, with sectarian violence tearing the country apart, it seems as though this will do little good. People seem to forget that Iraq isn't just suffering the broils between the Sunnis and the Shiites; the Sunnis and Shiites are divided amongst themselves, creating many warring factions. Sending more troops to Iraq will thus do nothing more than embed American troops in the middle of a brutal civil war. The last thing needed is to choose sides. Besides, when was the last time anybody heard about the search for Bin Laden in Afghanastan; shouldn't that be the main focus of this war, anyhow. It was Bin Laden, not Iraq and Hussien that was responible for 9/11. If we are to send more troops anywhere, it should be Afgahanastan.

The Definition of Irony

Jesus Christ was Jewish. Modern Christianity likes to forget this. And as a Jew, Jesus spent the thirty three years of his life trying desperately to rectify the wrongs that his people had been exposed to by both the Egyptians and Romans. After his death, the very people he was trying to save were further persecuted for another two thousand years in his own name. If that's not irony, I'm not sure that I know what is.

This observation provides a glaring consequence: Jesus was not a Christain!! You might say that the Jewish faith just refused to accept him as their savior; that Christianity, instead, took him as its own. Such an arguement doesn't change the fact that Jesus was still a Jew. Even if one is to accept him as the son of God, he is still the son of the Jewish God. Unless, of course, you just think that Jesus Christ was wrong, and that he was a closet Christian, belonging to a faith that had not yet been created.

My First Blog

So I've never done any sort of blogging before, but I've had too much on my mind lately to keep completely silent. In the words of Bob Dylan: our world is "sick and it's hungry and it's tired and it's torn. It looks like it's a dying and it's hardly been born." The Israeli conflict has spiraled out of control; Iraq has erupted into civil war (you can call it what you like. I call it civil war); North Korea has just threatened to test another nuclear weapon, adding to the instability of the east; the Pakistan and Indian fued has only been furthered by a republican backed US/India nuclear pack (I have an idea: at the same time as we are trying to disarm North Korea and Iran, let's go ahead and contribute to India's nuclear proliferation. That won't send any mixed, or rather, hypocritical messages); our imperialistic forms of trade continue to isolate us from the world, espeacially in South America; and Russia, the largest nation on earth - in the measurement of land - has adopted the AIDS/HIV virus to the extent that it's very survial hangs in the balance. And yet, what what do we do about it? We turn off the TV, ignore the depressing state of affairs that the world has found itself in, and go about our lives as though nothing is happening......so that's why I decided to create a blog: to remind everyone of the troubles that they are so impudently trying to forget. Yes, I will be that guy. Don't worry, though. I might tell a you a joke or two; I might even show you a nice picture every now and then to brighten your day:

I love you Vida. Someday you and I will marry, copulate, and produce many children.

Anyways, it won't all be depressing....I promise!