While a true democracy (which we do NOT have) may be the best way to rule a nation, democratic systems are not always on the level. So many people in this nation are so convinced that the government is keeping them safe from the terrorists and Communists that they refuse to see anything bad about it.
They refuse to recognize the fact that we do not directly elect our leader. Every voter could cast a ballot for candidate A in 2008, and a properly bribed electoral college could still simply elect candidate B.
They refuse to recognize the fact that this bullshit oil war is spawning more terrorists than we have ever killed. In fact, they reufse to recognize that it IS a bullshit oil war.
They refuse to recognize that the government has its claws in everything. News and print media, publishing of all types, the internet, just about anything you can think of, the government is likely to have a heavy hand in it. I don't think they are, but I would not be too surprised if the NSA has a special division created to read dissenting blogs.
They refuse to recognize that Area 51 does exist, that we do not know what is contained there, and that people who try to find out have disappeared.
They refuse to accept the fact that there is almost no way in hell that Oswald killed Kennedy, and refuse to do any reading whatsoever on the subject besides nice, clean, government-sanctioned BULLSHIT.
And finally, they refuse to accept any of the above, because their parents, teachers, preists or pastors, and whatever media they commonly use for information, have brainwashed the living crap out of them. They refuse to take off their rose-colored glasses and see the blood-red dark side of the government, and they will be the first ones to speak up in favor when Congress and the president roll us right into full-on fascism.
With all due respect for them, they disgust me.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Nasty Joke
The joke that follows is extremely nasty. I've told it too a lot of people, but I wanted it too be on here, too. If you have real problems with nasty jokes, DO NOT KEEP READING. Also, if you don't know what a leper is, and what leprosy does to the body, go find out before you keep reading.
A leper walks into a bar and sits down. He talks to the guy on his left while he drinks his beer. The guy turns to look at him and starts gagging. The leper says, "If I'm making you sick, I can leave. It's no problem, I'm used to it." They guy says, "No, no, it's not you. Here, let me buy you a drink. " So they sit there a bit longer, talking and drinking, and the guy looks over at the leper again. He starts puking all over the bar. The leper says, "Look, I can leave, it's no trouble." The guy wipes his mouth, and says, "No, it's really not you. It's the guy on your other side."
"He's dipping his chips in your neck."
A leper walks into a bar and sits down. He talks to the guy on his left while he drinks his beer. The guy turns to look at him and starts gagging. The leper says, "If I'm making you sick, I can leave. It's no problem, I'm used to it." They guy says, "No, no, it's not you. Here, let me buy you a drink. " So they sit there a bit longer, talking and drinking, and the guy looks over at the leper again. He starts puking all over the bar. The leper says, "Look, I can leave, it's no trouble." The guy wipes his mouth, and says, "No, it's really not you. It's the guy on your other side."
"He's dipping his chips in your neck."
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
More Music Posers
Hmmm. I was informed that my blog was being neglected, so here I am again, pissed off and ready to vent. Let's begin, shall we?
There's this kid at the school who keeps bringing a guitar to school. I don't know him personally, some pseudo-emo Mexican guy. He may be the nicest guy in the world, but he cannot play, and it's pissing me off. See, I also play guitar, and while I am certainly not as good as some people I know, I know enough to know a good player from a bad player.
He's not a good player.
Normally, this wouldn't bother me so much, except that he's brought the guitar every day for the past two weeks, and everyone he plays around keeps talking about how good he is. He frigging sucks, alright? I can't blame them; they're the kind of kids who listen to stuff like simple plan and green day. The crap of the musical crop, y'know? But still, when I was watching him play at lunch the other day, he took about 30 seconds to change chords. I think he was going from A to G. I'm not sure. I was sitting at the table and he and his idiot friends had taken over the Gammagon like they do every day at lunch. I swear to god, we have got to start exerting authority over that slab of concrete all day or the bastards are going to try to usurp it in the morning....
Anyway, back to the guitar poser. He needs to stop bringing that thing. Some of you might remember the scene from the toga party in Animal House when John Belushi takes the guitar right out of some loser's hands and beats it against the wall. That was suggested this morning. Seems like a god idea, but I like to restrict my property damage to people who actually have major property, by which I mean old people. But that's just me, I can't speak for everyone. I can say, however, that the next person who tries to tell me that this guy is such great guitarist is gonnna get smacked.
There's this kid at the school who keeps bringing a guitar to school. I don't know him personally, some pseudo-emo Mexican guy. He may be the nicest guy in the world, but he cannot play, and it's pissing me off. See, I also play guitar, and while I am certainly not as good as some people I know, I know enough to know a good player from a bad player.
He's not a good player.
Normally, this wouldn't bother me so much, except that he's brought the guitar every day for the past two weeks, and everyone he plays around keeps talking about how good he is. He frigging sucks, alright? I can't blame them; they're the kind of kids who listen to stuff like simple plan and green day. The crap of the musical crop, y'know? But still, when I was watching him play at lunch the other day, he took about 30 seconds to change chords. I think he was going from A to G. I'm not sure. I was sitting at the table and he and his idiot friends had taken over the Gammagon like they do every day at lunch. I swear to god, we have got to start exerting authority over that slab of concrete all day or the bastards are going to try to usurp it in the morning....
Anyway, back to the guitar poser. He needs to stop bringing that thing. Some of you might remember the scene from the toga party in Animal House when John Belushi takes the guitar right out of some loser's hands and beats it against the wall. That was suggested this morning. Seems like a god idea, but I like to restrict my property damage to people who actually have major property, by which I mean old people. But that's just me, I can't speak for everyone. I can say, however, that the next person who tries to tell me that this guy is such great guitarist is gonnna get smacked.
Friday, March 25, 2005
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
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.
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.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
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.
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.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)