Capitalist Paradise

God?

2006-09-03T16:55:00.000-07:00

Religion as a whole is something that Immanuel Kant would be delighted to talk about, in modern society though it's a hot button that we try to avoid. Granted I am a relativly neutral being, but still I do have some belief system, to which I'd rather not devolge here. In terms of the three main religions in our world Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, we see grand similarities until a seperating point and that point is the "messiah" I'm not going to lecture you over what or who the messiah is, as this is mostly universal, and it would only serve as a redundancy to post this here. Now I've been reading the Qur'an lately and have been studying mythology for quite sometime, my views on religion as a whole is still rather grey.

For example we cannot physically prove or disprove the existence of any diety, or any sets of religious texts as they are all a leap of faith. Since we do have this faith and it is usually a strong one depending on the individual we see an adherance to this faith. Not that it is a bad thing but for the most part closes the mind of the individual, making it harder for them to truly see what religion truly is, and that is inspiration. All religions teach the same goals, the same principles for humanity, we relate this as the golden rule, each religion has similar stories (I.E The myth of the Deluge) so what makes religion hostile towards each other and itself?

I believe it's a factor of the unknown, because we cannot prove or disprove religion we have conflicting opinions instead of fact, this breeds of course hostility as arguments flare up. But all these people fail to realize that they are indeed similar! Muslims are no different than Christians, Jews no different than Buddhists, it's just what they bleieve to be their "saviour" and the stories that follow that saviour which leads to this hostility.

I believe God is universal as he is presented to be in all religious texts, this driving force would be the father/mother/figure of all creation and therefore all religions would be it's creation. There is no right religion just as their is no wrong, there is only the faith and the trust you put into the religion you follow, and how you deem to praise God. Really it's simple but as it's once been said "simple things are usually simply over shadowed by complications"

So follow your faiths and adhere to their code, and remember the only thing that seperates you from your neighbor is simply an ideology which can be over looked so stretch out that hand of friendship and embrace!

2006-08-22T16:55:00.001-07:00

Oh what fun! Death to the herd mentality!

2006-08-11T04:41:00.000-07:00

You are a
Social Liberal
(85% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(93% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Anarchist

Link: http://www.okcupid.com/politics

Freedom on a Leash

2006-08-08T18:50:00.000-07:00

Freedom On A Leash
by Anonymous

There is a lot of talk here about whining for 'rights'. Here are a few thoughts on this...

Rights

A lot of people who talk of their 'freedoms' (eg Freedom Of Speech) are really just talking about the length of their leash. There's a difference between being free and being granted a certain amount of clothesline by an authoritarian keeper. Particularly, those who have it deeply engrained in them (via psychological pressure, etc.) to obey can be given more leash (the leash has been internalized). But the leash is still there.

The principle of freedom requires an entity called an "individual". No one else can grant you freedom, they can only grant you an amount of leash (an amount of limitation), for in the act of 'granting' they are assuming control, and you are assuming an obedient role. Only you can grant yourself freedom, by acknowledging whatever strengths and resources you possess, acting according to your own individual values and aspirations, and facing the consequences with whatever is at your disposal. This same principle applies to an organization which seeks to be free - it all depends not on what others grant them, but what they assume for themselves. With freedom implicitly comes responsibility.

The etymology of the word 'right': Middle English, from Old English riht; akin to Old High German reht right, Latin rectus straight, right, regere to lead straight, direct, rule, rogare to ask, Greek oregein to stretch out

If you are granted a 'right' that is proof that you are NOT free, that you do not possess liberty. Liberty is not, cannot be a right. That is an oxymoron. Whether the writers of the American constitution understood this I cannot say. But you can understand it if you choose.

If you ask others to grant you rights, at least acknowledge that you are granting them the right to dictate to you, to lord over you. You are abdicating your liberty and acknowledging their lordship. There are benefits to having an overlord, which is why people abdicate their liberty in some circumstances. But if it is liberty you seek, then assume it, seize it; make your own decisions, obey your own values. You may ask others to respect your individuality and personal sovereignty, but don't ask others to give you liberty.

Liberty requires two ingredients: freedom and power. Liberty is the employment of freedom.

Consider those who are granted "Freedom Of Speech". Are they permitted to speak whatever they wish? Of course not. There are exceptions, qualifications, subtle and implied limitations. Say the wrong thing and the leash gets shorter, or the master comes to move you to different accommodations (ones less visible and with fewer rights). Those granted "Freedom Of Speech" like to show us how splendidly long their leash is, polishing it with pride and making speeches about it, but they are mistaken in calling it freedom.

But you already have the freedom to say what you wish. Can you not operate your own mouth, your own pen? What this so-called Freedom of Speech right really grants is a promise that, within limits, your keeper will not attack you for what you say, and will stop those who would attack you. (Whether this promise is kept is another issue.) Thus you are granted the right not to be attacked by your master, and you are granted his (promise of) protection (or often merely his promise of retaliation which is far less useful). In other words you are not given anything, merely promised that you will not have something stolen from you. And this makes sense, because the keeper is not really in a position to grant freedom, merely to take it away, to limit it. He does not possess your freedom so he cannot give it. You possess your freedom.

Can your freedom be stolen? In fact no. Your goods can be stolen, you can be beaten, killed. Your resources, means, power, liberty can be diminished. But freedom cannot be stolen. At best others can convince you to obey them, to lend them your freedom, your obedience, usually in return for something.

Laws

Two examples of laws:

1) A driver may not drive faster than 100 kph.

2) Light does not exceed 3 x 10^8 meters per second.

What is the difference between these two laws? They both imply limits. However the first is a decree, an order given by one to another which is to be obeyed. In fact it is false, in that a person may choose to drive faster. This law conveys a desire and a will to enforce.

The second is a natural law - a limitation. It's not that a photon disobeying it will be pulled over, racially harassed, and ticketed. He is free to go as fast as he can. The law doesn't set the limit or attempt to usurp freedom, it merely reflects an observation of behavior. It is unenforced.

To be more natural like the second law, the first law could be rewritten:

1) If a driver drives faster than 100 kph, hungry police may attempt to catch him and attack his wallet, and he may be stigmatized with demerits which may affect his (granted) rights.

Unfortunately some live as if a law (decree) really does represent an impossibility, a natural limitation, saying such things as "I can't do this" or "I have to pay my taxes". Their habits of speech reveal how they have been conditioned and how they condition themselves - how they have removed the possibility of choice from their consideration. Tucking those facts away as impossibilities, they then consider themselves free and possessing individual liberty.

I think is it important to remind ourselves of the difference between things we really believe we cannot do, such as drive 10000 kph, and those which we are told by an authority we must or must not do. In fact we should say "I choose not to do this to avoid attack (what some call 'punishment', although I fail to see a distinction), instead of saying "I must do this". The difference is the difference between choice and obedience. Responding to a force out of necessity and consideration of its potential or merit is different than obeying a force which you regard as your lord.

How Power And Freedom Are Often Confused

Earlier I stated that an individual's freedom cannot be granted or stolen, merely forgotten or dismissed. Does this then imply that a person who has acknowledged his freedom and does not look to others to grant him rights is able to do anything he likes? No. Just as a light wave cannot propagate faster than c, individuals have natural limitations, based on resources, wit, courage, wisdom, their position relative to others and their environment, etc. Their power.

In contrast to the case of a person who looks to others to grant him rights, a free-minded individual evaluates his own power, strengths, limitations, and needs, and takes actions which _he_ deems suitable. Likewise he takes responsibility for those actions, and deals with their consequences.

The state of freedom can be a very subtle one to realize. In a sense it is an 'anything goes' policy. But while some would claim this leads to chaos, in fact people do have values, and they do have limitations. This is as much a part of them as are their destructive tendencies.

Now let's consider what might happen if everyone were free, as I have claimed they intrinsically are. Some, due to their nature, would live in peace, but others, due to their nature, would seek to subjugate the will of others, would steal and plunder. People would probably form into groups, based on their beliefs, skin color, or location. They might choose as leaders people with charisma and energy, and they might be betrayed by brutal leaders who assume power.

Groups might set decrees setting forth certain expectations, and individuals would be expected to obey these decrees, or would be attacked by the group. Many individuals would become accustomed to being controlled from without. The group might use psychological propaganda and misinformation on young people to deeply engrain habits in them at a young age, or might even attempt to convince them that freedom is a thing which only the group can bestow - a right.

Groups would often conflict with other groups, waging war to attain supremacy, attempting to assimilate the losers.

This discussion was my clever way of demonstrating that people are in fact already free, and always have been. Freedom does not imply omnipotence or omniscience. It alone does not imply liberty. It merely indicates a will to choose. What many seek while claiming to seek freedom is more power.

A free-minded person does not have to be a rebel, his house filled with machine guns, explosives, and Crays. In fact he may be a peaceful law- abiding citizen. The difference can be very subtle. He may obey a law only because he understands that if he doesn't he will be attacked by the group. This does not mean he is not free, for he is consciously making his choices based on his environment. It does mean his power, and thus his liberty, is limited.

Likewise, a rebel may not understand freedom at all. He may rebel against governments and people because he believes they possess his freedom. He may break laws only because the action is forbidden. He merely reacts. He may be just as bound as one who obeys unthinkingly. He has power but cannot employ it freely, he can only apply it in opposition.

Now my reader may say that most are like the law-abiding, free-minded individual, just obeying to avoid punishment, but in fact that is not the case. Government has become a deeply engrained religion of sorts, and people have become dependent on the security (illusory and otherwise) which the group mentality provides. They see presidents, governors, soldiers, policemen, and pieces of carefully printed paper as holy and sacred. They believe deeply that rights granted are freedoms. Except when encouraged to do otherwise, they assume that the law is right, and that which breaks the law is wrong. They rarely question the basic fabric of their beliefs. It is unthinkable.

Further, even aside from the influence of their governments proper, people are greatly influenced by the subtle pressures and taboos of their neighbors. They sacrifice themselves and their liberty to blend in, not merely because they fear the consequences of being different, a reasonable fear even for a free-minded individual, but because they honestly come to believe themselves to be wrong, broken, sick. They come to hate themselves as others do.

The difference between those who are free at heart, yet lack liberty, and those who are deeply conditioned to believe in authority, cannot often be clearly seen in times of peace. Those who have forgotten freedom will often claim they are free, ironically pointing to their leashes, their rights, as proof. But when the opportunities for change come, as they always do eventually, these people will cower and try to retain 'the system'. They have grown dependent on it. They will respond to those who welcome change with violence and hatred, much like a trained dog on a leash angrily barking at a stranger. Others will welcome change, and will struggle through it, still able to see that greater things can be accomplished.

I believe most of us would like to put ourselves in the second category, believing we are just putting up with the system for awhile, and have not forgotten that we are free. But that is wishful thinking, and the truth is not black and white. We have all been trained to think we are not capable, trained to believe freedom is bestowed. And this training takes constant vigilance to challenge.

Pleading for rights, while perhaps valuable, will not make you free, will not give you liberty. It will only make you a more powerful dog, a more effective tool. Liberty requires a much deeper commitment than begging others to grant you rights, or attempting to become one of the rulers rather than the ruled, and it requires a great deal of patience for the genuine changes to occur. I see many grabbing for rights while still clinging to an entire system hinged upon obedience and oppression. It is not freedom these people seek, it is merely power.

At first, freedom must be cultivated internally, by realizing that rights granted by an authority are not freedoms. Until you take your destiny into your own hands and stop whining to others for rights, for privacy, for power, you will not comprehend the nature of freedom, or the nature of freedom in motion - liberty. We all have some power, no matter how large or small, no matter whether we live in the wilderness or in a jail cell. It is how we use that power which we have, or in despair fail to use it, that determines whether we live as free individuals or as automatons. Power and wisdom work in tandem. If one has more power than wisdom, he uses it poorly and looses it. If one has more wisdom than power, he uses what little he has wisely, and thus gains more power. Power alone is not liberty. One may be powerful but not free. One may be free but not powerful.

Freedom is choice, independence. Liberty is the free use of power - not power over one's environment or fellows, but power in harmony with them.

Thank you for reading.

Hey mom! I'm going to Labour Camp!

2006-08-07T23:02:00.000-07:00

What do all prisons have in common?

A) They are over crowded
B) They waste valuable tax money
C) They are full of criminals!
D) They spend to much on rehab programs
E) All of above

If you picked any answer you are CORRECT! Bonus points if you picked E!

Now our prison system is full of hardened criminals which we as a society have to pay for so they can watch cable get three meals a day, and basically lay around and do nothing productive. They become over crowded and therefore cost us more money to increase capacity so we can contain the scum of society! So how do we fix this you might ask?

It's simple... Labour camps! Or Gulags if your old school!

Private companies bid on these prisoners to do industrial labour, since we revoke their rights they work for pennies a day, won't complain about overtime (if they do just beat them)so you can work these desolate pieces of garbage 16 hours a day digging up copper from mines, or other dangerous tasks. This generates huge profit for the companies because I don't have to hire a unionist at 8 bajillion dollars, and deal with their whining about taking 60 minute breaks and health coverage. Prisoners are expendable in a sense there's millions of them and thousands more born each day, it's a untapped resource!

You ask how will I get them to work? Besides the beatings, if they don't work they don't get food, they don't get shelter, and they get beat again for being "lazy" so the initiative is basically work or we'll kill you! But of course they might do a horrible job at working how would I solve this? Simple, required amount of work, if they don't fill the cart by 5 o'clock they keep working until they do they don't get food and water or shelter... If they don't complete before next days work they ADD another cart and probably a fire hose on them or something.

It saves everyone money, tax payers, governments, and businesses, and it puts a very practical use to our very impractical members of society. These prisons will no longer be crowded, because companies always look for cheap solutions, and no longer will we have to worry about your kid getting in trouble because if he does it's off to the mines!

If your prisoners don't look like this:

Or this:

YOU FAILED!!!

Interesting story...

2006-08-05T17:54:00.000-07:00

I shamlessly stole this from my "College Libertarians" group, but it perfectly desribes the socialization of property in America and the decline of society itself. The Ant being the capitalist, one who saves, earns and keeps the wealth, the grasshopper being a lower class citizen in our society.

OLD VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

---
MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filledwith food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Tom Daschle & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share."

Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Libertarian

Sexx laws (I don't mean Beck!)

2006-08-05T03:34:00.001-07:00

Personally all laws regarding sex and marriage are absolute bullshit minus a ban on pedophila which is wrong to the child in the first place and not a issue of sexual freedom as much as abuse. Now we prohibit gay marriage, which liberals are in arms over this issue as they feel it should be about "love" or some ridiculous notion like that.

What I say to these liberals is STOP BEING A PUSSY! For one gay marriage should be legalized, I also think polygamy should be legalized, incest should be legalized aswell and if a man or woman wants to fuck an animal so be it. Actually as long as people are consenting why should we stop them? I'm also in favour of lowering the consent age to have sex, wake up and smell the coffee 16 should be the age limit all around, because about time your 16 you've been laid more times than I can count on my hands!

Want to masturbate in a movie theatre? Go ahead! Unless the theatre has some private policy against it (no pun intended) I see no harm in this. Infact if you want to fuck in the park on top of the picnic tables go right ahead, why should you deny something natural and primal? Morality seeks to ban these practices absed on Judeo-Christian ethics, despite EVERY Jew and Christian has sex, and probably has a kinky fetish like BDSM or something like that.

The fact is as long as they are consenting and there is no physical harm to anyone else there should be no laws against this. In my opinion liberals won't back this because like I said they are pussies and rather play around than actually progress society out of 1960's ethics.

Stop the House, not the mouse!

2006-07-31T14:57:00.000-07:00

ocial network sites face US ban

Many schools have already banned social network sites

Children in the US could be banned from using social networking sites in schools and libraries by a new law.

The Deleting Online Predators Act tries to limit the access paedophiles have to the networking sites which have become hugely popular with minors.

The act has already been approved by a large majority in the House of Representatives.

Critics say the act is too broad and could mean a huge number of websites are cut off from users.

It is not in the governments constitutional right to forbid site access to anyone through the internet, by limiting what we can search on the internet we are disallowed our very fundamental rights! The worst part is they want to ban these sites in school and library's a haven for knowledge, and discussion of ideas, the staple of the rights we enjoy. If the site usage becomes a problem that should be left to the parents and the administrators to decide, it's no place for the U.S Government to make broad decisions on what we may do on the computer. By passing this bill the entire government could over reach it's authority, if they ban these sites, what's stooping thme there? PRetty soon they'll start blocking the entire internet for the public, based on moral conscious, or perhaps the fear of terrorism?

We can't let the government limit our personal freedoms by denying access to certain webpages at school. Remember guys, it starts here we don't know where it will end...

That's your decision

Supply & Demand: Organs

2006-07-30T13:08:00.000-07:00

" The number of people needing a transplant continues to rise faster than the number of donors. About 3,700 transplant candidates are added to the national waiting list each month. Each day, about 77 people receive organ transplants. However, 18 people die each day waiting for transplants that can't take place because of the shortage of donated organs.

There are now more than 92,000 people on the waiting list."

These are statistics that have been thrown around for years involving the donation of organs and those who receive them. It's quite a high number thats in demand and we're lucky to get 25 "good" organs a year for donation, is this really fair to those who die waiting, that someone else should have choice over limited supply? Why should we have such a limited supply in organs, there are plenty of viable sources to extract organs are there not?

It is in my opinion that legislation should be passed to allow citizens to sell their own organs, by allowing people to cash in on this you open up a world of possibility. If I get paid $20,000 to donate a kidney to which I only need one kidney, I would more than likely do it as the profit margin is high, others think this way aswell, so those 25 organs a year rise to 25,000 and alot more people can be saved. As the organs continue to come in at a steady supply and demand decreases cost should decrease. therefore everyone has a chance to get a organ they desperatly need.

So why is something so good and beneficial to both donor and receipiant outlawed by the United States? I believe it is solely on moral grounds, rather than actual health concern. People view this as immoral, therefore no Congressman will support this bill as it will cost them an election. To this I say grow some balls! It's far better to go out in a triumph of glory then to go out with nothing accomplished. The only thing Congress should stress on this market is a screening of the organs, to make sure they are viable and healthy we do not want organs that can potentially harm other people.

So why not? We sell plasma, blood, semen, and eggs, we are allowed to donate a kidney in times of need or part of a liver, so why can we not sell them? Why can we not determine what we do with our own bodies? Why are we allowed to do horrid things to ourselves such as smoking, drinking, and putting artificial preservatives down our throat, but when we can do something that can help another we are denied? The market needs to be free, the Congress should stop deciding the fate of the human body on questions of morality, we need to have a change in system but none are willing to risk their campaign on it.

When you think of organs, think of that possibility, think of the benefits, think of the lives you could save by opening this market! Is it not worth it?

I hate free radicals!

2006-07-26T15:13:00.000-07:00

I hate free radicals, and by "free radical" I'm not refering to mathematics, although I hate mathematics just as much! What I refer to is people who follow an extreme in terms of economical or political ideology(because they're not in jail hence free get it?). Rarely are they ever in majority, and they seem to be composed of people who come from a ironic yet similar background.

In the United States we are fortunate enough to have the freedom to share ideas in manners deemed appropriate (that doesn't mean you can run around naked pissing on things and claim it's free speech!) Freedom of thought has a price, it breeds whiners, morons, and lunatics.

Let's take the far left for our first example, the great social equalizers champions of the poor and down trodden! These are your Socialists, Communists, Unionists, and mutalists. The funny thing is if you attended any socialist meeting you'd realize they are all upper middle class and their's not many of them there! Now go to the homeless shelter where you have poor people, the sole thing these people look for is a future of prosperity which is usually attained in a capitalist way.

So why is it that for the most part middle class, people from suburbia support socialist ideals? My opinion is it makes them look important or some garbage like that, gives them something to talk about in all reality... "Hey I'm a socialist! Man Marx knew what he was talking about!"

The sad thing is this is probably a 14 year old student from a suburban class family that read the manifesto and didn't understand a lick of it, which is evident by the gross mispronounciation of "bourgeoise" The problem with Socialists in America is the fact that they fight for something that ONLY socialists want! For the most part America from all walks of life would prefer the system we currently have (given improvements to that system)

So I'm safe to say your Socialist, is pretty much an elitest prick, usually by the means of pseudo-intellectualism, and quasi-arguments, that are over generalized and naive!

Now it wouldn't be fair if singled out the far left let's go for the far right, this is usually composed of elderly, self-righteous assholes, who tend to view society as morally corrupt even though society would beg to differ. This would compose your Christian Right, Conservative Republicans, and Bill Donahue groupies.

The problem with these people is they hold holy doctrine and pre-1960 traditions above all else. Despite the nuclear Family hasn't existed since the 1950's and communism for the most part is dead, they still have that panic about leftists of any extreme. They still objectify everything, and everyone. If they had their way we'd all be forced to read the bible or receive a lashing at the post!

So what makes these people think so adamantly against progression of society? I think it's fear, since they are generally older and god fearing folk, and change would upset them! My Grandmother has a panic when we change her furniture around, now imagine that in terms of the nation to a Neo-Con. They'd be shitting bricks and exorcizing their office!

It's kind of funny to listen to them banter actually, they usually rant about homosexuality, stem cells, and abortion, non of those things directly effect them, unless your Cheney and your daughter is a lesbian which would make a awkward Thanksgiving in my opinion.

So they rail on and on, forgetting much more dire issues like the economy, and wars, and try to change the way Joe and Pete behave together...

What a backwards and self-centered group of folks! It kind of makes me glad I'm a Libertrian Centrist so I wouldn't be a cookie cutter of a person like soo many of these people:

Socialist: Usually a young middle class adult, who lived a rather well to do life, needed to find a meaning for his/her existence so read alot of books and spouts off pseudo-intellectual grabage, and always thinks miliant and radical view points can change the world for the better (Ahem! Hitler)

Defining Statement: "Wouldn't you agree that the class struggle between the bourgeoise, and proletariat, is of a lugubrious nature that one classes self interest is iconoclastic to the national integrity as a whole"

Political enemies: Anyone who does things in self-interest (which is ironic)

Political friends: Other young adults with radical views, any Senator with "Fein" in his or her last name. Mumia, for some reason?

Habitat: Usually Universities to where they argue with the Microeconomics teacher over worker's management, get's satisfcation from spouting off generalized quasi-statements on political forums to self-satisfaction

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neo-Con: Usually an elderly person with strong religious beliefs, that tends to be intolerant of any opinion that does not agree with his/her opinion. Truly a Narcissist in the definition, as doesn't think of other people only ones values, traditions, and moral backbone.

Defining Statement: "Damn Liberals are out to destroy our culture, they have no respect for authority, and don't support anything worthwhile to the public! They'd rather say "Allah bless America" Than "God Bless" god damned commies!"

Political enemies: Anyone who doesn't read the bible twice a day!

Political friends: Usually Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilley and other pompous pricks

Habitat: Usually town meetings and social functions, they tend to satisfy their need of attention by starting radio talk shows to shout off the ailments of America, usually with alot of cursing.

You can spot these individuals within your own community if you listen to them talk or just log on to a Yahoo! chatroom if you don't leave the house often.

There are ways to defeat them but for the most part they are too stubbourn and will just get pissy, then start the barrage of Anti-(politician of choice) statements which is ususally a sign of defeat!

*They also tend to wiki most information so beware! They may seem intelligent, but that's because they have the internet on their side!*

The sex conundrum

2006-07-20T21:29:00.000-07:00

The American legal system, the staple for which our rights as citizens of the free world are protected, upheld, and established. Our legal system, a beacon if you will for objectionism, equality, and decency which is to be guarenteed to every citizen whom resides within our country. However, is our legal system really fair in itself? We've had bouts of corruption throughout history, we've had injustices done that haven't been ailed by the court system. One such injustice I bring to you is a sexual conundrum, in our current society does the court system favour the female?

In a case of sexual assault involving man and woman, is the man already assumed guilty? Granted statistics, that women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than her male counterpart, but statistics cannot be applied to each individual case, to do so is both naive and denies the entire court preceeding the objectionism it solely requires. So in this scenario what makes us predisposed to believe the female over the male? Is it the statistics, is it the viability, or perhaps the system tends to believe the female solely because she is female?

Now I bring up the issue of child molestation and statutory rape, when a male is indicted and charged with indecent acts upon a minor the male is looking toward a lengthy jail sentence, aswell as public scrutiny. Now we look a woman who has sex with a minor, usually the sentence for this woman is no less than a slap on the wrist, and the victim is lauded as some type of hero for being so "Lucky" now do we call the female child "Lucky" no we give her sympathy which the majority of people will feel angered. As for the woman she will have the public scrutiny, but she will serve less jail time than her male counterpart.

In civil cases involving child support or the welfare of the child, usually the woman is given priority over the man despite that the man may be at a greater advantage financially, emotionally, or physically in certain cases the woman is usually prefered. Now I ask women are given abortion rights in most states they solely can choose to eliminate the fetus if they deem so, so why shouldn't the man have a choice in the situation? Why can't the man choose not to pay child support if he did not want the child? This was a actual court case, I'm not aware of the turn out at this point but I will see as to what the ruling is.

So I ask are we predisposed to favour women in our legal system? Are men's choices within our society limited in terms of children, sex, and legalities? Is the man considered as a second class citizen just as women we're before The Women's Suffrage Act? Is it possible that by progressing foward in terms of sexual equality, we've forgotten our impartiality?

Smoke on the water... Fire in Jounieh

2006-07-17T00:47:00.000-07:00

If anyone's paid attention to the news as of lately one can see that the middle east has gone to hell in a hand basket. Israel for the past week has been air-striking fuel depots, docks, and airports of neighboring Lebanon, as retailiation for rocket attacks and the abduction of two Israeli soldiers. Of course this risks drawing in the attention of Iran and neighboring Syria, as the Israeli's continue their onslaught against Lebanon.

I think that Israel has taken things a bit to far going on a all out attack, however I cannot overlook the amount of pressure neighboring Islamic states have been pushing on Israel over the past 10 or so years. Since the death of Arafat, and the regime changes in Iran, and Syria we have seen a more radical viewpoint of Islamic rule which counter's the U.S policy on the middle east.

As for North Korea, we have taken this issue to the U.N and a resolution has been adopted which is fairly weak and is laughed at by the North Korean government, however it's a step in the right direction no matter how baby-ish that step is. So North Korea and the middle east have one thing in common and that is stiring up th international community, creating new tensions, and gaining the attention of every major world power, as the crisis continues to jepordize peace keeping within our quaint little world...

I can only hope that this doesn't escalate into another mid-eastern conflict that drags the U.S into it, we are far overstretched in our current engagements with Iraq and Afghanistan!

My fingers... numb and happy!

2006-07-10T18:15:00.000-07:00

So last night is the first time I've picked up a bass guitar since the stone age, it took me a few minutes to get back into the swing of it. I started with something simple like "Iron Man" and eventually worked all the way to awesome bass solos of my own creation! So I did that for about 8 hours last night until my hands felt like they went through the blender...

But the good news is now I am back to playing bass so this means I now play two instruments piano/keyboard and bass guitar (once again!) Not to mention I lessened the tension on the strings to give it that "doomy" sound so my bass sounds far more menacing than a drop D guitar for White Zombie, which I prefer over the crisper sounds of a neatly tuned bass. Now I'm off to get the cog fixed in my "D" string for it was cracked and I can't adjust the string very far and it's way to slack for a sound besides humming.

Well, that's basically it for this blog entry...

(What were you expecting political commentary for today? It's a slow day!)

North Korea, couldn't get it's "Dong" up!

2006-07-04T16:27:00.000-07:00

It appears North Korea is having some missile impotency! It can polish off four or five small range but when it comes to long range it fails to please... My continent is unsatisfied with North Korea's limp weapons program, we thought they would have enough will power to at least penetrate our coastline! But what can I say? They're Asian,they lack the extensiveness and rigour that our American missile contain within our bays.

The humour I can make out of the missile is just limitless but a bit over played, well I will be watching this issue closely to see if the U.S and E.U will keep their promise to hold economic sanctions against North Korea, and if Japan will seek further action against the Stalinist regime. It is in my opinion we should have done something about Korea a long, long, time ago, we are contantly giving into demands for Uni-lateral talks which do no good. China needs to also step up it's game on this issue, I have yet to see any action China has taken to secure freedom within North Korea...

We need the international community as a whole to step in and put pressure, economically, politically, and militarily if we must! North Korea is a rogue state that does not abide by treaties and has a long track record of abuse to it's citizens freedoms. We must have some action taken to ensure North Korea will lessen it's tyrannical grip on the impoverished people it helped create!

There is no such thing as freedom so long as one is oppressed...

Inflation sensation!

2006-06-29T14:58:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve policymakers raised their target for a key interest rate Thursday for the 17th time in two years and issued a statement that suggested to some that this could be the last move.
Fed officials unanimously voted to raise their target for short-term interest rates, which influence borrowing costs across the economy, a quarter percentage point to 5.25%, highest level in 5-1/2 years.

Along with this interest rate comes elevated energy prices, and massive gains in the DOW they gained 127 points this morning, and this has been happening for quite some time now. So the economy is pretty bitchin' right now... The thing is it's going to inflate itself too much which is what the Fed is worrying about right now. So we go back to the problem with you the people and inflation. That of course is the rising cost of good and the non-existent raise in your wages, which as we know is never going to happen.

Your going to be seeing alot of price jumps here and there as this inflation occurs, the problem is with those interest rates and those price jumps how can you afford anything? It's not as if your wages increase with the inflation, not to mention many of you probably have kids going off to college, and you thought you were going to be in debt before? So what the interest rate hikes and the price elevation is going to do is begin to eliminate the middle class. You're going to see an increase in unemployment, which leads to an increase in government assistance, then comes Mr. Taxman at your door.

In all honesty a little inflation is good as long as it keeps up with our money supply, but as you can see we do a horrible job at regulating money supply. Now what needs to be done is an elimination of minimum wage and an implementation of a "price negotiating" system. Worker's and their union can set up a contract with their employer that states they work X amount of hours for X amount per hour, with a X% raise over X amount of years. Each worker would have a different contract. But with that contract you could state that the wage increase be increminted with inflation.

We could also see some tax breaks for all business, and perhaps some reworking of the Free Trade acts. All of these things would benefit the worker's and keep the middle class stable while appeasing both the upper and lower classes by offering more choices for those particular classes. We are just in dire need of a federal policy revision, we've been taking the same measures to combat recession for years, and we haven't really ailed any of our energy dependancy. As a nation we shell out far more money then what we can generate in revenue that doesn't help the deficit and we just juggle inflation and shortage every five years or so.

So would you agree we need an abolishment of minimum wage and a new program to regulate worker's wages? We need a flat tax (income)? We need simutanious tax breaks for all businesses large and small? We need a new inflation policy that doesn't just flood the market with money? We need a small revenue increase every year or so only to combat inflation? We need regulated government spending?

Of course we do but tell Washington that.

So proudly she waves, in a kerosene blaze!

2006-06-28T23:21:00.000-07:00

"A proposed constitutional amendment to allow Congress to ban the desecration of the US flag has been narrowly defeated in the US Senate.
The 66-34 tally was just one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed"

Something tells me that at the next Republican caucus, someone is going to receive such a tongue lashing! Like I can seriously see Bill Frist giving the Republicans who voted in dissident a lecture about being a monogamous party, and that they are not invited to the next Christmas social. They also can totally forget about helping with the bake sel and will be missing out on Sen. Graham's famous brownies!

But seriously the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is protected under the first amendment, and ever since that ruling conservative congressmen and women have had a hay- day trying to overturn that ruling. Personally I don't have a problem with those burning Old Glory, to me it's just a flag something to represent our country. To the conservative though this is of course a symbol of our nation's endeavour, a symbol of freedom and everything holy that we stand for. To the liberal it's $2.99, made in China and available at your local Wal-Mart en mass!

I mean I see both sides on this issue, I recognize that this is a form of protest and that it is an effective way to show your disdain for whatever U.S policy you may be against at this current time. I also see that it is a flag for which many men, women, and children have sacrificed their lives for in our past and possibly future. However, I do not see why all the ping-ponging that we have to deal with over these issues. We have far more engrossing matters which we should put our attention to but instead we try to overturn court decisions for something as petty as what we can do with a flag.

My view is this, election day is getting ever so closer, and the conservatives are trying to rally up the far-right and and Christian right with these bills. They try to make their opponent seem unpatriotic and instill national pride with their party, which is a good tactic because it works (it's evident by Republican victories) The liberals use this tactic against them by stating the Republican party is against your liberty, and they are no closer to winning Iraq than creating a stable economy. Which that works too because the 1984 panic sets in! (Have you ever noticed that anytime a government takes steps in a manner that protects it's interests everone brings up George Orwell?)

So let these parties play ball, they just shoot themselves in the foot everytime they do this, I mean there is nothing these parties won't bring up to rally the troops or smear the other party through underhanded and usually cheap bill maneuvers...

You're now entering the spin-zone!

My personal view: abortion

2006-06-26T18:56:00.000-07:00

I feel that it is in the best interest for society if we legalized abortion to give an option. Personally I feel that all ethical, moral, and or religious concerns or obligations should be made by the individual and not determined by any entity be it group, social structure, or government. By legalizing abortion we let the individual decide and we give them that choice to. By not legalizing abortion we take away freedom of choice, and is it not choice to what we as a democracy hold dear?

This should not be an issue of morality, nor a fight over legality; this instead should be determined by each individual person. If a young girl is pregnant and she wishes for an abortion and she is of a legal age to consent to the abortion who are we the rest of society to hammer down on this individual our personal beliefs? Should this choice be confined to her, her doctor, and her conscience? What right is it of me, you, or anyone else to condemn or praise this individual?

By legalizing abortion society is not going to grind to a halt, by not legalizing it however you are denying the fundamental basics of a democracy. Some people say it's taking a life, others say its giving the woman control over her life, either case it's the collective words of many speaking for the few that are in this scenario. Rarely do the collective groups identify the situation with theory of mind, but instead make decisions based on emotion and or personal opinion.

If the individual involved in the abortion proceedings feels that it is wrong, great! There are other options for that individual. If the individual feels abortion is required, great! That is the individual’s decision. We do not need the protests, nor the social backlash, and certainly not the opinions of people in society to which this decision has no effect over. To those of religious background does this individual jeopardize your religion? I think not! To use Christianity as an example, if this decision effects your religion in such a way why do you not protest, robbery, murder, adultery, and many more decisions that effect society far worse? Why not use that Endeavour you have at preventing abortion and focus this on issues that are far more impeding on a civilized society?

The question of abortion is never one that should be answered by a majority, but by an individual basis...

That is my opinion.

- James

Scotland the Brave!

2006-06-25T14:18:00.000-07:00

According to the Scottish National Party, they have recently been taking up arms against the new "Trident" nuclear weapon which would increase the United Kingdoms nuclear arsenal. One spokesman for the SNP said and I quote:

"If the London government is so keen to develop and extend Britain's nuclear capability, let them base their missiles on the Thames. The Clyde has been defiled long enough."

I agree with that Scotland even though being a territory in the United Kingdom, Scotland has gained over the years economic and political freedoms. With England wishing to build up arsenals on the shores of Scotland is not only an affront to the independance of Scotland but a assault to freedom everywhere within the United Kingdom. If the British parilament wishes to approve of this missile I have no quarrels that is the response of English citizens and their leadership. But forcing these decisions on Scotland and any other country in the isle is not only morally wrong but constitutionally unsound!

So the SNP is hoping to win some crucial seats in parliament to prevent the measure of the British Labour party and the current Scottish Labour Party which folds under the power of the British parliament. I hope that this situation would be beneficial for Scotland in keeping their independance while still keeping crucial ties with the British Government....

After all, shouldn't Scotland's fate be decided by the Scots? Not the Welsh, the Irish, and certainly not the British!

Libertarian economic flaw...

2006-06-24T21:55:00.000-07:00

According to http:///www.lp.org/ on their National Platform link underneath Economics, I read this:

"All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market."

Ok, do you people see the flaw in that? If the establishment and minting of currency is privatized and no longer under government regulation you might aswell just say counterfeiting is legalized. One industry could flood the market with trillions of faux coins and not one person could do a damn thing about it.

Now I agree with the strict Laissez-faire platform of our party, however I do not so whole heartedly agree that currency production should be made into a "competition" and anyone who believes it should be is not only naive but profoundly retarded. I guess there is no "perfect" stance for a party and for every good idea there has to be atleast three bad ones right? But seriously whoever thought that should be a good idea needs to be slapped in the face...

The things I do AGREE with:

Solutions: To ensure the economic freedom and enhance the economic well-being of Americans, we would implement the following policies:

a. Dramatic reductions in both taxes and government spending;

b. An end to deficit budgets;

c. A halt to inflationary monetary policies;

d. The elimination of all government impediments to free trade; and

e. The repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production and interest rates.

But then they gotta slip that currency thing in there to fuck the party stance up...

Keynesian, champion of people? Or plague of civilization?

2006-06-23T20:07:00.000-07:00

If any of you knew me very well you'd know I'm a die hard capitalist, for those of you who don't know me we'll the blog is self explanatory. I recently had a very heated discussion with economical left people this of course are your Keynesians, Socialists, Communists, all around Big Government believers. AS a follower of the Austrian School of thought in economics I believe that less control by the state the better! After all I don't want to be told what I can or cannot buy, I have little choice on issues such as tax and no control as to where that tax money goes.

The worst out of all these groups has to be the Keynesians, they preach that their system of economics is the best implemented so far, based on historical evidence such as the socialization and the government's role in the allocation of funding (I.E Welfare, Social Security) I of course believe this lead to a dependency on our government to be this brilliant knight that comes in on a white stallion with bags of money to save us all. Which this only creates corruption, mediocrity, and stagflation. The principle of Keynesian economics is to control unemployment, to which they seek full employment; this of course leads to government regulation of industry and price floors/ceilings.

Now we do get high rates of employment I think we've had the highest employment rate in the last decade or so, the problem is this causes inflation. We therefore have too much money in circulation so the price of goods go up, this of course wouldn't be a problem if the supply of money slightly changed every year or so to increase with the inflation. That would be more of a Monetarists point of view to control our currency flow and letting the economy "fix" itself as the invisible hand would take over.

So Keynesian is sounding great right? Everyone has a job, the government is their to make a safety net for you when your down on your luck right? Now I point back at inflation, there is a theory set by Economist Milton Friedman, this of course is called the "Neutrality of money" the system works best when currency in circulation negates the effects of inflation. However, this doesn't work under Keynesian economics, because we are regulated so is our currency to what the employed get paid. this is of course your minimum wage.

The minimum wage however stays the same Congress hasn't changed it in quite sometime, the problem is set prices and price floors/ceilings rarely change with inflation. So if that food your wanting to buy increases in price let's say by 20% due to a supply shortage, you are not going to make any more money based on your wage laws. You'll still make that $5.15 an hour as prices climb, this leads to the recession going deeper and deeper... Now the government steps in with it's bags of money and hands it out in the form of socialized incomes (welfare primarily) "Cool now I can afford the food" Good for you except you'll suckle off the government until it runs dry so to speak.

So of course the only way for the government to get these funds is by a progressive tax, which is based on your income. The top portion of society pays a HUGE amount in taxes but all the programs go to help the bottom of the socio-economic spectrum. The higher part sees no benefits in its heavy taxes. This of course is wrong, the government should not play favorites with people in a country that we are all deemed equal. We could easily fix these systems the problem is we've had them so long that a good portion of our society is "addicted" to these social programs, therefore would be infuriated if we cut the proverbial "Umbilical Cord"

So why not a flat tax? Why not lower taxes for everyone and a deregulation of government influence in our economy? I'll tell you why it's because we've dug ourselves in a hole, we've become so needy of the government's influence we cannot think of what we'd do without them. Now without the minimum wage we'd get more employment, and wages would more than likely change with inflation. Prices would drop as the de-regulation would take away many taxes on goods and services increasing business profits which increase productivity...

What the Keynesians fear is of course another 1929 there is a way to prevent that without socializing everything and that is called "security" we should have currency to pump into the market as needed and retract as needed. The reason the stock market failed is because a failure of supply and corruption. Because of political corruption and peoples hands into the pockets of business the market wasn't free but held captive by illegal contracts between politicians and the corporate owners.

Laissez-Faire works great as long as we prevent the government’s corruption...

Vincennes Schedule

2006-06-21T21:11:00.000-07:00

Total Credit Hours: 16.000

English Comp I (Word Process) - ENGL 101 018
Associated Term: Fall 2006
CRN: 12086
Status: Web Registered on Jun 21, 2006
Assigned Instructor: Debbie A. Reynolds
Grade Mode: Standard Letter
Credits: 3.000
Level: Undergraduate
Campus: Vincennes
2:00 pm - 3:15 pm
TR
Shircliff Humanities Center E133
Aug 21, 2006 - Dec 16, 2006
Combined Lec,Disc,Demo or Act
Debbie A. Reynolds (P)

French Level I - FREN 101 001
Associated Term: Fall 2006
CRN: 11958
Status: Web Registered on Jun 21, 2006
Assigned Instructor: Ursula H. Wuthrich
Grade Mode: Standard Letter
Credits: 4.000
Level: Undergraduate
Campus: Vincennes
1:00 pm - 1:50 pm
MTWR
Shircliff Humanities Center D110A
Aug 21, 2006 - Dec 16, 2006
Combined Lec,Disc,Demo or Act
Ursula H. Wuthrich (P)

World Civilization I - HIST 235 001
Associated Term: Fall 2006
CRN: 12349
Status: Web Registered on Jun 21, 2006
Assigned Instructor: Kyle R. Ward
Grade Mode: Standard Letter
Credits: 3.000
Level: Undergraduate
Campus: Vincennes
2:00 pm - 3:15 pm
MW
Phillip M Summers Center 319
Aug 21, 2006 - Dec 16, 2006
Lecture
Kyle R. Ward (P)

Beginning Algebra (Comp Aided) - MATH 012 007
Associated Term: Fall 2006
CRN: 14499
Status: Web Registered on Jun 21, 2006
Assigned Instructor: Debra M. Ross
Grade Mode: Developmental Course
Credits: 3.000
Level: Undergraduate
Campus: Vincennes
3:30 pm - 4:45 pm
MW
Shake Learning Resource Center 140
Aug 21, 2006 - Dec 16, 2006
Lecture
Debra M. Ross (P)

Speech - SPCH 143 016
Associated Term: Fall 2006
CRN: 12973
Status: Web Registered on Jun 21, 2006
Assigned Instructor: Stephen K. Whitaker
Grade Mode: Standard Letter
Credits: 3.000
Level: Undergraduate
Campus: Vincennes
9:30 am - 10:45 am
TR
Shircliff Humanities Center B108
Aug 21, 2006 - Dec 16, 2006
Combined Lec,Disc,Demo or Act
Stephen K. Whitaker (P)

For whom the death tolls?

2006-06-20T16:02:00.000-07:00

U.S.-Led Forces Kill 15 in Iraq Raids Jun 20, 09:32 AM EDTBy SAMEER N. YACOUB - Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- "U.S.-led forces killed 15 terror suspects and detained three others during raids Tuesday in a village northeast of Baghdad, the military said. Residents said 13 civilians also were killed."

The media throws out more numbers than a High School stats class! Seriously everyday I turn on the T.V and it's either "X soldiers killed!" or "We blew the shit out of so-and so and X amount of terrorists!" I mean yes I would like a update on the war, but I don't want to see number after number it does nothing productive for the war or against it, whichever view your trying to expel at the moment it just doesn't work. For one who the hell cares if you killed 15 terrorists today? Seriously I'm not crying nor am I masturbating at our awesome body count, I frankly have better things to do than party it out with my chums down at the National Guard over this issue.

You can kill 15 today, 40 tomorrow and none the next and that proves nothing other that you can kill because the enemy will always have more people to replace those that are fallen. Basically we are stuck in a game of checkers, we jump one they jump back... KING ME! We need to focus more on the peace process in Iraq, and how we can absolve the problems in the Middle East as a whole, not how many people the U.S Marines can blow away with their M-1 Carbine.

Now as for our side we have had 2,500 U.S military casualties and a good number of civilian deaths, not to mention two kidnapped U.S soldiers were found dead today so what does the media do? Chalk them up on their giant blackboard which they will keep up until Bill O'Reilley, Chris Matthews, Lou Dobbs, or whoever wants to do a talking points show to tear apart someone who is of a different political ideology than what the host is paid to be.

C'mon people what is so glorious and self satisfying about having a X amount of people dead? I watch every news station and all I see is people's egos grow as they continue to shovel self-satisfying bull shit down their naive user base. Since the invasion of Iraq this is ALL that I have been seeing lately, liberals crying over the death toll of our soldiers, conservatives having a circle jerk to the death of Al-Zarqawi, it's getting so petty and idiosyncratic, I'm beginning to only watch them just so I can laugh my ass off at their pseudo-intellectualism and arrogance.

This is an a example of what a TV interview is like on FOX News (I chose them because they are by far the most entertaining)

Bill: Welcome to the Conservative jerk-off-athon! I'm your dungeon master Bill O'Reilly!

Bill: Today on talking points we have brought some far leftist lunatic from some University in the middle of nowhere, so we can just argue about random bull shit for an hour!

Bill: Welcome to the show Mr. Liberal!

Liberal: Pleasure to be here Bill! (Fake ass smile)

Bill: Today in the news it said that our death toll has exceeded the 2,500 bench mark! I know this because it was put on my desk five minutes ago by my sexually arousing intern, how do you feel about this?

Liberal: Well, I for one thin--

Bill: Woah, hold it right there! You're telling me that you're hapy about this, I could say you're being unpatriotic!

Liberal: I'm not unpatriotic I'm saying that I jus---

Bill: Whatever, Mr. Liberal it appears to me that you don't care about the safety of America you're only out there to damage the reputation of the administration! (snorts a line of coke and slips a twenty in some girls panty line)

Liberal: But I jus---

Bill: Well, lets just agree to disagree that's all the time we have join us next week as I show you that I can shoot laser beams out of my eyes and shit gold!

Bill: This is Bill signing off!

*Switch Bill out for Anderson Cooper and replace Un-patriotic with Religious nut for the opposing faction*

Seriously that is all the news is anymore.., 50 something year old millionaires spouting self-satisfying bull shit and playing with numbers as they continue to brown nose any political faction that could give their ratings a boost...

Kind of sad really, how fucked up and devolved politics and our media have become to give way to douchebaggery and bias to make a few bucks...

Damn it Purdue!

2006-06-19T18:36:00.000-07:00

I woke up this morning after pulling an all nighter, so of course I turned my lap top on, put my Shakira mix tape in my CD player and made myself a bitchin' cup of coffee. So I checked my e-mail as I always do (mostly to delete Viagra ads there's like a million of them!) So I scroll down and I see this an actual e-mail!

Subject: Advanced life Sciences exam
From: ahuerta@purdue.edu
Date: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:27
To: mlatour@purdue.edu

Cc: j.nease@insightbb.com

Hello Dr. Latour,

All the exams are finally in, so the scoring can begin. Letters of pass/no pass will be mailed out this Friday, and I will have for you a complete list of who took the exams and their scores.

If you have any questions, you can call me here at the office or send me an e-mail. My ALS workshop is over so I will be here at the office all week.

Thank you,

Alex

Alexandria I. Huerta
Dept of Youth Development & Ag Education
615 W. State Street, Room 221
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2053
Tele: (765) 496-3266
Fax: (765) 496-1152
e-mail: ahuerta@purdue.edu

So I'm like awesome the AP exams are done so I'll head up there to get my test scores early because I have to register for college before FRIDAY, and it would save soo much trouble if I just got them now and slipped Prof. Latour a 10 spot. So I arrive there by noon, and there is a State FFA meeting, I'm like "Cool Ernest is probably here!" I seen the LHS short bus but couldn't locate him but o'well I'll catch him later. Anyways I walk up to the Registrar Kiosk and show her my credentials and she cannot find my god damn transcript...

So I'm like no problem I'll just jog half way across the campus to the College of Agriculture and talk to the Youth Program Director/Undergraduate Liason. I get there and the secretary has no clue what I was talking about so she refered me to the guidance counselor which he gave me a list of names to hit up... So I went to look for these people, I try the first on the list he isn't in his office so some guy tried to call EVERYONE on campus to help me that took 50 minutes from my day Then I continue to go through the list and everybody is out on demonstration or just not there period.

So by this time two fucking hours elapsed and I'm getting a little agitated as it's a billion degrees outside and the AC is down in half these buildings. So after this ridiculous goose chase which got me no where it is now 5:30 and still nothing, the secretary was supposed to call me ASAP when the Dean returned from his lunch break, but still no word. So I wasted an entire day because some e-mail told me they were in but the people that were supposed to be GRADING them took a damn vacation, talking to college freshmen, or partying it up at this parade deal they had on the south end of campus.

In conclusion Purdue is horribly mismanaged, doesn't have adequete cooling systems and the secretaries are about as sharp as box of rocks. So I'm just going to sit back hope I didn't get sun burn and continue to curse as they are perhaps the dumbest adults I've ever met....

P.S

Seriously they wrote me an email over it and had NO FUCKING CLUE about the exam? Seriously WTF?

P.P.S

Fuck you Alex you were not in your damn office I came by like 9 damn times you were gone all fucking day!

Good friend Amy...

2006-06-18T22:00:00.000-07:00

Over the past week or so I've been talking to alot of people I rarely talk to, I guess it is either because I have more free time to do so, or I'm just coming out of my shell as high school is over. Anyways I was talking to Amy O'Connell, I went to school with this girl for years we knew each other but never really talked per say outside of class room discussion. Since I'm a sociable person I love people, doesn't matter whom you are, where you came from, or what you do, I'll probably befriend you!

Well, as I was talking to Amy about casual things such as the "Senior Camp Out" and college plans, however I get stuck in this tangent about politics and how I'd do things differently, I tend to do that from time to time has to be the ADD you know? To say the least she isn't much of a talker but seemed like she wasn't bored or disinterested in my banter, which is both suprising and awesome in itself! Outside the YDC and town halls and my closest friends not many students or adults would be willing to listen to my mini-symposium I tend to create out of my discussions.

I mean it's great that we actually are talking a bit more than what we used to, she's a smart girl has alot of potential, not many in my graduating class show alot of intelligence and drive in their efforts so it's good to talk to talk to people who actually arn't obsessed with partying all the time. She's probably one of the few classmates I'm going to miss after this summer is over (I'm not naming names because that will just start arguments) Anyways I like Amy, and we should get together to go do something before summers over. I'm kinda feeling a little guilt ridden as well, as I promised to show up at her open house and I couldn't make it I'm not one to break committments so I'm going to find a way to make it up to her somehow.

We'll she also is attending Roosevelt University in downtown Chicago, personally I don't like Chicago just something about it that annoys the crap out of me but alot of history is there in that city. The place of the Chicago fires, prohibition, the begginings of the Atom Bomb, and many more exciting tidbits of chronology! I might this fall go visit her or something while stopping to visit other friends along the way, you know trying to keep in touch see how they're doing those sort of things. Basically my Freshman year at VU is going to be ALOT of freetime thanks to AP testing and online courses, so I got to find a way to keep my mind from melting into boredom!

We'll it's like 1:10 in the morning so I'm going to call it a night and head out to Purdue in the morning to pick up those damned transcripts from their Animal Science and Plant Science depts. I need those things by Tuesday! So I'm hoping they are done or I might have to go postal on someone!

Up and atom...atom plant!

2006-06-18T15:04:00.000-07:00

Some of you may or may not be aware that the United States is in the process of re-building its nuclear arsenal, as our current nuclear weapons are how can I say are not the Energizer Bunny. So of course by 2020 we should have a brand new arsenal of deterrents and as for our old ones, I don't know let's make playground equipment out of them or something? I mean the Trident -II would make an awesome slide! We'll even make a kiddy play called the "Nukes of Hazard" which Tom and Luke run from the AEC and the evil Boss Hog!

But in all seriousness, I have no complaints about building up our arsenal or replacing out-dated technology as this is a dangerous and industrious world and you never know when you might need them, it'd be a shame if we were caught in the closet with our pants around our ankles now wouldn't it? One thing that kind of seems off to me is we have no problem building up our arsenal and disposing of half depleted uranium in some random desert, yet we have yet to build a new reactor since the 1979 Three Mile Island incident.

Even though the accident did minimal damage we still have this panic of a nuclear apocalypse off the Jersey shoreline embedded in the minds of every American alive during those times. The ridiculous thing about that fear is it was 1979 hell, we held heavy machinery together with duct tape, because quantity was better than quality during that time period. Now in 2006 (I hope) we have developed our technology and our common sense far enough to realize the faults and try our damned hardest not to repeat them.

Of course we hit our second obstacle, the all so famous "Terrorists could..." yeah they could do a lot of things so can I so can you, does that mean it's a certainty it WILL happen? No. It's just means you have to be a bit quicker than they do, maybe I don't know hire that extra security guard for third shift? Besides that if I were a terrorist I probably want the most efficient and least risky way of causing economical/political/collateral damage to my enemies, so this means I'd get my Uranium from some third world nation instead of breaking into Los Alamos or the AEC to quench my radioactive lust!

Both of those scenarios can easily be prevented with a little ingenuity, and maybe a little more intelligence from those in command? Now I know that a nuclear energy is a high investment, that aside think of the benefits, a cheap, abundant, and clean energy source that can be reused if we could refine the left over cesium some how? Not to mention the nuclear energy could create THOUSANDS of jobs from people who mine it, to those who utilize it, and those who oversee it. This would also stimulate international trade as Russia and countries in that region are the largest suppliers of pitchblende which contains the U-238 isotope required for enrichment.

Overall nuclear energy is good for the economy, good for business, and good for the environment, to deny its benefits based on fear alone is not only insane but profoundly retarded. You'd rather let things pass you by as you hold your damn head in the corner going "Mommy make the bad stuff go away!" I thought we were men not mice, pick yourself off the floors and go discover, create, and take risks...

After all man has never done anything great by sitting and thinking, he has done great things by taking some initiative.

Bernanke and The Fed

2006-06-16T18:04:00.000-07:00

It appears that our economy is slowly crawling out of the hole that we have been digging for ourselves over the past 5 years... Although we have not taken any real steps toward easing the tension of our fuel economy, I have high hopes that in the next six months some progress will be made within that area of our economy. Speaking of economy and government it appears Bernanke is wanting to raise interest rates, which I don't see as a bad thing, but could have some detrimental effects on heavy debtors and the lower-middle class.

Overall I think Bernanke is doing, a tremendous job! I don't blame him for anything that is wrong with economy at the moment as he came in at a crucial time, afterall we're fighting a war with record defecit, we are slowly pulling out of a recession and government revenue is on the decline as they continue to throw money at every problem they ever face! Although I'm more of a classical liberal in terms of economics *cough Libertarian* I can't help but feel empathy for those stuck in this tidal wave of politics. with everything now being politicized are the head hogs in Washington even doing anything to benefit the common man?

Hopefully Bernanke and the others in Washington pull their heads out of the sand and do something about Congress's reckless spending, and the Fed's inability to properly balance the economy. I'd hate to think of the effects if we continue down this road of decadence