Still Reading about the Economic Hitman

I posted a while ago about this book that I've been reading called "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. The reason it has taken me so long to read it is because it's so very depressing and I can only take it in small doses. I would recommend it to anyone because it's written so truthfully and you really feel bad for Perkins throughout, but it's terrible the things he got paid to do. The depressing part is that he realized how terrible his actions were but continued doing them despite how many lives he probably destroyed in the process. And for what? Money. He has since been out of the business, but what makes the book ever-so shocking is how easily he was able to persue his tasks under direct command by the US government. I want to write an excerpt from the book... to share with you the dilemma he faced.

"Beyond my own personal dilemmas, my times in Colombia also helped me comprehend the distinction between the old American republic and the new global empire. The republic offered hope to the world. Its foundation was moral and philosophical rather than materialistic. It was based on concepts of equality and justice for all. But it also could be pragmatic, not merely a utopian dream but also a living, breathing, magnanimous entity. It could open its arms to shelter the downtrodden. It was an inspiration and at the same time a force to reckon with; if needed, it could swing into action, as it had during World War II, to defend the principles for which it stood. The very institutions- the big corporations, banks, and government bureaucracies- that threaten the republic could be used instead to institute fundamental changes in the world. Such institutions possess the communications networks and transporation systems necessary to end disease, starvation, and even wars- if only they could be conviced to take that course.

The global empire, on the other hand, is the republic's nemesis. It is self-centered, self-serving, greedy, and materialistic, a system based on mercantalism. Like empires before, its arms open only to accumulate resources, to grab everything in sight and stuff its insatiable maw. It will use whatever means it deems necessary to help its rulers gain more power and riches."

I've said before that I believe this country had great opportunity when Columbus discovered this land. It was immediately ruined when the Pilgrims came with their heads full of new freedoms and opportunity. They didn't think. They didn't know what we do now (duh) and they set a precedence. They spread new traditions and diseases. They created immediate inequality when they disbarred the "red man." Then they turned to the dust and played 'cowboys and indians' for a couple hundred years. Then they starting bringing African men and women over here because they heard they could turn more profit with slavery. It was all about the money then, and it continues to be about the money now. With the Africans came malaria and AIDS. It was about black-vs-white and red-vs-white. Then people started thinking and it resulted in the Civil War. Then it was red-vs-white, black-vs-white, and white-vs-white with the north against the south. Then there was the Underground Railroad when Harriet Tubman thought that her efforts would free runaway slaves from a life full of torture, hatred, distrust, and abuse. She didn't realize that the white-man would NEVER EVER EVER treat her people with the love, honesty, and loyalty that they truly deserved. Even to this day in March of 2008, well beyond the years we thought we would even exist, racism and discrimination run rampant, but now on a global scale. We are called "the land of plenty" where we can choose our own path and pick from the fruit of our nation's loins. We think about now, about instant satisfaction without thinking of the consequences. We discovered the use of oil and began tapping the earth only to suck it dry. People say there's plenty of it, but our planet is only so big and oil doesn't generate itself faster than we consume it. But we don't think about that. My aunt told me the other day, and this does not surprise me, that there is a "peak" oil level-- and we have gone passed the peak. This means we are on our way to running out. We assume that whatever hasn't already been taken is ours and ours only. We plant a flag and draw an imaginary line to CLAIM IN THE NAME OF ME.. not allowing anyone else to benefit unless they pay for it. Then we don't think about what effects our consumption has on the planet and each other. We don't CARE that Mother Earth created us and we're destroying it in a "thank-you" card.

We are going to kill ourselves off, you must realize. This is not a paranoid side effect of the copius amounts of smoke that I pot. It's the truth. One way or another, we will end our own existence. And for what? For a bigger paycheck.. for diamonds and jewels that made us happy for only the moment they were purchased.. for furs and glamour.. stretch Hummer 2's and i-Phones.. celebrity status and parties with Hef.. We think having nice cars, homes and clothes makes us "better" because that's what we see on TV. We buy buy BUY and don't know how to balance a checkbook. There's something wrong with that. I have a couple theories as to how we will cause our own extinction:

1. Robot Apocolypse: not in the sense that you may think where actual robots take over the world to spite their human creators. I mean in the sense that because we have come to rely so heavily on the use of computers, and other such technologies, that a mistake WILL happen somewhere and a glitch in the system will go unnoticed. We know how catastophic a tiny glitch can be, as it can cause mass hysteria-- a side-effect of human nature. Remember Y2K? Yea- didn't happen. But you know what did? millions of people started stocking food and water.. they came up with family plans as far as where to go and what to do. People started preparing for a small apocolypse, all because we WEREN'T SURE if computers would make the 2000 switch when the year turned at midnight. All it would take is what was depicted in "Fight Club" to tear down some corporations and eventually the millions of people who have their lives invested in them.

2. Environmental Catastrophe: If the first one doesn't happen, this one will be the next likely. If we continue doing what we have been doing without changing our behavior, we will run out of natural resources and turn the globe into a sizzling ball of radiation and sludge. Although I think it would take a long time for us to actually die off from these bahaviors because humans are the most adaptable animals in the entire kingdom, it will happen.. eventually. As we consume and consume and consume, we neglect our lands and refuse to replace what we've taken from them because the work is "too hard." It's easier to take than it is to give, and that's exactly what we're going to do until we either realize the consequences of these behaviors, or just run ourselves off the planet. We cut and burn down thousands of acres of trees and rainforest every day and use the lumber for buildings and businesses and furniture and back-yard playgrounds for our children. We even use natural resources to fuel the vehicles used to cut down the trees. So we're not only cutting down our source of oxygen, we're thickening the air with the exhaust that comes from the vehicles we use in order to cut the trees down. Not only that, but by cutting down trees, we're cutting down entire ecosystems. And we don't even empathize! How would we feel if aliens came down and took over the planet just because we were weaker and they could use our planet for their own bidding? We would HATE it! We would try whatever we could in order to fight them off and probably lose because if they had resources to get to our planet, I'm sure they would have enough to destroy it.

3. the fall of Global Empire: ALL EMPIRES HAVE FAILED. We're already on our way to this status as the US tries to police everyone else. With the 5 powers of the world, we will likely unite.. rape and pillage.. and fall together. How nice. There are talks of an international ID card and currency. The Euro is already used in Europe, and the US is on the way of producing the Amero in order to unite Canada, the US, and Mexico. And then there are talks of a computer chip being inserted in our children as soon as next year. Like I said- ALL EMPIRES HAVE FAILED and we are no smarter or different. We're smarter as far as technologies go, but we still exhibit human behavior with instincts to compete and win.

WE CANNOT BE NAIIVE TO OUR OWN BEHAVIORS AND THINK EVERYTHING WILL BE OK.

THINGS WILL CATCH UP, AND WE WILL LOSE. Sad, but true.

peace and hope

Easter Sunday

This is definitely one of those days where being athiest isn't worth mentioning. I'm almost mad that I still have to celebrate this Christian holiday with my family and boyfriend's family, and I only celebrate it out of respect for those that I care about. Shouldn't it then be considered disrespectful on the part of my family because they don't acknowledge my LACK of faith? Of course, not everyone in my family is aware that I've denounced my religion, and it's not exactly something to brag about, as it is rarely taken as a light subject.

My dad made a big deal about seeing me today, and got upset that I didn't treat the day as he would. Last week, he said we had reservations at some restaurant at 2pm and a bunch of my other family members would be there too to celebrate Easter. First of all, this makes me mad because although he may have considered my beliefs before asking me to join them, he would have gotten mad if I rejected the offer. So I told him that since I got off work at 1pm, I would be able to make it down there to join them at 2. Fine. Now, my own beliefs tell me to respect every individual, as each person has their own will to follow whatever religion they want and do as they please. That's their perogative and none of my business. Well, the story changed when my dad called me Friday and told me the reservation had been pushed back to 1pm because my cousin has to have his kids to their mom by 3:30. My dad THEN asked me to get off work early so I could join them. Am I out of line to say that this was disrespectful? It's one thing to get out an hour early in the restaurant/office setting, and a completely different situation when you work in broadcasting. I can't just GET OUT early, as if I only have a certain amount of work to do before I'm allowed to leave. I'm forced to make sure shit doesn't blow up and stations don't go off the air. If they do for any amount of time, it could cost me my job. So still, am I out of line? So i said "No I can't just leave an hour early" and went on to explain why it's different for me than it is for him. And then he said "I didn't even know you worked on Sundays." I work EVERY Sunday, and I have worked every Sunday for about a year now. I usually talk to him on Sundays and I always tell him that I just got off work. WHERE THE HELL HAS HE BEEN? So he made a big deal out of it and told me that he would at least like to see me on Easter because it was such an important day to him. I told him that I could see him on any other day and it would be just as special as the last (and BTW- i thought this would be a touching addition.. it apparently was not). A holiday doesn't make seeing someone any more special. Well, he disagreed, and insisted on me at least stopping by to see him. Fine. OUT OF RESPECT FOR HIM, I will go see him. Why does a child have to show so much more respect for her parent when she doesn't come CLOSE to recieving the same amount in return? Where is the fairness in all of this? Shouldn't HE respect MY beliefs and accept that I don't have a particular reason to see him on the day celebrating the resurrection of his savior? Then he asked if I would be doing anything with Joey's family and I said "yes" as if he should have figured that much as well. See, my dad has a hard time believing that anyone has a life outside of his own. This may help you understand why this is difficult for me. Then he mentioned that my mom's family is getting together, but since I'm working he'll go ahead and tell them I won't be able to make it. LIE. I WILL be able to make it there and I never gave any indication that I couldn't. But denying HIS family get-together at a specified time ultimately translated into not being able to do anything with either side all day. Here is a perfect situation where I wish my mom was still alive... she would tell me that my dad is crazy and this is why she divorced him (man i loved my mom.. always had the right thing to say). She would also say that she would like me to join them, but would probably understand if I couldn't make it. Man I miss her.. But my mom's death aside, my dad pissed me off once again and I have to play nice all day in front of three different family settings. I hate the holidays.

Oh, and I found on Wiki how the Easter Egg thing came about. Before I typed any of this, I was fuming and needed more of an excuse to bad-mouth this commercialized day. Well, I lost some steam on the way and I'm not so angered by it anymore, but I'm sure a lot of people don't really know where the egg things came from. Well, according to Wikipedia "Traditionally, Easter eggs, hard-boiled eggs dyed bright red to symbolize the spilt Blood of Christ and the promise of eternal life, are cracked together to celebrate the opening of the Tomb of Christ." Now this makes sense, but where did the bunny come in? That I couldn't find, and it will remain a mystery to even the most devout Catholics. Try and solve that one, dad.

Kinda angry..

..at Joey. He broke my piece. He knocked my right-front wheel cover off of my brand-new car by hitting a curb. I have reason to believe he lost one of my Family Guy discs: when I get discs out of the 360, I put them in their cases; when he takes discs out, he doesn't. Of course, I don't have a perfect track record, and I do tend to just lay discs down, but if it's a movie that belongs in a case, I put it back. If it's a game that I assume he will play soon, I leave it out. I know he doesn't have a job right now and some of these things are just waiting on his earning of a paycheck. But he has found enough money to buy pot since he has been unemployed, and I think some of that money should have been spent fixing the things of mine that he broke. He also likes to stay up until all hours of the morning playing video games (which I don't care about) while I'm in bed early to go to work at 5am. He always comes in and wakes me up (one of the most annoying things you can do to me is mess with my sleep) and doesn't latch the door, which ALWAYS leads to my cat pushing the door open and looting around. We don't let the cat in our room. He never wakes up to the door opening; therefore I do and am forced to get up, shoo the kitty, and shut the door. Which then delays my sleep even more and makes me more upset. He never takes the trash out. He doesn't take initiative. He doesn't take care of me and it makes me wonder if that will ever change... I feel like I'm leading him through MY life, that he's just with me because it's somewhere to be; it's out of his parents' house. I also kinda feel like he wouldn't be making it without me and that scares me. I can't take care of somebody else while I'm trying to take care of myself. I'm not a mother right now for that reason. I feel that if I don't tell him what to do, he won't do it and we'll be fucked. I can't be in a relationship where I feel that I'm doing the majority of the work. I shouldn't have to remind him to pay our bills. I shouldn't have to bargain with him about things he should take initiative on. I can't drive everywhere we go just because I have the better car. He always pulls the "but I hate my car!" card and I'm fed up with it. He borrows money from his parents to spend on pot and then complains "I only have $40 spending money." WTF? I know he loves me, but I think the only way he knows how to show it is to smother me with kisses. That'a cute and all, but it gets old. I know this is cliche, but I need a MAN who will take care of me. Tell ME what to do. Tell ME to take the trash out. Remind ME to pay the bills. Ask ME to help clean the bathroom. Offer to drive his own car. Give ME pointers on how to save money. Just make some decisions on his own and lead me through HIS life a little bit. I enjoy being a leader and making stable decisions during the day, but I also like coming home and being told "we're doing THIS tonight." We sold some video games the other day and only one of his 5 games were accepted because the discs were either in terrible condition, they didn't have their books, or the discs were missing completely. 4 of my 5 were taken. I do have to say that we didn't realize the books were required for resale, but his lack of responsibility for his own belongings only ensures me of his lack of willingness to take care of mine. How can I expect him to take care of me when he can't even take care of himself?

I don't think I have unreasonable expectations because most "normal" people expect their partner to contribute as much to the relationship as they do. I always tend to date men who need someone to take care of them. Who's gonna take care of me? What happened to the traditional male whose first priority was to take care of his woman? To protect her? I know I'm not really a traditional person, but there are some things that I want out of my man and I don't feel like I'm getting it... I want to be told not to worry about it. I don't want to be called the 'awesome girlfriend' just because I like video games. THAT IS NOT MY ONLY GOOD QUALITY! He likes me because I like to do things that he enjoys. What about me? Why doesn't he do things that I like to do?

I wonder why he's with me.. Whenever I ask him what he likes about me, all he says is that he likes being able to play video games with me. ok... why is that an endearing quality? Why is THAT the one thing he likes about me? I'm wondering where he expects this relationship to go. I wonder what he expects of ME.

It would be great if neither of us expected anything but love and support from the other. It would be great to carry on this relationship with unconditional love, but there comes a point where unconditional can turn to naiivity. I can love him for who he is, no matter what. That's unconditional. But I find it hard to call it 'unconditional' sometimes when he continues to prove his incapabilities. He's so smart and has so much common sense too, so it's REALLY hard to understand why he acts a certain way sometimes. I wonder where he gets this sense that he's powerless; that his opinion doesn't matter; that people don't care about him. He will only receive reciprocal love if he gives it.

I want to know why he wants to stay with me. I want him to give me a reason to stay with him. I want this to light a fire up under his ass and make him jump up and shout "because I love you more than anyone on this planet! because I will provide for you, care for you, and love you for as long as I can! because you love me!" If we're gonna be adults and live together, I expect him to at least ACT like one. I want him to save his money and buy things for himself rather than rely on mom and dad, or decide to choose a meal over an eighth. I'm tired of living paycheck-to-paycheck because I'm providing for both of us on two part-time jobs. I'm sick of asking him how we're going to pay for rent. I'm tired of feeling insecure in this relationship. I need to know where we stand; where he expects us to go together. because if he wants to be with me, he will do ANYTHING to keep me.

I feel like I've been taken for granted...

The best way to describe...

My atheism: I always think about the person in front of me. If I drink the last of the water, I refill the water so the next person can drink water. Had to write it down. Nobody reads this anyway.

-------------------------------------------------
yea i know, this doesn't make sense. i was slightly elevated at the time of its conception, so allow me to try and make sense of it. i'm not sure how i intended to relate it to my atheism... but here we go.

when people need something or want something to better their life, they call to their God. they pray and ask for guidance, and if they don't get it, they pray harder. if that still doesn't work, they question their own faith. that's a stuggle; to be questioning yourself and not really EVER sure if you're right. but you have to have faith, because that is what makes God real to people. they BELIEVE that God is there; that he/she's listening. when i grew up, i never felt like i was being heard. it felt like talking to a brick. i couldn't even fabricate what i thought God was saying to me. i know that even those of the most faithful would say that God never actually speaks to them, but they just know he/she's listening. that's not enough for me. the absence of a God on my part enables me to believe in people. i see and interact with people on a regular basis and i can trust that they will ALWAYS act like human beings. they will always be honest or lie; be happy or sad; be planning for the future or living it day-to-day. i can ALWAYS rely on people to act like people. this relates to my statement above because with my reliance upon people, I feel that people have the same reliance upon me. basically, treat people the way you want to be treated. sound familiar? see, i DO think that the basic principles of Christianity make sense. they're reasonable, honest, and expect a certain goodness within all people. no person is any better than the next, yet we argue about who's right and which religion will get us into to heaven. i say, "why does it matter?" i don't think anyone is any more right than my left foot. we find such solace in separating ourselves by religion, race, class, gender, and sexual orientation, yet we make sure that everything is politically correct. we're going to politically correct ourselves into extinction.

would you like a glass of water?

I want to wring someone's neck...

I don't agree with these things. THis was posted on myspace and I had to spread it's ignorance.


(about Ron Paul)
Maybe I'm missing something, but the last time I checked, college students weren't the ones who stand to benefit from a candidate who believes in:1. Destroying free public education at all levels K-12 and beyond (i.e. abolish the dept. of education, arguing that all education should be a profit-driven business venture, advocating home-schooling, opposing all public spending initiatives, eroding funding by eliminating taxes on the wealthy).According to Paul’s free market fundamentalism, education should be treated just like any other commodity, like an iPhone, and purchased only if you have enough money to afford it. On his view, it is neither a social good nor a right that any fair or just society should try to ensure. Your parents don't earn enough to pay out of pocket for your schooling? Ron Paul says 'tough luck.' Ron Paul has argued that “parents have the right to spend their money on the school they deem appropriate for their children”, which actually means that a students access to education ought to be directly proportional to how much money their parents have.Notice that abolishing the Dept of Education would also mean abolishing Pell Grants and Stafford Loans and all Federal Financial Aid for college students, a major reason why hundreds of thousands of students can afford to attend college.Ron Paul is a long-time supporter of home-schooling and has long argued that taxation (the source of funding for the institution of public education) is theft. Most advocates of education acknowledge that public schools are under-funded and teachers are viciously under-paid and underappreciated. The regressive system of using property taxes from surrounding areas to fund schools leaves students in poor neighborhoods with scant resources, rotting infrastructure and an unfair restriction on their capacity to learn and become educated. Ron Paul’s position, is ‘tough luck.’True, No Child Left Behind is a horrible program, but it does not follow that any form of federal aid to public schools around the nation is therefore horrible. Just about all advocates of the public school system oppose NCLB, but next to none of them are on board with Ron Paul’s stone-age, home-school-yourself, anti-public school mantra.Expect at this point that his defenders will reply in the following way: "C'mon... even though he believes this he wont actually go through with it! Congress wouldn't let him! He would just focus on dismantling education funding at the Federal level! He actually loves public education at the state level even though he abhors public spending and argues that profit-driven markets solve all problems."------------2. Making racist remarks such as "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." Paul was also part of a racist newsletter which made statements like, "only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions" and "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."Another one of Ron Paul’s newsletters “The Ron Paul Political Report”, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year, claimed that "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. At another part of the newsletter, we learn that the riots were actually the result of “"'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda."In early 1990, another Ron Paul newsletter, “The Ron Paul Survival Report” had a special issue on the "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it."Paul’s Newsletter also had many kind words for former KKK leader David Duke, claiming that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom."Ron Paul has argued on many occasions (most recently on “Meet The Press”) that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a MISTAKE which "reduced individual liberties.” Paul has made it absolutely clear that he would have voted against the bill had been in office at that time, a convenient position for a crusty old racist white man to take, having never lived under the oppression of Jim Crow.On the topic of slavery, Ron Paul believes that it was a crime that the federal government actually 'stole' the private property of slave owners because of emancipation. On his view, slaves should have been * purchased * out of slavery. The fact that he would even entertain for a moment the thought of 'compensating' a class of whites responsible for designating human beings as property, for rape, cultural destruction, vicious oppression and terrorism against blacks, speaks volumes about Paul’s political philosophy.This is not simply an anomaly to the rest of Paul’s beliefs, but rather, a long standing part of his far-Right, racist politics. Note also that Paul is a longstanding supporter of the Confederacy and has argued on several occasions in favor of secession.------------3. Staunchly opposing universal health care (national health insurance) and in favor of further privatizing a putrid for-profit system that rakes in billions in returns for its ownership while close to 50 million Americans are uninsured (as opposed to ZERO in Canada) and many of those that are insured get dropped or drowned in extremely costly co-pays and premiums. Right now, health bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US and the US Healthcare system ranks 37th worldwide. Ron Paul argues that if we'd just give the private insurance corporations more 'freedom', only then could they show their truly amicable intentions and the whole situation would be puppy-dogs and ice-cream. Like education, Ron Paul believes that access to life-saving health care is just a commodity, to be made available only to those who can afford it. For Ron Paul, democracy is the problem and markets are always the solution, in other words, power belongs in the pocketbook and not at the polling station.But... Ron Paul is a doctor. So whatever he says is probably the right thing to believe.------------4. Worsening the student debt crisis by further gutting (I say 'further gutting' because Bush and his GOP congress made putative cuts in 2005) programs like Pell Grants and Stafford Loans and giving even more of the student loan system over to a (corrupt, as we've seen from recent revelations in NY) billion-dollar for-profit industry.The answer to the student debt crisis, according to Paul, is to slice and dice all public spending on higher education and give the whole system over (i.e. privatize it) to huge corporate banks who run the billion-dollar student loan racket. Remember, education isn't a public good or a right, it should be thought of like any other mundane commodity (e.g. frosted wheats) and bought and traded as such. Your parents can’t afford college out of pocket? Ron Paul blames you (not an unjust system in which access to education is restricted by social status) for not taking ‘personal responsibility’.------------5. Destroying the environment: in the 109th Congress alone, he voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to allow new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. For Ron Paul, any law which restricts the behavior of business owners to maximize profits is a bad law. When it comes down to the uninhibited pursuit of profits ad infinitum versus creating a sustainable society built around the ideas of human and environmental health, Ron Paul will always choose the former. He has openly admitted on many occasions that a “solid respect for property rights will make for a healthy environment.” I, for my part, fail to see how giving Exxon-Mobil and Monsanto more leeway to do whatever they please and taking away all regulations and restrictions on what they can and cannot do the environment makes for a healthy anything.We should find this as no surprise, however, since Ron Paul holds the insane quasi-religious conviction that markets and profit-motives will always produce perfect outcomes, come hell or high water.------------6. Supporting right-wing anti-choice laws and stripping women of reproductive rights. Ron Paul preaches a good deal about 'letting the states decide' ..ion, however, he has attempted to ban abortion at the federal level (Sanctity of Life Act). Furthermore, the 'states rights' position on this issue is nothing other than a means of avoiding giving arguments and subsequently creating a smokescreen for weakening legal and safe access to abortion. If you're actually against abortion, come out and say so. "States rights" doesn't begin to give an answer to the difficult political questions that abortion creates, it only gives a quick-and-dirty means of shutting off discussion and sneaking in ways of dismantling legal, safe access to abortion.But don't bother thinking for yourself on this issue... just repeat 'states rights' incessantly and remind us that Ron Paul is a doctor (and therefore, couldn't but be correct on the issue).------------7. Supporting and espousing homophobic and anti-gay politics. Ron Paul wrote a bill called the "Family Protection Act" that starts with abolishing the Department of Education and ends with "Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style."In 1990, a "Ron Paul Political Report" newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine "who certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist." In an item titled, "The Pink House?" the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite "the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony," adding, "I miss the closet." "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, "Bring Back the Closet!" Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."------------8. Opposing Church-State Separation: From keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to co-sponsoring the school prayer amendment to keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, this "strict constitutionalist" isn't a big fan of the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. He will tow the 'states rights' line here as well, but make no mistake about his support for allowing religious conservatives to demolish state/church separation (Read the bill he sponsored, the frightening "We The People Act"). Paul also believes the Constitution is "replete with references to God" even though it makes none whatsoever... so much for his billing as a 'Constitutionalist'.We should also take note that Ron Paul has made clear on several occasions that he DOES NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. I’m not so sure how I would feel having a doctor operate on me that believed I was ‘intelligently designed.’------------9. Supports the repeal of public programming like NPR, PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. These are examples of the terrors of "big government", according to Paul.Yet, for all the vitriol he may (or may not) spew at news outlets like Fox News, big corporate cable media of this sort is precisely what unfettered markets both produce and nourish. Fox News isn't about good journalism, it is the paradigm of commodified, profit-obsessed, tabloid-quality entertainment-trash which is what happens when media becomes an industry set up to make the most money possible.What if producing necessary, critical, in-depth, thoughtful and engaging journalism isn't the most lucrative option in a market rife with entertainment-kitsch 'news'? Is critical journalism therefore less necessary for any conception of democracy worthy of the name?------------10. Supporting xenophobic anti-immigrant positions. This is where Ron Paul's nativist and Right-wing tendencies are most pronounced. This is also another issue (the others being his racist and anti-gay views) where Ron Paul draws the staunch support of Far-Right groups such as Neo-Nazis.According to Ron Paul, immigrants, even those who have lived here for decades, aren't human beings... according they are 'aliens' who must be expelled from our society. According to this logic, we should not try to make legal immigration less absurd and exclusive, we should not try to include the ranks of undocumented workers into our society, but we should punish the U.S.-born children of undocumented workers by denying them access to education. This isn't about 'following the law'... this is about thwarting any legal or political changes that might allow Mexican workers to come to the U.S., a nation in which the only 'native' inhabitants largely live on reservations. Nationalism, like Ron Paul, is a disease.------------11. Opposing every single gain that the Labor Movement has made this century. Ron Paul is against worker's rights, workplace democracy and virulently opposed to workers organizing themselves against exploitative employers (Ron Paul has consistently voted against stopping employer interference in union organizing and he opposes the Employee Free Choice Act.) Note also that from Ron Paul's libertarian perspective, workers are nothing other than exchangeable commodities, not human beings who depend on the wages they earn from their labor to live on. According to free-market orthodoxy, labor laws establishing 40 hr work weeks and workdays, overtime, OSHA, unionization, etc are all "rigidities" which disrupt a firm's ability to maximize profits for ownership most effectively. If it weren't for regulation of business we wouldn't have labor laws prohibiting unsafe work environments and child labor... of course these things were both popular during Ron Paul's favored period of American history: The Gilded Age.------------12. Favoring the abolishment of the minimum wage altogether (a standard libertarian belief.) Let me repeat this one more time: RON PAUL THINKS WE SHOULD ABOLISH THE MINIMUM WAGE ALTOGETHER. Remember, according to this logic we need to let businesses push wages as low as they want because to do otherwise is for democracy to lay its dirty hands on the immaculate 'free market'. The minimum wage, according to libertarians, forbids greedy employers from pushing wages low enough that they can take on more laborers without sharing any of the proportion of profits funneled straight to the top... thus their argument is that the minimum wage 'causes' unemployment (its unclear what good full employment is if the jobs being created pay poverty wages). However, the fact of the matter is that NO hard-working human being EVER deserves to work 40 hours a week for a pay check that cannot meet their most basic needs. Ron Paul opposes the minimum wage because it doesn't allow profit-hungry businesses to make wages LOW ENOUGH. Talk about having the wrong priorities. This should come as no surprise since just about all of Ron Paul's politics rest on a fundamental preference for the good of business over the good of society.------------13. Destroying the graduated income tax (reverting to the regressive system in place during the Gilded Age), letting the rich get out of paying their fair share and depleting funding for social goods. On Ron Paul’s view, it’s ‘communistic and against liberty’ for Warren Buffet to be expected to pay more in taxes than someone working two jobs earning less than $20,000/year. It’s the prerogative of freedom, however, that businesses be encouraged to drop real wages as low as possible. The more the scheme of taxation shifts the burden from the rich onto the working and middle classes, the better according to Ron Paul. The values of civic duty, social responsibility or solidarity are trash according to Paul, who consistently aims to encourage and insulate the greediest, most anti-social and avaricious among us.------------14. Repealing the most effective and popular social program in our nation’s history, Social Security. He also favors trashing Medicaid, Medicare, and every other social program put in place since the New Deal... he also probably thinks that Public Libraries are 'communistic institutions' and that if you cannot afford a book, you should just take personal responsibility and go out and buy it yourself (or write one yourself and then read it yourself.) Oh, the collectivist horror of making books available to everyone free of charge! How dare they bring men with guns to 'steal' my tax dollars in order to fund public services! Outrage!------------15. Being content with genocide in Sudan and enabling the perpetuation of atrocities. Ron Paul voted against a bill that would have required the Federal Government to divest from corporations doing business with mass murders in Sudan. Instead of making a statement against nihilistic profit-obsessed corporations, RP preferred a masturbatory "No" vote demonstrating his isolationist and anarcho-capitalist 'street cred'.-------------16. Spearheading pork-projects totaling in the billions for his district by means of earmarks. Ron Paul does not deny this, however, claims that the money ‘has to be spent somewhere’ and thus might as well be spent on his district. I guess spending that money on things like healthcare and education are atrocious violations of our freedom and tantamount to authoritarianism, but its no big thing if Ron Paul siphons billions of tax dollars to fund projects for his district in Texas.------------Yes, Ron Paul is against the Iraq War, and so are Pat Buchanan and David Duke (a major supporter of Ron Paul, incidentally). The fact that he is against the Iraq war alone isn’t enough to actually make the guy worth a second look. He's also not the only person running for president who is advocating withdrawal (Kucinich (D) and Gravel (D), both of whom also have no chance of receiving a nomination, both advocate immediate withdrawal.) His non-interventionist (i.e. Paleo-Conservative isolationist) position on Iraq cannot be a compelling reason to suspend judgment about the lunacy of his other positions."But he's consistent throughout his whole career!" They will say. Yes, we agree, but since when is being consistently wrong about everything that matters a good thing?----------Ron Paul has failed to break into the top 3 in either Iowa, or the heavily-libertarian state of New Hampshire (where his dupes claimed he would win for sure.) He has no chance of winning the nomination and we should expect his numbers to steadily decline from their current peak during the post-NH primary run. Oh, but it has been very impressive how many morons decided to throw away their money by donating it to this loon. Kudos to Ron Paul and his squad.As a Congressman, Ron Paul (R-TX) has voted with his party nearly 80% of the time, which places him firmly within the bounds of a "rank-and-file-Republican".

MLK March

My friend Rachelle and I are going to attend a Martin Luther King, Jr. march in honor of his legacy on the 21st of this month. I've never marched for anything before, and I'm quite eager to see how us white folk will be accepted.

I'm quite bothered by intolerance, racism, oppression, and unequal/unethical treatment of others. I'm appalled that these things still exist today, even after MLK's message to the people. I'm more bothered by this:

Rachelle (19) was dating this guy who was 38, and black. I have nothing against either of these characteristics, although the 38 was a little scary, because I didn't want anything bad to happen to my friend. Well, she still sees him and talks to him on a semi-normal basis, and the more she tells me about him, the more I fear for her life. Since the beginning of their relationship, she has told me nothing good about this guy. He's racist against white people (which makes me wonder how they started getting along in the first place), he preaches intolerance (hence making him a hypocrate), carries a large knife with him to 'protect himself from the crazy people,' criticizes Rachelle for being an "ignorant white person," and thinks that white people who are nice to him are just being nice in fear of him being black. So basically, he thinks the world is out to get him. He's going on this MLK march with us, and I'm almost fearing for my own life, especially if he's going to be carrying his Crocodile Dundee knife (yea.. now THAT'S a knife).

Last night, he sent her a text message, saying something along the lines of "you're just going on this march to make white people look good; that they actually care about us negros. have you ever heard of marcus garvey and (two other names that I didn't recognize)? if there was a rally for them, would you go?" Basically criticizing her (and me at the same time, probably without even realizing it) because she wants to participate in something that he believes to be an only black thing to do. He says that white people only go to these marches because they "feel sorry for black people."

Did he ever think that there are people who actually want to combat racism? That being oppressed isn't such a "black" thing anymore? That white people actually care about black people not because they're black, but because they're people? Did he ever think that the only way to get rid of racism is to let go of it? Stop sending in poor representation like Reverend Sharpton to speak for all black people, assuming what he says is 100% correct and unbiased. Showing your own intolerance only PERPETUATES that intolerance. Getting mad at white people for being racist shows your own racism. Pointing a finger only gets four more pointed back.

Here are a few questions I have, and feel free to comment: Was MLK's message directed only towards black people? How do you think he would feel if he knew the level of racism that still exists today? And-- is it fair to bring up the past as justification for the future?

Welcome, Ms. New Year

It's that time to be thinking about what comes with the new year: Resolutions to be broken, new beginnings, and my favorite-- tax season! But I'm not about to go on about how corrupt the taxing system is, for I have better things to rant about. I've been thinking about what I would like to accomplish for myself this year and either I'm boring or I have low standards, but I can't really think of anything!

One thing I REALLY look forward to is graduating from college. This is the year I can claim my Bachelors and lose my health insurance. I'm going to get a full-time job and rake in the dough! This is the year of the rest of my life! Or is it?

I have so many aspirations, yet, I'm not completely sure how I'm going to follow through with them. I could just do what I always do: dive in and hope things work out. Here's my laundry list:

-buy a building for business/residential use
-build my studio
-get new computer to support advanced audio editing software
-get a raise... or perhaps a new job altogether...
-save money!!

Here's the catch.. I don't know where I want to set all this up. Do I want to stay here in Ohio with my family and friends... where I know every street like the back of my hand? Where I've been to school from beginning to end... where I started my life and experienced all four seasons every year up-to-date? Or should I start fresh, somewhere I have no opinion of.. somewhere I can realize my potential by wiping the slate clean? New York? LA? Chicago? Oh man I would love to go to Chicago... I need to update my resume.

Of course, I'm assuming that I won't screw up my scheduling and will be out of school by June, and we know what happens when you assume... All I need is Lady Luck and a bucket full of ambition, and June will be here before I know it.

Peace and Pie

Validation Part Deux

Talked to my dad again about things and it worked out well. I think we came to an understanding, and some time has gone by so I could gather my thoughts. I got everything off my chest, and he said he would try his best to work on things. I'm relieved. I knew this animosity wouldn't carry on forever, but I was worried that I would just have to give up the struggle and leave it alone. I can't do that. I can't leave things alone until resolved. I I do, it eats me alive. I have too much of a conscience.

I can't remember if I mentioned this before, but a large problem was that he couldn't wrap his head around my atheism. It's very hard to explain to someone who attributes their entire existance to creationism that I need to "see it to believe it." That instead of having faith in God, I have faith in people. That in order for something to happen, I don't pray for it, I do it. Some people say that good things come to those who wait, but if there's a God, he takes too long. I explained to my dad that it is just as conceivable to say "God always was and always will be" as it is to say that life just started with the big bang. Both are as unbelievable as the next. Nobody can explain it, so I leave it alone. I find that physical evidence is more believable than God putting it there. I believe in billions of years of evolution over seven days of creation. I believe Darwin's Theory of evolution and natural selection. It's almost common sense to me. I see evidence in human adaptations as proof of evolution. How else could our African origin be explained? Humans came out of Africa (that's right, we were all black at one point) and moved north. As they moved further north, their physical features changed (skin color) because they didn't need the protective mellatonin to protect them from harsh UV rays. Skin color lightened as the need for mellatonin decreased (hence white people). And so on and so on. Direct proof in our own species. BUT I could be argued against, and I'm not shitting on those who would. Need to scoot..

peace and back pain!

Validation

Since I was about thirteen I've had a rocky relationship with my dad. I never really understood why and neither has he. Last Friday we had what some may call a "breakthrough" at our counseling session, mostly because there was a lot of crying and a lot of confessing. Oh yea-- I'm going to counseling to seek help for my family's abrupt loss of my mom. A little over a month ago when I was still in school and super stressed out from exams, papers, and my monthly visitor, I happened to mention to my dad that I wanted some counseling. He took that as his cue to seek family counseling for all of us.

After our heated session Friday afternoon, my dad called me that night and requested that we have dinner to talk about some of the things we had said to each other. I told him that I didn't think it was such a good idea to talk about those things until they were resolved and some time had passed. I explained that we shouldn't try to resolve our issues outside of counseling because that's why we're going in the first place: because thus far, we have been unsuccessful doing it ourselves. He took it as "I don't want to talk to you" and didn't understand what I was trying to say. Because he didn't understand, he continued to try to convince me that having a dinner to discuss things would be a good idea because we needed to talk about "some of the things we said to each other." From the way he said it, I knew all he wanted to do was to say that he loves me and try to convince me that he's not a bad guy. I already know these things. Every time we have a conversation about our "issues" he always ends with "I still love you" as if I were to forget at some point amidst the anger and tears. That's good and all, but it has become redundant and almost meaningless. I agreed to dinner, but I told him that it was not a good idea to talk about the issues that were unresolved during counseling since thus far we had been unsuccessful ourselves. We set the date for last night.

We went to Panera and, of course, it was delicious. We ended up talking about the things I said we shouldn't talk about, but that came to no surprise to me because knowing my dad it was inescapable. I tried to explain to him how he has made me feel over the last decade-or-so, and that he doesn't listen to me. He doesn't listen to me. Did I mention that he doesn't listen to me? I made a point of saying it a couple times to him, hoping that maybe somewhere in there he would listen. He thinks that he did something when I was younger that has made me resent him over the years. I explained that it was not a specific incident, rather, it was the accumulation of smaller incidents that have built up my resentment. It's what he has said to me and my brothers, how he treats other people, his list of priorities, his bigotry and sexism, and his unwilligness to change any of it. He is petrified of change, especially in himself, and until he accepts change as an inevitability, we can't get along in the areas we would like to.

If only he had listened to more David Bowie's "changes.."

"I can't change time, but it will change me..." or something.

Peace and whatever

The Golden Compass

I want to see this movie just to understand what all the hub-bub is. The Golden Compass is intended for children but I don't care, dammit! I want to see what reviewers are calling "anti-God." A small synopsis of the movie is here.

Apparently, the dude who wrote the books that the movie was based on is openly agnostic and athiest, and all the Christians are freaking out because he's "promoting atheism and turning children against God." Some critics say he aimed it towards children on purpose so they would go see the movie with their parents and request the books for Christmas. If this is true, he's not a very good athiest.

When you're an athiest, you don't promote atheism. If you are a TRUE athiest, you won't care what others believe especially considering some kind of religion has been the base of [probably] every civilization since the beginning of pragmatic man. You can't really change people now. The only thing I do like about this is that it offers an open-minded theory. It could get children thinking, which is something they should do-- always. Parents should not shield their children from, well, anything. Hasn't anyone heard the case of the preacher's daughter? Shelter her until she's 18 and then when she's out of the house she goes crazy-nuts trying to make up for every dumb thing she was kept from doing as a kid? Yea.

Yesterday I produced our morning show and our morning show host put his opinion over the radio waves. He said "My kids said they wanted to go see this movie and I said 'no' because of the content" and blah blah blah. I was sitting there kind-of fuming, mostly because minutes later I received a call from a dude who said "Tell [host's name] I'm glad he gave his opinion of the movie" and blah blah blah. A lady in New York said "The Christians have been prosecuted more than any other group or religion..." I about fainted. Who in the right mind actually believes the Christians have been oppressed MORE-SO than their religious counterparts?! What about the Jews? Muslims? BLACK PEOPLE! WOMEN! EVERYBODY has been more oppressed than the Christians and this woman has the nerve... I HAVE BEEN MORE OPPRESSED THAN THE CHRISTIANS! Of course, I'm kidding. Just being lavish.

I'm just sick of the closed-minded beaurocrats who complain that they aren't getting the treatment they "deserve." I think they're getting more than what they deserve. They have run this country into the ground and they say they haven't gotten anything from it?! Fuck.

Peace and Desire

right under their noses

A guy stole an entire bed from a department store. He walked out of the store taking the bed piece by piece, casually walking by servaillance cameras, employees, and customers. His face was clearly seen on the video footage and he took his sweet-ass time. The kicker: nobody caught him. I'm sure hundreds of people saw this guy and none of them said a word.

I'm wondering why we even have servaillance cameras and those damn beeping theft detectors at the front of the store. Have you ever walked through those things and they went off but the employees just say "oh that happens all the time.. go ahead."

We freak out that there are so many thieving ass-holes out there, yet when the situation presents itself we don't do anything! I know it's easy to say "I'll be a hero and save the day by stopping those robbers!" But why don't we do it? They might have a gun... but not in every case. The worst that could happen (of course) is that they do have a gun and might shoot you if you want to be a hero, but most of the time, they don't. What is stopping us? Do we just not want to get involved? Why not? Wouldn't it help if people stepped up? If I noticed a guy taking a bed piece by piece out to his car, I would suspect something and would tell somebody (mostly because these days everything, including bed sets, come in huge boxes, not individual pieces for you to carry out the store). I wouldn't just let him walk out of the store! What idiots are we?! And of course, it's much easier to say I would save the day than it would be to actually do it.

I'm just wondering why we make it so easy for thieves to get in, get out, and never be found. I know a guy a while ago took a friggin' matress from Wal Mart. Didn't Betty the humble Wal-Mart greeter notice something odd when the guy was just carrying this thing out of the store? Are we really so up our own asses that we don't recognize a robbery when we see one? Bah.. humbug.

Peace and snow

Confessions of an Economic Hitman

"I vacillated between viewing such people as an actual conpiracy and simply seeing them as a tight-knit fraternity bent on dominating the world. Nonetheless, over time I began to liken them to the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South. They were men drawn together in a loose association by common beliefs and shared self-interest, rather than an exclusive group meeting in clandestine hideaways with focused and sinister intent. The plantation autocrats had grown up with servants and slaves, had been educated to believe that it was their duty to take care of the 'heathens' and to convert them to the owners' religion and way of life. Even if slavery repulsed them philosophically, they could, like Thomas Jefferson, justify it as a necessity, the collapse of which would result in social and economic chaos. The leaders of the modern oligarchies, what now thought of as the corporatocracy, seemed to fit the same mold... Of course, we are not the first to do this. The list of practitioners stretches back to the ancient empires of North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, and works its way up through Persia, Greece, Rome, the Christian Crusades, and all the European empire builders of the post-Columbian era. This imperialist drive has been and continues to be the cause of most wars, pollution, starvation, species extinctions, and genocides. And it has always taken a serious toll on the conscience and well-being of the citizens of those empires, contributing to social malaise and resulting in a situation where the wealthiest cultures in human history are plagued with the highest rates of suicide, drug abuse, and violence." -John Perkins

I couldn't have said it any better myself; this guy knows what he's talking about because he was one of these oppressive beaurocrats. These men strive to build an empire. I see direct proof of this in the city I live in. Not only is Dayton considered to be the 4th most violent city in the COUNTRY, the "top dogs" are doing nothing to make the situation any better. They're raising taxes in the city and building new roads in the suburbs. Two elementary schools closed for inner-city kids while two suburban schools open next fall. Foreclosures are at an all-time high, yet new subdivisions continue to sprout overnight. The malls and stores stock their shelves in anticipation of holiday spending, while thousands of families wonder if they will be able to afford their heating bill this winter. The rich and well-to-do's are decorating their properties and preparing huge family meals, while the homeless and impoverished families line up to get their one hot meal this seaon from the soup kitchen. Doesn't anyone else see something wrong with this? Isn't there something morally wrong with the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor?!

John Perkins went to Indonesia on his first assignment and the first thing he noticed was that "the beauty was certainly present. Gorgeous women sporting colorful sarongs. Lush gardens ablaze with tropical flowers. Exotic Balinese dancers. Bicycle cabs with fanciful, rainbow-colored scenes painted on the sides of the high seats, where passengers reclined in front of the pedaling drivers. Dutch Colonial mansions and turreted mosques. But there was also an ugly, tragic side to the city. Lepers holding out bloodied stumps instead of hands. Young girls offering their bodies for a few coins. Once-splendid Dutch canals turned into cesspools. Cardboard hovels where entire families lived along the trash-lined banks of black rivers. Blaring horns and choking fumes. The beautiful and the ugly, the elegant and the vulgar, the spiritual and the profane. This was Jakarta, where the enticing scent of cloves and orchid blossoms battled the miasma of open sewers for dominance." When he was reading about the country before he went, all that was mentioned was the beautiful side. This is what our own contry does. The media displays luxury, that the "American Dream" is to buy as much stuff as possible, and that EVERYBODY has these same desires. The agenda of the media is directly reflected in the agenda of their audience. If Britney Spears says it's good, people believe that it's good. She sponsored Pepsi a few years ago. I'm sure that influenced a few people to drink the beverage over others. Soda is the worst thing you could put in your body, yet, people overlooked the health risks and drank it because Britney Spears said it's good. Ignorance. But this is neither here nor there.

My boyfriend would say that I could shit in one hand and complain in the other and see which hand fills up quicker... And I know. Talking and complaining about all this stuff doesn't do anything but vent my frustrations. I am not a person of power or stature, so I can't REALLY do anything. But I always hope that talking about this stuff will at least influence others to think about it. The more people that think pragmatically, the more of a difference we could possibly make in the future. That's all.

Peace and Pragmatism

Maybe I complain too much...

I realize this... that I am entirely negative of everything in this country, mostly because I'm fascinated with how stuff works on the "inside" and when I learn of the greed, oppression, and alltruistic motivations, it makes my own insides hurt. My heart breaks.

I'm reading a book called "Confession of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins and it is absolutely amazing. It's all about his own life as an economic hitman (EHM) and his duties on the inside. I personally recommend this book, and I'm going to go read some more. Enjoy.

peace and poverty

The FDA needs a kick in the teeth

I've noticed an overabundance of prescription pill advertisements on television and they're making me sick. I can't believe (well actually, yes I can) that the FDA approves all of these unneeded drugs. I can't believe it morally, but I completely believe it monetarily. I was watching tv last night and there was --literally-- a three minute commercial for this blood pressure pill where the whole commercial was --literally-- a disclaimer.

"If you take this drug in conjuntion with other blood pressure medications, you may experience trouble breathing. If you have abnormal heart palpitations, this may be a sign that you have a more serious health condition and should consult your doctor. You should know that by taking this pill you are putting yourself at risk for further complications. If you do not see a significant change in your health, you have probably become immune to modern medicine and you'll most likely die soon anyway."

Here is an article related to the topic of this advertisement.

Of course, we consumers don't want to hear these things but companies are required by law to include this disclaimer. My favorite part of these commercials is the inspirational music they play underneath the disclaimer because it's just a psychological advertising ploy to make you feel better about the side effects. Hilarious how it works too because you know people are buying these medications.

The thing that really bothers me about the FDA is that they come out with all of these medications to "help" people with their serious medical conditions when they're really making them worse. Rather than combating the real issues, they come out with a drug that will delay the inevitable, which is poorer health and maybe death. They are making it OK for consumers not to take responsibility for their own health by handing them a simple solution, which could further their declining health by suppressing the symptoms. Americans' health are declining rapidly due to this vicious cycle. The number one killer in this country is heart disease and 66% of adults are obese. I don't think you have to be a scientist to link the two.

I just think it's sad the FDA doesn't rally care about people as much as they care about their fat paychecks. It's incredibly unsettling to know that administrations make themselves look like they care by offering "quality" products, when in all actuality, they couldn't care less about the consumer. Sad.

Your health can drastically improve if you EAT RIGHT AND EXCERCISE, not take some pill to trick your mind into believing it doesn't have a problem. Here's my line of logic of why I believe these medications don't work:

Man has health problem.
Man takes pill for synthetic relief, not combating real issue.
Symptoms go away.
Man carries on with life like normal, not making any changes to lifestyle.
Real issue persists due to no real habit change.
Real issue gets worse because it was never combated in the first place.
Man's health declines.
Man has another health problem.
Man takes pill and so on and so on....

See my point? Taking a pill does not combat the real issue, rather, it hides the symptoms to the real issue, not forcing the person to take responsibility for their own health. What can we do?

Become smarter.
Pay attention to symptoms.
Practice hollistic medicine (it keeps you in tune with your body, which is very important)
Eat healthy foods by staying away from hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrups.
Get some activity incorporated into that busy schedule (take the stairs, park further away, dance when you're home alone.. it feels silly at first, but it's really fun and you get your heart rate up)
Talk to other people.
Read this blog. HA!

thanks..
peace and hope

Low Prices; High Hopes

Wal-Mart is struggling and I couldn't be happier. They're starting a new slogan stating "Save money. Live better." because they experienced their largest decrease in sales this year than any other year in the past! This is great! This means that people are paying attention to this monopolistic monster. This means that other businesses are doing better and actually have a chance. Now, this is not to say that the company is going down the shitter quite yet, as I could only dream of their demise, but it's progress in bringing them down. It tells me that people are choosing to vote for another candidate (not presidential, of course). I'm taking an economics class and Wal-Mart does not follow any kind of pure capitalism. They steal business from every other company trying to make a buck, which results in the depletion of competition that must exist in a capitalist market. They make it impossible to become an entrepreneur because 1) they already have loyal customers 2) they have the cheapest prices 3) they have multiple locations, and 4) that's the place people know they're going to get the biggest bang for their buck. All these facts sound great for a company, but when they exploit every aspect of their business model (employees, products, factory workers, advertisers.. etc) they turn into a silent monster and nobody realizes it until they look into it. Their business practices are appauling, and they stand for greed. There is so much more about that company that is wrong, but I don't really feel like getting into my "I hate Wal-Mart" mood. This is enough for today.

Another story that gives me high hopes: A video game store owner is asking parents to report passing grades on their kids' report cards in order to get their games! Straight A's earn a free game. I don't know, I think this gives kids somewhat of an incentive to do better in school. Yunno, work now, play later. The owner might be kicking himself in the ass for doing this, but he has good intentions with his new policy. He just wants kids to do better in school! Looking at where teenagers and kids are these days in regard to their education, I think this guy has a good idea.

Slightly Troubled

I can't help but feel objectified. Joey helped me realize something yesterday and I'm kind-of upset about it. Since I was about 13 my dad and I have had a very frustrating relationship. 13 is about the age that one starts to develop an opinion about things and I definitely embraced that freedom, as well as being supported by my mom. In a nutshell, my dad has tried to block the fact that I have an opinion and continues to via his masked fear of his own realities. I wrote a list of things about him that piss me off and have pissed me off since we developed this stressful relationship. And what makes it more stressful is that he doesn't even realize these things about himself because of who he is, therefore making it close to impossible to talk to him about it. I would be wasting air and time if I even made an attempt. This is not to say that I haven't tried to make an attempt. He listens for the moment that I'm talking, and says "Oh I'm sorry! It will be better blah blah blah..." and he's right for about a day or two. He never makes an attempt to change himself, but rather continues to mask any problem that might exist by not admitting he's wrong. Here's my list. It's critical, but it's how I feel.

He's very much a selective listener and unable to admit that he's wrong or misinformed. He's a hypocrite. He doesn't care about anything that he doesn't have to interract with on a daily basis. He doesn't say please or thank you, nor does he ask nicely. He doesn't care about health or trying to be a genuinely good person. He doesn't care to make matters better because he believes he's too old to do anything (he's only 55). He doesn't listen to me or value any part of my opinions. He compares me to my mom (whom I love more than life itself) and can't help but feel his embittered sarcasm due to the divorce that she prompted. He's racist and bigoted, but wouldn't openly admit it. He thinks less of women, especially if they make a bad decision. HE DOESN'T LISTEN. He's socially awkward and embarassing. He thinks he's HILARIOUS all the time. He doesn't consider your situation or feelings, as his agenda is the only one that works for him. If you're watching tv, he'll come in and after watching only a couple minutes, ask "is there anything else on?" He's combative. He's terrible at communicating. He's afraid of change. He's the reason the phrase "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" exists. I believe he's afraid to know the truth about, well, all things. He's safeguarded by the suburban ideologies he raised us in. He can't argue a valid point. It's because of people like him our country has gone down the shitter.

It's no doubt I love my dad, and it might be hard to believe after reading all that, but he's my dad. I'm upset about this because I DO love him. He does have good qualities, but they're really only skin deep. He gives me money if I ask for it (which is a rarity), he takes us out to dinner and pays, and he cares about all of us. But all that isn't enough. I can't talk to him about anything that's important to me because he either doesn't care about it the same way I do or doesn't agree with my standpoint. He still treats me like I'm seven: aww.. look how cute she is.. she has an opinion.. I might be hard on him for his qualities, but here's where he and I are different: I am able to put my own feelings and beliefs aside and see situations through his eyes. I'm able to walk in someone else's shoes. I understand his views from a father standpoint: he wants to protect us and make sure we make the "right" decisions. I understand his views as the father of a girl exactly like the woman that divorced him. I understand that we didn't grow up with the same values of life. I understand that he grew up believing white men have the power. He didn't have the technologies that I did. I've told him this and he knows it (but won't admit that he does) that times have changed. Companies are equal opportinity employers. There are black men and women that make more money than he could in a lifetime. Everything is done by computer. Everything revolves around money. The economy purposefully maintains and widens the gap between the rich and poor. Women aren't just house-wives anymore. You don't have to be a Christian to be a good person. I UNDERSTAND THAT HE BELIEVES NONE OF THIS IS A REALITY. He's blinded by his unwillingness to change or see the other side. He makes my life very complicated because we can't talk about this stuff.

Duh!

When there's a robbery/burglary, security cameras are installed. When cars are vandalized, people volunteer their own time to watch the neighborhood to make sure it doesn't happen again. When someones' house burns down, they invest in home insurance so they're covered for "next time." When ONE GUY threatened people with a box cutter, airport security was riased to a ridiculous level.

Here's my question: Why do people wait until something happens to use preventative measures? This is their property. Shouldn't they protect it regardless of whether its security has been threatened or not?

I'm not saying things don't happen. I'm not saying there aren't stupid people out there that commit these crimes. I'm also not saying that everything can be prevented through high levels of security. I'm just saying that it's YOUR responsibility to protect your belongings.

This, I believe, is why our country has gone down the shitter. When something happens to someones' property, a law is made. EVERYONE'S rights are regulated. I'm a firm believer in taking responsibility for your actions. The government shouldn't have to step in and do it for you. We're trading our freedom for security. We're turning our country into a police state. What happened to democracy? What happened to the Constitution? Every basic freedom has been layed out SIMPLY in that piece of paper. We've turned everything into semantical bullshit. That's all.

Mitt Romney vs. State

One of the biggest controversies in the political realm has to do with the separation of church and state. JFK was the first Catholic president and he surprisingly strengthened his candidacy with his faith. It's a different story in today's presidential running.

Mitt Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter-Day Saints. The Mormon faith is one that is not exactlly widely accepted, as only 2% of the population practices it. Now, I've said in past blogs that I don't care what faith a person practices, as long as they don't preach it or let it get in they way of how the populous is handled. As a political leader, you can't base your nomination on what God you believe in, because you are saying "My God is better than your God." Especially because you can't preach Theism, as it means exactly what it says; it's a theory. Just like evolution: even though there is scientific evidence and carbon dating, you can't really preach that it is the way things happened because it is still considered a theory. But this is beside the point.

It's questionable as to whether or not Romney will let his faith get in the way of his political rulings (hypothetically speaking, if he wins the presidency). Now, why is Mormonism subject to discussion over Christianity, or any other Christian based theory? It's not to say that Mormon's don't believe in Jesus Christ, it's the rest of what they believe that sparks controversy. So what exactly do they believe?

First of all, the Mormon faith was conceived during the 20th century. It is based off of one man's hallucinations, and that alone seems fishy. Joseph Smith went into the woods on a blindingly hot day, and fell to the ground. He saw the sun coming through the trees, and claimed that he saw God the Father, and his son. They told him to go up into the mountains and look under a rock, where he would find the gold plates that would eventually be translated into the Book of Mormon. Those who practice Mormonism do not allow any other faith penetrate its walls. You can't be gay, because it is a sin and you will not be accepted in the eyes of God. Young men go on missions around the world to try and convert people to their faith. They can only marry other Mormons. They practiced polygamy openly for many years, and some still do, even though it is illegal. If you are not Mormon, you cannot come to their Temple unless you're going to convert. I saw a Frontline special on Mormonism and the camera crew was not allowed beyond the front room. The inside of their temples are pure white where those that practice the faith have to also wear a white robe with white clothes underneath, white socks, and no shoes. The faith was kicked out of 3 different cities because of their controversial themes until they landed in secluded Salt Lake City, Utah. They say it's the holy land. They have record of every person who has died locked away in an underground "safe." What do they do with these names? In the Mormon faith, they believe that unless you are baptized, you go to pergatory, where you wait. They take the names and baptize them via the living so they can go to Heaven. That's great and all, yunno, wanting everyone to get into Heaven, but this proves that they don't believe that any other faith will allow you into Heaven, if it does, truly, exist. It's just weird overall.

So Mitt Romney. Good that he has faith, but not one who's mantra is to believe in only that faith and preach it as the only true faith. It requires its followers to live a limited life and have it play a major role in every aspect of life.

With all this in mind, why would we want a Mormon president? If he was a real person, he wouldn't let it run his political life as well. But he was quoted as saying that he would NOT separate the two lives. This does not give me any incentive to vote for him. If he is voted into office, One of two things will happen. He will either be a good candidate who's practices and ideas HELP us without his beliefs getting in the way. Or, his faith will get in the way and we'll be stuck with him for 4 years. Who knows what the Mormon faith could do to an entire country? We've seen what Islam and Christianity have done to countries. They're warring against each other. And HAVE been for centuries. I'm scared for the future.. this presidential election will determine a lot of things, and I just hope we benefit from whomever runs the country. We need help, not a hindrance.

Statutory Rape?

A Kettering teacher at Fairmont has been accused of having sex with a 14-year old student and is now in jail. Here's what I think.

I'm glad the guy was convicted and is now serving time because well, you don't have sex with 14-year olds when you're a) twice their age, and b) teaching at the same school! But what about the girl? Does she have to go to juvenile court? No. She too committed a crime, but because she's a juvenile and termed as an "innocent child" she gets nothing. Is this fair? The story didn't say that this guy raped her, it said that he "had sex with" her.

Here's where I question the system.

Say you're an 18-year old dude in high school, just about to graduate and your girlfriend is 17, also about to graduate. That would technically be illegal. If later on she took you to court for some reason and she brought up the fact that you were having sex while she was a minor, you could be convicted of stautory rape, even if you both KNEW it was consensual. So she would laugh her ass off as yours is dragged off to jail.

If Mr. Teacher-Man "had sex with" the 14-year old, then it had to be consensual because otherwise it would have been called rape, and that obviously is a felony. This means that the girl was FULLY AWARE of what was going on. She KNEW it was sex, she KNEW it was with a 30-something teacher at her school, and only HE gets jail-time. Do they assume that this girl is stupid? Does she get nothing because she's a minor? Shouldn't she be sent to juvenile court and have SOME kind of penalty against her? She's laughing her ass off as his gets dragged off to jail. Here's what I say: What the fuck?!

Ok. I understand that minors can't get jail-time because "they're children and don't know any better." Fuck that. You are fully aware of your actions by the time you hit 13. Why do I say this? Because you feel as though you are being looked at by everyone in every different direction in the 7th grade. That's when it all starts: the insecurities, the "cliques," the confusion. But you are aware of it because it is the hardest part of growing up! I hated that time in my life. I made FUN of the people who had sex by then, because they knew what they were doing and not being responsible ablout it. There were kids in my junior high that had sex on the library couch afterhours! They knew they were doing it! And so did everyone else! All I'm saying is that juveniles know what they're doing and should be charged accordingly. So what if it ruins their record for being a normal adult. They screwed up! And they should be penalized! A fucking 17-year old "accidentally" killed his friend because they were "playing" with a gun. NO. Guns don't "accidentally" go off. He didn't "accidentally" point the gun at his friend. He may not have meant to kill him, but he was fully aware that he was pointing the gun at his friend, and he was fully aware that if the gun went off (which obviously, it did) he would harm the friend. But because he was a juvenile, he didn't didn't get anything but psychiatric help. That's good and all, but if he was only a year older, he would have gone to jail.

I know people who did stuff wrong when they were minors BECAUSE they were minors, and knew they wouldn't get charged. Isn't there something to say about that? Isn't that just as wrong as doing it when you're NOT a minor? I would say so. When you're a minor, you don't care about things because you don't have to. You don't exist to your government until you're 18, or "old enough" to contribute to the government. I think that if the age was lowered, kids would care more because a) they could be convicted of crimes, b) they could vote and actually have a "voice," and c) they would be legitimate citizens! When you're a legitimate citizen, you have a purpose. When you have a purpose, you feel important and have value in yourself. Is that to say, then, that until you're 18 you don't really have value in yourself or your actions? Is it also safe to say that this is why 'kids' under 18 suck? I believe this to be true. Time to go.

Answers in Genesis Creation Museum

When I was growing up, my school never taught creation OR evolution as the "way it all happened." In fact, my teachers were told not to so as to #1: not confuse the students on which one to believe, and #2: to ensure not to impose their own personal beliefs on the students. This I believe was a smart tactic. This is not to say that they didn't talk about them in general terms, because DUH they exist in all communities and are sometimes unavoidable. Of course there is always strength in believing a form of Christianity because even as an athiest I can't completely shit on the "Bible" and say that it teaches the wrong ideas of life. In fact, I would have to say that "Bible" was a very GOOD source for building morals. But to me, it's just a guidline. In a short summary of it, I believe that it gives the message of "as long as you are a genuinely good person, you'll have a good life." But too many people are searching for an "asnwer" and can only do the extremes of things that inevitably turn into our boundaries; our laws. It's almost like everybody is bumper bowling...

So there's this museum that was built called the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum. Guess the theme of this place? You're right! Here's the problem: the athiests are pissed. I'm not too pissed because I'm not concerned with what theory people want to believe, as long as they aren't ass-holes to me and trying to put their personal religious beliefs (or dis-beliefs) in the legal system. An article was written in the Cincinnati Post about this "uproar" and Edwin Kagin, a Union lawyer and Kentucky state director of American Atheists, was quoted as saying "We acknowledge fully their absolute right to teach anything they want. They can teach things fall up if they wish. But we don't want people to think no one cares, no one opposes this."

(http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070526/NEWS01/705260345)

So the Athiests believe it's their job to go against it because they see a problem with no opposition, as if nobody else will stand up for what they believe. Ok, sure. Do they think that a museum is going to convert people? That it's going to convince people of Creationism over Evolution any more than they did before? The article states that this museum is backed by scientific evidence. So wait a minute, Creationism has scientific evidence, and evolution has scientific evidence? So now what? Who are we to believe? Here's what I say: who cares?! Why is it so important to believe one over the other? If you believe in God, great. If you don't, that's great too! Either way, you have a belief system that works for you; one that you have some kind of faith in.

Everything in the Bible can be interpreted differently, and I think the guys who put it together had a good idea when they collaborated because it's basically a book of morals. The Ten Commandments say it all; they are the basics. They take out the important points of the Bible and they're even in a list! It can't really get easier! Here is my interpretation of the 10 Commandments:

1:I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me.

Perfect example of Christian tactic: scare the people so they fear the opposition. Fear is the most vulnerable feeling a person can experience and highly avoided among most, if not all, people. But basically, this determines your sense of faith, and once established, move to step 2.

2: Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...

...because we don't know what it looks like. If we create an image of heaven, we will have certain expectations of the after-life. Also, I believe that people dwell on that image and don't focus necessarily on the life that they're actually living. It also makes people dwell on death and how they will "go," which doesn't matter until it happens. Once you're thinking about today, move to step 3.

3: Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD.

Don't bite the hand that feeds.

4: Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

Take a day off. Cherish that day; you deserved it.

5: Honor your father and your mother.

DUH! Once again, don't bite the hand that feeds. They're the ones that brought you into this world; they can be the ones who take you out. Plus, you can't replace them.

6: Do not murder.

Don't kill people! You'll go to jail and will face much more punishment than you wanted.

7: Do not commit adultery.

They call it "making love" for a reason. When you have sex with lots of people, the genuinity of it goes away. You lose possession of your own body when you give parts of it away; you lose respect for yourself. I'm not saying "don't have sex," and "don't have sex before you're married," but try to gain something from each partner if you choose that path. Learn about yourself so you KNOW when you're in love and are ready to share as much of yourself with someone that you WANT to share yourself with. The 10 would like to keep you a virgin until marriage because you're supposed to be IN LOVE with the person you marry and what better than to share the physical act of love with the person you share the mental and emotional feeling of love with? With multiple partners I believe that you also lose the meaning of love, which just confuses you about what love really is.

8: Do not steal.

Don't take stuff that's not yours! You didn't earn it!

9: Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Don't lie! Just be honest. When you're honest to other people, you're honest to yourself.

10: Do not covet your neighbor's house.

I earned everything I worked for, and you the same. You want something I have? Work for it.

You don't have to believe anything I said, but I guess I'm just trying to convince you that as long as you are a genuinely good person, you'll die a happy person. Don't regret anything, and never go to bed at night saying "i wish I would have..." because then you regret NOT doing something. Live the life that YOU love. Do what you like, and like what you do. If you don't, you'll be miserable.

Peace and catharsis