Pride and Indolence

The Liberal Skeptic

2009-09-17T19:41:00.000-07:00

My new blog is up and running, titled The Liberal Skeptic. I wanted to make a more professional blog that I could eventually move to a domain that I personally own. I plan on buying a domain name pretty soon, and simply use blogger to host it. My activity on this blog died because of how busy I've been, but I'm starting to get more and more free time to post new articles on a regular basis, mostly on the new blog. I'll still keep this one active because some people still enjoy reading my older blog posts. I'll try to make new posts on this blog as well, mostly joke posts about something stupid. So, if you want to see my serious blog, hop on over to The Liberal Skeptic and enjoy. I've already got my first post up and I plan on posting new ones at least once per day.

A Man With An Interesting Name

2009-04-15T23:38:00.000-07:00

Earlier today I met a man by the name of Sandor Thames. I was amazed at its novelty in terms of real world names and was immediately struck by how Lord of the Rings-ish it sounded. I proceeded to ask this man if he's ever been to Mordor. He replied:

Alright, just kidding around. My activity on this blog has died, mainly because my free time died first. Hopefully, I'll be active again pretty soon. There's a lot of things I've been dieing to rant about.

Obama Inauguration Speech

2009-01-20T09:56:00.000-08:00

I've only had a chance to listen for about 10 minutes before having to shut off the radio and go to class. However, the small part that I've heard still gives me goosebumps. I'll edit this post once I get home and listen to the whole thing.

What Will Be In Store For Us In 2009?

2008-12-31T15:06:00.000-08:00

2008 was quite an eventful year. The LHC was booted up for the first time, although sadly it had to be shut down for repairs. The NASA Phoenix rover lands near the polar ice caps of Mars and finds water ice in Mars' permafrost. 69,000 people die in the Chengdu quake in China. The 2008 Summer Olympics and all of the broken records during the games and the controversy surrounding China, including a huge spotlight on its pollution and human rights record. The Cold War was almost reignited thanks to the Russia-Georgia conflict and failed negotiations. The President/Dictator of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf resigns after threats of impeachment. India launches its first mission to the Moon with the unmanned Chandrayaan 1 spacecraft. The Dark Knight rocks our world and the box office. Mumbai, India suffers through its very own 9/11. The global recession following the collapse of the financial sector. And last, but certainly not least, the world was instantly changed when the barriers of race were shattered, at least for one night, when we elected Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States.

It was an historic year in many ways, but 2009 is shaping up to be a wild year of its own. This blog post was inspired by an MLG forum post (the site is linked at the top of this page) that talked about how 2009 will be a tough year for science. I agree, so here are my "predictions" for the upcoming year:

-With the July release of the 2012 movie as mentioned in forum post, I predict that panic over the doomsday event will be at an all-time high, and the brunt of that panic will be directed toward government conspiracies and the Large Hadron Collider. I predict that the LHC will either suffer a terrorist attack or a threat will be uncovered by the end of the year. The Obama Administration will be inundated with nonsensical hysteria over every policy decision they make that can be construed to fit the 2012 conspiracy theory, including the fact that his first term will end on that fateful year.

-Global warming will be denied more than ever before. The climate models predicted the 2008 cooling, but the deniers will use it as undeniable proof that anthropogenic global warming is a farce. All of the Obama Administration's policies toward addressing climate change and investing in renewable energy will be opposed by increasingly rabid right-wingers, who want nothing to do with any changes that might impact the economy or their way of life. Environmentalists will have their toughest year yet.

-Peter Petrelli dies.

-The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will reach a crescendo as 2009 will be the bloodiest year of all. More terrorist attacks will take place around the world, notably Europe--most likely the UK. There will either be an attack on U.S. soil or a plot will be uncovered as Afghanistan becomes the new major front in the War On Terror. The Obama Administration will withdraw thousands of troops from Iraq as the Iraqi security forces gradually take over and move them into Afghanistan, pushing against the resistance near the Pakistani border. A conflict between the U.S. and Pakistan will ignite as U.S. troops cross into Pakistani territory, chasing down the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

-Someone cashes in on that fatwa on Salman Rushdie.

-The global recession will shallow out as Congress passes a stimulus package that creates millions of jobs and restores our economy, thereby restoring the global economy. However, Daimler-Chrysler will either be sold off or will file for bankruptcy. General Motors will discontinue half of their current line up of vehicles at least temporarily to save cash and stave off bankruptcy. AIG will file for bankruptcy or get bought out, making the numerous bailouts they received an enormous waste.

Minor predictions: Criss Angel will return to his home planet. Former President George W. Bush will be impeached; House of Representatives will shrug and say, "Better late than never, eh?" Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey will return to their home planets. Homeopathy will be proven true... in that alternate universe over there. Tom Cruise will adopt a baby from Kenya and name her Xenu. Mormons will denounce the teachings of Joseph Smith and become Wiccans. Obama will accidentally get his skin wet in public, thereby dissolving the dark make-up and revealing his white skin. He will turn to the camera and say, "Now this is a story all about how my life got flipped turned upside down and I'd like to take a minute just sit right there I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel-Air..."

11 minutes to go for all you people on the East Coast living in the future. Happy early New Year, I'll be posting in a few hours when us primitive folk on the West Coast get to experience our New Year.

*Update* Happy New Year!

3 Days Of Terror With No End In Sight

2008-12-29T12:59:00.000-08:00

Israel's bombing campaign against Hamas is in its third day of bloodshed. Reports claim over 300 have been killed as Israel targets various alleged Hamas strongholds, including the Islamic University on the southern end of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli army has also called in its reserves that have assembled in armored and mechanized units along the Gaza Strip border, preparing for an apparent ground assault or invasion. Israel is attempting to defend this bloodshed by claiming that Hamas continues to fire rockets across the border. There is defending your country, and then there is plain old genocide. If this event were a new occurrence, perhaps one could withhold condemnation. But seeing as how Israel has gone about its business of mass killings in the name of "national security" for decades, their excuses do not cut it anymore. If Hamas is shooting rockets across the border hoping to hit something, are you telling me the proper response is to send attack helicopters and level entire city blocks in one of the most densely populated regions in the world?

This is sickening. First the Mumbai attacks and senseless murders, now this latest Palestinian massacre. When you kill over 300 people, you have to wonder whether your policies might be a tad bit misguided. If Israel is truly attempting to secure its sovereignty, the last thing they should be doing is killing enough civilians to fuel terrorist recruitment, which threatens their sovereignty all over again. This whole conflict has been warped by years of revisionist history and apologists invoking the Holocaust in order to justify anything Israel does. As if anyone who cares about Palestinians being murdered by the hundreds is automatically an anti-Semite. Perhaps we care enough about Israel to realize that these actions only succeed in threatening their sovereignty even more. Not just these latest attacks, but their actions leading up to Hamas winning the Palestinian elections.

The Palestinians are essentially prisoners in their own land. In the interest of Israeli national security, Palestinians are not allowed to travel freely. In the interests of expanding Israel's borders, Palestinians who own land near the border are not allowed to build upon their asset. In the interests of keeping Hamas in check, residents of the West Bank can hardly hope to build any lasting enterprises to improve their economy because of all the obstacles Israel imposes on them. This includes the numerous road blocks, endless government red tape (for security purposes), and constant attacks by the Israeli air force. Yes, groups like Hamas are partly to blame with their rhetoric and idiotic need to fire rockets blindly into Jewish settlements, but the Israeli aggression is simply fueling the fire. Israel is not helping its own chances at ever achieving peace.

I mentioned in a previous blog post that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be one of the biggest opportunities for the Obama Administration to make a lasting impact on this world by finally resolving this conflict. Obama can do it, so long as he tackles it early, rather than wait until the end of his Presidency like many President's before him. These sorts of bombing raids and excessive military force by Israel are threatening the entire world, not just that particular region. A Palestinian state is the only possible way this can be resolved, but the only way to achieve it is for Israel to rid itself of the hardliners currently in power. The old Jews who remember the Holocaust and feel they are justified in anything. They have no incentive to allow a Palestinian state, that is the problem.

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-24T16:58:00.000-08:00

No matter if you're Christian or atheist, you can't help but feel a little happier on Christmas. Especially if you grew up celebrating it, you have to acknowledge it whether you believe or not. Spending the Christmas with my mom and sister is the best part, it's all about family. Then comes the New Year with lots of drinking, and then it's back to school. However, the holiday season might be a little bittersweet for those who are still fighting for equal rights, who thought they now had a President on their side, only to be slapped in the face by Rick Warren. I feel for you. This guy is repugnant to be sure, but I think we should be looking at the big picture here.

Obama still isn't President yet. We need to remember that. At this point, he is clearly trying to foster goodwill toward his Presidency by pandering to the opposition. This is why I say we have to think long-term. If Obama approached this transition period as some rabid liberal threatening to spark a revolution, the opposition would have certainly embraced the opposition mentality right out of the gate. Think filibusters and a 2010 backlash against Democrats. However, with all of Obama's bipartisan rhetoric, Rick Warren, Bob Gates, and Clinton, he's coming at the side of his opposition. They are unable to actually operate as an opposition party because he hasn't given them anything to really oppose.

This means that when he's sworn in and is finally President, he will have the vast majority of this country behind him. Being popular can have its benefits, we've forgotten that over the last 8 years. He'll be able to approach polarizing issues from the position of popularity, which will only help our side. He's a liberal, don't be fooled into believing otherwise. Come on, that shouldn't even be questioned. He's a lefty, which means he will eventually address our concerns and the reasons why we voted for him, but we need to give him a chance to garner support from the center-right majority of this country.

Some Firefox Issues

2008-12-12T23:01:00.000-08:00

Not sure if anyone else is having this problem, but when I try to view this blog using Firefox, I get a "File Not Found" error message. I have a feeling it has something to do with the template and Firefox incompatibility, but I'm not sure. I've been planning on changing this template anyway (told you so), which means I'll either fix the issue or rule it out. The blog still loads in Internet Explorer, however.

I'll be changing the template either tonight or sometime tomorrow.

Theism and its Ultimate Irrelevance

2008-12-11T23:01:00.000-08:00

Christopher Hitchens vs. Al Sharpton

The above link is a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton at the New York City public library. Many of you have probably seen it before, but it happens to be a wonderful discussion on dogma and morality in regards to God and religion. It is striking to me how Hitchens is able to push Al Sharpton, an ordained minister, to deism! Hitchens unequivocally demolishes dogmatic belief in God, forcing Sharpton to take a radical position that I'm sure he regrets. He tries to disguise his surprising concessions by claiming that he was misled into thinking that Hitchens would disprove the existence of God, quite an expectation. Hitchens argued eloquently that a dogmatic belief in God is not only illogical, which is a given, but immoral as well. It's an argument that not many people feel confident enough to make, however it's an argument that I feel puts the final nail in the coffin that is religion and an argument that I've attempted to make on numerous occasions.

The Bible itself is filled with horrific scenes endorsed by God that if depicted in a movie would probably be banned in most countries. Genital mutilation, slavery, genocide, misogyny and the like are all acts fully endorsed by God in the Bible, to which religious people credulously believe as a moral authority that would not exist without a supreme being to administer such standards. In terms of morality, the Bible and many other religious text are replete with immoral and plainly despicable teachings that modern society itself has rejected. Of course, there are still those today who cherry pick certain teachings within religious texts to justify stupendously ignorant beliefs that are not supported by anything other than dogma. Homophobia being a prime example.

That is not to say religion has not instilled moral beliefs in people that we would consider beneficial to society, it is to say that religion was not necessary to instill those beliefs. Hitchens made a great point, which got a big laugh, that prior to the Jews standing at the foot of Mount Sinai and listening to Moses dictate God's Ten Commandments, they certainly did not believe that theft, murder, or adultery were okay until God said it wasn't. Clearly no one likes having their things stolen, nor do we like being murdered. These are not morals that require a God to tell us whether they're wrong or right, we can come to these conclusions on our own based on our desire to coexist with as little trouble as possible. The evolved default of all of humanity is cooperation, that is how our primate ancestors were able to adapt and survive, and why we evolved our intelligence. The desire to cooperate determines what moral values society adopts, not dictates from on high.

This is essential in understanding the sheer irrelevance of religion and the belief in God. Not only does it fail to adequately explain anything in the Universe, not only is it wholly illogical, not only are many dogmatic beliefs immoral, not only does it compel many people to commit evil acts in the name of God, not only does it suppress intellectual honesty and progression, not only does it promote ignorance and superstition, but even without all of this, the belief in God is ultimately the most pointless belief any person can possibly have. Why? Because it is inherent within religion and the belief in God that progression is unnecessary. That is why theism is nonsense, and that is why deism is irrelevant.

"Why so serious?" Part Deux.

2008-12-08T10:12:00.000-08:00

Yet another example of people being irrational. I'm sure you've all heard the news about the atheist sign in Olympia, Washington and how Christians were "outraged" that the sign was placed next to a nativity scene. I mean honestly, where else would it go? Forget the fact that having a religious display in a public building violates the Establishment Clause as interpreted by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, why would the Freedom From Religion Foundation put their sign anywhere else? It's perfect. You have a religious display on one side, and a hellspawn evil-incarnate atheist display on the other side. If God actually existed, he would find such a gross display of heresy unconscionable and strike the atheist sign down. Instead, some Christian person had to break one of their commandments (Thou shalt not steal) in order to remove the sign and dump it in a ditch. So much for almighty God, is he chicken?

I honestly can't understand the outrage. Christians are a very large majority in a country that has often times abandoned its secular roots. God is on our money, in the Pledge of Allegiance; Congress prays to God before every session and the Ten Commandments are displayed in the Supreme Court (ironically); this country is replete with government endorsed Christianity, but somehow the big bad atheist is able to wage a "war" against Christianity? As I said in another post, talk about David and Goliath. With that kind of a disadvantage, it's lucky we have the Constitution on our side. I'm sorry, but your tears nourish us.

If I were Christian, I would just conclude something like this and call it a day:

Ah, good old irrationality, you gotta love it.

Obama Makes His Hypocritical SoS Pick Official

2008-12-01T20:00:00.000-08:00

With Obama's latest press conference, he confirmed his appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The same woman who voted to authorize the Iraq war, the same woman he lambasted during the primaries for her support of the Iraq war, the same woman who lambasted him on his naivety in regards to foreign policy, and the same woman who supports many of the neo-conservative foreign policy platforms such as preemptive strikes and the saber rattling in regards to Iran. This is absurd, Obama ran on an anti-Iraq war platform, yet he appoints a Senator that voted to authorize the war, how is that blatant contradiction reconcilable? Obama's "diplomacy first, war second" is tantamount to having a like-minded Secretary of State. Having someone in that position that strongly disagrees with his foreign policy is strange decision-making, but one that is most likely irreversible. Madeleine Albright, who has played various roles within the Obama team, says she wants a return to diplomacy, so does Obama and so do the millions of people who voted for him. Hopefully, this will place enough pressure on Hillary to play ball. Obama is certainly saying the right things, proclaiming that this appointment "is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances." Yeah, sure. Unfortunately, Hillary's rhetoric begs to differ.

Now, you may be wondering why I'm making a big deal out of this? Well, look at the situation in India in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks. The people of India are calling the Mumbai attacks their 9/11, which is an incredibly frightening proclamation given our completely irrational response to 9/11. We invaded one country, left before the job was done, and invaded another country that has resulted in thousands more American deaths. There is a fear that this recent terrorist attack could reignite hostilities between India and Pakistan, two nations with nuclear weapons. A U.S. diplomatic envoy is only as strong as the confidence it fosters. If foreign leaders get any inkling that Obama and Hillary are not on the same page, her credibility and that of Obama's is shot. Obama is inheriting a very dangerous situation internationally, not the least of which can be blamed directly on our actions post-9/11, which means the Secretary of State position will be that much more important in the coming days as India cleans up after their 9/11. Obama announced other interesting appointments as well as confirmed previously reported rumors of appointments (which I've already posted about) during the press conference as well:

UN ambassador - Susan Rice (a Madeleine Albright protege)
Attorney General - Eric Holder (ex-Clintonite, involved in controversial pardon of Marc Rich)
National Security Adviser - Gen. Jim Jones (former NATO supreme commander)
Secretary of Homeland Security - Gov. Janet Napolitano (sucks for Arizona, Republicans will control every branch of government in that state)
Defense Secretary - Robert Gates (staying on from the Bush Admin, who proclaimed that criticism of Bush's preemptive foreign policy and support for withdrawal timetables "emboldens the enemy")

The gem in that group is Robert Gates, although thankfully his retention will only be temporary. In a world dominated by terrorism and the consequences of the Iraq war, this national security team of Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates does not engender a great amount of confidence in me. They all contradict each other on key issues, I'm not sure how this will even work. Here's hoping my fears are not vindicated.

As an aside, Rachel Maddow's "lame duck watch" segment of her show is important in understanding the kind of lasting damage the Bush Administration is attempting to create:

Why so serious?

2008-11-29T22:33:00.000-08:00

And the first blog post with my new template goes to...

I would be surprised if this didn't happen almost every year. Another person gets trampled to death at Wal-Mart on Black Friday. Seriously, nonsense like this makes you wonder whether we can truly call ourselves an intelligent species. Sure, building structures with tools certainly requires some intelligence, but being able to work yourself up into such a frenzy that you're able to trample someone and not even know it takes an inordinate amount of stupidity. What the hell is the big deal? I also went shopping on Black Friday, but I didn't have to trample someone to make my purchases. I casually walked into Wal-Mart that night, picked out what I wanted, purchased the items and left. Are we going to claim that my experience was somehow out of the norm? No, I don't think so. These people are simply morons, and Wal-Mart clearly doesn't give a crap. If they did, they would probably take some measures to reduce the risks of being trampled to death by a mob of hockey moms and NASCAR dads. Just ridiculous.

Anyway, as you can see I've finally updated my blog. That old default template was annoying me, I wanted something new. I picked this out because it gives me enough space to post images to the right or left of the text without squashing the text beyond recognition. It also has a lot of place to add widgets of many different shapes and sizes, so hopefully I can get more up soon. Luckily, I didn't have to redo all of the custom code I added, I just had to make sure that I copy/pasted it in the right place. I think it looks good, but I'm sure I'll tire of it eventually. At least now my blog looks somewhat original, now if only I could code my own template... don't hold your breath.

As The World Turns

2008-11-27T19:35:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving! Wait...

While Americans in our infinite self-interest celebrate a day of striking irony with regards to English settlers and Native-Americans, the people of Mumbai, India are witness to a deadly attack and subsequent hostage crisis at the Taj Mahal and Oberoi hotels. Today, CNN reports on continued violence as the Indian security forces try to get the upper-hand on the gunmen who perpetrated the attacks and are currently holed up in the Oberoi hotel and a Jewish center. Reports claim that 124 people have died since yesterday as authorities are still trying to uncover which group is behind the attacks. Considering how coordinated the attacks were, it must have been a prominent group with assets inside the hotels that provided information prior to the attacks. Whichever group it might be, they're clearly sending a message that the "War on Terror" is a farce. These groups are launching more coordinated attacks with more resources at their disposal than ever before. We're simply empowering them with our foreign policy, we're not "safer" as many warhawks who support the Iraq war would have you believe. Not having an attack on American soil means squat when there are Americans all over the world, including the Taj Mahal hotel.

Anyway, I'll dispense with the downer talk for now. I just ate a massive meal and I'm about to collapse. Gotta love America, where we can eat until our stomachs explode while millions of people throughout the world die from war and famine. Okay seriously, I'll stop now.

The last thing I want to mention is that I plan on updating the look of this blog sometime tonight or tomorrow. The main problem I have is that I've added a lot of custom code such as the social networking buttons and the "click here to read more" feature that helps keep my front page short and sweet. When I change the template, all of that code will disappear and I'll have to redo it, which is a pain in the ass. I'll probably end up screwing something up, so if you click on my blog one day and see an error message or the page loads something screwy, just chill, I'm working on it. :)

When Obama Speaks, The Stock Market Listens

2008-11-24T18:27:00.000-08:00

Once again, after Obama's press conference today, the stock market soared with confirmation that Timothy Geithner will be the new Secretary of the Treasury. The stock market also soared last Friday on the mere rumor that Geithner would be nominated. Unfortunately, the good news of today is overshadowed by the underhanded methods of the Bush Administration and Secretary Paulson. This weekend, Citigroup received essentially a blank check after their toxic loans became public and their stocks continued to tumble. Citigroup's bailout is the same amount the Big 3 automakers are asking for, yet they're being forced to jump through hoops as they should be. The problem is the blatant hypocrisy that's taking place. These financial institutions are being handed money left and right without any accountability or oversight, meanwhile the Big 3 have to grovel for all they're worth.

This is a big problem. This Administration is becoming more criminal by the day, meanwhile Obama keeps up his nice guy mantra in the face of a collapsing economy and a government that refuses to do anything except throw money at the financial sector. I admittedly haven't been very critical of Obama, but this is nonsense. There is a time for post-partisanship and a time when you have to speak out for the American people. Clearly, he's in no position to get anything tangible done. He doesn't even have his Senate seat anymore and he's not President until the 20th of January, but he can still get on TV as he did earlier today and blast this Administration and this lame duck Congress and press these worthless politicians to get something done before 2009. Waiting any longer could exacerbate this economic recession even further.

Nobody is happy about having to bailout an inept auto industry, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than to give an enormous conglomerate such as Citigroup a blank check when they could easily find some other way to raise the capital they need. They have so many assets that I don't see why the government was forced to bail them out, unless Citigroup was unwilling to part with their goodies. This is bad public policy and a capitalist system that is finally showing everyone how vulnerable it really is. As an aside, these were the other appointments Obama announced:

Director of National Economic Council - Lawrence Summers
Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers - Christina Romer
Director of Domestic Policy Council - Melody Barnes

All pretty much economic geniuses, but none of them are telling Obama anything different than what the Bush Administration and Secretary Paulson are already doing, which is to simply throw money at the financial sector. Fortunately, they have a Plan B they will enact upon entering the White House next year. A sort of New-New Deal where they plan to spend upwards of $2 trillion (more zeroes than I care to type) on various public works, notably updating our decaying infrastructure. This is tangible spending, this spending that actually shows its results. Throwing money at Wall Street tycoons may have some benefit, but overall we are not seeing a return on our investment. Banks are hording cash because apparently unless they're handing out bad mortgages, they have no idea what to do.

Seriously, I don't want to sound like an alarmist, but things are getting worse by the day. Although confidence in the stock market is rising with every announcement our real President makes, there's still that idiot Cowboy calling the shots. Obama needs to be a lot more assertive if we're going to avoid total economic collapse before he manages to take office next year.

007: Quantum of Solace

2008-11-23T19:52:00.000-08:00

I finally got around to seeing this movie today. I would say out of all the action movies I've ever seen, this one probably has the greatest opening scene I've ever witnessed. This car chase through Italy has a bunch of levels, starting in a tunnel and ending up in a rock quarry. Add in a couple of head on collisions, machine guns and multiple cars sent careening off cliffs and you have a small picture of what takes place in the first 5 minutes of the movie. From then on the pacing remains quite high, although the end was a bit anti-climactic to me. This super secret Quantum organization who managed to infiltrate MI6 was thwarted in about 10 minutes in the middle part of the film (in a very funny way), and this super powerful villain is beaten in about 5 minutes with not much resistance other than a brief scuffle involving an ax. After that the movie ends with Bond finally getting his revenge, although not the way you think. It was a "happy-ending" so to speak, but the bad guys ultimately went down pretty fast.

Throughout the movie Bond gets beaten up and shot at on multiple occasions, so if you're watching it just for the action scenes, you will not be disappointed. Also, if you've seen the latest Bourne movie, one of the fights Bond gets into will remind you of the great fight scene between Bourne and the CIA agent Desh in Bourne Ultimatum. The leading lady has a very different role this time around. In most of the Bond movies, Bond pretty much humps the chick any chance he gets. In this one, they only kiss at the end of the movie. He does get it on with one other women, but she doesn't end up too well.

Overall, this new Bond with Daniel Craig is a lot darker than the previous Bonds. I've heard this Bond is a lot closer to the original character, while the others have really strayed from how dark he's supposed to be. I haven't read the novels, so I wouldn't know. However, I can say I've enjoyed the Daniel Craig version of James Bond more than any of the others. Not to mention Craig plays this role incredibly well, and it doesn't hurt that he actually looks the part as well. The other "Bonds" have been older guys who never struck me as looking very genuine in the role. For the first time I actually look forward to the next Bond movie, when before I would watch them long after they've been released on DVD. As for this film, I can't wait to pick it up on Blu-Ray and watch it again.

Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton

2008-11-21T18:10:00.000-08:00

Well, it looks like Hillary Clinton is the new Secretary of State. The New York Times reported that Hillary has apparently accepted the job. This is the problem with Washington, it's way too much of a "club" that is out for itself and not the people they represent, which is us. She should not be Secretary of State, she doesn't even agree with Obama's foreign policy. She's more hawkish toward Iran and she doesn't even regret her vote authorizing the Iraq war. One of the main reasons Obama was so appealing is because his foreign policy was a change from the status quo. Obama made it clear that he wants to go back to diplomacy as the first step and war as a last resort, Hillary doesn't agree with that so how the hell can she be his Secretary of State? I highly doubt she can play ball, she will bring the usual Clinton drama and distraction to the position that will most likely result in another Clinton scandal. Don't get me wrong, the Clinton Administration was wonderful, but this is not the Clinton Administration. Obama should not be folding under the pressure of Washington special interest by appointing someone he can't trust to speak for his Administration.

Now who knows, maybe I'm wrong and Hillary will be one of the greatest diplomats in U.S. history, but I'm not confident. Anyway, Obama's cabinet is looking a little different now. Here's the latest leak:

Secretary of Treasury - Timothy Geithner
Economic Adviser - Lawrence Summers (possibly replacing Ben Bernanke as head of Fed. Reserve)
Secretary of Homeland Security (potentially) - Janet Nepolitano
Secretary of Commerce (potentially) - Bill Richardson

Next week, Obama will roll out his entire economic team including the new Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner, who's appointment single-handedly saved the stock market today. I only hope the Hillary appointment won't be as big of a distraction it's already been. Also, I think I need to address this idiocy that Obama has abandoned his "change" message.

I would love for anyone to name even a handful of experienced Democrats who have absolutely no ties with the Clinton Administration. Yeah, good luck with that. People seem to forget that Clinton was the one and only Democratic President in the last 28 years, which means any slightly experienced Democrat will be an ex-Clintonite. There's really no way around this aside from filling up his cabinet with neophytes like Obama himself, which would be highly irresponsible. Obama being a neophyte can be mitigated by surrounding himself with experienced politicians who know how to get things done in Washington and who can make sure his policies are well represented. Do not underestimate this man, he is building a Democratic dream team that will make his Administration very formidable in Washington, unfortunately that means the Clintons will be getting a lot more media coverage.

This Government Is Totally Impotent

2008-11-19T19:22:00.000-08:00

Who's running this country? The Big 3 automakers flew to Washington in their private jets with their multi-million dollar salaries and begged Congress for more taxpayer handouts to save their dieing industry. Putting aside the sheer stupidity of the situation, this government is clearly unable to act. Talk about paralysis, are they even alive over there or have they all drowned themselves in the Potomac? I wouldn't be surprised, especially after today when the Dow Industrial closed under 8,000 for the first time in 5 years. Congress wants to defer deciding on this new bailout until after the new Senate and House step in next year - fucking lame ducks. Meanwhile, in the executive branch, you have an extremely lame duck and criminal Administration essentially saying to hell with this country and everyone in it by refusing to even touch this issue, instead focusing on pardoning themselves so they don't all end up in jail. I mean seriously, the only branch of government actually doing anything right now is the Supreme Court, and they can't help us. Aside from the SCOTUS, Obama is the only person in government with any credibility, which means this country is essentially screwed until January 20th.

I personally feel that the auto industry must be bailed out for totally practical reasons. If you think the economy is bad now, imagine the millions of jobs and a large chunk of our GDP disappearing as these automakers go bankrupt. Who knows, maybe after bankruptcy these companies will be able to restructure and come out just fine. But do we really want to hang our economy off a cliff for the off chance that the auto industry could recover after bankruptcy? Not to mention the loss of competition for the Japanese automakers will most likely result in a price hike for their vehicles and lower standards, which would truly be a shame. One of the hallmarks of capitalism is competition. Yes, the Japanese will have to compete with each other and the Koreans, but how much innovation do you think that will generate in the long run?

However, as President Bush once eloquently put it, "Fool me once...shame on...shame on you...you fool me you can't get fooled again!" Truer words have never been spoken. The financial bailout was an example of how foolish we can be. The lack of proper oversight has turned that "bailout" into the largest theft in U.S. history. Now Congress wants their money back... yeah right. A bailout of the auto industry cannot make the same mistake. Not only should their be very long strings attached, such as new regulations forcing them to focus on more fuel efficient vehicles, but the current management should be made to step down. Giving billions of dollars to incompetent people will only serve to delay the inevitable, the idea should be to once again make the U.S. auto industry competitive with Japan. If that doesn't happen, I fear for how bad things will get next year.

In other news, Obama's cabinet is coming around nicely, with the exception of one position: Secretary of State. I've heard a few names being thrown around, but as of now the front-runner is Hillary Clinton followed by John Kerry. Give me a break. Hillary Clinton? What in the world would make her more qualified to be our top diplomat than John Kerry? Yes, she knows a lot of world leaders, but so does Kerry. In fact, he's been a part of U.S. foreign relations for decades, including his diplomatic mission to Nicaragua in 1985, he's multilingual and understands the Middle East more than Hillary could ever dream to. The Middle East will almost certainly be the main focus of any Secretary of State under Obama, and John Kerry is clearly the most qualified candidate for the job. Unfortunately, it's looking very likely that Hillary will get the job, barring any conflicts of interest. Sometimes I wonder if Obama is simply folding under the usual Washington game of paying back the people who helped get you elected, or in other words: special interest groups.

I've never understood this idea that Obama "owes" Hillary for campaigning on his behalf. Um, what? Is she not a Democrat? Is it not her fucking job as a member of the Democratic party to help get a Democratic nominee elected as President? Why would Obama owe a Democrat for helping another Democrat get elected? The fact is she is not qualified for this position, at least not as qualified as her contender. What's worse, she brings so much baggage with her it's incredible. With Bill Clinton's global initiative, a conflict of interest arises when he receives donations from certain foreign sources. It relates to Hillary because they still happen to be married for whatever reason, and so Clinton has to cut off his ties to those foreign donors and give up day-to-day operations in his organization. He also has to disclose his donor list to the Obama Administration, which will probably cause some problems between him and his donors. Given all of that, Hillary is still taking her time accepting the offer. Apparently she has still refused to let the Obama team know whether she will take the job once her husband is vetted. What the hell? Does she even want this handout job? A distraction is all she'll be as Secretary of State, we need John Kerry to handle these pressing issues in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Pakistan, and Iran. Other candidates are Richard Holbrooke and Bill Richardson, all of which would make better diplomats than Hillary Clinton.

The other top positions in Obama's cabinet looks like this:

Chief of Staff - Rahm Emanuel
Attorney General - Eric Holder
Press Secretary - Robert Gibbs
Senior Advisers (so far) - David Axelrod, Valerie Jerrett
Liaison to Congress - Phil Schiliro
Secretary of Treasury (potentially) - Lawrence Summers
Secretary of Defense (staying on from Bush Admin) - Robert Gates
Secretary of Health and Human Services - Tom Daschle
Secretary of Veteran Affairs (potentially) - Max Cleland

Looking good so far. The Tom Daschle pick is arguably the weakest of all, but not a bad pick. We've got some major issues ahead of us, I hope his picks are able to handle the pressure.

Space Shuttle Endeavour's Successful Launch

2008-11-14T16:59:00.000-08:00

Space shuttle Endeavour just launched tonight from the John F. Kennedy Space Center to begin a 15-day mission to the International Space Station. So far so good as the rockets were just jettisoned. CNN covered it for about 10 minutes and switched right back to their coverage of politics. MSNBC didn't even bother to break from it's Hardball rerun and simply opted to show the launch in a corner of the screen. Just goes to show how little interest there is in science. When a multi-billion dollar space shuttle is launched into space, you would think some interest could be generated. Apparently not, although you can't really blame it on the media. When you have the vast majority of Americans rejecting the theory of Evolution, it's no surprise that a space mission would probably garner less interest than a Rush Limbaugh show. You have conservatives who seem to be afraid of scientific advancement with their opposition to stem cell research, calling NASA's missions a waste of money. NASA's budget is almost always the first to be cut when attempting to decrease government spending, which forces NASA to scrap many promising missions. Bush has been a little better about funding NASA and the NSF, but it's still not enough. Hopefully, Obama can bring change on that front as well.

However, NASA deserves some blame as well. Watching NASA's cable TV channel is about as entertaining as watching a rerun of the Golden Girls. It's as if NASA deems any effort to foster public interest in their programs as beneath them. In an organization that employs some of the smartest people on the planet, they sure are idiots when it comes to public relations. The amount of additional funding they would receive if NASA managed to increase public interest in their programs by a modest 10-15% would be enormous, more than enough to cover many NASA programs they've had to scrap from lack of funding. Congress responds to public interest. If the public says "fund NASA, their programs are essential to fully understanding our place in this universe", then Congress will do it. They have to or risk backlash from their constituents. NASA needs a new PR campaign, and for the love of Zues, get someone to work on that TV channel. They could easily make it as entertaining as the Discovery channel, which is doing more for NASA and general interest in science than NASA themselves.

Oh snap, Bush actually realizes he's an idiot!

2008-11-12T17:12:00.000-08:00

But first, everyone should watch this special comment by Keith Olbermann on Proposition 8. I'm often asked if I'm gay since I advocate for gay rights so much. Well, I also advocate for women's rights, I guess I'm a woman too. Oh, I also advocate for amnesty for illegal immigrants, I must be Mexican as well. Almost forgot, I also advocate for environmental policies, I guess that makes me an...environment? I don't know, but this whole line of reasoning is absurd. You don't have to be gay to believe that the phrase "all men are created equal" includes gay people as well.

Now let's get on with this Bush interview. Last night some chick at CNN interviewed the Cowboy and asked him some of the things he regrets. This is what he said:

I regret saying some things I shouldn't have said. Like "dead or alive," or "bring 'em on." And, by the way, my wife reminded me as president of the United States, you better be careful what you say. I was trying to convey a message. I could have conveyed it more artfully. Being on this ship reminds me of when I went to the USS Abraham Lincoln and they had a sign that said "Mission Accomplished." I regret that sign was there.

Yeah? What about when you shat all over the Constitution by initiating the National Security Presidential Directive-51 where you give yourself omnipotent powers during a "national emergency" without Congressional oversight? Or how about when your office leaked Valarie Plame's identity because her husband blew the whistle on your corruption? What about how you completely fucked up Katrina?

Here is the list of failures you oversaw:

9/11 - Ignored intelligence memos that were delivered directly to your office, which spelled out the 9/11 attacks explicitly.

Afghanistan - By deploying woefully inadequate forces and failing to capture Osama Bin Laden, now Obama has to catch him and properly handle this war.

Iraq - One of the biggest blunders in U.S. history, you launched a pre-emptive strike based on lies and faulty intelligence. You've created a quagmire that Obama now has to fix, just like Afghanistan.

NSA Phone-taping - Violating the Fourth Amendment, you authorized spying on your own people and bypassing the FISA court and Congressional oversight.

Valarie Plame; Abu Ghraib; Habeas Corpus - Leaking the identity of CIA agent Valarie Plame (Scooter Libby trial), authorizing torture techniques such as those seen in the Abu Ghraib scandal and Gitmo, and suspending Habeas Corpus through the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Hurricane Katrina - No excuse for this. An entire city flooded and it takes your old college roommate at FEMA over a week to respond? You didn't even come out of your hiding place and mention the disaster until after people started dieing of dehydration at the Superdome.

Economic Recession - With your trillion dollar tax cuts and deregulation, the economy has tanked. You inherited a mild recession with almost full employment and you're handing off a deep recession with the highest unemployment rate in 14 years.

You've done nothing to improve this country in any way. Nothing for the environment, nothing to improve foreign relations, nothing to advance our economy, absolutely nothing to build on. Now Obama has to fix your two wars, fix this economy, fix our image in the world, and fix the environment because you have been an abject failure. Please, do us all a favor and just go away. Don't even wait until January 20th, just leave and let Obama take over. It will be the best thing you've done these last 8 years.

Obama, meet Bush; Bush, meet YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE!

2008-11-10T18:52:00.000-08:00

The above photograph will most likely go down in history with the President with the highest disapproval rating in history meets the first Black President poised to take his place. You would think the tension was palpable, but reports describe the relationship between the two men as "warm". Whether that was just for show or not is unknown, but it's safe to say that the relationship between Laura Bush and Michelle Obama is very friendly. They have made public statements supporting each other, so I don't doubt their friendship. But when you have a President-Elect who won by dumping on the current President, there's bound to be some heated exchanges. Perhaps that's what took place during the private meetings, at least I hope it did. We should not coddle this President as if he's done nothing wrong. He deserves his historic disapproval rating and I can't wait until the bastard is gone.

Anyway, it's amazing to me how many people the President gets to hire. Literally thousands of employees, that seems like way too much power for a single man. But then again, I guess that's the appeal of being President. The Obama transition team has stated that they're reviewing candidates for each position, and they even have a web page on their change.gov web site to apply for a job in the new Obama Administration. Not sure if that's ever been done before, but the whole "Change" message is starting to materialize. The new web site is expected to make the presidency more transparent than it's ever been. Rather than weekly radio addresses and a handful of press conferences, the Obama Administration will be posting blog entries and allowing the public to post comments on potential policy decisions directly to the web site. It's a new day folks, this is what we voted for. I love it.

The other thing Obama's transition team has commented on is Obama's desire to review all of Bush's executive orders and decide which orders should be kept, which orders should be scraped, which orders should be overturned, and which orders should be amended. Well, I've got a few suggestions:

Executive Order 13203 - Which dissolved the National Partnership Council that Clinton created in 1993 to help increase union involvement in government agency decision-making.

Executive Order 13440 - It changed the interpretation of the Geneva Convention mandate that determined how prisoners of war should be treated (prisoners should be treated humanely). Bush changed the interpretation to exclude Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and "associated forces" (which could mean anything).

Executive Order 13435 - This nonsensical position against stem cell research is hampering any substantial breakthroughs from being made. This executive order forces research labs to find other ways to harvest stem cells without using human embryos. Yes, let's protect the "dignity" of a blob of cells. It's ridiculous and I've heard Obama is looking directly at this executive order.And here is the rest of it.

Those are just some of the executive orders I would overturn or scrap immediately. However, it goes without saying that I have full confidence in Obama's team to sift through all of the exectuve orders and get rid of the nonsense that has hurt this country for the last 8 years. In the meantime, here are some more worldwide reactions to Obama's victory. Yep, we lefties are still riding the high.

Top 10 Policies Obama Must Enact Upon Entering The White House

2008-11-06T16:39:00.000-08:00

With Obama securing 53% of the popular vote (a number nobody anticipated) and 364 electoral votes, he has clearly been given a huge mandate by the American people to usher in a more progressive ideology into Washington. Tax cuts for the bottom 90% of the American public, higher taxes for the top 10%, health care reform, ending the Iraq war, funding for public works, alternative energy investment and so on. The most recent Republican tactic after they were resoundingly denounced on Tuesday is to claim that the country is somehow still "center-left". Really? All of those conservative Republicans being ousted from government and replaced by liberal Democrats means the country is still "center-right"? The fact that a very liberal Democratic nominee proposing very progressive policies won the popular vote for President by 7 points means the country is still "center-right"? Give me a break, the country has clearly shifted center-left. The conservative ideology is now a minority in this country thanks to how much they've failed.

Now, we have to determine which policies should be taken care of first while the Democrats still have the power to do so. With a 57 seat majority in the Senate (quite possibly 60 depending on how things swing in Alaska, Minnesota, and Georgia) and a massive majority in the House, now is the time to enact Obama's more progressive policies such as the new targeted tax cuts for the middle class and health care reform. It's now or never, Obama has a lot of work to do and I'm sure Rahm Emanuel will get things done as Chief Of Staff. Obama has the unique opportunity to change American values and the way we think for many years to come. Progressive policies have been good for this country in the past, and they will be especially good for this country in the 21st Century. So here's my personal Top 10 list of policies that Obama should enact immediately upon entering the White House on January 20th:

1. Tax Cuts For Middle Class

His very first action as President come January 20th must be the new targeted tax cuts. In a consumer-based economy, disposable income is master to use all. With the new tax cuts, the average wage earner will receive at least $1000 in tax credits under Obama's proposed plan. This will greatly increase the disposable income for the vast majority of consumers, thereby shortening the recession almost immediately. Clinton's tax policy in the 90's allowed him to finally balance the budget after historic deficits created by both Reagan and Bush-41. Increased disposable income leads to higher consumer spending, which leads to higher profits for companies, which leads to higher incomes for the top 10% of wage earners, which leads to increased tax revenue, which ends in a balanced budget. This is critical.

2. Public Works Stimulus Package

No, not a rebate check. We're talking about building new infrastructure, improving roads and bridges, modernizing subways and ports--actual productive spending that doesn't just disappear into the pockets of the private sector. Not only will it create sustained employment, which is desperately needed, but it will also improve our national security deficiencies and allow us to compete with our fellow economic powers such as the EU and China. This also includes updating our power grid in order to take advantage of alternative energy sources like wind and solar. Obama has stated this issue will be one of the first things he will work on upon entering the White House. I personally think the tax cuts should be priority #1, but this stimulus package could very well be the first accomplishment of the Obama Administration.

3. Government Health Care Plan

This has to get done, people. We've been at the mercy of insurance companies for way too long. The very concept of profiting from someone's illness is despicable, and unfortunately Obama's plan doesn't get rid of private insurance companies, but it will give relief to millions of people who have been denied coverage or harassed by insurance companies for various reasons. It will also allow the millions of people who can't afford the outrageous health care costs to finally receive the care they need. Health care is a right, a God given right for all you religious people out there, which means this new health care plan must be high on Obama's list of things to do come January 20th. It's a divisive issue that will only succeed as long as the Democrats are in control.

4. End The Iraq War; Resolve Afghanistan War

Contrary to right-wing spin, Obama does not support a sudden withdrawal of troops. He supports a phased withdrawal, freeing up the Iraqi security force to gradually take control of their country. There is no such thing as "victory" in Iraq, this is not a conventional war, we're not fighting a conventional enemy. The "War on Terror" is a PR campaign. The idea is to improve America's image in the world, that is the only way to curb terrorism that feeds on anti-American and anti-Western sentiment. Iraq will continue to be a quagmire so long as we occupy a nation of people that do not want us there. Once the troops are out of Iraq, we will finally be able to resolve the war in Afghanistan, which is the REAL central front in the War on Terror. Al-Qaeda is there, the Taliban is there, Osama Bin Laden is there. Not in Iraq, but Afghanistan. This is where we can weaken the Al-Qaeda network, which coupled with a deliberate attempt to improve our global image, will allow us to achieve actual victory in this conflict.

5. Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, etc.

Yeah, pretty crazy. There's hope, however, with this new Administration. Already the world is looking at our country with fresh eyes, admiring eyes. We elected a man who promised to revive diplomacy and goodwill, rather than engage in violence and empty bluster. Just by the sheer act of electing Obama, relations in the Middle East are beginning to improve. Amazing, considering Obama hasn't even done anything yet. World leaders finally see an opportunity to improve their relations with the United States, which is good for everyone. Iran will most likely be the focus of the Obama Administration in the foreseeable future, which I don't quite understand. North Korea already has nuclear weapons, what are we doing about them? Iran's nuclear program has already been inspected, we've found no evidence that Iran is building a bomb. This rhetoric toward Iran is disturbingly similar to the rhetoric we heard leading up to the Iraq war. Do we really want to invade another country for WMD only to find out they never had any?

That and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be a major issue during the Obama presidency. Many Presidents before him have tried to resolve this conflict and failed, and it looks like the Bush Administration will fail as well. The key is to start working this out near the beginning of his Administration, rather than waiting until the last minute like Bush has. Both Israeli and Palestinian officials have expressed confidence that Obama can resolve this conflict once and for all. They see Obama as someone who will fairly consider both sides rather than blindly side with Israel even when they are clearly wrong. The U.S. is often times the sole dissenting voice in the UN when votes are proposed to condemn Israel's actions. This conflict must be resolved if we want any chance of achieving some modicum of peace in that region.

6. Investment In Alternative Energy

This is a big one because it encompasses many different aspects of our economy. Oil has been a boon for humanity these last 100+ years or so, but now we've reached the point where it represents more trouble for us than its worth. Oil is at the root of our current War on Terror. We built military bases in Saudi Arabia in order to stop Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. We did so because we wanted to protect Kuwait's oil fields. As a result, Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda declared a holy war against the United States. 10 years later: 9/11. However, terrorism isn't the only concern. The scientific community has come to a consensus that global warming is not only real, but caused by our actions. The billion of tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere, creating a greenhouse effect similar to the more extreme version found on the planet Venus. Polar ice caps are melting, the Northern polar ice caps in particular are almost completely gone during summer, it's an incredibly rapid change that can only be attributable to our actions. Lastly, it will create millions of jobs. This needs to happen.

7. Immigration Reform

In a country founded by immigrants, built on the back of immigrants, and sustained by new immigrants, it is wholly hypocritical to have an exclusionary immigration policy. This is one of the very few issues I agree with Bush on. We have to reform immigration so that it's more inclusive with more pathways to citizenship. On the same token, however, we need to increase our border security. Not to keep immigrants out, but to keep the criminals who are smuggling sex slaves and drugs across the border. Whether that means building a ridiculously long and expensive fence or not is up the powers that be, but something needs to be done. Along with reforming immigration, there must be improved relations with Mexico. Rather than get angry at people wanting to immigrate to this country, we should be asking why these people are willing to smuggle themselves out of Mexico. The fact is, a prosperous Mexico will all but eliminate illegal immigration. There is no reason why Canada should be so prosperous, but not Mexico.

8. Education Reform

Obama's plan is to increase funding for early childhood education, increase funding for No Child Left Behind, increase funding for federal Pell grants, increase wages for teachers, and add new incentives to volunteer for college students by paying a portion of their tuition. No Child Left Behind was good on paper, but certain aspects of it must be changed to better handle the realities of public school shortcomings, not to mention the funding was woefully inadequate. An unacceptable amound of high school students fail to graduate, and a more disturbing percentage do not attend college. This is a new world we live in, unskilled labor is being outsourced in favor of a specialized and empowered workforce. Higher education determines whether the United States will be able to compete in a global market or fall behind.

9. Fix Social Security

I don't know about you guys, but I'd like to see at least some of the money I've paid into the system back. As a young worker, it's looking less and less likely that Social Security will still be around when I retire. Now, I don't mind paying for current retirees, but what about when I retire? Too bad for me? There are ways we can fix the program, but it will take a progressive minded Congress to do it. Obama has a unique opportunity these first 2 years in a Democratically controlled Congress to fix Social Security once and for all. None of this privatizing nonsense; giving more control over to the Wall Street morons that got us into this financial crisis in the first place. Social Security should be a guaranteed retirement resource for those who need it. Hopefully, I won't.

10. Social Issues

If you look at the top of my blog, you will see a quote from James Madison, also known as the "Father of the Constitution". The recent state measures that passed on Tuesday to ban gay marriage are nothing but blatant discrimination toward same-sex couples pushed by the Christian right. It makes the Obama victory bittersweet when on the same day America elects the first Black president, we vote to segregate marriage. What makes this even more disturbing is that the propositions were favored overwhelmingly by Blacks. What the hell is this? Complaining about prejudice toward Blacks, but then engaging in blatant prejudice toward gays. This is pure ignorance and bigotry, exactly what James Madison was talking about. There needs to be a federal bill passed through Congress that protects marriage rights for gay couples. Obama has already proposed a bill's to extend hate crimes definitions and curb workplace discrimination for gays, but that's not enough. We need a Brown v. Board of Education for gay marriage.

Women's rights will also be key to ensuring full civil rights for everyone. Obama has already talked about the Fair Pay Act, but he also plans to protect abortion rights and help reduce instances of domestic violence. Roe v. Wade is another civil rights issue that must be protected by the federal government, if no one else. Obama will most likely have the opportunity to appoint 2 or 3 judges to the Supreme Court, thereby insuring a women's right to choose for at least a decade. This is one of the main reasons why I'm glad Obama won this election. Progressive thinking must return to America. All of this religious nonsense makes James Madison and other Founding Fathers roll over in their graves.

The Final Electoral Vote Tally

2008-11-04T20:52:00.000-08:00

To wrap up this historic night, let's look at the final electoral vote tally:

State - Electoral Votes

Maine - 4
New Hampshire - 4
Vermont - 3
Massachusetts - 12
Rhode Island - 4
Connecticut - 7
New York - 31
New Jersey - 15
Pennsylvania - 21
Delaware - 3
Maryland - 10
Virginia - 13
Ohio - 20
Florida - 27
Michigan - 17
Wisconsin - 10
Illinois - 21
Minnesota - 10
Iowa - 7
Colorado - 9
New Mexico - 5
Nevada - 5
California - 55
Oregon - 7
Washington - 11

Possible wins:

Indiana - 11
North Carolina - 15
Montana - 3

Add up all of the states in the bag and Obama already has 338 electoral votes. Add the "possible win" states where Obama has a lead and the total reaches 367 electoral votes. The popular vote looks like it will be 52-48. This is a mandate in the truest sense of the word. Sometime tomorrow I'll post my Top 10 policies Obama will have to work on immediately upon entering the White House. I've said this so many times, but I'll go ahead and say it again: I simply cannot wait until January 20th and Obama shifts from President-Elect to President of the United States.

There is no way McCain can win!

2008-11-04T19:39:00.000-08:00

With Obama winning in Pennsylvania and Ohio, it is almost mathematically impossible for McCain to pull this off. Obama currently has 207 electoral votes, all he has to do is carry California, Oregon and Washington and he easily surpasses the 270 mark. And when you consider that Obama had double digit leads in the polls for those 3 states, I can safely proclaim Barack Obama as THE 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! I can't believe what I'm seeing, it's almost too good to be true. Folks, good times are ahead. The Bush reign is over, now comes the new era of progressive leadership. Obama truly is a transformational candidate, and the changes he'll bring to the country will catapult our society into the modern age.

I honestly can't wait until it's officially declared that he's the winner so I can stop holding my breath. This is an historic day for all of us, I'll remember it for the rest of my life.

*EDIT* OBAMA OFFICIALLY DECLARED THE WINNER BY NBC! If I believed in God, I would be thanking the Lord right now. History has just been made tonight. First African-American President. This is a proud day for America. Unbelieveable.

*EDIT2* McCain is now giving his concession speech, to a chorus of boos. His supporters are idiots, but McCain himself has been a great candidate and I hope he sticks around in the Senate to help keep the Democrats in check. As much as I support Obama, I do not support a one-party government. Hopefully, with this massive win, Obama will have the mandate necessary to get the things he wants to do done without having to have a huge Democratic majority.

It looks like Obama will win with well over 320 electoral votes. A huge mandate, and it confirms most of the polls. Progressive times are ahead of us, I can't wait.

Back To The Desert - EVERYONE VOTE!

2008-11-03T08:19:00.000-08:00

I'm back in Vegas getting ready to cast my Independent vote for Barack Obama in a very competitive swing state. Obama has a lot of support in the Vegas area, but I suspect the more rural (racist, gun-toting, pro-life, homophobic) parts of the state will go red quite easily. Luckily a good percentage of Nevada residents live in the Vegas area. I except to see very long lines, but thankfully the weather will be quite pleasant. It'll be a sunny day with temperatures in the high 60's, perfect voting weather. I'm not sure I'll be able to keep this blog up-to-date as much as I should through election day, but I hope to get in as many posts as I possibly can.

Tomorrow will be a good day, I think. It's time for something new, something that will finally thrust this nation into the modern age. Fitting how it will take another liberal to accomplish that. If it weren't for liberals, this nation would probably resemble the Wild West. This country was founded by liberals. It was liberalism that had the balls to declare that all men are created equal. And it will be liberalism that brings us into the 21st Century. I honestly can't wait until tomorrow; we'll be making history as Obama supporters. The United States will once again be the most progressive country in the world.

*Edit* It is done. Just cast my vote for Obama here in Vegas. Everyone who hasn't voted already, please go vote. This is a historical election and I'm sure you don't want to be one of the few who didn't participate. Anyway, I'll be watching the results closely as the day goes on. If Obama ends up winning Virginia and Florida right off the bat, I'll know it's going to be a good day. If he ends up losing those states and Pennsylvania, I'll probably die before the end of the night. I've done my part out here in the West, I expect you Eastern Obama supporters to pull your own weight!

Sometimes I Wonder If Being Liberal Means I Hate America rant

2008-10-21T16:28:00.000-07:00

But then I realize that Sarah Palin is more of a comedian than a leader and I feel a lot better. Now if only I could somehow convince her to give up this election and return to her igloo in Alaska. Do Alaskans actually live in igloos? Maybe it's just Canadians. Who cares. The important thing to remember is that conservative = pro-America and liberal = anti-America. It is scientific fact (see what I did there?). I should say it's "Biblical fact" instead but I try not to use oxymoronic phrases too often.

It's always amazing to me how Christians can feel like victims in a country that is 70% Christian. It just doesn't make any sense. Palin said in an interview with her Christian buddies that she doesn't wear her faith on her sleeve and doesn't force her beliefs on other people. Uhhh, abortion? Stem cell research? Gay marriage? Are these not prime examples of wearing your faith on your sleeve and forcing your beliefs on other people? Give me a break, you're a whacked-out Pentecostal who speaks in tongues and believes in witchcraft. You oppose abortion and attack Obama for disagreeing. You oppose gay marriage and so support a Constitutional amendment to ban the practice. You oppose stem cell research when your own running mate supports it, thereby contradicting your own boss. You are a fascist, madam. You will deny other people their civil rights because your religion says so. You are not a victim, you are a criminal.

On another note, this Bachmann lady from Minnesota is getting destroyed, which is absolutely hilarious to me. Of course, she simply adds fuel to the fire by lying about it, but that seems to be a common tactic for conservatives. What's even more funny is that what she said pales in comparison to some of the other truly idiotic statements prominent conservatives make on a daily basis. Take Rush Limbaugh for example. That guy is awesome. Not only does he entertain us with masterful comedic delivery, but he does it all while being totally high on prescription drugs. That makes him one of us.

This is what he said about Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama:

"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh
wrote in an email. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."

And in his most recent opera, he yelled into the microphone, "It was totally about race!"

Rush, you are a total genius. I mean who else could have exposed such a dubious tribal endorsement? Without you, my friend, we would be helpless. Until we consider that Obama was just as black two years ago as he is today, so why the delayed endorsement? And what about the 40 other Generals and Admirals that have endorsed Obama, all of whom white? Are we to believe that a white general endorsing Obama is legitimate, but a black general endorsing Obama is merely tribal? No, sir, your argument doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, you're a racist.

Seriously, does that come as a surprise to anyone? That a conservative could be racist? "I can't trust Obama. He's an Arab" Those damn Arabs, shady characters the lot of them. Plottin' and schemein', waiting to hit us while our backs are turned. Clearly Obama is an Al-Qaeda sleeper who will turn this country into a Muslim theocracy (Christian theocracy is okay). He supports killing babies and blowing things up, not to mention he wants to give all of his fellow darkies more government handouts. This bastard cannot be allowed to win. We have to do everything we can to stop him, legal or otherwise. Think about it, why should we play by the rules when this Socialist does whatever he wants? We'll make him pay. My rifle will make him pay.

Thanks John McCain, thanks Sarah Palin. You may not win, but you'll be damned if some Socialist is going to take over your country. Kudos to you both, you are truly pro-America.

*I'm Lee Harvey Oswald, and I approve this message.*

Abortion And Gay Marriage Are Civil Rights Issues - Modern Federalists Are Morons

2008-10-17T12:34:00.000-07:00

You heard it a lot during the Republican primaries, mainly by Ron Paul and Fred Thompson and recently by John McCain: "Abortion and gay marriage should be left up to the states to decide."

Utter nonsense. Abortion and gay marriage are civil rights issues, which is the sole domain of the federal government and the Supreme Court. Just think about what they're arguing for second, that somehow the states should have the authority to decide what civil rights each citizen should have. Now look back through U.S. history, with divisive issues such as slavery, women's rights, segregation, the Civil Rights Act, the National Voting Rights Act, and so on. All of them were pushed by the federal government through the Supreme Court. The federal government is responsible for upholding the Constitution by protecting civil rights.

Imagine if the modern federalist ideology was upheld in the 1860's, 1920's, 1950's and 1960's. Many states opposed the emancipation proclamation, many states opposed women's suffrage, many states opposed integration and the Civil Rights Act. Are these clowns arguing that the states should have been allowed to put these civil rights issues to popular vote? Are they saying that if certain states voted to uphold segregation, for example, the federal government should not intervene? Give me a break, it would have destroyed this country from the inside out.

What would remain could only be described as the divided states of America as USA Today put it when they analyzed what would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned. The modern federalist ideology simply ignores history and is based purely on paranoia toward the federal government. That somehow the big, bad government is taking over our lives and killing babies. It's ridiculous and I have no idea why some of the more prominent liberals on television and radio aren't speaking out about this horrid ideology that John McCain seems to have embraced.

I mean he blatantly stated during the last debate that he was a federalist and no one is calling him on it. It is a disastrous ideology and one of the main reasons why this man should not be President.

If Politics Doesn't Work Out For McCain, Comedy Central Might Have A Spot For Him

2008-10-16T14:15:00.000-07:00

Click the blog title for some FactCheck goodies. These recitals are mostly jokes, although this last one was a little better than the others. At least this one allowed for some decent follow-up, but even still these candidates were simply reciting their talking points that we've all heard a hundred times before.

However, there were some notable moments that literally had me laughing for way too long. Such as the moment in the debate where McCain asks Obama what the fine will be for small businesses who fail to provide health insurance to their employees, to which Obama promptly replies with, "Zero. Small businesses are exempt from my plan."

The reaction on McCain's face was truly priceless, I couldn't believe McCain would allow himself to be made a fool by such an easy rebuttal. He clearly was not prepared to debate the facts. He was, however, more than ready to debate rhetoric. Which is exactly what he did, with great enthusiasum I might add - for the first half hour or so. He clearly became more and more frustrated as the recital went on, most likely because Obama never faltered and never took the bait. He sat there, almost completely oblivious to John McCain, and repeated his rehearsed talking points with an unrivaled eloquence that effectively dumbfounded McCain.

McCain even saw fit to point out Obama's eloquence on several occasions, each time with increasing amounts of frustration. His facial reactions were comedic gold, his posturing and rapid blinking just screamed "I HATE THIS GUY!" Can't really blame McCain's frustration, Obama is a cool character. Even when his arguments are weak, such as on the school voucher topic, he still refused to give an inch to McCain.

What struck me was how easily Obama was able to argue his position on abortion and his association with Ayers. I must admit that I was one of those who couldn't understand why Obama opposed banning partial-birth abortions. However, his argument was perfectly reasonable. He opposed it because it did not contain an exception for the mother's health. McCain proceeded to mock Obama's consideration of the mother, which I think only served to hurt his flip-flop position even more and effectively alienated the few remaining undecided female voters.

His response to the Ayers attacks were golden. He not only rebuked the idea that Ayers is in anyway close to Obama, but he also pointed out all of the great minds that he associates with today, not 10 years ago. People like Warren Buffet for example, who could very well hold a position in Obama's cabinet. Not to mention that almost all moderate and undecided voters did not like that McCain kept bringing it up, and they're the ones who McCain really needs. As I predicted, Obama was clearly declared the winner in almost all post-debate opinion polls. This election is effectively over. I simply do not see how McCain can possibly close this gap. His negative attacks don't work, and his plans are far inferior to Obama's plans and everyone knows it.

Get ready folks for a President-Elect Obama come November 4th. Add a Pelosi House and a Reid Senate and you've got yourself a happy liberal family. This country has shifted to the left, better late than never I guess. I honestly cannot wait to see what good times are in store for us these next 4 years. Yes, there will be hardships, mostly due to the last 8 years, but I think America should expect good things from the Democrats that the Republicans simply refused to do.

As a parting gift, here's the funny moment I mentioned earlier. Pay special attention to McCain's reaction at the beginning, totally priceless.

The Final Recital Tonight; Conservatives Attack McCain

2008-10-15T14:35:00.000-07:00

As I said before, these "debates" are really just recitals. And McCain is ruing the day he decided to hire those thugs from the Bush campaign. I've said it before and I'll say it again, McCain just doesn't like that type of campaigning. He has always spoken out against it, especially after 2000 Republican primaries where the Bush campaign absolutely demolished McCain in South Carolina with disgusting personal attacks. Unfortunately, he went out and hired the same asshats from the Bush campaign and they're the ones pushing this Ayers association because it's the only thing they know how to do. They balk at talking about issues simply because it's much easier to attack someone else than to actually give people a reason to vote for you rather than against the other guy. The Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004 were masters of dirty politics, they could probably write hundreds of books on how to win an election solely by attacking your opponent.

It disgusts me how much McCain's advisors are pushing for these personal attacks in a time when the economy is taking a fat dump on every single one of us. Just completely ignoring the issues and going after the other guy, even telegraphing exactly what they plan to do in the newspapers as if no one would care...? I don't know, but the McCain campaign is clearly a disaster area. Even their fellow conservatives are starting to jump ship. Hugh Hewitt, Mark Krikorian, Bill Kristol, David Brooks, Richard Cohen, George Will, and many more. Even those who still plan on voting for the guy are attacking him such as Ben Stein and Rush Limbaugh. All of these partisans have attacked McCain for a number of reasons, mainly because of his idiotic VP pick. Seriously, even conservatives think that lady is a moron, and she truly is. She's such an idiot that she actually thinks being an idiot makes her especially qualified to run the country. /facepalm

My only hope for tonight is that McCain actually does bring up the Ayers issue so that Obama can respond to it once and for all in front of the entire nation, thereby putting the entire issue to rest. These last few weeks have been insane, but the election is winding down and Obama is increasing his lead in many polls. This last debate will simply serve as an opportunity for Obama to seal the deal. Enough is enough, I honestly cannot fathom another 4-8 years of conservatives running this country. Once Obama is elected, we will all be able to witness once again why liberalism should no longer be considered a bad word. Why the term "compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron, and why people like Sarah Palin should never be allowed anywhere near the White House.

It's time to end this election, Obama better bring his 'A' game.And here is the rest of it.

Can You Actually Call These Debates?

2008-10-08T12:23:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure you can. Simply put, asking candidates questions while they stand next to each other does not constitute a debate. There needs to be some freedom of movement so that candidates can attack and respond to their opponents points without being limited by time constraints. This whole "let's take turns cuz it's fair" policy is worthless. Debates are supposed to be controlled arguments, not 1-minute stump speeches.

Ridiculous.

Anyway, I'm very surprised that the personal attacks weren't brought up. That tells me two things:

1. People don't care about these idiotic associations.

2. John McCain himself doesn't want to campaign that way.

Which leads me to believe that McCain's campaign is essentially pushing him aside and adopting a "it's for your own good" policy in order to gain some ground in the polls. McCain even stated himself that he opposes personal attacks in campaigns, and yet here he is insinuating that Obama is a terrorist who hates White people. It's reached the point of absurdity that Fox News seems to delight in. Hannity & Friends are going crazy over this Ayers association, but conveniently ignore McCain's ties to the U.S. Council For World Freedom or Palin's ties to a pastor who brags about performing witch hunts. This has got to end and I think this debate proved that the electorate just doesn't care about these personal issues. They want to talk about substance, about the economy and Iraq, not about Ayers and Wright. Get it through your heads, conservatives, your attack machine just won't work this time.

As for who won the debate, well it's clear that "winning" these "debates" is like winning a chess game against yourself - just doesn't make sense. There were some key moments where Obama and McCain made strong arguments in their favor, but for the most part it was an hour and a half of 1-2 minute stump speeches where they simply repeated rhetoric and stale attacks.

One notable moment was when McCain attempted to paint Obama as "reckless" for stating that he would persue Osama Bin Laden across Pakistan's borders. Obama quickly responded with how McCain sang "bomb bomb bomb Iran" at a rally. After that you could clearly see that it completely deflated McCain. He then tried to play it off by claiming it was a joke. Sorry, but joking about bombing a country when you're trying to get them to not build a nuke is one of the most reckless things any world leader could do.

The only other stand out moment in this recitation was when both candidates were asked if they thought health care was a right, privilege, or responsibility and Obama responded that it was a right. That will almost certainly resonate with a lot of people who are going through health care issues right now and for those who desperately want coverage, but can't afford it. Other than those two moments, the recitation was fairly boring. Which means McCain didn't do anything to gain any ground, which favors Obama as numerous post-debate polls have already shown.

Presidential Debate Tonight - Personal Attacks

2008-10-07T17:11:00.000-07:00

If you click the blog title, you'll be magically wisked away into a world of magic and fairies known as the "Make A Big Deal About Someone Else's Associations While Having tenous Associations Of Your Own, Also Known As HYPOCRISY!"

Here's the deal, McCain was a longtime board member of a radical group called the U.S. Council For(of) World Freedom. Not only was it a highly racist and antisemetic group, but it also happened to be funding contras in Latin America. Now, here's where the main point of this post comes in. If McCain has these very questionable associations of his own, why would he then make a big deal about Obama's associations with Ayers or Wright? This is blatant and wholly idiotic hypocrisy. The man has his own dirty past with the Keating 5 scandal and this board membership, why the hell would he make this a political issue?

But I'm not done yet.

Palin has her own skeletons rattling away in her closet. You may have seen the YouTube video where Governor Palin recieved a "blessing" from a Kenyan pastor named Thomas Muthee at a church famous for its radical view that Alaska is prophesized to be a refuge for Christians during the Tribulation (stop laughing). What makes this "blessing" newsworthy is that the pastor in question has openly bragged about conducting a WITCH HUNT in a Kenyan suburb (stop crying). Seriously, a witch hunt. I'm not kidding, a fucking witch hunt. The "blessing" he gave included a prayer to protect Governor Palin from all forms of witchcraft.

But that's not all folks! Oh no, you see her husband had been a longtime registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party. Now, you may be wondering what's so bad about that. They obviously must be celebrating America's independence, right? Uh, no. The "Independence" part refers to a desire to secede from the Union (okay, you can laugh and cry now). It was founded by a man named Joe Vogler who said this:

The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag.

Cool, huh?

*sigh*

I just don't understand the conservative mindset. They are obviously being completely dishonest with themselves. Their own candidates have these insane associations and yet they're totally content with playing up Obama's associations as if they mean anything. Listen, no person in their right mind believes McCain is racist. No person in their right mind believes McCain hates Jews or that he's a corrupt politician. In fact, most people have high respect for the man. That's why the Obama campaign never mentioned these associations until the McCain camp decided to fight dirty. If you truly believe that Obama is a terrorist who hates White people, you seriously need to reevaluate your mental health. Both of these men are patriots. Both of them care about this country, so can we drop this nonsense and focus on issues that actually matter - LIKE OUR FREE-FALLING ECONOMY?!

Don't fall for it! Palin is dumb, but she ain't that dumb!

2008-10-02T15:48:00.000-07:00

Recent interviews with Katie Couric have shown that even by conservative standards, Palin is a retard. Which is saying a lot considering who conservatives have supported these past 8 years, but is it real? Is Palin's apparent lack of intelligence a ploy to lower expectations? It's hard to make that case, because if she weren't woefully inadequate to be Vice President, why would she need to sandbag? Or maybe the McCain camp feels it's necessary no matter how qualified she may or may not be in order to give them the bump in the polls they need.

My view is that the McCain camp has decided to keep expectations of Palin down in order to recieve a bigger bump in the polls when Palin is able to survive the debate without having her head explode. That's not to say she isn't dumb, but I don't think she's that dumb. I give Alaskans and their ability to elect competent leaders a little more credit than that. My hope is that the clear winner of the debate will come through and this will put the final nail in the coffin on McCain's campaign. They had their shot at running this country and for 8 years they've systematically destroyed it. It's time to let the other guys have a shot.

Oh yeah, I'm back! Moved to Vancouver, Washington from Vegas and finally reconnected myself to the world. You gotta love the internets.

Seriously, we need to raise our standards a bit.

Oregon Primary

2008-05-20T17:57:00.000-07:00

Hillary won Kentucky as expected, there's just too many old, uneducated White people in that state. Now, I know what you're thinking, "Hey Sammy, that's an incredibly stereotypical thing to say." Eh, not really. According to the exit polls, Hillary carried the vote of older, lesser-educated, low-income Whites while Obama carried everyone else. Unfortunately, Hillary's group is the majority and so she won, just like she did in West Virginia. Although if I had my way, states like West Virginia and Kentucky (among others) would be forced to secede from the Union and join Mexico or something.

In Oregon, where educated people still remain, the race is still on with the deadline for dropping ballots growing near. In just 2 hours, the drop locations will be closed and the final batch of ballots will be counted. According to the exit polls, Oregon has more liberals than the whole Universe. They also are smart enough to see that the Iraq war is a lot more important than what most of the country believes it to be, but they also understand that the economy deserves some consideration as well. Preliminary polls show that Obama will win, and when you consider that nearly 75,000 came out to see him on a hot day, you have to conclude at the very least that Hillary has a huge uphill battle. I'll be updating this blog as the results come in.

*Update* As of 8:35PM PST, just 35 minutes after the deadline, Obama has already been declared the "projected" winner in Oregon. 301 precincts out of 1000 have reported in... or about 30% of the votes and Obama is currently winning 60% of the votes (169,100 votes) while Hillary has earned 30% of the vote (113,166 votes). Of course, there is always a chance that the current trend in the counting may shift and Hillary pulls off a March Madness type upset, but it's doubtful. I'll continue to update with the lastest numbers.

*Update#2* It's official, Obama has won. Current numbers are 58% of the vote for Obama (259,273 votes) and 42% of the vote for Hillary (188,272 votes). She literally has no chance of winning, which means Obama is pretty much a lock for the Democratic nomination. Of course, the superdelagates could negate all of this and choose Hillary if they wanted to, but then they risk a huge backlash from fellow party members and an almost assured Republican win. So it's been fun, Hillary, but I think it's time to throw in the towel.

In the meantime, I have to rant about the different methods of polling. People are always trying to rag on Oregon's mail-in voting yet they have no valid argument to present. The fact is Oregon's voter turnout is among the highest in the nation. In the abomination most people call the 2000 election between Gore and Bush, the Oregon voter turnout was 59.6% which was the 11th highest in the nation. In 2004 when Bush used his fear tactics and polarization to win the election, Oregon voter turnout was 70.5% which was 6th in the nation and 10 percentage points above the national average. Election after election, Oregon has remained above the national trend.

Yes, there were years when voter turnout was low, but those turnouts were simply on par with a national decline in voting due to many factors. The mail-in voting played no part in those low turnouts as states who don't provide mail-in ballots were also witnessing low voter turnout.

Personally, I think the entire nation should follow Oregon's lead (and not just on this issue, but many others including medical marijuana and assisted suicide) and abolish polling centers that are so prone to fraud and adopt the mail-in ballot system that Oregon has nearly perfected. Do this and I guarantee a nationwide increase in voter turnout, as the convenience of mail-in ballots would decrease apathy as most people simply feel heading out to the poll is a waste of time. Mail-in voting takes a fraction of the time when all you have to do is fill in your choices, seal the ballot in the provided security envelope and drop it in your mailbox. It's called bringing the act of voting into the 21st Century. Maybe one day we'll have security necessary for e-mail voting, but this is the next best thing.

Politics in Review

2008-05-19T19:32:00.000-07:00

McCain is at it again, patronizing Obama as if he were some kind of child that's completely ignorant to the world. In another speech today, he again attacks Obama for wanting to talk with Iran. He has no valid argument against it except to call Obama "naive", "inexperienced", and "reckless". Do you see it yet? That's going to be McCain's campaign message in a nutshell once Hillary finally stops deluding herself and allows the general election to begin. Edwards had the integrity to quit early when it was obvious he had no chance against the Big Two, Hillary should take note.

Speaking of Hillary deluding herself, wow. I understand that she has invested a lot of time and money into this campaign, anyone can see that. However, a time comes when you have to be honest with yourself and acknowledge the fact that you're no longer in the running, so just make way for a fellow party member to save us from right-wing destruction. This country cannot handle another "Bush" in office, and McCain is shaping up to be just that. This recent YouTube video illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. The man has a very hard time speaking in public (old people have this problem), he's often confused on many issues (so old), and he contradicts himself with every speech as if he has no recollection of past speeches (old people tend to forget things). On top of that, he supports extending the damn war until Zues knows when, extending Bush's tax cut, and continuing the "Cowboy" policy of "no diplomacy, only war". Old people seem to love war the most, probably because they're no longer required to fight them.

Even with all of those similarities, the "liberal" media (lol) still claims he is "different" than most Republicans and will bring change to the White House. Obama says, "WTF?! Get your own slogan, jackass." Werd.

Unfortunately, Hillary continues to stand in the way with her all-powerful God of a husband when she literally has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Someone needs to have a heart to heart with this chick and convince her that she should now throw all of her support and influence behind Obama. She can help end the Republican failure we've been forced to endure for the last 8 years, she has the power to tip the scales for the Democrats if she wants to. We should all beg Hillary to give up the primary and support Obama the same way Michael Moore and Bill Maher begged Nader not to run in 2004. I'm not above begging, I'll happily get on my knees and beg Hillary not to screw this election up for Obama. A non-Republican must win, that means Obama.

Hopefully, she'll give up soon once she loses the next two primaries. Kentucky and Oregon are about to weigh in on this extended primary race tomorrow. It's last call as only 3 states will remain before the Democratic nominee will be "decided". Obama recently rallied in Portland and drew a crowd so huge even the Clintons were probably like, "Holy shit, we're screwed."

For those of you who don't know, Portland is my former hometown. I was born and raised there, only recently moving to Las Vegas. The huge turnout for Obama did not surprise me in the least, his message is something most Portlanders support... especially his opposition to the war. I'll be making a new blog post about the Oregon primary and I'll update it as the ballot counting progresses. I have no doubt Obama will win and hopefully it will be the result that snaps Hillary out of her deluded fantasy of winning this primary.

Movie Recommendations II

2008-05-18T04:10:00.000-07:00

Time for another round of movie recommendations based solely on my biased opinion of theatrical merit. I watch more movies than I know what to do with, so this is me trying to be productive with all the time I waste watching films. I have a long list of movies I've recently seen, but I've decided to stick with the basic list of 5 for each post. It makes it easier for me to organize and it allows me to stretch this content as far as possible...I'm lazy like that.

No Country For Old Men
My Score: 9 out of 10IMDB Score: 8.4 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 94%
Trailer: No Country For Old Men
Review: 4 stars from Roger Ebert
As good as it gets, folks. If you're looking for a better movie to watch than this, you'll be looking for a very long time. Written and directed by the Coen Brothers, the same guys who brought us Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou?, deliver one of the greatest thrillers ever made - no exaggeration. The plot is fairly straight forward: guy finds cash, bad guys want cash back. That pretty much sums it up, but the beauty comes from how it all takes place. A masterful blend of violence, humor and suspense that takes you to an ending that you won't soon forget. Javier Bardem is incredible, I can't name a better performance as a villain. You watch his character and think, "Holy shit, this guy is fucking insane!" Only a select few actors can pull that off, and this guy is one of the best I've ever seen. Watch this movie, seriously.

Stardust
My Score: 7 out of 10IMDB Score: 8.0 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 76%
Trailer: Stardust
Review: 2 1/2 stars from Roger Ebert
If you were to judge this movie only by the previews you've seen, you probably wouldn't rate it very high. Believe it or not, however, this movie is incredibly deep and one of the most original stories I've seen. Based on Neil Gaiman's novel, the screenplay tries it's best to keep up with the all the story elements which can get a bit confusing at times. The special effects are top notch and the cast is amazing, with Ian McKellen narrating, Michelle Pfeiffer playing the evil/ugly/beautiful/misunderstood lead witch (stfu you'll understand when you see it), Peter O'Toole making an appearance as the dieing King, and Robert De Niro playing a cross dressing pirate captain. Not to mention a very hawt Claire Danes playing the "Stardust" chick, it's a cast that doesn't disappoint. Watch this movie if you're a fan of fantasy adventures, or just watch it if you want to see hawt chicks. Either way is cool.

3:10 To Yuma
My Score: 9 out of 10IMDB Score: 8.0 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 89%
Trailer: 3:10 To Yuma
Review: 4 stars from Roger Ebert
Come on, Christian Bale and Russell Crowe in the same movie? Epic cast is epic. Easily one of the best Westerns I've ever seen, the ending will probably make you go, "WTF?!" before you slit your wrists in total awe. The acting is top notch on all fronts, and I'm glad to see Alan Tudyk in another movie. Although I'm sure he felt right at home with this film (if you don't get the reference, kys). The whole dynamic between Bale, Crowe and Logan Lerman who plays Bale's son is amazingly realistic, in fact this whole movie sported very realistic dialogue. Unlike many Westerns that are obviously faking their way through the dialect and nuances of that era in U.S. history. And talk about great villains, Ben Foster as Charlie Prince is wonderfully dark and it illustrates a perfect contrast to Crowe's character who can only be described as a semi-villain in comparison. 1 of 2 recently made Westerns you have to see (the other being There Will Be Blood).

Shoot 'Em Up
My Score: 8 out of 10IMDB Score: 7.1 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 67%
Trailer: Shoot 'Em Up
Review: 3 1/2 stars from Roger Ebert
Terrible movie only watch it if you're dumb.

Just kidding, this movie kicks major ass on all fronts. The cast is amazing, the special effects are top notch, the action scenes are intense, the plot is sufficiently deep WITH a message, and the acting of the two main leads are "entertainment" personified. Although the writer/director (Michael Davis) is questionable, he somehow managed to snag two actors who are on top of the world right now: Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti. I don't know if there's just something about the guy, but Clive Owen has yet to disappoint me in any of his films. The plot deals with gun control, gangsters, and politicians. Owen is the reluctant hero and Giamatti is the bad ass villain. Yes, some of the dialogue is way over the top, but from what I could tell a lot of it was intentional for comedic purposes. All in all, this movie delivers as a top notch action flick with a meaningful plot. Watch it if you're a fan of either Owen or Giamatti.

Sunshine
My Score: 8 out of 10IMDB Score: 7.3 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 75%
Trailer: Sunshine
Review: 3 stars from Roger Ebert
The team that gave us 28 Days Later meet up again and create a science fiction thriller that succeeds in not sucking. Seriously, good science fiction movies are at a premium these days. Most either have terrible plots, terrible actors, terrible scripts, terrible special effects or pretty much all of the above. This one is different and if you've seen 28 Days Later, the kind of "dark" and realistic atmosphere of this movie will look very familiar. Writer Alex Garland and director Danny Boyle, along with Cillian Murphy, deliver a rare science fiction gem. The plot revolves around our Sun dieing prematurely (should take billions of years, this movie says it happens within half a century) through a very convoluted explanation. The team of scientists are sent on a mission to "reboot" the Sun by dropping a nuke and blowing shit up. It's pretty sweet and the plot twists will definitely catch you off-guard. Watch this movie if you're a sci-fi fan and have been disappointed with the newest batch of trash Hollywood has recently shat out.

--------------------

And that concludes this latest round of movie recommendations. I have a lot more movies I could list so check back for future updates.

President Bush is a dog

2008-05-15T19:01:00.000-07:00

Earlier today, Bush gave a speech at the Knesset in Israel as they celebrated their 60th anniversary as a country. He used the opportunity to spew the most ignorant rhetoric I've ever heard from this Administration to date. Coming from a man who launched an illegal war, lied to the country, went on vacation while 9/11 was being planned, ignored intelligence memos spelling out the 9/11 attacks, declared "Mission Accomplished" for a war that has yet to end, and is responsible for fostering more hatred toward the U.S. than ever before, these comments of his are truly despicable:

The president, at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem, suggested that some Democrats were acting in the same way some Western leaders did when they appeased Hitler in the runup to World War II.

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," he said while speaking to Israel's parliament, the Knesset.

Hitler, eh? Says the guy who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of U.S. soldiers, what was that about Hitler?

Senator Joe Biden's response was classic and caused me to actually respect the Democratic party...at least for today. He called Bush's comments "bullshit" which is pretty much spot on, while my home State's Senator Henry Reid, who is the Senate Majority Leader, responded by saying, "Not surprisingly, the engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation's history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round."

Good stuff, the Democrats are finally acting like an opposition party. Of course, McCain couldn't pass up the opportunity to smear Obama even more by claiming he is in favor of Hamas. Naturally, that's a complete lie as Obama has repeated pretty much ad nauseum that he does not support Hamas in any fashion, views them as a terrorist organization and refuses to speak with them until they denounce violence and recognize Israel's sovereignty.

Just goes to illustrate that politics hasn't evolved at all and these dogs are still running the show. Why wasn't this President ever impeached? Oh right, he never slept with an intern. I swear this country has it's priorities completely fucking backwards.

California Supreme Court says gays can get married

2008-05-15T13:39:00.000-07:00

In a close 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that anti-gay marriage laws were unconstitutional, stating that they discriminated against gays.

Today’s ruling by the Republican-dominated court affects more than 100,000 same-sex couples in the state, about a quarter of whom have children, according to U.S. census figures. It came after high courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Before today, only Massachusetts' top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed...

The reaction to today's ruling outside the courthouse in San Francisco was one of jubilation as couples, once denied marriage, hugged, kissed, shouted and shook their fists at the sky. Holding up a sign that says, "Life feels different when you're married," Ellen Pontac said she was beyond words.

"Oh, wow," she said. "It felt so good when we got married in San Francisco. This feels better."

She hugged her partner Shelly Bailes. "The best day of my life was when I met Ellen," Bailes said. "This was as good as that."

Personally, I find it a travesty that it's taken so long for such a ruling to be made. How can anyone deny that anti-gay marriage laws are discriminatory? Exactly what about them would be considered fair to anyone who is gay or doesn't think homosexuality is a sin? I guess majority rule has it's downsides as well, because that majority of this country believes in fairytales that tell them gay people are bad people, and so those of us in the minority who actually use our brains are subjected to outright discriminatory laws. Even states that are thought to be "liberal" have ruled against gay marriage (New Jersey, New York, Washington) while the other states have passed Constitutional amendments to ban it.

Notice how inherently unconstitutional this whole debate is? We have to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage, what else should we ban? What else do Christians hate? Let's amend the Constitution to ban atheism. Let's amend the Constitution to ban all other religions besides Christianity. Let's amend the Constitution to ban women from teaching men. Let's amend the Constitution to ban using the Lord's name in vain. Let's amend the Constitution to ban any act, service, word, book, film, or legislation that doesn't strictly adhere to Biblical law. Hell, let's just turn this whole damn country into a Christian theocracy and call it a day, sound good?

It's my sincere hope that one day things will change, that people will open their eyes and realize that dictating to other people on what to do with their lives by referencing a 2000 year old book of fairytales is neither helpful nor rational, and will conclude that we are all better off dropping these ancient beliefs in favor of a humanistic view of the world. A view that is infinitely more just and rational than the beliefs of ancient goat herders who had no idea the Earth revolved around the Sun.

New Look

2008-05-15T02:06:00.000-07:00

Decided to go with a new look for my blog, but unfortunately blogger doesn't really have a wide arrange of templates to choose from and many of the ones they do have would have been incompatible with my current set up. I decided to go with this look for two reasons:

1. It's stretched, so I don't have to worry about video clips and pictures glitching into the sidebar.

2. It's color scheme is light and easy on the eyes.

I also decided to streamline my blog title; I felt the old one was a little to wordy for a title. I wanted something concise that still conveys what my blog is mainly about, which is rational thinking of course. I added in some new HTML code as well for my social networking buttons. You'll notice the new Digg, Del.icio.us, Technorati, Reddit, and SlahDot buttons that you can use to help me promote my blog.

Another important change I made was to add this nifty "expandable link" code that allows me to type long, drawn out posts (:P), but only subject my main page to a short summary rather than the full text. It shortens the load time and scrolling, further streamlining my blog. The final change I made was to move the YouTube videos down to the bottom of the page. It frees up space on the sidebar and makes it less cluttered while at the same time allowing me to stretch my content to fill the entire page. Hopefully, these new changes will make my blog that much more appealing.

Oh Billy, you crazy guy!

2008-05-14T18:52:00.000-07:00

I'm sure you've all seen the video of Bill O'Reilly totally freaking out on Inside Edition (if not just click the blog title). Well, here's a catchy remix version that I guarantee will crack you up:

NASA had a press conference today!

2008-05-14T10:52:00.000-07:00

NASA called a press conference this morning to discuss a discovery they've been trying to make for the last 50 years. That discovery is a brand new supernova that exploded in approximately 1685, around the time Sir Isaac Newton gave us his theory of universal gravitation. Click the blog title for an in-depth blog post from wired.com about the news conference.

Reynolds continuing: Supernova located approximately 26,000 light years away from here. Shockwave moving 5% of the speed of light, the fastest ever observed. This supernova exhibits special kind of x-ray activity, one of only 4 supernovae with these x-rays, which are incredibly high-energy, far beyond anything that even the Large Hadron Collider will create.

Supernovae are incredibly energetic and often visible across the universe, but this one, known as G1.9+0.3, was obscured by the cosmic dust near the center of the galaxy. The scientists said the dust made the explosion a trillion times fainter in optical light than an unobscured explosion.

Green said that this is a very interesting remnant. It's the youngest and smallest and has the highest expansion speed and highest electron energy. "We're confident it will contnue to find interesting information about supernova, supernovae remnants."

Kirshner gets on the line to provide context, says interesting things: Why are we interested in this? Self-interest. Supernovae make the chemical elements through real alchemy. The calcium in our bones and iron in our blood came from supernovae that exploded. So we're all star dust and it seems reasonable to want to know how elements get formed when stars explode," he said.

There was also a snag when some racist redneck jumped on the line and asked, "Does this discovery have the potential to get the moon crickets shipped off Earth?"

Sweet dude, you don't like Black people. Cookie or slice of cake? Most likely a 4chan raid of some sort, they should try screening their calls next time.

I've been AWOL lately, but things will change.

2008-05-11T20:25:00.000-07:00

This last month and a half have been pretty crazy with not only school and work, but some family issues as well. Things are finally starting to fall into place and hopefully I'll be able to prioritize some time into updating my blog on a regular basis. I have more essays I want to post and a few observations I've made about politics, not to mention some world news to touch on and also another round of movie recommendations. My goal is to update this blog at least once a day with whatever dribble I can think of. :P

In the meantime, here's some incredibly funny commentary by George Carlin (part 2):

Part 1

Pathological Need For Warfare

2008-04-29T19:31:00.000-07:00

Anyone wonder why the U.S. would ever be threatened by Asian or European countries? We're clear across two oceans, invading or attacking us would require a naval fleet and air force so strong it borders on science-fiction. Attacking U.S. interests abroad would certainly hurt us a little, but nothing that would truly make any real difference.

No, the reason why the U.S. would ever be threatened is if we did something in another country and now those people are pissed off. We poke and prod, we insinuate ourselves militarily into foreign disputes and we kill thousands, hundreds of thousands, in the name of "Democracy" and "Freedom". This administration claims the Patriot Act and other extreme measures including the Iraq war are for our protection. I say, if this country didn't have some kind of sick, pathological need for warfare, we wouldn't need protecting.

Currently, the U.S. is waging two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We're threatening two nations, North Korea and Iran, with military action if they don't comply with our wishes. We're funding Ethiopia in it's multiple campaigns against Somalia and Eritrea and we're alienating any country that doesn't bow to our wishes. In the past, we've helped to oust democratically elected leaders and propped up pro-American military dictators, we've funded rebel groups opposing democratic regimes and we've fought in multiple foreign wars against countries we deemed hostile toward U.S. interests.

We have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians in collateral damage and we've turned millions of families into refugees. At some point you have to ask yourself, did we deserve 9/11? Have our bombs and guns caused so much pain and suffering in the world that it's only fair that we had to feel some pain as well?

Iran has done nothing wrong except oppose U.S. actions in Iraq and oppose Israel's occupation. Eritrea, who the Bush Administration has recently threatened to add them to the axis of evil, has done nothing wrong except oppose U.S. actions in Iraq and Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia. I'm convinced that the Bush Administration hates America, otherwise they wouldn't be provoking the world with their rhetoric and bombs.

Does this country need war? We use the term to describe any kind of opposition to a given issue; the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on gangs, the war on crime, the war on terror. We're bringing all of it down upon ourselves, we're breeding anti-American sentiment and that's never going to change until we elect a President who understands the problem and is willing to fix it. We need allies; alienating the world with our "Cowboy Policy" hurts this country in more ways than you can imagine. We need to stop these "wars" and start building some positive relations with the world, or America will continue to be "threatened" and hated for years to come.

Faith in Today's Society (essay)

2008-04-29T18:42:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer: This post is my own personal view on religion and its impact on humanity; I touch on the history of the 5 major living religions, their role in science and the denigration of women. I don't hate religion by any means, I just feel it's no longer needed in a society where strict humanistic morals are already common place. Yes, there are parts of the world who still operate in a perpetual state of violence, but seeing as how religion is so well known and followed throughout world, it's clear that it has done nothing to curb the violence. On the contrary, it's currently responsible for much of that violence.

Faith in Today's Society

It all started back in 2000 B.C.E. when the Sumerians created the first known written story called the epic of Gilgamesh. It was later written on stone tablets in Akkadian around 1300 B.C.E. and recounted the story of Gilgamesh that had previously been told exclusively in oral tradition. A story of great floods and plagues, gods and heroes, retribution and love. It was the beginning of an era where myths became religion, religion became tradition and tradition became a way of life. It spawned countless faiths and belief structures, some borrowed and some absorbed into established institutions through centuries of war and occupation.

The epic of Gilgamesh changed the entire region forever and eventually, through its influence on conquering nations, changed the entire world. As a result, modern society owes much of its thanks and criticisms to the ancient Sumerians who catapulted the human race onto a path of intellectual enlightenment through the written word and religious dogmatism that plagues society even to this day.

Modern Religions

The oldest living religion, Hinduism, is believed to have been founded in 1500 B.C.E. by an unknown source. Judaism, the second oldest living religion, was founded in 1300 B.C.E. by Moses (although the "revelations" first came to Abraham who lived in 1800 B.C.E., but he is not credited with the creation of the Jewish religion). Both religions have spawned splinter faiths that have helped shape mankind, the two most popular and influential splinter faiths are Buddhism, founded in 560 B.C.E. by Gautama Buddha, and Christianity which was founded in 30 C.E. by Jesus Christ.

Even still, Christianity spawned another Judeo-Christian splinter faith called Islam, founded in 610 by Mohammad. When you add up all of the adherents of the previously mentioned religions, they represent the majority of the world's population with Islam and Christianity claiming a billion plus adherents each. With so many believers and so many rival faiths, how was mankind able to advance as far as it has? The answer to that question is complicated, but it happened despite religion's best efforts to keep the human race in the dark ages.

Inquisitions, jihad, crusades, heretic suppression, forbidden blasphemy - no matter how these events and dogmatic policies are twisted and spun by guilty parties and apologists, it does not change the fact that religion is responsible for suppressing scientific advancement, punishing progressive thinkers, and murdering adherents of rival faiths through religious wars. It is these actions that have effectively slowed scientific progress from the end of the Hellenistic age through the last millennium and is responsible for current opposition to medical science such as stem cell research.

Some apologists try to argue that the Church was simply following the Greek's rejection of the heliocentric model. That is wholly untrue, because after Copernicus died, the opposition was almost exclusively due to these Biblical verses:

Chronicles 16:30 "Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (NIV)
Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." (NIV)

The result of which was Galileo put under house arrest. Sure, Ptolemy's system was popular and thus accepted by more institutions, but after Copernicus it was a religious opposition. It's the reason why the Tycho Brahe system which was a compromise of both sides was so readily accepted, scientists wanted to abandon the geocentric system but couldn't for fear of inquisitions, so Tycho gave them the next best thing.

Due to religious opposition it took the world 300 years to accept that the Earth was not the center of the Universe and revolved around the Sun, and again due to religious opposition the theory of evolution is still rejected by a large portion of the world's population nearly 150 years later. The opposition is not due to a lack of evidence as there is plenty that proves the theory of evolution to be true, but simply an unwillingness to accept an explanation that does not invoke God's name. Despite religion's best efforts, the heliocentric model and the theory of evolution are widely accepted and taught in schools above creationism and the geocentric model.

The key word is "despite", because religion has done nothing to help the cause. Some might say that because many of history's most prominent scientists were religious, it means that religion is a friend of science. No, the desire to understand "God's work" may have motivated those particular minds, but the desire to explain the Universe (God) exists in everyone, be they religious or not. The concept of religion itself does not oppose science; it is the dogmatic policies that many religions adopt that oppose advancement.

Of the five main religions in the world today, Islam is the only one that has promoted science since its inception. Hindu beliefs assert that the material world is not "real", and that our duty is to detach ourselves from this world in order to reunite our eternal souls with Brahman (God). Therefore, the pursuit of science is pointless. The core of the Buddhist belief (which has splintered into many variations) also asserts that this world is a place of suffering and is simply a stepping stone to nirvana; the pursuit of science becomes a pointless endeavor.

Early Judaism and Christianity were notoriously opposed to scientific advancement; even the ancient Romans viewed the Jewish people as a backward society. The beliefs that they possess some kind of covenant with God lead early Jews to simply remain either indifferent or opposed to advancement as they waited for their messiah to return. Early Christians vehemently opposed any scientific explanation that did not pay lip service to God, no matter the amount of supportive evidence or logicality of the explanation. During the Crusades, people who did not agree with this view were murdered and their land seized in the name of God. During the dark ages and inquisitions, witches and heretics (scientists and philosophers) were executed regularly for not respecting the religious establishment and blasphemy against God.

Today, violent opposition has all but ceased (except for isolated abortion clinic bombings during the 90's) and has shifted to political opposition. Today, laws and Constitutional amendments are the new voice of religious dogmatism. With scientists, homosexuals, the infirmed, and women suffering the consequences.

Women

How any women could ever believe in the Judeo-Christian faiths or Hinduism is beyond me, with the exception of Islam. In both Judaism and especially Christianity, women are essentially portrayed as an afterthought of God and the bane of our existence because of Eve's original sin. Women are viewed as servants of men, especially within the Hindu faith where women are supposed to worship their husbands as gods! Further, the Torah wasn't even allowed to be taught to women.

Hinduism - "Though he be destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure elsewhere, or devoid of good qualities, yet a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife. (Laws of Manu 5:150-155)

Christianity - "11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man." (Corinthians 11:3-8)

Source - "A brief guide to beliefs..." by Linda Edwards

Any self-respecting women and any man who claims to respect women should be opposed to any religious faith that demeans women and relegates them to a status of property and not equals. The Islamic faith, being the progressive faith that it was, regarded women as essentially equal except in certain household affairs, edited the Adam and Eve story to portray an equal amount of blame for the original sin and assigns the mother of the family with the highest level of respect in certain regards. The Hadith spells out just how progressive the Islamic faith originally was supposed to be:

"For the white to lord it over the black, the Arab over the non-Arab, the rich over the poor, the strong over the weak or men over women is wrong and out of place." (Hadith of Ibn Majah) - "A Brief guide to beliefs..." by Linda Edwards

Keep in mind that was written during a time of extreme ignorance and prejudice against women. Today, however, the Islamic faith has been bent and twisted to support the cultural denigration of women, black Arabs and infidels. The Quran doesn't say that women have to wear head coverings, it doesn't say that women should be beaten or killed because they were raped, it doesn't say women should be obedient or the property of their husbands, it doesn't say that a black Arab is unequal or less of a Muslim, it doesn't say that suicide bombing or wanton killing of non-believers is justified. It doesn't say any of those things. The sad fact of the matter is that if Islam was actually followed to the letter, it would be the most progressive religion ever created.

Atheists vs. Theists

Atheism is a relatively new term used to describe those who lack any belief in God. Before the term was introduced, they were known as heretics and blasphemers. In today's society, atheists are still regarded as lower-class citizens and the term has somehow become synonymous with the terms "evil" or "immoral". If you talk to many theists, they are hesitant to make that connection in a formal discussion, but they always seem to come very close to stating that you have to believe in God in order to be a moral person. It's subtle, but can usually be picked up by anyone who's paying attention.

Atheists are told to respect religion, to refrain from discussing or questioning religious faith so as not to offend true believers. Atheists are told to respect established religious morality, to refrain from committing certain actions that offend or violate religious teachings. Once an issue is brought into light that is supposedly decided and/or "ordained" by "divine" scripture, atheists are told to respect that decision and adhere to its tenants. If the atheist refuses to do so, laws are passed to punish them. Constitutional amendments are written and passed to suppress rights and stifle rational discourse, the "mob" mentality and majority rule that democracy promotes becomes an enemy to the minority.

Stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion, pre-marital sex and birth control/condoms including sex education are today's debate between the religious establishment and the liberal/progressive community. Let's make a deal, shall we? All atheists will respect a theist's right to worship whatever gods they wish, but only if theists will respect an atheist's right to question and disregard religion-based morality. We can all coexist quite peacefully, but it requires tolerance which unfortunately is something many theists lack.

Also, the popular viewpoint that religion is somehow necessary for society to function has been overwhelmingly proven false by secular, mostly atheistic societies in Europe, Japan, and parts of China that are thriving under Democratic Socialist and Communist governments. Common sense morals such as respecting human life, respecting personal property and doing good deeds to benefit the human race have already been instilled in society today. Yes, there are many who still fail to grasp those concepts, but the majority of people do. They understand that with or without God, their fellow man should be respected in order for the human race to continue advancing.

I've never once heard of someone who says, "I'm an angry athiest, there is no god which means I can kill whoever I want! Grrrrrr!" In fact, when you analyze the religious demographic of the prison population, atheists are almost nowhere to be found. A sense of morality does not come from a belief in a higher being, it comes from the realization that we are all members of a grand society that should cherish and encourage love and compassion over violence and apathy. God is wholly unnecessary and defunct of any real power over us; we make our own way in the world. Believing that some higher being who is often portrayed in the Judeo-Christian faith as something similar to a kid with an ant farm is a self-defeating and intellectually unfulfilling point of view. Just let it go!

Foreign Invasion and Occupation (essay)

2008-04-29T18:32:00.000-07:00

Look back throughout history and you will find countless attempts of invasion and occupation that were foiled by guerrilla movements. Often times these insurgent groups are operating on shoe-string budgets while the invaders spend exorbitant amounts of money on personnel, munitions, and equipment, and yet they almost always succeed in repelling the invading force. Why is this? How is it that dirt poor insurgent efforts are so successful? And why haven't the invading powers learned their lesson? From the United States' Vietnam debacle to the Soviet Union's failure to capture Afghanistan, both are modern examples of world super powers faltering against guerrilla resistance.

The United States, having failed before at invasion and occupation, seems to have contracted collective amnesia. Any of us can crack open a history book from any library and read about Vietnam and Korea, Mexico and Japan. The U.S. faced so much resistance from Japan, in fact, that she was forced to drop not one, but two nuclear bombs in populated cities in order to beat the Japanese into submission. However, we somehow find ourselves in the midst of yet another attempt at foreign invasion and occupation. The Iraq war has failed on every level imaginable, from the original justification of the war to the horrid military planning that has resulted in countless thousands of innocent victims and no resolution in sight. When a foreign invader is met with heavy resistance from a large portion of the native population, the struggle is always bloody and almost always a failure for the invaders.

Eritrea-Ethiopia

A perfect example of such a failure is the 30-year Armed Struggle between the East African countries of Ethiopia and Eritrea that took place during the Cold War. Eritrea, a former federated state of Ethiopia who had been illegally dissolved by Emperor Haile Selassie into another Ethiopian province, boasted a backwater liberation army that numbered no higher than 80,000-100,000, but still managed to repel an occupying Ethiopian force of almost 500,000. The Eritreans, however, were not only facing an army of superior numbers, but an army of superior weaponry, training, and funding. You see, the Ethiopians enjoyed both financial and arms support throughout the 30-year conflict from the United States, the Soviet Union, and Israel, but were still unable to claim victory.

The conflict started in 1960 when exiled Muslim Eritreans in Cairo formed the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF), an insurgent group who's goal was to expel all Ethiopian forces from Eritrea and gain independence. Emperor Haile Selassie was receiving arms support from the United States in exchange for sovereign rights to a patch of land in Asmara (the capital city of Eritrea) that was used to build a super-secret radio spy station that was used to eavesdrop on the Soviet Union and other Communist nations. As the United States became ever more friendly with Ethiopia's ruler, the Eritrean liberation movement began to blossom as thousands of young, educated Eritreans were signing up for the insurgency. By today's standards, the ELF would be considered a terrorist organization - further proof that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

The Ethiopian royal regime was ruthless and oppressive, Eritrea was raped of it's resources and desired by every military power in the world for it's all-important Red Sea coastline and proximity to the Middle East - the Eritrean people were an afterthought. As such, the liberation movement was for the most part on it's own. The United States continued to provide millions of dollars in weapons and equipment as the Ethiopian army attempted to violently suppress all rebel movements in Eritrea. It was in the best interests of the United States, you see, since Kagnew station (the secret spy station in Asmara) allowed the United States to intercept radio transmissions from all over the world.

However, to the United States' credit, it did eventually realize just how oppressive the Ethiopian royal regime was and began to regret providing arms to the Emperor. All U.S. arms support for Ethiopia finally halted when the Derg, a Marxist loyal group of hard-line military generals, successfully pulled off a military coup and ousted the Emperor.

You may be thinking, "Well, the coup must have been a good thing. How could their leadership be any worse than the Emperor's?" Brace yourself, because the Derg was not only much more ruthless than the Emperor, they also had no desire to reach any kind of peace deal with the rebels. The goal was to either kill all the rebels and crush any hope of Eritrean independence or die trying. The United States did eventually stop aid, but not until after the Derg kicked the United States out. Up until that point, the United States, still taking advantage of Kagnew station, was obliged to continue providing arms support to Ethiopia. The Derg then used those munitions to go on a killing spree in Asmara, one of the worst acts in Eritrea's history.

The Derg systematically ravaged Asmara and it's population, looting and killing any resident they desired. They would open fire on passing minibuses, drag residents out of their homes and shoot them to death or just burn them alive. If they didn't want to use their guns, they would use bayonets instead. Once the capital had been "secured", the Derg moved on to neighboring villages where they burned over a hundred villages to the ground, killing anyone suspected of collaborating or sympathizing with the rebel movement. The killing spree's went on for days, the death toll numbering in the thousands - Asmara had become an oppressive city, the entire city limits and surrounding villages under marshal law; and it was all made possible by the United States.

Once Jimmy Carter was elected president, the United States began to openly condemn what was being done to Eritrea. But they still continued to provide arms until the Derg, lead by Mengistu, began to carry out what would later be referred to as the Red Terror. The Derg would massacre students in Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia, because they opposed the extreme anti-Western, hard-line Marxist ideology that the Derg had adopted. After the massacres, the Derg put in an arms request to the United States that was too high for their Western ally to fill, and so the Derg dropped all relations with the United States and began a two decade long intimate relationship with the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, the ELF was being challenged by another rebel group called the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), formed by Christian Eritreans who were unhappy with the ELF's leadership. The ELF and EPLF began working together in a collaborated effort to gain Eritrean independence, but eventually fell out with each other and fought a civil war for control.

The EPLF would come out victorious, merging with the ELF and taking control of the rebel movement. They were in luck, as Northern Ethiopians in the Tigray province became disenfranchised and created their own rebel movement who's goal was to oust the Derg. They became the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF), and joined forces with the bigger and more experienced EPLF as the two guerilla movements fought side-by-side against a much more powerful Ethiopian army. The two insurgent forces would come to rue the day when the Soviet Union joined the conflict on the side of Ethiopia.

The Soviet Union adopted the belief that they had an obligation to support any nation wanting to join the Communist bloc. So, when the Derg appealed to Moscow for arms support to fight off Somalia, who was threatening from the East, and the Eritrean-Tigray insurgency, who was threatening from the North, Moscow happily obliged as they too noticed the importance of an East African ally just as the United States did.

Thanks to the billions of dollars being sent in arms support, as well as sending hundreds of military advisors and millions in financial aid, the Derg managed to fend off the Somalia invasion (another example of a failed invasion attempt) and repel both the TPLF and EPLF rebel insurgencies, forcing the EPLF to take refuge in the Sahel mountains near the Sudanese border. There, the rebels spent 10 years regrouping and resupplying as they held off wave after wave of Soviet-backed Ethiopian military campaigns, baffling the Soviet contingency as they fruitlessly tried to figure out why they were unable to defeat the rebels.

Moscow continued to supply the Derg with billions of dollars in arms every single year as they desperately tried to break through the rebel stronghold, it was no use. The rebels, on the other hand, were holding their own on a budget so small they had to ration everything, from clothes and food to weapons and equipment. An enormous Ethiopian army, backed by a world super power could not defeat this small, under funded rebel group holed up in the mountains. The ten-year stalemate caused morale amongst Ethiopian forces to drop so low, that high-level commanders were deliberately sabotaging missions because they wanted to see the Derg fall - even if it meant their own men would die.

Finally, in 1988 after Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union, the EPLF made their move. They launched a full scale attack on Ethiopia's Nadew command post in Afabet, taking them by surprise as they defeated a contingent of Ethiopian tanks by blocking their escape in a narrow valley. To give an example of just how brainwashed and ruthless the Derg were, instead of allowing the rebels to capture those tanks and munitions after that decisive victory, the Ethiopian air force was called in instead to completely destroy the convoy - killing their own soldiers as the rebels sat back and watched.

That was the turning point of the 30-year struggle, as the rebel movement began rolling through Eritrea and capturing city after city, village after village, until the Ethiopian army was finally driven out of Eritrea. At the same time, the TPLF in Ethiopia rolled toward Addis Ababa on their way to oust the Derg. But the Derg weren't finished, they continued to plead to the Soviet's to continue sending aid, but as the Soviet Union began to collapse, the Derg was left out to dry. So, the Derg found another way of securing financial support. They appealed to Israel and the United State's Semitic population by dangling the Falasha, an ancient Jewish community based in Ethiopia, in front of both powers as hostages.

In return for allowing Israel and the United States to evacuate the Falasha from Ethiopia, Israel would provide arms to the Derg. It worked, as Israel gave millions of dollars to the Derg in return for the Falasha. However, the TPLF were nipping at the Derg from just outside Addis, and were asked by Israel and the United States to hold off it's entry into Addis until the rest of the Falasha could be evacuated. The Derg, taking advantage of the new Israeli supplied munitions began bombing the EPLF in Eritrea in the vain hope of repelling their advance, but it failed.

The leader of the Derg, Mengistu, hopped on a plane headed toward Southern Ethiopia and told the pilot to change course and head toward Nairobi. Mengistu had just fled Ethiopia and the TPLF entered Addis, ousted the Derg and took control of Ethiopia. The rebels had won, fighting for 30 years against an Ethiopian power backed by the United States, the Soviet Union, and Israel. They had just accomplished the seemingly impossible, they had repelled an occupying force that dwarfed their humble insurgency.

The United States At It All Over Again

Why can't the United States learn from it's passed mistakes? Who in their right mind, having seen how foreign invasion and occupation has failed so many times before, would ever believe that the war in Iraq was and is the right thing to do, or that the war could ever be won? The reason why guerilla resistance is so formidable is because of human nature.

We pine for our land, our heritage, our history. We fight for our land with a visceral determination against any invader because we feel an almost spiritual connection with the place of our birth, the place we grow up in, the place we call home. That connection motivates insurgencies, it motivates rebel movements, it motivates guerilla fighters to never give up and to never stop fighting against their invaders and occupiers.

The sheer determination to fend off anyone that would dare to invade your home is the reason why guerilla movements have succeeded so many times in defeating occupying powers that would outnumber them, out equip them, dwarf their budget and overpower them with more munitions than they could ever imagine. It's also the invading powers' gravest mistake to believe that a war can only be won through military might, the same mistake the Bush Administration has made in Iraq and the reason why the United States has been unable to defeat the insurgency.

Iraq was a mistake, in the same vein that Vietnam was a mistake. It took the United States a long time to realize that Vietnam could not be won, a delay that resulted in tens of thousands of dead soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent victims. Are we going to allow the Iraq war to follow the same course?

Movie Recommendations

2008-04-17T15:15:00.000-07:00

I'm a huge movie buff to say the least. If you asked me to list all the movies I've seen, I honestly would have no idea where to start. The way I approach a movie is I look to see if it stars any of my favorite actors, after that I look at the subject matter, then I look to see who directed it, and finally who produced it. When you take that approach, you tend to recognize patterns in Hollywood. Certain actors are cast for certain roles, certain directors have employ certain film making techniques, and certain producers put their own spin on production.

For example, if Jerry Bruckheimer's name is on the list of producers, 9 times out of 10 you're in for a major Hollywood blockbuster. If you see Spike Lee's name as the director, you should expect an edgy production with a message. If you see George Clooney's name as the leading actor, you should expect a complex plot and top notch acting. However, you can't judge a book by it's cover and you should never turn away from a movie based solely on it's credits. Movies with unknown actors, unknown directors and unknown producers can still blow you away and often do. Have an open mind and you'll come to enjoy movies from all sorts of genres.

Anyway, I'll just make a short list of movies I've recently seen and my personal scores, including their IDMB/Rotten Tomatoes scores as well as links to trailers and reviews:

Michael Clayton
My Score: 8 out of 10IMDB Score: 7.6 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 90%
Trailer: Michael Clayton
Review: 4 stars from Roger Ebert
Extremely well done, it certainly surprised me with how well it flowed from beginning to end. The only complaint I can make is that the plot had the potential to deliver a very strong message, but the creators decided against it. Clooney is brilliant as always and Tilda Swinton holds her own among a very strong male cast.

Rendition
My Score: 7 out of 10IMDB Score: 6.9 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 47%
Trailer: Rendition
Review: 4 stars from Roger Ebert
I've always enjoyed Jake Gyllenhaal's movies ever since I saw Donnie Darko for the first time. He puts everything he has into the movies he stars in and delivers wonderful performances that rarely disappoint. Other notable movies include Brokeback Mountain, The Day After Tomorrow and Jarhead. In this movie, his character is one you can easily relate to and could imagine exactly what is going through his mind as he witnesses the torture of a man who is suspected of terrorism. The movie also delivers a strong message about the CIA and extraordinary rendition, which is yet another example of the CIA infringing on basic human rights.

Lions For Lambs
My Score: 8 out of 10IMDB Score: 6.2 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 27%
Trailer: Lions For Lambs
Review: 2 1/2 stars from Roger Ebert
I personally loved the dialogue in this movie, the debates were poignant and relevant. Apparently not many people agree with me. :P

Southland Tales
My Score: 5 out of 10IMDB Score: 6.0 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 34%
Trailer: Southland Tales
Review: 1 star from Roger Ebert
I don't know what to say about this, it actually got booed at the Cannes film festival according to Mr. Ebert. From my seat as I watched the movie, I saw plenty of potential that was absolutely wasted by a plot that wrapped around itself until it was incomprehensible. I honestly still have no idea what it was about, but I gave it 5 points for making me laugh at times and a very imaginative plot (if not too imaginative).

Beowulf
My Score: 8 out of 10IMDB Score: 6.7 out of 10
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 69%
Trailer: Beowulf
Review: 3 stars from Roger Ebert
Robert Zemeckis is a genius in my book. With a portfolio that includes the Back To The Future trilogy, Contact and Forrest Gump (among others), you would be hard pressed to make an argument against Zemeckis being one of the all-time great Hollywood directors. Now, if you've read the Beowulf story or seen any of the previous cinematic incarnations, then you already know the content of this movie. What sets this one apart is that it was fully computer animated. It's absolutely gorgeous to say the least and you can certainly recognize each actor. Monster violence, sweet effects, random screaming of Beowulf and nudity, what more could you ask for?

That's all for now, I'll definitely be turning this blog post into a series since I watch so many damn movies. So, definitely look out for more movie recommendations.

Universal Health Care

2008-04-11T21:27:00.000-07:00

This ranking shows that the United States health care system ranks 37th in the world behind quite a few third world countries. Why is that? How is it that the richest nation in the world by far would have a health care system ranked below third world countries?

The answer is simple: the private sector cares more about profits than providing a complete service to it's customers. We have given up our entire health care system to private insurance companies and pharmaceutical giants. Corporations who's responsibilities lie with their shareholders, who expect them to increase profits on a regular basis. How does an insurance company generate profits anyhow? They increase profits by denying as many claims as they possibly can, hiking up deductibles and rates which cause people to either rack up massive debts or go without health care.

Our system is completely ass-backwards; insurance companies are not interested in providing health insurance, they're only interested in paying out as little as possible which is the opposite of health care. That's why we're ranked below third world nations -- that's why thousands of people die because their insurance company denied their claim.

What exactly are the arguments against universal health care? We have direct evidence that it works, as countries with universal health care are among the highest ranked countries both in health care quality and standard of living. In a poignant interview with Michael Moore, former British politician Tony Benn tells us exactly why we should have universal health care.

For those of you who will cry that it's related to Moore, realize that he hardly speaks in this interview except to ask the guy questions. Instead, focus on the arguments Tony Benn makes. His arguments are so straight-forward and intelligent that I have a hard time understanding how people can oppose them. So, that's my challenge to those who oppose universal health care, to address his arguments and refute them as best you can. I'm genuinely curious as to why anyone opposes universal health care.

You know, originally the Democratic candidates were all for universal health care (UHC). For one reason or another, they've shifted their views to much more moderate positions while some have outright flipped their rhetoric completely around. First, Obama was supportive of full universal health care just like John Edwards, but now only considers health insurance for children to be a priority and hopes he can pass some kind of UHC policy as president. Hillary Clinton first spoke out against insurance companies and rightfully so, it's a terrible system. Now she considers that a mistake and wants to work with them.

I find this shift in views to be highly depressing. This country needs it, many people want it, so why can't these candidates get it done? The vast majority of people who oppose it are those who currently profit off the status quo, as such they are fighting this thing tooth and nail. I want one of these candidates to step up and get the job done, and it looks like Obama might be the only one ballsy enough to do it.

Uwe Boll - Please stop making movies!

2008-04-11T13:08:00.000-07:00

What can I say about this man - this legendary German - that hasn't already been said? He's a jerk, a douchebag, an asshole, a dickwad, and every other insult that's synonymous with "jackass". Unfortunately, he's the goto guy for movie adaptations of video games. If you're a gamer like myself, I'm sure you get excited when you hear that a video game you've played will be made into a movie. However, as soon as you hear it will be directed by Uwe Boll, I'm sure that excitement turns into a deep depression because it's almost a given that this guy will screw it up.

Short list of video game inspired movies he's made:
Title - Rotten Tomatoes/IMDB Score
House of the Dead - 4%
Alone in the Dark - 1%
BloodRayne - 4%
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale - 2%
Postal - 4.3
BloodRayne II: Deliverance - 2.3

He has consistently produced terrible movies where he often changes the main point of a story from whatever video game he decides to adapt and portrays the cheesiest characters you will ever see. I honestly have no idea how he manages to convince otherwise intelligent people to invest in his movies, and I have no idea what video game publisher in their right mind would sell this man the license to adapt their game into a movie.

Hideo Kojima, the creator of the Metal Gear series, was flabbergasted that this idiot of a director would even think about getting his hands on Metal Gear Solid:

"Absolutely not! I don't know why Uwe Boll is even talking about this kind of thing. We've never talked to him. It's impossible that we'd ever do a movie with him."
Owned. Uwe Boll takes a lot of criticism, but apparently thinks we're all idiots and he's a genius. In response to his continued desire to direct movies, an online petition was created urging him to never get behind another camera again. In response, he claimed that he would in fact stop making movies if the number of signatures reached 1,000,000. Let's hold him to it, shall we?

McCain has a crazy pastor on his side too.

2008-04-08T23:23:00.000-07:00

Pastor John Hagee strongly endorsed John McCain's presidency and McCain happily accepted. Furthermore, McCain claimed he was "honored" to accept Hagee's endorsement. How is it that Obama was crucified for his involvement with Reverend Wright, but McCain only gets a few strongly worded editorials written against him?

"The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ."

"I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was in fact the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

What a guy, eh? Kind of like a fat version of Pat Robertson, only with a much cooler Southern accent. Obama never accepted any kind of endorsement from Reverend Wright and even spoke out against some of the things he said, but McCain is PROUD to accept an endorsement from this man who believes God sent Hurricane Katrina as a judgment against New Orleans. Where is the equality? How does this maniac endorsing McCain look any better than Obama simply attending the church that Wright preaches his hate in? Answer: It doesn't.

Yes, both of these men hang with the wrong crowd, that's for sure. But if I were in McCain' place, as any rational person would do, I would have rejected Hagee's endorsement and immediately spoken out against his hate speech and radical religious views. If I were in Obama's place, the first thing I would have done is stop attending that church. However, failing that I would have strongly spoken out against Wright's hate speech and quickly make the distinction between Wright's political views and his religious preaching as a Reverend.

Unfortunately, I am neither of those men. Furthermore, I'm not even a member of the media, as such my only recourse is to seek out these articles, read them, digest the information, and then dutifully jump on my blog and spew my disgusting liberal rhetoric. Can it still be considered rhetoric if it makes sense?

Crazy Christians Part II

2008-04-07T09:36:00.000-07:00

Don't you just love a good Rick Roll? Well, the crazy family that is Westboro Baptist Church got Rick Roll'd by some dude with a mohawk. I'm sure they had no idea what was going on:

I was tempted to link their website in the blog title, but decided against it. Don't want to give these nutjobs more hits.

Sick? No need for a doctor, just pray!

2008-04-05T11:41:00.000-07:00

I'm sure most of you have heard about the little girl who was dieing of some kind of diabetic ailment and instead of taking her to a doctor, the parents opted to pray for divine healing. Needless to say, the little girl died (if you haven't heard, click the blog title).

Please, someone come up with a valid argument as to why this shouldn't be considered a severe form of child abuse. Sure, the parents believed wholeheartedly that praying to something completely invisible was going to save their child, but children trust their parents to put their well being above all else, that includes religious faith. Unfortunately, Jesus disagrees with that and in a powerful way:

Matthew
35: For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36: And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37: He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

A very sad fact emerges from this story: These people were simply abiding by their savior's word. And that's the more pressing issue that arises from this tragic event, this is what religion does. This is what religion makes people do, and they do it without a single shred of regret as they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ over some mortal doctor. Funny how the mortal doctor could have saved the little girl's life, but Jesus could not (or would not, which is uncharacteristic of an all-loving God).

What kind of punishment should they receive? First, these people should never be allowed to receive medical attention. They can just pray to be healed. Second, all of their children should be taken away immediately and handed over to a more rational guardian. Either that or have them be taken care of by the state until the parents undergo intense re-education and attend critical thinking courses. Only after they pass should they be allowed to be parents again.

Gamestop annoys me.

2008-04-04T20:18:00.000-07:00

So, the other day I attempted to purchase a 1600 Microsoft Points card from gamestop in order to download the new Call of Duty 4 multiplayer maps. I live in Las Vegas where every street is either under construction or packed with traffic, so it's no small feat to try and make your way across town. I had some business to attend to near the Strip, so I chugged along Industrial Rd and made it to the Strip in about 30 minutes. After that, I decided to grab a bite to eat before heading over to Gamestop. So, I bought a slice of pizza and a Pepsi(:P) from some local parlor and headed over to the Gamestop just up the road.

I walk in and ask for the card, I was dutifully informed that they were fresh out. "Not to worry", I thought. "I'll just ask them to call the nearest branch that has them and I'll go pick it up." The lady informs me that the Gamestop 10 miles away (apparently that's the nearest one, sweet eh?) has them available and that they'll set one aside for me. Awesome, so I jump in my car and make my way through the traffic and arrive in about 30 minutes. I walk in and ask for the card that was set aside for me, I was shocked to learn that they had sold it because I "took too long" and that they were now out of stock.

At this point, I was quite angry but I didn't want to make a scene. So once again, I ask them to call the nearest branch so that I can drive over and pick one up. They called a few places and finally found one nearly 15 miles away (almost completely across town) and told them to hold it for me no matter how long I take. It takes me 45 minutes to get there (again, traffic and construction), but I finally was able to purchase the Microsoft Points. All told, I was on the road for over an hour and drove nearly 30 miles just to buy a stupid points card.

Someone explain to me when this became an acceptable form of business? Since when has any business gotten away with such a shortage of stocked product and incompetent employees? Shouldn't they cut back on the number of branches if they're spread so thin? Better yet, since when has any INDUSTRY gotten away with under producing their products in order to not meet market demand, most likely to create a false sense of sky high demand? Had any trouble finding a Nintendo Wii in stores? What about the Xbox 360 at launch? Or how about the PS3 during the launch and months afterward? Do you really believe these multinational billion dollar corporations are unable to manufacture enough of their product to meet the demand?

Of course you don't, you're not dumb. Unfortunately, you don't care and that's why Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft can get away with creating a false sense of demand and Gamestop can get away with incompetent employees and an over stretched stock room. Perhaps they are simply paving the way for 100% pre-order revenue, which is almost guaranteed revenue for them. I guess online shopping is the only way to go, but even then the quality of service is a crap shoot.

Take a look, it's in a book, reading rainboooow!

2008-04-02T19:04:00.000-07:00

WTF I'M IN A MOVIE!!!??!/1

Short video but a good one, I'd hit it.

Hillary's F*cking Obama!

2008-04-02T11:37:00.000-07:00

Pure genius, posted by two fellow blogspot users. One of those videos that will literally make you LOL when you see it.

Crazy Christians

2008-04-02T10:05:00.000-07:00

Personally, I find all religions to be insane, but the Abrahamic faiths are by far the most extreme and violent of all the world's religions.

First it was the Christians who spread their religion through violence and propaganda during the Crusades and the European takeover. Then came the Muslims who conquered the Persian Empire and spread their version of monotheism throughout the Arab world. Lastly are the Jews, who have always been the one's who were oppressed until recently when they were given their own country. Now they've adopted the very same oppressive policies as their Christian and Muslim counterparts. As a result we have seemingly endless violence in Palestine, all because these people believe in a slightly different fairytale.

I happen to live in a Christian dominated society, as such I've been exposed to many more crazy Christians than any other faith. Banning gay marriage, banning abortion, banning stem cell research, rejecting Evolution, opposing sex education, opposing life-saving vaccines for HPV, and general scientific ignorance due to religion. In politics, one must be ultra religious in order to have any chance of winning their respective elections. Sam Harris writes a poignant editorial on the issue entitled The Audacity of Reason where he paints a somewhat depressing picture of the current state of politics. Even in the media, unless it is truly independent, must cater to Christianity in the hopes of maintaining their rating scores. This results in censorship and biased reporting.

Almost every where you go in this country you will run across someone force feeding you the "word of God". Either through random preachers on the street, pamphlets left on your door urging you to attend your local church, and various propaganda spread through media such as music, television, and books. In fact, I challenge you to go through an entire day without being solicited in any of those forms by someone attempting to spread Christianity. Even on University campuses, these street preachers try to convert the academic "heathens" who are too liberal for their own good.

Which brings me to the point of this post, which is to point out these crazy Christian street preachers who gave a group of University of Oregon students some pointers on righteousness. They were trying to save these liberal students from eternal damnation in Hell created by an all-loving God (I can't figure that one out either), and trying desperately to secure their admission tickets to super sweet Heaven:

Here are some other videos for your Christian enjoyment:

Sean Hannity, is that you? - This one most of you have already seen, but it's still a great example of a crazy Christian and also one of the few times Sean Hannity has sounded fairly reasonable.
Police Brutality? - This video was made in response to some preacher claiming police brutality for being asked to leave private property.

What's funny about these vids, is that the people you're seeing truly believe they are righteous while the rest of us are arrogant and barbaric. The irony is crushing...

Whoooooooops!

2008-04-01T16:30:00.000-07:00

Let's say I'm making a speech about illegal immigration from Mexico. I'm actually defending illegal immigrants, advocating for more immigration and pushing for an easier path to citizenship. Unfortunately, in the middle of my speech I use the racial slur "wetback", either as a slip of the tongue or maybe to prove a point about the underlying cause for why so many people oppose immigration. Would you crucify me? Would you pluck out that one slip and denounce me from there without taking into account the rest of my speech?

Sadly, if you answered "no" to those questions, then you might find yourself in the minority. Time and time again, I've seen a simple slip of the tongue get blown way out of proportion by self-righteous asses who act as if they've never said something in error. However, to not sound like a complete hypocrite, I must admit that I've done the same on many occasions , but I always try to correct myself when I do. In some ways it's a reflex, because we assume that the slip was made because that's what the person really thinks as opposed to what they're actually saying.

Unless the sky really is green and psychics actually exist, no one can know exactly what you're thinking. Going back to my illegal immigration speech analogy, perhaps when I uttered the slur I was thinking about all the idiots who use that particular slur on a regular basis. I think about it, therefore I say it even if I didn't mean to. It happens to all of us, but you can't sit there and call me a racist for it. Now, we have to make the distinction between a slip of the tongue and a prolonged tirade. Bustamante's error that I linked to in the blog title was a slip of the tongue. However, what we observed when that Kramer idiot from Seinfeld (don't act like you actually know his real name) kept screaming "nigger" at the top of his lungs is what I consider to be really fucking racist.

Anyway, if you want a great example of what I'm talking about, watch this YouTube video featuring Lou Dobbs:

He almost uttered the phrase "cotton picking", which is obviously a saying with racist origins harking back to the slavery era in the South. What people don't realize is that in current times, that saying has taken on a much different connotation. I'm sure he in no way meant to be racist, in fact if you listen to his commentary there is no doubt he did not mean it in a racist way. But you better believe he's going to take a lot of heat for it.

Barack Obama is a racist?

2008-03-30T01:00:00.000-07:00

No.

The first thing people criticized about Obama's campaign is his lack of experience, but such a criticism is pointless as Obama has shown he can campaign with the best of them. Also, his lack of experience simply means he's sold a smaller portion of his "soul" to special interest groups. The second thing opponents would cry about is that America is not ready for a Black president, but the primaries have shown that to be unequivocally false. The third thing ney-sayers droned on about is that Barack Obama is NOT BLACK ENOUGH! With his White relatives, critics claimed that the Black community would not support him. Now, he has suddenly become TOO BLACK AND A RACIST! Um, what?

His reverend (Wright), who is a douchebag to be sure, does not represent the Obama campaign! Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech was one of the most moving speeches I've ever heard, not only because of the content (racism), but also because he addresses much of the criticism that has been hurled at him by bias right-wing pundits. He should not have to be ashamed for attending a church run by an idiot as long as he doesn't share those views, which he doesn't. He makes a clear distinction between Wright's insane views and his valid arguments that are sprinkled in. Unfortunately, many of Obama's speeches fly right over the heads of most Americans. Hopefully, such nonsense as calling Obama a racist will never gain any traction in the general election.

Listen and learn!

What does "critical thinking" mean anyway?

2008-03-29T22:09:00.000-07:00

A man walks up to you and claims he possesses magical powers. He boasts of seemingly impossible feats such as flying, walking through walls, turning invisible, x-ray vision, etc. However, he can only perform these super-human tricks when no one is watching. If even a single person so much as glances in his general direction, the abilities will disappear. He makes this claim with a religious fervor of which you've never seen, unrivaled by even the most pious of religious leaders.

What is your first reaction? Most people, religious or otherwise, would automatically default to extreme skepticism. You can only use your powers when no one is watching? Why? What gives you these powers? How did they manifest? If no one can see you do them, then how can you prove you actually possess these gifts? Also, if I can't see you perform them, why should I care?

Go to any church, synagogue, mosque, or temple and you will hear the same exact nonsense as the man with special powers, albeit with more history behind it and a fictional book as a reference. Christians use the Bible to prove Jesus' divinity, but what authority does the Bible hold? Muslims use the Quran to prove Mohammed's divinity, but what authority does the Quran hold? These books are arbitrary works of fiction written by men thousands of years ago. Men who believed the Earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the Earth, that the Earth was the center of the Universe, that the Earth's surface was held up above the realm of Hell by enormous pillars.

They had no knowledge that the North American continent even existed, they knew next to nothing of sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, the North and South poles, nothing of the Pacific Ocean or that the Earth revolves on an axis. If you were to resurrect any of the Bible authors in today's world, their knowledge base would hardly be comparable to an idiot child, but for some reason billions of people believe their tales of dragons, gods, floods, plagues, genocides, creation, and magic as 100% truth. Further, these people actually consider it an accomplishment, something to boast about and be proud of. And anyone who doesn't share this absolutely insane belief is a "lost soul".

Critical thinking is a skill everyone possesses, but unfortunately few people actually exercise it. Being skeptical does not mean you have to be a downer, or that you must be a cynic as well. It simply means you NEVER take anything at face value. You look for credible reasons to believe in something, and you must be willing to change your views depending on the evidence as it becomes available. THINK CRITICALLY PEOPLE, SAVE THIS PLANET FROM IGNORANT SUPERSTITION!

My very first blog!

2008-03-29T17:44:00.000-07:00

I decided to create this blog when I came to the stark realization that I have no life. At least, no life outside of the internet. Which is kind of sad in a way, but also empowering since I've become a pro at surfing the interwebs. This blog will include rants on all subjects (lots of them); links to funny websites, blogs, and videos; commentary on everyday happenings around the world including, but not limited to, politics, religion, and porn (if it exists, there is porn of it...no exceptions); and my own personal wacky sense of humor thrown in for flavor.

While reading this blog, you may come to 3 distinct conclusions:

1. This guy is probably a virgin.

2. He spends way too much time on the internets.

3. What a flaming liberal.

I will say this, 2 out of 3 of those conclusions are correct. I'll let you guess which ones, but in the meantime here's some Chocolate Rain!

I'm sorry, I'll never post that again.