Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Iran

So, it seems that Dodge has not seen fit to reward me with a free Dodge Challenger as yet for my earlier unsolicited non-celebrity endorsement of this fine car. With that in mind, I will do so again, and will keep doing so. Dodge Challenger. Dodge Challenger, dammit! BLACK. DODGE. CHALLENGER. Oh yeah, and if you'd like to give me an R/T model for this unsolicited endorsement, which I'm sure few will see, I'd happily accept. Yes, I do know how to drive manual... and love it!

Moving on from this shameless and I'm sure futile attempt to pander to Dodge to get a free car... my modern dream car, that is (I like the classic ones)... back to the subject at hand: Iran.

The short of it is that US intel experts are pretty worried that Iran could strike pretty hard if we keep pressuring them. That much seems like a headline straight from the "No shit, Sherlock" magazine. Of course they may strike if we keep pissing them off.

What's more important however is that they are developing nuclear capabilities. That, and that when they have them, they're fairly likely to use them... stupidly.

The argument could and has been made that being that we have nuclear weapons ourselves, we've no right to keep other nations from having similar weapons. This logic is perfectly fair. I mean, who are we to have guns, but deny them to the murderers and rapists who would kill us in our sleep?

Yes, yes... I do have a sarcastic streak in me. But the point remains. Fair is not always workable or safe. I think it's safe to say that the majority of us have no desire to live under Sharia law... and indeed, many of us simply wouldn't live. While I do not believe that all Muslims are out to force conversions, keep in mind what regime is running Iran at the moment. It is a theocratic one.

Perhaps this is where the difference between fair and just becomes more clear. We do need to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions... for our safety as well as that of our allies. While they may not have missiles capable of reaching the US from Iran, there are other ways... and what would stop them from procuring a few missiles that could reach the US from other nations that don't like us?

Monday, January 30, 2012

Religion and Medicine


Admittedly, this did require some thought on my part. My initial reaction is, "so the Catholic church hates birth control. What else is new?" My feelings about how much involvement the church has taken in politics and in holding back science as a whole are no secret. This did require a little more thought, however. The reason? Quite simply because I do respect the First Amendment.
The First Amendment does protect religious freedom... it does say that government and churches should not tread on each other's turf, despite how often the churches in particular try to do so. I do however believe in leading by example, as "...but they started it!" comes off as a rather childish argument. So initially, it does seem that there is some merit to the church's argument that the government just treaded on church turf.

Let's take a closer look, though. When you start looking at the various hospitals, it seems that a lot of them have some sort of religious affiliation at least by name. Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic (or mention of saints), etc. For one reason or another, healthcare seems dominated by religious organizations. I suppose it makes sense to expand spiritual healing to physical healing, and the churches actually do have some history of this, at least as far back as medieval nuns and monks in Christianity, and druids with the pre-Christian Celts, and the list goes on, I'm sure.

The question however is whether we should be able to deny treatment based on religious beliefs. Should atheists or other non-believers be turned away from such church-connected hospitals? Birth control in itself may seem a small issue. But for the woman who just got raped and needs a Plan B pill, it's something of a bigger deal. It's also a predecessor to a bigger issue. What about those churches who feel that HIV/AIDS is a punishment from their god, and therefore should receive no treatment? It wouldn't be anything new - the same has happened throughout history, whether it be disease such as smallpox, or a tragedy such as an earthquake or hurricane. Should any organization that can call itself a hospital be allowed to deny treatment over religious beliefs on these? I don't think so.

While it is kind of churches to build these hospitals, if they are going to treat them as public hospitals (not to mention accepting government aid and funding as such), then they must accept, at least in their hospitals, the same treatments accepted by other healthcare organizations. No one is dictating that churches change their doctrines, just that their hospitals catch up.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Middle Eastern Stability

American officials are shocked, SHOCKED that our efforts to create stability in the middle east keep failing, and can't seem to figure out why. For my own part, I'm not sure I really want to believe our officials are that dumb.

It's easy to blame Islam, but regardless of what many in America may want to believe, religion as a whole is man made. In itself, it doesn't make people do a damned thing. It is people however that make it good or evil. People are pretty much the same around the world, and in terms of doctrine, Christianity isn't all that different from Islam. Both involve forcing themselves on others, at sword point if necessary. For those who care to dispute the link, also remember the witch trials, the inquisitions... and even how protestants were dealt with in the early days... and how protestants dealt with non-believers. Hell, one only needs to look at Westboro Baptist Church to be reminded of the true evils that exist in Christian dogma. While they preach evil, it is more or less in line with what the bible says. They even frequently cite the passages for reference. Still not convinced? Well, you can check out chick.com too, if you'd like. Still more passages cited to justify hate by the Bible. Were America not a Christian majority, it would be easy to paint Christianity as an evil religion the same as some do with Islam, citing references in the bible to back up such assertions, as some do with the Qur'an.

Again though, I don't consider Christians as a whole to be evil, the same as I don't consider Muslims as a whole to be evil. As I said, religion is man-made, and as such can adapt, despite a bible being involved, if the adherents allow it to do so.

Would you like to know what the real difference is between us and them is? It's quite simple, really - we have more to lose. "But... but... they make their women wear veils and head coverings!" Strictly speaking, Christianity makes the same assertion. But, our society has thankfully become more relaxed and comfortable since the days of the pilgrims.

Again though, it really comes down to us having more to lose than most in the middle east, although I do see some trying to push us back to the same kind of archaic society where persecution over the "wrong beliefs" is the norm. They don't value their lives all that much, because life there really is hard. So of course, if brute force is all that is used, we'll create even more terrorists than we kill. You notice how the rich ones there tend to stay alive while recruiting suicide terrorists, speaking of rewards in heaven? Yeah... that kind of illustrates what I'm talking about. Of course, we kind of see the same thing happening in America to a lesser extent. One famous example.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Obama on Security

Despite what I may think of him on other aspects, I do have to give Obama props on security. At least to a greater extent than with Bush Jr.

For those who may have missed it, just before the State of the Union address, two hostages were rescued from Somalia. It's also not the first time that Obama has succeeded where Bush Jr. has failed. Let's not forget bin Laden being taken out of the equation and the hostage "negotiations" with Somali pirates in 2009.

Bush did have opportunities for heroism like this. Remember Daniel Pearl? Remember that 9/11/2001 happened toward the beginning of Bush's first term, and he never did catch bin Laden? In fact, he stated (paraphrasing) that bin Laden wasn't really a priority of his.

The argument could be made (and has) that bin Laden was far from the only concern of ours. However, he did kill a few thousand people, and tends to be responsible for some pretty massive attacks. Just because he wasn't throwing everything he had at us didn't mean he wasn't planning something bigger and more significant.

This illustrates Bush's short-sightedness. He didn't put a lot of thought into his policy, he just focused on the here and now... at the best. At the worst, he was deliberately negligent and aided enemies of the US. He did seem pretty interested in "preventing" an attack from Iraq, thus putting us at war on two fronts. But he didn't seem too concerned about preventing more attacks from bin Laden?

What I do know is that a group of terrorists - the ones who bombed Madrid in 2004, stated that they wanted Bush to win re-election. They said that he was too stupid to beat them, and that the Democrats showed a lot more cunning in eliminating them and turning otherwise likely allies against them. The truth in that statement has become very apparent.

That's not to say that I really like what Obama's doing. He has disappointed me on a number of other things in regards to national security. Didn't he say that he would eliminate the Patriot Act? Didn't happen. And of course, there's the NDAA.

Remember what the wise man (Benjamin Franklin) said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Conspiracy Theories

I've mentioned early on that I have a strong distaste for conspiracy theories. They make people scared, and people do dumb things when they are scared. An extreme example would be the holocaust in Nazi Germany. The Jewish people have been the scapegoats throughout much of their history. I know of one Jewish person who summed up the Jewish holidays as, "they tried to kill us, we won, let's eat." Hitler was successful in blaming a Jewish conspiracy for all the world's problems, and with that... well, you know the rest.

I'd actually be really amused by many conspiracy theories if not for the dangers they presented. I've heard of one where the world is supposedly run by reptilian Illuminati shape-shifters from outer space. I've heard of chem trails - the theory that the trails some jets leave behind are chemicals aimed at eventually exterminating the human race, or that they are from the government doing secret experiments on us to see what happens when we're exposed to various chemical or biological agents. Then there's the theories about HAARP... the belief that this project secretly controls the weather and such like. More well known are the theories that 9/11 was an inside job, that Obama is a Muslim and not a US born citizen, and the still-enduring theories about the Jews trying to take over the world.

Don't misunderstand me - I am aware that the government has done some pretty shitty things, and that there have been some pretty scary real life conspiracies - the Tuskegee experiment, MK-ULTRA, Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, STD experiments in Guatemala, and several others.

What I do ask however is that people question everything, including those who tell them to question everything. Just because someone comes up with a neat, dramatic, and scary sounding conspiracy theory doesn't make it true. Look at actual evidence. Don't just trust someone's word that it came from an insider. Look at science. Look at motivation. 

If someone tells you not to trust the mainstream media, ask why. The mainstream media, while far from perfect, at least has accountability. They can be biased, they can choose to report... but if they tell an outright lie, they can be held accountable. Us hacks with blogs though are another matter. I could tell you the sky is actually pink with purple polka-dots, but MK-ULTRA has us thinking it's blue... and no one could do anything about it, because 1) I have such a small fan-base as it stands (although strangely, this blog gets almost as many hits from Russia as it does from the US), 2) I'm fairly anonymous, 3) I'm probably dirt poor and therefore not worth suing, and 4) I don't claim to be the news.

The thing is that the internet does put all kinds of info at our fingertips, but a lot of it is false information. Make sure the information you get is from a reliable source, or can actually be backed up from a reliable source. Know the difference between news and commentary/opinion. And seriously, question everyone - especially those who tell you to question everyone.

State of the Union

I don't really plan on watching the State of the Union - I almost never do. But, I can generally predict what the main focal point is. This one will be damage control, and probably more than a little campaigning for re-election. The traditional State of the Union address seems almost pointless. It seems more than anything like a chance to put a positive spin on the happenings of the year in question. Kind of like a performance review at your job... if you did your own performance reviews.

One of the biggest focuses I think will be to put a positive spin on the economy. Now, despite what either party says, it took more than one president to fuck that up. Clinton had a big part in it, Bush Jr. took Clinton's ideas and ran with them, and Obama... I guess he's trying, but he's not really getting it right. It would take one cocky bastard of a president though to fix the damage already done, and the damage that will continue to happen if several groups/businesses/lobbyists/politicians have their ways.

Everyone has an agenda of some type, and most are rather self-serving. I was hearing from a consultant that one of the first questions they are asked is how to outsource... how to move operations overseas. I've explained how this is self-destructive in a previous post, but let's review. The more jobs that are moved overseas, the less money Americans have to spend. If Americans aren't spending money, then businesses in America aren't making money. It's that simple. It looks great on short term profit reports, but such things fail to take in the big picture.

There is also the fact that unemployment numbers are artificially going down. If you were laid off and couldn't find a job by the time your unemployment benefits ran out, you are not counted as unemployed. I'm not sure that would be the same as saying you're employed, just that you don't exist as far as these stats are concerned. A rather biased article on the subject

Of course, that's not to say such artificial inflation of the economy is anything new. Remember Bush's hazy definition of manufacturing jobs?

The news isn't all bad, though. It was recently announced that GM topped all other automakers in the world for sales. It's nice to see an American brand doing this. While I have mixed feelings about the bailouts, it does seem like the automakers have made good use of this. Hell, for my own part, I'm really wanting to get a Dodge Challenger when I can afford one. Figure, that nice classic muscle car look, and all that horsepower... go for a nice sleek, black color. That's a different story, though. Of course, if Dodge wants to give me a free one for the plug...

Anyway, it's just not easy to get excited about a State of the Union address. I think that right now, people just aren't feeling all that optimistic. We've been told that things are rough but getting better for over a decade now. I think it's safe to say that Americans as a whole just want results now.

Well, that concludes the "Raven" State of the Union. You're welcome.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Gingrich and the Republican Primaries

I am, as one can probably imagine, paying at least passing attention to the Republican primaries... as I'm sure everyone is. Republicans want to know who they think will replace Obama, and Democrats are curious who they'll be up against. That's not to say I'm watching the debates. I'm fine with just reading the highlights in the aftermath. They are all politicians, none of them really doing anything to stand out for me... well, not in a good way, at least.

Today, I think I'll mostly be pitching a bitch about Newt Gingrich... one of the biggest hypocrites in Washington. When asked about his affairs in a debate, he went off at the moderator who asked. While perhaps normally, I'd say everyone has a few skeletons in their closets and should be allowed to forget about them once in awhile, I would say that this is not the case with Gingrich. Am I holding a double standard here? I don't think so. Here's why:

Gingrich so far has had at least three extramarital affairs... that we know of. It seems like each time he asks for a divorce, it's when his soon-to-be ex-wife is sick. This is the same guy who led the charge against Bill Clinton on Capitol Hill for having his affair with Lewinsky. He spent millions of taxpayer dollars investigating Clinton for lying under oath when he shouldn't have even been under oath. An affair is a civil, not a criminal, matter. You know how a case gets thrown out when cops find something under illegal circumstances? Ie, searching without a warrant and the like? Well, they were trying to bust Clinton for perjury on, again, something he should not have even been put under oath for. He would have been well within his rights to laugh and flip them the bird when they tried to put him under oath. The affair was, by all accounts, consensual... and not even Hillary was asking for the investigation.

That's not to say I'm a huge fan of Clinton... he's the one that brought in NAFTA, which I think is stupidity. Letting foreign policy dictate economic policy is just stupid, and part of the reason we're in our current mess. Back to Gingrich, though.

What makes him a hypocrite is that while leading this moral crusade against Clinton, Gingrich himself was having an affair. That's why I don't feel mine is a double standard. If he can't even hold to his own morals, do we really want to entrust him with the highest office in the land and the Constitution? I sure the hell do not.

Gingrich is bitterly partisan, a liar, and a hypocrite. Much like a number of the kings of old that our founders fought and died to escape, he holds himself above his own laws. I'd say he deserves everything he gets - every bit of ridicule, every reminder that he's presented with. I'm sorry to say, but this is not a good guy. This is not one who attempts to learn from his mistakes, or apparently not one who even tries to be fair, just, or decent.

Back to the Republican race as a whole, it's reminding me of Kang and Kodos posing as Clinton and Dole on the Simpsons, running for president. They're all pretty much the same to me, and if this is the best the Republican party can present... well, hope they're ready for Obama having a second term.


Wednesday, January 18, 2012

More on SOPA

Last night, I made a post about SOPA. Admittedly, it was kind of a last minute, "it's late and I'm tired" kind of job. While that post is certainly relevant, I think the issue warrants a little more attention. And, after some thought, I've decided I will not similarly "censor" this post.

Is it because my feelings have changed on the matter? No, I assure you that they haven't. The censored post is a good indicator of what we have to fear if this bill goes through. So it does illustrate a point for those who might be more apathetic toward this issue. However, it also alienates others who won't bother clicking to uncensor it.

I do thank the major websites that blackout in protest of SOPA, such as google, craigslist, wikipedia, and several others. It raises awareness in a big way. It lets the apathetic crowd know a startling reality - that this is what the internet could actually be like if some have their way.

A lot of people feel this may just be alarmist talk. Perhaps it is... after all, the Patriot Act for example hasn't brought about martial law... yet. But like the Patriot Act, it opens up a wide net. It is unconstitutional. There is no due process. Stay tuned kids, 'cause it's going to get scary.

SOPA was more or less written by lobbyists. The stated goal is to shut down international piracy websites. What does it define as such? That's where it gets murky.

Sites can be shut down on suspicion of piracy.

That's right. Like I said, no due process or anything. This blog could and likely would be shut down for any number of reasons. If they wanted to give a reason, it could be for linking to news stories and giving my own commentary on them. Or it could be done so because I'm seen as competition. But they don't even really have to have a reason. Perfect way to bully people out of business if they don't have resources for a legal battle.

Do you enjoy sites like Wikipedia? Fark? Non-mainstream news sites? Political blogs? Youtube? Social networking (eg, facebook, myspace, livejournal, etc)? Satirical sites? Well, those would all be in very real danger, should SOPA pass. Even something as broad as google might be in danger for not taking an active enough part in blocking stuff. And do you like open source software? Forget about that. I rather suspect that open source software is one of the biggest reasons that SOPA came about.

For those unaware, open source software is software that was created by geeks down on their luck. It started with Linus Torvalds. He had used Unix in college, and liked it quite a bit. He wanted to buy it, but couldn't afford the very hefty price tag it carried. Then he had a thought: he realized that he was, by trade/training, a computer programmer. So he started in creating his own version of it. Others, like-minded, joined in the making... adding stuff, taking stuff out, tweaking code. It became a big community project. The end result of this is what we now know as Linux. Similar to Unix in most of its workings, although now more user-friendly. Oh, and did I mention that it's free? That's the definition of open-source software - its source code is open to all, and free to all. Other popular open source programs are GIMP (image manipulation... Adobe hates this one), OpenOffice (a suite of office programs... Microsoft hates this one), and one you've probably all heard of - Mozilla Firefox (a web browser, and probably still the biggest competitor Microsoft's Internet Explorer has). Now, these programs may be similar, but they are not the same as the expensive programs they provide an alternative to. But that's really one of the big problems with SOPA. It allows these companies to censor their competitors who lack the funds for a legal battle. And if they complain that said programs are too similar, then they are hypocrites. Especially Microsoft, who took the idea of Windows® from Apple.

This is the reality we're faced with. This bill is being supported by those who have the funds to lobby for it and to put up extended legal battles with anyone who opposes them, and by politicians and others who really don't know much at all about the internet or how it works. It's opposed by all those who realize the very real dangers it has.

I urge you all to go to AmericanCensorship.org for more information about how you can participate and add your voice to the growing outrage.

SOPA

I've censored the following, in protest of a bill that gives any corporation and the US government the power to censor the internet--a bill that could pass THIS WEEK. To see the uncensored text, and to stop internet censorship, visit: http://americancensorship.org/posts/41488/uncensor

███████ █████ a ██████████ new ██████████, the ████████ is ██████ ██████ █████ █████████. Of ██████, it's a █████ █████ for ████. We all ████ the ████████ is ██████ for ████. But ████ ████ is it ████ for, ██████?

████, how ████ of you ████ █████ old ███████ of █████ ███████ ████████? Old ████████ █████ and █████ ██████ ███████ ███████? How ████ of you ████ █████ ████ ████ is █████ ███████ by ██████████ █████? How ████ of you ████ █████████ █████ ████ ████ one? How ████ of you ████ ████ in on ██████████ a ████████, or ████████ ████ a ████████, ███████ the ████████?

████ ████ all of ████ in ██████. It is a ████ █████ net ████ █████ █████ of █████ ██████████. If you are ███████ ████, ████ it █████ ████ you've ████████ e-██████ or ██████ ████████. For ████, I █████ you... ████ as an ████████ ███████, and as a ███████ who █████ to █████ you █████████ ███████████.

Uncensor This

Friday, January 13, 2012

Indoctrination in Public Schools

Back when I was in high school, for some idiot reason, PETA was allowed to set up shop in the hallway near the front office during lunch. Predictably, they were pushing off all their pamphlets, mostly trying to guilt people in to a total vegan diet. Me, being who I am, I would always double back to grab a burger or something in which meat was the main ingredient in that could easily be held in one hand while I browse the pamphlets talking about how meat is murder.

Being older and wiser now, I still grin ear to ear about that. But, I also find myself kind of irritated. I never saw anyone else being allowed to set up shop in the school hallways during lunch to present any kind of counterpoint. It was indoctrination. That PETA would do that doesn't surprise me - they have no ethics in how they get their message across. Show them the studies that plants do, indeed, feel pain too, and their smug little heads explode. Why though were they allowed to set up shop in a public school? Why were no opposing views doing the same?

I'm pretty certain that any conservatives reading this will be saying, "yup, that's what I'm talking about! Liberal propaganda is being forced into our children's minds. Indoctrination at public schools has gotta stop here and now!"

With that statement, "indoctrination has to stop," I fully agree. Why then, are so many Republicans forcing creationism into the curriculum of public schools? And universities? Creationism is not science. There is no scientific evidence to back it up. If it belongs in any curriculum in a public school, it would belong in one such as "Comparative Theology," Not something that teaches fact based on evidence.

Intelligent design also is not a compromise. Again, it is not based on fact or any kind of evidence, it is based on one religion trying to find some way to force their agenda into schools. So conservatives, guess what? It's still indoctrination, even if it's under your agenda.

This is something that people are being forced to learn, and being graded on for learning "correctly." It's being passed off as science, not for the theology it rightfully is, regardless of the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the students.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

The problem with the GOP

Who here is keeping up with the GOP primaries? If so, do you have a favorite? Mine recently went Libertarian after the GOP ignored him and called him a troublemaker. Other than him, I honestly don't like anyone running in the GOP.

With my politics, most who know me would probably expect me to support Obama. Well, I did. I supported him through the Democrat primaries and voted for him in the general election of 2008. The way I saw it was that he was fresh to politics and still had ideals, rather than just being another slippery turd in a business suit. I don't regret my vote. McCain would have been worse... it would have been like Bush having a third term. But I am disappointed in Obama.

I had hoped he would hold onto those ideals that had endeared him to me if he got elected. Sadly, he did not. He carried on many of Bush's policies, such as the inappropriately named "Patriot Act," and more recently, the NDAA. Other than that, much like any politician, he's too much a coward to make any big moves or to push for any big changes. It could be blamed on the obstructionism coming from Republicans, but no one said that being president would be easy, and only a fool would think it would be. Especially being the first black president, sadly. Birthers can deny all they want, but I doubt they would be making such an issue if not for his race.

With this - the bad economy and the continuing slow erosion of liberties, I think that people on both sides are taking a "it's just more of the same" mentality when they look at their leaders and candidates. It's hard to get excited about what either party is offering.

I'm firmly convinced that the TEA Party is going to be the downfall of the Republicans. While the movement in itself is not racist, many in it are. They also keep pushing the most extreme and theocratic candidates up to the front in the Republican primaries, forgetting that it's ultimately the Independents and moderates that decide, come the general election. I will say right now that as an Independent and a moderate, I do not want an extremist in office, and would happily vote Obama another term before accepting one of those the TEA Party has pushed.

Every Republican candidate has shown certain extremist ideas. I won't harp too much on Bachmann, only because she's dropped out already. But, let's look at Rick Perry, who seems proud that Texas has had so many executions under his rule (some of whom have later been proven innocent), or Newt Gingrich who is one of the biggest noisemakers and hypocrites that I've seen in my lifetime - lambasting Clinton from one side of Capitol Hill to the other over an affair while he, himself, is having an affair, which is nothing new. And yes, in general while I am not myself gay, I do consider equal rights for gays to be an important issue. If nothing else, one's stances on this is very telling of their character as a whole, I think.

To summarize, the GOP really isn't uniting on much of anything other than hate, whether it be of Obama or of gays. The candidates presented are weak and sometimes too much alike. None is offering real change... and as for the economy, they just keep presenting plans to balance the budget by the time they are long out of office. That's not fixing anything, it's just passing it to the next guy.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Doomsday

Read a story this morning about the apparently famous DOOMsday Clock, which I've honestly never heard of until now. Perhaps surprisingly, this one is being ran more by the scientific community, I guess by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, instead of the religious community. If you'd like to read the story, then here's the link to it:
DOOM!

As one might guess by their name, they consider things such as the present state of nuclear armament, but also considering other issues like climate change, biological weapons, and other scientifically backed stuff. Midnight is DOOM. Sounds logical, I suppose... although also rather alarmist. The alarmist part is what irritates me, and the prediction of imminent DOOM really puts them in the same camp as the religious nuts. If you were wondering where it sits at the moment I write this (or at least when the news story was written), it's at 11:54. The closest it's been is 11:57 in 1984, and the furthest is 11:43 in 1991.

I wonder, what would happen if the scientists end up moving it to midnight and nothing happens? Will they make themselves look equally foolish as the religious nuts who keep predicting Judgement Day?

I'm not arrogant enough to believe that DOOMsday will never come. I also don't doubt that humanity will play a part in its own destruction. I do believe however that it's a little arrogant to make predictions as to when and how. There are some things that can be a given - if everyone breaks out their nukes, it's going to be a bad day. If people start using biological weapons, it's going to be a bad day. Or, if calculations show that an asteroid is on a collision course with Earth, um... yeah. Bad. You get the idea. Beyond that however, I think there are more factors in what would cause DOOMsday than even scientists could figure out.

Let's sing the DOOM Song! (from Invader Zim)

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Prejudice and Hypocrisy

When talking about equal rights, it's generally very bad practice to make exceptions. In early America, there were several exceptions to the "all men are created equal" philosophy - basically anyone who wasn't white and/or Christian. Also, the "men" part of that philosophy was treated in a much more literal sense than it is today, as it was the accepted belief that women just weren't as important as men. And as for sexual orientation, forget about it. If you were anything other than straight, you were insane. In some cases, that would mean electroshock treatment, frontal lobotomies, etc. And that's just the institutionalized stuff, not the lynch-mob type of stuff.

Lately, bullying has been making the news a lot. The rather horrible consequences of it are becoming a lot more publicized where we are hearing about suicides and the like as a result of it. I realize I may be saying this phrase a lot on my blog, but "it's nothing new." When things like bullying, child abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse, etc, become more publicized, there is a common misconception that it is new. Then the generation gets blamed, "ie, when I was that age, we knew to treat each other with respect, or we'd end up with a hot butt!"

But again, it's nothing new. In the older days, it was simply accepted that child abuse and domestic abuse, and sometimes even sexual abuse was "just the way things are." For a child to admit that they were being abused, especially if by a same-sex abuser, it would scandalize the whole family. So it simply wasn't talked about. Child abuse and domestic violence were "a family matter."

It's undeniable that huge strides have been made (though some still yearn for the days when they had the "right" to beat their kids and/or wives), and progress is still being made. As someone who has had to deal with a lot of bullying as a kid, I'm glad that more is being done about it.

But let's get back to why I titled this post "Prejudice and Hypocrisy," shall we? This is why:

What's the fucking difference? Under this same hair-brained philosophy, aren't all bullies practicing free speech? "Now so-and-so, we know that he broke your nose and made you eat dog crap, but he was practicing his First Amendment right in free expression - he's philosophically opposed to wimpy kids with glasses, and you have no right to obstruct his First Amendment rights."

It's the same damned thing. It's a free country, but rights end where they begin to trample on those of others. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - sound familiar to anyone?

Unfortunately, this seems to be a common tactic with the religious right, and they seem to see nothing wrong with it. They keep the rights for themselves to trample on the rights of others. If their rights become limited to the same as those of others, they scream about persecution. Sadly, it's human nature, though. It's not something that can be blamed on religion, only those who use it to justify their own hate and prejudice. Everyone wants rights, but few are willing to accept the responsibilities, even if the responsibility is as simple as respecting the same rights of others. But, with things like this, it is little surprise that so many are walking away from the church, and at times even becoming hateful of it.

I wonder... would these same lawmakers be supportive of an atheist bully's right to bully around Christian kids? Again, it's the same damn thing.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Erosion of Liberties

In truth, this is nothing new. Liberties have been eroded or ignored since before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights. Figure, slavery was rather contradictory to the Bill of rights, but it endured for decades after. Then we have workers' rights, women's rights, ending segregation, equal rights for gays... the list goes on.

It's undeniable that some significant gains have been made in this direction. Women can now vote, segregation is no longer institutionalized, and there are laws recognizing these things. Granted, the laws aren't always observed by everyone, but they are in place.

Just as gains are being made, we're taking losses in other areas. Perhaps most notably in privacy. It's no secret now that what we post online under our own names can come back and bite us in the ass. It's the same as if you stood on a soapbox in a large park to rant and rave. The only thing is that on the internet, the whole world is quite literally your audience. That can include law enforcement, the government, your employer, potential employers, etc. This is why I choose to blog anonymously. I don't want thoughts I post here to interfere with my life, nor do I want my life to interfere with how people interpret my thoughts. I am aware that if someone really wanted to, they could find out who I am, but I'm not going to worry excessively about that.

But let's move on from the obvious. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that said "they that can give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither." That's exactly what we've been doing... giving up liberties for a feeling of some safety, especially since 9/11. When we see cops in movies that make their own rules, we treat them as heroes. We grant law enforcement more and more power. But what happens when they abuse it? In some areas in particular, with how much power they've already been given, it's increasingly difficult to take it back:
The short of it is that an attorney in Seattle has requested a dash cam video of suspected police misconduct. These dash cam videos are supposedly public record, but Seattle has cited privacy rules. To me, this seems like a pretty clear case of retaliation. To add insult to injury, the city said that they don't have to release the video for three years... which is when the statute of limitations runs out for suing the city, and when those videos are routinely erased.

But, the modern day of erosion of liberties does not end there. Sad to say, much of it can be attributed to people wanting all the rights for themselves and fewer for those who disagree. Religion is one of the biggest culprits in this, I think. We hear often from over-zealous Christians about how their rights are being violated when they aren't allowed to force their beliefs on others in one way or another, and it seems increasingly obvious that Christianity is having a stronger hand in foreign policy, as well as in domestic policy. This is something that is popular with many, while others are afraid to even point it out. Start looking for double standards here, and you will find them in abundance.

If you try to put a frog in a boiling pot of water, it will immediately struggle to get out before it dies. However, if you put a frog in just a cool pot of water and gradually increase the heat, it will not struggle. It will simply sit in there until it is killed. Well, we're in that pot of water, the temperature is going up... how far are we from being boiled alive? If something is wrong, make noise about it. Do something about it. Learn your rights, and be aware of what happens around you. And again, this is nothing new.

Occupy Wall Street

By now, I think it's safe to assume we've all heard of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. We've seen the signs saying "we are the 99%," we've seen the occasional Guy Fawkes mask. Less well known is just what they want. We know they're part of the 99%, we know that a lot of them probably like "V for Vendetta," and we know that they are angry. But about what, exactly?

The problem is that they don't have a centralized structure to get their message out. Maybe that's good with their ideals, but maybe not so good when it comes to the press. Sad to say, I suspect that many of the OWS people aren't even sure why they're out there.

But some messages still do come out loud and clear, thanks in particular to journalists and bloggers who support the movement and do some research into it. One such message in particular caught my attention:
Yes, you read that right. The gap between rich and poor in the US is wider than it was in the Roman empire, and the Roman empire collapsed. I'm not expecting the US as we know it to collapse anytime soon... at least not within our lifetimes. But then, what would a collapse mean? I don't imagine repo agents coming and shooing us out of the US. I imagine more that it would mean a complete loss of faith in the government. Maybe an armed revolt, maybe not. When you think about it, any government rules only at the mercy of its people. If the people as a whole simply began to ignore the government and set up their own, then that would be an effective collapse of America as we know it.

Many who read this may be rattling their sabers and shaking their fists, saying, "yeah, me and my group could make some real changes here!" That's kinda what I'm afraid of. I'm aware of some such groups... and the ones that I'm aware of, both conscience and my desire for survival would dictate that I resist such groups who would want to take things over. Each has their own agenda, and what I have seen, it is NOT to restore America.

Let's look back to this income gap issue though, shall we?

First of all, there is nothing wrong with capitalism in and of itself. It is kind of the ultimate freedom, and as I've said before, with freedom comes responsibility. Don't like an idea? Don't feed money into it. I feel that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. Ideally, one gets paid for their efforts, and fairly so. That's the ideal. But, the human element gets thrown in, and that's where things get screwed up. As a whole, humans tend to be rather lazy and greedy.

If we go back maybe a hundred years, give or take, people were working their lives away. The five day work week, eight hours a day... if you mentioned that, you would have been laughed out of where ever it is you went. Even children had to work, just so their families could make ends meet. You may also have heard of "company stores." What that was, the companies, instead of paying workers in regular money paid them in credit for the company store, where they could buy the necessities. This way, there was a bare minimum in loss of profits by the company, by basically treating their workers as slaves. The workers had little choice but to accept.

Enter the labor unions. The labor unions organized workers to make a lot of changes in company policies and in law. This is where we get our more recognizable forty hour workweek, child labor laws, and similar things. But, as time passes, even the labor unions are not immune to the same laziness, greed, and corruption that they once fought against. They have the potential to still do good, but too often, they do not. They also attempt to take choice out of the workers' hands by making union membership, or at least paying union dues, a mandatory condition of employment, whether the worker feels they are doing a good job representing them or not.

Going forward, as technology improved, companies began noticing that it was possible to conduct business from afar. They hearkened back to the good ol' days of underpaid workers with low standards. This is when they began outsourcing to other nations. They loved it, the shareholders loved it, profits soared. For a time.

The thing about greed is that it is self-destructive. So many companies did this outsourcing that it noticeably raised unemployment and lowered salaries of workers. The very simple foundation of the economy is that if people are spending money, people are making money. American workers now had substantially less money to spend, because their jobs are being shipped overseas, and they are having to accept substantially less money when they are employed, and enjoying much less job security.

Seeing that income gap widen yet?

Further, like I said, this greed is self-destructive. With the American workers not working or having less money to spend, that greed is coming back around to bite those companies in the ass. Not just the ones that outsourced, though... poverty doesn't discriminate. Although what money people do have is generally used to buy the cheapest things possible to stretch the money as far as possible... which means more underpaid workers with minimal job security. So the problem is feeding off itself.

Whether you take OWS seriously or not, it may be wise to at least hear what messages you can from the movement. There is a reason for it, however garbled it may sometimes seem. As I've said, I'm not a news breaker, I simply think about the news and events more in-depth to clarify them, to look for first causes.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Wag the Dog

There is a phrase often used in politics - "wag the dog." No, I'm not referring to the movie. I actually haven't even watched that movie yet. It refers to when an issue of secondary importance is pushed up to detract attention from a perhaps more important issue. It comes from an old saying  - "a dog is smarter than its tail, but if the tail were smarter, the tail would wag the dog."

This tactic is not at all unusual in politics, although while certain issues are rightly secondary issues, one can still, in a sense, wag the dog by overstating the importance of the more important issues to the point of attempting to make someone feel guilty by even bringing up the secondary issues.

This is what Bachmann seems to be doing in a perhaps outdated story I read, as she has dropped out of the election after the Iowa stuff: Bachmann throws a hissy-fit when asked if she still holds her stance

To summarize, a CNN anchor asked Bachmann if she pulls back any of her very strong stance on social issues, most specifically that of homosexuality. She goes on to list a couple of quotes from Bachmann on the subject - "Gays live a very sad life," and "it's part of Satan."

Bachmann was quick to respond, saying she thought it was a bizarre thing to bring up when the economy is in shambles, then going on to say that she came from a family that was below poverty, and that she had to earn her way out of poverty.

To me, that honestly seems a cop-out on Bachmann's part. While certainly the economy is an important issue, so is that of equal rights, I think. If she made the economy somehow perfect, this issue would still exist just the same. We all know her stances, but I'm fairly sure she was trying to wiggle out of having another flare-up before the Iowa caucuses.

If not for how strongly she voiced her opposition to equal rights for gays, and the fact that she linked them to Satan, then I may be able to overlook this. With her passionate hate for them however, I know that the economy is certainly not taking the level of priority in her own mind that she suggested by her rebuttal to the CNN anchor.

My point is that no matter how important you think one issue is, don't ignore a candidate's stances on other issues. It will bite you in the ass.

The Differences Between Democrats and Republicans

Sad to say, the differences between the two main parties are fewer than either of them would like to admit. Democrats tout themselves to be liberal and progressive, while Republicans tout themselves to be conservative and in favor of small government.

If one looks at the dictionary definitions of the two party names, or perhaps their root words, we go a little further in-depth as to the original intentions that brought the parties into existence. The word "Democrat" obviously refers to "democracy," which means government by the people, and most likely a free electoral system. As for Republican, it just as obviously refers to the belief in a republic, which means government by representatives of the people. As you can see, the two definitions are virtually interchangeable today, and I doubt that more than a handful of people (including those leaders who align themselves with one party or the other) know the difference. Historically, a democracy would refer to more direct rule by the people, where a Republic would mean rule by representatives who are thought of as perhaps being wiser or more educated than the people.

With this, the Civil War would be a good example to illustrate this difference. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and rather progressive for his time. He went against what was popular when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, was actually a Democrat, believing in states' rights to secede from the union, in keeping the popular institution of slavery, etc. It could perhaps be described as ironic now that the parties seem to have switched roles, with Republicans talking about secession due to Obama's presidency, and Democrats being the main driving force in Washington for civil rights movements that aren't always popular.

I'll say this bluntly: both parties want big government, though one of them denies this.

With Democrats, you get big government in the form of a nanny-state. Perhaps well-meaning, but still restricting liberties "for your own good." This is where you start seeing excessive regulation, like toys in kids' meals at fast food restaurants being banned, cartoon character mascots on kids' cereal boxes being banned, gun regulations that suggest that no one is responsible enough to really be trusted with guns. By definition, these would actually be more Republican ideals than Democrat ideals, as it is suggestive of a sort of elitism. But again, dictionary definitions simply do not apply to today's reality.

The Republican style of big government tends to be theocratic in nature. The Republicans tend to legislate on moral issues rather than simply sticking with the common good. This meddles in the freedoms and liberties of the people just as much as the Democrats' nanny-state ideas. The Republicans in recent years also has shown a tendency to be big spenders, same as the Democrats. Just a difference on what they spend the money on.

My own thought is that we are adults. I spent eighteen years being treated as a child by my parents with no alternative to simply accepting it. I didn't go through all that just to be treated as a child by the government that supposedly knows what's best for me, either from a Republican or Democrat perspective. I believe in freedom, and with freedom certainly comes responsibility. I also believe in compassion... but compassion in helping someone get back on their feet as opposed to making it easier to stay off one's feet.

If you agree, then it's up to you to demand the change rather than simply accepting what you're offered, like a well cared for child. Don't let a party or anyone else tell you what to believe.

Introduction

With the plethora of blogs already out there on one subject or another, it would almost seem that one who adds to that mess owes an explanation, if not an apology. Of course, living in a nation that has free speech written into the Constitution, that isn't the case.

The simple fact is that we all have our own thoughts and ideas of how things should be, and if we let any one person do all our talking for us, it is weakness and/or cowardice. It is human nature to flock with others, like-minded, but foolish to give absolute loyalty to a person or group or political party in this, rather than to an ideal. The current mess we have in American politics, I feel, is largely due to party loyalties rather than loyalties to the ideals this nation was built around.

I have no delusions about what I am. I chose the title of this blog, "Just Another Hack With a Blog," because I know that this is exactly what most people will think when they see yet another blog preaching about politics and the like. I am not a news breaker, I am not a famous pundit, or even an anonymous insider. Just someone who made a blog to try and clarify this mess we have in America. Kinda like Rush "lame-brain" Limbaugh, but with less of a following.

I'll say it right now that my own politics tend to lean toward the left, but with a Libertarian streak. I am registered Independent, always have been, and probably always will be. I encourage debate, and if you find things I say to be outlandish, feel free to fact-check. I don't pretend to be a god. At the same time though, don't expect that you'll convert me to your views. If you do so, you'll probably think I'm rather stubborn. I notice that the word "stubborn" is frequently used to describe those who don't instantly convert to the view of another, more stubborn than who they're using that word to describe. I also am not quick to buy into conspiracy theories, as I feel that they are dangerous.

Anyway, stick around, and let's have some fun.