A Current Event

[I'm really worried that this post is really going to offend people, so I'm going to apologize beforehand: If this post offends you, I am sincerely sorry. This is just my opinion, I could be wrong.]

Normally I don't comment on any particular current event, but I feel I have to say something about Terry Schiavo. I'm not sure how I feel about the whole "right to life" in this case. Her husband's hired doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state. Her parent's hired doctors say she has the capacity to improve with therapy, but she hasn't had any therapy in a decade, so apparently no one can give her therapy or no one is willing to pay for it. However, her parents contend that when she received therapeutic care, she uttered a few one-syllable words. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's not my problem, and is one of the few things I say should be left to the courts.

Anyway, her husband wants to, well, for lack of a better term, he wants to let her to die. (I know it sounds really callous, but I'm trying to get the point across quick.) As far as I'm concerned, the courts can do what they think is apropriate, which in this case is agreeing with him. But it's the way they're letting her die that bothers me. Basically, since they took out the tube that gives her nutrients and fluids, they are in fact starving and dehydrating her to death.

How fucking sick can we get?

I understand that the courts have basically ruled that she is going to die. But there are better ways to do it, right? I wouldn't know personally (obviously), but I'm pretty sure that starving and dehydrating are two of the worst ways to go. Why not just give her something to let her drift away painlessly? Supposedly the drugs they give to condemned convicts are painless (except putting in the IV). The way that works is, they put the IV's in the arms and run a saline solution through them. Then somone behind a wall presses a button that releases the poisons into the tubes, and kills the con without pain. I think they should set up something like that in this case, rather than starving her to death. But I think they should make a few exceptions; namely, they should have her husband look her in the eye as he presses the button. If he can bring himself to do it, fine. If he can't, the case should be reviewed.

Comments, please.

A Couple of Quotes

I was recently directed to a pair of really good books by Janet Tashjian. Both books are about a teenager who uses an anonymous blog to change the world. He posts under the pseudonym "Larry." Thus, it is no big surprise that the books are titled The Gospel According to Larry and Vote for Larry.

In Vote for Larry, the protagonist is running for president (a new amendment is passed to allow 18-year-olds to hold public office), and the book is full of really good political stuff. In particular, I found two quotes that open sections of the book. I'm not sure if these are in fact real quotes (I don't want to plug this much text into a search engine), but they are as follows:

"It is we who have squandered the public trust. We who have, time and again, is full public view placed our personal and partisan interests before the national interest, earning the public's contempt for our poll-driven policies, our phony posturing, the lies we can spin, and the damage control we substitue for progress. It is we who are the defenders of a campaign finance system that is nothing less than an elaborate influence-peddling scheme in which both parties conspire to stay in office by selling the country to the highest bidder"
-Senator John McCain

Pretty good stuff, eh? I'm not sure if these are actual qoutes, becasue the book is really, really obvious fiction. At one point, the protagonist's ticket has one third of the votes, of a 90%+ voter turnout, against BUSH AND KERRY. Now, I know for damn sure we didn't have 90% turnout, so the quotes are a bit suspect. You can look them up if you want, though. Here's the other one:

"Democratic power is never given; it always has to be taken, then aggressively defended, and retaken when it slips from our hands, for the moneyed powers relentlessly press to gain supremacy and assert their private will over the majority. Today, our gift of democracy is endangered not only by military might threatening a sudden, explosive coup but by the stealth of corporate lawyers and politicians, seizing a peice of self-government from us here, then another peice from over there, quietly installing an elitist regime issue by issue, law by law, place by place, with many citizens unaware that their people's authority is slipping away." -Jim Hightower

Comments, please, and read the books if you get the chance.

Wow, I feel a bit vindictive.

It seems that no matter what you do or say, someone can find a problem with it. You can say the most innocent thing in the world-- how about, "Puppies are so cute. I love puppies," for example--and someone will find something wrong with what you said ("But I'm allergic to puppies!"), or how you said it ("I don't like your tone of voice!"). You could donate millions of dollars to cancer research right now (yeah, right), and you would hear things like, "You should have donated it to AIDS research instead!," and "I didn't like the slant of your signature on the check!"

Of course, this is all bullshit; personally, any millions I get will be donated to Microsoft and Sony via game purchases. The point I'm trying to make here is, someone is always willing to find something wrong with every little thing anyone does. When we make a glaringly stupid mistake, sure, go ahead, point it out. Most of us will be glad you did, and happily correct it. But when you're whining just to whine....Shut up. Nobody appreciates that shit. That's the kind of idiocy that gets you a nice bit of wiring holding your jaw together.

But the thing is, eventually, everyone I know does it. I don't care if you had a bad day, or got caught in mommy and daddy's liquor stash, or whatever. For that one instant where you decide to bitch at someone or about someone, for no reason at all, I have one thing to say to you.

Shut up, before someone decides to shut you up.

Another thing. If the people around you give their honest opinion about something, listen to them. If they tell you, for instance, to stop dragging your fucktard friends around you everywhere you go, then fucking STOP. It's not you they're mad at, it's the idiots who follow you, and then try to talk to everyone else! They don't want to have to be nice to your next-door neighbor just because he won't stop dogging your every step. It's not being mean to them to tell them to go away for a while, it's preventing a worse conflict later on. Would you rather have your little gnome minions be a bit peeved at you for sending them off for a while, or watch as they are beaten senseless with a chair? Of course, it's your choice, not ours; but we will beat them with the chair. (If you are not sure if the last paragraph applies to you, then it doesn't, so don't worry.)

Also, don't tell me I don't follow these rules; I know that. I'm not sure about the first one, but telling me that may be exactly what pissed me off in the first place, and you may be flamed mercilessly. You have been warned.

Human Nature Rears its Ugly Head

We started studying the Cold war in history class today. A girl in the class asked why everybody hates Communism. This got me thinking, as so many seemingly insignificant things do.

The original idea of Communism was in fact a fairly intelligent idea. No classes, no rich or poor, no one better or worse off than anyone else. Everyone has what they need. The thing is, every time a nation has attempted Communism, someone fucked it up. There's always somone who decides to take advantage of his comrades. The Communist system is possibly the easiest to control through bribery and graft. In a society where everyone exists at the same level, the slightse increase in money or property (if they exist) can make a man feel superior.

Anyway, some friends and I were talking about this at lunch, and we were wondering why every attmept at Communism has failed or is failing. Eventually we decided that they were ruined by greed, and that true Communism can never be achieved because greed is part of human nature.

Now, I am not advocating Communism here. I am wondering why greed is part of human nature. Although you probably could find someone who is inherently not greedy, it would be the longest and hardest search for anything since the Holy Grail. What survival purpose does greed serve? Despite our "civilization" and "progress," I firmly belive that everything we do is somehow related to our survival. It may not be in an obvious manner, like running from the man with the gun. It may be something that truly doesn't matter, but subconciously we imagine that if we don't do it we will die.

So I'm looking for input. Here's the question: Why do so many things that hurt ourselves and others seem to be inherent qualities of the human race?

Any idea from any source is welcome.