Yesterday I introduced my theory that the only way to bring about peace in the middle east is to invest in local economies and not to try and influence politics through strong-arm techniques. As per a request from one of my more loyal readers, I will expand on my theory today.
First lets go through some history...Europe was a constant battleground for centuries. The Romans conquered, then the Huns, Goths, Moors, etc. took their turn. Once kingdoms started to emerge they started fighting each other over resources, land, religion and out of pure hatred. As economics became more and more significant in politics, nations started to join forces and ally to protect economic interests. The colonial era was the last stage of this transformation from nations of people to nations of economies. The 19th century saw industrialization and a stronger focus on infrastructure and economics and Europe was relatively peaceful as a result. But as nations joined forces and created rival alliances, the relations broke down once again and Europe went to war. The interwar period was a time of isolation for most countries as they recovered from the devastation of the Great War and Influenza Pandemic as well as the Great Depression. Then came WWII, a war caused by the lack of closure after WWI and the rise of fascism and nationalism. WWII brought about the United Nations, but more importantly, the Marshall Plan. The Cold War brought tension to Europe and the World, but Western Europe recovered from war dramatically, creating some of the most vibrant economies in history. The European Ecomonic Community was formed and it further integrated the economies of Western Europe. The cold war ended and Eastern Europe began making the changes needed to join the European Union (the EEC evolved into the EU) and we've seen an unprecidented period of peace in Europe.
When two nations are economically reliant on each other, they cannot afford to dissolve relations. If Germany relies on Russian Oil, they surely wont go to war with Russia because they'd lose that supply and be at a huge disadvantage. As economies become more sophisticated the resources needed to survive increase. 1000 years ago all one needed to survive was a small shelter, some water and a little food. Now we need clothing, gas, energy, electricity, transportation, computers, pharmaceuticals and many other things that we use in modern metropolitan life. No one region can supply every material needed, so we need trade. The other thing that open global trade markets can do is keep an eye on the activities of various countries. If a nation is buying up Uranium and Plutonium, it's clear that they are engaging in some kind of nuclear research. Simply put, the international economic community can control nations from building up and being an aggressor by monitoring the commodities trade.
Investing in a nation is one thing, but investing in private corporations owned by ordinary people from that nation is totally different. Compare us giving money to Citgo (the state-run Gas company of Venezuela...for you Bostonians, I bet 50% of you didn't know Citgo was run indirectly by Hugo Chavez) to giving money to a young entrepeneur in Iran. Giving money to a large state-run entity just asks for corruption, that money will not go anywhere but the top. But giving money to that young entrepeneur in Tehran who wants to start a computer company creates a new ally who may well gain the kind of power private businessmen have in the US. Not only that, but helping the economy can only aid in secularization as religion and poverty tend to be intertwined.
I do believe that there is no progress with religion. Religion is a barrier to progress: The world is flat, god created animals as they are today, the Earth is the center of the universe, weather phenomena are "acts of god" and not a result of natural atmospheric processes. Religious nations stand in the way of peace too, as they have fanatical beliefs and see any opposition to those beliefs as heresy. A "spiritual" leader can urge his people to do most anything in the name of a "god". The wealthier they get, the less god will influence their lives (in general, there are ALWAYS exceptions). With the wealth that would come from investment, there would be improved schools. The more quality education available to the people, the less of a role god will play in society. I envision a world where spirituality is a private matter, religion is extinct and the peoples of the world are able to coexist without religious conflict. We're already seeing this happen in Europe: 17th century (among many...) saw wars between factions of Catholics, protestants and persecution of Jews (well, that's every century...). Now we are seeing less and less conflict between religious groups, even the IRA has become tamer.
Imagine if a new tourist industry was developed in Iran's most hard-line cities, would they remain hostile for long? Sure, tourists are annoying (live in New Orleans, San Diego, San Francisco for 21 of your years and you'll agree...) but they also drop tons of money into society. Look at Las Vegas. It used to be a desert haven for crime and a place to disappear. The casinos were all run by murderous criminals, but too much money started to flow into Vegas and it became more and more business-like. Now it's a metroplis with falling crime rates and the Mafia has basically none of its former influence over the casinos. Steve Wynn replaced Bugsy Seigel and the Italian/Jewish mafia presence. So why can't we do the same thing in Tehran? I suggest that we build a massive MGM-Grand sized mega-resort in Tehran and watch it help to transform things. Maybe, just maybe, that will help to avert the coming holy war.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Left behind...
Over the weekend I heard of a new computer game being developed called "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind_%28series%29#Videogame_based_on_the_series ) as a way to market radical conservative Christian values to kids and PC gamers. This game is probably one of the most rediculous things I have seen in a long time. It's not some kind of mythical quest to discover the bible, it does not teach peace, forgiveness or any of Jesus' cardinal values; the game is a shooter where you use the "power of prayer" to heal and improve your chances in battle. I saw game footage of this game, and it was just as violent as GTA or Halo except that it preaches radical Christian values and the killing of non-Christians. This game actually gives you a bonus for killing the non-believers. Tell me that this isn't a frightening development in the electronic entertainment industry.
In the past the Christian games were incredibly sheltered from the real world, they preached the good Christian values (you know, the ones that Jesus preached and not the ones preached by the Spanish Inquisitors or the Crusaders) and taught the kids how to share, how to make moral judgements and other good and upstanding moral beliefs. Even if they did preach Christian dogma in an effort to brainwash kids into Christianity before they had a chance to develop their own moral and spiritual beliefs. Obviously since I am an Athiest, I am a bit biased on this, but I believe that there are good Christian values and bad Christian values. The good ones are those that preach tolerance, community, charity, love and forgiveness; the bad ones are those that preach intolerance, conformity, and the violence towards non-Christians. If you ever watch the Simpsons, I believe that the values instilled in Rod and Tod Flanders are the proper ones if you wish to raise your child as a Christian, they watch the G rated Christian TV shows and Movies, they play the Christian versions of board games and none of them have anything even remotely related to violence...especially violence against those non-believers.
Okay, so I have blasted this game from its Christian morality standpoint, but what about as a PC game. When I first looked up at the TV and saw the game footage, I was actually rather impressed by the graphics and fast-paced action, but then they started to show what made this game unique. The soldier in the middle of an incredibly intense firefight who stops fighting to pray doesn't get shot like he would in an actual battle, but instead gains strength and skills. In war, stopping to pray in the middle of a military action is a guarantee that you will get killed, and since a high percentage of our military comes from this same demographic that the game is marketed to, we're going to see a few soldiers who might take this game literally...after all, the Christian right who preach against GTA say that it will cause us to steal cars and climb the water tower with 350 shoulder propelled rockets (nevermind where all that extra ammo goes in my jeans and t-shirt) and shoot down police helicopters by the dozens. If video games really do cause us to copy what's in the game, wouldn't I be running around trying to headbutt every brick wall I see in the off chance that I will gain the ability to shoot fireballs? I learned that from Mario and Luigi, so how is that different than CJ from GTA?
If prayer really worked in battles, wouldn't the Romans have been able to keep from falling to the barbarians? Same thing for sports, both sides pray to god before the game, only one team wins...prayer simply doesn't cause things to happen, though faith is important. If we'd just sat around praying for a cure for polio, I might be in a wheelchair due to my struggles with the disease as a child instead of being immune to it thanks to the vaccine developed by scientists. I wish to be the best basketball player in the world all the time, but I still play like a white guy (meaning I can't palm the ball or dunk), so I go to the courts and play more to gain skills with hard work and dedication. I've seen great people get sick and how everyone prayed for them to get better, but the prayer didn't work and they died. On the other hand, there are horrible, abusive people who get everything they want without even trying. Prayer does not bring justice, success or anything other than false hope.
So this started as a rant against marketing things towards Christians, and ended up as an anti-prayer rant. To me, the fact that companies use "Christian" values to market their products in order to make millions. The people who buy these products are generally those who are struggling to make ends meet and are conned by the church to waste their money on "Christian" products and services. I dated a girl who lived in poverty, not knowing if she would even have enough food to eat dinner from one day to the next, and her mother STILL donated a significant amount of her earnings at the shoe factory (seriously) to her church. Meanwhile, her daughter suffered through poverty and abuse, all without any protection from the church that was paid to give her that support. Religion has long hijacked the finances and opinions of the ignorant, stupid and needy, so now that they are starting to market violent video games to this same demographic it is starting to get rediculous. If you really believe in the power of prayer, try this: Go into Sadr City with American flag parachute pants and an Israeli flag poncho with a crucifix in your hand and stand there and pray to Jesus. See how long it takes before you're in the trunk of a car on the way to your torture and death. Or maybe Jesus can come save you or grant you temporary invincibility or a weapon power-up. How is that any more rediculous than spending every sunday praying for a better life instead of actually going out there and DOING SOMETHING about it?
In the past the Christian games were incredibly sheltered from the real world, they preached the good Christian values (you know, the ones that Jesus preached and not the ones preached by the Spanish Inquisitors or the Crusaders) and taught the kids how to share, how to make moral judgements and other good and upstanding moral beliefs. Even if they did preach Christian dogma in an effort to brainwash kids into Christianity before they had a chance to develop their own moral and spiritual beliefs. Obviously since I am an Athiest, I am a bit biased on this, but I believe that there are good Christian values and bad Christian values. The good ones are those that preach tolerance, community, charity, love and forgiveness; the bad ones are those that preach intolerance, conformity, and the violence towards non-Christians. If you ever watch the Simpsons, I believe that the values instilled in Rod and Tod Flanders are the proper ones if you wish to raise your child as a Christian, they watch the G rated Christian TV shows and Movies, they play the Christian versions of board games and none of them have anything even remotely related to violence...especially violence against those non-believers.
Okay, so I have blasted this game from its Christian morality standpoint, but what about as a PC game. When I first looked up at the TV and saw the game footage, I was actually rather impressed by the graphics and fast-paced action, but then they started to show what made this game unique. The soldier in the middle of an incredibly intense firefight who stops fighting to pray doesn't get shot like he would in an actual battle, but instead gains strength and skills. In war, stopping to pray in the middle of a military action is a guarantee that you will get killed, and since a high percentage of our military comes from this same demographic that the game is marketed to, we're going to see a few soldiers who might take this game literally...after all, the Christian right who preach against GTA say that it will cause us to steal cars and climb the water tower with 350 shoulder propelled rockets (nevermind where all that extra ammo goes in my jeans and t-shirt) and shoot down police helicopters by the dozens. If video games really do cause us to copy what's in the game, wouldn't I be running around trying to headbutt every brick wall I see in the off chance that I will gain the ability to shoot fireballs? I learned that from Mario and Luigi, so how is that different than CJ from GTA?
If prayer really worked in battles, wouldn't the Romans have been able to keep from falling to the barbarians? Same thing for sports, both sides pray to god before the game, only one team wins...prayer simply doesn't cause things to happen, though faith is important. If we'd just sat around praying for a cure for polio, I might be in a wheelchair due to my struggles with the disease as a child instead of being immune to it thanks to the vaccine developed by scientists. I wish to be the best basketball player in the world all the time, but I still play like a white guy (meaning I can't palm the ball or dunk), so I go to the courts and play more to gain skills with hard work and dedication. I've seen great people get sick and how everyone prayed for them to get better, but the prayer didn't work and they died. On the other hand, there are horrible, abusive people who get everything they want without even trying. Prayer does not bring justice, success or anything other than false hope.
So this started as a rant against marketing things towards Christians, and ended up as an anti-prayer rant. To me, the fact that companies use "Christian" values to market their products in order to make millions. The people who buy these products are generally those who are struggling to make ends meet and are conned by the church to waste their money on "Christian" products and services. I dated a girl who lived in poverty, not knowing if she would even have enough food to eat dinner from one day to the next, and her mother STILL donated a significant amount of her earnings at the shoe factory (seriously) to her church. Meanwhile, her daughter suffered through poverty and abuse, all without any protection from the church that was paid to give her that support. Religion has long hijacked the finances and opinions of the ignorant, stupid and needy, so now that they are starting to market violent video games to this same demographic it is starting to get rediculous. If you really believe in the power of prayer, try this: Go into Sadr City with American flag parachute pants and an Israeli flag poncho with a crucifix in your hand and stand there and pray to Jesus. See how long it takes before you're in the trunk of a car on the way to your torture and death. Or maybe Jesus can come save you or grant you temporary invincibility or a weapon power-up. How is that any more rediculous than spending every sunday praying for a better life instead of actually going out there and DOING SOMETHING about it?
Can we find peace? (A solution)
I went to a hippie elementary school. We had a daily assembly called "morning sing" where we'd all sit on the floor of the ballroom and sing along to hippie songs like "Moonshadow" and the all-time Nueva classic "Let there be Peace on Earth" and it was supposed to instill the idea that we can be responsible for global peace. Unfortunately, all it did for me is show me that we're working for a peace that can't really be attained without wholesale global changes. Hatred is rampant in the world and the added technological advances only hasten the eventual destruction of our planet. As we see so many places descend into anarchy, conflict and chaos it is only natural to consider what kinds of possiblities we will have for peace. What will it take for this world to realize that we are all one and the same, we just live in different environments and speak different versions of the same language?
The epitome of this struggle for peace is obviously in the Middle East. Here is a region that has control over the most (economically) valuable resource to ever exist on this planet, yet the majority of the people live in squalor without any prospects. Meanwhile, Israel is this wealthy nation without any real natural resources and it breeds jealousy and hatred. The clerics use this discrepancy to engender resentment towards those who do not hold the same beliefs. Historical anti-semitism aside, there ARE reasons for everyone in the Middle East to hate Israel, but most of them are based in jealousy and revenge for military embarrassments. Israel is not a welcomed resident of the Middle East, but it's a resident nevertheless. In reality, Israel is just a REALLY easy scapegoat for all of the region's problems. Jews make great scapegoats because there aren't too many of them, and they are generally far smarter and more successful than basically any other ethno-religious group. Even though per capita income has fallen from $25,000 in 1980 to $8,000 in 2003, Saudi Arabia holds 24% of the world's Oil in reserve and there are bilionaires living as royalty. Why the people are willing to let their leaders grow so incredibly wealthy while their economic power is shrinking is beyond me. Instead of blaming King Abdullah for their problems and instituting a constitutional democracy with sharing of the vast oil wealth, the people live in a highly structured theocracy without any real say in the workings of the government, law or economy.
So why talk about Saudi Arabia when it's probably the least problematic nation in the region? Because the economic, natural and geographic resources are strong enough to engage in more symbiotic relationships with neighbors and to step in and be a regional voice of reason. Instead, they let Iranian president Amandinejad go wild with his megalomania and threaten Israel and the rest of the world. They let Hezbollah threaten regional safety without doing much of anything to help stop the growing conflict. When Jews are fighting Muslims, Sunnis are fighting Shi'ites and everyone is fighting peace, a voice of reason from within the region must step forward. The Arab street is very important in politics, and the street is calling for Israel to be wiped off of the map. What can be done to change public opinion? Simple, the leaders of the masses MUST step forward. They must say that all violence is wrong; that Sunnis, Shi'ites, Catholics and Jews are all basically the same and should be friends, not enemies; that killing innocent civilians in a suicide attack is NOT a martyr, but mass murder and is not a ticket to paradise.
But organized religion is simply not designed to foster peace and compassion for all people. If it was, we wouldn't have had endless conflict (resulting in the deaths of millions and millions) from the beginning of religion. Sunnis and Shi'ites are basically the same as Catholics and Protestants. They both follow the exact same religion, prophet and god as their counterpart, yet they feel this eternal hatred towards each other because one side chose to follow one leader while the other side went another direction. But their beliefs are the same basically, very few differences are present. Muslims and Jews have an unending hatred for each other, but they both follow the teachings of Abraham. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we just realized this?
Religion blinds people. They use it as a crutch to make life easier. Without religion, people wouldn't sit in a church praying for rain to make their crops grow, they'd be out in the field figuring out ways to maximize their output. Religion may not have been the direct cause of the renewed fighting (a bold move by Hezbollah is), but theocratic regimes, clerics with too much power and centuries old religious hatred are all major factors. All religion does is divide people into groups when true morailty would have everyone included in the same group. Shouldn't we all believe in goodwill towards man, charity, love, honor and devotion? Why do we need some right-wing cleric (or pastor, priest, rabbi) to tell us how to think? Do people really need the pope to tell them how to think about abortion? Do they need a leader to tell them how to think about Israel? Global Peace is nothing but a pipe-dream when we cannot even have peace in our own cities. But the first step towards global harmony would have to be the elimination of organized religions and the supremacy it holds over the masses. Then we'd have to eliminate borders so we could eliminate the destructive -isms patriotism and nationalism. Only then will people realize that there are very few differences between people and that we really should be of one nation, one religion: Mankind.
The epitome of this struggle for peace is obviously in the Middle East. Here is a region that has control over the most (economically) valuable resource to ever exist on this planet, yet the majority of the people live in squalor without any prospects. Meanwhile, Israel is this wealthy nation without any real natural resources and it breeds jealousy and hatred. The clerics use this discrepancy to engender resentment towards those who do not hold the same beliefs. Historical anti-semitism aside, there ARE reasons for everyone in the Middle East to hate Israel, but most of them are based in jealousy and revenge for military embarrassments. Israel is not a welcomed resident of the Middle East, but it's a resident nevertheless. In reality, Israel is just a REALLY easy scapegoat for all of the region's problems. Jews make great scapegoats because there aren't too many of them, and they are generally far smarter and more successful than basically any other ethno-religious group. Even though per capita income has fallen from $25,000 in 1980 to $8,000 in 2003, Saudi Arabia holds 24% of the world's Oil in reserve and there are bilionaires living as royalty. Why the people are willing to let their leaders grow so incredibly wealthy while their economic power is shrinking is beyond me. Instead of blaming King Abdullah for their problems and instituting a constitutional democracy with sharing of the vast oil wealth, the people live in a highly structured theocracy without any real say in the workings of the government, law or economy.
So why talk about Saudi Arabia when it's probably the least problematic nation in the region? Because the economic, natural and geographic resources are strong enough to engage in more symbiotic relationships with neighbors and to step in and be a regional voice of reason. Instead, they let Iranian president Amandinejad go wild with his megalomania and threaten Israel and the rest of the world. They let Hezbollah threaten regional safety without doing much of anything to help stop the growing conflict. When Jews are fighting Muslims, Sunnis are fighting Shi'ites and everyone is fighting peace, a voice of reason from within the region must step forward. The Arab street is very important in politics, and the street is calling for Israel to be wiped off of the map. What can be done to change public opinion? Simple, the leaders of the masses MUST step forward. They must say that all violence is wrong; that Sunnis, Shi'ites, Catholics and Jews are all basically the same and should be friends, not enemies; that killing innocent civilians in a suicide attack is NOT a martyr, but mass murder and is not a ticket to paradise.
But organized religion is simply not designed to foster peace and compassion for all people. If it was, we wouldn't have had endless conflict (resulting in the deaths of millions and millions) from the beginning of religion. Sunnis and Shi'ites are basically the same as Catholics and Protestants. They both follow the exact same religion, prophet and god as their counterpart, yet they feel this eternal hatred towards each other because one side chose to follow one leader while the other side went another direction. But their beliefs are the same basically, very few differences are present. Muslims and Jews have an unending hatred for each other, but they both follow the teachings of Abraham. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we just realized this?
Religion blinds people. They use it as a crutch to make life easier. Without religion, people wouldn't sit in a church praying for rain to make their crops grow, they'd be out in the field figuring out ways to maximize their output. Religion may not have been the direct cause of the renewed fighting (a bold move by Hezbollah is), but theocratic regimes, clerics with too much power and centuries old religious hatred are all major factors. All religion does is divide people into groups when true morailty would have everyone included in the same group. Shouldn't we all believe in goodwill towards man, charity, love, honor and devotion? Why do we need some right-wing cleric (or pastor, priest, rabbi) to tell us how to think? Do people really need the pope to tell them how to think about abortion? Do they need a leader to tell them how to think about Israel? Global Peace is nothing but a pipe-dream when we cannot even have peace in our own cities. But the first step towards global harmony would have to be the elimination of organized religions and the supremacy it holds over the masses. Then we'd have to eliminate borders so we could eliminate the destructive -isms patriotism and nationalism. Only then will people realize that there are very few differences between people and that we really should be of one nation, one religion: Mankind.
What's so bad about polygamy?
With the recent arrest of Warren Jeffs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs), the "Prophet" of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FCJCLDS) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints) , one of America's 10 most wanted has been taken off of the list. It's incredibly big news, or at least the media is treating it that way, especially because he wasn't apprehended because of his standing as a wanted man, but from an asshole cop who pulled him over because he had temporary plates in his windshield. Funny how a man could elude the authorities for years only to be caught because he didn't put his temporary plate on the outside of his car...I can (somewhat) relate: after driving at an average speed of about 120 MPH from New Orleans to Redwood City, I got pulled over and given a ($1000, if my sister didn't work for the MVPD) ticket for having Louisiana plates (and a license, and registration, and insurance...wonder why I hate cops?) when I was just 10 miles from my destination. You'd think I'd get pulled over for doing 135 on the I-10, but instead I get a ticket because I live in another state. So back to the polygamist...Jeffs had up to 75 wives, which is something I really do not envy. Most men complain about having 1 wife, let alone 75!
So the main reason why this man was originally targeted by the government was not for the child brides that his church is famous for, but simply becuase he's a polygamist. What is so wrong about having multiple wives if they consent to the marriage? It would be one thing if he had been kidnapping girls from their homes and forcing them into marriage, but that simply wasn't the case. In fact, many of his wives had once been his father's wives...Oedipus, eat your heart out. Most of the members of the FCJCLDS follow his doctrines fanatically. If his wives were victims, wouldn't they have helped in his capture? So why is polygamy such a horrible crime to us? Is it because it favors the strong? If every man was allowed to have multiple wives, do you think that there'd suddenly be a shortage of women? And even if there was, wouldn't the men who were able to get a woman be more deserving of them? What if it went both ways and women could have a harem of men too? Why would people have a problem with that?
Just like with drugs, I believe that sex should NEVER be regulated when taking place between consenting adults, yet this country has laws against many sexual acts, including some pretty pedestrian ones. Homosexuality is seen as a huge evil, when men should actually ENCOURAGE homosexuality to decrease competition. If there are 100 men and 50 are homosexual, that leaves the remaining 50 men to make their choice of all the available women. The same goes for polygamy, if men and women can have multiple spouses that would let the weak latch onto a large harem while the strong would have their own. We look at Jeffs as this huge pervert and evil man, while Hugh Hefner is one of the most respected men in America. How is he different? He lives in a house of hedonism with multiple (right now he has 3, but he had 7 a couple years ago) girlfriends that are 50-60 years younger than him and is celebrated for it.
Is it because Jeffs did it in the name of religion? Maybe it's just me, but this nation was founded on the principal that people should be able to worship as they choose and his people chose to be members of a fundamentalist polygamist church. Why can't we let him and his followers live in their little community with their giant church? I'd rather we let those people live in peace and we attack the real problems facing us. Focus on the cities and not the rural areas. Focus on problems of morality (like stealing from someone, or assaulting them or killing them) instead of these moral problems. I may not agree with how they do things in their little polygamist community, but I don't see why this man would be on our 10 most wanted list.
Okay, so he's not an angel, probably more of a devil. But this man was born into this society and so were most of his wives. The girl he "raped" was a girl who had been arranged to marry someone else and he facilitated it. Their society is not one that would fly in the city, so they have their own little isolated community as to keep from encroaching on anyone else. If they don't attack cities, why bother with them? I personally don't believe that monogamy is a natural state for the human mind. Men by their nature desire to spread their seed as much as possible and polygamy is a much safer way to do it than the way we go about it in the cities. Why not track down the one-night-stand bandits? They spread disease, cause emotional problems with their many partners and have as little morality as the members of the FCJCLDS, possibly even less. If Jeffs lived in the Middle East, there wouldn't be any problems with what he did, but here in the US he's one of America's most wanted. I'm not saying that he's a good man or that I agree with him, but aren't there a lot more dangerous and evil people still out there?
So the main reason why this man was originally targeted by the government was not for the child brides that his church is famous for, but simply becuase he's a polygamist. What is so wrong about having multiple wives if they consent to the marriage? It would be one thing if he had been kidnapping girls from their homes and forcing them into marriage, but that simply wasn't the case. In fact, many of his wives had once been his father's wives...Oedipus, eat your heart out. Most of the members of the FCJCLDS follow his doctrines fanatically. If his wives were victims, wouldn't they have helped in his capture? So why is polygamy such a horrible crime to us? Is it because it favors the strong? If every man was allowed to have multiple wives, do you think that there'd suddenly be a shortage of women? And even if there was, wouldn't the men who were able to get a woman be more deserving of them? What if it went both ways and women could have a harem of men too? Why would people have a problem with that?
Just like with drugs, I believe that sex should NEVER be regulated when taking place between consenting adults, yet this country has laws against many sexual acts, including some pretty pedestrian ones. Homosexuality is seen as a huge evil, when men should actually ENCOURAGE homosexuality to decrease competition. If there are 100 men and 50 are homosexual, that leaves the remaining 50 men to make their choice of all the available women. The same goes for polygamy, if men and women can have multiple spouses that would let the weak latch onto a large harem while the strong would have their own. We look at Jeffs as this huge pervert and evil man, while Hugh Hefner is one of the most respected men in America. How is he different? He lives in a house of hedonism with multiple (right now he has 3, but he had 7 a couple years ago) girlfriends that are 50-60 years younger than him and is celebrated for it.
Is it because Jeffs did it in the name of religion? Maybe it's just me, but this nation was founded on the principal that people should be able to worship as they choose and his people chose to be members of a fundamentalist polygamist church. Why can't we let him and his followers live in their little community with their giant church? I'd rather we let those people live in peace and we attack the real problems facing us. Focus on the cities and not the rural areas. Focus on problems of morality (like stealing from someone, or assaulting them or killing them) instead of these moral problems. I may not agree with how they do things in their little polygamist community, but I don't see why this man would be on our 10 most wanted list.
Okay, so he's not an angel, probably more of a devil. But this man was born into this society and so were most of his wives. The girl he "raped" was a girl who had been arranged to marry someone else and he facilitated it. Their society is not one that would fly in the city, so they have their own little isolated community as to keep from encroaching on anyone else. If they don't attack cities, why bother with them? I personally don't believe that monogamy is a natural state for the human mind. Men by their nature desire to spread their seed as much as possible and polygamy is a much safer way to do it than the way we go about it in the cities. Why not track down the one-night-stand bandits? They spread disease, cause emotional problems with their many partners and have as little morality as the members of the FCJCLDS, possibly even less. If Jeffs lived in the Middle East, there wouldn't be any problems with what he did, but here in the US he's one of America's most wanted. I'm not saying that he's a good man or that I agree with him, but aren't there a lot more dangerous and evil people still out there?
Science versus Religion...again
As the elections are coming up in a week, we're being bombarded by all kinds of partisan advertisments. In Missouri there is a major battle over stem-cell research with two celebrities getting involved in the scuffle. On the side of pro-science is former Back to the Future and Spin City star, Michael J. Fox, who uses his celebrity status to gain research support for the disease he suffers from: Parkinson's. On the side of religion (or anti-science) is former Super Bowl MVP Kurt Warner who is famous for his rise to fame from obscurity and his love for everything Jesus. The problem with this debate is the fact that it's an argument between those who believe in progress and those who think that we're the pinnacle of progress. If you already believe that "god" made this world in his "perfect" image, then why would you ever support any kind of research? Obviously religion is, and always will be, at odds with rational thought and science. But the most frightening thing about the fight between science and religion is that so many of our "leaders", people who should be more rational and informed than all of the voting public, are on the side of religion. That is why the debate is being led by a man who suffers from a disease that has much potential to be cured with stem-cell research and has been studying the prospects for years versus a man who was working as a bag-boy before he became a born-again Christian NFL star. It's the fight of someone who is informed versus someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
Warner is obviously not an authority on anything other than football, but having him speak out against stem-cell research is simply the work of politicians who care not for truth and justice, but for victory at any cost. Using a local sports hero to speak out against progress has to be considered anti-American and bordering on treason (isn't mis-informing your own people for your political gain enough to be considered treason?), but Warner's argument is simply too stupid for people to take seriously, right? Probably not. On the Warner commercial, he speaks about why he is against stem-cell research, and it's not for the typical religious reasons that are usually stated, but for the TIME IT WOULD TAKE! He says that because the cures may not come for another 15 years, that it's a waste to try. Hmm, isn't Bush saying that only history will tell us how effective the Iraq war has been? Wouldn't someone who supports Warner's reasoning for voting against stem-cell research also be anti-Bush because of his idea that the war may take decades for the result to become visible?
So what if it does take 15 years for some research to show its results? Didn't it take that long for airplanes and cars to be developed? What about the cures to Polio, Rubella, Smallpox and all the others? If something doesn't take a long time to research, it's not really that major of a problem. If we could cure parkinsons and alzheimer's by 2021, wouldn't that help Warner (who would likely be facing some kind of effects from one of those due to his concussion history and career as a football player) have a more enjoyable twilight of life? Lets go back in time 15 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991 ) and see how much that was going on back then is still facing us today. Now look at the various advances in medicine and technology since then and tell me that 15 years down the line isn't too much time to wait for an advance to be made. We've seen DVD, MP3 and DVR players become the standard of their various media, replacing VHS, CD and VCR. We've seen new advances in medicine that include the ability to get hard at age 75 (another thing Warner should be supportive of...), so how can anyone say that we shouldn't fund scientific research simply because we're only speculating about the possible advances that may come 15 years down the line?
If history has taught us nothing else (though it definitely has, history teaches us A LOT) it is that most medical advances come by accident. While researching cures for Parkinson's disease through stem-cell research, there is a possiblity that the scientists discover a cure for cancer or even aging. We wont know until we try. It's not like stem-cell research is the same as biological weapon research, there isn't a clear danger from the study of stem-cells. They can't be stolen and sold to terrorists, unless the terrorists want to help cure diseases...um, they wouldn't be terrorists if they did that. Viagra ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viagra#History ) was not being researched as a penis hardening pill, it was being developed for hypertension and angina. If that much of a divergence in usage can come from a very specific compound, how many unique (and previously not considered) uses will stem-cells uncover? The answer we do not know, but those cures will never come if we do not try.
The fact that uninformed people are speaking out against scientists should be enough of a sign that those people are irrational and shouldn't be listened to at any cost. But Americans are gullible and basically a large flock of sheep who will listen to anything an authority tells them. Case in point: the anti-marijuana ads the US Government has produced over the past 7 decades. First marijuana made people crazy, then it made them communists, then it made them lazy, then it made them terrorists, now it's just going to keep people from doing things...basically, it's one lie after another that the majority of people still believe because they believe anything they're told. Just like the denial of global warming, the anti-stem-cell movement is fighting against progress and doing it at the cost of our children and our future health. Do we really need to listen to Kurt Warner or Michael J Fox? As long as there are no possible weapons or highly addictive drugs being developed, research can't ever be the wrong option because that is where progress comes from. So the people have a choice, they can side with Kurt Warner and vote against progress, or they can side with Michael J Fox and help contribute to this nation continuing to maintain its place on top of the world.
Warner is obviously not an authority on anything other than football, but having him speak out against stem-cell research is simply the work of politicians who care not for truth and justice, but for victory at any cost. Using a local sports hero to speak out against progress has to be considered anti-American and bordering on treason (isn't mis-informing your own people for your political gain enough to be considered treason?), but Warner's argument is simply too stupid for people to take seriously, right? Probably not. On the Warner commercial, he speaks about why he is against stem-cell research, and it's not for the typical religious reasons that are usually stated, but for the TIME IT WOULD TAKE! He says that because the cures may not come for another 15 years, that it's a waste to try. Hmm, isn't Bush saying that only history will tell us how effective the Iraq war has been? Wouldn't someone who supports Warner's reasoning for voting against stem-cell research also be anti-Bush because of his idea that the war may take decades for the result to become visible?
So what if it does take 15 years for some research to show its results? Didn't it take that long for airplanes and cars to be developed? What about the cures to Polio, Rubella, Smallpox and all the others? If something doesn't take a long time to research, it's not really that major of a problem. If we could cure parkinsons and alzheimer's by 2021, wouldn't that help Warner (who would likely be facing some kind of effects from one of those due to his concussion history and career as a football player) have a more enjoyable twilight of life? Lets go back in time 15 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991 ) and see how much that was going on back then is still facing us today. Now look at the various advances in medicine and technology since then and tell me that 15 years down the line isn't too much time to wait for an advance to be made. We've seen DVD, MP3 and DVR players become the standard of their various media, replacing VHS, CD and VCR. We've seen new advances in medicine that include the ability to get hard at age 75 (another thing Warner should be supportive of...), so how can anyone say that we shouldn't fund scientific research simply because we're only speculating about the possible advances that may come 15 years down the line?
If history has taught us nothing else (though it definitely has, history teaches us A LOT) it is that most medical advances come by accident. While researching cures for Parkinson's disease through stem-cell research, there is a possiblity that the scientists discover a cure for cancer or even aging. We wont know until we try. It's not like stem-cell research is the same as biological weapon research, there isn't a clear danger from the study of stem-cells. They can't be stolen and sold to terrorists, unless the terrorists want to help cure diseases...um, they wouldn't be terrorists if they did that. Viagra ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viagra#History ) was not being researched as a penis hardening pill, it was being developed for hypertension and angina. If that much of a divergence in usage can come from a very specific compound, how many unique (and previously not considered) uses will stem-cells uncover? The answer we do not know, but those cures will never come if we do not try.
The fact that uninformed people are speaking out against scientists should be enough of a sign that those people are irrational and shouldn't be listened to at any cost. But Americans are gullible and basically a large flock of sheep who will listen to anything an authority tells them. Case in point: the anti-marijuana ads the US Government has produced over the past 7 decades. First marijuana made people crazy, then it made them communists, then it made them lazy, then it made them terrorists, now it's just going to keep people from doing things...basically, it's one lie after another that the majority of people still believe because they believe anything they're told. Just like the denial of global warming, the anti-stem-cell movement is fighting against progress and doing it at the cost of our children and our future health. Do we really need to listen to Kurt Warner or Michael J Fox? As long as there are no possible weapons or highly addictive drugs being developed, research can't ever be the wrong option because that is where progress comes from. So the people have a choice, they can side with Kurt Warner and vote against progress, or they can side with Michael J Fox and help contribute to this nation continuing to maintain its place on top of the world.
Why I don’t believe in God
I don't believe in god because god was a creation of man. Religion is only useful to those who do not understand the way the world works. God did not create the planet and all the creatures in their current form, it is all natural processes that are controlled by the laws of physics. If there was a god, why would he allow 800,000 Tutsi people to get murdered? How about the Holocaust? Or the Great Leap Forward? Or the massacre of Native Americans by the evil colonialists? Or even the Influenza or AIDS pandemics? If you total the deaths in just those few events, there are more than 100,000,000 people who have needlessly died. And that's not including the hundreds of millions who have been killed in the name of "god". Honestly, there is only ONE reason to believe in god and that is ignorance. If you are unaware of all the tragic and evil things that have happened in the brief history of man, and are not smart enough to grasp simple concepts like Evolution.
God was thought up by people before we had technology and science to explain things. It started with the Greeks and their insistence that a god controlled each and every aspect of life. Monotheism only came about in the Middle East and only half the world follows a monotheistic faith. So are you saying that 3,000,000,000 people are wrong because they don't believe in one god? And what about the other monotheistic faiths? Are Allah and Adonoi less right than the Christian God?
The Bible itself is nothing but a work of fiction. Do you actually believe that people could live to 160 (like Moses) before they had medicine and technology when people could only live to 35-40 after Christ? And most highly religious people are not in good situations. Central America is very strongly Catholic, and they are wrought with problems. Same with the Palestinians, they follow their religion with incredible ferocity and devotion, and does "god" reward them? NO! That is because there is no god and religion is nothing but superstition.
Think about it, if I pray for a washboard stomach but do nothing about it (which is what praying is, simply wishing) I wont get one...the only way to get it is by working for it. And that is why religion is not only false, but it's also detrimental to society in general. If we, as a society, sit around and pray for things to happen, they simply wont happen. Instead of wasting time in a church for 2 hours every week, you could spend those two hours planting a garden, teaching your kids about science or the arts, going to a museum, exercising, basically anything is more useful to society than sitting in an uncomfortable building hearing the same passages from the same book over and over again. People use religion as a way to discriminate against people (like Gays, unwed mothers and other "sinners") because "Jesus" says it's wrong. But the messed up thing is that Jesus preached tolerance and forgiveness, and the Religious right preaches the exact opposite.
Finally, religion has been used as a way to gain power and organize the stupid masses to follow. If you look at European history, you will see that the Vatican led wars (something Jesus wouldn't have approved) and killed millions just to get more people to follow their beliefs. Simply put, God is a way to scare stupid people into doing what the religious authorities (people who have no actual authority except for the fact that they became a preacher, priest or whatever) want them to do. To me, Christianity, Scientology, Islam and Judaism are all the same thing. They are just a way to occupy people's mind and time and to help perpetuate the beliefs of the select few who lead those religions. Poor people donate their gas money to megachurches while their preacher lives in a 10,000 square foot mansion and takes a chofer driven limo everywhere. Simply put, RELIGION AND GOD ARE BAD.
God was thought up by people before we had technology and science to explain things. It started with the Greeks and their insistence that a god controlled each and every aspect of life. Monotheism only came about in the Middle East and only half the world follows a monotheistic faith. So are you saying that 3,000,000,000 people are wrong because they don't believe in one god? And what about the other monotheistic faiths? Are Allah and Adonoi less right than the Christian God?
The Bible itself is nothing but a work of fiction. Do you actually believe that people could live to 160 (like Moses) before they had medicine and technology when people could only live to 35-40 after Christ? And most highly religious people are not in good situations. Central America is very strongly Catholic, and they are wrought with problems. Same with the Palestinians, they follow their religion with incredible ferocity and devotion, and does "god" reward them? NO! That is because there is no god and religion is nothing but superstition.
Think about it, if I pray for a washboard stomach but do nothing about it (which is what praying is, simply wishing) I wont get one...the only way to get it is by working for it. And that is why religion is not only false, but it's also detrimental to society in general. If we, as a society, sit around and pray for things to happen, they simply wont happen. Instead of wasting time in a church for 2 hours every week, you could spend those two hours planting a garden, teaching your kids about science or the arts, going to a museum, exercising, basically anything is more useful to society than sitting in an uncomfortable building hearing the same passages from the same book over and over again. People use religion as a way to discriminate against people (like Gays, unwed mothers and other "sinners") because "Jesus" says it's wrong. But the messed up thing is that Jesus preached tolerance and forgiveness, and the Religious right preaches the exact opposite.
Finally, religion has been used as a way to gain power and organize the stupid masses to follow. If you look at European history, you will see that the Vatican led wars (something Jesus wouldn't have approved) and killed millions just to get more people to follow their beliefs. Simply put, God is a way to scare stupid people into doing what the religious authorities (people who have no actual authority except for the fact that they became a preacher, priest or whatever) want them to do. To me, Christianity, Scientology, Islam and Judaism are all the same thing. They are just a way to occupy people's mind and time and to help perpetuate the beliefs of the select few who lead those religions. Poor people donate their gas money to megachurches while their preacher lives in a 10,000 square foot mansion and takes a chofer driven limo everywhere. Simply put, RELIGION AND GOD ARE BAD.
Only Morons will cast their vote for McCain-Palin
Why do people think those speeches last night at the Republican convention were good? I simply don't get it. I know the average die-hard Republican (not people like me who just became Republicans to vote for Ron Paul, but those hicks you see at the rallies) has an IQ somewhere around the Forrest Gump range, but how does that explain Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and the rest of the TV pundits? First, we have to look at Rudy Giuliani's speech and how little he said about the woman he was introducing. During the same night of the Democratic convention, we heard long stories about how qualified and experienced Biden was, and about how he's ACTUALLY a good parent. But last night, all we heard were stories about how McCain was tortured (wow, big deal, does that mean all those "terrorists" in Gitmo are also qualified to be President since they didn't turn over information on how to get Bin Laden?) and how being a "Community Organizer" is a fake job. Not only that, but Giuliani actually said "he barely mentioned 9-11" as a way to insult Obama...isn't that just saying that Obama doesn't try to use a tragedy to get people to vote for him? Giuliani was a great protector of terrorism, he actually said that he "didn't see Islamic terrorism as a threat" despite a movie coming out in 1998 about an islamic terrorist plot in NYC called "The Siege", and an Islamic attack ON THE SAME BUILDINGS in 1993! A good mayor would have had added security near the WTC and there's no way a second plane would have hit that tower. After GiulianiThe reasons why you have to be a moron to vote Republican this year are as follows: They have failed miserably in the past 8 years and they have no new ideas or policies, Sarah Palin is the worst VP candidate in my lifetime, and they are running their campaign on lies, half-truths, contradictions and cover-ups.
First of all, if you have been paying attention, in 2000 our economy was booming, we weren't afraid of terrorism and we weren't losing dozens of soldiers and civilians (not to mention thousands of Iraqi civilians) every month in Iraq. Now we have a worthless dollar, it takes 5% of a paycheck to fill up a gas tank and there's a whole new generation of young men with Post-Traumatic Stress and maimed bodies coming home from a country we have no business in. So what new ideas do these people have that will make rational, intelligent people vote for them? NONE! In the whole speech by Palin, I didn't hear one mention of policy and I haven't heard any from McCain either. All they talk about is the war and abortion. They are somehow pro-life, yet pro-war...how does that work? I believe in GOOD wars, JUST wars, like if we went to protect those in Myanmar, Tibet, Taiwan, or The Sudan, but not regime changes and power-grabs. Does the middle class really want another 4-8 years of the same kinds of economic policies? Can they afford that? Obviously not, but the idiots who voted for Bush in '04 will probably vote for McCain in '08. As Joe Biden said, it was impressive what we DIDN'T hear last night, not one mention of Afghanistan, Pakistan, The Middle Class, Health Care...you know, actual issues.
Secondly, how can anyone read Sarah Palin's bio, listen to her speak, and STILL SUPPORT HER? Even worse, how do relatively intelligent people in the media fall for the BS too? Okay, let's start with college. Palin got a scholarship as the runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant (just what America needs, a Beauty Queen as vice-president!) and used that money to go to the wonderful institution of higher learning Hawaii Pacific College for a semester, then to North Idaho College before finally graduating with a Communications degree from the University of Idaho. Not exactly what I'd call an academic pedigree. She then began her "career" as a PTA member, then a city council member of a 7,000 person town before becoming Mayor. Then she somehow became governor and has been in that position for 2 years. First of all, if you are from a state of less than 1,000,000 people, your "executive experience" isn't all that impressive. Willie Brown, Jerry Sanders, Marion Barry were all mayors of cities bigger than Alaska and nobody ever mentioned THEM as presidential candidates. So her credentials are not exactly great, what about her "ideas"? Well, she's a strong believer in Creationism (thinks the Earth is only 6,000 years old), is against abortion even in cases of incest, rape or danger to the mother, she raised taxes on lower and middle class people, she believes in "abstinence education" even though her own daughter proved it to be a pathetic form of birth control, and she denies that the world is polluted and in a state of global warming. Not only that, but she supports drilling in her own state, destroying one of the few natural landscapes left in America.
Finally, Obama and Biden may be against attacking family, but I'm certainly not and neither are the Republicans. Think they cared about Chelsea Clinton when they went after Bill for Monica Lewinsky? The only reason why Obama and Biden's family values are off limits is because they both have perfect records of being perfect family men. McCain cheated on his first wife and was known for being a terrible family man, neglecting his family. Anyone who has a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant is a terrible mother. If you're a terrible mother, why should you be rewarded with a VP nomination? The Republicans got mad about the questions regarding whether Palin was ready and called them "sexist" when there was clear footage (shown on the Daily Show) with the same Republicans saying the same things about Hilary Clinton. The Republicans could only tout McCain's POW experience over and over again as his qualification and Palin's ever-so-brief time in Juneau (wow, big capital, 30,000 people!) while they said that Joe Biden had no "executive experience" (senate chairman? I think being the boss of other Senators makes you an executive!) and that Obama's job as a Community Organizer was somehow less difficult than mayor of 7,000 Alaskans. Ever been to Chicago? 7,000 people live on a block there, and organizing strangers is a lot easier than 7,000 inbred Alaskans. They said that Obama had never authored a law...when he'd authored 2 MAJOR senate laws and co-signed hundreds more. Any claim on Biden being inexperienced is obviously a lie considering the fact that he's one of most experienced people in Washington and was selected as VP for specifically that reason.
Obviously I could write a whole book on the lies told by the Republican party, but the one that bothered me most was their only mentions of economic policy (taxes, of course) were told in ways that made the idiots who are still considering voting Republican (once again, you really do have to be an idiot to continue these policies, either that or you're too rich to care) believe that Obama cares less for them then McCain. It's the opposite. Obama wants to tax the rich and to create jobs and health-care for those of us who aren't in the top 1%. They belittled Obama for writing books, but that's more because they are illiterate and not because the books are bad, even though he wrote one of them as a Law School Professor, which is generally a requirement for employment. They belittled him for being "elite"...even though he was from a poor single mother who was on food stamps and he worked himself from poverty to the Ivy League to Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. I don't understand why people would want their president to be anything but "elite". I don't want to have my peers as president (though as a Nueva/Exeter graduate, my "peers" are actually the intellectual elite) I want someone I can look up to. Though Obama's policies aren't perfect (the embargo on Cuba will likely continue and so will the "war on drugs"), his background and experience really are. In 2004 I called Obama "The man who should be president" long before most of you had heard of him. After last night, if you still don't believe that Obama-Biden is a more substantial ticket than McCain-Palin, you really shouldn't be allowed to vote.
First of all, if you have been paying attention, in 2000 our economy was booming, we weren't afraid of terrorism and we weren't losing dozens of soldiers and civilians (not to mention thousands of Iraqi civilians) every month in Iraq. Now we have a worthless dollar, it takes 5% of a paycheck to fill up a gas tank and there's a whole new generation of young men with Post-Traumatic Stress and maimed bodies coming home from a country we have no business in. So what new ideas do these people have that will make rational, intelligent people vote for them? NONE! In the whole speech by Palin, I didn't hear one mention of policy and I haven't heard any from McCain either. All they talk about is the war and abortion. They are somehow pro-life, yet pro-war...how does that work? I believe in GOOD wars, JUST wars, like if we went to protect those in Myanmar, Tibet, Taiwan, or The Sudan, but not regime changes and power-grabs. Does the middle class really want another 4-8 years of the same kinds of economic policies? Can they afford that? Obviously not, but the idiots who voted for Bush in '04 will probably vote for McCain in '08. As Joe Biden said, it was impressive what we DIDN'T hear last night, not one mention of Afghanistan, Pakistan, The Middle Class, Health Care...you know, actual issues.
Secondly, how can anyone read Sarah Palin's bio, listen to her speak, and STILL SUPPORT HER? Even worse, how do relatively intelligent people in the media fall for the BS too? Okay, let's start with college. Palin got a scholarship as the runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant (just what America needs, a Beauty Queen as vice-president!) and used that money to go to the wonderful institution of higher learning Hawaii Pacific College for a semester, then to North Idaho College before finally graduating with a Communications degree from the University of Idaho. Not exactly what I'd call an academic pedigree. She then began her "career" as a PTA member, then a city council member of a 7,000 person town before becoming Mayor. Then she somehow became governor and has been in that position for 2 years. First of all, if you are from a state of less than 1,000,000 people, your "executive experience" isn't all that impressive. Willie Brown, Jerry Sanders, Marion Barry were all mayors of cities bigger than Alaska and nobody ever mentioned THEM as presidential candidates. So her credentials are not exactly great, what about her "ideas"? Well, she's a strong believer in Creationism (thinks the Earth is only 6,000 years old), is against abortion even in cases of incest, rape or danger to the mother, she raised taxes on lower and middle class people, she believes in "abstinence education" even though her own daughter proved it to be a pathetic form of birth control, and she denies that the world is polluted and in a state of global warming. Not only that, but she supports drilling in her own state, destroying one of the few natural landscapes left in America.
Finally, Obama and Biden may be against attacking family, but I'm certainly not and neither are the Republicans. Think they cared about Chelsea Clinton when they went after Bill for Monica Lewinsky? The only reason why Obama and Biden's family values are off limits is because they both have perfect records of being perfect family men. McCain cheated on his first wife and was known for being a terrible family man, neglecting his family. Anyone who has a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant is a terrible mother. If you're a terrible mother, why should you be rewarded with a VP nomination? The Republicans got mad about the questions regarding whether Palin was ready and called them "sexist" when there was clear footage (shown on the Daily Show) with the same Republicans saying the same things about Hilary Clinton. The Republicans could only tout McCain's POW experience over and over again as his qualification and Palin's ever-so-brief time in Juneau (wow, big capital, 30,000 people!) while they said that Joe Biden had no "executive experience" (senate chairman? I think being the boss of other Senators makes you an executive!) and that Obama's job as a Community Organizer was somehow less difficult than mayor of 7,000 Alaskans. Ever been to Chicago? 7,000 people live on a block there, and organizing strangers is a lot easier than 7,000 inbred Alaskans. They said that Obama had never authored a law...when he'd authored 2 MAJOR senate laws and co-signed hundreds more. Any claim on Biden being inexperienced is obviously a lie considering the fact that he's one of most experienced people in Washington and was selected as VP for specifically that reason.
Obviously I could write a whole book on the lies told by the Republican party, but the one that bothered me most was their only mentions of economic policy (taxes, of course) were told in ways that made the idiots who are still considering voting Republican (once again, you really do have to be an idiot to continue these policies, either that or you're too rich to care) believe that Obama cares less for them then McCain. It's the opposite. Obama wants to tax the rich and to create jobs and health-care for those of us who aren't in the top 1%. They belittled Obama for writing books, but that's more because they are illiterate and not because the books are bad, even though he wrote one of them as a Law School Professor, which is generally a requirement for employment. They belittled him for being "elite"...even though he was from a poor single mother who was on food stamps and he worked himself from poverty to the Ivy League to Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. I don't understand why people would want their president to be anything but "elite". I don't want to have my peers as president (though as a Nueva/Exeter graduate, my "peers" are actually the intellectual elite) I want someone I can look up to. Though Obama's policies aren't perfect (the embargo on Cuba will likely continue and so will the "war on drugs"), his background and experience really are. In 2004 I called Obama "The man who should be president" long before most of you had heard of him. After last night, if you still don't believe that Obama-Biden is a more substantial ticket than McCain-Palin, you really shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Why the SDSU Drug bust will hurt San Diego and America for years to come
I'm not sure how big a story this is nationally, but here in San Diego it's the biggest story in months. About 100 people were busted in a drug sting that had undercover officers posing as SDSU students to infiltrate the party culture and "eliminate" drugs from the campus. The media is portraying it as a major bust of a sophisticated ring of drug dealers, but they aren't really aware of how it really works. There is no pyramid, the dealers only exist because of the demand. On a college campus, there are certain needs, and one of the most common needs throughout the country is the use of mind-altering substances to have a good time. SDSU is no different from Tulane, Oregon or U-Penn, there are kids who do drugs and there are the ones who supply them. Most of the suppliers are actually the harder-working and more entrepeneurial kids who realize that they can support their lifestyle without having to put in much effort. The so-called "kingpin", the kid who has had his name dragged through the mud in a way where people might confuse his operation with that of Tony Montana's...is merely a kid, a frat boy who watched Scarface or Goodfellas and saw the kind of luxury and fun that can come from the profits associated with selling drugs. The bust will do nothing but hurt the economy in the long term because instead of 100 independent businessmen making money, spending it and providing a service, we will now have 100 criminals to pay for. The bust was a failure because it was initiated for the wrong reason, it was a futile method to stop drug use on campus, and it will actually increase crime and danger in the long run.
First of all, the only reason why the bust even began was because some dumb sorostitute (sorry for the term here, my sister was the president of a good sorority, but just like there are FRAT BOYS and guys who were in fraternities, there are SOROSTITUTES and girls who were in a sorority) named Shirley 'Jenny' Poliakoff snorted some coke while she was getting drunk at a party. She died because she snorted cocaine while drinking alcohol, hmm, we all learned that could happen back in health class, so that was nothing new. But for some reason, her parents were able to bully the police department and SDSU to allow this wasteful sting operation to take place. Instead of taking blame for their own failure to raise a daughter who could say "NO" (imagine how much she said "YES" to drunken frat boys offers if a rich, pretty girl like her was willing to do some blow), they tried to blame her stupidity on other students "pushing" drugs on her. Just like MADD and other stupid parents groups that try to bring back their dead child through fascist laws, the Poliakoffs have contributed to the ruin of dozens of lives, if not hundreds. Simply put, the stupidity of Jenny Poliakoff has caused 100 fellow students to have their lives ruined. Good job ho.
Anyone who thinks that drug busts like this one actually curb usage or sales of the drugs is just a fool. The only thing that happens in a bust like this is the increase in prices, which leads to higher profits, which leads to more sales again soon. Only 20 of the 100 arrests were actually for dealing, the rest were possession, meaning that out of 34,000 or so students, they nabbed 100 of the drug users (assuming only 5% of the campus uses drugs, a CONSERVATIVE estimate, that means there are still at least 1,600 more users, and I would assume at least a few dozen dealers...) and left the rest alone. So basically those kids will be gone, but what about the other users/dealers? They stay and now have less competition. Drugs have been illegal for decades, they have been doing busts for decades, where have they gotten us? NOWHERE!
Anyone who follows the Mexican drug cartels knows that when the Arrellano-Felix cartel was brought down, the DEA called it a major victory and a step in the direction of eradication of drugs and drug-related violence on the border. Instead, the Mexican frontier has become a warzone, dozens of people are being murdered each week in battles for turf, supplies, and simple kidnappings and murders for cash. If you go back in history and look at every major bust of drug kingpins, you will see years of lawlessness and rampant murder until someone else emerges as a strong leader. There was no murder involved in the SDSU case, so why was this a target of such a major operation when there are drug-related murders every day in other parts of the city/state? But even so, now that the main dealers in that group are gone, the kids will have to find new dealers because they obviously wont just stop because they lost a connection. Sending these kids to find a new dealer, whether it be one of the dishwasher's friends at work or some shady gang-banger on a street corner, is much more dangerous than allowing them to continue going to the frat house for an eight-ball. Or even worse, the 20 dealers will just be replaced by other students, causing twice as many kids to get involved in drug dealing than would have been without the bust.
The story brings attention to college campuses as drug dens, where shady dealers gain experience to take over the drug game and dominate on the streets, but that's not really how it works. First of all, they aren't pushing the drugs to people who don't want them, the drugs are selling themselves and the dealers are just smart enough to profit from the demand. My old roommate was in a fraternity at UCSD, a top-50 university where every student has a legitimate future, and his brothers had a drug selling operation that helped them live the life in college and now they all work full-time, some as scientists. A family friend helped support his medical school bills by selling weed and now he's an incredibly successful doctor who has saved many people. Even Dr. Dre started his empire on funds from drug money. Simply put, selling drugs is one of the few ways someone without any resources can make significant money. Busting the good dealers (you know, the ones who don't have hitmen on speed-dial or the ones who are getting a MASTERS DEGREE) is only hurting society. If this bust isn't a sign of how dumb our drug laws are, I don't know what is.
The next day after the SDSU Drug bust a story came out about my alma-matter involving fraternity hazing. Just based on my experience at Tulane, I knew it was the PIKEs before I even read the story. The Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity was suspended my first two or three years at Tulane due to some date rape issues, so they were obviously a group of good guys. The FRAT still recruited guys, but basically only guys who they had seen in a fight or hooking up with a hot chick. My friend Whitney and I were both recruited by this idiot in my Drama class who had picked a fight with Whitney and gotten his ass kicked. I tell this story because the guys in the frat were the type of guys who give frat boys a bad name. They always start fights, usually with strangers, and take advantage of girls any chance they get. Anyone who is in PIKE is guilty of being an asshole. Even if you weren't involved in the hazing incident, the reputation of Pike was bad enough that anyone with respect for others would simply not consider an invitation from Pike. All Pike members should be expelled from Tulane and the Pike house burned to the ground. No Pi Kappa Alpha chapter should ever be allowed on Tulane's campus ever again.
First of all, the only reason why the bust even began was because some dumb sorostitute (sorry for the term here, my sister was the president of a good sorority, but just like there are FRAT BOYS and guys who were in fraternities, there are SOROSTITUTES and girls who were in a sorority) named Shirley 'Jenny' Poliakoff snorted some coke while she was getting drunk at a party. She died because she snorted cocaine while drinking alcohol, hmm, we all learned that could happen back in health class, so that was nothing new. But for some reason, her parents were able to bully the police department and SDSU to allow this wasteful sting operation to take place. Instead of taking blame for their own failure to raise a daughter who could say "NO" (imagine how much she said "YES" to drunken frat boys offers if a rich, pretty girl like her was willing to do some blow), they tried to blame her stupidity on other students "pushing" drugs on her. Just like MADD and other stupid parents groups that try to bring back their dead child through fascist laws, the Poliakoffs have contributed to the ruin of dozens of lives, if not hundreds. Simply put, the stupidity of Jenny Poliakoff has caused 100 fellow students to have their lives ruined. Good job ho.
Anyone who thinks that drug busts like this one actually curb usage or sales of the drugs is just a fool. The only thing that happens in a bust like this is the increase in prices, which leads to higher profits, which leads to more sales again soon. Only 20 of the 100 arrests were actually for dealing, the rest were possession, meaning that out of 34,000 or so students, they nabbed 100 of the drug users (assuming only 5% of the campus uses drugs, a CONSERVATIVE estimate, that means there are still at least 1,600 more users, and I would assume at least a few dozen dealers...) and left the rest alone. So basically those kids will be gone, but what about the other users/dealers? They stay and now have less competition. Drugs have been illegal for decades, they have been doing busts for decades, where have they gotten us? NOWHERE!
Anyone who follows the Mexican drug cartels knows that when the Arrellano-Felix cartel was brought down, the DEA called it a major victory and a step in the direction of eradication of drugs and drug-related violence on the border. Instead, the Mexican frontier has become a warzone, dozens of people are being murdered each week in battles for turf, supplies, and simple kidnappings and murders for cash. If you go back in history and look at every major bust of drug kingpins, you will see years of lawlessness and rampant murder until someone else emerges as a strong leader. There was no murder involved in the SDSU case, so why was this a target of such a major operation when there are drug-related murders every day in other parts of the city/state? But even so, now that the main dealers in that group are gone, the kids will have to find new dealers because they obviously wont just stop because they lost a connection. Sending these kids to find a new dealer, whether it be one of the dishwasher's friends at work or some shady gang-banger on a street corner, is much more dangerous than allowing them to continue going to the frat house for an eight-ball. Or even worse, the 20 dealers will just be replaced by other students, causing twice as many kids to get involved in drug dealing than would have been without the bust.
The story brings attention to college campuses as drug dens, where shady dealers gain experience to take over the drug game and dominate on the streets, but that's not really how it works. First of all, they aren't pushing the drugs to people who don't want them, the drugs are selling themselves and the dealers are just smart enough to profit from the demand. My old roommate was in a fraternity at UCSD, a top-50 university where every student has a legitimate future, and his brothers had a drug selling operation that helped them live the life in college and now they all work full-time, some as scientists. A family friend helped support his medical school bills by selling weed and now he's an incredibly successful doctor who has saved many people. Even Dr. Dre started his empire on funds from drug money. Simply put, selling drugs is one of the few ways someone without any resources can make significant money. Busting the good dealers (you know, the ones who don't have hitmen on speed-dial or the ones who are getting a MASTERS DEGREE) is only hurting society. If this bust isn't a sign of how dumb our drug laws are, I don't know what is.
The next day after the SDSU Drug bust a story came out about my alma-matter involving fraternity hazing. Just based on my experience at Tulane, I knew it was the PIKEs before I even read the story. The Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity was suspended my first two or three years at Tulane due to some date rape issues, so they were obviously a group of good guys. The FRAT still recruited guys, but basically only guys who they had seen in a fight or hooking up with a hot chick. My friend Whitney and I were both recruited by this idiot in my Drama class who had picked a fight with Whitney and gotten his ass kicked. I tell this story because the guys in the frat were the type of guys who give frat boys a bad name. They always start fights, usually with strangers, and take advantage of girls any chance they get. Anyone who is in PIKE is guilty of being an asshole. Even if you weren't involved in the hazing incident, the reputation of Pike was bad enough that anyone with respect for others would simply not consider an invitation from Pike. All Pike members should be expelled from Tulane and the Pike house burned to the ground. No Pi Kappa Alpha chapter should ever be allowed on Tulane's campus ever again.
Austrailia bans the bong (and a rant on parenting)
The news came out that Austrailia has recently passed a law that will basically force all head shops to close down. They made it illegal to possess a bong, punishable by up to 2 years in jail or a fine of $50,000. If that's not rediculous enough, the woman who supported the bill (and somehow got elected to the government) couldn't even keep her own daughter off of heroin. Heroin is illegal in Austrailia, but this legislator still lost her own child to the drug because she was a bad mother. I'm saying this without any hesitation: if your child dies of a heroin overdose, then you are a bad parent. If you're a bad parent who had a child die of a drug OD, then you have no right to tell me how to live my life. It would be one thing if she had saved her child, but she didn't and is still trying to tell everyone in the country that she knows best. The most amazing thing about the death of her daughter is that she had founded the drug rehabilation center BEFORE her daughter died, so even her treatment was useless. So what was her reaction to losing a child to Heroin? The logical one of course, to make it illegal to have a bong, water-pipe or any other pot-smoking accesories. Now obviously my pro-marijuana opinions come into play here, but it's also about the same kind of reactionary thing we do here in the states. They (especially American voters) see a tragic event and say "what can we do to prevent this?" but there's no way to prevent something that already happened, and the solution is almost always something that wouldn't have prevented the tragic event in the first place. These knee-jerk reactions never solve anything and tend to be something that wouldn't prevent the original tragedy anyways.
I am against these kinds of reactions to tragic events because they never actually help. After 9-11, they made these rediculous laws saying we couldn't bring a 2" Swiss Army Knife or a pair of nail clippers on the plane, but they completely ignored the fact that the hijackers didn't take their weapons through security, or the fact that I couldn't hijack a plane with my Swiss Army Knife any more than I could with a plastic knife or a broken CD. Even professional baseball has done things like this in reaction to tragedy. Last year a base coach in the minor leagues was hit in the NECK by a foul ball and it killed him instantly right there on the field. It was an incredibly tragic event to happen to a great guy, Mike Coolbaugh, but the reaction by the league didn't make sense. The man was struck in an artery in his neck, so what was Major League Baseball's reaction? To make it mandatory for base coaches to wear a helmet! Had Mike Coolbaugh been wearing a helmet when he was killed, all it would have done is made him look protected while he lay dying in foul territory. If this same thing happens again, another man will die because his helmet wont protect him...in fact, it's more likely to kill him by hitting his neck than it is if it hits his head even without the helmet.
Not only do I find these knee-jerk reactions to be stupid, but they are usually more trouble than they are worth. In ice hockey there was a girl killed by a puck flying up from the ice in Columbus a few years back, so the NHL made the teams put up these annoying screens to protect us from the puck. Maybe it's just me, but when only one event happens in 50+ years (That's 10,000s of games) that means it's an anomaly and not something that needs to be protected against. So millions of people have to be subjected to these new rules (which in this case would have actually saved the girl) that get in the way of their experience. What ever happened to "at your own risk"? I know that when I am at a baseball game, there's a chance a ball will be hit at me and I wont be able to avoid it, but it's a risk I take for the glory and love of baseball. What happens if one day a player or umpire collapses on the field because of sunstroke, will they make it against the rules to play on sunny days? If something happens once every 50 years, just let it happen and have a tribute to that person instead of making a huge deal out of it and instituting some kind of rule that forces people to protect themselves from something that is less likely to kill them than their own driving.
So I'll get back to the parenting rant now...if your kid dies of something as a result of their own choices, YOU ARE TO BLAME, not what killed them. If your kid commits suicide because of their depression, you are to blame because you didn't step in and help them when you had a chance. If they die in a car driven by a drunk friend, it's your fault because you didn't teach them to never get in a car with a drunk driver. Simply put, if your kid dies of anything other than a freak disease like cancer or a drive-by, it's probably your fault and you should just accept that instead of going on some pointless crusade. It's people like those mothers who will make us live in a police state with everything monitored and basically everything illegal simply because they are bad mothers and didn't raise their kid up right. This all may sound heartless, but if your daughter is doing enough heroin to OD, you failed in there somewhere and it's your fault that she died.
If history has taught us anything (and it always does, but most people don't learn from it) it's that more laws does not equal more order. In fact, the more laws there are, the more anarchy spreads. People need to be free to make mistakes, if you have a kid and you raised them right, you really don't need to worry about a head shop in Sydney or the prostitution service recruiters turning them to a life of drugs and performing degrading acts for money. Just like with candy, it should be there for us to have and if we have too much, we'll pay for our mistakes with our life. Making more things illegal never makes them go away, it just makes their use more dangerous. Illegal alcohol led to dangerous moonshine being sold on the black market, illegal drugs leads to unregulated ingredients creating a dangerous mixture in the heroin purchased from a street dealer, illegal prostitution leads to un-tested girls walking the street and spreading STDs, illegal bongs leads to kids making pipes out of 20 oz bottles, glass sculptures, vases, a 2 litre bottle and a pitcher of water...etc., because there is ALWAYS a way to circumvent the rule.
I am against these kinds of reactions to tragic events because they never actually help. After 9-11, they made these rediculous laws saying we couldn't bring a 2" Swiss Army Knife or a pair of nail clippers on the plane, but they completely ignored the fact that the hijackers didn't take their weapons through security, or the fact that I couldn't hijack a plane with my Swiss Army Knife any more than I could with a plastic knife or a broken CD. Even professional baseball has done things like this in reaction to tragedy. Last year a base coach in the minor leagues was hit in the NECK by a foul ball and it killed him instantly right there on the field. It was an incredibly tragic event to happen to a great guy, Mike Coolbaugh, but the reaction by the league didn't make sense. The man was struck in an artery in his neck, so what was Major League Baseball's reaction? To make it mandatory for base coaches to wear a helmet! Had Mike Coolbaugh been wearing a helmet when he was killed, all it would have done is made him look protected while he lay dying in foul territory. If this same thing happens again, another man will die because his helmet wont protect him...in fact, it's more likely to kill him by hitting his neck than it is if it hits his head even without the helmet.
Not only do I find these knee-jerk reactions to be stupid, but they are usually more trouble than they are worth. In ice hockey there was a girl killed by a puck flying up from the ice in Columbus a few years back, so the NHL made the teams put up these annoying screens to protect us from the puck. Maybe it's just me, but when only one event happens in 50+ years (That's 10,000s of games) that means it's an anomaly and not something that needs to be protected against. So millions of people have to be subjected to these new rules (which in this case would have actually saved the girl) that get in the way of their experience. What ever happened to "at your own risk"? I know that when I am at a baseball game, there's a chance a ball will be hit at me and I wont be able to avoid it, but it's a risk I take for the glory and love of baseball. What happens if one day a player or umpire collapses on the field because of sunstroke, will they make it against the rules to play on sunny days? If something happens once every 50 years, just let it happen and have a tribute to that person instead of making a huge deal out of it and instituting some kind of rule that forces people to protect themselves from something that is less likely to kill them than their own driving.
So I'll get back to the parenting rant now...if your kid dies of something as a result of their own choices, YOU ARE TO BLAME, not what killed them. If your kid commits suicide because of their depression, you are to blame because you didn't step in and help them when you had a chance. If they die in a car driven by a drunk friend, it's your fault because you didn't teach them to never get in a car with a drunk driver. Simply put, if your kid dies of anything other than a freak disease like cancer or a drive-by, it's probably your fault and you should just accept that instead of going on some pointless crusade. It's people like those mothers who will make us live in a police state with everything monitored and basically everything illegal simply because they are bad mothers and didn't raise their kid up right. This all may sound heartless, but if your daughter is doing enough heroin to OD, you failed in there somewhere and it's your fault that she died.
If history has taught us anything (and it always does, but most people don't learn from it) it's that more laws does not equal more order. In fact, the more laws there are, the more anarchy spreads. People need to be free to make mistakes, if you have a kid and you raised them right, you really don't need to worry about a head shop in Sydney or the prostitution service recruiters turning them to a life of drugs and performing degrading acts for money. Just like with candy, it should be there for us to have and if we have too much, we'll pay for our mistakes with our life. Making more things illegal never makes them go away, it just makes their use more dangerous. Illegal alcohol led to dangerous moonshine being sold on the black market, illegal drugs leads to unregulated ingredients creating a dangerous mixture in the heroin purchased from a street dealer, illegal prostitution leads to un-tested girls walking the street and spreading STDs, illegal bongs leads to kids making pipes out of 20 oz bottles, glass sculptures, vases, a 2 litre bottle and a pitcher of water...etc., because there is ALWAYS a way to circumvent the rule.
The Ultimate BS Holiday
This article will help explain some of what I write below:
http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/83/the-cost-of-showing-you-care
Now for my text:
As Americans, we are subject to a lot of marketing and advertising, but all pale in comparison to the marketing extravaganza that is Valentine's Day. I am generally not a fan of any of these Hallmark holidays, but at least with Mother's and Father's day I only really need to make a phone call, have lunch (usually paid for by the person whose day it is) or send an email. But on Valentine's day, people are expected to spend about $100 just to appease their significant other. To me, the biggest hypocrisy of it all lies in the fact that Valentine's day is supposed to be about love and affection, and ends up just being Christmas in February. I've never been a fan of any of the Hallmark holidays, but this one has always annoyed me because it can sometimes lead to the exact opposite that it's supposed to: fights, misleading feelings and disappointment. But it's worse than that. Valentine's day has to become part of the monthly budget, and in today's expensive world, that extra $100 CAN make a difference to most people my age. So I think that we should boycott Valentine's day, and for three good reasons: it's false, it's damaging to bank accounts and it's playing into the hands of major corporations.
First and foremost, Valentine's Day is supposed to be about love. But how much can you really love someone if you need your calendar to tell you the day to express it? It's an arbitrary date in February that is supposed to mean something to us, but it's original purpose was to mark the martyr of St. Valentine, not to express love for another. If you really love your partner, you will express it every day and Valentine's day shouldn't even cross your mind because you wouldn't do anything different. If you don't love your partner, Valentine's day forces you to feign feelings with someone that you only date somewhat casually. Like in the TV show "The Office", one character made the mistake of having a drunken hookup with an annoying co-worker on February 13th, and then had to deal with the Valentine problem, he takes her out and ends up getting himself into a relationship with someone he really has no feelings for. Sometimes it has the other effect; a person is expecting to be given a valentine and instead finds himself sitting alone at home without any love. Sure, sometimes it works and both people end up happy and all, but if you need a calendar to remind you when you should show your lover some love, you really don't love them.
Secondly, if you read that article above, you will already know about the damage this holiday does to bank accounts. The average person will spend $123 this year for Valentine's day and the total outlay for the US is $17,000,000,000! That money could be used for some much more useful stuff, like healthcare, education, infrastructure...anything really except for a box of chocolates with 25% being ones that nobody would buy unless they were in a variety box, or some flowers that'll die in a couple days, or spending money to hire a singing telegram, etc. Even worse is that's it's not really a day for couples to express love for one another, but for MEN to spend money on their WOMEN! The average man spends $163 while the average woman spends basically half ($84) that. Women bait men into playing into the game and wasting that money when they could be saving it for their future together. Let's do some math here: $163 put into an investment increasing at 1.5% more than inflation would make that same money worth $233 in Today's dollars in 25 years. If you put that money aside every year for 25 years, then you'd have $5,136.78 to spend at the end on a much nicer gift for the one you love (and if you really love them, you'll still be together in 25 years) like a cruise to Alaska or a week-long stay at an exclusive health spa. Get it? Valentine's day is basically a way to sacrifice a lot of future pleasure for a minor present day one.
Third, why do we have to do what Hallmark and Hershey's tells us to do? I like Valentine's day candy, but why do I have to buy it on 2-13 when it's 50% off on 2-15? We play into their hands by adhering to their signs and advertisements that say "show her you love her by getting her fat and buying her a stupid card that was written without any knowledge of who it was going to" or even worse "buy a piece of compressed coal for thousands of dollars to prove that you really love her". Are we really that weaK? Do we really have to do everything they tell us to just because there's a couple of words under the date on 2-14? NO! We do not! But, we kinda do because for every person who doesn't believe that these holidays should be celebrated, there is a significant other who does. And you do not want to be the guy who didn't get his girl anything for Valentine's day and have her get mad at you.
In conclusion, why do we celebrate this holiday? Is it to make single people feel bad? Is it to make men buy their girlfriend gifts in that long period between Christmas and her birthday (assuming she doesn't have a bday in those months...)? Is it to keep the Hallmark card company alive? Is it to stimulate the economy? Or is it simply to keep your significant other from getting mad at you for being the only significant other in your group of friends and acquaintances to not get a Valentine's gift? Honestly, it's basically the last one for most men, who generally show that they love their girlfriend/wife in their own way and not by gifts and cheesy poems. I think the fact that I still open my girlfriend's door every time we go anywhere, even if we're in a hurry, after 2.5 years is a much more significant sign of love than a $40 box of Chocolates that'll most likely go to waste. If your lover is worth loving, it is shown every day. If your father is a good father, you don't need a holiday to tell you to thank him. So what next? August doesn't really have a holiday, maybe they will come up with "Friend's Day" where you have to buy a card for every one of your friends. It sounds stupid, but so does Valentine's day to someone with a critical mind or who didn't grow up with it.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/yshoppingarticles/83/the-cost-of-showing-you-care
Now for my text:
As Americans, we are subject to a lot of marketing and advertising, but all pale in comparison to the marketing extravaganza that is Valentine's Day. I am generally not a fan of any of these Hallmark holidays, but at least with Mother's and Father's day I only really need to make a phone call, have lunch (usually paid for by the person whose day it is) or send an email. But on Valentine's day, people are expected to spend about $100 just to appease their significant other. To me, the biggest hypocrisy of it all lies in the fact that Valentine's day is supposed to be about love and affection, and ends up just being Christmas in February. I've never been a fan of any of the Hallmark holidays, but this one has always annoyed me because it can sometimes lead to the exact opposite that it's supposed to: fights, misleading feelings and disappointment. But it's worse than that. Valentine's day has to become part of the monthly budget, and in today's expensive world, that extra $100 CAN make a difference to most people my age. So I think that we should boycott Valentine's day, and for three good reasons: it's false, it's damaging to bank accounts and it's playing into the hands of major corporations.
First and foremost, Valentine's Day is supposed to be about love. But how much can you really love someone if you need your calendar to tell you the day to express it? It's an arbitrary date in February that is supposed to mean something to us, but it's original purpose was to mark the martyr of St. Valentine, not to express love for another. If you really love your partner, you will express it every day and Valentine's day shouldn't even cross your mind because you wouldn't do anything different. If you don't love your partner, Valentine's day forces you to feign feelings with someone that you only date somewhat casually. Like in the TV show "The Office", one character made the mistake of having a drunken hookup with an annoying co-worker on February 13th, and then had to deal with the Valentine problem, he takes her out and ends up getting himself into a relationship with someone he really has no feelings for. Sometimes it has the other effect; a person is expecting to be given a valentine and instead finds himself sitting alone at home without any love. Sure, sometimes it works and both people end up happy and all, but if you need a calendar to remind you when you should show your lover some love, you really don't love them.
Secondly, if you read that article above, you will already know about the damage this holiday does to bank accounts. The average person will spend $123 this year for Valentine's day and the total outlay for the US is $17,000,000,000! That money could be used for some much more useful stuff, like healthcare, education, infrastructure...anything really except for a box of chocolates with 25% being ones that nobody would buy unless they were in a variety box, or some flowers that'll die in a couple days, or spending money to hire a singing telegram, etc. Even worse is that's it's not really a day for couples to express love for one another, but for MEN to spend money on their WOMEN! The average man spends $163 while the average woman spends basically half ($84) that. Women bait men into playing into the game and wasting that money when they could be saving it for their future together. Let's do some math here: $163 put into an investment increasing at 1.5% more than inflation would make that same money worth $233 in Today's dollars in 25 years. If you put that money aside every year for 25 years, then you'd have $5,136.78 to spend at the end on a much nicer gift for the one you love (and if you really love them, you'll still be together in 25 years) like a cruise to Alaska or a week-long stay at an exclusive health spa. Get it? Valentine's day is basically a way to sacrifice a lot of future pleasure for a minor present day one.
Third, why do we have to do what Hallmark and Hershey's tells us to do? I like Valentine's day candy, but why do I have to buy it on 2-13 when it's 50% off on 2-15? We play into their hands by adhering to their signs and advertisements that say "show her you love her by getting her fat and buying her a stupid card that was written without any knowledge of who it was going to" or even worse "buy a piece of compressed coal for thousands of dollars to prove that you really love her". Are we really that weaK? Do we really have to do everything they tell us to just because there's a couple of words under the date on 2-14? NO! We do not! But, we kinda do because for every person who doesn't believe that these holidays should be celebrated, there is a significant other who does. And you do not want to be the guy who didn't get his girl anything for Valentine's day and have her get mad at you.
In conclusion, why do we celebrate this holiday? Is it to make single people feel bad? Is it to make men buy their girlfriend gifts in that long period between Christmas and her birthday (assuming she doesn't have a bday in those months...)? Is it to keep the Hallmark card company alive? Is it to stimulate the economy? Or is it simply to keep your significant other from getting mad at you for being the only significant other in your group of friends and acquaintances to not get a Valentine's gift? Honestly, it's basically the last one for most men, who generally show that they love their girlfriend/wife in their own way and not by gifts and cheesy poems. I think the fact that I still open my girlfriend's door every time we go anywhere, even if we're in a hurry, after 2.5 years is a much more significant sign of love than a $40 box of Chocolates that'll most likely go to waste. If your lover is worth loving, it is shown every day. If your father is a good father, you don't need a holiday to tell you to thank him. So what next? August doesn't really have a holiday, maybe they will come up with "Friend's Day" where you have to buy a card for every one of your friends. It sounds stupid, but so does Valentine's day to someone with a critical mind or who didn't grow up with it.
The cure for financial cancer - Suggestions to The US Government during the Bail-Out Crisis
Right now the country has a case of Economic Colon Cancer, it is rotting from the inside and we're trying to cure it with ointment. The $700,000,000,000 bail out does little to cure the crisis without a fundamental change in our economic policy, of which I have seen little evidence. The past 8 years have seen the Dow Jones Industrial Average fall over 10%, or an average of over 125 points a year. Under Clinton, the DJIA went up 220+%, and increased an average of over 900 points a year! The difference is shocking, but not surprising. It sends a jolt through my system to see how the economy has contracted after such prosperity in the 1990s. So what got us into this mess? Well, poor oversight of the financial markets was one part, but out-of-control spending was the real reason for our peril. We spend on defense, spying, fighting in multiple countries and an incredibly costly war on drugs and ideals not in line with our own. So now that we're in this mess, what can be done to get us out? Simple, a change in the habits of our government would be the most important thing. To cure the crisis, the following actions must be taken: Opening trade with Cuba and all other "enemy" nations, Ending the war in Iraq and the "War on terror", and legalizing and taxing ALL drugs.
First of all, what better to facilitate economic activity than to open trade with our closest neighbor not called Canada or Mexico? For the past 50 years we have tried to force Cuba to conform to our own ideals and we have failed. Is the only reason the embargo continues is because the politicians don't want to admit their mistake? I've been to Cuba, felt safer there than in the US and saw many signs that it is a great, yet flawed, country. Castro isn't the best man in the world, but he's done a lot of great things for the country, including the improvement of education, health care and the elimination of ABJECT (homelessness) poverty. A lot of Cuba's problems are simply because of America's interference with Cuba's economy. If the embargo were to be lifted tomorrow, Castro would invest in the US and we'd invest there. Tourism in Miami would skyrocket, and the Cuban economy would flourish. Instead of having a remnant of the cold war 90 miles from our border, we'd have a Caribbean Norway, but with more beautiful women and better weather. Not only would trade help the economy, but it would help relations as well. After all, you don't want to get into a fight with someone who controls a significant portion of your economy, right? More trade means more economic activity, which means more jobs, which means a shorter depression. But it is not just about trade, economic activity between two nations creates a better motivation for positivie relations than an embargo. Cuban (and the others') leaders would be more receptive to American suggestions on how to bridge the gap between our ideals and theirs, and the enhanced wealth from the trade would give the Cuban government incentive to cooperate and compromise.
Name one major piece of the budget that has yet to accomplish anything. You guessed it, the "War on Terror". Terror is not a country, it is a tactic, a way of making yourself heard when the masses are not listening. Declaring war on terrorism is like declaring war on sarcasm. No matter how many sarcastic people you arrest and take out, new ones will develop in random places around the world. We could have declared war on Al-Qaeda and I would be in full support of that, but we just said that "we are going to hunt down all terrorists" like it was something that was possible. Many people we consider "Terrorists" are actually considered "Freedom Fighters" by millions of people, and that only serves to create more enemies. It has been over 7 years since 3000+ people were killed on 9-11, still we wait for the person who orchestrated the whole thing to be captured. When I left the Navy on 9-10-01 (yeah, the day before 9-11) I told my Captain that the reason I did not want to stay in the Navy was that "something is going to happen that will cause me to spend the next 10 years of my life in Iraq". I made the right decision, but many of my friends did not and are still stuck in Iraq. One thing Obama-Biden keep repeating is that we're spending $10,000,000,000 a month in Iraq when they have a $78,000,000,000 surplus. Why spend our money when they have it? Simply put, Iraq costs us so much money and brings us so little in return. Pulling out immediately would free up billions to stabilize markets and invest in new technology.
Where is one area of our economy that generates billions in economic activity without a penny paid in taxes? The black market for RX and "illegal" drugs and other "vices". If the Government came out tomorrow and said that all drugs can be purchased from a pharmacy, without a prescription, by anyone over the age of 18 and that it would be taxed at 25% if not prescribed by a doctor, the government would see billions in increased tax revenue. I do not spend any money on my health care because it is a hassle and it is not cheap. If I come home from my baseball game on Sunday and my back and shoulder are killing me (a weekly occurrence), my only legal option is Tylenol and that simply does not work. I have a high tolerance for medicine and require about 1,500 MGs (500 MGs is a typical dosage) of Vicodin just to have a minor effect. But even then, I cannot get the medicine unless I go to a doctor who is under my useless HMO insurance plan, pay $45 as a copay for him to tell me what I already know and then go to the pharmacy. Since most doctors keep very short hours (9-4, M-F), I have to take off of work. I am an adult who has been in my own body my entire life, I know it better than a doctor I have never met and know what kind of medication I need for pain. So why do I have to rely on a stranger to tell me what medicine I need? I live near Tijuana, so I can go over the border to get my medicine, but I can also find a crooked Dr. to write me prescriptions for Oxycontin or Vicodin. But what I cannot do is drive to Longs after my game, go to the counter and ask for the medicine I clearly need. So instead of going through all that trouble, I just medicate myself using illegal methods. Going through these illegal channels is not only dangerous for me (being arrested, not the danger of medicating myself), but dangerous for the economy. If I buy an ounce of pot or a bottle of pills, I may pay about $300 to my dealer. That $300 is then put into the hands of a criminal who does not pay taxes on his earnings. If all drugs were taxed at 10%, the economic windfall would be massive. But the legalization and regulation of all drugs would do more than just increase tax revenue, it would create legitimate jobs. Instead of the Mexican cartels, the drugs would be controlled by American companies who have oversight and who adhere to the laws set forth by the people. The sales of pharmaceuticals would also increase because of this plan. After all, I have not purchased a single Vicodin pill in years, but if it were sold over the counter tomorrow, I'd buy a small bottle for the house. Simply put, when something is illegal it does not vanish, it just eliminates the potential tax revenue and keeps people from being truly free. The same goes for Prostitution, legalize it and you take it out of the hands of shady pimps. Imagine if The Hilton had "staff prostitutes" on call at their hotels, think they wouldn't generate income? Prostitution is far more dangerous when illegal, simply because there is no testing or regulation and the prostitutes are in danger because they cannot go to the cops if something happens. If you take it off the black market and tax it, that can only help the economy. It's not like I couldn't find a hooker anytime, anywhere simply by using the internet. So why hurt the American economy because of some BS Puritan opinion?
So what have we learned from this? That our government is responsible for the global economic meltdown? Certainly, but the most important thing to remember is that it can be easily corrected through some minor changes in our policies and behaviours. As citizens we should realize that the low prices in the stock market represent a great opportunity to buy a lot more shares than you could in years. Instead of limiting your 401(k) contributions, you should increase them to help the economy recover. The increased contributions will put more money in the market and when it eventually rebounds you will stand to gain a lot more money. Any extra cash you have should immediately be sent directly into a stock or mutual fund (or many if you have more money). Unless you plan to retire in 2 years or less, your increased investment will pay off big in the end. The market will eventually rebound, even if it takes a decade, and anyone under 55 should not worry at all. In fact, young people should be excited because this is a chance to buy low. $50 would not have bought you much a few months ago, but today you can find some decent penny stocks (Sirius and Implant Sciences Corporation (IMX) come to mind) for $.50 or less that will clearly rebound at some point. Even if they don't, you can have 100 shares (like lottery tickets, but with a better chance to win) of Sirius for around $60 with commission, which is the same price as a PS3 game and the outside chance that it will go up. Even if it just makes it to $1.00, you've still made enough money to sell it, buy a PS3 game and have enough money left over for a pizza. Or you can just sit on your ass and watch our economy go down the drain.
First of all, what better to facilitate economic activity than to open trade with our closest neighbor not called Canada or Mexico? For the past 50 years we have tried to force Cuba to conform to our own ideals and we have failed. Is the only reason the embargo continues is because the politicians don't want to admit their mistake? I've been to Cuba, felt safer there than in the US and saw many signs that it is a great, yet flawed, country. Castro isn't the best man in the world, but he's done a lot of great things for the country, including the improvement of education, health care and the elimination of ABJECT (homelessness) poverty. A lot of Cuba's problems are simply because of America's interference with Cuba's economy. If the embargo were to be lifted tomorrow, Castro would invest in the US and we'd invest there. Tourism in Miami would skyrocket, and the Cuban economy would flourish. Instead of having a remnant of the cold war 90 miles from our border, we'd have a Caribbean Norway, but with more beautiful women and better weather. Not only would trade help the economy, but it would help relations as well. After all, you don't want to get into a fight with someone who controls a significant portion of your economy, right? More trade means more economic activity, which means more jobs, which means a shorter depression. But it is not just about trade, economic activity between two nations creates a better motivation for positivie relations than an embargo. Cuban (and the others') leaders would be more receptive to American suggestions on how to bridge the gap between our ideals and theirs, and the enhanced wealth from the trade would give the Cuban government incentive to cooperate and compromise.
Name one major piece of the budget that has yet to accomplish anything. You guessed it, the "War on Terror". Terror is not a country, it is a tactic, a way of making yourself heard when the masses are not listening. Declaring war on terrorism is like declaring war on sarcasm. No matter how many sarcastic people you arrest and take out, new ones will develop in random places around the world. We could have declared war on Al-Qaeda and I would be in full support of that, but we just said that "we are going to hunt down all terrorists" like it was something that was possible. Many people we consider "Terrorists" are actually considered "Freedom Fighters" by millions of people, and that only serves to create more enemies. It has been over 7 years since 3000+ people were killed on 9-11, still we wait for the person who orchestrated the whole thing to be captured. When I left the Navy on 9-10-01 (yeah, the day before 9-11) I told my Captain that the reason I did not want to stay in the Navy was that "something is going to happen that will cause me to spend the next 10 years of my life in Iraq". I made the right decision, but many of my friends did not and are still stuck in Iraq. One thing Obama-Biden keep repeating is that we're spending $10,000,000,000 a month in Iraq when they have a $78,000,000,000 surplus. Why spend our money when they have it? Simply put, Iraq costs us so much money and brings us so little in return. Pulling out immediately would free up billions to stabilize markets and invest in new technology.
Where is one area of our economy that generates billions in economic activity without a penny paid in taxes? The black market for RX and "illegal" drugs and other "vices". If the Government came out tomorrow and said that all drugs can be purchased from a pharmacy, without a prescription, by anyone over the age of 18 and that it would be taxed at 25% if not prescribed by a doctor, the government would see billions in increased tax revenue. I do not spend any money on my health care because it is a hassle and it is not cheap. If I come home from my baseball game on Sunday and my back and shoulder are killing me (a weekly occurrence), my only legal option is Tylenol and that simply does not work. I have a high tolerance for medicine and require about 1,500 MGs (500 MGs is a typical dosage) of Vicodin just to have a minor effect. But even then, I cannot get the medicine unless I go to a doctor who is under my useless HMO insurance plan, pay $45 as a copay for him to tell me what I already know and then go to the pharmacy. Since most doctors keep very short hours (9-4, M-F), I have to take off of work. I am an adult who has been in my own body my entire life, I know it better than a doctor I have never met and know what kind of medication I need for pain. So why do I have to rely on a stranger to tell me what medicine I need? I live near Tijuana, so I can go over the border to get my medicine, but I can also find a crooked Dr. to write me prescriptions for Oxycontin or Vicodin. But what I cannot do is drive to Longs after my game, go to the counter and ask for the medicine I clearly need. So instead of going through all that trouble, I just medicate myself using illegal methods. Going through these illegal channels is not only dangerous for me (being arrested, not the danger of medicating myself), but dangerous for the economy. If I buy an ounce of pot or a bottle of pills, I may pay about $300 to my dealer. That $300 is then put into the hands of a criminal who does not pay taxes on his earnings. If all drugs were taxed at 10%, the economic windfall would be massive. But the legalization and regulation of all drugs would do more than just increase tax revenue, it would create legitimate jobs. Instead of the Mexican cartels, the drugs would be controlled by American companies who have oversight and who adhere to the laws set forth by the people. The sales of pharmaceuticals would also increase because of this plan. After all, I have not purchased a single Vicodin pill in years, but if it were sold over the counter tomorrow, I'd buy a small bottle for the house. Simply put, when something is illegal it does not vanish, it just eliminates the potential tax revenue and keeps people from being truly free. The same goes for Prostitution, legalize it and you take it out of the hands of shady pimps. Imagine if The Hilton had "staff prostitutes" on call at their hotels, think they wouldn't generate income? Prostitution is far more dangerous when illegal, simply because there is no testing or regulation and the prostitutes are in danger because they cannot go to the cops if something happens. If you take it off the black market and tax it, that can only help the economy. It's not like I couldn't find a hooker anytime, anywhere simply by using the internet. So why hurt the American economy because of some BS Puritan opinion?
So what have we learned from this? That our government is responsible for the global economic meltdown? Certainly, but the most important thing to remember is that it can be easily corrected through some minor changes in our policies and behaviours. As citizens we should realize that the low prices in the stock market represent a great opportunity to buy a lot more shares than you could in years. Instead of limiting your 401(k) contributions, you should increase them to help the economy recover. The increased contributions will put more money in the market and when it eventually rebounds you will stand to gain a lot more money. Any extra cash you have should immediately be sent directly into a stock or mutual fund (or many if you have more money). Unless you plan to retire in 2 years or less, your increased investment will pay off big in the end. The market will eventually rebound, even if it takes a decade, and anyone under 55 should not worry at all. In fact, young people should be excited because this is a chance to buy low. $50 would not have bought you much a few months ago, but today you can find some decent penny stocks (Sirius and Implant Sciences Corporation (IMX) come to mind) for $.50 or less that will clearly rebound at some point. Even if they don't, you can have 100 shares (like lottery tickets, but with a better chance to win) of Sirius for around $60 with commission, which is the same price as a PS3 game and the outside chance that it will go up. Even if it just makes it to $1.00, you've still made enough money to sell it, buy a PS3 game and have enough money left over for a pizza. Or you can just sit on your ass and watch our economy go down the drain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)