And they say that a hero can save us

If I hear one more person call a marginally-trivial act "heroic", I may have to beat someone with a history textbook. For example, every freakin ESPN announcer called Terell Owens performance in the Superbowl heroic. For people that don't know, he missed two weeks with a bad ankle, then came back and played a pretty good game. He played a pretty good game! Since when was that heroic? Professional wrestlers get a really bad rep, but Kurt Angle is a real hero. He wrestled in the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta and won a gold medal with a BROKEN NECK. He risked his life just for the opportunity to represent his country, to do it honor. THAT is heroic. Risking your life overseas, defending people that don't even appreciate what you're doing for them, THAT is heroic. Pulling a man out of a burning building, THAT is heroic. Calling playing a game with a bad ankle heroic misrepresents the epic scope of the word, and is an insult to all those who are real, american heroes(GO JOE!:).

Here's a Thought... Why do you think announcers call things like that "heroic" in the first place? I'd say so they can make something so trivial seem important. Build up the games they watch into something that sounds important to justify their very existance. I love playing sports, I love watching sports, and my life would barely change if sports disappeared tomorrow. THAT is why these english majors abuse the dictionary; to hide the fact that people probably wouldn't even notice if the Hawks and the Clippers weren't playing on our TVs.

Walls are built for a reason

The Seperation of Powers exists for a reason. Checks and balances exist for a reason. The three different, specialized branches of government exist for a reason; To make sure that no branch ever has too much power, too much authority over our lives. It is there to prevent corruption from spreading, and conflicts between the obligations of the branches from ever occuring. As usual, however, the executive branch is trying to blur this line that seperates democracy from fascism.

Military Tribunals are unconstitutional. They give the military the ability to not only enforce the law, but to interpret it as well. In military tribunals, select groups of soldiers are used as jury, not a group of peers as specifically required in the Bill of Rights. Talking to a friend who is in the military, and seeing the change in his thinking since he joined, it is obvious that the military teaches combatants to think differently then they did previously. It is impossible to get a fair, impartial trial from any group of soldiers when the topic itself is war and terrorism. This isn't an insult to them; it's just a fact. They've BEEN to Iraq, SEEN their friends die there. So when a military prosecutor marches someone out before them and claims they are responsible, it would be impossible for anyone to remain impartial as required.

Military Tribunals also give the power of interpretation of the law from the Judicial branch to the Executive. The military isn't qualified to hear trials, professional civilian judges are.

The real problem, and what will become precedent from this case if the military tribunals are overturned, is that the president is using this constant "war" state to justify whatever he wants. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner said,"A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens". EXACTLY! The president cannot claim we are in a perpetual state of war, and use that to justify any action he wants.

The jusitification is the "War on Terror" right? That's absolutely ridiculous. Listen to the name itself; it's a war against a philosophy, an ideal, not another country. It's like if Bush said we were in a "War on Racism" to justify war powers and prosecute KKK members. We haven't declared war against any nation since 1939; calling his crusade against a small group of people we can't even find a "War" is so disrespectful to those who served in WW1, 2, and every other real war; They were fighting for an ideal against an organized enemy. The war against "Terror" is just an opinion. If they used the word "terrorist" as liberally as we do today in England circa 1776, I'm sure the rebelling american colonies would have been seen in the same light. Use of guerilla tactics and hit-and-runs against a superior army, being ruled over by a larger nation. I'm not condoning anything they've done, I'm just making the point that being a "Terrorist" and being a "Freedom Fighter" are often just different views of the same person.

The president alone does not have the power to wage war. That responsibility and power is far too great for any one man to have. The "Federalist Papers" were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to explain to the American people the totality of the powers that were to be given to the proposed government. They wrote " The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, gall which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." The president shall not have the power to declare war, only the strategic oversight when military actions are declared by CONGRESS. He also cannot use the military for extended periods of time without declaring war. All of this is basically what the constitution says, simplified. The president has had us in Iraq for how long now? The military action in Iraq is, therefore, unconstitutional.

So Here's a Thought... The creators of the constitution saw fit to seperate the powers of government. But recently, the president has been syphoning off authority from the other two branches of government under the facade of an undeclared war; creating military courts that apparently aren't bound by the constitution and are responsible only to the secretary of defense and the president, and sending our troops into long-term military conflicts without declaring war, thus bypassing a balance given to Congress. If we continue down this road, our foundation of democracy will crumble until the president has all the power, holds all the cards, and cannot be held in check by the other two branches. And what do we call it when one man is in complete control of a nation? It isn't democracy, people, and it is staring us straight in the eyes.

Frosty the drugdealer

Yahoo news ran an article today you can read here to follow along; Frosty the drugdealer

The research tells us that influences coming from the media can have a profound effect on kids and influence them to use drugs," he says. "All of these things help to convey the impression that engaging in these behaviors using drugs is normal and that drugs might help you be successful or sexy or something"

I think I've already said this, but people really need to start taking responsibility for their own actions. If your child is doing drugs, don't point the finger at the movies he watches or the videogames he plays; it's ridiculous. The primary influence in a childs life is THE PARENT. The media may have a small influence on someones decision, but it's only because that person was looking for a reason. For example, I've listened to Eminems first 3 albums about a thousand times, and never once have I said to myself after, "Wow, I should go pop some pills and do some shrooms." Do you know why? Because my dad would have kicked my ass, that's why.

Here's a Thought...No matter how persuasive pop culture may be, the ultimate influence on a child is the parent. So stop pointing your fingers at the TV and try looking in the mirror.

State-sanctioned torture

As I mentioned earlier, Senator John McCain(R, Arizona) proposed an amendment to the Senate that would prohibit the use of torture on prisoners, specifically those considered terrorists. Well, it passed in the Senate 90-9 and is now steamrolling its way through the House of Representatives as well. Now, despite differences in individuals, we can all agree on some universal principles; our children should be educated, people should be safe and free, and people shouldn't be tortured. Right?

Wrong!

The White House apparently does not agree. They would like exemptions added to the bill that would allow the CIA to continue torturing their prisoners(in, allegedly, secret prisons throughout Europe where prisoners have been held for up to three years without being charged OR being allowed to see their lawyers). Isn't that insane?

Problem is, this hasn't been a very good year for the prez. With the "War" in Iraq proving to be a PR disaster, the national deficit skyrocketing, his social security plan being non-existent, his blatant cronyism being exposed both by Mike Brown, head of FEMA and Harriet Miers both failing to get the job done, and key members of not only his staff, but his party being indicted, you could say his second term is off to a rough start. As I said, it is highly likely that this bill will fly through the House and end up on the presidents desk.

Normally, he would just have his mouthpiece Scott McClellan come out and say how it wasn't in the "best interest of the nation", and then twist it somehow to make it sound like disagreeing with the prez was unpatriotic. But this unfortunate hurricane of failures and negative publicity will just magnify any actions he takes, and he may be forced to sign a bill he opposes. Can you even imagine him vetoing it? "My fellow americans, I know you don't want us to torture people, but I don’t really care that your elected represen...represent...your elected officials thought this was a good idea, I don't like it so I vetoed it. Oh, and the war in Iraq is going really well." Even if he did veto it, a 90-9 vote is a sure indicator that the bill would just be re-introduced and passed without bush having to sign it. Gotta love those checks and balances. I guess we know now what bush meant when he said running this country would be a lot easier if it were a dictatorship. If only he didn't have those obnoxious Senators and Representatives overruling his decisions, or that pesky press pointing out all his flaws. Vetoing this bill could be the nail in his presidential coffin, both because it would just show how little he cares for human life(except his own, of course....sending americans to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's okay, but he literally ran and hid during his own service), and also that the bill would just be passed again anyway, undermining the deathgrip he's had on our nation for the past 6 years

Here's a Thought... For the next two presidential nominees, voting against this bill would be the quickest way to end your candidacy. Voting for the inhuman treatment of ANYONE is a surefire way to destroy your popularity and chances of being elected. Despite all our differences, there are some universal morals that all people share, and I'd like to think that torturing people being okay isn't one of them. Trying to listen to the president speak is enough torture already.

Celebrities speak

Though I'm not sure why...It seems like the only time one is quoted, it's for saying something really, really stupid. Like Madonna saying Gwen Stefani ripped her look and style off, or Tom Cruise arguing the virtues and validity of scientology. Or Justin Timberlake saying, of Britney Spears' baby pictures being leaked by the press:

"When a person like her, who's obviously a sweet person, is having their first child, it's like, 'leave the girl alone,"' Timberlake told "Access Hollywood" in an interview which aired Monday.

"I do think that's crossing the line," the 24-year-old singer said. "That's her baby and those are her baby pictures."

Lol, that's just funny. Anybody can take a picture of anybody else, that's part of the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech. And personally, I haven't seen anything "Obviously sweet" from Britney since she hit the scene in 99. Especially when she threatens photographers with a lawsuit.

"The pop princess has warned that their publication would be considered an invasion of her family's privacy.

"Anyone who publishes, sells or otherwise exploits any of these images in any way will be subject to liability and damages for willful infringement of copyright," said a press release by Jive."

I didn't realize you could copyright a baby's face. Huh, guess you learn something new every day. And what's next? If newspapers can't publish pictures of people, then the next logical step down this slippery slope is that they can't print stories about people without consent. Last time I checked, that whole "Freedom of the Press" thing was still in the First Amendment as well, so threaten to sue all you want. The only reason she didn't want anyone to take pictures of her child is because she wants to sell them herself; Last time I checked, the bidding was at $2 million to OK! magazine.

Hereo's a Thought... And this goes for all celebrities; You wouldn't exist without the press and the people who buy your crap. So don't say "hey, come buy my music/movie/new product" one second, and then bitch about your privacy and wanting to be left alone the next. You can't have it both ways, and if you wanted to maintain your privacy you shouldn't have become famous. Having your personal life explored by strangers comes with the territory, and you sure weren't bitching about all the press when you were raking in the dough. You can't have your cake and eat it too, so quit bitching.

Hippie and Hip-Hop

Here's the article link...

I take real issue with what this guy has to say. He seems to think that hip-hop and "gangster" rap are a boon to society, and that Phil speaking his mind about the correlation between the decline of society and the popularity of those music genres makes him a racist and a hypocrite.

If you don't feel like reading the entire article, Phil Jackson, the once-and-present head coach of the LA Lakers, said of some of his players and the NBA in general, "I don't mean to say [that] as a snide remark toward a certain population in our society, but they have a limitation of their attention span, a lot of it probably due to too much rap music going in their ears and coming out their being" and "I think it's important that the players take their end of it, get out of the prison garb and the thuggery aspect of basketball that has come along with hip-hop music in the last seven or eight years."

Scoop Jackson goes on to call him a hypocrite and bigot, among other things, because he was once a "hippie" who was a proponent for counterculture in the '70s, and a racist because he was picking on a culture dominated by young "black" males, and he's an old, "white" male. All of these allegations are just ridiculous.

For starters, people are allowed to change their views on society and culture; changing based on experience isn't a bad thing and doesn't make you a hypocrite. Saying one thing and doing another does. Scoop says, "What type of "being" comes from an original American counterculture, openly indulges in illegal drugs and activities, is a card-carrying member of the anti-establishment, then not only flips and embraces Buddhism, Native American culture and Zen philosophy, but also flips and finds fault in a similar culture 30 years removed from the one he was once part of?" For starters, don't act all high and mighty and intellectually superior to everyone, then not realize that "Zen Philosophy" is just an off-shoot of Buddism. Being a "Hippie" wasn't about being a rebel just for the sake of being a rebel, it was about standing up for what you believed in, being an individual. And those are some of the central focuses in Zen Buddism; an individual's relationship with everything around him and getting in-tune with those surroundings. It isn't hypocracy, it's evolution. And the "gangster" rap culture is NOTHING like '70s culture, I don't even know why that would be brought up. As I said, the "Hippies" were out to change the world for the better; social activists who wanted peace and love and enlightenment. The hip-hop culture is all about making money, cause you want the ho's, dubs, and clubs. You see the difference? Wanting to help the group vs. only caring about yourself, peace vs. gang wars. et cetra.

Scoop also bashes Phil for his "prison garb" remark, making snide comments about how maybe basketball players should dress like Tom DeLay, Lewis Libby, or catholic priests. WOW! For starters, neither DeLay nor Libby has been convicted of anything, so taking shots at them is inappropriate. And Catholic Priests? Now, I'm not a huge fan of religion, but it can instill good morals into people when taken metaphorically. But sarcastically disrespecting an entire institution by saying NBA players should dress like priests(because a few were molesting children) is the EXACT SAME THING you're berating Phil for; using a few bad eggs to exemplify an entire group. Not ALL rappers shoot people, so not all rappers should be judged based on the actions of a few; Likewise, don't snipe at an entire religious institution just because a few of their memebers have issues. THAT is what would be defined as Hypoctritical. Also, his comment about gangster-garb dress is taken out of context. The statement was made in Oct. 05, so it was likely in response to a question about the NBA's new dress-code. So if you put his statement back into perspective, likely as the answer to a question about the new dress code implimented by the league, his comment makes perfect sense.

But what pisses me off the most is when he says "Just because we understand what you are saying Phil, as Chris Bridges as it is, it doesn't give you the right to say it." Apparently, you don't know what he was saying, since you've decided to take his statements out of context. And yes, he does have the right to say it. And anything else he wants while he's at it. Do you know why? It's called the First Amendment, and it gives everyone the right to state their opinion regardless of whether it offends you. This country is build on the principle that the people must be able to speak their minds about any subject, because people that cannot express their thoughts without fear of prosecution or persecution cannot be truly free. The Bill of Rights, which defines the rights that we as citizens of the United States are born with, gives us the right to say whatever we want, but it is Scoop's contention that because he doesn't like what Phil said he doesn't have the right to say it. I say "Bullshit, you racist,"(because in the end he says Phil doesnt like hip-hop culture becuase it isn't his 'color'. Maybe someone should inform Mr. Jackson that the vast majority of rap records are purchased by white, suberban kids).

So Here's a Thought... I just called you a racist, and I'll tack on stupid and a hypocrite as well. And despite what you believe, I DO have a right to say it, regardless of whether or not you agree with me or like it. It is an unalienable right, given to me by the supreme law of the land, the CONSTITUTION, to be able to say whatever I want, and if you have a problem with that, perhaps you should try reading the Bill of Rights sometime. Cause every time you open your mouth and insult someone ELSE, calling them a racist and a hypocrite, you're exercising the First Amendment as well. So don't tell anyone they can't speak their mind, then do so yourself. Especially when you decide to do it using false information, bad analogies, and out-of-context soundbytes. Because, as Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote, "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."