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!