State of the Blog

Lots of important and interesting things happened today. For starters, the president gave his State of the Union address, in which he talked about several important topics. So important, in fact, that he was applauded 58 times in 50 minutes.

Absurd

I really love when bush's speechwriters(Karl Rove) try to make him sound intelligent. They did so today when he said,"Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy."Wow. I actually had to sit here and think for like 2 minutes, trying to figure out what that meant exactly. The closest explaination i could come up with is that he doesn't want people calling him stupid. He doesn't like the fact that people are actually analyzing what he does and telling him he made very foolish, stupid decisions, so he attacks those people instead. Unfortunately, he does so in a nearly incomprehensible way, so nobody really gets that he was angry and hurt. He also called for increased spending for math and science courses in schools, specifically, training high-school teachers to instruct AP classes in those subjects. Thing is, with our deficit likely to hit 400 billion, billion, BILLION dollars this year, he is going to have to go wish for more money, cause the funding just isn't there. Perhaps if he weren't so obsessed with cutting rich people's taxes he could fund his little projects. He also defended his spying program yet again, using the worn-out line of "This terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks." The problem with "preventing" crime like that is that you'll never really know if the action would haev taken place. It's also easy to make insubstanciated claims, especially when your administration doesn't want to tell the public or media anything other then their rhetorical propoganda.

In other news, Samual Alito was confirmed today. While he seems intelligent and qualified, bush's praise of him makes me weary nonetheless. He said Alito was, "a brilliant and fair-minded judge who strictly interprets the Constitution and laws and does not legislate from the bench." Except for that whole laying out a plan for the Regan administration to demolish the precedent for abortion thing, he sure doesnt. Especially considering his track record on abortion, which at best would be described as "mixed" despite the mountains of precedent. So if that is your idea of not legislating from the bench, then he doesn't legislate from the bench. Personally, I think if he weren't so intelligent he would scare me. Most intelligent, rational people don't allow their personal opinions to flow into their work, especially when your job affects the very future and fabric of American society, and I hope he sticks to that philosophy.

The Land of the Free(Some restrictions may apply)

Joel Stein of the LA Times wrote an article a few days ago about how he doesn't support either the invasion of Iraq, or the troops. He takes an interesting, and VERY unpopular stance, saying he doesn't like the reason for the occupation, so why should he support any aspect of it?

"I don't think (soldiers) are necessarily bad people. I do plenty of things that are wrong too. But I don't agree with what they are doing so I don't see the logic of supporting it."

He also states that politicians who oppose the invasion but support the troops are covering their asses. While I agree that they are trying to play both sides, his rant against the troops is misguided in the assumption it is based upon, namely, that the troops had a choice in going to fight. They don't; it's their job, and when the boss says jump you say how high. Supporting the troops doesn't mean you agree with the "war" it just means you hope the troops stay safe and come back home soon. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Only when thinking "Outside the Box" becomes cliche do we truly learn the definition of irony

I'm fucking tired of this...why is it we have to label EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING? Why? Is it because we only feel confortable when we have a preconception of everything around us? Maybe it's just easier to talk about things in general when we generalize things. Regardless, it is completely out of control. For example, MSN ran an two articles a few days ago detailing 5 men/women every woman/man should date. After having their list mocked on CollegeHumor.com, i was kinda curious to see the real thing and checked it out. You know what I came to conclude?

Complete BULLSHIT

Now, I'm a firm believer in variety being ths spice of life, and experiencing new things, but it's quite another thing to do so by packaging people in little convenience boxes like the authors do; it just belittles every aspect of a person. In fact, there is no way you could EVER adequetely describe a person using the poor words we have. Stereotyping people into roles such as, "The Bad Boy" and, "The Seductress" is just absurd. Seriously. Looking through the list of men every girl should date, I meet at least 3 of those qualifications(older man and metrosexual are out). But of course, they can't just say, "People are far to complex to classify, and every person you ever meet will exhibit qualities that fall into multiple catagories" because if they did they'd be out of a job. Every Shallow, High-Maintainance girl out there has qualities that overlap into other catagories, as does the Starving Artest and The Brainy Chick. People are far to complex to be able to focus on one little aspect of them and try to use a magnifying glass to learn something from the mere molecule you're looking at. That Bad Boy staring at you from across the hall has a little bit of Nice Guy AND Starving Artist in him, I promise, and the Guy's Girl you drink beer and watch football with has a little bit of Free Spirit and Seductress in her too.

So Here's a Thought... You can only truly see the depth of a person when you stop trying to fit them in a little box. Shrek said that ogres are like onions; they have many layers, and the same is true with people. You just have to quit focusing on what you WANT to see, they way you WANT them to be, and see who they truly are; an individual who could never fit in some stupid catagorization.

For the Republic

Found an interesting article on Shoutwire.com, a great place to spend some time. Here's a link. But for the general rundown, the article says that our political system is broken for two reasons: people divide themselves needlessly into cookie-cutter definitions that they let define each other, and that our political system has boiled down to a bunch of old, rich guys who choose between themselves who should have political offices.

While i agree with some of the premises set forth by the article, some things deserve a second perspective.

For starters, the way we label people HAS gotten out of control. Most political analysts tend to call everyone liberals or conservatives, just for convenience. But what does it really mean to be conservative, to be liberal? As far as ACTUAL definitions go, being liberal and conservative is a difference in ability to accept new ideas and beliefs. We, however, have forced those words to correspond with particular belief systems, then just thrown everyone into one of those camps without real thought into the reprecussions of such a ridiculous action. Now, when asked what someone's political beliefs are, instead of reciting a few things he/she thinks, that person just says "I'm a conservative" or "I'm a democrat". What does that even mean? Considering how often proffesional politicians stray from their party's stances, it really has no purpose except to give someone a broad, misunderstood representation of what you may or may no believe. When Tyler Durden said, "You are not your fucking khakis" what he was telling the world is that we shouldn't define ourselves, because definition brings inherent restrictions and limits your potential. There isn't a single person on EARTH who completely agrees with every prototypical liberal view, so NOBODY meets the definition correctly. Same with democrat and republican; it's just a way to lump everyone into a few, easy-to-understand groups. It's ridiculous, because this method has lead to partisan politics, where people will vote against their beliefs and in favor of whatever party strategy they are using, leading the parties themselves to become more important than the rational, individual-based debates that occured back when this nation was in its political prime.

The other point the article makes, about a bunch of rich, old, "white" guys deciding amongst themselves who should attain political office is also true, but blame can't lie soley with them.Yes, running for office takes a lot of money, so obviously rich people have an advantage there. They also have some connections, due to, for example, their ability to attend Ivy-League schools and join "Secret Societies", thus hooking themselves up for life. But no matter how rich, how well-connected someone is, that only gets you so far; the qualities we look for in politicians isn't money and connections, it's their opinions and their passion, their intelligence and work ethic. Now, back during the Revolution and Civil War, those individuals were fighting for freedom, and trying to make our country better and safer for all people. So naturally, they eventually went into politics.

But where are those people now?

In the private sector, trying to make a lot of money. They don't give a shit about the political system unless it helps them somehow. All the brilliance of the past dozen generations is too busy trying to make a buck to protect and serve the people who are the backbone of this nation; hell, of this world. Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, those were geniuses who cared about ALL Americans, not just their own pocketbook. Now, however, all our Jeffersons are out trying to make Benjamins. And where has that lead us? To the only place it could have, our current political state; a country led by a C+ student and a bunch of yes-men who sell their votes and manipulate the system for everything it is worth, at the expense of the blood and sweat of the noble, who work 9-5 hard-labor jobs, or fight overseas, just to put food on the table and hope their children have a better future than they do. They then have to try to decide which rich, Ivy-Leaguer represents THEM best. It's absurd. We need a resurgence of public service over the next few generations, or this country will crumble under the very weight of our corruption and greed. The most well-known presidential quote is, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Not, "Ask how much money you can make ignoring the death-cries of your country as it slowly rots away from the inside." We need some brilliant, charismatic, CARING individuals to step away from their corporate offices and onto the ballot soon, or our future as a country is to be a repeat of our grandfathers, the Romans. We took their governmental system, and now we may follow them straight into the history books.

Black Sabboth

The new Pope today baptised 10 babies, gave a speach in the Sistine Chapel, and oh yeah, berated the entire world for having sex, doing drugs, and just being amoral in general.
He was supposed to talk about how baptisms are holy, and great for the soul, but decided to just wing it and berate the "Anti-culture", and a "Culture of Death", by which he means homosexuality, abortion, social sex, birth control, and drug use. He even compared our current situation to that of the Roman Empire.
But I'm pretty sure the Catholic church lost the moral highground a long time ago. As if supporting that same Roman Empire they now deplore wasn't enough, how about the Crusades or the Inquisition? Where was that morality back then? Torturing and taking the homes of people who don't share your beliefs isn't quite consistant with the stands the church would like to make now. Oh, I almost forgot raping little kids and then covering up their crimes. The church doesn't have the right to comment on the lifestyle choices WE make, when throughout history they have made choices a million times worse.
And Here's a Thought... The Romans had a nice run before their time ran out. They unified and civilized the entire known world, made amazing advances in science and art(untill the church forced reform that has set us back still from the point they were at), and revolutionized our own form of government. You can't just ignore the good and point out the bad, they are intertwined. Moral authority does not lie with the church anymore, if it ever did, and hearing them tell ME what are good values gives new definition to the word "Irony". Or maybe just hammers its actual definition home.

My own worst enemy

The President's authorization of wiretaps, bypassing the courts, has been at the center of a political snowstorm for weeks now. It has been claimed by the administration that our safety hangs in the balance, that we are more insecure by even the knowledge of those secret wiretaps being authorized. This brings to mind a quote from one of the most brilliant minds in our great history;

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom NOR security."
-Benjamin Franklin

How fitting, considering our current predicament. What the president and his staff have been asking us is, "How many of your freedoms and civil rights are you willing to give up in the name of security?" And for a time after 9/11, the answer to that question was "A lot". After all, we had just suffered through the most horrific event of many of our lifetimes, and the first major attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Al Qaeda seemed like our biggest enemy, our most lethal threat, and we were willing to give whatever was needed to keep us safe.
But is Al Qaeda really the biggest threat to our nation's security? I don't think so.

Here's a Thought... The biggest threat to the freedom and security of each American is the American government. Think about it; the largest army in the world, which now, apparently, answers to only one man. The Bill of Rights was created for a reason, but I don't believe people actually think through the reasoning behind it; so let's do so now. What is its purpose? To give each American UNALIENABLE rights. Freedom of speach, right to bear arms, speedy trial and due process, and so on. But who do these rights protect us from? Most believe they protect us from each other, and while that is true, only a few of the amendments directly pertain to civilian vs civilian conflicts. In fact, each of the original 10 amendments pertain directly to government regulation and abuse of power AGAINST the people. It is the Bill of Rights that defines what the government CANNOT do to us, and each time we trade in one of those rights in the name of security from an obscure, foreign threat, we make ourselves MORE vulnerable to the greatest threat to our way of life and our freedom. If you need any idea of what THAT would be like, anyone from the south before the Civil War. I believe the word was "Slavery", and it is the inevitable result of losing our civil rights. They must be protected at all costs, for without them, we HAVE no security from that which has caused more harm to we Americans than all our foreign enemies combined.

Where's the party at?

I'd like to say a few words about New Year's Eve, since that day is...er, was, 7 minutes ago.

New Year's Eve is the most dumbest holiday we celebrate

That's right, I said it. New Year's is just a socially acceptable reason for people to go get wasted. And I don't just mean drunk; I mean, totally trashed to the point where you can't even remember what you drank, and spend the next entire day sitting on the couch in a completely vegetative state. That is the only reason people care about it; it isn't like it is someone's birthday, or it marks an important discovery. It is just a reason for people to get drunk and not be reprimanded by everyone else.

New Year's DID once have an actual purpose, however. Back in the day, ancient religions believed time was a giant cycle, and you had to reset it every year with a New Year's feast. Obiously the details varied, but the general idea was the same. It's funny how twisted some holidays have become. Christmas is all about getting presents, haloween is about getting candy, and valentines is just a big conspiracy by Hallmark, Hershey, and girlfriends/wives. Honestly, there are only two true, pure holidays left:

April Fools is a great holiday. Not only has it remained a constant since it's inception(I have no idea when that was), but it is also hugely amusing. You can actually enjoy AND fear it.

And 420. Does it qualify as a real holiday? Given the percentage of people who smoke weed on a consistant basis, I'd have to say yes. And talk about pure; the faithful practitioners of this holy day hang out at someone's house with a bunch of like-minded friends, smoke tons of weed, watch South Park and Family Guy reruns all day, and chow down whatever snacks are within reach; cause there is NO WAY they are getting up. Even though it is a relatively new holiday, people have remained adamently faithful to its tradition.

Speaking of Christmas, i think it qualifies as the most tainted holiday there is. it is SUPPOSED to be about the birth of the Christian savior, Jesus Christ, and has turned into a fat, old guy in a red suit breakin into people's houses to give them lots of gifts. Seriously, it is ridiculous. And anyone who complains about what they get for Christmas shouldn't be given another gift for an entire year, cause that is just selfish and stupid as well. Oh, and to all those people who give money or gift certificates as gifts; I can understand if you really don't have a clue what to get someone, but most of the time i think of it as an easy way out. Getting a gift is a process of knowing the person, what they like, want, and need, and then finding the perfect thing. Giving them money is like admitting defeat at best, and at worst, just shows that person doesnt really care. I'd much rather recieve a pair of socks for Christmas than a check; at least the socks show that someone noticed all the holes in my current ones :) Kidding, my socks are pristine