Hypocrisy!

I find it humorous to hear right-wing Zionists give near fellatio to Israel and how they've overcome what horrible things Hitler did while saying how much we need to kill all Muslim fundamentalists in the same breath. Hypocritical, no?

Bush confident about First Amendment burning

"Those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live," George Bush was quoted at Camp David, in regards to his privacy violation law being shot down by a Detroit judge. Anna Digs Taylor saw through the law and condemned it as unconstitutional (based on the 1st and 4th Amendments as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978). The Bush Admin have filed an appeal and the case is pending.

Why is it that the government feels they have the audacity to tap our phones and read our emails (under the clause of "terrorism prevention") yet, when you have cases like this (despite the fact that it's in the UK) people are arrested and criminalized. Why can't I tap my President's phone under the warrant of "dictatorship prevention?" I'm sure they have secrets that we, as common people shouldn't know ("For the people, by the people.") however, I'm sure I have secrets that the government shouldn't know.

We should stop condemning so called "state dictatorship" when we are turning into one.

F for Fear?

I'm expecting to catch flack for my view in this post, but I can understand why. It's a touchy subject and people don't like to hear something like it. Also, my view is not that popular.

The supposed terror attempts on the planes in the UK, in my opinion, was faked. I admit that something must have happened but I believe the majority of it was blown out to keep the fear alive. President Bush said the act could have caused "death on a massive scale." Of course 44,000 dead Iraqi's isn't death on a massive scale. If those 44,000 were Americans, however, it would be genocide and any brown skinned, Middle Eastern civilian would have to fear the wrath of Fuhrer America.

The headline of this CNN article even reads "Bush: Never think danger of terror gone." It just seems like it could be finished with some comment on how, because of this, we should further surrender our rights in the name of security.

Linking the "terror plot" to probably unrelated world events, Bush said, "The terrorists attempt to bring down airplanes full of innocent men, women and children. They kill civilians and American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they deliberately hide behind civilians in Lebanon. These killers need to know that America, Great Britain and our allies are determined to defend ourselves and advance the cause of liberty. With patience, courage and untiring resolve, we will defend our freedom, and we will win the war on terror." I have a few problems with that statement:

• How many civilian centers have American and Israel taken out? Just because they are American doesn't make their lives more valuable. Nationalism at work, I guess?
• Israel has countlessly used Palestinian as sheilds by making them open the door and enter rooms in suspected "terrorists'" houses. Hiding behind civilians?
• America is determined to advance the cause of right wing, similar-business-interest, capitalist-esque liberty.

Under a regime like ours, it's easy for people to surrender their rights for the feeling of security from terrorism.

Minimum Wage and Estate Tax

Our two party system is at it again. Proving the "Two parties, one platform" theory, the Republicans set up a bill that would thankfully raise minimum wage, but also cut the estate tax. Now of course the working/middle class American is asking what's wrong with cutting taxes. Maybe nothing to you, but the estate tax is only a tax that hits the wealthiest of America. In the words of the government: "In its current form, the estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2% of all Americans."

So what's the problem with taxing them? There's this fear in the halls of the bourgeoiousie that if this and other taxes increase: they might have to live on the same class level as the rest of the Americans. God forbid. Poverty just isn't for them. It shouldn't be though. Their parents worked other people hard for that money, so their kids should have every right to hoard it all, sans the rest of the country.

Oh yes, the rest of the country. The same country that guarantees them freedom. Who dies for your freedom? It isn't the son of the congressman that declare the wars. It isn't the children of the generals who send them in. No, it's the people that labour for your wealth. That is who dies for your freedom to be a wealthy pig.

My point: if you want to live in America and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else, you have to give something back to the collective. If you don't want to do that, then don't expect any legal help when the proles raid your manor and take your land. And your head.

A Solution to the Abortion Issue!

I think I may have finally came up with a concrete plan to solve the abortion crisis. To note as we begin, I am pro-choice. I support a woman's right to control her body. However, in the recent times, I have debated with many peers over abortion, most of whom were against the "murder" of an unborn fetus.

My solution is simple. It satisfies both parties involved; the pro-life people are given a free end to abortion, the pro choice people get to see sweet revenge on the anti-choice people.

At first, my views on the subject were that abortion should always remain legal and pro-life people would always have the option to not get an abortion if they became pregnant. Seemed logical, but apparently, the pro-life table wanted to decided for all of us. I reviewed the options, what each party stood for and now I present my solution...


The Solution to Abortion in America -

1. All abortions are made illegal immediately.
2. The names of all Anti-Abortion activist and/or anyone in the nation who opposes abortion and is strictly pro-life is added to a list of "contacts."
3. Any woman seeking an abortion is forced to deliver the child, no matter how it was conceived.
4. When said child is born, the first person on the anti-abortion "contacts" list is contacted and given the child to be taken care of economically/socially/physically. The person(s) will act as adoptive parents. Any refusal to take the child in will be considered child neglect and result in arrest and trial. The child will be given to the next person on the list if arrest is made.

The great thing about this solution is that it is fool proof to anti-choice rhetoric. Here's some common excuses that might arrive from a pro-lifer who's to tied up to take a child (but not to busy to protest abortion):

• "I can't take care of the child financially." - While this is a critical issue, we must note that pro-life activists have ignored the financial crises of many women who are seeking abortions; therefore, financial problems should be viewed as only small inconveniences to an anti-abortion person.
• "I don't want kids." - Again, many women have used the same excuse to get an abortion when they become pregnant. However, anti-abortion groups say that the person should have thought of their actions before doing so (all women must think of their actions before being raped). So, by forcing this person to not only have the kid, but to medically carry it for 9 months, it would seem that pro-lifers would do anything to have a human life pull through.
• "They should consider an adoption." - They did and you are the adopters . Congratulations, it's a boy.
• "I am not (emotionally/physically/mentally) capable of taking care of a child." - Women who are becoming pregnant at the age of 12 might try the same excuse, but pro-life groups still would like to see that baby born, so I have granted their wishes, and now it's theirs.
• "I couldn't take care of a handicapped child." - Neither could the mother, but that didn't stop you from demanding a birth.

This plan should make both sides happy. All anti-abortion people I know talk of the value of life, so I'm sure they would be thrilled to take a new child into their home, no matter the inconvenience it may cause.

Socialist Actions' Racism

I am a Marxist. In recent days/weeks, I've been overviewing my beliefs and realized that I do support anarchism, but I would consider myself Marxist (due to petty ideological differences). This being so, I have tried hard to read and learn as much as I can about the principles, the working, and the Revolution. Most things that I have come across have fit my perceptions (the dictatorship of the proletariat still makes me iffy) however, when I ran across Socialist Actions' (Youth Socialist Action as well) website, I found myself critical of their racial policies.

Of course, a site called Youth Socialist Action immediately drew me in. After all, I am a.) a youth and b.) a socialist. I had been told it was credible and a good site for education, so I hit it up. I scanned the first few articles I could find and found them very informative and well written. However, when I reached one titled "When America Goes Socialist," I was bothered by what I read. The first few paragraphs were well thought out and agreeable, however when it came to their views on racism and racial workings after the Revolution, I was in a disagreement with them.

"In the immediate aftermath of the conquest of power, while the material basis for racism will have been smashed, and while we can safely assume that the heroic role played in the revolution by Afro-Americans and other third world peoples will have deeply shaken the racist ideas of many whites, some backward attitudes will persist for a brief time. During this period, we can expect forthright, decisive action by the revolutionary government to prevent the manifestation of race prejudice in any overt act of discrimination, as well as to rapidly remove existing inequalities in education, employment, housing and medical care. Many of the revolutionary leaders in the new government will be third world people. This will also be the time when Blacks, Chicanos, and other minorities will be able to decide whether they want to partition the socialist republic into separate states or join with whites in a singe, multinational revolutionary state. Whatever the decision each group makes, bonds of solidarity will displace mutual antagonisms as all sections advance toward communism and new generations are born into rationally and democratically planned economy of abundance." - YSA

What if myself and the other white Revolutionaries want a seperate state? That would be racist I assume, and I agree; it would be. This would mean though, that creating a seperate Black/Chicano state could be considered racism. Isn't a state that is run by and for one race a racist state? Remember the Arayan Nation? Nazi Germany? Whites are not the only group capable of that (just the most likely).

As a socialist and a human being, I support internationalism, not seperatism.

Get Well Soon, Fidelito!

Everyone surely knows about Fidel handing the reigns to Raul while he undergoes treatment for internal bleeding. Thought I had high hopes for Raul's noted Marxist tendencies, I still hope for Fidel's recovery.

Defend the Revolution! Save the Workers' State!