DoubleThink!

Socialism holds in Venezuela

2006-12-04T10:15:00.000-05:00

Chavez takes the Venezuelan election again With a 60% lead over his right-wing canidate, the people of Venezuela have spoken in support of socialism.

For a better and more indepth article on this, check out Lenin's Tomb.

Indiana Anarchists on Strike!

2006-12-01T10:42:00.000-05:00

Purdue University
Lafayette, Indiana, USA
Anarchist students of the Purdue Alliance of Libertarian Socialists, in solidarity with the Purdue Organization of Labor Equality and the oppressed workers of the world, are currently engaged in a hunger strike and camp-in, the purpose of which is to pressure Purdue University to stop having its apparel maunfactured in sweatshops. The hunger strike, which began on Friday, 17 November, will continue until Purdue unequivocally accepts the Designated Suppliers Program and other anti-sweatshop measures. Students have also been occupying various campus buildings 24 hours a day despite intense police harrassment. The occupation will continue throughout the Thanksgiving holiday.

Students at Purdue have been struggling for 7 years now to make Purdue a sweat-free campus. This campaign is our “piece de resistance.” We will not stop our strike until our demands are met.

THE PURDUE ALLIANCE OF LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISTS NEEDS THE HELP OF OUR COMRADES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD!

What you can do to help us:

1. Contact the Purdue Board of Trustees, President Martin Jischke, and Vice President of University Relations Joe Bennett

Purdue Board of Trustees
E-mail – trustees@purdue.edu
Phone: 765-494-9710
Fax: 765-496-7465

President Martin Jischke
E-mail: mcjischke@purdue.edu
Phone: 765-494-9708

Vice President of University Relations Joe Bennett
E-mail: jlbennett@purdue.edu
Phone: 765-494-2085

2. Send letters of support to the strikers c/o egcollective@riseup.net

3. Electronically sign our petition c/o egcollective@riseup.net

WE NEED YOUR HELP! PLEASE CONTACT PURDUE AND EXPRESS YOUR SOLIDARITY WITH STRIKING STUDENTS!

For anarchy,

– The Purdue Alliance of Libertarian Socialists

War Within a Breath

2006-11-30T10:20:00.000-05:00

President Bush really should not talk. In a press conference about the Iraqi Civil War at the University of Latvia, Mein Fuhrer Bush was quoted as saying, "There is one thing I'm not going to do. I am not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." Keep in mind this is the same President who appeared just a few years ago in a tight flight suit, proudly toting that it was "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Try not to backtrack, Mr. Bush, you might hurt yourself.

Popapananza!

2006-11-29T12:27:00.000-05:00

I have yet to meet one person who doesn't think that the Pope has it out for him when he goes to Turkey this month. After his comments regarding Islamic scripture, the entire fundamentalist community has it out for the man. However, if such an attack were to be pulled off (sucessfully), I'm pretty sure we could expect to see large tides of people (Latin America/South Amercia in general due to high concentrations of Catholics) turn against Muslims on a large scale. So, really, an attack on the Pope has it's good sides and down sides:

A successful attack could cause world wide anti-Muslim sentiments resulting in possible violence.
A successful attack would rid us of one more authoritarian religious bafoon.

While I'm not pushing for violence against the Pope, my feelings towards religious leaders aren't that high. In all though, the Islamic community shouldn't risk the Islamophobia that will surely follow, world-wide. People don't seem to comprehend that an act pulled off by a group of extremists doesn't and shouldn't speak for everyone of that faith.

Penny Tossing

2006-11-27T19:32:00.000-05:00

While enjoying a round table discussion of money and food over lunch with my friends (where else?), a comrade of mine gave me a wonderful idea. She and I were discussing that nasty feeling of pennies (you know, the smell) when she said that she threw hers away because she never found much use for them. This came after I had just watched a wonderful video on the anti-WTO riots (Seattle '99) and heard them talk momentarily of "economic sabotage."

So, soon enough, the idea of throwing pennies away grew on me. It was a small thing but it gave me many ideas on economic sabotage. While smashing out the windows of a McDonalds are a little big yet to a boy with no drivers liscense, the idea of doing little daily things seemed so much better and something that could really promote solidarity, at least in the mind of an individual who felt a little isolated in a small town (me).

I'm really not trying to suggest that throwing away pennies is a big act or even an act in itself, but just something to think about. Maybe what I'm really trying to get through with this is that little acts done by a lot of people really puts a mark. If people start ridding themselves of spare change and putting it into places where it won't be used, then I'm sure that will have to have some impact, somewhere down the line. Along with those things, I'd suggest:

Taking forks and spoons from your local government funded schools and donating them to a homeless shelter or a collective (or, if your family is like many American families and is stretched thin economically, use them yourselves. After all, they were paid for by your taxes).
Reclaiming food and/or land from corporate owned farms.
Need to make some propaganda poster? Schools in my area are notoriously short on paper, so why not help rid them of their extra leaflets and take some out of their printers to make your next revolutionary statement? After all, remember who paid for them.
Sidewalk chalk is a fun and cheap alternative to spray paint. So are sharpies. Find this richest neighborhood nearby and tell them how you feel!

So thos are tiny things,but on a rainy day, they help build a good spirit. Anyone one with further little ideas, shoot them at me.

Bulls on Parade

2006-11-27T10:47:00.000-05:00

I regret not having covered the Oaxaca struggle yet in this blog.

What is being called the "vanguard of the Mexican and Latin American struggles" by the revolutionaries in Oaxaca, this insurrection and occupation of the city, in my view, stands out as a huge milestone on the timeline of leftist revolutions. No, wait, I mean: people's revolutions. The fight for Oaxaca wouldn't be so prominent if it was fought only by insurgents or easily dubbed "guerillas" (despite what the main stream media would like you to think). In reality, the Oaxaca rebels are not just "insurgents." James Daria of Narco News said, in regards to the people's involvement:

"Throughout the course of the battle the residents of the community came out in support of the protesters. While the front lines ferociously battling police were made up mostly of Oaxacan youth, there were large numbers of older adults and many women among the ranks of the rebels. Whole families came out in solidarity with the movement. Many residents watched from their roofs and others brought out their mirrors to try and blind the pilots of the helicopters."

Could this be the forefront of a full-scale socialist revolution in Latin America? One wouldn't be alone if they thought so. This comes in tune with the election of notorious leftists Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia), and even the former Sandinista and Marxist Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua). However, the Oaxaca revolt differs in its style. It is not a political revolution. It did not bring about a change of power through electoral workings. Instead, it was the mass movement of the people. In the true style of Mikhail Bakunin, it was a collectivist assault on the ruling class.

The reaction of the Oaxaca peoples may have started under the guise of an annual teachers strike, a yearly attempt that started in the late '70's with a call for more funding for public school uniforms, lunches and supplies. When it was met with police repression in May of 2006, however, it literally turned into a supernova, sparking the people to fight not just for the rights of the teachers' union, but also for the entire working class. Activists with true dedication took to the streets to battle the PFP and PRI backed paramilitary forces. Why Chicano police would continue to battle their brothers and sisters is beyond me. A police officers pay is no better than any other working person. It always struck me as ludacris that police would try and silence a working class movement, especially one that benefit all involved. Over all though, police who do not side with this struggle should not be constantly spared so as to try and gain muscle. We cannot constantly forego the dirty work to keep our hands clean, if that makes any sense.

This all being said, and my solidarity with the Oaxaca rebels clear, there are problems with their tactics and working that leave me frustrated. For example, one can look at the recent day of brutality that saw full-on gunfire coming from PFP forces.

On November 25, two days ago from this posting, a peaceful demonstration in one of Oaxaca's main parks brought the deaths of three people by gunfire and the wounding of many others. In an attempt to form a human sheild around the PFP and PRI forces (peacefully), the APPO and other revolutionaries were met with tear gas and bruising force from the police and other governmental tools. When the need for self-defense was made evident, the revolutionaries responded with stones, slingshots and small-scale expolosives, a mere set of toys next to the PFP's goliath weapons. Overreacting, but reacting expectantly, the PFP returned fire with live ammunition, wounding dozens and causing even deaths. This is where my problem gives rise.

Why haven't the Oaxaca rebels fought fire with fire?

Peace is a wonderful thing and many would give anything in their possession to attain it, namely our brothers and sisters in Oaxaca. One must be ready to fight for peace though, as backwards as it may sound. Stones can do so much in biblical times, but when facing the fascism of a coporate plutocracy, the resistance of workers with guns says a lot more. The weapons population may be thin, but in true Zapatista spirit, armed revolt speaks much louder. Every effort to peace must be tried before using such violent methods, some say. In reality though, haven't the Oaxaca rebels tried peace? They have given peace a chance but only to have that turn into the spilled blood of almost 15 innocent people. John F. Kennedy said it best when he said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." The PFP are making a peaceful change of government impossible. The only way the APPO can/should respond now is with an explosion of armed revolutionary fervor. Only they can bring about the change, no outside governments or elections will do justice. They really do have a "world to win."

Hot Damn, it's Christmas time!

2006-11-25T23:03:00.000-05:00

With Thanksgiving over, the time for the holidays rolls in and the stress sets in.

Wait, I'm sorry. That was terribly incorrect of me to say "the holidays." It's quite clearly just another way of me to help wage the "war on Christmas."

That's right, comrades, the time of year has come for right wingers to start accusing the non-extremists of committing a war on Christianity, Christmas, Jesus, tradition, theocracies, the family, and anything else that's synonymous with "moral values." That is, their moral values.

Around this time last year, Bill O'Reilly and his ilk started accusing leftists and anyone else not allied with the Grand Ol' Pedophiles of supporting a war on Christmas and a "secular regime." I'm not sure where he got that. Maybe it was when corporations tried to appeal to diverse neighborhoods by saying "Happy Holidays" instead of alienation anyone. In true "Go Christian or go home" fashion, Bill shot out a poorly written article against the "leftists" (Yeah, calling Wal-Mart and the like leftists seemed a little odd to me too).

So, when reviewing this problem, I can only say that my solution would be to leave it alone. If you'd like to say Merry Christmas, I think our Constitution grants you that right. If you'd like to say Happy Holidays, do so. If you'd like to say "Kill Bill," that's even more acceptable (at least, in my book it is).

The confusing part about this is the fact that O'Reilly is such a proponent of people who would want to choose not to follow a "controlling...government". He lashes out at anyone who advocates a program in school that teaches, say, Islamic traditions but supports forcing corporations into honoring Christianity, even if their customers aren't Christian. Hey Bill, if you really support a true republic, then you should support the freedom of people to choose what they say. Not that it is a big deal, but really, you shouldn't try to force people into accepting Christianity while at the same time bashing "totalarion leftists."

In the end though, does it really matter?

WTO Riots: Sad to Miss

2006-11-25T21:41:00.000-05:00

I was running a YouTube search and I found this video. I really wish I would have been old enough or in the area to experience this. It was a great collective of people fighting a common enemy and something I sadly missed. Seeing the Black Blocs in action was great and I hope I can participate in something like that someday.

Howard Zinn Speech in Madison, Wisconson

2006-11-25T20:42:00.000-05:00

'Madison is a very special place. I always have a special feeling when I come here. I have a feeling I am in a different country. And I’m glad, you know. Some people get disgusted of the American policy, and they go to live in some other country. No. Go to Madison.

So, now I’m supposed to say something. I am glad you’re there, whoever you are, and this light is shining in my eyes to wake me up.

Well, do you get the feeling sometime that you’re living in an occupied country? Very often that’s a feeling I get when I wake up in the morning. I think, “I’m living in an occupied country. A small group of aliens have taken over the country and are trying to do with it what they will, you know, and really are.” I mean, they are alien to me. I mean, those people who are coming across the border from Mexico, they are not alien to me, you see. You know, Muslims who come to this country to live, they are not alien to me, you see. These demonstrations, these wonderful demonstrations that we have seen very recently on behalf of immigrant rights, say, and you’ve seen those signs saying, you know, “No human being is alien.” And I think that’s true. Except for the people in Washington, you see.

They’ve taken over the country. They’ve taken over the policy. They’ve driven us into two disastrous wars, disastrous for our country and even more disastrous for people in the Middle East. And they have sucked up the wealth of this country and given it to the rich, and given it to the multinationals, given it to Halliburton, given it to the makers of weapons. They’re ruining the environment. And they’re holding on to 10,000 nuclear weapons, while they want us to worry about the fact that Iran may, in ten years, get one nuclear weapon. You see, really, how mad can you be?

And the question is, how has this been allowed to happen? How have they gotten away with it? They’re not following the will of the people. I mean, they manufactured a will of the people for a very short time right after the war started, as governments are able to do right after the beginning of an armed conflict, in order to able to create an atmosphere of war hysteria. And so for a short time, they captivated the minds of the American people. That’s not true anymore. The American people have begun to understand what is going on and have turned against the policies in Washington, but of course they are still there. They are still in power. The question is, you know, how did they get away with that?

So, in trying to answer the question, I looked a little at the history of Nazi Germany. No, it’s not that we are Nazi Germany, but you can learn lessons from everybody and from anybody’s history. In this case, I was interested in the ideas of Hermann Göring, who, you may know, was second in command to Hitler, head of the Luftwaffe. And at the end of World War II, when the Nazi leaders were put on trial in Nuremberg, Hermann Göring was in prison along with other of the leaders of the Nazi regime. And he was visited in prison by a psychologist who was given the job of interviewing the defendants at Nuremberg.

And this psychologist took notes and, in fact, a couple of years after the war, wrote a book called Nuremberg Diary, in which he recorded -- put his notes in that book, and he recorded his conversation with Hermann Göring. And he asked Göring, how come that Hitler, the Nazis were able to get the German people to go along with such absurd and ruinous policies of war and aggression?” And I happen to have those notes with me. We always say, “We happen to have these things just, you know, by chance.”

And Göring said, “Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same way in any country.”

I was interested in that last line: “It works the same way in any country.” I mean, here, these are the Nazis. That’s the fascist regime. We are a democracy. But it works the same way in any country, whatever you call yourself. Whether you call yourself a totalitarian state or you call yourself a democracy, it works the same way, and that is, the leaders of the country are able to cajole or coerce and entice the people into war by scaring them, telling them they’re in danger, and threatening them and coercing them, that if they don’t go along, they will be considered unpatriotic. And this is what really happened in this country right after 9/11. And this is happened right after Bush raised the specter of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and got for a while the American people to go along with this.

But the question is, how did they get away with it? What about the press? What about the media? Isn’t it the job of the press, isn’t it the job of the media, isn’t it the job of journalism to expose what governments do? Don’t journalists learn from I.F. Stone, who said, “Just remember two words,” he said to young people who were studying journalism, he said, “Just remember two words: governments lie”? Well, but the media have not picked up on that. The media have gone along, and they embraced the idea of weapons of mass destruction. You remember when Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations just before the onset of the Iraq war and laid out to the UN this litany of weaponry that Iraq possessed, according to him, and gave great details in how many canisters of this and how many tons of this, and so on and so forth. And the next day, the press was just aglow with praise. They didn’t do their job of questioning. They didn’t do their job of asking, “Where? What is your evidence? Where did you get this intelligence? Who did you talk to? What are your sources?”

Isn’t this what you learn as a freshman in college? “Hey, what are your sources? Where are your footnotes?” No, no. They were just -- the Washington Post said, “It is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.” And the New York Times, you know, it was just beside themselves with admiration for Colin Powell. Of course, it all turned out to be untrue, all turned out to be lies. But the press did not do its job, and as a result, the American people, watching television, reading the newspapers, had no alternative source of information, no alternative opinion, no alternative critical analysis of what was going on.

And the question is, why still did the people believe what they read in the press, and why did they believe what they saw on television? And I would argue that it has something to do with a loss of history, has something to do with, well, what Studs Terkel called “national amnesia,” either the forgetting of history or the learning of bad history, the learning of the kind of history that you do get, of Columbus was a hero, and Teddy Roosevelt is a hero, and Andrew Jackson is a hero, and all these guys who were presidents and generals and industrialists, and so on. They are the great -- they are the people who made America great, and America has always done good things in the world. And we have had our little problems, of course -- like slavery, for instance, you know -- but we overcome them, you know, and, you know. No, not that kind of history.

If the American people really knew history, if they learned history, if the educational institutions did their job, if the press did its job in giving people historical perspective, then a people would understand. When the President gets up before the microphone, says we must go to war for this or for that, for liberty or for democracy, or because we’re in danger, and so on, if people had some history behind them, they would know how many times presidents have announced to the nation, we must go to war for this reason or that reason. They would know that President Polk said, “Oh, we must go to war against Mexico, because, well, there was an incident that took place on the border there, and our honor demands that we go to war.”
They would know, if they knew some history, how President McKinley took the nation into war against Spain and Cuba, saying, “Oh, we’re going in to liberate the Cubans from Spanish control.” And in fact, there was a little bit of truth to that: we did go in, we fought against Spain, we got Spain out of Cuba, we liberated them from Spain, but not from ourselves. And so, Spain was out, and United Fruit was in, and then the American banks and the American corporations were in.

And if people knew their history, they would know, you know, that President McKinley said, when -- as the American army was already in the Philippines and the American navy was already in the Philippines, and Theodore Roosevelt, one of our great presidential heroes, was lusting for war, then people would know that McKinley, who did not know where the Philippines were, but very often now presidents need to be briefed and told where something is. You know, George Bush, “This is Iraq is,” you know. Lyndon Johnson, “This is where the Gulf of Tonkin is.” You know, they need it.

And president -- they would know, if they knew history, that President McKinley said, “We’re going into the Philippines to civilize and Christianize the Filipinos.” And if they knew their history, if the history books spent some time on the war in the Philippines in the early part of the 20th century, instead of, as history books do -- they spend a lot of time on the Spanish-American War, which just lasted three months -- they spend virtually no time on the war on the Philippines, a bloody war which lasted, oh, seven years, and which involved massacres and the extermination of populations. That history doesn’t appear. You know, we had civilized and Christianized the Filipinos and established our control.

They would know, if they heard the President say, “We are going to bring democracy to the Middle East,” they would know how many times we brought democracy to other countries that we invaded. They would know if we brought democracy to Chile, when we overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile in 1973. They would know how we brought democracy to Guatemala when we overthrew, again, a democratically elected -- oh, we love democratic elections, we love free elections, except when they go the wrong way. And then we send either our army in or the CIA in or secret agents in to overthrow the government.
If people knew that history, they would never for a moment believe President Bush, when he says, oh, we’re going into Iraq, you know, because of this reason and that reason and liberty and democracy, and they’re a threat, you know. I mean, it takes -- yeah, it takes some historical understanding to be skeptical of the things that authorities tell you.

When you know history, you know that governments lie, as I.F. Stone said. Governments lie all the time. Well, not just the American government. It’s just in the nature of governments. Well, they have to lie. I mean, governments in general do not represent the people of the societies that they govern. And since they don’t represent the people and since they act against the interest of the people, the only way they can hold power is if they lie to the people. If they told people the truth, they wouldn’t last very long. So history can help in understanding deception and being skeptical and not rushing to embrace whatever the government tells you.
And if you know some history, you would understand something which is even more basic, perhaps, than the question of lying about this war or lying about this invasion, lying about this intervention, something more basic, if you knew some history: you would understand a sort of fundamental fact about society, and including our society, that the interests of the government and the interests of the people are not the same.
It’s very important to know this, because the culture tries very hard to persuade us that we all have a common interest. If they use the language “national interest” -- there’s no national interest. There’s their interest and our interest. National security -- now, whose security? National defense, whose defense? All these words and phrases are used to try to encircle us all into a nice big bond, so that we will assume that the people who are the leaders of our country have our interests at heart. Very important to understand: no, they do not have our interests at heart.

You will hear a young fellow who is going off to Iraq. I remember hearing the same thing when a young fellow went off to Vietnam. And a reporter goes up to the young fellow and says, “You know, young man, you’re going off, and what are your thoughts and why are you doing this?” And the young man says, “I’m doing this for my country.” No, he’s not doing it for his country. And now, she’s not doing it for her country. The people who go off to war are not doing fighting for their country. No, they’re not doing their country any good. They’re not doing their families any good. They’re certainly not doing the people over there any good. But they’re not doing it for their country. They’re doing it for their government. They’re doing it for Bush. That would be a more accurate thing to say: “I’m going off to fight for George Bush. I’m going off to fight for Cheney. I’m going off to fight for Rumsfeld. I’m going off to fight for Halliburton.” Yeah, that would be telling the truth.
And, in fact, you know, to know the history of this country is to know that we have had conflict of interest in this country from the very beginning between the people in authority and the ordinary people. We were not one big happy family that fought the American Revolution against England. I remember, you know, in school, that’s how it seemed, you know: they’re the patriots, and there’s all of us, working, fighting together at Valley Forge and Bunker Hill, and so on, against the Redcoats and the British, and so on. It wasn’t that way at all. It wasn’t a united country.

Washington had to send generals down south to use violence against young people to force them into military service. Soldiers in the revolutionary army mutinied against Washington, against officers, because there was class conflict in the army, just as there had been class conflict all through the colonies before the Revolutionary War. Well, anybody who knows the military, anybody who’s been in the military, knows that the military is a class society. There are the privates, and there are the officers. And in the Revolutionary War, the privates were not getting shoes, and they were not getting clothes and not getting food, and they were not getting paid. And the officers were living high in resplendence. And so, they mutinied, thousands of them.
I don’t remember ever learning about that when I studied history in school, because the myth comes down: oh, we’re all one big happy family. You mean, including the black slaves? You mean, including the Native Americans, whose land we were taking from them, mile by mile by mile by mile? We’re all one big happy family? The women, who were left out of all of this, were -- no, very important to understand that fundamental fact: those people who run the country and we, our interests are not the same.

So, yes, history is useful for that, for understanding -- understanding that we are a nation like other nations, for understanding that we are not, as again we are taught from early on, we are the greatest, we are number one, we are the best. And what -- it’s called American exceptionalism in the social sciences. The United States is an exception to the rule of nations. That is, the general rule of nations is they’re pretty bad. But the United States, our country, we are good. We do good in the world.

Not long ago, I was on a radio program, interviewed by -- this was sort of a regular commercial station. I like to be interviewed on regular commercial stations, where the guy really doesn’t know who he’s invited, you see. And he says, “Professor Zinn, don’t you think America has, in general, been a force for good in the world?” “No, no, no.” Why not ask me, “Do you think the British Empire was a force for good in Africa, or the Belgians were a force for good in the Congo, or the French were a force for good in Indochina? You think the United States was a force for good when they sent the Marines into Central America again and again and” -- no.

But there’s this notion of, you know, we are different. We are the great -- I mean, sure, there are very great things about America, but that’s not what we did to other countries, not what we did to black people, not what we did to Native Americans, not what we did to working people in this country who suffered twelve-hour days until they organized and rebelled and rose up. No, we have to be honest with ourselves.

This is a very hard thing to do: be honest about ourselves. I mean, but, you know, you’re brought up and you say, “I pledge allegiance,” you know, etc., etc., “liberty and justice for all,” “God bless America.” Why us? Why does God blessing us? I mean, why is He singling us out for blessing? You know. Why not, “God bless everybody”? If indeed, you know -- but, you know, we’re brought up -- if we were brought up to understand our history, we would know, no, we’re like other nations, only more so, because we are bigger and have more guns and more bombs, and therefore are capable of more violence. We can do what other empires were not able to do to such an extent. You know, we are rich. Well, not all of us. Some of us are, you see? But, no, we have to be honest.

Don’t people join Alcoholics Anonymous so that they can stand up and be honest about themselves? Maybe we ought to have an organization called Imperialists Anonymous, you know, and have the leaders of the country get up there on national television and say, “Well, it’s time, you know -- time to tell the truth.” It would be -- I don’t expect it to happen, but it would be refreshing.

And then, if we knew this history, we would understand how often fear has been used as a way of getting people to act against their own interests to work up hysteria and to get people to do terrible things to other people, because they’ve been made afraid. Wasn’t it fear and hysteria that motivated lynch mobs in the South? Wasn’t there created fear of black people, hysteria about black people, that led white people to do some of the most atrocious things that have been done in our history? And isn’t it today -- isn’t it fear, fear of Muslims, not just terrorists, in general? Of course, fear of terrorists, especially fear of Muslims, you see? A very ugly kind of sentiment to inculcate on the American people, and creating a kind of hysteria, which then enables them to control the population and enable them to send us into war after war and to threaten, you know, still another war.

And if we knew some history, we would know about the hysteria that accompanied the Cold War, the hysteria about communism. It’s not that communism didn’t exist, just as terrorism does exist, yes. It’s not that communism -- communism existed, and there was a Soviet Union, and it was repressive to its own people, and it did control Eastern Europe, but there was an enormous exaggeration of the Soviet threat to the point where -- oh, it’s not just that they’re in Eastern Europe. It’s, they’re going to invade Western Europe.

By the way, no evidence of that. CIA analysts who were specialists in the Soviet Union in recent years came forth and said there was never any evidence that the Soviet Union were going to invade Western Europe. But against that, NATO was created. Against that, the United States built up an enormous nuclear arsenal.
The Soviets were always behind the United States. They built up the Soviets as a threat, but after all, who had the atom bomb first? And who had more atom bombs than anybody? And who was the only country that actually dropped atomic bombs on ordinary people in two cities in Japan? And so, we who use the atomic bomb, we who accumulate the atomic bomb, we create a hysteria about countries that are desperately trying to catch up. Of course, Iran will never catch up, and North Korea will never catch up. The Soviet Union tried to catch up. But in creating this monster threat, we took trillions of dollars of the wealth of this country and expended it on military budgets.

And the hysteria about communism reached the point where -- and I’m not just talking about school kids hiding under their desks, you know, because the Soviets were going to drop an atomic bomb. There was no evidence the Soviets were going to drop an atomic bomb. By the way, there is evidence that the joint chiefs of staff, the people high up in the American government, at various, various times proposed preventive war, dropping nuclear weapons on the Soviet Union. But we created a threat so ominous, so omnipresent, that kids were, yeah, hiding under their desks, and also so that anything that happened anywhere in the world that was not to the liking of the United States became part of the world communist threat.

And so, to deal with that, we could go into any country in Latin America that we wanted. And because it was a communist threat, we would send an army over to Vietnam, and several million people would die, because Vietnam became the symbol of the communist threat in the world. When you think about how absurd it was to worry that Vietnam, already divided into a communist north and anti-communist south, to worry that, oh, now half of this tiny country is going to become communist, and just to the north a billion people had turned to communism. And there’s something a little bizarre.

But, you know, bizarre thinking is possible when you create fear and hysteria. And we’re facing, of course, that situation today with this whole business of terrorism. And if you added up all the times in speeches of George Bush and his Cabinet and all the times they used the word “terrorism” and “terror,” it’s a mantra they have created to frighten the American people.

I think it’s wearing off. You know, when you -- I think there’s beginning to be some recognition, and that accounts for the fact that public opinion has turned against the war. People no longer believe that we’re fighting in Iraq in order to get rid of terrorism, you know, because the evidence has become so overwhelming that even the mainstream media has reported it -- you know, the National Intelligence Estimate. And this is the government’s own intelligence agencies saying that the war in Iraq has caused a growth of terrorist groups, has increased militancy and radicalism among Islamic groups in the Middle East.

But terrorism has supplanted communism as an attempt to get people to do things against their own interests, to do things that will send their own young people to war, to do things that will cause the depletion of the country’s wealth for the purposes of war and for the enrichment of the super-rich. It doesn’t take much thought about terrorism to realize that when somebody talks about a war on terrorism, they’re dealing with a contradiction in terms. How can you make war on terrorism, if war itself is terrorism? Because -- so you respond to terrorism with terrorism, and you multiply the terrorism in the world.

And, of course, the terrorism that governments are capable of by going to war is on a far, far greater scale than the terrorism of al-Qaeda or this group or that group or another group. Governments are terrorists on an enormously large scale. The United States has been engaging in terrorism against Afghanistan, against Iraq, and now they’re threatening to extend their terrorism to other places in the Middle East.

And some history of the use of fear and hysteria and some history of the Cold War and of the anti-communist hysteria would be very useful in alerting people to what we are going through today. I mean, with Iran, for instance, it’s shameful, and the media have played such a part in this, of the Iran nuclear weapon. They want a nuclear weapon. They don’t say they have a nuclear weapon. They want a nuclear weapon. So do I. Yeah, it’s easy to want a nuclear weapon. And small countries that face enormous military powers and who cannot possibly match the military power of these enormous countries, they are following what was the strategy of the United States: the United States said, “We must have a deterrent.” How many times have you heard, when you ask, “Why do we have 10,000 nuclear weapons?” “We must have a deterrent.” Well, they want a deterrent: one nuclear weapon. You know.

Not that situation with Iraq. I mean, you know, Condoleezza Rice: “a mushroom cloud.” We were the only ones who created mushroom clouds, over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Iraq was in no position to create a mushroom cloud. All the experts on the Middle East and atomic weapons said, you know, Iraq was five-ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon, but we were creating, you know, hysteria about nuclear weapons.

Now we’re doing the same thing with Iran. And the International Atomic Energy group of the UN flatly contradicts a congressional report which talks about the danger of Iran’s nuclear weapons, and the international group, which has conducted many, many inspections in Iran, says, well, you know, you need to -- and they give the American people a kind of half-education. That is, they say, they use the phrase, “They’re enriching uranium.” Well, that scares me. You know, they’re enriching uranium. I don’t really know what it means, you see, but it’s scary. And then you read the report of the International Atomic Energy group, and you see, well, yes, they are. They’ve enriched uranium to the point of 3.5%. In order to have one nuclear weapon, they have to enrich it to 90%. They’re very, very far from even developing one nuclear weapon, but the phrase “enriched uranium” is, you know, repeated again and again, you know.

And so, yes, we need some historical understanding, yeah, just remembering back to Iraq, just remembering back to the hysteria around Vietnam. My god, a communist might take over South Vietnam! And then what? Just a short hop to San Francisco. No, some of you may remember that when Reagan was supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, he was saying, “You know, you see where Nicaragua is? It wouldn’t take much for them to get to Texas.” I wondered about that, you see? And then I wondered, why would the Nicaraguans want to get to Texas? And this is no slur on Texas, but -- and once they got to Texas, what would they do? Take a United Airlines flight to Washington. What would they -- but really, it’s very important to know some of that history to see how hysteria absolutely cripples consciousness about what is going on.

I would suggest something else. I’m getting worried about how much time I have taken. Well, actually, I’m not getting worried about how much time I’ve taken. I don’t care. I’m looking at my watch to pretend that I care. And since I don’t know when I started, I can’t figure out how long I’ve been talking.

But at some point the war in Iraq will come to an end. At some point, the United States will do in Iraq what it did in Vietnam, after saying, “We will never leave. We will never leave. We will win. We will stay the course. We will not cut and run.” At some point, the United States is going to have to cut and run from Iraq, you see. And they’re going to do it because the sentiment is going to grow and grow and grow in this country and because more and more GIs are going to come back from Iraq and say, “We’re not going back again,” and because they’re going to have more and more trouble supplying the armed forces in Iraq, and because the parents of young people are going to say more and more, “We are not going to allow our young people to go to war for Bechtel, you know, and Halliburton. We’re not going to do that.” So at some point, yes, at some point we are going to do what they say we mustn’t do: cut and run.

We don’t have to cut and run. Cut and walk. Cut and swim. Cut, but get out, as fast as you can, because we’re not doing any good there. We’re not helping the situation. We’re not bringing peace. We’re not bringing a democracy. We’re not bringing stability. We’re bringing violence and chaos. We’re provoking all of that, and people are dying every day. When a Democratic leader says, “Well, I think we ought to withdraw by May 14th, 2000-and-whatever.” You know, yeah, every day from now until then more people will die, and more people will lose arms or legs or become blinded. And so, that is intolerable. And so, we have to do everything we can.
And in the case of Vietnam, at a certain point the government realized it could not carry on the war. The GIs were coming back from Vietnam and turning against the war. They couldn’t bring people to join the ROTC. Too many people were running to Canada. Too many people were not signing up for the draft. Finally, it had to do away with the draft. They were losing the support of the population. They were losing support of the military. And at a certain point, no.

And something like that is going to happen. And the sooner we help it happen, of course, the better. The more we go into the high schools -- you know, there’s a very practical thing, very practical thing that everybody can do, and that is, go to their local high schools and make sure that all the parents and all the kids in high schools understand that they don’t have to give their information to the military recruiters, you see, as, you know. And more and more have teams of people who will counter the propaganda of the military recruiters.
You know, they are having trouble. They’re getting desperate about recruiting for the military, going to all sorts of lengths and, or course, they’re concentrating -- they send their military recruiters into the poorest schools, because they know that the working class kids are the most vulnerable, the most needy, the ones who, you know -- they need an education, they need a skill, and so. And so, they’re trying to prey on the working class. Eugene Debs said -- if you don’t mind my quoting Eugene Debs -- but Eugene Debs said in a speech during World War I, which landed him in jail, “The master class has always started the wars. The working class has always fought the wars.” And, of course, that has been true all the way. So we will at some point get out of Iraq.

But I want to suggest one thing: we have to think beyond Iraq and even beyond Iran. We don’t want to have to struggle against this war and then against that war and then against the next war. We don’t want to have an endless succession of antiwar movements. It gets tiring. And we need to think and talk and educate about the abolition of war itself, you see.

I was talking to my barber the other day, because we always discuss world politics. And he’s totally politically unpredictable, as most barbers are, you see. He said, “Howard,” he said, “you know, you and I disagree on many things, but on one thing we agree: war solves nothing.” And I thought, “Yeah.” It’s not hard for people to grasp that.

And there again, history is useful. We’ve had a history of war after war after war after war. What have they solved? What have they done? Even World War II, the “good war,” the war in which I volunteered, the war in which I dropped bombs, the war after which, you know, I received a letter from General Marshall, general of generals, a letter addressed personally to me, and to 16 million others, in which he said, “We’ve won the war. It will be a new world.” Well, of course, it wasn’t a new world. It hasn’t been a new world. War after war after war.

There are certain -- I came out of that war, the war in which I had volunteered, the war in which I was an enthusiastic bombardier, I came out of that war with certain ideas, which just developed gradually at the end of the war, ideas about war. One, that war corrupts everybody who engages in it. War poisons everybody who engages in it. You start off as the good guys, as we did in World War II. They’re the bad guys. They’re the fascists. What could be worse? So, they’re the bad guys, we’re the good guys. And as the war goes on, the good guys begin behaving like the bad guys. You can trace this back to the Peloponnesian War. You can trace it back to the good guy, the Athenians, and the bad guys, the Spartans. And after a while, the Athenians become ruthless and cruel, like the Spartans.

And we did that in World War II. We, after Hitler committed his atrocities, we committed our atrocities. You know, our killing of 600,000 civilians in Japan, our killing of probably an equal number of civilians in Germany. These, they weren’t Hitler, they weren’t Tojo. They weren’t -- no, they were just ordinary people, like we are ordinary people living in a country that is a marauding country, and they were living in countries that were marauding countries, and they were caught up in whatever it was and afraid to speak up. And I don’t know, I came to the conclusion, yes, war poisons everybody.

And war -- this is an important thing to keep in mind -- that when you go to war against a tyrant -- and this was one of the claims: “Oh, we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein,” which was, of course, nonsense. They didn’t -- did our government care that Saddam Hussein tyrannized his own people? We helped him tyrannize his people. We helped him gas the Kurds. We helped him accumulate weapons of mass destruction, really.
And the people you kill in a war are the victims of the tyrant. The people we killed in Germany were the victims of Hitler. The people we killed in Japan were the victims of the Japan Imperial Army, you know. And the people who die in wars are more and more and more people who are not in the military. You may know this about the different ratio of civilian-to-military deaths in war, how in World War I, ten military dead for one civilian dead; in World War II, it was 50-50, half military, half civilian; in Vietnam, it was 70% civilian and 30% military; and in the wars since then, it’s 80% and 85% civilian.

I became friends a few years ago with an Italian war surgeon named Gino Strada. He spent ten years, fifteen years doing surgery on war victims all over the world. And he wrote a book about it, Green Parrots: Diary of a War Surgeon. He said in all the patients that he operated on in Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere, 85% of them were civilians, one-third of them, children. If you understand, and if people understand, and if you spread the word of this understanding, that whatever is told to you about war and how we must go to war, and whatever the threat is or whatever the goal is -- a democracy or liberty -- it will always be a war against children. They’re the ones who will die in large numbers.

So, war -- well, Einstein said this after World War I. He said, “War cannot be humanized. It can only be abolished.” War has to be abolished, you know. And it’s -- I know it’s a long shot. I understand that, but you have to -- when something’s a long shot, but it has to be done, you have to start doing it. Just as the ending of slavery in this country in the 1830s was a really long shot, but people stuck at it, and it took 30 years, but slavery was done away with. And we can see this again and again. So, we have a job to do. We have lots of things to do.

One of the things we can learn from history is that history is not only a history of things inflicted on us by the powers that be. History is also a history of resistance. It’s a history of people who endure tyranny for decades, but who ultimately rise up and overthrow the dictator. We’ve seen this in country after country, surprise after surprise. Rulers who seem to have total control, they suddenly wake up one day, and there are a million people in the streets, and they pack up and leave. This has happened in the Philippines, in Yemen, all over, in Nepal. Million people in the streets, and then the ruler has to get out of the way. So, this is what we’re aiming for in this country.

Everything we do is important. Every little thing we do, every picket line we walk on, every letter we write, every act of civil disobedience we engage in, any recruiter that we talk to, any parent that we talk to, any GI that we talk to, any young person that we talk to, anything we do in class, outside of class, everything we do in the direction of a different world is important, even though at the moment they seem futile, because that’s how change comes about. Change comes about when millions of people do little things, which at certain points in history come together, and then something good and something important happens.

Thank you.'

I watched this on Democracy Now! a few nights ago and loved it. Once I found the transcript, I felt the need to share. Enjoy.

Seymour Hersh on Iraq

2006-11-25T19:42:00.000-05:00

This is almost a month old, but worthy of reading.

“The bad news,” investigative reporter Seymour Hersh told a Montreal audience
last Wednesday, “is that there are 816 days left in the reign of King George II
of America.” The good news? “When we wake up tomorrow morning, there will be one
less day.” Hersh, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and regular contributor to
The New Yorker magazine, has been a thorn in the side of the U.S. government for
nearly 40 years. Since his 1969 exposé of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, which
is widely believed to have helped turn American public opinion against the
Vietnam War, he has broken news about the secret U.S. bombing of Cambodia,
covert C.I.A. attempts to overthrow Chilean president Salvador Allende, and,
more recently, the first details about American soldiers abusing prisoners at
Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. During his hour-and-a-half lecture – part of the
launch of an interdisciplinary media and communications studies program called
Media@McGill – Hersh described video footage depicting U.S. atrocities in Iraq,
which he had viewed, but not yet published a story about. He described one video
in which American soldiers massacre a group of people playing soccer. “Three
U.S. armed vehicles, eight soldiers in each, are driving through a village,
passing candy out to kids,” he began. “Suddenly the first vehicle explodes, and
there are soldiers screaming. Sixteen soldiers come out of the other vehicles,
and they do what they’re told to do, which is look for running people.” “Never
mind that the bomb was detonated by remote control,” Hersh continued. “[The
soldiers] open up fire; [the] cameras show it was a soccer game.” “About ten
minutes later, [the soldiers] begin dragging bodies together, and they drop
weapons there. It was reported as 20 or 30 insurgents killed that day,” he said.
If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive
returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said.
“In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame
and humiliation,” he said. “It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there
has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been
in Iraq.” Hersh came out hard against President Bush for his involvement in the
Middle East. “In Washington, you can’t expect any rationality. I don’t know if
he’s in Iraq because God told him to, because his father didn’t do it, or
because it’s the next step in his 12-step Alcoholics Anonymous program,” he
said. Hersh hinted that the responsibility for the invasion of Iraq lies with
eight or nine members of the administration who have a “neo-conservative agenda”
and dictate the U.S.’s post-September 11 foreign policy. “You have a collapsed
Congress, you have a collapsed press. The military is going to do what the
President wants,” Hersh said. “How fragile is democracy in America, if a
president can come in with an agenda controlled by a few cultists?” Throughout
his talk Hersh remained pessimistic, predicting that the U.S. will initiate an
attack against Iran, and that the situation in Iraq will deteriorate further.
“There’s no reason to see a change in policy about Iraq. [Bush] thinks that, in
twenty years, he’s going to be recognized for the leader he was – the analogy he
uses is Churchill,” Hersh said. “If you read the public statements of the
leadership, they’re so confident and so calm…. It’s pretty scary.”
-CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON GLOBALIZATION

White's Only Scholarship?

2006-11-24T20:38:00.000-05:00

It may be racist or a tool of inequality, but in lieu of my family's economic/financial standpoint, I, as a white, lower-middle class male, need all the help I can get to get into college. So while I will surely get bombarded with people telling me that this is racist, I'm tempted to say "I don't care," and just pray for something like this to come to Indiana University.

It's not that I'm supporting racism, I'm just supporting ways for less-priveleged students to get into college, black, white or whatever.

Kramer Goes At It

2006-11-22T12:23:00.000-05:00

So I'm sure for those of us that live within five feet of a television know about Michael Richards' (Seinfield's "Kramer") bout at the Laugh Factory. Yeah, it was racist and a little out of hand but for those of us with a sense of humor, I found it funny.

People are completely right when they say that his statements were taboo and probably not the wisest thing to say (his career is destroyed, really) but still, laugh a little bit. You have black comedians mocking the white race all the time. I'm not saying any form of racism is right, and anything that's ton out of true hatefulness should be punished, but still, laugh a little bit.

Try and enjoy it. It's a swan song.

On War.

2006-11-20T10:55:00.000-05:00

Ask yourself:
Do you support the war on Iraq?

Was she a terrorist?
Did she have to die so you could be free?
What's the difference between war and genocide?
Is this nessacary?
Ask yourself:
Do you still support the war on Iraq?

Military Commissions Act: The Road to Fascism

2006-11-05T00:49:00.000-05:00

I realize it's kind of late to be addressing the issue of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, but I think the surreal realities of it are sinking in. It's overbearing and authoritarian qualities are really coming to the front for me and I felt the need to write something in regards to it.

Keith Olbermann's excellent rant on the signing of the Act was a beacon to me. I had known that the act was bad news, but he really put it out there and got me off of my procrastination stand to write about it. So really, let me first start out my soapbox speech by saying that this act (for those who don't know or have the audacity to think that this is a logical defense of terrorism) basically gives the President, in all his intelligence (little joke there) to strip away our right of habeas corpus. Not since the Civil War (and following reconstruction years) has this principle right been suspended. It may not sound like much, but this little bit of freedom gives us the right to know what our charges are along with other ways to help oneself out of unlawful imprisonment.

So, one might say that really, all they must do is avoid breaking the law and they shouldn't have to worry about this. You would be right if that was the case. But it's not.

The Military Commissions Act gives the President the right to deign anyone an "unlawful military combatant." An animal rights activist who could only face misdemeanors charges for an act of militant free speech could instead face torture in outsourcing prison camps or accusations of terrorism, if Mr. Bush thinks that this person is an "unlawful enemy combatant."

Who defines "Unlawful enemy combatant?" Wikipedia says that an "unlawful enemy combatant is:

"The term unlawful combatant (also unlawful enemy combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent) is a term used to label certain persons considered outside of the protection of the Geneva Conventions; those to whom are granted such protections they refer to as lawful combatants. The Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term and gave the President broad discretion in how a person is designated as an unlawful enemy combatant. An unlawful combatant is accorded neither the rights a soldier would normally have under the laws of war, nor the civil rights a common criminal would normally have."

Being the extremely vague definition that it is, it would seem that everyone should fear this. The worst part of this is that it's at the President's discretion! As if the human being was capable of making those kinds of rational decisions in the first place, we must also consider what human being we are referring to. If this act were to ever lessen it's fascist tendencies more, then that would only be by having it at a civilian workers' council discretion, not the President. To give someone like the President that kind of power, on top of what he already has, only adds to the definition of oppressive regimes that we wanted to escape for the founding of this country.

In Olbermann's attack of the act, he asked why the American people hadn't done anything (in so many words). Aside from absolutely none to lax news coverage, the American people weren't aware of this act in any way. What should scare the American people about this is the possibility that Bush and his buddies could sign away your rights in the middle of the night and you wouldn't even know. Moreso, that is.

Olbermann's point was correct. The American people should have done something about this. In other nations, especially those that fought a long, militaristic battle for their freedom recently, an attempt like this would not bring about petitions and lobbyists on the side of the people, but instead warrant an immediate uprising and removal of the ruling party. However, as Americans, laziness persists. The idea of a revolution holds to much heavy labour and dedication; dedication that the American people, generally can't afford to give. Or maybe it isn't that, but its the brainwashing fears of terrorism. It seems some of us would sign away any one of their rights if they knew it could help prevent terrorism.

What prevents terrorism more? He who seeks to eliminate ones freedom in the name of security is the true terrorist. No one else.

What Size Would You Like Your Government?

2006-10-27T18:55:00.000-04:00

Conservatives hate big government.

I've been fed that since the moment my political awareness came to be. Growing up in a red state, with a red family and a red town, I always had the idea that Conservatives like small government and Liberals want big government. After awhile though, I had trouble with that theory.

Being young, my questions were quite straight forward. If conservatives want a small government, do they think it should be able to control womens' bodies? If conservatives want a government that doesn't interfere, do they think it has the power to tell you who you can or can't marry? If conservatives want a government that leaves the economy alone, do they think it should give corporate handouts? If conservatives want a government that stays out of people's lives, do they think it should be able to spy and listen to all of our calls? In truth, conservatives want a large government, one that can push it's religious, imperical, capitalist and racist views on anyone.

I just wish that people would understand that this is not what they want or need.

Manifesto Of The Revolutionary Left

2006-10-19T20:59:00.000-04:00

The following is a manifesto of beliefs and tactics for the Revolution of the working people. It's only goal is to seek to free the proletariat from the chains of capitalism and oppression. The Revolutionary Left stands for the rights of all people. It stands for feminism, internationalism, socialism, and the advancement of humanity in freedom and thought. It stands for the abolishment of religious governments and instead works for a separation, so that humanity can be free to worship without the interference of state religion. Standing for the abolishment of capitalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and borders, the Revolutionary Left seeks equality, freedom, and socialism.

Part One

The State of the International

The United States of America does not make up one twentieth of this entire planet. In terms of size, one of it's detached states remains almost the same size as the forty-eight others that make up this land mass. However, in the category of power, influence and dominance, it's metaphysical size is larger than that of Russia, China, Australia and all of South America combined. It's influence is felt in every nation, in every Congress, in every Parliament, in every palace, and on every TV set. It's foreign relations are the make or break keys to almost any situation.

America, as a political power, stands with other nations in an unspoken coalition. These nations have dropped out over time, due to political, social, religious, economic, or moral differences. Great Britain and Israel still remain America's strongest allies, despite controversial movements the behemoth has made in lieu of world affairs. It's acts and decisions have reverberated throughout the entire world. When America began to wage it's "War on Terror" against the starving nations of the Middle East and against the Islamic citizens of the world, Spain, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, France, and Russia suffered terrorism related attacks on their people and their sense of security. The nations slacking view on torture and upholding decade old world laws regarding warfare have caused anti-American sentiments to rise in the world. Burning of the American flag, a free speech practice condemned in the nation itself, has become a popular protest action world round.

The backlash of American occupations in the Middle East hasn't been the only guise under which insurgencies may occur. Alignment with Israel in foreign dealings with Arab nations has helped to rally Islamic support against the United States. In most cases, any nation spied doing trade, arms dealing, or economic work with Israel is seen as a traitor to the Arab people. While this sometimes myopic world view can be detrimental to a peace plan, the Zionist regime and occupational movement in Israel is a known and recognized threat to the Revolutionary Leftist movement. Palestinian and Lebanese peasants' working rights, along with basic human rights, are regularly trampled by the Israeli power. Outcries against the authority have been met with equally loud cries about the Holocaust. While Germany and Palestine sit over 3,000 kilometers apart from each others, the actions of one nation are still echoed against the other.

World wide, this state of matters repeats itself. In the growing leftist movement of South America, leaders face fears of U.S. retaliation because they have nationalized their oil industry, their health care, or their education, an idea that is threatening to conservative business interest. Rebellion against U.S. trade rules carries heavy consequences. Slander of the American or Israeli regimes can bring about the charge of terrorism or anti-Americanism. Criticizing this world power and it's European/Israeli allies can lead to the worst situations, from economic sanctions to possible invasions in the name of "liberation."

Inside however, the American people are sessile to their space by the tentacles of corporate and government power. Common action against the government has been replaced with reform and seasonal voting. The once popular forum like governments of the past have been replaced with the bi-partisanship of a two-party system. These two parties, while standoffishly different are inherently the same.

The Republican Party is a right wing group aimed at "traditional values." Hiding under the veil of a religion gone awry, this conservative party uses corporate connections to slash workers' rights and benefits, in the name of economic protection, while furthering the rich in their stage of tax exemption. They cease to abolish the rights of all non-straight, non-Christians, and women, ceaselessly calling for more biblical based laws to protect the common family. While ignoring the Bible's views on immigration, prisons and the poor, the Republicans continue to espouse hatred and intolerance.

On the moderate left side of the spectrum, the Democratic Party rests. A former leftist policy, it's shameful leaders have moved to the center to pick up votes, the dirty money of Washington. Looked at as the vehicle for the working class, the Democratic Party stands hypocritically, fumbling rich and powerful candidates who swing to the right on immigration, women's rights and other subjects all in an effort to swing a candidacy, instead of educating the masses. This disgrace to the left seeks only to further their slightly nicer version of capitalism.

Tossing away all third parties, these two giants battle it out in the corporate news, each acting as if their opinions differed from the others. In the end, only the proletariat stand to lose from their two party dictatorship.

The practice of reform through a seasonal ballot has become one of the only accepted change-ways in America, giving birth a lazy class of people. While a mass percentage do not vote out of lack of caring, another large percentage simply votes for the candidates in their adopted party. This idea is foolish and an example of how the bi-partisanship is tearing true reform asunder. A truely democratic nation, when facing fear of a fascist dictatorship or at the least, a dangerous administration, must not wait for reform and vote, but remove those in power by force.

Because of this, the people of the world must become their own political party. Better yet, they must raise themselves above that quota and become a sheer force for change, a deity in their own right. By doing so, their direct action can bring about immediate change of the way things work, as well as bringing the people to power and setting up a true government of the people. Those who truely dedicate themselves to this idea and are willing to give up selfishness and individualism for the good of the proletariat must step forward and form vanguards, to further the workers' struggle. However, the Western nations are well experienced in starting revolutions, but not for the right people.

This practice is being force fed world wound. More and more countries are being militantly turned over to a more American termed republic. Democratic nations of the past have lost their stronghold and new trade minded countries have only taken on the next to last stepping stone to becoming nothing but large monopolies. This practice can only be reversed by the direct action and retaliation of the common people. It is the sole responsibility of mankind to better its' living conditions.

On violence as a means to power.

2006-10-04T19:06:00.000-04:00

In my adopted hometown, there were anti-choice protestors outside our county courthouse, protesting against women's rights of course. The more I thought about it, I began analyzing the types of protesting. Some anti-choice people are more prone to go out and actually adopt unwanted children instead of just bitching (a practice I have more respect for than the usual sexists). Others, the hypocrites, will drive car bombs into abortion clinics, killing doctors, pregnant women, and their fetuses, all in the name of stopping abortion. I don't make sense of it, but I'm not trying to.

What I'm more looking at, is the lack of those on the left and those in the labour unions to use violence as a means of change. While an anti-violent stance is considered the basis of educational programs in modern day America, look at our military and the relentless wars it wages on other nations, sometimes for no reason at all. Is violence really that looked down upon? Yes and no.

Violence, throughout it's historical and permanent existence, has managed to bring to power almost everyone. The Bolsheviki, the Iranian Revolution, Chavez's presidency, the Cuban Revolution were all won through violence. This isn't senseless violence and the pillage of women and children, but rather the removal of the fascists who's positions of power hold that majoriy back. When one aristocratic regime holds back the people of the nation from getting bread and peace, civil war must be fought to fix this problem.

It can be as simple as taking over a palace or as grand as rallying the workers into a large guerilla unit, capable of forcing down the oppressors. However, what we must look at now, is America and it's type of situation and point in history.

The American people are generally peaceful, not by morals, but by laziness. The politicians above us have made us weak by limiting our power to reform and voting during the seasons. Corporate tentacles, with their hydra like abilities, have managed to make many of us fat and unhealthy, addicted to their constant stream of slaughtered animal and nicotine hits. Those of us that are willing to fight are fought and piled on with laws and restrictions, making the possibilities of a strike so limited and hard to pull of that a police state is almost in place.

On May 1 of 2006, the immigrants, legal and "illegal" of America, came together to demand workers' rights. While their turnout was impressive, inspiring and wonderful to see, it could have turned out much better. With the allying of the American proletariat to that of the South American proletariat, an international rebellion horn could have been sounded on that day, sending the common man to the streets in unison, gun, knife, brick, stick, hammer, or whatever in hand, ready to fight the fascists. Again though, we see the American public subdued by an unwillingness to be aggressive in change.

In a utopian scenario, one can see the United State aristocracy slashing workers' rights like usual, only to be met with the proletariat in the streets, demanding change. No petitions, no week long protests. No bitching Congress. Just a simple demand of change. While the chances of this change being met are slim, an option B stands up in the foglight. Sudden and random outburts from the men and women of middle and lower America. Nation wide strikes. Corporate headquarters being burned. Gunfights with the authorities, that have some of their own, fleeing to join their working comrades in battle. With change still nowhere in site, the revolutionaries storm Congress, dissolving it and sitting in on their own decisions.

Will it ever go like this? If I have it my way, in my lifetime, people will start to change their ways of viewing things. Why not? "The proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains." -Karl Marx

The Venezuelan-Iranian Alliance

2006-09-16T19:23:00.000-04:00

What do you get when you cross a religious state with one of the best modern socialist beacon nations in the world? Confusion. Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has publically declared that he has a full fledged alliance with Iran in the event of an American strike. "Iran is under threat; there are plans to invade Iran. Hopefully it won't happen, but we are with you," Chavez told Ahmadinejad.

Being the Venezuela supporter that I am, the grouping with Iran made me curious. Being a Muslim state, I am against Iran, just like I am a Jewish (Israel) or Catholic (Vatican) state. However, their self-determination and will to build their own nuclear weapons is inspiring. The idea of nukes isn't very comforting but when put in comparison to the billions spent of weapons in our nation, I can't help but see why others would arm themselves. When the schoolyard bully gets a slingshot, everyone else starts looking for some rocks. However, my support for Iran is still on the line. Future actions will have to be the true decider.

That being said, I still stand in solidarity with Chavez and his decision. While Venezuela and Iran might not be able to withstand a US attack, hopefully, other countries will wake up and take the reigns, and if not them, then maybe the people of the world will act without government for once. Maybe.

Hypocrisy!

2006-08-22T20:22:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-18T17:54:00.000-04:00

"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?

2006-08-13T22:05:00.000-04:00

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

2006-08-07T23:21:00.000-04:00

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!

2006-08-05T01:47:00.000-04:00

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 -

All abortions are made illegal immediately.
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."
Any woman seeking an abortion is forced to deliver the child, no matter how it was conceived.
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

2006-08-03T19:08:00.000-04:00

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!

2006-08-03T18:51:00.000-04:00

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!

Israel's One Last Week

2006-07-26T20:41:00.000-04:00

The "brink of war" continues in Israel as they extend their reign, inflicting more casualties on the people of Lebanon and Palestine. With a Palestinian to Israeli death toll of 47:1, "peace making groups" rush in to try and politically stop the violence.

However, the shock hit when Israel was given the approval ("green light") by America and the United Kingdom to have one more week to inflict damage on Hezbollah and the Lebanese people. Apparently, no one saw this as questionable.

Citing the conspiracy theory that Iran and Syria were backing Hezbollah, Fuhrer Bush stated: "It's in our interest for Syria to stay out of Lebanon and for this government in Lebanon to succeed and survive. The root cause of the problem is Hezbollah and that problem needs to be addressed." Following this, Bush and Tony Blair gave Israel a one week mark to wreak havoc and kill whomever before they began peace negotiations.

As for the Israel's "week," it sucessfully took out the evil Hezbollah government by bombing a UAE aid truck. Apparently, the clearly marked vehicle posed a threat to the Israeli dominance.

A word from the UnCapitalist Journal...

2006-07-26T18:21:00.000-04:00

I was doing some scanning and I found this article by the UnCapitalist Journal. I really think it's worth reading. Do me a favor and check it out.

Nike's Labour Crisis

2006-07-26T01:32:00.001-04:00

From Axis Of Justice's website:

In 2003, the workers at the BJ&B factory in the Dominican Republic won a long struggle. Although the company manufactured hats for multi-billion dollar companies like Nike, the BJ&B workers faced sub-standard wages and poor working conditions. After a long struggle, the workers and foreign labor activists managed to win a collective bargaining agreement with the company, which raised their wages up to, and above the legal minimum wage.

So what happens next? Nike starts canceling their orders with BJ&B. The factory starts losing money. BJ&B starts laying off workers. In 2003, BJ&B had 1600 employees. Now it has 250.

Labor activists around the nation plan to hold Nike accountable. They talk about their disdain for sweatshops, but when a company starts treating their workers well, Nike cuts and runs? That is not acceptable.

Read more...

One small step for me...

2006-07-20T18:01:00.000-04:00

My article/blog "Israel: An Earned Nation or Imperialist Giant?" is appearing as a guest editorial in the Lebanon Reporter. I'm not sure on the exact date yet, but within the next week. If you get the chance to check it out, do so. If not, just read the one I have here and give me some feedback on what you think.

UPDATE: It appeared in the July 22nd printing of the Lebanon Reporter under the moniker of "On the Brink."

What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and being a little militant...?

2006-07-20T02:52:00.000-04:00

Why is everyone on the left so peaceful? Speaking with comrades, I notice how all of them are anti-imperialist war (like myself) but are also anti-any war because they think that peace can solve the problem, no matter how big. What's your reasoning? Sure, peaceful movements like strikes, boycotts and protests are a key tool and can be quite effective if done right, but even after all that, I doubt the bourgeoious is going to go "Oh man, you guys are right. Hell, here's the keys, you guys can drive now!" What's the old socialist saying; "No War but the Class War?"

Don't think though, that by writing this, I'm saying that peace is a dead method. Hell no. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi made peace into a nice little weapon against their enemies and we (the working class) should as well. However, peace only goes so far. Like I just said, strikes and sort are great tools, but when the capitalists are only slightly budging, but still not taking you seriously, then there's nothing wrong with fighting for your rights.

Think about it, all these events that we frame as being large moments in syndicalist, mutualist or socialist history, save a few, were all brought in through a Revolution. A violent Revolution. The Spanish Civil War wasn't just a ping-pong match. A lot of people died.

Really though, one must only look at his surroundings to see that we live in a culture dominated by people who give property more rights than the working class people as a whole. As many times that we are told that violence is never the answer, we must first examine the question being posed. We live in a militaristic society that's not going to hand over control of the capital without a fight. So why not give it to them.

If there's a peaceful way to bring about a better world, I'll be the first in line, but until then, we should all be working in solidarity, educating and giving, but still brandishing our weapons.

War = Good, Medical Research = Bad

2006-07-19T22:32:00.001-04:00

I have the sure-fire feeling that George Bush would feel differently about stem cell research if he or one of his associates were plauged with some life-threatening disease that could be helped or prevented with the research.

Or maybe not. President Bush is one of those guys that would get the help for the friend, but still hold his view. John Kerry might have been a flip-flopper, but Bush's opinions stay the same, no matter how the facts weigh in.

Israel: An Earned Nation or an Imperialist Giant?

2006-07-18T23:42:00.000-04:00

The headlines on CNN held an interesting question: is the Mideast on the brink of war? With Israeli jets bombing Beirut, ground troops entering southern Lebanon and attacking Hezbollah bases, one must wonder if this is Israel’s way of defending it’s right to exist or simply trying to become an imperialist giant. With most Israeli supporters citing the threat of “terrorist” organizations like the democratically elected Hamas government as well as the kidnapping of Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit as reasons for the strike against Lebanon and Palestine, others, who tend to be more emotionally Zionist or supporters of religiously held land, note Israel’s “right to exist.”

The Jews of Israel are held in a high regard because of the large number of unfortunate events they’ve overcome in the history of their people and also the religious view of them being the “Chosen Ones.” This being said, the Holocaust or any other event does not give them free reign to dominate Israeli or neighboring lands. Though it may be their Holy Land, or as some say the origin of their religion and people, they left that land and moved on. By saying that people can leave a land, experience high loss, then forcefully return, imposing their will by arms, is like saying that a person, after having his house burn down and part of his family killed, can move back into his childhood home with the rest of his family, repressing the current home owners if they don’t like the occupation. A “right to exist” is certainly a right that all people have, but a right to exist at the expense of others isn’t.

The “justified” bombing of Lebanon and Palestinian settlements raises many questions. First, why did the democratically elected Hamas government kidnap Corporal Shalit unless it wanted to cause an armed dispute with the Israelis? In an interview with Independent News Group Democracy Now! celebrated activist, writer, professor and scholar Noam Chomsky tells us of the barely reported June 24th kidnappings of civilians, a doctor and his brother, out of the Gaza Strip by Israeli military. This maybe be the reason for the abduction of Corporal Shalit by militant Palestinians. There are other possibilities, notably the deaths of 22 Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli army during the week of June 20th or the abduction of 64 members of the Palestinian Parliament on June 29 (Maan News Agency). As for the surge of Lebanese attack on Israel, this is most likely a way to shift some of the force off of Palestine and force Israel into a double fronted war. However, when Israeli General Dan Halutz declares that “Nothing is safe [in Lebanon], as simple as that,” it is questionable whether the Israel government and the International Community really does want peace between the nations. It must also be noted that many of the known casualties inflicted by Israel are not connected with the resistance. This “collateral damage” as it’s called, also has children in the majority of deaths.

Though there are notable deaths on both sides of the conflict, it would seem that the majority of it could be resolved with the recognition of Palestinian independence and a co-operative end to blind support of Israeli actions, as done so by America and it’s allies. Also, freedom for not only the Israeli soldiers that were abducted, but for all the Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners in Israel (the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics shows 9,400 Palestinian prisoners held in 30 prisons throughout Israel, some of whom have been held for as many as 30 years) as well. Maybe then, the Mideast will be off “the brink of war.”

Tests Are Fun?

2006-07-13T14:17:00.000-04:00

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 10% Conservative, 90% Liberal

Social Issues: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

How'>http://www.blogthings.com/howliberalorconservativeareyouquiz/">How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

Class?

2006-07-12T12:35:00.000-04:00

"If those in charge of our society - politicians,
corporate executives, and owners of press and television - can dominate our
ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers
patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves."
- Howard Zinn, historian

Elitist Pricks will be Shot during the Revolution

2006-07-11T00:03:00.000-04:00

You all are obviously aware of my sheer hatred for Bill O'Reilly. You all know that I hate conservative blowhards who pose under the guise of "fair and balanced." You all know I hate rich propaganda tools who try and speak for the working class. You all know I hate Fox News.

However, Bill came out with a new article. In this one, like past ones complaining about rap songs and "culture wars," Bill bitches about the new "Superman Returns" movie. In a part of the film, Perry White says "Does he [Superman] still stand for truth, justice and all that stuff?" Of course, to people in the theatre, they wrote it off as just the way people talk or a way for the character to quickly buzz through a stressfull press meeting (where the quote was uttered). However, Bill decided to try his lack luster journalism skills again, in the form of the usual complaint.

"You don't need x-ray vision to know that things have changed drastically in America in the past five years. When Superman left to go visit the planet of his birthplace, the USA was not engaged in a terror war; the country was merrily drifting along, hoping that rap music would follow Monica Lewinsky into obscurity." -Bill O'Reilly

Wasn't rap the most popular music five years ago? It still is. I forgot though, music written about street fare is evil in the eyes of Mr. Working Class Prick.

"According to a Pew Global Attitudes survey, almost 30% of Americans believe that America's presence in Iraq poses a greater danger to world peace than Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon. In Turkey, 65% of the people feel that way. This kind of muddled thinking reflects the sentiment of the anti-American press worldwide and here in the USA. It is also the product of the rise of a well-funded and well-organized secular-progressive movement in America." -Bill O'Reilly

If you're against the war, you must hate America. It's not like dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

However, Bill's article gets even more pathetic. The farther I read, the more I support capital punishment for a select few.

"And the secular-progressive scribes are becoming increasingly emboldened. Writing in The New York Times, David Nasaw, a professor at the ultra-left City University of New York, made this comment about the charitable gifts of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett: "While we can only applaud the decision by Mr. Buffett and Mr. Gates to give away so much of their fortunes ... is society served by permitting (italics mine) so much capital to be accumulated by so few?"Fifty years ago, Professor Nasaw would have received an invitation to appear before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Today, he is a lion in the secular-progressive movement which seeks to have a large centralized government decide who can earn what."

Let's get this straight: Bill O'Reilly loves to "analyze." When someone believes that they should have the right to marry someone they love, despite the gender, O'Reilly overdoses on responses like: "In Iraq, these couples would not be allowed to marry."

..?! Ok, what's your point? He accuses the far left and post leftists of wanting to create a government controlled society (which is complete bullshit by the way) but when it comes to an issue of freedom like gay rights or women's reproductive rights, Bill loves to compare about how much we should be like Iraq. He hates their Islamic extremism (as do I) however, he would love to have our nation run like theirs.

He also loves Big Brother. Using his amazing analyzing skills, he talks about how anyone who opposes nationalism, capitalist exploitation and inequality should be put before a council to be reviewed. Funny that Bill would blast on Stalinist USSR and authoritarian leftism but he supports a form of fascism like this.

It gets worse...

"That's not the American way Superman used to uphold. This is a brave new world that threatens even superheroes. The old ways of respect for the basic nobility of America, the capitalistic free enterprise system, and the Judeo-Christian philosophy of personal responsibility are all under siege by stealth forces more powerful than a locomotive. They can even exorcise a classic pro-American line from a movie about a traditional comic book hero." -Bill O'Reilly

This is what almost made me snap. Bill O'Reilly has the audacity to say that we should have respect for the nobility of America. No Bill, how about we have respect for the working man, and not the rich nobility. You can sit on your ass in your air conditioned studio, adovcating your respect for inheritance mongers and capitalists, but everyone else will be working hard to survive and give you your comforts and freedom to say this bullshit. Also, don't you dare say anything about free enterprise or free anything while you advocate stopping leftists from having said freedom.

It's fascinating that O'Reilly would say anything about "Judeo-Christian philophies" while also being opposed to immigration. Hey Bill, I know it's inconvenient, but go read the Bible's views on free movement.

When the Revolution comes, he'll be the first to go.

Ken Lay: Dead

2006-07-08T16:21:00.000-04:00

Constitution Burning

2006-06-27T08:31:00.000-04:00

Bi-lingual ballots is only one thing that is sure to be a controversy with the next elections. Along with this, comes the sacred issue of free speech and protest: flag burning.

First, why is this an issue? It clearly says in the 1st Amendment that we have freedom of speech along with the right to protest. If I feel my country is running a murderous regime in other nations (never!), then I should and will have the right to burn a flag in protest.

Republicans constantly come out against flag burning because it's disgracing our freedoms and those who died for them. So, apparently, we're supposed to honor the freedom they died for by not using it? Mikhail Bakunin, the great anarchist philosopher once said "Restricting freedom for the sole purpose of protecting freedom is a dangerous idea."

Flag burning = freedom of speech. Don't like it? Counter protest. This is America, you fascists.

Freedom of Speak

2006-06-26T13:28:00.000-04:00

Sure to be a huge controversy in the next hierchy elections, bilingual ballets are destined to play the hot button role. In fact, last Thursday (June 22), the lovely GOP "revolted" during a vote of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Why? Becuase they see this as the oppurtunity to pick up votes.

If you have Hispanic, Asian, Muslim or any kind of immigrant that does not speak English, there is a chance that they could screw up in the polls and vote Republican (we all know they don't want to). Plus, the Conservatives, the GOP in particular, loves to keep that "We're all white, English speaking American soldiers" guise up.

Why force people to speak English is places that are majorly populated by people who don't speak English?

The Power of the People

2006-06-25T16:53:00.000-04:00

In the 1930's, the peasants and working class of Spain had enough. After years of suppression by fascist forces and plutocratic regimes, they revolted. Most were leading an anarchist rebellion, while others tended to fight for more Marxist, socialist, and authoritarian/statist goals. Eventually, the Spanish Revolution would fall to the Fascist forces (who were backed up by Hitler and Mussolini's Reich), but throughout the entire battle (and feats of anarcho-development in the industries, economy and government), the people kept a "Revolutionary fervor." This being proof of the need for the attitude, it can be viewed as an essential part of the people's Revolution in the modern world.

For the people of the working class to ever truly throw off their chains of oppression and capitalist slavery, a Revolution must, of course be brought up. Strikes, riots, activism, and even all out battles will be weathered, all for the greater good of the common person. Trade Unions, leading the revolt, will be ready for the end of it, ready to set up a true Anarcho-Syndicalist world.

Critics of anarchism though, tend to hold a cynical view on what happens after the Revolution. They do this for a good reason. After looking through history at all worker's Revolutions and battles for post-leftism, it would appear that, once anarchy or socialism has been reached, they tend to fall to either other forces (Spain's Fransisco Franco), economic reforms (Soviet Union's "state capitalism") or "broken promises" made by Revolutionary leaders (the American Revolutionary War). These examples, among others that are not listed here, welcome criticism by people who would prefer the current plutocracy, neo-conservatism or liberalism. Critics views and still-rampant McCarthyism are listed as reasons why a Revolution is so halted and cloudy in people's minds.

The solution, however, is Revolutionary fervor.

Revolutionary fervor is the pure passion of the people for their Revolution. Of course, anyone can see how this would aide the masses in overthrowing the state and abolishing capitalism, but how will it work once the Revolution has succeeded and the world is open for a New World Order? Once anarchism has been accomplished and the workers' self-management has become the trend of the economy, who's to stop capitalism and the bourgeoious from re-claiming everything? Who's going to stop a newly formed fascist party from militantly taking over the people? How are you to keep anarchism in working condition?

The solution, again, is Revolutionary fervor.

People are naturally determined. Once they reach their nirvana, they want to stay there and they will do anything to defend that. For example, one can look at a dog who has found a warm bed. If another dog comes up to try and take it, they fight becuase the original dog wants his home to stay his home. Through this muddy analogy, we see a prime example of Revolutionary fervor. The working class, having struggled valiantly for their position of complete freedom and equality, must keep their Revolution alive. If done so, then any invading force will surely be ripped to pieces by the common people. Any bourgeoious capitalist who's greed motivates him to dominate, will be "removed" from his community for doing so.

But, some may ask, why didn't this work in Spain? Why didn't this work in the American Revolution? Why didn't this work in Cuba? There must be no examples of it.

Howerver, there is an example; Kronstadt.

Kronstadt, an almost fortress-like seaport, was the home of an anarchist Revolution. Populated by sailors who Leon Trotsky had called the "pride and glory of the Russian Revolution," Kronstadt, as it would seem, would be place that was the epitomyof the 1917 Russian Revolution. However, in 1921, that wasn't the case. V.I. Lenin's promised libertarian communism had fallen short into a state socialism. The Petrograd sailors were suffering through horrible working conditions. Pulling 10,000 workers together, they fought back against their failed leaders. Crying out for anarchism, food, and freedom, they were met with gunfire from the oppressive regime. However, since Kronstadt was so isolated and tortured during the winter months, they failed to attract widespread support. Still, this can be used to show that as long as the people still hold their militant revolutionary views, they will fight back against oppression from a reformed state. Other examples can be seen, some more successful, such as the Zapatista revolt. They retain their atonomity and their independence in the modern world. This is a prime example that all people can look at.

In the Americas and all over, a Revolution will come. However, it is unknown if the people will keep their dream alive after the battles. Revolutionary feats in industry, enviromentalism and anti-racism/anti-sexism help keep the spirit alive, but that spirit could flal short against fascism or capitalism. Only time will tell. Until then, those who work for a better world will continue spreading the word of truth; Viva la revolucion!

Murder. The Punishment: Death?!

2006-05-27T01:05:00.000-04:00

The death penalty, for some odd reason, has been a standard practice in American history. The penalty itself is the act of punishing the crime of murder (in most cases, but occasionally, treason) by murdering someone. The hypocritical act was brought into America by the English settlers, as it had been a sort of public forum for them. However, in 1834, Pennsylvania became the first state to stop putting it in public and put it behind closed prison doors. Michigan would later follow suit.

But the act itself seems to be a staple in American law and something that won't going away. To the general person, the death penalty is viewed as that scary consequence and something that is completely fair. But is it really fair? Is this punishment by hypocrisy really fair? What about racially fair?

The answer is no.

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, there have been a total of 82 people taken off of death row because it was found that they were wrongly put on there. So we must ask ourselves, if a statistic like that, which would result in 1 out of every 7 being wrongfully tried, what are the chances of even more of those people never having their appeals heard and being killed? Not only that, but we also must notice the lesson that the death penalty shows us. Think of the children who first hear of it. How can they make sense of murder being punished by murder? Also, the death penalty puts out the view that it's ok for murder to be a solution to the hardest of decisions. As a child, one must wonder how they view this.

Outside of the moral realm, the death penalty has also shown itself to be more costly than a life sentence. A life sentence, on average, costs the state, and the taxpayer, $500,000. However, the much more costly death sentence, which requires maxim security and a legal counsel, can cost up to $2,000,000 per execution. This can be a heavy burden on any budget, especially as much as some judges hand them out (Judge Sabo in Pennsylvania, for example).

The idea that the death penalty could be unfair is rarely ever asked. Nobody would even think that a black man is 4 times more likely to get the death sentence for killing a white man than a white person would for killing a black person. You wouldn't think that, but it's true. The fact is, a "jury of peers" is a radical idea. How are we supposed to define "peers?" To some, a black man with a predominantly white jury has nothing to complain about, since some don't think race matters. But it's been proven that race does matter. Americans are typically biased against another race. So a jury of peers would have to include race in the definition. Deeper, we see that states like Texas and Pennsylvania have been notorious for executing handicapped and mentally ill individuals. How should a "jury of peers" be treated in that regard? Surely you cannot expect a group of the mentally ill to be a legitimate jury for another mentally ill person. So maybe then, we should do the logical thing and outlaw executing the mentally ill? Or would that put to much of a burden on the Grim Reaper Judges of America? Putting race and physical/mental capacity aside, there are so many more things to consider: sex, religion, orientation, social class. The list is endless, but we can all be certain that no matter the moral/economic truth of the death penalty, it is definitely in need of a reform. As the great Mumia Abu-Jamal said, "Life on... death row is a blacker one."

As Abu-Jamal said clearly, life on death row is a black one. What's death row life truly like? Living day to day, knowing that your murder is approaching soon is far worse of a fate than killing in cold blood. In fact, some prisoners ask for it early. Oddly enough though, around 80% of these volunteers are white. Aside from that though, the profound physical effects are horrendous. Many prisons around the country have been guilty of prisoner abuse but it seems to be an issue that is ignore by the media. Some feel that these prisoners have no rights, or for that matter, no basic rights that are guaranteed in most legal constitutions and religious scripts. Many report all too thorough body/cavity searches for non-contact visits. Why is that necessary for a non-contact visit that lives both people separated by shatter proof plexi-glass? So not only the death sentence needs to be reformed in that regards, but also most life sentences.

The life sentence, in the opinion of many on the anti-death penalty squad, seems to be the greater punishment. We can find a perfect example of this with the recent trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the famed "20th September 11 hijacker." In the Muslim faith (and most faiths for that matter, though it's ignored), it is said that martyrs will be rewarded with 72 virgins once they reach the gates of Heaven. Moussaoui was given the life sentence because the jury obviously realized that the death penalty would reward him! Also, imagine what would be worse of a punishment: staying locked up in a small, bare, cold cell for awhile, until the person is about to go mad, and then executed (sometimes willingly) or staying in that cell for the rest of your natural life? The latter sounds far more punishing.

The death penalty in the United States of America is a horrible thing. Not only does it violate Jesus teaching of "Turn the other cheek" but it also is a hypocritical act and one that is questionably racist. Our society and our world can only better itself by eliminating such acts as they have proven to not stop crime in any sorts (in fact, death penalty states have higher crime rates than non-death penalty states). Social justice can only be reached through activism and understanding, not murder.

Kenneth Lay: Death By Firing Squad?

2006-05-27T00:53:00.000-04:00

Seriously. I'm anti-death penalty, but that guy needs to take bullet for each person he fucked over.

Ken Lay, watch your back.

If this is an invitation, someone needs to RSVP.

2006-05-27T00:17:00.000-04:00

Ah! Tony Blair. Another capitalist dictator. Another world leader to decide to go into Iraq. Another idiot.

Well, anyways, a British lawmaker George Galloway, who's a Maverick Member of Parliment said that a single assasination attempt on Blair would be justified because of Blair's involvement in the war. Galloway made sure to note that he wasn't suggesting anything (it was just today's random topic, right?) and that he wasn't promoting anything.

Galloway was kicked out of The Labour Party for opposing the war. In fact, he was re-elected into the House of Commons by a largely Muslim district, saying that we need to end the colonialism of Iraq. We do.

Ok, so Galloway said the assasination attempt would be ok becuase of all the people he sent to death in the war. Ok. Makes sense to me. Now we just need someone to follow through. Blair went into an illegal war and should face the consequences. That's that.

Make War

2006-04-14T21:55:00.000-04:00

Six retired U.S. military generals, three of whom served in Iraq, have all stepped out and asked for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.

That warm, cozy feeling hasn't stopped but it's being dampened by the fact that the White House, in all it's democratic beliefs, refuses to listen. I can see why though. It's not like these generals know anything about the war. They've accused Donny R. of micro-management and carelessness but obviously, Rumsfeld knows more about the war in Iraq than them. It's not like he served there, but he's got a nice degree in political science so that counts, right?

Wrong. If you're going to run an illegal imperialism and not listen to public views on the issue, then at least do one thing right and let generals run the war, not politicians. That's just suicide, publically and strategically.

Remove Donald Rumsfeld from office. In fact, impeach the whole White House staff and have them tried for crimes against humanity.

If some politician doesn't do it, we will.

)(&#%^(&#$@%

2006-04-14T21:51:00.000-04:00

As you can tell by the link I've supplied you with, American neo-fascists, like the FCC, are censoring us more than ever. So, when thinking what to write about in this post, I kept the new censorship thing in mind and decided to go with this:

Fuck you, Corporate America. You're going to lose your war and someday, all the people under you will rise up and burn down your mansion, rob your family and redistribute your wealth fairly. Don't like it? Try and get your buddies in the White House to prevent it. But don't worry, we'll attack them first.

Yes, I did say "attack" and "White House" in the same sentence in that context. If you have problem with it, kiss my First Amendment loving ass.

I've gotten farther to the left...

2006-03-25T23:22:00.000-05:00

You are a
Social Liberal
(76% permissive)

and an...
Economic Liberal
(11% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Socialist

Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

This Wall of Cells Brought to you by a rapist, but kept up by South Dakota. And voters like you.

2006-03-08T16:51:00.000-05:00

To all the women who may be reading this, I want you to take your hand, place it over where approximately your uterus is. Now, if you live in South Dakota, that's not yours. That body part, that is nested in your body, belongs to Sen. Bill Napoli (R-Rapid City).

Senator Napoli took the moral problems that South Dakotan women were facing and helped them through the decision by banning abortion all together. UNLESS (unless) it's threatening to the woman's life. Sen. Napoli said that he might consider rape or incest a life-threatening problem, but only if the girl was a nice church girl. Don't believe me?

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life." - Sen. Napoli

Booyah. The man is a Class A example of "Pro-Life." He wants to make sure that women's problems are his choice. Men choosing for women. Why does that sound like something out of pre WWI America? Huh.

The question over the abortion issue at the moment, is not whether or not that under-developed, wall of cells should be considered a human life (even though a baby taken out during the first trimester, when abortion's legal, doesn't have fully developed organs, a spinal cord, isn't capable of thought and such) or whether woman should be able to choose what's done with their body. The main problem is, that a man decided this for the women of South Dakota. If this was made illegal by a council of all women, I'd still be against them outlawing it, but I'd be somewhat supportive that it was made by the people who it would effect.

In all honesty, abortion needs to be kept legal, no matter what a council or voters decide. As long as you still have people that want it, it should be legal. This isn't like a new tax, where it effects everyone. An abortion effects the one woman (and if you want to include the fetus, then that too). It should always be open as a form of population control and a way to stop more unwanted children from being brought into the world. Also, it gives us stem cells.

However, some people that helped make the anti-reproductive rights law in South Dakota also want it to be illegal for women to buy contraceptives. So, now women can't buy sexual protection, could get pregnant, then, even if they know they can't properly raise the child, they still have to have it. "Well, why not an adoption?" harks the conservatives. Sure! Adoptions a great choice! But.... Keep in mind that these same people (Conservatives) don't want gays, bisexual, and transgender parents to adopt. So, when your child's out on the adoption floor and two wonderful, loving, caring and good men come in who want to adopt your child, and then a husband and wife, who are mediocre parents, but the only other ones willing to adopt come in, well... Guess who gets a good round of Sunday beatings for the next eighteen years?

I'm hoping some of the women and intelligent men in South Dakota can petition the Senators and get their voices out. If this doesn't work, then I'm in full support of doing more things to get the right way set. No, I don't mean protesting, because I'm putting that under petition. If these fail, then people need to regain their rights by a little more militant ways.

I'm not promoting an attack on anyone, but sometimes, you have to fight for your rights.

"The Things I Thought Were Wrong" by Katie O'Conner

2006-03-01T18:37:00.000-05:00

A world of hate
A world of greed
A world of pride
With countries striving for power
I always thought they said not to have "cliques"
When here are countries grouping together
Never siding with one another
I always thought violence is bad
But here we are fighting each other
Killing our citizens
But its alright that they died,
Because they fought for out country?
I always thought we should forgive one another
Feuds start and they end
Often in violence
But isn't the past is the past,
Shouldn't wefocus a little more of the future?
This world is getting worst
History repeats because of silly mistakes
And we're all like technology
Growing
Spreading
Advancing
Overcoming.

A very close friend of mine sent this to me. It's something she wrote. It was too beautiful not to share, but sadly, all too true.

Thank you for the lovely poem, Katie.

Hail to the Empire

2006-02-28T20:08:00.000-05:00

I made this.

Stop Globalization. Stop Hatred. Stop Imperialism.

Planet of the (Conservative, Less Evolved, Fanatic) Apes

2006-02-28T19:52:00.000-05:00

Sen. Chris Buttars of Iowa recently attempted to sponsor a bill that would require teachers to tell students that the state does not endorse evolution. But, good intentions prevailed and the bill fell through. Of course, Buttars threw out the warm, snuggly, fascist vibrations when he said (quote):

"I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape." - Buttars

Wow, Chris, I'm glad your up on the definition of evolution. Because it says that. Mhm. It says (non-quote):

"One day there was an ape and then BAM! it had a baby human and then life went on." - The Sen. Buttars Theory of Evolution

How's that education bill coming along?

What It Is: Schools = Useless diffusion. What It Should Be: Schools = Job Training

2006-02-24T17:27:00.001-05:00

As a slave of the current American school system (and yes, I mean slave), I know a lot about what high schools are teaching. One thing especially, is that they have taught very much useless information. When looking at what school should be, it would seem that it would be a place that would prepare adolescents for the jobs that they will pursue. Instead, it remains a dreaded institution with underpaid staff, memorization, bullying, drug trade, and creativity smashing.

One thing that's a basis in schools is to not ask "why?". This is because most teachers don't want to (or can't) venture out of the written lesson plan by taking on new subjects. I admit though, this isn't always true. In fact, this year, I have found many teachers who gladly delve into other subjects. These people are truly good individuals who teach because they love to teach. Every high school student, however, knows of the teacher that doesn't want to be there. They bitch at students and don't seem to give off a caring, teacher-esque attitude. These people, obviously, should not teach.

Teaching, nowadays, isn't so much about giving the kids a lesson. It's more about helping them memorize facts. The better they memorize a fact, the better they do on tests, and the better they do on tests, the more funding the school gets (and the more funding the school gets, the more neat toys they can buy for the football team). This, however, seems wrong. Why should schools that have smarter students receive the most funding? Wouldn't ailing schools with struggling students need more funds to open up more programs for said students?

Just because one student gets an "A" on his History quiz, does not mean he knows anything about the subject. He knows dates, sure. He knows names, yeah. But as for answering questions like "why," that's another story. Students are taught not to ask "why" for one huge reason: because they themselves don't know why.

Confusing, I know, but if a kid doesn't know why himself, then he won't ask.

Schools are infamous for filling kids up with life skills like calculus, trig, the cell reproductive patterns in bacteria, and sentence diagrams. Also, in the hallways, kids that are less fortunate or deigned "bad" by the system struggle through dealing with abusive students (who happen to be on the football team, and the school won't compromise losing a season for some poor child), backstabbing and other problems with friends and family that they must ignore and put to the side during classes, no matter how much it troubles them.

However, high school should instead work on giving kids classes that reflect their job choices. Elementary through middle school should stick with almost the same structure, but high school should veer towards what teenagers want to go after during college. For example, in my case, I want a journalism/political science involved career, so I would be given more English classes and Government, Economy, and social science classes. But, alas, I'm forced to take silly classes like "ICP" and "Algebra II."

Oh well, maybe things will change. Maybe.

Ports & Nationalism

2006-02-24T12:50:00.000-05:00

President Bush loves to deepen the hypocrisy. As a President that will go the extra mile to violate any suspected "terrorists" rights, Bush, however, didn't hesitate to hand over our countries ports to a UAE company.

I'm not one to discriminate, but why hand over an American port that employs Americans who need jobs over to a foreign country that is known to be a threat to security? Why not go ahead and give Saudi Arabia the White House key? These ports, all six of them, need to be held by the state and the jobs kept for Americans who need them.

"We're told nearly every day about the critical importance of the war on terror. ... That's why it's inconceivable and defies common sense to outsource the operation of our ports. ... This outsourcing causes great confusion and undermines the administration's credibility." - John Kasich

Wow, someone from Fox New actually makes sense. Somewhat.

Bush said in a recent stop in my home state of Indiana, that he wished the war on terrorism was over but it had to be kept up for the "security of the American people."

...and then he hands over our ports to a U.A.E. group.

...

Yes, I fathom the hypocrisy of these statements. The U.S. needs to keep foreign companies out of here, and our companies off of other nations.

Why go to church when you can go to school?

2006-02-20T14:34:00.000-05:00

An interesting topic that seems to be the forefront of today's discussion is the teaching of evolution in schools. The topic hasn't appeared in my school, thankfully, but many schools around the country are experiencing this problem. It's a sad issue that could have been avoided if the American people would have had the foresight to set up an atheist government. But hold on there, let's talk about the idea of an atheist government.

To the Conservative right, an atheist government is portrayed as one that takes religious rights away from the individuals. It is shown to be lacking moral direction and Anti-Christ like. Actually, an atheist government is simply a government that does not make ideas based on religion. So, the idea of gay marriage wouldn't be looked at as "It's wrong by the Bible" but instead looked at as "This may not fit the natural, scientific form of marriage, but marriage is a social institution, not biological." For radical Christians, the idea of a religious government is fine, but only as long as it's their religion. If you're supporting one form of theocracy, than any form of theocracy should flow. However, with an atheist government, the government won't touch your religion. Don't like gay marriage? Ok, then your church doesn't have to honor their marriage or ratify it. Don't support abortion? The goverment won't make you get an abortion! Don't like learning about evolution in school? Tune them out then. You might fail the class, but at least the collective group won't have to be spoon fed unproven lies under your intolerant heel.

But back to the topic of evolution in the school system, to counter Bill Frist's comments on evolution, someone give me one way to prove that intelligent design is proveable. You can't. Try telling kids one of these things and see which one they get easier:

1.) Human life evolved from a lower life form through scientific adaptation and mutation. (Look at these facts.)
2.) A man in the sky made two people, and they conceived two children, who then mated with their mother to create more kids. Oh, and the woman came from the man's rib.

The purpose of a science class is not to discredit or credit a religion. The purpose is to teach kids science (ie, things that can be backed up with facts). If kids want to learn about intelligent design, they can sign up for a theology class, go to church, or read the Bible. However, school is not the place to force your religious views on people. Like I've said before, how would the right winger feel if they had to learn about the scientoligist view on creation? They would bitch and moan about how it shouldn't be allowed.

Please, comrades, keep religion and state strongly seperate, and don't give up the fight.

Freedom

2006-02-20T14:18:00.000-05:00

Tre Arrow
Bill Dunne
Leonard Peltier
Marilyn Buck
Assata Shakur
Ruben Campa
Rene Gonzalez
Antonio Guerrero
Gerardo Hernandez
Luis Medina
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Luis V. Rodriguez
Oscar Lopez Rivera
Carlos Alberto Torres
Haydee Beltran
Jaan Karl Laaman
Ray Luc Levasseur
Tom Manning
Richard Williams
Sara Olson

All of these people and many more are being held prisoner for their political beliefs. Please, look up information on them and join their cause to free them and their comrades. Thank you.

Bill O'Reilly is Fair and Balanced

2006-01-21T12:40:00.000-05:00

Bill O'Reilly decided to bless us again with his "fair and balanced" political reports by telling the tale of a Vermont judge who believe in getting help for sick people (Christ, no!). Let's see what Mr. O has to say:

"Ralph Page is a problem. The 35-year old Vermont man has twice been convicted of drunk driving, and now faces charges of theft and assaulting his girlfriend. He's a typical low-level offender who shuffles around causing trouble and clogging up the justice system.
On January 17th, Page ambled into Judge Patricia Zimmerman's courtroom to answer charges that he punched a woman in the face. Apparently, Page did not like hearing the charges against him and screamed out "this is effing bull----." That annoyed Judge Zimmerman, who promptly found Page in contempt of court and sentenced him to 60 days in a Vermont jail. " - O'Reilly

Nothing wrong with that, but listen to this:

"That 60-day sentence is the same amount of jail time another Vermont judge, Edward Cashman, awarded 34-year-old Mark Hulett. But it is here where the Vermont justice system collapses. Incredibly, Hulett pled guilty to a variety of felony sexual assault charges against a six-year-old girl. Over a period of four years, Hulett, a friend of the girl's mother, confessed to raping the child in her own home. It was a methodical and brutal series of actions on Hulett's part, and it has devastated an innocent little girl.

But when it came time to sentence Hulett, Judge Cashman suspended all but 60 days of a potential life prison stretch, because Cashman wanted Hulett to get "treatment." At sentencing, the Judge said: "I keep telling prosecutors, and they won't hear me, that punishment is not enough." " - O'Reilly

Ok, so through that muddled thing, we can deter that Bill has the story down. Now, let's move on.

"So here's justice in the state of Vermont: Cursing at a judge merits the same prison time as repeatedly raping a six-year-old girl. If Hulett had committed the same crime in Florida, he would now be serving 25-to-life in the penitentiary because that state has passed mandatory minimum sentences for felony battery on children. But Vermont has no such minimums. So Mark Hulett, child rapist, is set to walk free on March 4th. The philosophy of our nation is "equal justice under the law." Obviously, the abused little girl and her family did not get justice by any measure. Clear-thinking people understand that true justice requires that the punishment fit the crime." -O'Reilly

What the hell, Bill? What happened to your "Fair and Balanced" journalism? It seems to me that you're throwing some opinions in there, and not only that, you ass, but you're throwing in Conservative opinions. How balanced is that? Tool.

"But Judge Cashman does not understand that. His sympathies are with the rapist, and he did not even attempt to hide that fact." - O'Reilly

In a recent article, Bill makes it clear that he supports the Christian viewpoints, yet he is one of the worst people to carry out Christ's teachings of forgiveness. In Bill O'Reilly's perfect world, all criminals, no matter how small the felony, are executed on site.

"Because of Cashman's outrageous sentence, you would think Vermonters would be calling for his gavel and robe.
You would think. But you'd be wrong. " - O'Reilly

Yeah, suprisingly, not all Americans, or Vermonters, for that matter, agree with the bull you spew.

"Vermont's shameful story is being played out in other places as well. But it is in this tiny state, the second-least-populated behind Wyoming, that a horrendous violation of human rights is taking place. " - O'Reilly

Violation of human rights? Bill, how the hell can you even say that, considering the stuff you support. If that man was denied medical treatment and locked up forever, like you would have it, then that would be a violation of human rights. But no, god forbid you stand up for the underdog. Go fuck yourself, Bill.

Pat Robertson is an Idiot.

2006-01-12T19:36:00.000-05:00

I opened up CNN's website today to see a beautiful headline: "Robertson Apologizes to Sharon's Son." Not that I give a shit about Ariel Sharon or his son, but it was great to see Pat knocked off his hateful, religously extremist pantheon of greed.

If you're wondering what Patty was apologizing over, it was a comment he made about Ariel Sharon after Sharon fell into a stroke. Robertson, on January 5th, with his show "The 700 Club" (Cranky homophobes moping, basically) said:

"Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations or the United States of America. God says, 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better leave it alone.' " - Pat Roberstonb

Oh thanks for the input, Pat. I think I might have missed that part of the Bible last time I flipped through it.

Roberston, however, did apologize on the 700 Club, by saying this:

"I ask your forgiveness and the forgiveness of the people of Israel for saying what was clearly insensitive at the time." - Robertson

If Israel would have came back with a "Fuck you, Mr. Roberston" or even a "Shove it" I would have dropped everything bad I hold against them and love them. But alas, Israel pussed out and went with:

"Israel respects Rev. Robertson and accepts his apology, which reflects his true friendship and support for the state of Israel," - Ambassador Daniel Ayalon

Geeze, you could have at least keyed his car up.

Anyways, on to my problem with Israel: It belongs to the Palestinians. They had the land and then one day the Jews forced them out. The country of Israel need to be removed and converted back to Palestine, and the US needs to stop backing Israel.

I'm going to go before someone says I'm anti-semetic.

Oh Bill...

2006-01-10T16:28:00.000-05:00

I want all of you to go out and read Bill O'Reilly's newest article on the "Culture Wars." It's great, because Bill tries to make a slanted article sound "fair and balanced" (wow, where have I heard that phrase before?) and fails horribly. Now keep in mind, I run a liberal blog, so I'm not trying to sound balanced, but I do believe I'm fair. Anyways, here's a snippet from Bill's rant.

"Even though the war on terror dominates the headlines, the culture war in America is almost as intense. On one side you have traditionalists, people who believe the country was well founded, does mostly good things, and has become the most powerful nation on earth by adhering to Judeo-Christian principles like generosity, justice, and self-sacrifice.
On the other side of the culture war are the secular-progressives who believe that the USA is fundamentally a flawed country, which has caused considerable misery both within and outside our borders. The S-P's want drastic change and a new direction for America. " - O'Reilly

Wow, Bill I wonder what side you're on?

I'm going to play translator and tell you what he meant to say:

Traditionalists - People who believe that the President Bush is near God and that America can only be bettered by forcing their religion on everyone. In their perfect world, all the gays have been murdered in a bloody, "holy" genocide and abortion has been put to an end by brave abortion clinic bombers, who combat the evil of "killing" unborn fetuses by killing people. Huh. Oh, and did I mention Muslims being shot in the streets?

"S-P's" - The false devils in O'Reilly's eyes, the Secular-Progressives want a country based on a First Amendment (you know, that one thing that the Washington dude wrote and George Bush pissed on) and freedom from having any religion forced on them. Evil!

"The two most intense issues in the culture war right now are how to deal with terrorism, and what role spirituality should play in the public arena. The S-P's want little or no public displays of God or religion. That's what drove the attacks on Christmas images and traditions--knock down the big Christian holiday, and the secularists achieve a big victory." - O'Reilly

Oh, I'm terribly sorry Bill for not wanting a Jesus statue in front of a courthouse and a Christian prayer in my school, but let's turn this around: I don't see you supporting any people trying to throw out their Islamic religion. Why not Billy? Got something against Muslims? Nazi.

I find it funny how Bill blames the Christmas attacks on us. Hah! A few companies merely say "Happy Holidays" and O'Reilly and his bitches jump at it and blame it on the liberals, claiming it's an attack on "Traditional American values," like war and religious rape. Sir, just because you get pissy over the wording of a holiday salutation, doesn't mean you need to scream.

"On the terror front, traditionalists largely want aggressive action to wipe out the "evildoers," and if lraq is the battlefield, then so be it.
Secular-progressives are appalled by the Iraq war and generally believe the USA has no right to act unilaterally to hunt down terrorists or their enablers." - O'Reilly

I really like how O'Reilly throws out the "...believe the USA has no right to act unilaterally to hunt down terrorists." It shows his disgust in people who are against attacking an innocent country. Sorry Bill! I guess we don't fit your tradilionist view of murdering the innocent!

And then Bill turns his article into an overview of a his appearence on the Letterman Show. Here is describing it:

"We also found common ground on the terrific performance of the U.S. military. " - O'Reilly

Haha, good one, Bill.

"But then Cindy Sheehan came up. Uh-oh. Dave, as well as many in the entertainment community, feels that Ms. Sheehan should not be criticized. He believes she is above reproach because her son Casey was killed in Iraq. I do not see it that way, so sparks flew. My contention is that Ms. Sheehan is entitled to grieve and dissent in any way she wants, but her grief is being exploited by far-left elements. And when Ms. Sheehan told Mark Knoller, a correspondent for CBS radio, that the terrorists in Iraq were "freedom fighters," she insulted thousands of other Americans who lost loved ones in Iraq. Simply put, terrorists who blow up civilians, women and children are not freedom fighters in any sense. They are murderers and I called Mr. Letterman on Sheehan's support of them." - O'Reilly

Let's take a look at what Ms. Sheehan said in reality:

"Um, no, because it’s not true. You know, Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean, they’re not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Iraq was not a terrorist state. But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open. Freedom fighters from other, countries are going in. And they have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing. And people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their, out of their country." - Cindy Sheehan

Well that's interesting. She never once called Iraqi insurgents "freedom fighters." She called foreign bodies freedom fighters. And to an extent, she's right. The U.S. is an invading country and people will try to get them out no matter what it takes. Evil, eh? Yes, Bill, I agreed. They are terrorists, just like the Americans in the Revolutionary War.

Well, that's enough ridicule for Bill today. Besides, I'm sure I'll be back when that jackass writes another article.

2006: Christianity or Death!

2005-12-29T00:04:00.000-05:00

According to the good, family oriented, fear based, overweight members of American Family Association were nice enough to give me a prediction for 2006. Here's what are friends have to say:

"2006 is going to be an amazingly exciting year. We’re going to see victory after victory after victory, state to state to state on many state marriage amendments just like we saw in the year 2004." -AFA Site

Awesome! By 2007, we'll have stopped those damn faggots from marrying the ones they love! We'll make sure that women's bodies are controlled by the government! Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, and any children that aren't Christian will pay the price in our new Christianized public schools! The government will be there to make sure musicians, journalist and artist don't mention anything that is a threat to American security (like prison torture, police brutality, and other atrocities)! Damn, America has a great future!

“It’s a very good possibility that in this coming year people will begin to realize what’s really driving the homosexual agenda, what they really want, and will begin to get involved.” -AFA Site

You know, it would be easier if you nazi's just called it quiet genocide.

"Other issues likely to be on the nation’s collective mind include the cloning and stem cell debate, and a possible rollback on marriage in Massachusetts . " -AFA Net

Here's where it gets me: Why is Stem Cell Research a threat? Ok, so you're against abortion and stem cell's are aborted fetuses. BUT, these fetuses are going to be discarded so why not use them to cure serious and terminal illness. But no, let's throw them away because Pat Robertson says it's wrong in "God's eyes."

No, 2006 is going to be the year of freedom, not fascism.

Apparently, it's now the US vs. God

2005-12-17T16:19:00.000-05:00

Wow, the AFA has so much fun to offer! I just can't stop looking at this site. I love reading their ignorant, hick-ass articles. Seriously, people, go read their site, it's like George Bush's blog, except much better grammatically. In fact, one part of their site is dedicated to the the "Homosexual Agenda," or how the gays are destroying our oh-so pure country.

"I was watching CNN as they were broadcasting live the "festivities and ceremonies of history in the making" in Cambridge, MA where "gay" marriage licenses were first issued. To think it was only centuries ago where our great nation began when the pilgrims first landed in Provincetown, Massachusetts. Now, Massachusetts will be the place where it tragically all ends." -AFA site

Yes, that's right. America's downfall won't come from the people we've pissed off and robbed. It won't come from the global warming we are ignoring. It won't come, even, from scary, religious extremist nuts like these people. No, the end of America will come by people who love each other and want to marry.

Let me be blunt: I hope the makers of this website and anyone who believe this way burns in hell. Seriously, you ignorant pieces of trash, read your own goddamn Bible for once and see that Jesus taught tolerance. I know it's hard for you to tolerate two guys kissing, because deep down, it sexually troubles you, but just make some worth out of your seemingly vapid life and try to understand. They can't help it. Do you think they would choose to be gay in a world dominated by sick hilljacks like you? It's people like you that give America a worse name.

"'D' Day is what many are calling it -- "Destruction of Marriage Day." Yet it's so much more. America has arrogantly declared war against the God of all creation and I'm sure it will draw a quick and appropriate heavenly response." - AFA Site

Of course. This is what sets god off. Not the thousands of Muslims you've killed during the Crusades (Thou Shalt Not Kill), not the millions you've said were going to hell for being different (Do not judge, lest ye be judged), or the abortion clinics you have bombed (back to the "not kill"). No, it's men and women marrying. HOW EVIL!

Jesus would be ashamed, you tools...

2005-12-17T15:49:00.000-05:00

I decided to turn my search for political news to somewhere new. So, I jumped the tracks and decided to look at things from the Nazi standpoint. Case in point: The American Family Association, a group of ultra-conservative hicks who claim to be "restoring American families" by promoting racism, sexism, and good ol' fashion patriotic extremism. Yee haw!

In my quest around the site, I found this article about a Southern, whitebred, redneck town that decided it was going to combat those evil, satanic, souless, bloodsucking, sodomizing, "Happy Holiday" say-ers by having one big Christian themed Christmas parade. Oh wow, that'll show'em!

"We are planning to make the whole event -- the parade and the festival -- a religious theme," said the town clerk Alice Carlisle. "Our theme will be the Nativity, and we are asking all businesses to fill this town up with Nativity scenes."

I know, I know, why didn't she just say: "ALL YOU DIRTY JEWS AND MUSLIMS AND CATHOLICS BETTER BOW TO OUR GOD OR BE SMITED! BWAHAHA!" She was thinking it, I swear.

"With threats of law suits by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other atheist groups, retailers, schools, and town officials across the country have become increasingly afraid to use Christian decorations, religious carols, and Christian themes for their parades, plays, and public decor." -AFA site

Any group who is against a theocratic regime is athiest and therefore bad.

Schools and retailers aren't trying to take God away from the people who want to believe in it, instead their just coming out and saying "Hey, we don't know if you're Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or what, so we're going to try and accomodate it all by saying "Happy Holidays." How hard is that to get?

If I were sitting in my school's auditorium and they started preaching the word of "god," they wouldn't change that for me so I wouldn't be offened. However, if a Muslim came up and started talking about his beliiefs, no preaching, just talking, it would take only one Christian martyr to set the AFA on their heels and ready to put the "Jesus" back in "state funded schools."

"But under pressure from consumers and Christian advocacy groups like the American Family Association and Focus on the Family, as well as repeated coverage of the issue by commentator Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, some retailers have since altered those decisions. Wal-Mart opted to return to using "Merry Christmas" as a greeting, and others may be following suit." - AFA

Keep in mind, people, Bill O'Liar is like second to god to them. Who cares that he makes up statistics and refuses to debate maturely, he's a messenger of the truth and splotchy faces! (I <3 Al Franken)

It's too bad Wal-Mart is opting to bow to the hellspawn's. Oh well, all's well that end's with a carbomb.

"We want everyone in town to take part in this," Carlisle said. "That's why we are letting them know now, so everyone will have their Nativities ready by next December." - AFA Site

And if not, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!

Happy Holidays, you're existence was pointless.

2005-12-08T16:37:00.000-05:00

I was scanning our town's lack luster newspaper the other day when I stumbled upon an article that resembled one Bill O'Liar Riley had written earlier in the week. It was an opinion piece written by an angered and bored man who was outraged that Wal Mart and other corporations were saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." On the net, I found several more of these despondent people.

These people were actually flipping out about this. They were all up in arms because they heard "Happy Holidays!" instead of "Merry Christmas!" How vapid do your lives have to be? If you sit around and get pissed about THAT then you have no point in existing. Honestly, people, grow the fuck up.

Taking to the internet, I found that Wal Mart and other capitalist pigs were saying this because they didn't want to offend Jews by saying Merry Christmas, Christians by saying Happy Hanukkah, or anyone else who would waste their time bitching about it. Now, what pisses me off about this is that if Wal Mart said Merry Christmas and the Jewish community bitched, it wouldn't be a concern, but if they said Happy Hanukkah, everyone would be on that shit, getting it removed. People are entirely too obsessed.

Aren't Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas pretty synonymous? To worry over something that small and miniscule is just pathetic. By complaining over the verbose of a greeting, you destroy the spirit of what you're arguing for. So people, please, for this Christmas, just shut the hell up.

Venting

2005-12-02T18:49:00.000-05:00

Alright, so I've had a lot of things on my mind recently, politically/socially at least, and I feel the need to vent some of that.

Ok... the more I think about it, voting seems really fucking pointless. Considering that the person who WON THE ELECTION in 2000 didn't end up as President, I think it's kind of sickening. Plus, the realization's dawning that our votes don't matter. C'mon kids, the elections are decided by the people with the money. Seriously, they buy the politicians, they buy the campaigns, they buy the votes. It's pathetic. The rich are getting away with these huge crimes just because they own the politicians and the law enforcement. It's basically like privatized government agencies, but all under the same domain.

What also sickens me is that fucks like Peter Jackson can blow $8 million dollars on a movie, yet there's people starving on the streets. Why doesn't he give 1 million of that to a charity or homeless shelter? Oh yes, because middle America needs it's big ass monkeys (Bush isn't enough) to watch on screen for seven bucks.

Also, why do you have to be 17 to see a Rated R movie, but only 16 to drive a machine that can kill dozens of people? Seems a little odd, huh? Plus, you can be 21 and drink a substance that has the potential to make you very violent and unpredictable, but you can't legally smoke a plant that's proven to relax nerves and aggression. In fact, the government's current war on weed is almost as big as the war on terror.

Considering the war on terror is being faught to read the world of people who are dangerous and a hazard to world safety, then why is the US the number one selling country of weapons to countries with opressive government and terrorists connections. So, if you traced it back, all of this has been our fault

Ok, that was random, but I'm done for now.

Cutting and Running

2005-12-02T17:26:00.000-05:00

So, the question constantly being posed to our brain dead President is this: Why can't we pull out of Iraq? The answer is usually a promise of horrible bloodshed, widespread chaos, and other horrible things (which is odd considering Bush doesn't give a flying fuck about Iraqis). But, in the link I've provided you with above, it helps to dispell some of these false notions. Here's a few:

Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds will decimate Iraq from battle is a huge, huge, huge excuse that ol' Bushy likes to pull out. Unfortunately, this has proven false because these groups would have fewer reasons to fight if the American oppression was gone. The reason we're seeing so many car bombings and the sort is because a.) they are punishing people for cooperating with the Americans and b.) they are getting revenge for having their homes destroyed or families lost during the invasion.
Another faulty excuse for cutting and running is that the insurgency will grow larger against the US. Wrong. The insurgents are fighting us for revenge and once we're gone, they'll have their country back, so the need for fighting will be gone.

Those are just two. The site I linked you too has much more.

B-b-b-back

2005-11-17T07:16:00.000-05:00

Sorry I've been gone so long, dears. I've been quite busy doing nothing, but I have been catching up on my current events (and school, ugh). Anyways, expect new posts very soon. I'm working on one about those brave people who revolted in France.

Kiss kiss, dears.

Police State

2005-10-30T00:45:00.000-05:00

On October 22nd, a Saturday afternoon, a 16 year old boy was arrested for protesting against his government.

The as of yet unidentified victim of the system was taken into police custody after standing on a street corner with a sign that said "Fuck Bush." The peaceful demonstration was interrupted when five squad cars pulled into the scene, claiming that the boy had to remove the sign and show ID. After carefully scanning through the laws, trying to pick one out to use, the pigs, already having checked the boys ID, took him into custody, which enticed a large, deserved protest from the others in his group. Ignoring the crowd, the constitution, morals, and the true American way, the officers took the boy away, on a charge of obscenity and obstructing traffic (even though he was on the sidewalk, so maybe they meant "obstructing drunk driving traffic").

Here is a video of the outrage.

Ok, so now that I've given you the full story, let me take the time to say: Fuck Bush, fuck those pigs, and fuck the current American imperialist, oppressive regime that feels the need to make it self seem omnipotent. There is a cornucopia of culture encroachment as it is, we don't need to invade other nations to show more of it.

Alright.

Sorry about that, but I had to let it out. Now, back to a calmer look at this: this is another brick in the wall, basically. It's another example of how the American goverment is further taking away our rights using bullshit excuses. I know it's getting repetive, but people really should start being more aggressive. I know peace is the main goal here, but sometimes, violence may be needed. ONLY, however, when it is for your freedom. Violence is not the answer, though, when you want to use an innocent country as a scapegoat.

Supreme Court Cronyism Pt. 2

2005-10-28T12:49:00.000-05:00

As many of you have surely heard by now, Harriet Miers pulled out of the Supreme Court nomination. Bush commented that she was "treated unfairly." He's right though, those people shouldn't have questioned his choice and just bowed down to his decision. Why, just like a dictatorship! Oh wait, that's anti-American.

Anyways, CNN reported that Bush had a list of several other people and he would pick someone off of there to nominate into Miers role. Here's the kicker, though: he said Miers was the most qualified person on this list. So, I'm guessing that the list includes:

That hobo with the Spider-man tee shirt in San Fransisco.
That dead hooker from George's college days.
Mike Brown.
Someone from the Saudi Family.
A life size cutout of the Dukes of Hazzard.
Aquaman.

Oh my, America's future is gleaming! Sheild your eyes!

Who Are You?

2005-10-14T18:47:00.000-05:00

There's two things that bother me about Miss Harriet Miers.

1.) Most sensible human beings would like to know that the people deciding major cases in this country are being decided by people who are fair and balanced (No, not Fox Conservative News, you asshats) and not being ruled by Governor of the Texas State Lottery. Yes, take a moment to read back over that, because you have just read up on the majority of Harriet Miers's credentials. Congratulations, folks. I guess, seeing as the example Fuhrer Bush has set, you are now eligible for the Supreme Court!

But really, this country needs laws decided by people who don't worship at the filthy feet of George Bush. Which brings me to point numero dos! Ole!

2.) Harriet Miers thinks George Bush is the most brilliant person on earth.

...

Yes, let that soak in for a moment. I was shocked too when I learned that people actually think this man could tie his own goddamn shoes. Seriously, do you want someone in charge of deciding powerful social cases who thinks George Bush is brilliant? I mean, my god, is this woman fucking retarded or just ignorant? This is the exact reason why I'm pro-choice.

But I'm noticing a trend. Harriet Miers. Mike Brown. God knows who else, but all of these people were given important jobs almost as some kind of payoff from Bush. You know, like when you ask a friend to help with your campaign, then you repay them by giving them a high paying, cozy job as something pointless, not the US Supreme Court. I think George Bush needs to take Bill Maher's advice and widen his circle of friends before he picks anymore people to fill in major positions.

Is it just me or does she remind you all of that scene from Dawn of the Dead 2004 when the fat lady zombie tries to kill Sarah Polley's character. Not trying to rip on Bill Maher, but new rule: No more creepy, fucked up politicians.

Things Have Changed

2005-10-13T21:44:00.000-05:00

As some of you may know (or anyone who reads the political articles in Rolling Stone) the great Anti-War movement seems to be breaking into two. It's splitting off into different groups of people who want different things done about the war.

Group 1: The Moderate Democrat Group, just wants the troops out. This is the typical, "Veterans Against War," angry soccer mom stance. This is also the people who have children/spouses etc. Serving in the Middle East. They only want the troops out of Iraq and safe. They know that a war on terror can't be won, and some even acknowledge that Iraq never did shit to us.

Group 2: The Radical group, as I've dubbed my home dawgs (just a little joke with the black 'cent) want more than out. They are more for Bush being indicted and removed from power. They are for civilian uprising in Iraq/America. They are against this imperialism that is being wrought on the rest of the world. I don't blame them.

Now, if you would have asked me two or three months ago, where I stood on the whole issue, I would say Group 1. But now... I honesty don't know. I find myself wanting to keep the peace. You know, pull the troops out, drop Aid Workers in, something along those lines. But other times, I just wish the Iraqis would rise up in revolt and so would the citizens of the United States. I'm against violence, but I'm thinking it might be necessary if we want change in our government. Maybe the only way to accomplish these things is of all of us to join together, arm ourselves and start bombing mansions and anything else that symbolize American pig-corporatism.

Maybe I need to sleep on it. I think I will.

They're Trying to Build A Prison...

2005-10-02T00:49:00.000-05:00

Proving once again that America is number one in hypocrisy, new prisoner abuse allegations are coming up in the media. Abu Ghraib, however, is not the setting for these horrendous events. Instead, it is the direct fault of the 82nd Airborne Division. Yes, the famed red blooded American group of strapping young racists and homophobes (the American way, by golly) has apparently been beating and humiliating Iraqi prisoners at a Fallujah camp.

Now, having talked this over with my ultra-conservative father, he tends to lean towards the fact that we aren’t killing them, so letting them live and suffer through pain is much worse than killing them and freeing them of all pain. Yeah, that sounds screwy, I know.

“Boyce says there have been 400 investigations into abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, resulting in 230 courts-martial, nonjudicial punishments or other actions.” -Newsweek

And about right now, people come bursting through my window and beat me down, claiming America is filled with hard working, middle class, god fearing people who would never hit a Muslim, unless they disrespected the flag, which god knows is a crime, because our flag is the most important piece of cloth out there.

Sorry, off topic, but I was just in a ranting mood.

Press Release

2005-09-30T17:09:00.000-05:00

Most of you have probably heard about Judith Miller, the New York Times' reporter who was jailed for using her freedom of the press and not revealing a confidental source. That's right, she was jailed for refusing to reveal a source. Props to Miller though, for not talking at all.

After three months in the slammer, Miller's source, Dick Cheney's cheif of staff, Lewis Libby, finally broke the confidentiality and let Miller speaketh. It's great to see her out of prison. Hopefully or facism won't imprison anyone else for respecting someone's privacy.

Head Like a Hole

2005-09-29T19:18:00.000-05:00

Looking at John Robert's shit faced grin reminds me why I'm pro-choice. Seriously, if that man's not a child molestor, than everything gone backwards. He's like Satan's incarnate. Part Pedophile, all Republican, spawned from the hell fires of Indiana. And we all know NOTHING good comes from Indiana. I mean, aside from a few good musicians and bands, we've only had misery out of this state. John Roberts, Guns N'Roses, Michael Jackson... good god, we're almost as bad as Sony Records.

One step closer to a Fascist regime...

2005-09-27T16:04:00.000-05:00

So, today anti-war hero Cindy Sheehan was arrested for doing something awful and horrible: protesting.

Yes, when I first heard this, I was also outraged. How dare she protest? She acts like she has some right to peaceably assemble in groups! And what of her citing the "First Amendment?" Silly Cindy, freedom's for the rich!

But seriously folks, Cindy Sheehan, enemy to war loving conservatives everywhere, was arrested this morning for not having a permit to protest her totalarion government. Riiiiggghhhtttt.

"Bush is 'very much aware of the people here who have come to Washington, some to express support for the steps that we're taking and a number of others that have expressed a different view,' McClellan said.'"It's the right of the American people to peacefully express their views.'"

Oops, the Admin seemed to have contradicted themselves again! While pretending to side with freedom, McClellan never sides with the reality that Sheehan was seized by the pigs for an unjust reason.

"...arrested on Monday at a White House sit-in after she refused to obey police orders to leave."

So, the police, smelling anti-violence campqigns afoot, headed to the scene, and arrested Sheehan. Yet,tons of people have commited acts of violence towards gays or Muslims, only to have a blind eye turned to them.

America's just went further into the cesspool.

NOTE: Here's Cindy's Blog, Daily Kos. Read it. It's very, very good.

Religious Vomit

2005-09-19T16:57:00.000-05:00

Like all great articles, your first sentence should be your topic sentence, so let me start by saying "Fuck Domionists."

Domionists are a group of Christian fascist who want to implement laws that would basically turn the United States of America into the United Christian Theocracies of Corporatism.

Dominionists are working to eliminate tolerance, force religion, and make everyone bow to their blind god. They shut down an anti-bullying program in Cailifornia because it promoted tolerance of homosexuals. Their own leader wrote an article urging the execution of practicing homosexuals. Sounds like a bunch of looniesl, right? They are, and they have political power in the White House.

These people funded Bush, and now they are wanting to be paid back, but not with money. They want paid back with more Christian/dictatorship-esque laws. If these people get their way, there will be no other religions, and anyone breaking biblical rules (aside from Jesus's teaching of tolerance, because these people ignore that rule) will be killed.

The best thing we can do is be patient, speak our minds, and car bomb them.

In My Eyes

2005-09-16T22:52:00.000-05:00

"One thing that truly troubled me about my visit to Louisiana was the level of the military presence there. I imagined before that if the military had to be used in a CONUS (Continental US) operations that they would be there to help the citizens: Clothe them, feed them, shelter them, and protect them. But what I saw was a city that is occupied. I saw soldiers walking around in patrols of 7 with their weapons slung on their backs. I wanted to ask one of them what it would take for one of them to shoot me. Sand bags were removed from private property to make machine gun nests.
The vast majority of people who were looting in New Orleans were doing so to feed their families or to get resources to get their families out of there. If I had a store with an inventory of insured belongings, and a tragedy happened, I would fling my doors open and tell everyone to take what they need: it is only stuff. When our fellow citizens are told to "shoot to kill" other fellow citizens because they want to stay alive, that is military and governmental fascism gone out of control.
...If George Bush truly listened to God and read the words of the Christ, Iraq and the devastation in New Orleans would have never happened. I don't care if a human being is black, brown, white, yellow or pink. I don't care if a human being is Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or pagan. I don't care what flag a person salutes: if a human being is hungry, then it is up to another human being to feed him/her. George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power. The only way America will become more secure is if we have a new administration that cares about Americans even if they don't fall into the top two percent of the wealthiest." -Cindy Sheenan

Just a bit of honesty.

Terrorism = Major US Profit

2005-09-13T20:05:00.000-05:00

"Ending Tyranny, the Bush Way" brought to mind a sad fact: no matter how much ol' Mr. Bush says he's fighting terrorism, the U.S. is funding it. We may talk about how we're "winning" the war on terror (which is impossible) but at the same time, major U.S. arms manufactures are selling millions of guns and other bits of weaponary to two dozen countries with opressive and inhumane governments.

So basically, we fund the very thing we fight. They take care of hte PR by saying we're fighting the good fight in the Middle East, while they turn around and sell guns and other machines of death to South American and Asian regimes. It's a cycle, kiddies.

Let's do the world a favor and start another revolution. That or just blow something up.

The following groups can die, please.

2005-09-13T16:36:00.000-05:00

So, today, in the age of social grouping labels, I have picked out the following groups that piss me off the most. Pointless? Yes. Cause by boredom? Yes. Bush? No.

Straight Edgers - The whole straight edge "lifestyle" is basically summed up by "Republican punks." Now, I admit that it's a healthy and clean lifestyle, but the whole "don't take risks" thing is foolish and most (MOST!) of them are arrogant assholes. I do have a few straight edge friends, and they are totally accepting and don't force their lifestyle on people. BUT, the majority that I have met, are all to quick to throw themselves at you and if they know you do drugs, drink, have sex, enjoy yourself, they will instantly hate you and begin to rant on you. Seriously kids, get your own ideas.
PUNX3RS! - There's nothing worse than some stupid 13 year old girl wearing Green Day shirts, Chuck Taylors, and jeans she cut open with a knife. Posers breed at my school, listening to their rebellious MTV punk music and doing punk things like supporting Bush and buying into anything. Er... sorry, I got confused there. The thing is, these bastards like to pretend they know something about punk rock, but you so much as utter the MC5 or the ? and the Mysterions and they stare blankly at you. I have also noticed the habit of supporting Bush, which is the most unpunk thing you can do. Seriously, if you support Bush, then you're a fucking redneck, not a "punk" as you call it. Last, these people don't even understand that punk is about tolerance and equality.
The Rockers - I noticed this fad around my ex-girlfriends friends. They have all taken to calling themselves "rockers" and they talk about playing guitar/bass/drums/singing and wearing ACDC shirts. First, none of them actually get past the E chord on Guitar, and second, ACDC is horrible.

I hate you all.

Battle of the Bands

2005-09-04T20:09:00.000-05:00

For those of you who are interested in seeing my band play a short show, Western Boone is having a Battle of the Bands to fund a trip to Costa Rica for FIC. The Preppies will be playing, along with some other local bands. It's Saturday, October 8. It starts at 7 pm. and ends at 9. I hope to see you there!

I Hate Kerrang Now

2005-08-28T00:47:00.000-05:00

It's so nice that Kerrang decided to name Green Day "The Best Band in the World" What the hell were they thinking? Green Day would be the best band on the planet if suddenly every band ceases to exist, aside from Metallica, some 80's cock rock, and all that 70's Hard Rock. Green Day also got "Best Live Show." They so deserved that award, because Green Day does awesome things on stage like jam tools under the guitar strings, trash the set, and do noise/jams. Oh wait, that's Sonic Youth.

I've seen Green Day live. It was a good show, but definitely not the best. There are soo many underrated bands out there who don't get any recognition. That Kerrang award is all based on popularity. If there were truly naming the best band in the world, they would consider how influential they are, along with how talented they are with their instruments. Green Day falls up short in both those catergories, especially the latter.

You see, I used to be quite the Green Day fan. I learned how to play a majority of their songs off of the "American Idiot" album. What I've come to notice is almost every song uses the same chords. F5, Ab5, Db5, Eb5.... those four chords are in almost every song. What does that tell you?

Green Day: sellouts.

5 Bands Everyone Loves, But I Hate

2005-08-25T18:28:00.000-05:00

So, I was being awesome yesterday, thinking about CD's I need to pick up, when I realize that a lot of bands I dislike, are bands that seem to be quite popular with the people around me. I decided to waste the next five minutes of your life talking about bands I hate, just for you.

5. Led Zeppelin - I'll tip the Sacred Cow first by saying that I don't like Led Zeppelin at all, but I respect them. I hate Robert Plant's voice (but I love Jack White's voice. It's odd, I know). I also feel that Jimmy Page and John Bonham are horribly overrated. Everyone praises Page for playing with a violin bow, but no one says shit about Thurston Moore jamming drum sticks under the strings or playing with a screwdriver. Ugh.

4. Tool - Tool's big around my circle of friends for some odd reason. They bore the hell out of me. I mean, Dana Carey is a damn good drummer, and Maynard has a decent voice, but having 5 minutes of silence in the middle of songs and the 12 minutes songs. Ugh, just boring.

3. Guns N'Roses - Axl can't sing. Slash is a GREAT guitarist, one of the best, but Axl's voice makes me want to bite the bullet. Seriously, he is the epitomy of cock rock. He's a wife beating nutcase. How can people like his voice? It's like nails on a chalkboard. Way to shrilly for my tastes. I hate metal.

2. Metallica - Speaking of hating metal, Metallica is metal. Ew. I loathe James Hetfield's voice. All the "Ye-hah!" in his singing grates at me. Plus, I get a little sick of Lars Ulrich and his constant, double bass drum rhythm. Cliff Burton was a very good bassist, I admit, but after he had the bus land on him, I can't listen to them anymore.

1. ACDC - If I were to ever wish horrible fate on someone, I'd buy them an ACDC CD. Seriously. whoever the hell sings for that band is worse than Hetfield and Axl. How can someone like his voice? UGH. And the drummer never plays fills. All the songs sound the same because it always based around one riff and the singing is always about doing something stupid with a girl or being cool with your motorcycle. I hope Ebola resurfaces.

Passing Afternoon

2005-08-19T17:55:00.000-05:00

She's gone.

At sometime around 4 today, one of my best friends, Lana Knox, came to my house and told me goodbye. Tonight she is leaving for D.C., to start her year at American University.

I won't divulge much of our conversation, but as she left, she handed me a letter. When she was gone, I read the letter. A minute later, I was pacing the room trying to fight off tears. I listened to the CD Harry made me so long ago over and over again. I didn't think it would be this hard.

I love you.

Songs for the Deaf

2005-08-18T21:00:00.000-05:00

I recently got a comment on my "Dear God" article from an intolerant freind of mine. It was so great, I had to put it up with my statements following. Fun!

"I must say as intelligent as you are or seem to be, you don't have the greatest arguments and when you do you don't always express yourself in the best way. I disagree with you on this post as I have on many others but I think that you truly have pushed it to the limit this time."

Haha, no.

" If you truly had done your research you wouldn't have made this post because in case you didn't know (which I truly believe) the constitution and pledge of allegiance like many other historical things that our country is based on, are based on Christianity because the founding fathers of our country were...that’s right, they were CHRISTIAN!!! "

I love this part, because the whole "It was founded on Christianity" is the exact same arguement all the hicks in my town use. Yes, it was founded on Christianity. So was the court system, but you don't see them sentencing gays to a stoning for sodomy,do you? No, you don't. At least not yet. So yes, you're right in the fact that our country was founded on Christianity, but over time, things change, and people are sick of being opressed.

"You make yourself out to be big and a 'badass' but your really not. "

I welcome you to quote me when I did sound like that. But thank you for saying I'm not, I would hate to be compared to those big jocks who think they are scary. You're a true friend!

"This is what I have noticed during the times I have read your blog. You want to make just about every subject controversial...because you can and you get attention for it. Which I have also noticed that I am at fault for, and by that I mean giving you the attention you seek."

No, I don't want to make them controversial. You see, here's how I get my stories to right about...

I watch this thing... let's call it CNN, or I go to this magical CNN's website and I find these things called articles. They update me on current events. Sometimes, I see one of these articles about something major, like the court's over-religious ruling, and I realize that people need to know about this. So, I put it up on myblog. My blog is a thing on the internet that you aren't forced to read. It's like that, so if you don't like it, DON'T READ IT! How easy is that?

"Now, I know that I don't agree with everything that has to do with my religion as many people don’t but unlike you I don't go around finding a fault in everything about my religion and turning it into a big controversial issue.I highly disagree with the plan to get the Pledge of Allegiance revised. "

Fail.

I'm not finding fault with anything in your religion in that article. I never said the Bible was behind this. I said that the extremists in the American justice system are. Learn to read before you bitch.

"I have tolerated many things you have said about my religion but this is too much.Now, I must kindly ask that you remove my blog form your links..."

I didn't ask you to tolerate anything. If you didn't like what I said, why did you keep reading? You could have stopped reading. It wouldn't bother me at a all. And I was considering removing your blog from my links, seeing as how hateful a person you are (especially against American freedoms), but instead, I'll be an ass and leave it up.

"...and stop making a big deal out of everything that doesn’t have to deal with your Agnostic beliefs. "

That doesn't even make sense.

Have a nice day.

School

2005-08-16T20:55:00.000-05:00

Yeah, so today was the second day back to the hell they call Western Boone. I hate that place so much. I'm already sick of all the homophobic, republican, rednecks. It sickens me.

Luckily though, I have met a couple cool people. Younger than me, but still. There's hope.

Dear God

2005-08-10T23:33:00.000-05:00

Props to Edward Myers for defending America's values and true freedom. He and his lawyers took their case against the theocratical school pledge to court. Unfortuneatly, the courts sided with forcing religion on kids in a public, tax funded place like school.

"A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not an affirmation of religion similar to a prayer. "

Yes, the pledge may be patriotic (in that scary, obsessive, right wing way) but that does not mean that it can violate childrens rights by saying that the nation is under a Christian God. Saying "One nation under God" is basically claiming that the Christian God is the truth and the way, which is bullshit, in my opinion. If you're Christian, great, keep it to yourself. I don't want to have to bow to your god in a supposed free country.

Life Sentence

2005-08-08T18:22:00.000-05:00

I was reading some news articles on CNN.com when I came across this article about the 'serious flaws' in the death penalty. I can't agree more. I'm not so much talking about the article here, I'm talking more about how wrong the death penalty is.

First off, does anyone understand the concept of it? Here's what I get out of it: someone commits a horrible act of murder (or something of that nature) and so we shall them by killing them. What? First off, they are condemning the killing by commiting another (that's called hypocrisy, boys and girls) and they are also basically giving the convicted a free ride out. What's more of a punishment: rotting in a filthy jail or moving on to a new/better life (don't give me any crap about them going to "Hell" or anything. I believe in reincarnation)?

"Stevens said DNA evidence has shown 'that a substantial number of death sentences have been imposed erroneously. It indicates that there must be serious flaws in our administration of criminal justice,'"

Magical. Our system not only encourages killing, it also kills some people on accident. Oh well, it looks like that our system will always have these atrocities going on, as long as a Republican is in charge.

Downer

2005-08-05T15:51:00.000-05:00

I'm sure most you "hip, savvy" cats have already seen this little monstrosity, but for those who haven't, I'm posting up a warning. If you ever see a music video with this frog or a cell phone ringtone offer, LEAVE THE ROOM. This annoying frog is the reason people commit suicide. I saw his "music" video and almost puked. It's all the rage over in Europe and now it's starting to hit the USA. British people must have a high tolerance for pain or a bad taste in music. Or both.

Radio Friendly Unit Shifter

2005-08-05T02:23:00.000-05:00

I watched "Fight Club" tonight for the first time since I was 12 years old. At the time, I just thought it was a lame action movie. I didn't read into it. Well, after being blown away by the book, I rented it again to finally watch it and understand it.

By the end of the movie, I was left in complete awe. Movies don't usually leave me in awe. Aside from "Garden State", this is one in a million. It easily goes up on the top two greatest movies ever. When the ending came in, and "Where is my Mind" by the Pixies started playing, I realized that Chuck Palahniuk, along with the director (who's name I can't recall at 2:30 a.m.) and Edward Norton and Brad Pitt are some of the most talented people of my time.

If you haven't seen this movie, you're an idiot.

Pet Politics

2005-08-04T15:45:00.000-05:00

So, I was doing my normal scanning of recent news events and I stumbled upon another one of Bush's attempts to force Christianity on the American public.

Basically, it's just Bush trying to get Creationism taught in schools as well as the real story (Evolution). So now, kids will be taught two things. One, that humans evolved from their obviously similar lower counterparts (simians), and two, that man was magically created from sand and that woman were created as servants for men. Whoo hoo Sexism and lies!

" 'I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,' Bush said. ' You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.' "

Yes George, I totally agree with you there, but not when these other ideas are complete bullshit. The majority of America believes that theory only because they were taught that when they were kids. Oh, and free thinking isn't taught it in schools.

"The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted," the academy said in a 1999 assessment. "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

Bam, he hit the nail right on the head. Creationism has no back up. No way to prove it.

Government - Religion = better world for all of us.

White Riot

2005-08-04T15:34:00.000-05:00

I found this article on Axis of Justice. It's quite intereesting, and really shows you how much of a bullshit war this is.

Dust from 1000 Years

2005-08-03T19:16:00.000-05:00

Last night, I was at Michael's house, trying to figure out when band practice was going to be. His brother Matt was there. So was his band, Dust from 1000 Years. They are heading out on tour, and they were packing up all their gear on their school bus they bought (it runs on vegetable oil). Matt Wissig is an incredible drummer. It runs in the family I guess, judging by how his brother Steve is the drummer for Perpetual Abulia, and his youngest brother is the drummer for my band.

So, here's one of their songs from their new CD. They are playing in clubs all over the US, so if you get the chance, check them out.

"Ghost" by Dust from 1000 Years

New Slang

2005-08-01T21:45:00.000-05:00

For those of you who have read "Perks of Being A Wallflower," you probably remember Charlie's favorite song being "Asleep" by the Smiths. It's a great song, and one I want to share with you. It might make you feel down or make you appreciate things more. It reminds me of Lana, Harry, Nick, Matt... all of them.

Oh well, enough of my talk, here's one of the greatest songs you will ever here: "Asleep" by the Smiths

Asleep

2005-08-01T13:55:00.000-05:00

Well, some of my most cherished friends are leaving for college soon. Skippy's going to Purdue, so I should see him occasionally. Nick's not leaving for awhile, so I will still be able to have m4d fun with him. But Lana. Lana's leaving for American University in D.C. soon. As of the moment she leaves, it seems like our friendship will be severed only because I might not see her anymore, aside from rare occasions.

I'm so scared for them to leave. I rely on these people for guidance and help. I love them so much.

Ramblin' Rose

2005-07-31T12:20:00.000-05:00

I'm getting kind of sick of the typical "OMFG, JImi Hendrix is teh b3st guitarist! lolol!" or the same with Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, EVH, or whoever. Yes, these people are wonderful guitarist but there are others who get little to no recognition. For example:

Wayne Kramer and Fred Smith - The MC5's dueling guitar assault is brought down by Wayne Kramer and Fred "Sonic" Smith. With Smith on rhythm and Kramer on lead (except for a rare version of "Kick Out the Jams' that has them dueling on a solo) they fueled the bluesey rhythm behind the band. On the video "Metal Roots," the band does an improved solo at the beginning of Kick Out the Jams. Kramer and Smith go eye for eye, matching each others leads. It proves how great of a guitar tandem they were.

Omar Rodriguez Lopez - Former At The Drive-In guitarist and current Mars Volta axe-slinger, Lopez is truly one of today's greatest and a legend in the making. Listen to "L'Via L'Viaquez." The guitar solo at the beginning is amazing to say the least.

Check them out.

Chickenshit Conformist

2005-07-28T07:37:00.000-05:00

So, Green Day's up for 8 MTV nominees at the Music Video Awards. Consider that another nail in the casket of selling out. Why? When you have MTV calling you punk and the mass media calling you punk, you know you're in trouble considering a.) you're an MTV tool, therefore, you can't be punk and b.) the general public doesn't know punk from new wave.

I've already wrote about this before (see: American Idiots) and most of you know how much I loathe this new "poser punk" trend, but it sickens me more to see Green Day go down like this. I've lost almost all respect for that band.

Smells Like Teen Spirit

2005-07-28T00:04:00.000-05:00

Have you ever been watching CNN and seen a newscast that makes you want to go into a beserker rage and eradicate the Christian religion? Well, I did.

I was watching a story about a new Christian camp called "Love in Action" that helps teens deal with the "sin"of homosexuality (because love is bad). The idiots who lead this concentration camp actually think that being gay is a choice. They don't know even acknowledge the chemical reasons behind it. They all think that they can pray it away. This camp also has specific rules too.

No Touching.
No music, unless it's Christian music.
Hair must be short at all times (like Nazi camps?)
No clothes from Abecrombie or Clavin Klien, because clothes make you gay in "God's" eyes.

What pissed me off the most is when they interviewed a kid who had been sent there after his intolerant parents realized that their son was gay and that they were too pathetic to accept him. After finishing the course, the reporter asked him what his future plans were. He said Journalism, which is an interest of my mine also. She then asked if he was going to get married and have kids, and he said the unthinkable. He said he wasn't sure if he likes girls enough, but he'll try.

It's nice to see that dick-for-brains is brainwashed into thinking he has a choice. I'm sorry kid, but you're gay. Like it or not, learn to deal with it and figure out that it's not something the sky fairy will fix. This church is one step closer to relgious holy war.

Jock-O-Rama

2005-07-26T13:44:00.000-05:00

It's kind of old news around my state, but it's still going on. Recently, our sports obsessed government put in a 1 or 2% beverage tax on all food and drink in restaurants. Why is this in place? Because the Colts (our local football team, I hear) want a new stadium. Read that last sentence again. The Colt's want a new stadium. They have a stadium, the RCA dome, and it's in good condition. But instead, they would rather tax people, many people who could care less about this ordeal or are against it, instead of taxing people who go to the games.

Now, the city of Indianapolis isn't going to be rehiring any more police officers of fire fighters anytime soon (short staffing) because they can't afford too. Why not? The Colt's Stadium is first priority. Boy, it would be a real shame if the Colt's Stadium caught on fire and there weren't enough fire fighters to put it out. That would be a real shame, wouldn't it? If that happened, all the idiots... er, players wouldn't be able to run around like drunken goats. It's a shame.

I hate football.

Set Phasers to Stun

2005-07-25T20:14:00.000-05:00

I was sitting around, eating KFC in the hotel room and watching CNN tonight. They were talking about the dropping economy and the plight of the poor and how the rich were getting more tax cuts on their (inherited) money. An idea hit me. Wouldn't it be great for the poor of America (middle class, even) to revolt against the rich and start a civil war. Imagine, the rich would have their fancy, pancy armies all lined up in the street and fighting like good, high class officers of their militia. The poor however, know how to fight the right way: guerilla warfare. We'd break into the rich people houses and eat their babies.

Oh my, let's start a war.

Religious Vomit

2005-07-25T17:32:00.000-05:00

Christian Exodus is an Ultra-Conservative (Theocratic dictators) who want a government based on the Bible. They want no abortion (no women's rights), no gay marriages (intolerance), no stem cell research (People with terminal diseases are screwed), no euthanasia (if you have a terminal disease, you can't work to cure it, but you can't die either. Screwy, eh?) and forced religion (therefore, America loses the freedom touch). If they can get enough people in South Carolina (home base, basically), then they plan to changing the government to a theocracy. Or possibly seceding.
When I heard that they plan on a possible secession (if they get more than 500 members), I cheered. I hope they do. For two reasons:

This will rid me of so many annoying people.
I want to see feds bust their heads.

One thing this group doesn't seem to notice is this document that I found. Check it out. Apparently, it's quite important to our government. Christian Exodus must be unaware of it. Here's the group's plan:

"The political strategy is to support candidates, first on the local level -- school boards and county councils -- and then on the state level. The Upstate has been chosen as part of the first phase of the relocation program, with a goal of having 2,500 members in two yet-to-be-named counties by Sept. 30, 2006."

This is pathetic. You're going to have these people on school boards. Schools are places where kids, of all types and faiths, come to learn. Forcing religion on them is just wrong. The more you push, the more people like me will hate you and your faith.

"...The group's distrust of President Bush -- they believe he's been soft on abortion and homosexuality -- also is out of step with most South Carolina voters, Guth said."

I totally agree with them on that subject. Bush should have been killing homosexuals years ago. Also, he should have started bombing abortion clinics, because the only way to stop the killing of a non-living "child" is by killing more people. Oh wait... that's hypocrisy.

"'Some people think it's some kind of whacked-out religious invasion. It's not that at all,' Rev. Tony Romo said."

It's people moving into one spot so they can force their religious influences on to the populace and attempt to change the government. Sounds like an invasion to me.

Check out the website and then leave me comments. I'm guessing I'll have some comments from people saying stuff like "OMG, tehy hve a g00d cas3!11 tehy wnt peec!"

Sing Sing Death House

2005-07-25T13:48:00.000-05:00

So, I read Fight Club on the way to South Carolina, and I finished it in the hotel. I enjoyed this book very much. It was better than the movies, even though I don't remember much about the movie, except the Pixies song at the end. The characters in this book were well set up. Anyways, I definitly need to get more books by Chuck Palahnuik. Any recommendations?

The Aeroplane Flies High...

2005-07-25T11:32:00.000-05:00

Today we took a plane ride over Charelston and midway through the flight, I started feeling like shit. The pilot kept calling me "Kyle" and talking about Lynard Skynard. I was just sitting there, feeling horrible, when suddenly, I grabbed a bag and puked. I hate flying.

Night of the Living Rednecks

2005-07-25T11:23:00.000-05:00

So, on the road to South Carolina, we stopped in North Carolina to eat at Applebees. My dad and I were trading Southern jokes, mainly just quoting Family Guy. Suddenly, a group of kids walkd in and I was amazed. They all had farmers pants, hick accents, John Deer hats, Nascar shirts, and, you guessed it, mullets. There was actually a girl who was somewhat decent, but I figured she was with her brother. Haha.

I walked to the restroom, and on the way back, I got the crappiest looks from everyone. Why? Well, all of them were inbred, Christian, church clothes rednecks. I was in my tight pants, TBS shirt, and long hair. That sounds common, but they looked at me like I was an alien. It was great.

No Fun

2005-07-24T20:49:00.000-05:00

Vegetarian Journal
Day 7 - FAILED

I had biscuits with sausage gravy this morning. FORGIVE ME.

DoubleThink!

Socialism holds in Venezuela

Indiana Anarchists on Strike!

War Within a Breath

Popapananza!

Penny Tossing

Bulls on Parade

Hot Damn, it's Christmas time!

WTO Riots: Sad to Miss

Howard Zinn Speech in Madison, Wisconson

Seymour Hersh on Iraq

White's Only Scholarship?

Kramer Goes At It

On War.

Military Commissions Act: The Road to Fascism

What Size Would You Like Your Government?

Manifesto Of The Revolutionary Left

On violence as a means to power.

The Venezuelan-Iranian Alliance

Hypocrisy!

Bush confident about First Amendment burning

F for Fear?

Minimum Wage and Estate Tax

A Solution to the Abortion Issue!

Socialist Actions' Racism

Get Well Soon, Fidelito!

Israel's One Last Week

A word from the UnCapitalist Journal...

Nike's Labour Crisis

One small step for me...

What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and being a little militant...?

War = Good, Medical Research = Bad

Israel: An Earned Nation or an Imperialist Giant?

Tests Are Fun?

Class?

Elitist Pricks will be Shot during the Revolution

Ken Lay: Dead

Constitution Burning

Freedom of Speak

The Power of the People

Murder. The Punishment: Death?!

Kenneth Lay: Death By Firing Squad?

If this is an invitation, someone needs to RSVP.

Make War

)(*&#%^(*&#$@%

I've gotten farther to the left...

This Wall of Cells Brought to you by a rapist, but kept up by South Dakota. And voters like you.

"The Things I Thought Were Wrong" by Katie O'Conner

Hail to the Empire

Planet of the (Conservative, Less Evolved, Fanatic) Apes

What It Is: Schools = Useless diffusion. What It Should Be: Schools = Job Training

Ports & Nationalism

Why go to church when you can go to school?

Freedom

Bill O'Reilly is Fair and Balanced

Pat Robertson is an Idiot.

Oh Bill...

2006: Christianity or Death!

Apparently, it's now the US vs. God

Jesus would be ashamed, you tools...

Happy Holidays, you're existence was pointless.

Venting

Cutting and Running

B-b-b-back

Police State

Supreme Court Cronyism Pt. 2

Who Are You?

Things Have Changed

They're Trying to Build A Prison...

Press Release

Head Like a Hole

One step closer to a Fascist regime...

Religious Vomit

In My Eyes

Terrorism = Major US Profit

The following groups can die, please.

Battle of the Bands

I Hate Kerrang Now

5 Bands Everyone Loves, But I Hate

Passing Afternoon

)(&#%^(&#$@%