It is that time of year; time for joy, merriment, family, and gifts! Oh, and don't forget fighting about the 'real reason for the season'. Here is the gift I ask for this holiday season: Stop Fucking Fighting! Why must everyone try to convert everyone else to their beliefs? Just because you believe in Christ, I have to say 'Merry Christmas'? The whole point to the season is peace and the spreading of joy. Instead, we all spend our time spreading hatred and anger. Well, stop it. Everyone agree to disagree. Don't be insulted if I say 'Happy Holidays'. I can assure you I have never been insulted when someone else said 'Merry Christmas', even though I am more inclined to celebrate the winter solstice (which was the original holiday, after all), if I am to celebrate anything.
Let's all be happy and friendly and stop fighting. Happy Holidays!!
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Why We Cannot Blame the Military for the Administration's Handiwork
In a recent press conference:
I put emphasis on what I feel are key items within that exchange. The first being Rummy's comment that the US does not have to step in when it disagrees with a country's actions. However, the administration he is part of said that we had to intervene when we disagreed with Saddam's Iraq. Seems contradictory to me.
The even more important part is the exchange between Rumsfeld and Pace. Pace says troops should step in and stop inhumane treatment when they see it. I support him and our military for that. Rumsfeld says troops should allow the inhumane treatment to continue and run off to tattle to someone who should do something about it (though they may not). That is one of millions of reasons I do not support this administration or their actions. I could go on for pages about all the contradictions, hypocracies, and other ills that arise from this, but I'll let the words above speak for themselves.
A questioner asked whether the United States and its allies might be deemed responsible for preventing mistreatment of people under arrest in Iraq, given that the U.S. and its allies train Iraqi forces.
"There are a lot of people involved in this, dozens of countries trying to help train these Iraqi forces. Any instance of inhumane behavior is obviously worrisome and harmful to them when that occurs," Rumsfeld said. "Iraq knows, of certain knowledge, that they need the support of the international community. And a good way to lose it is to make a practice of something that is inconsistent with the values of the international community."
He added: "Now, you know, I can't go any further in talking about it. Obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility when a sovereign country engages in something that they disapprove of."
Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked what orders the troops have to handle such incidents. He responded: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it."
He said soldiers who hear of but don't see an incident should deal with it through superiors of the offending Iraqis.
That's when Rumsfeld stepped to the microphone and said, "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it. It's to report it."
Pace then repeated to Rumsfeld that intervening when witnessing abuse is the order the troops must follow, not just reporting it.
I put emphasis on what I feel are key items within that exchange. The first being Rummy's comment that the US does not have to step in when it disagrees with a country's actions. However, the administration he is part of said that we had to intervene when we disagreed with Saddam's Iraq. Seems contradictory to me.
The even more important part is the exchange between Rumsfeld and Pace. Pace says troops should step in and stop inhumane treatment when they see it. I support him and our military for that. Rumsfeld says troops should allow the inhumane treatment to continue and run off to tattle to someone who should do something about it (though they may not). That is one of millions of reasons I do not support this administration or their actions. I could go on for pages about all the contradictions, hypocracies, and other ills that arise from this, but I'll let the words above speak for themselves.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
A Good Word for Hagel
From The Raw Story:
This is from Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). I am impressed and appreciative of his words. This administration does everything in its power to suppress those that question its authority. It is wrong for the administration to attend only to their own perogatives, ignoring and keeping everything secret from the public they serve. It is the duty of Congress to keep the Executive in check, not follow behind like little lap dogs.
"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform," the Nebraska senator remarked. "This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies."
He also suggested the members of Congress who failed to question the war could be responsible for another Vietnam.
"Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late," he added. "Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."
This is from Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). I am impressed and appreciative of his words. This administration does everything in its power to suppress those that question its authority. It is wrong for the administration to attend only to their own perogatives, ignoring and keeping everything secret from the public they serve. It is the duty of Congress to keep the Executive in check, not follow behind like little lap dogs.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Supreme Court Nominee Alito
I wish I had more time to write; this blog could be so much more interesting.
Since I don't have much time, I'll just say this:
I am so incredibly sick and tired of hearing Bush preach from his frickin' soapbox about liberal activist judges and how they 'legislate from the bench'. What exactly does he think his latest conservative activist judge intends to do? While I'm sure Rove & Co. will coin a different term for Bush to use, Alito will do just what Bush claims he won't put a judge up to do, legislate from the bench.
Bush, it is time for some honesty. Can you and your group, for once, stop trying to cover everything up? Step up, 'be a man', and tell us the truth. Tell us that you only think white males are worthy of the Supreme Court. Tell us that you intend to stack the court with conservative men with the intention of overturning Roe v. Wade. Tell us that you intend to make Christianity the national religion before 2008. Tell us that you intend to have mandatory Christian prayer in schools. Tell us that you like setting records with our national debt. For once, please tell us the fucking truth.
Since I don't have much time, I'll just say this:
I am so incredibly sick and tired of hearing Bush preach from his frickin' soapbox about liberal activist judges and how they 'legislate from the bench'. What exactly does he think his latest conservative activist judge intends to do? While I'm sure Rove & Co. will coin a different term for Bush to use, Alito will do just what Bush claims he won't put a judge up to do, legislate from the bench.
Bush, it is time for some honesty. Can you and your group, for once, stop trying to cover everything up? Step up, 'be a man', and tell us the truth. Tell us that you only think white males are worthy of the Supreme Court. Tell us that you intend to stack the court with conservative men with the intention of overturning Roe v. Wade. Tell us that you intend to make Christianity the national religion before 2008. Tell us that you intend to have mandatory Christian prayer in schools. Tell us that you like setting records with our national debt. For once, please tell us the fucking truth.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Paul Harvey and Prayer
Recently, I received a forwarded email with the following text:
Honestly? The Christian majority feel that their rights are being taken away? The only "right" that appears to be taken away is the ability to force everyone in the nation to live by your religious beliefs. Sure, you aren't forcing us to attend your church or adopt your beliefs (at least not the silent majority Mr. Harvey speaks of). However, laws continue to be made based on the rules of the Christian majority. I don't conceive that to be a loss of rights at all, at least not for this silent majority.
I would argue with Mr. Harvey that a 30-second Christian prayer at a football game could infringe on one's pursuit of happiness. Have you ever been to a football game where a prayer was said? It is given the same reverence as our national anthem. In doing so, those with different beliefs are left to respectfully stand through an homage to Christianity. If you argue that the Christian prayer is OK, then the others there should have equal representation. There should therefore be a 30-second moment for each religion present to pray, not pray, or whatever tradional homage to their beliefs there may be. This silent majority can silently (and respectfully) sit through each of these prayers as everyone else sat through theirs. Mr. Harvey's arguement that those with different beliefs, such as atheists, can do something else such as listen to their walkman (I believe this has been replaced by the iPod), should be reconsidered. When choosing to respectfully omit themselves from these moments directed at beliefs other than their own, such people are often not given the same respect for their choice and are shunned or chastized for not singing "God Bless America" or reciting the prayer. I concede, however, that those being disrespectful may not be considered part of Mr. Harvey's 'silent majority'; at least not while intoxicated.
I understand Mr. Harvey's arguement that if he were to attend sporting events in other nations, he would expect to hear prayers for the religions of those respective nations. The difference between them and the United States is that many of those other nations have national religions. The US is not a Christian country. We are a melting pot. Yes, Christians are the majority; but our Bill of Rights states explicitly that there is freedom of religion and there shall be no national religion. Just because the nation was founded based on moral and ethical principles that coincide with those of Christianity does not mean that it is a Christian nation. Those same principles coincide with many other religions as well.
I respect Christianity just as I respect other religions. I am not arguing that there is not a place for religion in public. We have freedom of religious expression, so feel free to express yourself. It is just that I feel this should be done on an individual basis. To have a group, stadium-wide prayer at a football game infringes on the happiness of others and their pursuit thereof. If you feel a prayer is necessary before the game, say one individually; it is more respectful of the diverse individuals attending the game, and I would argue that it is more meaningful than the group prayer because you choose to do it on your own, not per the suggestion of the people with the microphone.
To not be part of the Christian majority during such a moment is extremely awkward. I can imagine how Christians would feel at the game if an Islamic prayer were said during that 30-second period instead. Recent history of this 'Christian Nation' has indicated that the Islamic prayer would likely not be said again, at least not without a 60-second Christian prayer.
Lastly, for those who admire this email and the information therein because it is from Paul Harvey, think again. From TruthorFiction.com:
Paul Harvey says:
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue
somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I
don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a
lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory
of evolution.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be
endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer
before a football game.
So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there
reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a
God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the
players on the field and the fans going home from the game
"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue.
Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country
founded on Christian principles. According to our very
own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others
better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody
chanting Hare Krishna?
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem,
I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad,
I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
If I went to a ping pong match in China,
I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.
And I wouldn't be offended.
It wouldn't bother me one bit.
When in Rome ..
"But what about the atheists?" is another argument.
What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to
pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If
that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear
plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand.
Call your lawyer!
Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or
two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do.
I don't think a short prayer at a football game is
going to shake the world's foundations.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other
cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our
parents and grandparents taught us to pray before
eating; to pray before we go to sleep.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a
handful of people and their lawyers are telling us
to cease praying.
God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you,
well ... just sue me.
The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we
let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard
... that the vast majority don't care what they want. It
is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't
have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance;
you don't have to believe in God or attend services that
honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your
right. But by golly, you are no longer going to take our
rights away. We are fighting back ...
and we WILL WIN!
God bless us one and all ... especially those who denounce
Him. God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still
the greatest nation of all.
God bless our service men who are fighting to protect
our right to pray and worship God.
May 2005 be the year the silent majority is heard
and we put God back as the foundation of our
families and institutions.
Keep looking up.
Honestly? The Christian majority feel that their rights are being taken away? The only "right" that appears to be taken away is the ability to force everyone in the nation to live by your religious beliefs. Sure, you aren't forcing us to attend your church or adopt your beliefs (at least not the silent majority Mr. Harvey speaks of). However, laws continue to be made based on the rules of the Christian majority. I don't conceive that to be a loss of rights at all, at least not for this silent majority.
I would argue with Mr. Harvey that a 30-second Christian prayer at a football game could infringe on one's pursuit of happiness. Have you ever been to a football game where a prayer was said? It is given the same reverence as our national anthem. In doing so, those with different beliefs are left to respectfully stand through an homage to Christianity. If you argue that the Christian prayer is OK, then the others there should have equal representation. There should therefore be a 30-second moment for each religion present to pray, not pray, or whatever tradional homage to their beliefs there may be. This silent majority can silently (and respectfully) sit through each of these prayers as everyone else sat through theirs. Mr. Harvey's arguement that those with different beliefs, such as atheists, can do something else such as listen to their walkman (I believe this has been replaced by the iPod), should be reconsidered. When choosing to respectfully omit themselves from these moments directed at beliefs other than their own, such people are often not given the same respect for their choice and are shunned or chastized for not singing "God Bless America" or reciting the prayer. I concede, however, that those being disrespectful may not be considered part of Mr. Harvey's 'silent majority'; at least not while intoxicated.
I understand Mr. Harvey's arguement that if he were to attend sporting events in other nations, he would expect to hear prayers for the religions of those respective nations. The difference between them and the United States is that many of those other nations have national religions. The US is not a Christian country. We are a melting pot. Yes, Christians are the majority; but our Bill of Rights states explicitly that there is freedom of religion and there shall be no national religion. Just because the nation was founded based on moral and ethical principles that coincide with those of Christianity does not mean that it is a Christian nation. Those same principles coincide with many other religions as well.
I respect Christianity just as I respect other religions. I am not arguing that there is not a place for religion in public. We have freedom of religious expression, so feel free to express yourself. It is just that I feel this should be done on an individual basis. To have a group, stadium-wide prayer at a football game infringes on the happiness of others and their pursuit thereof. If you feel a prayer is necessary before the game, say one individually; it is more respectful of the diverse individuals attending the game, and I would argue that it is more meaningful than the group prayer because you choose to do it on your own, not per the suggestion of the people with the microphone.
To not be part of the Christian majority during such a moment is extremely awkward. I can imagine how Christians would feel at the game if an Islamic prayer were said during that 30-second period instead. Recent history of this 'Christian Nation' has indicated that the Islamic prayer would likely not be said again, at least not without a 60-second Christian prayer.
Lastly, for those who admire this email and the information therein because it is from Paul Harvey, think again. From TruthorFiction.com:
This commentary is not from Paul Harvey.
It's from the pen of Nick Gholson, a columnist for the Times Record News in Wichita Falls, Texas, published in September of 1999.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Blunt Calls Special Session at Taxpayers' Expense to Appease Special Interests
Legislators to consider abortion law
Young Republican. Same old tricks.
Senator Joan Bray of St. Louis has the right idea. The rest of you need to see a doctor about your tunnel vision. If you want to reduce abortions, banning them won't help much (though it will certainly help increase the number of injuries due to attempted abortions). To reduce abortions, reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. It is absolutely hypocritical to ban abortions, and at the same time, eliminate the availability of emergency (and regular) contraceptives and education.
When will you get it through your head that there are people in this state that don't believe sex for reasons other than procreation is evil? If you ban abortions, the rape victim can terminate the pregnancy that would result in her bearing the child of her attacker. If abortions are legal, your wife can still have the child you two have been waiting for. Which one sounds more like "America, Land of the Free"?
I understand the issue is more complex than this, especially in regards to minors, etc. To be honest, I have digressed a bit. My initial concern is the fact that a special session, which costs the state more money, has been called to make sure the special interest groups are appeased. I wonder if I can get them to listen to my special interest group if I tell them (and I'm probably lying) that I'm a "God-fearing Christian" (and a white male) who stands for "values" and has millions of dollars to give. I wonder if they'll continue to listen when I tell them my group's interest is to for all legislaters with an 'R' after their name to attend all sessions strung up by their big toes...
Young Republican. Same old tricks.
Senator Joan Bray of St. Louis has the right idea. The rest of you need to see a doctor about your tunnel vision. If you want to reduce abortions, banning them won't help much (though it will certainly help increase the number of injuries due to attempted abortions). To reduce abortions, reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. It is absolutely hypocritical to ban abortions, and at the same time, eliminate the availability of emergency (and regular) contraceptives and education.
When will you get it through your head that there are people in this state that don't believe sex for reasons other than procreation is evil? If you ban abortions, the rape victim can terminate the pregnancy that would result in her bearing the child of her attacker. If abortions are legal, your wife can still have the child you two have been waiting for. Which one sounds more like "America, Land of the Free"?
I understand the issue is more complex than this, especially in regards to minors, etc. To be honest, I have digressed a bit. My initial concern is the fact that a special session, which costs the state more money, has been called to make sure the special interest groups are appeased. I wonder if I can get them to listen to my special interest group if I tell them (and I'm probably lying) that I'm a "God-fearing Christian" (and a white male) who stands for "values" and has millions of dollars to give. I wonder if they'll continue to listen when I tell them my group's interest is to for all legislaters with an 'R' after their name to attend all sessions strung up by their big toes...
Friday, September 02, 2005
Focus on What's Important: Stay Home for Labor Day
Watching the news right now is difficult. I want to help. My wife and I visited New Orleans for the first time in June. We fell in love with the character that city has. We also got a good look, for the first time, at the absolute poverty many people down there live in. I cannot even begin to imagine what life must be like for them now; everything is gone, and it appears their government has abandoned them.
The President decided to cut his vacation short on Wednesday, maybe Tuesday. What sacrifice. Where was he on Saturday and Sunday when it was glaringly obvious a disaster was pending? Why didn't he have every possible resource gathered on the borders of the storm, ready to mobilize and cover the affected areas with aid the moment they could get in rather than late Tuesday/early Wednesday?
Why the hell is he flying around on a helicopter, assessing the damage on Friday? If it isn't obvious yet, let me save you the time and free up that helicopter for saving lives, Mr. President: it is a freaking devastated disaster area. Towns have been obliterated, a major city is underwater, people are dead and dying because they don't have the aid they need, and you are flying around gawking at it like it's a wreck on the side of the highway!
The people there have become much more than disenfranchised. There are riots, looting, and violence, all because no one (or at least not enough) was there in a timely manner to provide aid and maintain order. Most of the people down there are minorities living in poverty who already felt abandoned. Now it seems like the government is all but ignoring them; and why? Because they are black? Because they are poor? Because they didn't vote for Bush?
It has become clear that the administration does not understand the urgency of the situation. Therefore, it is up to the rest of us, the caring Citizens of the US, to continue doing what we can and more. Right now, there are many people worried and complaining about rising gas prices, especially the sudden rise in the wake of Katrina. To be honest, I don't care. I haven't lost everything; paying $3, $4, $5, $6 or more per gallon is certainly not a big deal. Stop worrying about gas and worry about the people in need.
I would like to offer a suggestion to the people of our country who want to help. Don't travel for Labor Day; stay home. Stay home to love and appreciate your family and to love and appreciate your home. There are many people right now who cannot do that. Take the money you save from not consuming two or three tanks of gas and donate it to hurricane relief. Doing this does two things, it raises more money for aid and reduces the demand for gas on the most traveled weekend of the year.
Simply change your plans for one weekend. Give that extra $50, $100, $200(I know some of you have SUV's and drive long distances). Personally, I want to help more, I want to be hands-on, but this is the best I can do right now, so I'm asking others do do the best they can so that we can start to catch up where our government has fallen behind.
The President decided to cut his vacation short on Wednesday, maybe Tuesday. What sacrifice. Where was he on Saturday and Sunday when it was glaringly obvious a disaster was pending? Why didn't he have every possible resource gathered on the borders of the storm, ready to mobilize and cover the affected areas with aid the moment they could get in rather than late Tuesday/early Wednesday?
Why the hell is he flying around on a helicopter, assessing the damage on Friday? If it isn't obvious yet, let me save you the time and free up that helicopter for saving lives, Mr. President: it is a freaking devastated disaster area. Towns have been obliterated, a major city is underwater, people are dead and dying because they don't have the aid they need, and you are flying around gawking at it like it's a wreck on the side of the highway!
The people there have become much more than disenfranchised. There are riots, looting, and violence, all because no one (or at least not enough) was there in a timely manner to provide aid and maintain order. Most of the people down there are minorities living in poverty who already felt abandoned. Now it seems like the government is all but ignoring them; and why? Because they are black? Because they are poor? Because they didn't vote for Bush?
It has become clear that the administration does not understand the urgency of the situation. Therefore, it is up to the rest of us, the caring Citizens of the US, to continue doing what we can and more. Right now, there are many people worried and complaining about rising gas prices, especially the sudden rise in the wake of Katrina. To be honest, I don't care. I haven't lost everything; paying $3, $4, $5, $6 or more per gallon is certainly not a big deal. Stop worrying about gas and worry about the people in need.
I would like to offer a suggestion to the people of our country who want to help. Don't travel for Labor Day; stay home. Stay home to love and appreciate your family and to love and appreciate your home. There are many people right now who cannot do that. Take the money you save from not consuming two or three tanks of gas and donate it to hurricane relief. Doing this does two things, it raises more money for aid and reduces the demand for gas on the most traveled weekend of the year.
Simply change your plans for one weekend. Give that extra $50, $100, $200(I know some of you have SUV's and drive long distances). Personally, I want to help more, I want to be hands-on, but this is the best I can do right now, so I'm asking others do do the best they can so that we can start to catch up where our government has fallen behind.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Armed Condescension
Lately, I have felt like we are being barraged by Army recruitment commercials. I don't know if it is similar nation-wide, or if it's just that the Army sees Central MO as their personal breeding ground. Either way, I am becoming sick of seeing them. My distaste for our country's use of our armed forces and for violence in general definitely plays a role in my weariness for these commercials. However, most of it is the commercials themselves and the messages within.
One such commercial shows a group of friends hanging out and talking at someone's home. As they talk and laugh, an old friend walks in wearing army attire and makes some comment about how they're doing the same old thing to get their attention. After quick happy greetings, they talk with him about what the armed forces have him doing, asking things like, "so, they got you jumping out of planes?". He replies that no, he's working with computers. The friends look surprised and ask "couldn't you do that here?" The next scene is a mental flashback showing some moment in time when he is working with computers in a rushed atmosphere that is made to feel important, like he has the fate of the world in his hands. Then things flash back to the scene with the friends and he replies that he couldn't do it here. However, his reply is filled with such condescension and sarcasm that I cannot even begin to illustrate it with words. What is the message I get from this commercial? What you do is only important if you do it for the army, and you are less of a person, a deadbeat perhaps, if you choose not to join the army.
Another commercial that bothers me portrays a black family. In it a son comes to his mother quite excited, telling her that he has found a way to pay for college. The mother looks quite concerned at this moment. The son goes on to explain that he has fully researched this opportunity, and describes it as though it is the best, most exciting, and apparently safest thing around(this is how I interpret the commercial, though it isn't actually said). And the message from this commercial is...? Basically, this one says the only way poor minorities can pay for school is to join the army. I have a response to this commercial. I believe MoveOn.org or some other organization willing to should create a commercial of their own. This commercial should portray a rich family with Bush and "support our troops" signs, magnets, and stickers everywhere. Their son walks in, excited, talking about a new opportunity. It may be difficult to believe he's doing it to pay for school, so maybe he thinks of it as a fraternity or something. In response his parents are adamant that their people (those with money) do not do such things; that's for the poor and minorities. The ending message would be something like "support the war? Join the army." Hopefully, the organization that would choose to do this commercial hopefully has skilled writers for such things who could work with this premise to create a commercial that gets the message across before causing blinding fury, as I'm sure my initial description would if turned into a commercial.
Now, before I end this, I want to make one thing clear. I support and respect the troops. I know it was not their fault they are being used to kill innocent people for a unknown objective. I also believe it is the army's right to advertise, as can any other organization. However, I ask that they be more respectful of those of us who have chosen a life of non-violence as civilians. We are important, too. I also ask that the army work toward being an equal opportunity recruiter. Sure, your hook works better with those who cannot pay for college, but shouldn't the family with the big house draped in American flags be an easy sell, too?
One such commercial shows a group of friends hanging out and talking at someone's home. As they talk and laugh, an old friend walks in wearing army attire and makes some comment about how they're doing the same old thing to get their attention. After quick happy greetings, they talk with him about what the armed forces have him doing, asking things like, "so, they got you jumping out of planes?". He replies that no, he's working with computers. The friends look surprised and ask "couldn't you do that here?" The next scene is a mental flashback showing some moment in time when he is working with computers in a rushed atmosphere that is made to feel important, like he has the fate of the world in his hands. Then things flash back to the scene with the friends and he replies that he couldn't do it here. However, his reply is filled with such condescension and sarcasm that I cannot even begin to illustrate it with words. What is the message I get from this commercial? What you do is only important if you do it for the army, and you are less of a person, a deadbeat perhaps, if you choose not to join the army.
Another commercial that bothers me portrays a black family. In it a son comes to his mother quite excited, telling her that he has found a way to pay for college. The mother looks quite concerned at this moment. The son goes on to explain that he has fully researched this opportunity, and describes it as though it is the best, most exciting, and apparently safest thing around(this is how I interpret the commercial, though it isn't actually said). And the message from this commercial is...? Basically, this one says the only way poor minorities can pay for school is to join the army. I have a response to this commercial. I believe MoveOn.org or some other organization willing to should create a commercial of their own. This commercial should portray a rich family with Bush and "support our troops" signs, magnets, and stickers everywhere. Their son walks in, excited, talking about a new opportunity. It may be difficult to believe he's doing it to pay for school, so maybe he thinks of it as a fraternity or something. In response his parents are adamant that their people (those with money) do not do such things; that's for the poor and minorities. The ending message would be something like "support the war? Join the army." Hopefully, the organization that would choose to do this commercial hopefully has skilled writers for such things who could work with this premise to create a commercial that gets the message across before causing blinding fury, as I'm sure my initial description would if turned into a commercial.
Now, before I end this, I want to make one thing clear. I support and respect the troops. I know it was not their fault they are being used to kill innocent people for a unknown objective. I also believe it is the army's right to advertise, as can any other organization. However, I ask that they be more respectful of those of us who have chosen a life of non-violence as civilians. We are important, too. I also ask that the army work toward being an equal opportunity recruiter. Sure, your hook works better with those who cannot pay for college, but shouldn't the family with the big house draped in American flags be an easy sell, too?
Friday, August 12, 2005
It's Vacation Time, Baby; Vacation!
I would like to take a minute to say a couple of things to "President" Bush (who, I am sure, checks my blog daily looking for new entries, because I am, after all, an American Citizen who deserves my leader's attention, right?):
I am quite confused (not to mention bothered, infuriated, etc.) by the things going on right now. At this moment, the one most prominent on my mind is vacation. You see, a lot has been said lately about your current 5-week vacation, Mr. Bush. I believe that, before the current leave, the report was that you had taken off about a year for vacation out of the last four. If we were to add on to that the time spent away from work to campaign to keep the job for a few more years, you've been away for awhile. Not to mention the fact that you are on vacation while thousands of Americans are fighting and dying in a war. I have a couple of points of view on this subject I would like to share.
#1: You have taken a lot of vacation time from your duties as President. The duty of the President is to answer to the American Citizens, to work in out interest. In the work place known by the rest of us, our duty is to answer to our boss, to work in the interest of our boss and their company. You see, Mr. President, you work for us. As made clear by the polls, we disapprove of you and frankly, are quite bothered by the amount of time you spend away from work. Therefore, we no longer have a need for your services, as we can find a much more qualified person to fill your shoes. Yes, Mr. Bush, you are being fired. If HR (the Senate) does not complete the firing process, they too will be fired.
Since it's not that easy, here's the other point of view.
#2: President Bush, you have taken quite a bit of vacation time during your time in office. I have been told that you have taken the equivalent of one year's vacation over the last four years. Mr. President, I just want you to know that I am in support of your decision to take so much time for yourself. However, I feel that you are being a bit of a hypocrite. To resolve this, I ask you to do one favor for me. Please, push our government to pass a law giving us, no, guaranteeing us, the ability to take vacation for the equivalent of three months out of the year. You see, sir, here in the working world, we are working 50 or more hours per week. On top of that, the compassionate conservative individuals leading our companies tell us that we are not working enough hours. We do get vacation, but it ranges from 2 to 4 weeks out of the year and can only be taken within small windows or else it is lost forever. Therefore, one of two things must happen. Either we are guaranteed time off as taken by our President, or our President starts working like the people he represents. It's your decision (since you don't want to let us decide how things work).
I am quite confused (not to mention bothered, infuriated, etc.) by the things going on right now. At this moment, the one most prominent on my mind is vacation. You see, a lot has been said lately about your current 5-week vacation, Mr. Bush. I believe that, before the current leave, the report was that you had taken off about a year for vacation out of the last four. If we were to add on to that the time spent away from work to campaign to keep the job for a few more years, you've been away for awhile. Not to mention the fact that you are on vacation while thousands of Americans are fighting and dying in a war. I have a couple of points of view on this subject I would like to share.
#1: You have taken a lot of vacation time from your duties as President. The duty of the President is to answer to the American Citizens, to work in out interest. In the work place known by the rest of us, our duty is to answer to our boss, to work in the interest of our boss and their company. You see, Mr. President, you work for us. As made clear by the polls, we disapprove of you and frankly, are quite bothered by the amount of time you spend away from work. Therefore, we no longer have a need for your services, as we can find a much more qualified person to fill your shoes. Yes, Mr. Bush, you are being fired. If HR (the Senate) does not complete the firing process, they too will be fired.
Since it's not that easy, here's the other point of view.
#2: President Bush, you have taken quite a bit of vacation time during your time in office. I have been told that you have taken the equivalent of one year's vacation over the last four years. Mr. President, I just want you to know that I am in support of your decision to take so much time for yourself. However, I feel that you are being a bit of a hypocrite. To resolve this, I ask you to do one favor for me. Please, push our government to pass a law giving us, no, guaranteeing us, the ability to take vacation for the equivalent of three months out of the year. You see, sir, here in the working world, we are working 50 or more hours per week. On top of that, the compassionate conservative individuals leading our companies tell us that we are not working enough hours. We do get vacation, but it ranges from 2 to 4 weeks out of the year and can only be taken within small windows or else it is lost forever. Therefore, one of two things must happen. Either we are guaranteed time off as taken by our President, or our President starts working like the people he represents. It's your decision (since you don't want to let us decide how things work).
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
The Greatest American
Have you been keeping up with The Greatest American on Sundays? I really haven't, though my wife and I look it up from time to time on AOL just to see who has been chosen thus far and maybe make a quick vote. I must question whether or not people in our country are thinking rationally. It seems like we, as a nation, have little to no long-term memory; no ability to consider things of the past as relevant to our current lifestyle. Granted, I know that not everyone falls in this boat; it is a generalization, and in general, we are way too narcissistic. I say this because we seem too focused on what is current, and it comes out in these top countdown lists. I've seen it in other lists where the voters are the general public and Brittany Spears ends up being considered a better artist and more important to music than the Beatles. Seriously. Stop and think rationally for just a moment, people.
The reason for this rant is the top 25 on the Greatest American list. It included people like George W Bush, Lance Armstrong, and Billy Graham. Well-known individuals in our current society. However, what great things have they done as Americans that benefit us as a nation and possibly the world? Susan B Anthony wasn't in the top 25. Bush, Armstrong, & Graham haven't done anything equivalent to getting women the right to vote. Jonas Salk wasn't up there. They haven't created a vaccine saving thousands of people from paralysis or death. Harriet Tubman wasn't in the top 25. They haven't saved thousands of Americans from slavery and death. I know that my examples are a little off, because things like slavery do not (to my knowledge) occur in our country today. Nonetheless, thinking rationally, does one really think that in 50 years our nation will still be praising how Bush "bravely" sent thousands of Americans to die and gave us and extra $200 back on our taxes? I would like to say that we will still know about and teach about Susan B Anthony. At least, I thought it was important that women got the right to vote...
The reason for this rant is the top 25 on the Greatest American list. It included people like George W Bush, Lance Armstrong, and Billy Graham. Well-known individuals in our current society. However, what great things have they done as Americans that benefit us as a nation and possibly the world? Susan B Anthony wasn't in the top 25. Bush, Armstrong, & Graham haven't done anything equivalent to getting women the right to vote. Jonas Salk wasn't up there. They haven't created a vaccine saving thousands of people from paralysis or death. Harriet Tubman wasn't in the top 25. They haven't saved thousands of Americans from slavery and death. I know that my examples are a little off, because things like slavery do not (to my knowledge) occur in our country today. Nonetheless, thinking rationally, does one really think that in 50 years our nation will still be praising how Bush "bravely" sent thousands of Americans to die and gave us and extra $200 back on our taxes? I would like to say that we will still know about and teach about Susan B Anthony. At least, I thought it was important that women got the right to vote...
Thursday, June 16, 2005
The Infallibility of the Closed Mind
I was watching Trading Spouses on Fox(?) the other night. I don't watch it regularly, but have caught some episodes here and there. It is actually an interesting show, giving us an intimate peek into the inner workings of families different from our own. In case you haven't seen or heard of it, they take two families with seemingly opposite ideals and ways of life and switch either the mothers or the fathers for a week.
I would think it would be an interesting situation: you spend a week someplace new with some new people and you get to experience their life a little and get to show them your life a little. In the end, you get $50,000 for doing it. Not bad...actually, it sounds fun. If I had children (they seem to only choose families with children, which is understandable), I would probably sign up. I wouldn't be chosen though, because I wouldn't make for interesting TV.
There is one thing this show makes clear, though (at least to those who pay attention). What it makes clear is the fact that a large part of our society incredibly closed-minded. In fact, most, if not all, of the closed-minded individuals their way of life and their ideals are the only way, end of story. Why? What makes one person's lifestyle the best thing for everyone? Why must they force it on everyone? It seems that so many people come on that show determined that they are going to change the way the other family lives. Some try to force others to go to church and prayer groups, while others try to force families to become vegan. Let the child drink soda: if his parents let him drink it and you come in for a week trying to force him to quit, do you think you'll make a positive impression on his life? No. These people are given a wonderful opportunity to share their culture (and it is amazing how many cultural differences there are throughout our nation) and experience another, but instead they turn into missionaries.
This current episode seems to be the most interesting yet, with the vegan woman joining a Cajun family in Louisiana. She seems unwilling to take in any of their incredibly rich culture; instead choosing to complain about their cruelty to animals, the fact that they eat meat and little vegetables, and attempt to force them to eat healthier. It's sad: she has a good message, but goes too extreme. Everything is best in moderation; when you go too far, you annoy people and they become less interested in your side than they were before you began speaking.
Well, that was a bit of a rant that didn't really follow a logical path. Therefore, in summary: be open-minded, don't force your ways on others, and appreciate the opportunities to share your lifestyle with others in exchange for a taste of their lifestyle. Also, a tip for being open-minded: always assume you are being closed-minded and that you can work a little harder to be open minded. Doing that makes it harder (though not impossible) to fall into the trap of closing our mind and assuming ourselves to be infallible.
I would think it would be an interesting situation: you spend a week someplace new with some new people and you get to experience their life a little and get to show them your life a little. In the end, you get $50,000 for doing it. Not bad...actually, it sounds fun. If I had children (they seem to only choose families with children, which is understandable), I would probably sign up. I wouldn't be chosen though, because I wouldn't make for interesting TV.
There is one thing this show makes clear, though (at least to those who pay attention). What it makes clear is the fact that a large part of our society incredibly closed-minded. In fact, most, if not all, of the closed-minded individuals their way of life and their ideals are the only way, end of story. Why? What makes one person's lifestyle the best thing for everyone? Why must they force it on everyone? It seems that so many people come on that show determined that they are going to change the way the other family lives. Some try to force others to go to church and prayer groups, while others try to force families to become vegan. Let the child drink soda: if his parents let him drink it and you come in for a week trying to force him to quit, do you think you'll make a positive impression on his life? No. These people are given a wonderful opportunity to share their culture (and it is amazing how many cultural differences there are throughout our nation) and experience another, but instead they turn into missionaries.
This current episode seems to be the most interesting yet, with the vegan woman joining a Cajun family in Louisiana. She seems unwilling to take in any of their incredibly rich culture; instead choosing to complain about their cruelty to animals, the fact that they eat meat and little vegetables, and attempt to force them to eat healthier. It's sad: she has a good message, but goes too extreme. Everything is best in moderation; when you go too far, you annoy people and they become less interested in your side than they were before you began speaking.
Well, that was a bit of a rant that didn't really follow a logical path. Therefore, in summary: be open-minded, don't force your ways on others, and appreciate the opportunities to share your lifestyle with others in exchange for a taste of their lifestyle. Also, a tip for being open-minded: always assume you are being closed-minded and that you can work a little harder to be open minded. Doing that makes it harder (though not impossible) to fall into the trap of closing our mind and assuming ourselves to be infallible.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
It's 2005, not 1865
So, have you heard about the latest resolution from the Senate? Our senate, in the year 2005, has finally passed a resolution to formally apologize for the lynchings of African Americans that occurred up to the 1960's and for not making lynching a federal crime sooner. Better late than never, I guess.
But wait, it gets "better"!
Not all senators co-sponsored the bill. Some senators (approx 20) actually refused to sign this bill for fear that they would not receive the votes pro-lynching racists when re-election rolls around. There is an effort on blogs such as Daily Kos to identify these Senators who feel that receiving racist votes are more important than apologizing for allowing the deaths of innocent Americans. The senate even voted on this late at night so a roll call vote would not be required and those not in support of the measure could be hidden. Those individuals need to be identified and held responsible. Why would any reasonable person not support such a resolution? Perhaps these people aren't reasonable...all the more reason not to allow them to be re-elected.
Unless these individuals have a good reason for not signing (hospitalized, held captive by the evil monkeys in their closet), they are making clear to the voting public that they care more about 'political points' and making niche groups happy than doing what is best for our country. Therefore, those who did not support this measure should not be re-elected at any cost.
But wait, it gets "better"!
Not all senators co-sponsored the bill. Some senators (approx 20) actually refused to sign this bill for fear that they would not receive the votes pro-lynching racists when re-election rolls around. There is an effort on blogs such as Daily Kos to identify these Senators who feel that receiving racist votes are more important than apologizing for allowing the deaths of innocent Americans. The senate even voted on this late at night so a roll call vote would not be required and those not in support of the measure could be hidden. Those individuals need to be identified and held responsible. Why would any reasonable person not support such a resolution? Perhaps these people aren't reasonable...all the more reason not to allow them to be re-elected.
Unless these individuals have a good reason for not signing (hospitalized, held captive by the evil monkeys in their closet), they are making clear to the voting public that they care more about 'political points' and making niche groups happy than doing what is best for our country. Therefore, those who did not support this measure should not be re-elected at any cost.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Don't like me? You are therefore wrong!
I am an avid watcher of the Daily Show. In fact, it is probably my primary source of news since I don't listen to the radio or watch the news on TV on an everyday basis (I check the newspaper the most often). Maybe that's sad, or maybe it's a sign that I just like stuff that's funny and/or ironic. Anyway, I am digressing from my original thought...
On the Daily Show last night, they had a segment about how Amnesty International reported on alleged prisoner abuses at Guantanamo Bay. They then showed the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and a high-ranking general speaking out against AI's report. One thing really stuck with me though. It was when Rumsfeld stated that because of what AI reported, they can no longer be considered a credible source of information (the funny and ironic part was showing Rummy citing information from AI a couple years ago). So what's the big issue behind what Rummy said? Basically, his comment stated that if you don't agree with, support, and speak only nice things about the Bush Administration and their deeds, you are not a credible source of information. In short, only listen to those who speak nice about Bushco.
Freedom of speech, my ass. It's more like our country is being turned into one big biography, scripted by Bushco. Even if you have evidence that events transpired differently than his script states, if he doesn't like it, it didn't happen.
On the Daily Show last night, they had a segment about how Amnesty International reported on alleged prisoner abuses at Guantanamo Bay. They then showed the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and a high-ranking general speaking out against AI's report. One thing really stuck with me though. It was when Rumsfeld stated that because of what AI reported, they can no longer be considered a credible source of information (the funny and ironic part was showing Rummy citing information from AI a couple years ago). So what's the big issue behind what Rummy said? Basically, his comment stated that if you don't agree with, support, and speak only nice things about the Bush Administration and their deeds, you are not a credible source of information. In short, only listen to those who speak nice about Bushco.
Freedom of speech, my ass. It's more like our country is being turned into one big biography, scripted by Bushco. Even if you have evidence that events transpired differently than his script states, if he doesn't like it, it didn't happen.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
The Monarchy of Hipocrasy
U.S. attitude a stumbling block in nuclear talks, Blix says
Are we the nation of hipocrasy, or what? Over and over, we keep saying that North Korea, Iran, etc. need to stop pursuing nuclear (that's nu-cle-ar, Georgie) weapons, and we complain that they are violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. However, the US still has nuclear weapons, refuses to disarm, and Bush has even spoken of ignoring the test-ban treaty to develop & test new weapons. How can we tell others to stop if we keep going; what kind of role model are we? This nation, and specifically its leaders, seem to believe we are a holy Christian nation that is exempt to the laws, treaties, pacts, bans, and other rules of the lowly non-US humans in all the other countries. Why are we so special? Why is it that we think we are so high and mighty that we can keep our nuclear weapons and hold the beating hearts of every other nation on Earth in our hands? Is Bush God? I think not.
Are we the nation of hipocrasy, or what? Over and over, we keep saying that North Korea, Iran, etc. need to stop pursuing nuclear (that's nu-cle-ar, Georgie) weapons, and we complain that they are violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. However, the US still has nuclear weapons, refuses to disarm, and Bush has even spoken of ignoring the test-ban treaty to develop & test new weapons. How can we tell others to stop if we keep going; what kind of role model are we? This nation, and specifically its leaders, seem to believe we are a holy Christian nation that is exempt to the laws, treaties, pacts, bans, and other rules of the lowly non-US humans in all the other countries. Why are we so special? Why is it that we think we are so high and mighty that we can keep our nuclear weapons and hold the beating hearts of every other nation on Earth in our hands? Is Bush God? I think not.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Nuclear weapons risk distresses Americans
Nuclear weapons risk distresses Americans
But does it distress people enough? Why is everyone only concerned about nuclear weapons getting in the hands of what Bush has told us are terrorists? Sure, that concerns me as well, because they have been pushed to the edge and have taken to radical extremist methods of getting their point across. However, shouldn't it also concern people that the US has such weapons? I am happy to see that some people within this article did feel such concern. I mean, should such powerful weapons be in the hands of a country such as ours that, by definition, could be termed as terrorists? (I mean the real definition, not Bush's definition that I believe includes the phrase 'of Middle Eastern descent')
We should be working towards an end to all nuclear arms, including the US. Sure, one could argue that we need them for defense. I must question, though, how useful as a defense such weapons would be after somone makes a nuclear strike against us? If that country plans to make a strike and do so in an attempt to defeat a nation as large as ours, it would be an attack of immense proportions. There would be no one left to press "the button".
Now, getting serious, would we really even use them, or are they more like a big 4x4 truck for an inadequate man? While there are a lot of unethical people in our nation, I believe that after we learned the effects of such attacks after WWII, we could never do such a thing to any other living being on this planet. If we did, I can assure you I could never call myself an American again.
I raise my glass to rational thinking and the elimination of all nuclear weapons. 'Mine's bigger than yours' doesn't get anyone anywhere.
But does it distress people enough? Why is everyone only concerned about nuclear weapons getting in the hands of what Bush has told us are terrorists? Sure, that concerns me as well, because they have been pushed to the edge and have taken to radical extremist methods of getting their point across. However, shouldn't it also concern people that the US has such weapons? I am happy to see that some people within this article did feel such concern. I mean, should such powerful weapons be in the hands of a country such as ours that, by definition, could be termed as terrorists? (I mean the real definition, not Bush's definition that I believe includes the phrase 'of Middle Eastern descent')
We should be working towards an end to all nuclear arms, including the US. Sure, one could argue that we need them for defense. I must question, though, how useful as a defense such weapons would be after somone makes a nuclear strike against us? If that country plans to make a strike and do so in an attempt to defeat a nation as large as ours, it would be an attack of immense proportions. There would be no one left to press "the button".
Now, getting serious, would we really even use them, or are they more like a big 4x4 truck for an inadequate man? While there are a lot of unethical people in our nation, I believe that after we learned the effects of such attacks after WWII, we could never do such a thing to any other living being on this planet. If we did, I can assure you I could never call myself an American again.
I raise my glass to rational thinking and the elimination of all nuclear weapons. 'Mine's bigger than yours' doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Virtual version of MU: 2007 National Champs!
Alright, I know no one really cares, but I feel the need to write something, and I want that something to be a little lighter than most of my other writings.
I have finished my third season in the Dynasty mode of NCAA football 2005. MU is officially the national champions, taking down #1 Florida in the Fiesta Bowl 24-7. It was a controversial season. Despite being 12-1 going into the bowl season and having defeated such highly-ranked teams as Iowa, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Ohio State, MU never acheived a ranking better than #3. WR #86 (Ecwereckwu [I know I spelled that wrong]) won the Heismann as well as best receiver. QB #5 won best QB throwing over 3500 yards. HB #27 ran over 1000 yards. Now on to recruiting...(and concerning myself with more important matters than video games!
I have finished my third season in the Dynasty mode of NCAA football 2005. MU is officially the national champions, taking down #1 Florida in the Fiesta Bowl 24-7. It was a controversial season. Despite being 12-1 going into the bowl season and having defeated such highly-ranked teams as Iowa, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Ohio State, MU never acheived a ranking better than #3. WR #86 (Ecwereckwu [I know I spelled that wrong]) won the Heismann as well as best receiver. QB #5 won best QB throwing over 3500 yards. HB #27 ran over 1000 yards. Now on to recruiting...(and concerning myself with more important matters than video games!
Friday, March 25, 2005
Announcement: Credit Card Companies Slated To Be Next US Government
Daily Kos :: Important Changes to Your Citizenship Agreement
I believe MBNA is set to become President; Visa as Vice-President; Mastercard will be Secretary of State.
I believe MBNA is set to become President; Visa as Vice-President; Mastercard will be Secretary of State.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
A Different Set of Principles for Every Situation
Bush - A hypocrite?
It seems that this administration does in fact have a different set of principles and policies for every situation. One moment, they are life-loving Christians who are against abortion and 'pulling the plug'. The next moment, they're pushing to kill every 'possible terrorist', bomb countries that are really no threat to us, and are for 'pulling the plug'.
I guess what it all comes down to is to hope you are never in a situation where Bush may have the opportunity to decide if you live or die (ie: don't join the military, don't live in any country but the US, don't wind up in a coma, don't be conceived, etc), because you have a 50/50 chance of living and dying; depends on his mood.
It seems that this administration does in fact have a different set of principles and policies for every situation. One moment, they are life-loving Christians who are against abortion and 'pulling the plug'. The next moment, they're pushing to kill every 'possible terrorist', bomb countries that are really no threat to us, and are for 'pulling the plug'.
I guess what it all comes down to is to hope you are never in a situation where Bush may have the opportunity to decide if you live or die (ie: don't join the military, don't live in any country but the US, don't wind up in a coma, don't be conceived, etc), because you have a 50/50 chance of living and dying; depends on his mood.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
GOP heavily represented in committee
GOP heavily represented in committee
Did you give lots of money to Matt Blunt? Well, then ring him up, he's got a government job for you. That appears to be the big qualifier under Missouri's new government. Blunt's latest is a group appointed to reorganize MO's government; most of the appointees are big contributors (or at least big businessmen). Guess how they're going to reorganize our government (Hint: it will benefit Republicans and big businesses; bonus points if you're both!)
Did you give lots of money to Matt Blunt? Well, then ring him up, he's got a government job for you. That appears to be the big qualifier under Missouri's new government. Blunt's latest is a group appointed to reorganize MO's government; most of the appointees are big contributors (or at least big businessmen). Guess how they're going to reorganize our government (Hint: it will benefit Republicans and big businesses; bonus points if you're both!)
House OKs MSU name in landslide
House OKs MSU name in landslide
Alright, so now we have a Missouri State University. Big frickin' deal. What I can't believe is that this is what our lawmakers spend all of their time concerning themselves with...name changes. This has been a long-running issue, and probably the one to get the most press over the last few years. Below this post, I have written about Matt Blunt firing people from state jobs because they aren't Republican, despite the fact they do their job better than anyone who's been in the position before. That isn't bigger news than a fucking university name change? You know the other thing these lawmakers have been focused on??? Yes, naming-related issues! In the last six months to a year, at least two bills have been introduced trying to name something (specifically, a day and a bridge) after Ronald Reagan. What role he played specifically with Missouri that requires a state holiday in his name, I don't know.
Perhaps someday they will start focusing on those poverty-stricken without healthcare and stop focusing on whether it should be Missouri State University or Southwest Missouri State University...
Alright, so now we have a Missouri State University. Big frickin' deal. What I can't believe is that this is what our lawmakers spend all of their time concerning themselves with...name changes. This has been a long-running issue, and probably the one to get the most press over the last few years. Below this post, I have written about Matt Blunt firing people from state jobs because they aren't Republican, despite the fact they do their job better than anyone who's been in the position before. That isn't bigger news than a fucking university name change? You know the other thing these lawmakers have been focused on??? Yes, naming-related issues! In the last six months to a year, at least two bills have been introduced trying to name something (specifically, a day and a bridge) after Ronald Reagan. What role he played specifically with Missouri that requires a state holiday in his name, I don't know.
Perhaps someday they will start focusing on those poverty-stricken without healthcare and stop focusing on whether it should be Missouri State University or Southwest Missouri State University...
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Kinda busy....
Wow, I never realized how busy I'd be. I am an auditor, and this is the busy time of the year for me. Not a lot of time to get my words put up on my blog...I think 'em; I just can't get sat down to type & post 'em. Here's a quickie:
I FINALLY watched Farenheit 9/11. I was actually impressed. I had heard way too much bad stuff about it and about Mr. Moore. I had heard descriptions that created an image of Moore that fit right alongside that of Bill O'Reilly. He was being painted as the boisterous jerk of the left. Sure, some parts told only half the story or seemed a bit self-serving. However, in the whole scheme of things, those moment were FAR outweighed by the Moore-sized buffet of 'food-for-thought'. It seemed to be very moving once he got into the gory details of the war. One could consider it 'The Passion of the Moore'. People were brought to tears by Mel Gibson's INTERPRETATION of The Passion, but become enraged at Michael Moore because he wants us to feel concern for the children in Iraq having their faces melted off. Seems that some of us need to take a step back and study the meaning of hypocrite.
I FINALLY watched Farenheit 9/11. I was actually impressed. I had heard way too much bad stuff about it and about Mr. Moore. I had heard descriptions that created an image of Moore that fit right alongside that of Bill O'Reilly. He was being painted as the boisterous jerk of the left. Sure, some parts told only half the story or seemed a bit self-serving. However, in the whole scheme of things, those moment were FAR outweighed by the Moore-sized buffet of 'food-for-thought'. It seemed to be very moving once he got into the gory details of the war. One could consider it 'The Passion of the Moore'. People were brought to tears by Mel Gibson's INTERPRETATION of The Passion, but become enraged at Michael Moore because he wants us to feel concern for the children in Iraq having their faces melted off. Seems that some of us need to take a step back and study the meaning of hypocrite.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Virtual MU update
As if anyone cares... My wife says, "you know it's not real, right?" I know, but that doesn't mean it is not fun.
#5 MU defeated #1 Nebraska in Columbia, MO 38-2. MU was bumped to #2 behind USC and will take on rival Kansas in what is sure to be another big win. MU is currently #1 in the bowl rankings.
#5 MU defeated #1 Nebraska in Columbia, MO 38-2. MU was bumped to #2 behind USC and will take on rival Kansas in what is sure to be another big win. MU is currently #1 in the bowl rankings.
Blunt lets Insurance Companies decide who will regulate them
Read the story here: Insurance pick faced screening.
Apparently, Matt Blunt feels that the best people to choose the head of the department that will regulate the insurance industry here in Missouri is the insurance industry itself. Those chosen are also, of course, campaign contributors to Mr. Blunt. Am I crazy to think that giving the insurance companies the opportunity to put the chief regulator in their pocket is wrong?
Apparently, Matt Blunt feels that the best people to choose the head of the department that will regulate the insurance industry here in Missouri is the insurance industry itself. Those chosen are also, of course, campaign contributors to Mr. Blunt. Am I crazy to think that giving the insurance companies the opportunity to put the chief regulator in their pocket is wrong?
Friday, January 21, 2005
Matt Blunt is a little behind
Really, he is. He is governor now, right? Well, now that he is governor, he is making suggestions for voting improvements. If I'm not mistaken, that was his job as Secretary of State. Why didn't he do it then? Check out his suggestion.
Basically, he wants some changes to absentee ballots. He wants them available to any state citizen (which actually makes some sense). Previously, you could only cast an absentee ballot with an excuse (i.e.: out of the state on voting day). While this would make voting a bit easier for the citizens, it appears that he hasn't fully researched the cost of reasonableness of implementing such a process.
The part that is most fishy, however, is that he would like to remove the notary requirement from absentee ballots. Having an absentee ballot notarized is the only way to make sure the person casting the ballot is really the individual they claim to be. This would allow Bob, who knows John does not vote, to cast an absentee ballot in John's name and still vote in his own name, essentially voting twice. That sounds like a great fix!
Basically, he wants some changes to absentee ballots. He wants them available to any state citizen (which actually makes some sense). Previously, you could only cast an absentee ballot with an excuse (i.e.: out of the state on voting day). While this would make voting a bit easier for the citizens, it appears that he hasn't fully researched the cost of reasonableness of implementing such a process.
The part that is most fishy, however, is that he would like to remove the notary requirement from absentee ballots. Having an absentee ballot notarized is the only way to make sure the person casting the ballot is really the individual they claim to be. This would allow Bob, who knows John does not vote, to cast an absentee ballot in John's name and still vote in his own name, essentially voting twice. That sounds like a great fix!
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Real Beer
One of my interests is beer; real beer. I have always considered mass-produced products such as Bud Light to be utter swill. In fact, they often give me a headache due to their low-end ingredients after one bottle.
I hadn't thought much about this recently. That changed last night, when, just as I was getting home, I heard a story on NPR about the ongoing advertising battle between Anheuser-Busch and Miller. AB was claiming that Miller had been using 'unscientific surveys' in its ads stating that Miller Light had more flavor than Bud Light. Let's get one thing straight: neither one has ANY flavor. Period. End of story.
I'll try and put it in perspective. For this, I'll use another brew produced in large quantities: Sam Adams. While this certainly isn't the best stuff around, it is great for a national brew. If you were to take a bottle of Sam Adams and pour some into a glass, filling the glass approx 1/4 of the way, and then fill the rest with tap water, you would get a 'flavor' equivalent to that of the light beers previously mentioned.
I must apologize if I offend anyone who enjoys what I consider to be swill. To be honest, I feel like those beers are nothing more than a relatively cheap means for alcoholics to maintain a good buzz. In my opinion, their constant bickering over who has more flavor is silly, but also somewhat of an insult to real beers that actually do have flavor (and their's quite an array; go explore).
I feel better now that that is off my chest...
I hadn't thought much about this recently. That changed last night, when, just as I was getting home, I heard a story on NPR about the ongoing advertising battle between Anheuser-Busch and Miller. AB was claiming that Miller had been using 'unscientific surveys' in its ads stating that Miller Light had more flavor than Bud Light. Let's get one thing straight: neither one has ANY flavor. Period. End of story.
I'll try and put it in perspective. For this, I'll use another brew produced in large quantities: Sam Adams. While this certainly isn't the best stuff around, it is great for a national brew. If you were to take a bottle of Sam Adams and pour some into a glass, filling the glass approx 1/4 of the way, and then fill the rest with tap water, you would get a 'flavor' equivalent to that of the light beers previously mentioned.
I must apologize if I offend anyone who enjoys what I consider to be swill. To be honest, I feel like those beers are nothing more than a relatively cheap means for alcoholics to maintain a good buzz. In my opinion, their constant bickering over who has more flavor is silly, but also somewhat of an insult to real beers that actually do have flavor (and their's quite an array; go explore).
I feel better now that that is off my chest...
Virtual NCAA football update
Mizzou (#5) took on rival Iowa State (#60 - not such a fair matchup) for the 'Telephone Trophy'. MU came away with an unquestionable victory, winning 59-21. QB #16 threw seven touchdown passes; six of which were caught by WR #86, who caught nine passes for 179 yards. Kicker Watts put through 8 PAT's.
Tonight Mizzou (#5) vs. Nebraska (#1) for the Nebraska Bell.
Tonight Mizzou (#5) vs. Nebraska (#1) for the Nebraska Bell.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Being Blunt about the good of the state
Well, as I have stated previously, there are a lot of political blogs & sites. They all seem to focus on national stuff, as that is what everyone in the nation has in common. I feel that some sort of discussion is necessary on the state of my state, Missouri. Therefore, I'm going to set a goal for myself to discuss state politics, at least once per week. Now, all you readers out there (I think you're up to a whopping one...that one being myself [how lame]), don't fret, I will still give my two cents about the state of the nation; I just feel that bringing light to Big MO is necessary.
On to the discussion:
I am extremely skeptical of our new governor. Matt Blunt received some national criticism for being one of a group of Secretaries of State who were seen as politically motivated in their roles and likely to use the power of their position wrongly. My concerns go beyond that. I believe he performed poorly as SoS, promising to reform the state's voting system and doing nothing of the kind. He served one term as SoS. I believe he also served one term in the state House. It seems that he is 'stone-hopping' to move up as fast as possible (for those that don't know, his father is Roy Blunt, a high-ranking [3rd?] Representative from MO...another political dynasty). It would appear that he is moving up quickly on name alone, having no positive accomplishments that stand out in any of his previous positions.
To quell critics such as myself, he has come into office during the previous week making a lot of noise "fulfilling his promise" to improve the State's financial position. What was his first step? Fire people. Who got fired? High-ranking members of the Dept. of Natural Resources were in the majority. One would say that, in his defense, he is hiring replacements in the DNR, so he isn't trying to understaff or abolish the department. However, it bugs me to think that individuals that were doing their jobs well are being kicked out of what they thought (and were told) were secure positions because they make too much money. That raises the question of how much is Blunt making; is he going to cut his pay, too? I feel like he's going to make a big stink for a month or so, so people say, "look, he's doing his job and 'saving money' unlike Holden", and then we won't see or hear from him for three years until he starts his bid for president.
It gets worse. He promises to cut spending, right? Well his 'Republican loyalty' makes him rather hypocritical on this issue. Why, you ask. Well, read this. In short, he fired a woman who was doing the work for $60,000/year that was once performed by three directors (paid well over $60k in total, I'm sure) because she was a Dem appointed by Holden. Not just that, but even a big Republican states that she did her job better than anyone he had ever seen in the position(s).
On to the discussion:
I am extremely skeptical of our new governor. Matt Blunt received some national criticism for being one of a group of Secretaries of State who were seen as politically motivated in their roles and likely to use the power of their position wrongly. My concerns go beyond that. I believe he performed poorly as SoS, promising to reform the state's voting system and doing nothing of the kind. He served one term as SoS. I believe he also served one term in the state House. It seems that he is 'stone-hopping' to move up as fast as possible (for those that don't know, his father is Roy Blunt, a high-ranking [3rd?] Representative from MO...another political dynasty). It would appear that he is moving up quickly on name alone, having no positive accomplishments that stand out in any of his previous positions.
To quell critics such as myself, he has come into office during the previous week making a lot of noise "fulfilling his promise" to improve the State's financial position. What was his first step? Fire people. Who got fired? High-ranking members of the Dept. of Natural Resources were in the majority. One would say that, in his defense, he is hiring replacements in the DNR, so he isn't trying to understaff or abolish the department. However, it bugs me to think that individuals that were doing their jobs well are being kicked out of what they thought (and were told) were secure positions because they make too much money. That raises the question of how much is Blunt making; is he going to cut his pay, too? I feel like he's going to make a big stink for a month or so, so people say, "look, he's doing his job and 'saving money' unlike Holden", and then we won't see or hear from him for three years until he starts his bid for president.
It gets worse. He promises to cut spending, right? Well his 'Republican loyalty' makes him rather hypocritical on this issue. Why, you ask. Well, read this. In short, he fired a woman who was doing the work for $60,000/year that was once performed by three directors (paid well over $60k in total, I'm sure) because she was a Dem appointed by Holden. Not just that, but even a big Republican states that she did her job better than anyone he had ever seen in the position(s).
Monday, January 17, 2005
Game time
Well, there's more to me than just the political material I've posted to date. There's so many political sites & blogs out; I feel like I should do more...personalize it (for me, anyway).
So, let's talk games a bit, shall we? Using gift cards, I got myself NCAA Football 2005 (EA Sports) for my PS2. While I'm not the biggest sports fanatic; hell, I'm not even a sports fanatic. I still enjoy them, though; especially when I can play them, like in video games. What makes it even better is EA's Dynasty Mode. Being a Mizzou alum, I enjoy taking my opportunity to make virtual MU outperform the real MU.
Season one was good. I simmed about half the games because I wanted to hurry through to try out the off-season recruiting functions. MU upset #1 Texas and #2 Kansas State and made it to the Independence Bowl to defeat LSU (ranked something like #20). MU ended the season ranked #20 or so.
Season two is off to a great start. MU started the season as #17. After five games undefeated (and ending last season with four straight wins - current streak 9W), including taking out (once again) #1 Texas, MU has moved up to #5. The latest win was over Oklahoma State (#38 nationally), 48-24. Next up is a rivalry game against Iowa State.
So, let's talk games a bit, shall we? Using gift cards, I got myself NCAA Football 2005 (EA Sports) for my PS2. While I'm not the biggest sports fanatic; hell, I'm not even a sports fanatic. I still enjoy them, though; especially when I can play them, like in video games. What makes it even better is EA's Dynasty Mode. Being a Mizzou alum, I enjoy taking my opportunity to make virtual MU outperform the real MU.
Season one was good. I simmed about half the games because I wanted to hurry through to try out the off-season recruiting functions. MU upset #1 Texas and #2 Kansas State and made it to the Independence Bowl to defeat LSU (ranked something like #20). MU ended the season ranked #20 or so.
Season two is off to a great start. MU started the season as #17. After five games undefeated (and ending last season with four straight wins - current streak 9W), including taking out (once again) #1 Texas, MU has moved up to #5. The latest win was over Oklahoma State (#38 nationally), 48-24. Next up is a rivalry game against Iowa State.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Clooney vs. O'Reilly
So apparently there is a battle going down between George Clooney and Bill O'Reilly. I certainly have new-found respect for Mr. Clooney. See what it is all about: I love George Clooney.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Seriously, who are the terrorists here?
U.S. military bombs wrong house in Iraq
Somehow this travesty must end.
"The United States military said it dropped a 500-pound bomb on the wrong house outside the northern city of Mosul yesterday, killing five people. The man who owned the house said the bomb killed 14 people, and an Associated Press photographer said seven of them were children."
Somehow this travesty must end.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Electoral Objection
Wow, we made some history today, though I'm not sure how many people will really notice. Democratic representatives and senators submitted written objection to the acceptance of the Ohio electors, forcing a 2-hour debate/discussion in each chamber (the Senate actually ended after only about 45 minutes with a 74-1 vote to brush aside the objection). I was proud to have a chance to listen in to some of the discussion.
The point of it all was to bring to the forefront concerns about the 2004 election and the fairness of our election process as a whole. It was to force a debate on the topic so that further (and more effective) election reforms will be in the front of all minds. Only time will tell if this was a success.
The sad part was listening to the comments from those opposing the objection. Rather than bringing forth any hard, objective data to state that the objectors' allegations were false or unfounded, those opposing the objection simply called the Democrats undemocratic and stated that this petition to debate the topic was basically a crime against democracy. It's a sad day when those who state that trying to discuss and improve the flaws in our system, the core of democracy, is undemocratic (DeLay) and receive majority of applause.
Hopefully, this will start a successful journey to assure us that the validity of future elections won't need to be questioned. For a good discussion on the aftermath of this debate and its importance, click here.
The point of it all was to bring to the forefront concerns about the 2004 election and the fairness of our election process as a whole. It was to force a debate on the topic so that further (and more effective) election reforms will be in the front of all minds. Only time will tell if this was a success.
The sad part was listening to the comments from those opposing the objection. Rather than bringing forth any hard, objective data to state that the objectors' allegations were false or unfounded, those opposing the objection simply called the Democrats undemocratic and stated that this petition to debate the topic was basically a crime against democracy. It's a sad day when those who state that trying to discuss and improve the flaws in our system, the core of democracy, is undemocratic (DeLay) and receive majority of applause.
Hopefully, this will start a successful journey to assure us that the validity of future elections won't need to be questioned. For a good discussion on the aftermath of this debate and its importance, click here.
The Wal-Mart Burden
The New York Review of Books: Inside the Leviathan
Boycott Wal-Mart, if you don't already. Wal-Mart's policies create a vicious cycle that can only continue to take our country into a downward spiral. Wal-Mart's executives simply get richer while they actually make the rest of the country poorer...there is nothing that can even be construed as correct or even ethical about this whole thing.
"One of the most telling of all the criticisms of Wal-Mart is to be found in a February 2004 report by the Democratic Staff of the House Education and Workforce Committee. In analyzing Wal-Mart's success in holding employee compensation at low levels, the report assesses the costs to US taxpayers of employees who are so badly paid that they qualify for government assistance even under the less than generous rules of the federal welfare system. For a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store, the government is spending $108,000 a year for children's health care; $125,000 a year in tax credits and deductions for low-income families; and $42,000 a year in housing assistance. The report estimates that a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers $420,000 a year, or about $2,103 per Wal-Mart employee. That translates into a total annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart's 1.2 million US employees.
Wal-Mart is also a burden on state governments. According to a study by the Institute for Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2003 California taxpayers subsidized $20.5 million worth of medical care for Wal-Mart employees. In Georgia ten thousand children of Wal-Mart employees were enrolled in the state's program for needy children in 2003, with one in four Wal-Mart employees having a child in the program.[9]"
Boycott Wal-Mart, if you don't already. Wal-Mart's policies create a vicious cycle that can only continue to take our country into a downward spiral. Wal-Mart's executives simply get richer while they actually make the rest of the country poorer...there is nothing that can even be construed as correct or even ethical about this whole thing.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Something must be done
Let's face it: our electoral system is a bloody mess. There is nothing more to it. When a political party has the means (even if they don't actually do it) to steal a national election, that's just messed up. Signs of a flawed election seem to be found daily in Ohio. Check out "Ten Reasons Why The Vote Does Not Compute, and Why Congress Must Investigate Rather Than Certify the Electoral College." The 2004 election, especially in Ohio, has wrong written all over it.
Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not decrying the whole thing to say Kerry won...my focus is that things appear too strange to not question them. If Bush won, then Bush won; fine. I just don't want to spend the next four years thinking 'did he really win fair and square?' and wondering if 2008 will be the same debacle. Here's 20 Amazing Facts about U.S. Election that, IMHO, would even make an intelligent and logical republican wonder.
Honestly, something must be done. Here are a few things off the top of my head that need to be focused on:
Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not decrying the whole thing to say Kerry won...my focus is that things appear too strange to not question them. If Bush won, then Bush won; fine. I just don't want to spend the next four years thinking 'did he really win fair and square?' and wondering if 2008 will be the same debacle. Here's 20 Amazing Facts about U.S. Election that, IMHO, would even make an intelligent and logical republican wonder.
Honestly, something must be done. Here are a few things off the top of my head that need to be focused on:
- Election results need to be auditable; we need logs, paper trails, etc.
- If people (meaning the electorate or elected officials) insist on electronic voting machines, the software MUST be transparent and the machines must be highly secure (how reliable is a voting machine that can be hacked into?)
- Elections need non-partisan oversight (or multi-partisan if non- is impossible). This means partisan Secretaries of State should not be in charge of overseeing elections, ESPECIALLY when they are involved in a way that by the standards of any other occupation would be a conflict of interest. That means no more Kenneth Blackwells or Matt Blunts.
There are tons of other things that need to be fixed, but that's a place to start.
For more discussion, see the The Informed Citizen's Guide To The 2004 Election.
And so it begins...
Welcome, one and all (err...no one), to Aimless Reality, the blog run by Alphadork. As my blog title insists, I really have no aim with this, just to point out reality as I see it (I guess you could also say it's the dork's spin zone). I suspect I will have some political and other random rants to offer as time goes on.
You can also see Alphadork at www.dailykos.com and www.gamespot.com.
What a life: politics and video games!
You can also see Alphadork at www.dailykos.com and www.gamespot.com.
What a life: politics and video games!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
