One nation, minus God

Some independently-run websites are just sweet. I'd like to point one such site out for you. www.chickssuck.com(don't ask how I found it, I'll take the 5th like Cheney and heart medicine). It's basically a site run by some joe-schmo nobody who has zero luck with women, and relates his stories and frustrations along with opinions on pop culture and, occasionally, politics. In one, he talks about the Supreme Court getting rid of the "Under God" portion of the pledge of allegience. Here's his final thoughts on the subject.

"But we don't want God to be taken out of the Pledge, so I say keep Him in there, just change things around a bit. Instead of "under God," change it to "under Allah." They're the same guy, right? And besides, Allah might be the only thing that saves us in the War on Terrorism, because George Bush ain't doing shit about it. Remember, Allah was on the terrorists' side on 9/11. Where was God?

In the fucking Pledge of Allegiance, that's where.

Allah 1
God 0 "

That's some good stuff. Unfortunately, he hasn't updated his site in about a decade, but it's all archived there, so if you're bored you could very well find something to entertain you, whether it's insightful color commentary such as this, or his tales of tragedy and grief over being shut down by every woman he's ever met. Check it out...It may not be what you expect, but it could be just what you're looking for.

Oh, and Here's a Thought... Watch the news sometime, and count how many negative, fear-mongering stories they peddle as opposed to the upbeat, positive situations they shed light on. It's at least a 10-to-1 ratio...atrocious.
(I completely made up that number, but it has to be somewhere in that vicinity)

Ding-Dong, Harriet Miers' dream of becoming a Supreme Court justice is dead

Finally this has been resolved. She wasn't qualified, we didn't know anything about her views on ANYTHING, she thinks george w is a genius; is it any wonder she would't have made it through the nomination process?
CNN.com has a copy of her letter to the president, and in relation to his reaction to her withdrawl, it's funny. She basically said she was withdrawing because Congress would continue pressing for internal White House documents, and she didn't want that to happen because of the soveirgnty of each branch of government. Bush said he wouldn't release them because it would jeopordize other people's ability to offer his advice. This absolutely kills me for several reasons.

• Okay, if you didn't want to release internal white house documents, YOU SHOULDN"T HAVE NOMINATED A WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEE! I mean, the bush administration isn't known for it's ability to plan anything, but come on! What did you honestly expect? That your "She's a hardcore christian just like us guys *wink wink*" stunt would actually convince your conservative base to blindly vote for her?
• "While I believe my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination," So basically, you think people should be hired soley based on their resume; I mean, who needs to actually interview people? It's overrated. Especially when you BOMB the senate's Judiciary Commitee survey test.
• Releasing confidential white house files. God forbid WE THE PEOPLE should get to see the reasoning behind our "leader"s thoughts process. Like that would be a long report anyway. The government should be accountable to it's constituants, and this is just another way to hide the incompetence behind beurocratic B.S.

• And finally, what's all this mumbo-jumbo about recieving advice? Cause honestly, if you actually DO listen to other's advice, considering all the pathetic decisions that have been made over the past 6 years, WE THE PEOPLE have a right to know who has been giving you such bad advice. Maybe compromising the prez's ability to receive advice would mean he could actually make some good decisions.

Here's a Thought... Harriet Miers withdrawing from consideration is a good thing, regardless of whether her views coincided or conflicted with yours. She was unqualified (being head of the texas lottery commision doesn't mean you can interpret Supreme Court case law). There are many better candidates that the Republican party can get behind and push through the confirmation process :)

In God we can't pray to

ESPN's Outside the Lines reported that a football coach quit his job because his school told him he wasn't allowed to iniciate prayers before, during or after games. Now the coach is fighting it. That's fine, that's what makes this country great. But then they had two "experts" argue opposing sides to this issue; both devoted christians and ministers, arguing different sides. And the one that argued to allow the coach to start the prayers really struck a cord with me. He said that "If we take God out of this country, we'll lose it", "If the law says we can't pray to God in school then we should change the law", and "The kids need to be guided and shown God." Now, I paraphrased some of it, but that's the basis of what he said.I'd like to address his points in reverse order.

"The kids need to be guided and shown God. There is only good and evil, and if God is good then we need ot show the kids that." In other words, we need to INDOCTRINATE kids into OUR religion before they can make up their own minds about what to believe in. Seriously disturbing, for starters, that this guy is practically preaching brainwashing young, impressionable teens into believing HIS religion. What does that say about HIS faith in his religion, that people have to be indoctrinated at a young age to believe in it? To me, it sounds like a reasonable adult who has the ability to critically analyze the facts would realize that every religion has gaping holes, and that NONE of them are correct. Thus, you need to snare them when they're young and can't analyze the facts and science disproving most modern religions.

"If the law says we can't pray to God in school then we need to change the law." Okay genius, the CONSTITUTION, the supreme law of the land, provides for the seperation of church and state. Since public schools are funded and run by the state, then they cannot promote any religions. The Founding Fathers, men much smarter and bolder than you, fanatical-christian-minister-guy, saw fit to include that little clause in the Constitution to PREVENT religion being forced on anyone, as had been done to their ancestors in England, which is why they left in the first place. There is a reason that the seperation of church and state was provided for in the Constitution, and if you don't like it then send your kids to a private school, but don't complain about YOUR particular religion being forced down other kids throats...how would you like it if we decided we would indoctrinate all public school children into Islam or Zaroastrianism instead of christianity? You wouldn't, which is why we wouldn't force anyone else's children into christianity.

"If we take God out of this country, then we'll lose it. We've had God with us here for the last 200 years." Way to stretch the truth. For starters, as I said before, one of the primary founding principles of the united states was that the church and the state would be seperate, that nobody would be forced into a particular religion like their ancestors were in Britain. So God is not provided for in the Constitution. Religion HAS infiltrated our public schools at times, which is a supreme misjudgement and needs to be corrected....the Constitution must be enforced, and it is very clear about where line between religion and the government is. We must enforce this, as well as every part of the constitution, or the foundation for our freedom and democracy will crumble away.

Religion, like anything, is a very scary thing when taken to the extreme. Forcing children into your religion is one of those lines that the Constitution clearly prohibits, and if we aren't following ONE clause of it, we might as well just throw the whole thing out. The primary idea behind our democracy is our right to choose, and be free from the choices of others; without the right to choose, we cannot truly be free, as the definition of freedom is having choices, having control of your life. By a government employee promoting a religion to impressionable young adults, he is denying those people the right to choose what religion, if any, to follow.

Here's a Thought...If your religion really is the correct one, and is perfect and flawless, then children shouldn't HAVE to be indoctrinated into it; they should realize that it is perfect once they've formed the ability to make independent, informed decisions. They fact that this reverend feels the need to brainwash children into his religion shows HIS lack of faith in the true rightousness of his religion and it's ability to make ADULTS see the light and truth supposedly behind it. The Founding Fathers were religious men themselves, yet they saw the need for seperating the church from the state. So I would say that those pushing for any kind of religion to be forced onto children should be ashamed, not only in their abuse of those children and how impressionable they are, as well as the fact that their overzealousness is covering their lack of true faith. Saying you have to indoctrinate kids into your religion while they're young is the same thing as saying once they're able to make decisions for themselves they'd realize your religion is full of crap and wouldn't subscribe, so we have to brainwash them while they're young. Shame on all of you.

Under-achievers

Anyone else ever wonder why they don't accomplish more during any given period of time? I've been thinking about that myself. And to this particular argument, we CAN blame violent television, Marilyn Manson and videogames.
The average American watches 4 hours of television per day. 4 HOURS! That's a lot of brain rotting. That also isn't including how many hours are spent playing videogames. And I can't help but wonder what we all could accomplish if we took that 4 hours and spent it, not watching television, but doing something constructive. I realize that people need entertainment after a hard day's work, but 4 hours is an aweful lot. What if we spent that volunteering at the local shelter, or soup kitchen, if we spent it exercising our democratic responsibilities to speak our opinions on important political issues, to make our voices heard. People(like me) complain that their politicians don't represent them, but then sit on their butts watching TV for 1/6 of their day. Our Founding Fathers didn't have television and look what THEY accomplished. Was it because they were more intelligent and tired of oppression? Perhaps. Was it because they had bolder leaders? Maybe. No matter what reason, they found the time to get up and DO something about it. Great things aren't accomplished from the couch.

So Here's a Though...Change starts from the ground up; Politicians didn't start the French Revolution when it's leaders were corrupt, the french people did. We can't complain about the system without being willing to put in the time and effort to change it. And, despite popular belief, we CAN make a difference. Write to your state representatives and Senators; They are in a position to make changes and hold other leaders accountable while at the same time being directly accountable to YOU. They need your votes to be re-elected a lot more than a president does. Protest issues you feel are important...I remember a huge march in Portland where I lived against the "War" in Iraq when it was announced, and it was amazing. Just quit complaining about everything, get up off the couch, and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Any NBA player who complains about a dress code is a whiny bitch

First, it was Latrell Sprewell saying his 7Million+ a year wasnt enough to "feed his family". Now, some players want to complain about having to wear a suit to games? It's unbelievable how ridiculous that is, and even more so that the commisioner can't or won't enforce even steeper penalties for not following the dress code. Have we, as a society, really sunk this far? These people are BLESSED to make millions a year playing a game, and they want to sit there and bitch about having to wear a suit to work? Employers have a right to require certain dress requirements, period. The fact that they have the tenacity to complain in the first place is appalling, and insulting to every other person in the world who has a much more important role in society(Doctors, firefighters, police officers) and make 100x less than you. What basketball players do is completely irrelivent in the grand scheme of things and easily replaceable; They dont save lives, or make sure our system of government works, but individuals like Allen Iverson are paid more than the president (who, given his body of work, is overpaid as well) or entire police or firefighter DEPARTMENTS! Am I the only one that thinks this is insane?

Here's a Thought... Quit fucking bitching and go play your stupid game. When you start participating in a functionally important role in society, THEN you can start complaining about things like dress code. And if you don't like it, the just quit, cause nobody is paying to hear your dumbasses speak. Play your game and at least PRETEND not to be spoiled brats...We as a society functioned without the NBA, so realize you can be replaced. And when you bitch to your new boss (at McDonalds) about your uniform, he'll just fire your dumbass, because, unlike your current bosses, he'll actually have a pair.

School's out for...america

Apparently, about 95 million americans are, according to a comprehensive federal study, operating at or below Level 2 literacy(almost 50% are level 1). The can " locate information in a text, locate a particular intersection on a map, or determine the difference in price of two items. However, they have “considerable difficulty” carrying out tasks requiring them to use long texts or do 2-step calculations." 40-44 million can only "perform tasks involving “brief, uncomplicated text,” such as totaling the entry on a bank deposit slip or locating information in a short news article, but many do so with difficulty." For being the greatest nation in the world, those are some pretty pathetic numbers. I don't mean that as an offense to those people, it isn't entirely their fault. Our high-school educational system is pathetic. My old high-school, Clatskanie High, is a good example. Our science lab had a leaky roof, we had books up to 15 years old, and several classes with 30+ people. Some teachers were great, and really cared about educating students; others were just trying to push them through and collect their retirement. And we were constantly having teachers replaced; continuity between different levels of the same subject would sometimes be non-existant due to this.

Those were just some random observations from my personal experience; I'm a solutions-oriented guy, so I've got an idea to help solve this problem.

Try giving the schools some fucking money!!!!!!!!

We are building up an insane national debt...so why is it that so many vital areas of society lacking funding? Poor management of funds, that's why, and that problem comes straight from the top. But this isn't another "the Bush administration sucks at everything" rant. This is what I propose:

Get rid of all these corporate tax breaks. The reason these were supposedly given was to generate more jobs in the wake of post 9/11 unemployment numbers. Problem is that 9 out of the last 12 months they haven't been meeting their projections. To me, that means that the cuts aren’t doing their jobs. Increase the taxes on large corporations, and use that money to educate the workforce.
Also, the "War" in Iraq and on Terror; they are taking up a huge chunk of the national budget. And what have we accomplished? Saddam is ducking trial, with his attorney asking for a 3-month extension and questioning the validity of a US-established Iraqi judicial system. We haven't caught Osama yet, and as Bill Maher said, "You can only kill the #2 man in Al-Qaida once; according to our government, we've killed him about 8 times". And our death toll in Iraq alone is almost 2000, with over 14000 injured. What do we have to show for it? I realize that we liberated(invaded a sovereign nation without justification. Where are those WMDs again?) Iraq, and 3 years later they are finally voting on a constitution. Which was in danger of not passing because it doesn't represent the minority(sunnis) as well as it should. Al-Qaida has been doing a lot of recruiting off our occupation of a Muslim country as well. Bush claims we have 8 battalions of Iraqi security forces trained, so how about we pull out of that disaster, cut the military budget to pre-"war" level, and give the excess amount to our schools. You can argue that we helped fix the Iraqi's problems, but we have problems over here too! And last time I checked, that's what we elected politicians to do; not invade sovereign nations and double oil prices.

As for how to spend the money, the most effective way is to make sure teachers are as good at their jobs as possible. Performance-based salaries, for starters, would encourage teachers to step up and do their best with every student; after all, since we're a bunch of greedy, capitalist bastards, giving financial incentives based on student performance seems the best way to make teachers work their hardest to educate the youth of the nation. One of the major problems as I’ve seen is that some teachers just don’s care; it’s just a 9-5 for them. I'm not sure why, exactly, but they just push students through the system. I could list of a half-dozen such teachers I've encountered if I wanted. Now, if their bottom-line were directly related to how well their students did on NATIONAL, STANDARDIZED TESTS, do you think they'd be content to "just" do their jobs? They'd work their butts off, guaranteed.

Also, standardized national requirements of each school. I'm not just talking about the basic requirements outlined in Bush's "No child left behind" plan, which isn't being funded. Set higher standards and make teachers and schools meet them. Literacy shouldn't be the minimum requirement for graduation; You should be able to read and write in grade school! The reason so many people are illiterate or barely literate is because that is where the bar has been set for so long. Set the bar higher, give the teachers incentives to meet those standards, and we would see a drastic increase in the quality of education for k-12 students. And better educated high-school students means higher paying jobs, which means more money in taxes for the government, which can then be used to fund all sorts of new, helpful programs. Not to mention increasing the quality of life for lower/middle class america and closing those gaps in society. So in conclusion, Here's a Thought...Increasing school budgets, then using that money for performance-based teachers salaries, plus national, high-standard educational goals would increase the quality of life for 98% of americans. Responsible spending by the government could make this happen, which is why I'm not holding my breath.

The Kids Aren't Alright

I was researching the top 100 colleges in america today, and i noticed that Ivy-League schools top the lists. Appearently, they offer a great education. Which, to me, just doesnt make sense. After all, George Bush graduated from Yale, so how good could they possibly be?

(Obligitory shot at stupid people is out of the way). Seriously though, the guy isn't smart, at all, yet it says at www.usnews.com that they are "most selective". So, what kind of selection process goes into choosing who gets accepted into these highly-prostegious(and expensive) schools? We can probably assume, barring some kind of miracle, that "Dub-ya" didn't score very high on his SAT, nor, given his public speaking skills, would have nailed any interviews. So what qualified him to attend an Ivy-League school? I'm not sure, so I'm just gonna take a guess...

Daddy is rich, which means you can get whatever you want.

So that's the requirement? Having a lot of money means you can attend the best schools? Because he obviously didn't deserve to attend based on academic merit. Just another example, I guess, of how messed up the system is. Why is it that someone who doesn't deserve to attend can be accepted into a school just because his daddy is rich and well-connected? I bet it doesn't say THIS on the Yale application...

name________

SAT score__________
Interview__________
(Board of admissions may choose to ignore your qualifications if you have a lot of money).

So George Bush can go to Yale because his daddy has a lot of money and is well-connected, but my financial aid won't even completely cover my tuition at COMMUNITY COLLEGE? What kind of system is this? It rewards the rich simply because they are rich, hands them the keys to everything, while the rest of us work 40+ hours a week just to squeeze by. Ridiculous.

I think we over-value Ivy-League schools anyway. I mean, Einstein didn't attend Princeton, and Thomas Jefferson didn't graduate from Harvard. Personally, any college that would accept someone like Bush, not based on qualifications or merit, but soley on connections and money isn't somewhere I'd like to go anyway. Besides, they couldn't make Bush intelligent, so it sounds like they do a pretty crappy job anyway. So when the value of Ivy-League educations are being tarnished by being sold to the highest bidder, what does that say about the state of society? Colleges are supposed to be where "kids" go to become educated, not only in the field of their choice, but in how the world works. So what do they learn from that little tale, that being rich is valued at least ast highly as being intelligent and determined? That we have some serious problems, not only as a society, but also at the core of these "higher-education institutions". Bush, by academic merit alone, could not have deserved to go to Yale. Period. Assuming that an academic institution actually cared about it's prospective student's academic qualifications:

"In selecting a freshman class of 1300 from nearly 20,000 applicants each year, the Yale Admissions Committee attempts to answer two questions: "Who is likely to make the most of Yale's resources?" and "Who will contribute most significantly to the Yale community?" These questions suggest an approach to evaluating applicants that is more complex than simply looking for students with the highest GPAs or those who are well-rounded or have specialized talents. Given the large number of extremely able candidates who apply to Yale and the limited number of spaces in the freshman class, no simple profile of grades, scores, interests and activities can assure a student of admission to Yale. The admissions staff considers each application individually and tries to get as full a sense of the applicant as possible."


So basically, the Yale admissions website is telling us "Hey, you don't have to meet any specific adacemic marks...we judge you on a wallet-by-wallet basis." I love the last sentence...it's basically their "catch-all" clause for letting morons with lots of money into their establishment. Of course, they go on to say that they are an academic institution(to save face, in my opinion, so as not to admit they care more about wallet size than acedemic credentials), but it's funny they would only mention that acedemics are important AFTER they've said that they'll disregard academics in favor of other factors.

Basically, the point I've been trying to make is that the rich can get whatever they want, regardless of whether they deserve it based on individual, simply because they are rich. You have a lot of money, so even if your son is an idiot, he can still get into an Ivy-League school. Then, using his underserved degree, he gets a great job(say, president of the united states), over several other qualified candidates who aren't as well-connected, becomes even richer, and the cycle continues. Two basic points I'd like to make here. 1, in this country,

The Rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer

It's a fact, look it up. The top 2% controls over 90% of the money in this country, and the gap gets larger by the year. And these supposed "academic-institutions" are whoring themselves out to whoever can pay the bill simply because they have money, and then give bullshit excuses for their admission policies like "The admissions staff considers each application individually and tries to get as full a sense of the applicant as possible", denying the kid from Compton with the 4.0 because he can't afford it, but accepting the idiot from private school because he can pay and daddy is famous? They're just perpetuating the cycle, and they don't even care.

And second........Bush is an idiot. I have a quota to meet here, people. Besides, if I say it enough, maybe people will start believing me.

Here's a Thought... How about the government just pays for everyone to go to college wherever they want. Seriously, it's brillant. Granted, the cost of such a thing would be huge, but since we've decided to start racking up a tab anyway we might as well do something that would benifit the american people. See, if everyone could afford to go to Yale, then they would actually accept people based soley on merit. Then, the people who deserved to be there would be, and those are intelligent and work hard would get accepted and the idiot who was rich wouldn't be, because money wouldn't matter anymore. The hard-worker from Compton would get his Ivy-League degree, and Bush would be joining me at community college. But this is the NEW america. Money and connections, not performance and merit, determine your status in life. That's why we, the hard working middle/lower class are killing ourselves just to break even, and the rich idiot is ruling, running, and ruining our once-great nation.

We were meant to live for so much more, have we lost ourselves?

I'm not really sure how to say this, so i think quoting the song "Meant to Live" By switchfoot is appropriate.

"We were meant to live for so much more,
Have we lost ourselves,
Somewhere we live inside,
Somewhere we live inside."

My generation seems to be enfatuated with making money quick. ENFATUATED. If you need any proof, look at the World Series of Poker as an example. A bunch of intelligent, talented young adults dropping out of school to play a fucking card game full-time in hopes of winning money. And nobody really even knows how many have dropped out, of spend every free moment they have, playing online poker. Some people want to call this kind of gambling an addiction. I disagree. I think my generation has just become so disillusioned with society and the government that they're protesting the entire system by saying, "Fuck you, I'm not going to participate in you twisted little system. I'll just get rich and play by my own rules like all the other millionaires out there." Problem is that their solution sometimes works. The rich do get to play by their own rules, and by using these "get rich quick" methods, they can do what every other generation in it's rebellious infancy has done; Give a big middle-finger to the system that doesn't care about them. Problem is, most other generations did this by protesting, writing letters to congress, shaping society into something better than it was. It seems that MY generation is doing this by just withdrawing from the system itself, since the same rules that apply to 98% of us don't apply to the other 2% that have all the money. It's still too early to be sure, but it seems to me that my generation just doesnt care about anybody else.

That being said, there are some examples of young people who actually DO care about what happens to everybody else. The military branches have been shoved down our throats over the last few years as such an example, and while the politicians who are doing so generally DO NOT have good intentions, they are correct on their analysis. Some would argue, as statistics show, that a large portion of the military comes from underpriveledged, empovershed youths who don't see another way out. There may be some truth to that. But assuming it's generally true does a HUGE disservice to all those who enlisted because they want to help protect this country. Because they CARE about everyone else. They are one example we should look to. And I don't mean that in the fake, politician-style "say the right things about the military and get a photo-op out of it" way. They sign on the dotted line knowing that they may be thrown into harms way. And while the government may not be using the military the way it was intended (to serve and protect), their courage is certainly admirable. I think with intelligence being at a premium in our current government, we should look to those you have that courage to stand up for others when selecting leaders. Several presidents and hundreds of congressmen have come from that background, and even recently with senators like John McCain, who are decisive and not afraid to stand up for those who cannot do so for themselves.

I didn't really want to promote or push individual politicians, because I don't want to seem like an advocate. However, I've recently started watching CNN and CSpan on a regular basis, and even though I'd generally (though i dont consider myself) be considered a democrat, this guy is the real deal. He served in vietnam(actually served, i mean), and was shot down and held as a Prisoner of War for over 5 years; none of that "disappearing in the Texas Air National Guard bullshit". He cares about WE THE PEOPLE and is always pushing to reform the government from it's special interests self to caring about the people. Recently he's been pushing for more responsible spending and reducing the number of "earmarks", or additions to approprations bills that send extra money to other places, since that money should be spent elsewhere. Also, he's been fighting against the president's administration in regards to their treatment of prisoners of war, having been one himself. As I said, he fights for the people and those who cannot do so themselves; he isn't a republican, he's an AMERICAN, and I would proudly vote for him in the 2008 presidential elections if he made it through the primaries.

Enough gushing, and back to my original point; Why is it that my generation cares more about themselves then their fellow americans? Politicians, throughout history, have pointed the finger at pop culture. Jazz, rock-and-roll, violent movies, and now videogames have all been targeted, martyred so that politicians don't have to point their fingers at the real culprits. You see, saying videogames is to blame is easy; they're easy to take scenes out-of-context from, and are hugely misunderstood by anyone who doesn't understand their real purpose in society. Videogames also don't have electoral votes, so by turning on them the politicians aren't hurting their re-election chances.

Here are my thoughts; Videogames aren't to blame for anything. The FBI recently released a poll that showed violence has been on the decline for the past 30 years. Videogames aren't the primary influence on children and young adults; their parents are. Parents shape and control young lives until they leave home. THEY are the major influences, and their failures should reflect on the parents, not a game they play a few hours a week. But politicians can't come out and say "hey parents, why don't you try being involved in your children's lives. What they do reflects poorly on YOU, not videogames". They can't say it because they won't get any votes in their next election, and they WON'T because it's easier to pick on someone that can't fight back. It's your typical bully story.

Here's a Thought... We stop blaming pop culture for society's failures; Culture is a reflection of society, not the other way around. If peoples values suddenly changed, so would the culture around us. It wasn't rock and roll's fault we went to Vietnam, it isn't maralyn manson's fault kids were bringing guns to school, and it isn't politicians "flavor of the month" videogames fault that we are fighting in Iraq. Put the blame where it belongs, people.

My Hero Zero

With all the problems in society, all the scandal and corruption in america today, I think everyone needs a role-model. Someone they can look up to, emulate. People need heroes, and while guys in spandex flying around might work when you're 8, you gotta start looking to real people eventually. Problem is, it's getting harder and harder to find those good role-models. I'd like to share two of mine with you.

Jon Stewart- He's the host of The Daily Show, a "fake" news program where they take real news issues and then splash a healthy dose of comedy on it. On the surface, it doesn't seem like this guy would be too in touch with the actual political situations in america; I mean, he's a comedian!
Oh how wrong you'd be...
This guy is seriously in-touch, and should have a microphone stapled to his hand. People all over the internet are colling the Daliy Show one of the most important shows on TV, so it begs the question "why?" You could watch this video to find out. http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2678439?htv=12
He goes toe-to-toe with an extremely intelligent, articulate political author, and demolishes him with clear, concise comments and questions. He asks the exast same things WE THE PEOPLE would, were we given the opportunity, and articulates our thoughts into cohesive statements which tactically nuke politician's lies. Here's a quote, a perfect example of why The Daily Show is the people's lighthouse through the fog of political propoganda;
"What I rediculed the president for was, he refuses to answer questions from adults as though we were adults, and falls back upon platitudes and phrases and talking-points, that does a disservice to the goals that HE HIMSELF with the very people he needs to try to convince.(HUGE APPLAUSE)"
Great stuff...he gets straight to the heart of several issues, including the fact that the president is just a big freakin parrot in a suit. All he does is repeat the same "talking points" over and over as justification for everything he does, and Jon Stewart sees through it. That's the kind of courage and intelligence I was talking about earlier.

The second is Ronnie Earl, who is the DA in Texas that is prosecuting not only Tom DeLay, but several other companies he set up to contribute funds to other repubican candidates in an illegal attempt to completely obliterate the democratic party's prescence in Texas. This guy is plain good at his job; he established an anti-corruption law team and has used it liberally(dirty word, i know) over the last decade to bust illegal campaign contributions and corrupt politicians and corperations. But he's never faced an opponent like DeLay before. Delay has basically started a smear campaign against him, putting all kinds of personal attacks over his website. Thing is, when you're innocent, the first thing you do is DEFEND that innocence, not say "the other guy is really partisan, he doesnt like me". There's a great article about the history of Earl and his case against Texas political corruption i'll link to at the end of this. But i think this pretty much sums up his thoughts on the matter, in reference to corperate funding of politicians.

"If we can't tell who is behind these elections," he said, "why do we have elections? Why don't we just let the Texas Association of Business appoint our officials?"

Ronnie Earl

And oh, Here's a Thought... I'm going to stop capitalizing the first letter in president and america, because this is definately NOT what the Founding Fathers and the guys up on mount Rushmore intended. This is not America the Great, America the Free, nor is the the office of president the prestigious, respected, and honor-bound office it once was. The executive branch is becoming a joke with all the stunts the pull and illusions of grandeur it has. Anyone hear about the "live, give-and-take" interview with 9 soldiers in Iraq and the prez? Yeah, the whole thing was staged, and the soldiers were coached beforehand. Hell, the ONE woman they put on is in charge of public relations, and is said to hardly leave her highly forified compound. This is just absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable, that the Rove/Cheney administration would have to try something like this to make WE THE PEOPLE believe that the "War" in Iraq is going well and we're actually accomplishing something. Somebody with some authority needs to hold these idiots accountable; 2 people are in a position to do that right now, Ronnie Earl and Special Prosecutor Patrick who can choose to indict Rove in his leak of a CIA agent's name. If they don't, then they arent doing their job and should be removed from office. The evidence is there, now all they have to do is resist the pull of politics and DO THEIR JOBS!

Rainbows and Puppy Dogs

I've been blowing off some steam with my last few posts, so I'd like to take a minute and talk about something more cheery. I've read that the average american watches 4 hours of TV a day, so I'd like to talk about my 2 favorite shows on TV.

Battlestar Galactica may be unfairly thrust into the sci-fi catagory, but it really isnt. One of the lead actors called it correctly when he said it was "A character-driven drama" and I couldn't agree more. Mankind has been nearly wiped out, and now only a small number of humans aboard the Battlestar Galactica and some cilvilian ships. The reason I love the show so much is because the characters are just amazing. And after my last rant about how Bush is incompatent, I'd like to point out that Commander Adama is about as close to a perfect leader as anyone could be. He does what is best for the majority and would do anything to help those he serves. In the season finale, they find another Battlestar led by admiral Cain, who outranks him. He steps down immediately from his position of power and begins to follow orders, as he should. But when she unjustly wants to execute two of his men for stopping her "interragator" from raping a prisoner, Adama won't just go along with it. He risks everything to save his people from unfair treatement. The agony he shows when he hears she orders the execution is just incredible, and anyone who dismisses this show as "another geeky Star-Trek" does a supreme injustice to it. I'd like to quote the last dialogue between he and Cain to show you why he's an amazing character and leader, so follow me here...

Adama-You told me they'd get a fair trial. What kind of trial could they have possible had?
Cain-I assure you I heard them out
Adama-They have the right to have their case heard by a jury
Cain-I am Flag officer during a time of war. Regulations give me broad authority in this matter.
Adama-(launch the fighters)YOu can quote me whatever regulation you'd like. I'm not gonna let you execute my men!
Cain-I highly suggest you reconsider that statement commander....Commander, why are you launching fighters?
Adama-Please arrange for the prisoners to be handed over to my marines as soon as they arrive.
Cain-I dont take orders from you!
Adama-Call it whatever you like. I'm getting my men.
Cain-You are making SUCH a mistake.
Adama-I'M GETTING...MY MEN.

No transcipt can do justice to this exchange, the actor who plays Adama deserves an Emmy for the job he does. It's seriously amazing to see a leader who cares about his people the way Adama does, and is such a good contrast to our current situation. The season ended 2 weeks ago, but season 3 begins again in january and I'd implore anyone who likes dramas to tune in, you won't be disappointed.

The saga continues

The second show is Smallville. It's the tale of Clark Kent, AKA Superman, before he moved to Metropolis and doned those spiffy blue tights lol. Just like Battlestar, people want to put this show into a cookie-cutter mold and call it a "superhero show". Well it is, but that description doesnt quite do it justice. Anyone who immediately dismisses it by saying "sorry i don't really like Superman" needs to sit down and watch at least one episode so they know how wrong they are. This ISN'T the story of Superman, it's the tale of Clark Kent, a young man who is learning about himself, the world, and his destiny. And so much more.
Smallville is heading through its fifth season, and let me tell you, the show has grown up. The first 3-4 seasons were your typical Buffy-esque "monster of the week" style shows. But now they're dealing with all the darker, more mature issues that having been brewing below the surface for the past few years. The last episode, in particular, was amazing; the tension they built was so thick you could hardly breathe, and I didnt want to get up for fear of missing something important. Clark and Lana are finally living free with each other, no secrets since Clark was stripped of his powers. They were starting an amazing relationship, when BAM! Clark is shot trying to help his friend Chloe. normally, the bullet would have hardly left a scratch, but now he goes to the ER with a punctured lung. And is pronounced dead almost on arrival. And to tell you the truth, the reactions from Lana and Mrs. Kent when they find out are chilling, they are THAT good. The acting on most "teen" shows is usually mediocre at best, but this show's actors really have skill. And when Lana goes to the Kent's house later to talk to them, and sees Clark standing there basking in sunlight, it's an amazing scene and an incredibly moving sight. YOU MUST WATCH THIS SHOW! One of the biggest problems in society right now is our need to put everything inside a box, then judge it based on what we believe about the box rather then the its individual merits. This show is spectacular, and even if you don't think you like "that kind" of show, do yourself a facor and tune in, cause it may not be what you expect, but it could be just what you've been looking for.

My favorite Bush...the President, that is

I try to read Yahoo News everyday, and there was a poll they showed in an article that was very enlightening. It's a Pew Poll, 1500 people surveyed and came up with the following results on Bush's second-term approval:

• 38 percent of Americans approve of how Bush is handling his job, down from 50 percent at his inauguration in January;
• -29 percent are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, down from 40 percent in January;
• -Americans believe it was wrong to invade Iraq by a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent, a reverse from the January margin of 51-44 that thought it was the right decision.

• "The public is also skeptical about whether Bush had made most things better or worse. By a margin of 66-6, they think he's made the federal budget deficit worse. By 40-12, they think he made Social Security worse. By 57-19, they think he's made the economy worse. By 35-25, they think he's weakened morality in the country."

It goes on to suggest that the reason for this steep decline is a combination of his administration's failures in Iraq, with Social Security reform, FEMA's Katrina Failure,and with his nomination of Harriet Miers. That's one way to look at it. But I like to look at the big picture here, which I think people are finally starting to do as well.

BUSH IS AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Due to brilliant strategists and their ability to minimize his flaws during presidential campaigning, SOME people got tricked into believing he could handle running a country. 9/11 fell into his lap, and he reacted in the same way any other president would have, which gave him a huge bump in popularity and approval. But now, all his failures are piling up and people are realizing that they are all his fault. And his strategists can't redirect all the blame. Especially when his right-hand men like Karl Rove and Senator Tom Delay are under investigation themselves, it only amplifies all the mistakes he makes. People have finally realized that he is way over his head, and the brilliant people around him that helped make him look like a decent president *cough*Colin Powell *cough* jumped off that sinking ship already.

Here's a Thought...When 2008 rolls around, we elect an intelligent, experienced leader who doesn't come from a corporate background. The founding fathers of this nation were the most intelligent, bold generation that America has perhaps ever seen. Now the country is run by a C+ student with a silver spoon in his mouth, and cronies and yes-men surrounding him, telling him he's brilliant *cough*Harriet Miers*cough*. Does anyone see the correlation between our lower presidential standards and the decline of our society? Democrat, Republican, it's all irrelevant. Don't vote for whatever crony your party throws at you during the 2008 campaign, vote for the guy you think shares those qualities that made presidents like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln some of the greatest leaders in our nation's history.

Perhaps the best mold we could fashion our next president would be made from would be Gerald Ford. He was thrust into a bad situation by his predecessor, but did all he could to make the best of it. Short of some miracle over the next 2 years, our next president will have a lot of problems to solve. Social Security, to which I've been paying for 5 years, won't even exist when I am able to claim it. The "War" in Iraq is still raging, with American soldiers being killed there daily and no date for withdrawal in sight. Cronyism and corruption are tearing apart our precious democracy from the inside, oil prices are climbing at an alarming rate, and that Osama Bin Ladin guy is still supposedly on the loose somewhere. And then, as my best friend put it, our Atlantis, New Orleans, is still a wreck and millions of people have had their lives destroyed by the incompetence of the current administration and their lack of delegation skills.

Here's another Thought...If Bill Clinton can be impeached because he received oral sex in the White House and lied about it, then why can't the entire current administration be impeached for destroying the very fabric that holds our society together? Our systems are falling apart, americans are being killed overseas in a war we didn't want, and thousands died when the idiot Bush put in charge of FEMA couldn't do his job. If that isn't Treason, I don't know what is.

Breaking the Mold

Is anyone else disgusted with modern movies? Seriously, does the good guy always have to win and get the girl? I realize that it usually makes for good entertainment, but come on! Where's the innovation, the guts that it takes to make a great movie without falling into the same pattern as everyone else? Cruel Intentions is one of my favorite movies, and a major part of that is the fact that the "good guy", the protagonist, dies before he actually gets the girl. That's what makes it so compelling, so heart-wrenching; and THAT makes for a good tale.
In school news, it's my third week, and FINALLY I've been given an assignment. That seems absolutely ridiculous to me. I realize that community colleges aren't the pillars of educational excellence that universities are, but wow! 3 weeks before I have something to do, something to test whether or not I've actually been paying attention.
Now, I'm not usually a fan of celebrity news; after all, they're people just like you or I who have their lives placed under a microscope just because they are famous. However, occasionally something so bizarre happens I just can't help but stop and take notice. Has anyone been paying attention to this Jude Law/Sienna Miller thing? Apparently he cheated on her with the maid, and she blew up on him.Then it turns out, she was cheating on HIM as well! Some places reported that they got back together after, although now she's claiming they've been officially "broken up" since the incident.
Here's the part I can't really understand. They broke up and are seeing other people. idontlikeyouinthatway.com reports that Jude went on a date with Selma Hayek, Sienna found out, and decided to THROW HERSELF AT HIM. She actually wants him back after all that mess. I don't get it, I really dont. They cheated on each other, broke up, and moved out from their house. He moves on and starts dating other people, and as soon as she finds out she decides she wants him back. Am i the only person that thinks that is freakin crazy? Maybe I just don't understand women, because if my girlfriend cheated on me, we broke up, and she started seeing somebody else, I DEFINATELY wouldn't be crawling back to her on my hands and knees. I'm pretty sure most guys would agree with me.

Here's a Thought... Whoever said men are from mars and woman are from venus is an idiot. Men are from mars, and woman are from some strange computer game where everything is seemingly random and the rules are constantly changing. How else can you explain their otherwise inexplicable actions? She cheated on him, meaning she wasnt getting what she needed from him, but then crawls back to him after he decides to move on? Someone wanna try justifying her actions to me, cause I just don't understand.

"Goths" kill me

There was an episode of South Park(one of the greatest shows ever created, btw) where I believe it was Kyle decided to turn into a "Goth" after having his girlfriend dump him. He dressed all in black, had fake piercings, smoked, and wrote depressing poetry about how life sucks. He did all this because all the rest of his "Goth" buddies were doing it as well.

NEWSFLASH! Changing your lifestyle to fit a different, smaller groups standards is not being a nonconformist. All you're doing is conforming to a different group. All the "Goths" who do this just kill me, because while they are going against the grain of mainstream society, they're now just falling in-line with typical "Goth" standards. Now, during the 80's, wearing all-black, painting your nails black, and getting pierced may have been rebellious, but is it really anymore? Every 14-year-old girl has her belly button pierced and a tatoo on her lower back, so is it really even a statement anymore?
And how can anyone claim to be a nonconformist when all they're doing is changing groups...They stop conforming with society and start doing it instead to fit in with the "Goth" clique.

Here's a Thought... If you really wanna be an individual, then do what makes YOU happy, what YOU like. Changing yourself to fit in with another group isn't the same thing as being an individual.

BTW, Kyle realized his error after Butters said he'd "Rather be a crybaby than some Goth Pussy" . Kyle went back to his old self, and vented his frustration the way most people do...called his ex a slut and flipped off her new boyfriend. Gotta love it.

Bizzaro-Land

I've been reading over some more of the situation involving Harriet Miers and her Supreme Court nomination, and I've found something very odd that hasn't really been brought to people's attention.

Why, after President Bush's reassurances of Harriet being a "conservative who shares his views", and her being a devoted christian, are the conservatives opposing her nomination and the liberals supporting it?

Think about it...most of the republican party, which Bush is a member of and supposedely so is Miers, are opposing his hand-picked candidate. The democrats, however, are in favor of her as a candidate. Did I miss something? Why are the Democrats supporting a "conservative" candidate, and the Republicans opposing her? Perhaps because they fear, given their lack of information on her views, they fear she could become another David Souter. In case you didnt know, David Souter was nominated by Bush Sr. under the impression that he was a moderate republican. Turns out he's one of the most liberal justices on the supreme court.Since the democrats don't really have the votes to stop her from replacing Sandra Day O'Connor, maybe they're just hoping she turns out to be the next Souter, which given the information we have could happen. She gave money to an Al Gore campaign a while back after all. The Republicans perhaps, not knowing her stances on...well ANYTHING, would much rather have someone with a proven track-record. Or...

Here's a Thought...Maybe, given HIS track-record, his own party is just betting on President Bush being wrong. Of course, having entered Bizzaro Land already, he may actually be right for once.

The Alpha and the Omega

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth

Don't get the wrong idea; this isnt another religious scripture blog. But in my World Religions course at the local C.C. we've been talking about how religious myth should be interpreted as a metaphor, not literally, so perhaps that very statement in the bible is just referring to creation in general. Such as my brand-new blog. I said "let it be", and it existed. Just food for thought, which should always be well-nourished.

So i was perusing Yahoo news today, and read a report explaining that the first lady Laura Bush thinks that people questioning the appointment of Harriet Miers is partially due to sexism.

"I think she is so accomplished, and I think people are not looking at her accomplishments and not realizing that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas bar association, for instance, and all the other things."
I have some pretty strong feelings on sexism and "Racism", which you'll read plenty about over the next few weeks. Here's the problem I have with her statement; You say that other people are singling her flaws out because she's a woman, which qualifies as sexism. But pointing out her accomplishments in reference to the fact that she's "done all these things as a woman" is sexism too. The definiation of sexism is singling out a person's sex when referring their accomplishments or qualities. Saying that she was the first WOMAN to do all these things is sexist too...whether she is a man or woman should be irrelevent. Don't you love it when people don't even realize they are hypocrites?
Here's a Thought...Don't call someone else a sexist and then defend them using a sexist arguement. Saying someone is being singled out because of their gender, and then defending them using their gender are the same thing...sexism.

I'd just like to point out a few things about my blog. I'm going to be writing a quite a bit of political commentary, or just commentary about people/society/government in general. However, when something exciting/interesting/unique happens in my personal life I'll probably write about that too. I don't know if anyone will even read this, but if you do I'd appreciate any kind of comments on it/my articles. Even saying "you suck, you're stupid, i hate you," is a better exercise of the First Amendment than just staying silent. Cause that's kinda what this blog is all about; Standing up and saying what you think, not just blending in and becoming a "mindless automaton".