yakuza disco: take 2

2006-03-14T18:16:00.001-05:00

dancing with myself

So, is this a big change, or not really?

I am desensitized to nearly everything. I'm going to talk about politics now, but please understand, that's only one small thing. I really don't give a shit about anything anymore.

See, I used to be an idealist.

I used to think that people can change, that people can "wake up" - one year ago, I was practically shouting from the rooftops "AMERICANS ARE STARTING TO WAKE UP!"

Well, guess what?

In twenty years, someone will be shouting "AMERICANS ARE STARTING TO WAKE UP!" from his pathetic little blog that no one of importance ever reads.

In forty years, someone else will.

Sixty years, same thing.

Americans aren't going to wake up. They don't want to wake up. And what do you do when you wake up in the middle of the night, anyway? You roll over and go back to sleep. And um... I'm still tired. I'm going back to sleep.

That is, of course, assuming that we're not all dead in twenty, forty or sixty years. But so what if we all are? Who saw it coming? There could be a nuclear missile heading directly for us and we'd be sitting off to the side, eating chips and thinking "So when is someone gonna stop this missile?" We'll be doing it until it slams into the white house and levels Washington. Then we'll be shocked for a few months and go back to eating chips and watching the news.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

You know what? I really like potato chips.

What's the point in caring? The nation is run by a bunch of corrupt criminals who stay in office because they con a mass of a total fucking goons into voting for them. And the goons outweigh the people who haven't given up on this nation yet - by a fucking lot. They always will. This is not possible to change. You can go ON AND ON AND ON AN ON about how America and it's citizens can change, but it's a lie. Or, maybe not a lie, but at least it's just an error, because America and it's citizens cannot change.

People can say America is becoming more conservative now, after 9/11, but give it a few years and we'll all be a bunch of raving liberals again. Someone will say "SEE! We changed things!" until about five bajillion scandals politically castrate whatever liberal party is in power and conservatives take over again. It's like a game of pong. The changes are so spread out that we actually thing things are changing permanently, but it always goes back from side to side like a ping pong ball. It always will.

I give up. I'm trying not to sound like I still care because I don't want anyone to misinterpret this - I am not just some disenchanted libertarian who realizes he can't do anything to change America/the world. I really just don't care. I don't care about libertarians, liberals, conservatives, communists, etc. I still recognize that libertarianism is the morally correct ideology - that doesn't mean I entirely understand the way every facet of it is supposed to work - and I still base my personal choices on that ideology, but I don't feel like even bothering to apply it to a larger scale. What's the point?

One man can't change the world.

Not the real world, anyway.

I'm going to go watch Superman.

(coincidentally, this is my last post ever - sorry for the delay!!!!)

2006-03-14T18:16:00.000-05:00

2005-09-29T10:35:00.000-04:00

Flight Attendants Offended

According to this article, flight attendants (oops, I should probably call them Naturalized Aircraft Stewards as not to offend) are VERY upset with their depiction in the new Jodie Foster movie.

It's very upsetting when discrimination of this nature can occur in a major motion picture that grosses #1 at the box office on opening weekend. Why do Americans tolerate this outrage? When will the government FINALLY listen to the pleas of Naturalized Aircraft Stewards and include then in Hate Crime legislation?

I mean, can GEORGE W. HITLER please explain to me how killing a Naturalized Aircraft Steward SIMPLY for being a Naturalized Aircraft Steward (while yelling "FUCKING FLIGHT ATTENDANT" at the same time) is NOT a hate crime?

What is wrong with America?

No more discrimination against Naturalized Aircraft Stewards. I'm SICK of this bullshit. They can't marry and the law won't even protect them from hate... Britain and Canada both passed anti-discrimination legislation for this long persecuted minority years ago. Why do we refuse to progress?

2005-09-28T22:27:00.000-04:00

Fun article!

Aside from the obvious incorrect interpretations that this asshole is applying to his "findings", you still have a relatively disgusting piece of 'journalism' to read!

“I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,” he added.

That's the gist of it.

Have fun! See if you can hear the smug arrogance of every statement this fool makes, while you read the article.

2005-09-17T01:05:00.000-04:00

kekekekeke part 2

CINDY SHEEHAN CALLS FOR U.S TO 'PULL OUR TROOPS OUT OF OCCUPIED NEW ORLEANS'
Mon Sep 12 2005 12:42:11 ET

Celebrity anti-war protester, fresh off inking a lucrative deal with Speaker's Bureau, has demanded at the HUFFINGTON POST and MICHAEL MOORE'S website that the United States military must immediately leave 'occupied' New Orleans.

"I don't care if a human being is black, brown, white, yellow or pink. I don't care if a human being is Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or pagan. I don't care what flag a person salutes: if a human being is hungry, then it is up to another human being to feed him/her. George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power. The only way America will become more secure is if we have a new administration that cares about Americans even if they donÕt fall into the top two percent of the wealthiest."

Sheehan is in the middle of a bus trip across America in support of her cause.

Developing...

Hahahaha... oh Cindy, do you ever stop?

Sounds like she needs attention. Where is CNN right now? Demanded... who does this bitch think she is? Her influence is at 0% right now. Liberals are so deliriously, fantastically crazy, how can you not love them?

2005-09-15T22:28:00.000-04:00

kekekekeke

Liberal media is reporting that Katrina is responsible for ushering in the 'return of big government' - why don't these morons realize big government has been here all along?

Fucking liberals.

I'm not even going to articulate anymore. This blog is now no longer a political soapbox for me, now I'm just going to make fun of stupid people.

Anyway, just remember one thing as you read this: every prediction liberals have made since Bush was elected (and pretty much ever, anyway) has been wrong, and this one will be wrong too since Americans are sick of our bloated corpse of a 'system' anyway.

EDIT: Oh, here is my favourite quote from this retarticle:

"With estimates of the federal tab ranging up to $200 billion for rebuilding New Orleans and other storm-ravaged Gulf Coast cities, Bush and his Republican allies in Congress are casting aside budget discipline."

Bush and his Republican allies have budget discipline?

hahahahahahahahahaha

2005-09-14T13:11:00.000-04:00

Allah Converts

Some of you may remember when some looney Muslims said that Katrina was a soldier of Allah when this first started happening.

Well, apparently Allah can't even kill 1000 measly Americans with his hurricane, and he also can't be bothered to defend 10,000+ Muslims from the tsunami last year.

So does Allah care more about Americans than Muslims?

Hahahahhahahaha

Allah - the God of those powerless, powerless as well.

2005-09-12T23:15:00.000-04:00

Schumer, Kennedy - prepare to be TERMINATED

Didn't momma teach you not to fuck with John Roberts?

2005-09-05T01:50:00.000-04:00

I'm in hell.

I died in the hurricane. I bid you adieu, cruel world!

2005-08-17T21:59:00.000-04:00

"If we took a holiday, took some time to celebrate..."

Instead of posting my own thoughts on this article - about the French being unable to afford vacations - I’ll post a few priceless quotes and let the thing speak for itself.

"Holidays have gotten very expensive, and more and more employed people who used to go find that they can't anymore," said Jean Froidure, a tourism expert at the University of Toulouse. He called the trend "very worrisome."

"The vacation is a potent symbol in French society, a visible sign of a certain social standing," Froidure said. "Not going on vacation can cause people to lose confidence not only in their own future, but also in French society in general."
___

“All European nations guarantee employees between four and five weeks' paid vacation a year. The United States and Australia are the only industrialized countries without national minimums on the length of vacations, according to the International Labor Organization.”

The French average seven weeks of paid vacation a year -- two more than the country's labor laws stipulate. They work an average of 1,441 hours per year, compared with 1,661 hours for the British, and 1,824 for Americans, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reports. “

- If I may butt-in here - the French believe that America is successful because of our vicious, dog-eat-dog capitalism? Nah, looks to me like we just work harder.
___

“In the northern industrial Nord-Pas-de-Calais region, authorities have made getting to the coast more affordable, providing round-trip tickets on beach-bound, weekend trains within the region for a symbolic one euro (US$1.24).

The offer, in its third year, cost the regional council euro 835,000 (US$1 million) this year. More than 30,000 people have taken advantage of the program.”

That last one is the punch line. THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY PAYING FOR IT’S CITIZENS TO VACATION!

Bwahahahahahaha!

I must say, I find it rather funny that they haven’t figured out that the reason for this economic slump is because that fucking morons get seven weeks of paid vacation a year. I don’t even get two!

2005-08-17T14:03:00.000-04:00

An apology.

I'm becoming the one thing that I hate the most - a self-victimizing whiner!

Why, you ask?

I keep bitching about "crippling gas prices" - so I pay an extra $5-10 to fill up my tank.

Big deal.

I get paid more than enough for this to not really effect me - so I have to buy one less DVD a paycheck. Big whoop. I make a decent amount of money - this isn't horrible. I'm feeling it lately because I am dead broke, but that'll change soon, and I'll have money again, and gas prices aren't going to be so scary. Does it suck that gas prices have risen so much? Yes - it also sucks that I have to put that extra $5-$10 in the hands of greedy oil executives who are out to seek a profit by bleeding the American people for everything they can get. But I said it myself in my last serious post: I don't have a choice. I can watch my driving habits, try to drive more efficiently (I need to learn how, honestly), keep my car tuned up (get a new air-filter!), blah blah. I need to stop bitching so much about how this effects ME so much as how it effects everyone/everything else.

Yeah, something wrong is happening here. Yes, it's wrong that I have to pay more at the pumps. But I'm just going with this group victim mentality by preaching to the choir - I mean, really, who's going to disagree with me that gas prices are too high?

Oh well - you get my point. Gas prices aren't anything to panic about yet. Now $4 or $5 a gallon? I'll start freaking out.

2005-08-17T12:56:00.000-04:00

Oh, Drudge!

Will you ever learn?

HEIL ANGIE!

2005-08-16T17:59:00.000-04:00

That's it - it's time to start regulating.

I am almost 100% of the time against regulation in any form - but I've decided that sometimes, some things need to be regulated. I'm referring to gas prices, of course.

Gas is something that Americans consume that is entirely unlike other products - gas prices always stay the same. Gasoline competition does not drive prices down - at least not anymore. It drives them up. Why else would a gas station jump it's price a quarter when the station down the street is still pretty low? Now, I understand that gas prices do not necessarily change as a result of competition - they fall according to the cost of barrels of oil (which arbitrarily raise apparently a dollar a fucking day for the last week). But gasoline is not a product that you can simply refuse to use because of you're disappointment with the price.

If I see a computer at Circuit City for $2000 and I know I can find it cheaper elsewhere, then I'll go elsewhere and take my business away from Circuit City. But with gasoline? We are at the beck and call of major oil companies - they will raise prices to whatever the fuck they want, whenever they want. Exxon-Mobil has posted record profits of 32% since this time last year - how interesting, gas prices have risen almost to that exact amount! I can't take my car to the gas station down the street if I want cheaper gas either - it's risen a quarter, just like all the others.

So why are they doing this? BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE BUYING IT! you say. Americans are demanding gas, and they are supplying it, raising the price!

Well, yeah, I guess so.

But it's not like we have a choice - our economy is so dependent on oil that most Americans have to spend $5-$10 a day just to get back and forth to work. So to those applying the principles of consumerism to the current gas situation, exactly what are you suggesting? That if Americans are unhappy with the price of gas, they can stop buying it?

Certainly there are some suggestions that could help out - stop buying so many fucking SUV's and buy more hybrid cars - well, hybrid cars and other gas-efficient modes of transportation are not really ecomically feasible to a large number of Americans (namely ME GOD DAMMIT) - but to suggest that everyone just buy more gas-efficient cars and stop buying so much gasoline is just sort of impractical.

Someone out there will just suggest that the middle eastern oil companies will stop selling to us once we demand they lower their prices, but that's sort of a joke. Do you really think these money-hungry motherfuckers will stop selling to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

EN POSTE: Oh yeah, build more oil refineries in America, kill environmentalists, blah blah fucking blah I don't care. MAKE GAS PRICES GO DOWN GOD DAMMIT GOVERNMENT

I AM SO ANGRY *freaks out*

The government uses it's force for such stupid, trivial bullshit. Why not use it on something that all Americans can agree on, for once?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the Ohio government can END THE FORTY CENTS A GALLON GAS TAX. "But we can't do anything about gas prices vote for us anyway boooohooohooohooo"

2005-08-14T13:25:00.000-04:00

Ride the Crazy Train!

According to Drudge, crazy mother of dead war hero is slipping further into the realm of insanity:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX AUG 14, 2005 08:02:39 ET XXXXX

BUSH PROTESTING MOM CALLS FOR 'ISRAEL OUT OF PALESTINE'; VOWS NOT TO PAY TAXES

Anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, is calling for Bush's "impeachment," and for Israel to get out of Palestine!

"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares.

Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says defiantly: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial."

"And now I'm going to use another 'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail."

The 48-year-old California mom remains tented up in a ditch along the one-lane road that leads to Bush's Texas ranch.

As her protest entered its second week, hundreds of people with conflicting opinions about the war in Iraq descended on the area.

TIME mag reports in new editions on Monday: Sheehan gets support from her surviving son, Andy, in principle, but he recently sent her a long e-mail imploring her, "to come home because you need to support us at home."

Developing...

Clearly, this woman is a friggin' nut. She's making more demands when her initial ones haven't even been met - and the enormity of those demands?

I mean... "Israel, get out of Palestine!"? Um... I really doubt that if George Bush asked the Jews to leave their Promised Land that they'd just say "You know, okay!" We'd probably just have another enemy. Does this bitch think that George Bush is the source of all conflict in the world? He can just snap his fingers and grant this wish?

Yeah, I guess we should just give that unearned land back to those nice Palestinians so they can go back to doing whatever they do (note: murdering homosexuals and women in horrifically brutal manner) and that'll end terrorism!

She's also screaming that she refuses to pay taxes because her son died in 2004. Oops! She hasn't paid them for that year yet - here's hoping she gets her dumbass thrown in prison. Although she'd probably do quite well with an insanity plea, since she's clearly not all there.

Maybe Bush'll have her arrested for stalking. I wouldn't want some crazy person sitting at my gate, just waiting for me to leave my house.

2005-08-12T22:30:00.000-04:00

What Goes Around...

Harry Belafonte now has to back up some of the ridiculously ignorant anti-semitic remarks he made at that rally I posted about a few days ago (SOME JEWS CHOSE TO WORK FOR HITLER!).

"The point was not to attack Jews," Belafonte told the Jerusalem Post. "Sometimes, the Jewish people have laid claim to such a high and pure morality" that they react defensively when attacked. But the history of Jewish people "is a DNA that sits within the entire human family," Belafonte said.

Oh, you mean they're as hypocritical as liberals and left-voting minorities, you stupid asshole?

"Hitler and his regime murdered six million Jews and launched a world war that caused more than 40 million deaths. How can that be compared to current U.S. government policy?" Medoff asked.

One must wonder why any people who claim to be intelligent can hold Belafonte in any sort of high-esteem when the man is clearly a nut. But then, a claim on intelligence certainly isn't proof of ownership.

That Being Said...

I started my new job today. Now I am a murderer.

2005-08-11T00:04:00.000-04:00

You Can't Teach an Old Dog New Tricks

George Bush just approved a $287 billion dollar highway bill that features over $24 billion in spending for well-clouted political partners to spend in their districts in a rather heinous attempt to buy votes for those upcoming 2006 elections! That’s 9% of the total bill and in an amazing example of Republican principle, Representative Don Young of Alaska is taking nearly $1 million of that money for his own state in order to build the most important bridge to nowhere in American history! It will be named “Don Young’s Way” in honor of his amazing service to this totally insane, fucked up country.

Not surprisingly, congress overwhelmingly passed this crime against humanity before heading home for summer break. They’re working hard for the money, aren’t they? THESE ARE THE PEOPLE YOU ARE VOTING FOR, AMERICA!

There are over 6300 “pet projects” in here that politicians are using to buy political influence! But the blame can’t be laid entirely on members of Congress, now can it? Afterall…

"There were a number of members of Congress who wanted a $400 billion highway bill," Al Hubbard, director of the National Economic Council at the White House, said Tuesday in defending the president's decision to accept the bill even though it was $30 billion more than Bush recommended.

"Because of this president, it is a $286 billion highway bill," he told reporters at a briefing following Bush's meeting with his economic team.

THANK YOU GEORGE BUSH! Now we can use that extra $114 billion for research into penguin sex habits! You have truly proven yourself as a fiscal conservative and we love you for it!

Fact: George Bush has spent more taxpayer money than any president in American history. Don’t buy the spin that he’s somehow saving Americans money and lowering taxes - all those taxes he cut? They just went from visible to invisible.

Hey, there’s nothing to help our recovering economy than dumping $300 billion dollars of stolen money down a toilet like this, is there?

Don’t you wish you had that extra few hundred dollars that the government sucks out of your paycheck right back in your wallet? I sure do.

America is being royally fucked by this irresponsible prick. To all the “lesser of two evils” Republicans out there - congratulations, you’ve re-elected the most liberal president in history!

2005-08-10T00:26:00.000-04:00

TAKE 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you ready, America?!

Yakuza Disco is back with the EXACT SAME ATTITUDE AND POSTING FREQUENCY AS BEFORE, BUT A SLIGHTLY ALTERED, BRAND NEW ATTITUDE-DRIVEN BACKGROUND! GIVE ME DONATIONS!

CAN YOU HANDLE THE EXTREMEDOTS.JPG ASSAULT?!

2005-08-08T14:58:00.000-04:00

The Death of Judge Mathis (YAY!)

Apparently, the least influential black figure in America, Judge Greg Mathis (of “The Judge Mathis Show”) has equated George W. Bush with a slave-owner and is demanding that he be tossed in prison for the crime of “stealing the past two elections” (oh really? How did he steal the 04’ election you dumbass?) and “sending our young people to Iraq to die” - woot! You tell it like it is, Judge Mathis!

The Bush administration was equated with past policies of slavery and segregation and labeled "the enemy of our (black America's) progress" by Mathis.

"They shot and missed when they enslaved, segregated and oppressed our people. They shot and missed when they stole the past two presidential elections. They shot and missed when they denied our right to vote," Mathis said.

The first thing this idiot needs to understand is that George Bush is not a member this mysterious “they” that he’s referring to - the Republican party NEVER enslaved, segregated or oppressed blacks - actually, the Democratic party had the most influence when it came to segregation, and were, in fact, the ones pushing to continue segregation during the 1960’s and the early 1970’s, before they pulled a flip-flop that blows John Kerry off the charts and started declaring that black people deserved the equality that their party had been for so long trying to destroy.

An extension and strengthening of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is imperative to ensure black Americans the right to vote, according to Mathis. "The enemy of democracy continues to attack voting rights here, while they try to fight for democracy in Iraq," he said.

What is this psychopath talking about? Can ANYONE honestly say they remember the last time that Republicans (or anyone, for that matter) tried to weaken black voting rights? No one with any power or influence has even suggested that black should be stripped of the right to vote in well over fifteen to twenty years.

The worse thing is, of course, that this maniac shouted these obscenities to a cheering crowd of “victims” - oh well. One more reason to think that black culture has no particular interest in touching base with reality.

Maybe one day black America will take action against the real enemy of it’s own progress - itself.

EN POSTE: There is so much to this insane article that I feel as though I’d be ranting way too long if I mentioned everything, so you can read it here - see the ugly face of true neo-liberal politics. You will be absolutely disgusted.

2005-06-27T09:35:00.000-04:00

Infection!

I'm back! I dunno for how long though. Apathy is eating away at my passion for politics like leeches feed off of the blood of men. w00t.

So Iran is vaccinating it's children against smallpox - particularly those who leave the country for Western nations.

Whositwhatsit?

Why?

Smallpox has been almost entirely eradicated around the world. In fact, the only place that smallpox really exists in anymore are government laboratories (weapons of mass infection!) - it's not like there is any sort of pending smallpox epidemic that anyone should know about.

You know, Iran is acting pretty weird for a country who claims to harbor no ill will toward the United States, and also pretty weird for a country that claims to have nothing to do with the production of WMD's or nuclear technology.

Wow, I've seriously just lost it.

Meh.

My point is, smallpox has a survival rate of 70%. If Iran kills 30% of us, we're going to kill 100% of Iran.

KLSJDFKL

2005-06-20T11:30:00.000-04:00

livejournal

I'm done updating my ace of hearts blogspot blog. I'll still update Yak Diz when my libertarian passion returns. Anyway, that journal is continued at

ace of hearts LJ

All your latest Criss news can be found at that link. ~_^ If you wanted to be added as a friend so you can read the good shit just lemme know.

2005-06-19T18:52:00.000-04:00

When the Revolution Comes...

...your television sets will refuse to work.

The robot revolution begins. I don't know what's going to kill us first - robots, aliens or terrorists.

2005-06-12T21:52:00.000-04:00

Come on, vogue!

I’ve been too busy lately to bitch about how evil politicians are. I wrecked my car, got a new car, had a falling out with someone I was interested in, quit my job, got a new job, been to clubs (don’t really like them), etc. Yeah. Lots of stuff to do. If anyone is interested in writing guest articles or whatever just leave me some lovins’ as a reply to this post. I don’t care how deranged and liberal whatever you want to write is, if I think you’re not insane, I’ll probably post it.

You sassy democrats.

2005-06-01T20:51:00.000-04:00

The Sky Is Falling!

(I couldn't come up with a more clever title, so fuckin' sue me)

I think Bill O’ Reilly is generally a badass. I agree with him more often than not - he tends to be more reasonable than the neoconservative speakers that tend to dominate Fox news - but as I’m watching the show tonight, he’s got a segment about gay marriage. That’s fine - I know his views on gay marriage, and they sort of annoy me, but they tend to be vague enough for me to ignore. However, tonight he implied that, *gasp* - the rate of heterosexual marriages is drastically falling in Sweden since gay marriage was legalized there.

Oh no! That is horrible!

I guess the question that I really want to ask, though, is who fucking cares? Are gay people causing straight people to get married less, or are straight people thinking “Well, if gay people can get married, then there’s no reason for me too!” I hate when people cite stupid studies like this as if to prove some kind of point, when they can’t explain how the two issues are related, or WHY gay marriage causes heterosexual marriage to “fail” - how, in fact, does gay marriage cause heterosexual marriage rates to drop. Because people don’t care about tradition anymore? They feel their marriages are worthless? That is ridiculous. Even if the value of a marriage is somehow diminished by the marriage of another (an absolutely absurd idea, since marriage is a union between two individuals, entirely unaffected by the independent choices of two other individuals), a marriage of diminished value is STILL better than absolutely no marriage, whatsoever. No - the fact that gay marriage “causes” heterosexual marriage rates to fall is nothing more than an excuse.

Does anyone out there honestly believe that a heterosexual man or woman will say “Gays can get married, there’s no point for me too,”? And if so, why does it matter, since these people, presuming they exist (which already means I need to distort my worldview), have no morals or convictions anyway? If someone is so shallow and uneducated that the marriage of two strangers will cause them NOT to get married, then they probably didn’t want to anyway. I mean, there are already worse unions existing than could exist between the marriage of two homosexuals - for instance, J-Lo’s many travesties haven’t caused me to give up on the idea of marriage altogether, although I find her abuse of such a sacred institution absolutely revolting. Why does no one else feel this way? These people spit in the eyes of tradition by marrying four of five times, yet no one is screaming about how this diminishing of marriage’s value is causing them not to get married.

If you have kids who are in their thirties and you ask them why they’re not married, do you really expect them to say “Marriage has no value since J-Lo got married the third time.”

Absolutely absurd. I think it’s about time that religious institutions tried to come up with some serious arguments about why gay marriage should be banned in a secular state.

2005-05-29T22:04:00.000-04:00

The Crime of Hate

Sorry I haven’t been updating lately. Too much shit is going on. This will be short.

Gay.com has a news story that *gasp* reveals how ridiculous the gay agenda is - which is no surprise, since the gay “community” has long viewed ignorance and intolerance as virtues of the most sincere and saintly kind.

"Enacting the transgender-inclusive Hate Crimes Penalties Act sends a strong message that violence against trans people is not acceptable and will not be tolerated in the state of Maryland," said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality.

Shouldn’t the message being sent be something along the lines of “violence against any people is not acceptable and will not be tolerated? Why should beating up some guy in make-up get you a few years in prison while attacking some white guy and taking his wallet will land you probation? This is ridiculous. Yeah, there are hate crimes - minorities commit them all the time. Is it a hate crime when a black guy attacks a white guy for being white? Absolutely not - but the opposite! Oh dear God, someone call in the ACLU!~

The fact is, all violent crimes should be punished equally depending upon the nature of the violence - NOT THE REASON.

"Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the state of Maryland now know that all hate crimes will be equally investigated and prosecuted," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.

I suppose they weren’t being investigated before - the police don’t take brutal attacks very seriously in Maryland, I guess.

Ciao.

2005-05-17T05:16:00.000-04:00

ace of hearts

For those of you who don't know, I maintain three blogs. While you probably don't have access to at least one of them, you may not know about the other one - I never make political posts there and instead just create various articles about my personal life or thoughts regarding other issues that don't involve how much I hate the government. My last update was about the nature of husband and wife. Please reward me with your patronage. ^_^;;

Later!

2005-05-16T20:22:00.000-04:00

Anybody out there?

Helloooooooooo?

Anyone out there reading this regularly? Please respond, let me know there is a reason I'm doing this! Argh.

2005-05-16T13:24:00.000-04:00

Spazzing out.

Okay. This is not going to be an intelligent written update whatsoever. I am going to link you to this article, post some quotes...

"Just five years ago, commissioners passed an ordinance mandating county contractors have a 40 percent minority work force."

and
"Orr said while targeting recruiting to increase diversity is important, "it's not just about trying to reverse racial hiring of the past," but should also include diversity in religion and sexual orientation."

Now I'm going to scream.

WHAT THE FUCK! WHAT THE FUCK DOES RACE, SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR FUCKING RELIGION HAVE TO DO WITH JOB QUALIFICATIONS?!

I FUCKING HATE DEMOCRATS!

Moving on.

2005-05-11T13:20:00.000-04:00

People for the Euthanization of Tame Animals

The truth has come out - PETA, one of the most heinous and belligerent "animal rights" organizations of all time, euthanized 86% of the animals they kept at their HQ shelter in 2003. 86%.

That's a hell of a lot of animals.

This is going on a billboard in the center of New York City. I hope it bankrupts them.

That's all I have to say about this issue at the moment.

2005-05-08T23:34:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan: Another American Idiot

I’ve decided that I’m not through bashing Andrew Sullivan and his idiotic platforms. For a man who claims to be a libertarian leaning independent, a man who thinks the government should have less say in the lives of numerous Americans and who claims to oppose socialism, it’s curious that he would say this:

“For what it's worth, I thoroughly support the idea of means-testing social security benefits (the crude description of the president's proposal). It's an honest way of addressing the looming insolvency of the system, while protecting the neediest. It's nutty to send big entitlement checks to people already financially secure in their retirement. The patent weakness of Paul Krugman's spluttering opposition today is evidence enough of the merit of the president's plan. If Bush can do this, nudge the retirement age up and include add-on personal accounts, he can declare victory at some point. The Democrats' current complacency is, in my view, unwarranted.”

But it’s not nutty to randomly tax the wealthy in order to support the self-serving poor? I guess it’s obvious why so many true conservatives think Andrew Sullivan is a disgrace - he can pretend to be at war with socialist fascism all that he wants, but when he can’t even connect socio-fascist ideas back to the core concept of socio-fascism, it’s relatively obvious that he has no clue what he really believes. My theory is that Andrew “The Socialist” Sullivan (that’s his wrestling name now) picks and chooses his viewpoints arbitrarily when they don’t connect to something having to do with homosexuality - and he does this in order to come off as a “rational moderate” - listening to the “rational arguments” on both sides of the political spectrum and being the arbiter of truth and logic. Unfortunately, he’s not. He’s actually just a jackass.

For the record, Andrew, if the president would dissolve social security altogether (or phase it out, if you will), Americans could create their own ALREADY optional personal accounts and retire whenever the fuck they wanted to. But the government even gets to regulate the lives of Americans now! Well, as long as some homos in Texas are able to pointlessly get married, I guess that’s one of those “freedoms” that aren’t free.

2005-05-07T11:06:00.000-04:00

Live and Let Live?

A virulent homophobic member of the GOP has been outed - a classic example of the way power erodes any sense of principle and feeds only the desire to gain more. Mr. Spokane, a highly influential member of the GOP, apparently said the following to the person that he thought was an 18 year old boy online:

"Remember, Im very closeted. No one knows I like guys. Except the few guys Ive been with and highly trusted," West wrote.
"Its just that the openly gay guys are a little over the top for me. I dont really like the in-your-face attitude some guys have. And the massive political agenda either. I say live and let live. Most gay guys turn me off, too."

While those on the left who will be using homosexuality as a weapon will probably laugh this up (and yet be totally ignored by homosexuals who want to continue believing that democrats are their friends), I think this is rather tragic. What Mr. Spokane said is what most homosexuals that I can tolerate would probably say; homosexual flamboyance and politics are two of the most disgusting things in the world. He sounds like a libertarian. Oddly, though, he practiced fascism:

In more than 20 years in the Legislature, West had initiated legislation to outlaw sexual contact between consenting teenagers; supported a bill that would have barred gays and lesbians from working for schools, day care centers and some state agencies; voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman; and, as Senate majority leader, allowed a bill that would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians to die in committee without a hearing.
As Spokane mayor, West threatened to veto a measure extending benefits to domestic partners of city employees.

Live and let live, huh?

I believe the Mr. Spokane who spoke candidly about what turns him off is probably the real Mr. Spokane (I have no way of knowing for sure, obviously) - but his pursuit of power and money has caused him to ignore the things that he has observed in his own life in order to win the vote by oppressing and degrading even those “live and let live” homosexuals that he claims to be one of.

This lesson will be ignored by almost every media outlet (including conservative ones), because, you see, power is not the enemy, it’s MISUSING POWER! If we give power to the right people, everything will be okay! The left will be yukking it up and making disgusting statements and jokes about Mr. Spokane and the right will be pretending this never happened, aside from a few politicians randomly commenting to the press about this “disgrace” - well. That’s how the media works in America. It seems that the left and right can both agree on one thing - there is no tragedy to be found here!

2005-05-06T12:20:00.000-04:00

A Society of Victims

Lets face it: here in America, everyone is a victim. Christians, Muslims, Jews - they all claim to be victims of religious persecution. Homosexuals? Victims of homophobia. Latinos, blacks? Victims of racism. Liberals and conservatives are equally victims of each other. No one is ever a victim of circumstance - you can’t really have laws passed if you’re a victim of circumstance. No, you must be a victim of persecution!

Being a victim is really in these days - if you’re an upper-class suburban white house wife, you really have nothing to be a victim of (except for, perhaps, SEXISM!). But there’s a solution to even this problem! How do you become a victim, and earn the pity (and money) of others? Why… stick a human finger in your chili at your local Wendy’s!

So it comes as no surprise that our society, deemed a “progressive society” by almost everyone, is indeed complacent, if not entirely regressive in actuality. Who in America is really persecuted? There is one group of people that have been persecuted throughout history in nearly every society - and sorry, Jews, I’m not talking about you. I’m talking about intellectuals and intellectualism. And no, I’m not screaming “I’m a victim!” I’ve not really faced a lot of persecution regarding my observance of truth. But intellectuals in the spotlight have, and continue to do so. Persecution is sort of a last, desperate attempt to shut up intellectuals. It’s usually not required since no one listens to them anyway - how could we all be victims if we’re too busy trying to actually improve this world and our society specifically? If everyone listened to intellectuals, no one would ever extort money from those big evil bigoted corporations! We’d be too busy actually eliminating bigotry to take advantage of it for financial gain.

Our society actively destroys potential intellectuals by claiming children have “attention deficit disorder” and destroying their lives by addicting them to Ritalin (a narcotic in the same class as cocaine) - a disorder that is backed and pushed almost entirely by the money-hungry pharmaceutical industry (which, I bet, your local politician has probably in bed with). What are the symptoms of attention deficit disorder? Well… clearly, not paying attention. But there are plenty of reasons why children don’t pay attention in class. Many children are simply too smart and teachers are too boring - it’s hard to pay attention when your mind is racing at a mile a minute, and most intellectuals will tell you that they’re fast thinkers. If a teacher is moving at a slower pace than you are learning, wouldn’t you get bored and be unable to pay attention, wouldn’t you fidget? Most of you probably have anyway. ADD does not exist, nor does ADHD, or any other versions of this false “disorder” - politicians are in bed with big lobbies and corporations in order to sedate and addict America’s populace to keep it from waking up and realizing that the world around them is beginning to fall apart. While regulation is bad for most companies, lets face it - the government works for those who work for it, and that’s it. It doesn’t work for anyone else - literally and figuratively.

What will it take to finally wake up, America?

2005-05-02T01:33:00.000-04:00

Protecting Womyn Everywhere!
a bitter rant that ends up going nowhere: below

The feminist agenda has succeeded in thoroughly indoctrinating a relatively large portion of the US, and now a 13 year old girl is demanding the right to an abortion. Here’s what she’s said:

“"Why can't I make my own decision?"

"I don't know," Circuit Judge Ronald Alvarez replied, according to a recording of the closed hearing obtained Friday.

"You don't know?" replied the girl, who is a ward of the state. "Aren't you the judge?"

"I think if I want to make the decision, it's my business and I can do that," she told the judge.

Why can’t you make your own decision, you ask? You already made it - you had premarital sex and you’re suffering the consequences. Women do not have the right to an abortion - I’m really tired of hearing everyone bitch and moan that George W. Bush is violating women’s rights. At what point in history has society ever allowed women to have the right to abort children, and why is it that in some random society where it was allowed (I’m sure there was one), it somehow outweighs the thousands of other societies which recognized it for the murder that it was? Where does this inherent right to “choice to abort” come from - the Constitution? The Bible? Where exactly did this idea that women have the right to abort children come from? If women have the right to choose to abort children above the consent of the father, then the father has the right to force women to abort children they don’t want - I mean, that’s the way it should work, since fathers have to pay child support and all. That’s pretty hideous, but that’s what an equal right actually is - but an ‘equal’ right isn’t the type of right that feminists actually want. They want special rights for women - hell, they even want rights to murder babies! Isn’t that special?

You want the right to choice? Congratulations - you had that right when you fucked some guy without a condom (or with, there are potential consequences either way) and you made the wrong choice. Deal with it. Live with the consequences of your mistakes and don’t make your own fucking child suffer for it.

As for the murderous little brat mentioned above, if it’s her own business and her own decision, then she can pay for it herself instead of forcing the tax-payer funded state to put the money down, since she’s a ward of the Department of Children and Families.

2005-04-30T23:58:00.000-04:00

How to Make SNL Worse:

Apparently you only need to hire Laura Bush on as a writer, because her pre-planned ‘interruption’ of a Bush conference is nowhere near as funny as Jimmy Fallon doing a shitty impression of Adam Sandler doing an even shittier impression of an actual comedian. I guess the Bushies’ references to Desperate Housewives and Sex In the City (as the Bush twins so wittily mentioned in their outreach to youth voters too stupid to vote based on issues instead of on cultural awareness) is meant to show America that hey!, aside from allowing politicians to rob us blind and lobbying to the lowest common denominators to win votes, they’re just like the rest of us! It’s too bad I can’t vote for George W. for a third term, because this latest show of incompetence and carefree idiocy has really won my heart. Hey Laura… you go, girl!

The Beast From the East!

Iran is threatening us once again - well, indirectly at least. I guess they don’t like Kim Jong Il being such an attention whore. Why do we even play games with these rathole countries by allowing them to pretend they have some sort of control over us? Oh, so you’re building a nuke? Would you like to look over some of the few thousands of nukes that the US is in possession of? Don’t worry about visiting, we’ll drop it off around noon tomorrow.

Help me!

My CD burner no longer works properly. It fucks up every CD I try to burn, always around a third of the way through the CD. The song stops midway through, but the track keeps playing, and then the rest of the songs either do that or they don’t play at all. They stay at 0 seconds. Does anyone know the name of the government agency I can contact to get compensated for this? I’m a tax-paying American citizen! Why should anyone be FORCED to deal with this problem? If you can’t help me with the legal aspect of this travesty, can you at least give me some suggestions as to what might be wrong with it?

2005-04-26T13:16:00.000-04:00

Glass Houses Bring down Property Values

Please bear with me - I am sitting here in agonizing pain as my scalp feels as though it’s about to melt. I am never dye-ing my god damned hair again (that’s a lie) - THIS IS SO PAINFUL. Anyway.

Politicians are going crazy trying to patch up any ethics violations that they may have perpetrated, and it’s really quite hilarious. Here are some of my favorites!

“Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) wrote to the Federal Election Commission on April 15 to report that he had discovered that the Washington restaurant Signatures had not charged his credit card -- as he said he had directed -- for a 2003 fundraiser for 16 people that cost $1,846. The event was hosted by Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist and part-owner of the restaurant who is now under congressional and criminal investigation for his handling of millions of dollars in fees from Indian tribes. Abramoff was not at the event. "I never thought about this event again until it was brought to my attention very recently that no payment or reimbursement for the event has ever appeared on our FEC report," Vitter wrote. He wrote to Signatures at the same time, directing the management to "charge my credit card today."

Hahahahaha! I hope this costs him his next election.

“In another case, an aide to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had not reported a 2004 trip to South Korea until a Washington Post reporter asked her office about it. Eddie Charmaine Manansala, Pelosi's special assistant on East Asian affairs, filed a disclosure form for the $9,087 trip a few hours after the newspaper's inquiry and sent a note to the ethics committee saying, "I did not know I was supposed to file these forms and I apologize for its lateness."

This part, though, is the most ridiculous:

“House Republican aides said yesterday for the first time that they believe they will have to reverse or modify the ethics rules that were passed on a party-line vote in January and have caused Democrats to refuse to allow the ethics committee to organize.”

Is it just me, or are the republicans changing the rules on just about everything that negatively effects them now that they’re in power? I mean, filibusters, the ethics rules… isn’t this abuse of power? Well, duh.

“"Every time we go down there to check on something or refile something, we have noticed someone is going through our file," said Jason C. Roe, chief of staff to Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). "Some people are just resigned that everyone is going to get kicked in the teeth while this goes on."

Boo-hoo. Poor republicans are paying for their crimes. Such a tragedy.

At least they’re taking out the democrats while they’re at it. But I think that most Americans will realize that, hey, they don’t really care about ethics violations if someone in their own party is performing them! What a sad state of affairs.

2005-04-22T22:47:00.000-04:00

Content With Apathy

When it comes to politics, Americans are pretty content with the shitty hands that the government keeps dealing them. I mean, why are Americans focusing on the issue of filibusters for Supreme Court Justices instead of the fact that they're not voting on Supreme Court Justices themselves? "Democrats should not be filibustering to prevent qualified people from being nominated for the Supreme Court!" Oh, really? Why should democratic politicians have the power to put unelected officials in office, anyhow?

Why shouldn't the American people be voting on Supreme Court Justices instead of having the same unelected people dictating the fate of America for often-times 20+ years at a time? Everyone says "Oh no, if we get a conservative/liberal judge in the Supreme Court then we're screwed for decades!"

Ignoring the fact that politicians have already been screwing you for decades, you're still correct - it's obviously bad to have someone who disagrees with your entire worldview possibly in charge of various aspects of your life for decades to come. But why isn't the obvious solution quite that obvious to Americans? Is it because public education has been brainwashing our children for the last 50 to 60 years? Is it because the media continues that brainwashing after we get our ridiculously expensive college degrees or absolutely worthless highschool diplomas?

I can't decide, but I don't think it matters because the end result is the same: Americans are being programmed by the media and public education, both controlled by power-hungry politicians, and even though the real answers are so obvious that anyone can see them if they truly look, it's apparently pretty hard to take those blinders off and step outside into the sunlight.

Eventually Americans are going to wake up and call for some real answers, but right now we're just too busy watching American Idol and downloading celebrity porn to really care.

2005-04-22T09:16:00.000-04:00

Politicians Have Ethics!

Or at least, that’s what they want you to believe. Luckily, I don’t think anyone’s buying it.

What I do find amusing, however, is that it was relatively easy to turn the tables on Nancy Pelosi and the hypocrites just like her, as the GOP is now trying to crucify her the same way that the DNC has been trying to crucify Tom DeLay for the past few weeks (obviously in retaliation for his comments made during the Terry Schiavo tragedy) - but alas, the tables have turned, and we now know that all politicians are like children poking a rabid dog with a stick. Don’t they see how this house of cards can easily come tumbling down?

“Oh, you’re saying our guy is unethical! Well your guy is unethical!” “Our guy is unethical? YOU’RE UNETHICAL!” “Uh, so are you!”

This is what started the retaliation:

Meanwhile, Rep. Tom Feeney, Florida Republican, yesterday became the latest to be ensnared in the escalating bipartisan hunt for ethical lapses in congressional travel.

The democrats were actually stupid enough to try to pick off another republican? That’s just absolutely retarded. They’re just as guilty as the GOP of lobbyist-funding, so why would they go about their business as though the GOP is not going to point this fact out ?

I’ve heard people say things like “Well, the DNC does it as well, this is a normal thing for all politicians!” as though that somehow excuses Tom DeLay and the other GOP politicians being attacked by the equally heinous DNC. Yeah, it is true, all politicians are easily-bought scumbags, but that doesn’t mean it’s suddenly okay. Tom DeLay should pay for his unethical actions, as should Tom Feeney, as should Nancy Pelosi, and for that matter, so should George W. Bush, Howard Dean, John Kerry, John McCain, and every other politician you can think of. Does anyone out there really think that these people are innocent of being unethical?

If we’re going to crucify someone, I think we should do it Roman-style and string up every single one of these assholes.

2005-04-19T23:00:00.000-04:00

Emperor Benedict XVI!

Very interesting.

2005-04-17T19:28:00.000-04:00

Use the Force

Prepare, young padawan, for I am about to become a total nerd.

I was having a discussion with Michael earlier today when I decided that intellectuals are like Jedi. They're few and far between, but when you come across them, it's obvious. Now, thus far, I have encountered no Sith. Perhaps a few Sith padawans, but never any actual Sith. But I know that the Sith scourge has not been wiped from the face of this planet. Show yourselves, Sith! We will duel.

The libertarian intellectuals are the Jedi, and the socialist intellectuals are the Sith. I've only ever met a few socialist intellectuals in training, but their dark masters have not yet been illuminated by the glow of my lightsaber. Of course, there are commoners who try to use a lightsaber as well - they are always cut into shreds by their own ignorance of it's use, however.

Unfortunately, we are currently living out Episode III right now, because the Sith are attacking us in droves and the Jedi are being killed off in various different ways. Whatever shall we do!?

Michael and I just decided that Karl Marx is Anakin Skywalker - a man with good intentions led to the dark side - Hitler is Darth Maul - an evil man with evil intentions - but who is Darth Vader? His master, Darth Sidious, is obviously just Satan. But... after that, I don't know where to go. HILARY CLINTON IS DARTH VADER.

I'm insane.

My lightsaber is violet.

2005-04-17T18:31:00.000-04:00

Thriller!

It should be clear to everyone in the world following this case that the woman who accused Michael Jackson of molesting her son is a terrible liar. I've thought from the beginning that she's been lying - she is incredibly hard to trust given her past history of lawsuits and lies, and now, the jury that already thought this case was a laughing stock knows that she's nothing more than a blubbering thief, a con artist of the worst kind - the kind who will tear down a man's life, ruin his reputation and put him in prison for some financial gain and notoriety.

To put it bluntly, what a whore.

Now, I don't believe that Michael Jackson is normal by any standards. It's certainly questionable that he sleeps in the same bed with children, and it's even weirder that he admits it to the world in a documentary (the documentary that has brought about this recent downfall). He's fucked up in the head. But what kind of case do you have when the prosecution can't even make Michael Jackson look like a paedophile?

One observation that I've noticed with this case is that the liberals just want to skip the trial and put Michael Jackson in prison. Whether the headline shrieks "END THIS CASE NOW, PUT THE WEIRDO IN JAIL" or some random jackass just claims that "it's obvious that Michael Jackson is guilty", it just goes to show that liberals "support" of the Judicial system in the recent Terry Schiavo case was nothing short of disingenuous. Liberals don't support the United States, and they certainly don't support it's judicial system. Whether it's Elian Gonzales, Terry Schiavo or Michael Jackson, the only thing that liberals are consistent about is their inconsistency.

2005-04-15T09:16:00.000-04:00

Border Patrol

That’s it. I officially hate Mexico.

The President of Mexico, Vincenzo Fox (I believe that’s how you spell his name), is apparently allowing the Mexican military to help illegal aliens get into America - hell, allowing? He probably ordered it. American money sent back to Mexico by illegal aliens is a huge revenue for our “friends” in the south.

Mexico is like the guy who comes to your house to hang out and ends up stealing some cash out of your wallet when you’re not looking.

Except Bush knows this is happening and he’s not doing anything about it. Why did it take volunteer American minutemen to stop 141 illegal aliens at the US border patrol could not? In fact, why is the US border patrol virtually useless? Why is it that it’s so easy for illegal aliens to get welfare and social security benefits?

Here’s a fun quote from the article from a Mexican consulate in Arizona:

“Just prior to the launch of the Minuteman Project March 30, Miguel Escobar Valdez, Mexican consul in Douglas, Ariz., said the Mexican military was bracing for possible violence on the border.

"The Mexican army is on alert," Escobar said. "Also, law enforcement will be vigilant because the situation is very volatile. This is because, I have to say it, there are violent and radical elements on both sides of the border."

The minutemen are violent and radical? Yeah right - if protecting the state from foreign invaders through nonviolent means is “violent” then 2+2=5. A particularly “violent” minuteman apprehension happened when a dehydrated and starving Mexican alien stumbled into a church being used by the minutemen and was fed, properly clothed and kindly deported back to Mexico.

So evil, these radical minutemen!

The funny thing is, these Mexican criminals - and I’m referring to the Mexican consulate and others like him - are strong liberal allies. Why? Democrats have been pushing for years to get illegal immigrants to vote, primarily because democrats love giving American money away to minorities to win votes based on their platforms regarding social security and welfare. Illegal aliens will almost always vote democrat.

Can someone explain to me what’s going on here?

I hold the same position as Sean Hannity when it comes to immigration - I believe everyone in the world should be allowed to come to America (well, almost everyone) - but if they’re coming here, they need to do so legally.

I say it’s time we adopt a zero tolerance policy for illegal immigrants, start heavily policing the border, and maybe we should deport Miguel Escobar for allowing harm to repeatedly come to our nation.

2005-04-10T10:42:00.000-04:00

The Phone Call

I got a telephone call at work yesterday. Lissa answered the phone, and a look of shock came over her face. "Criss... it's for you... it's... the President."

I answered. "Hello, Mr. President."

"Hello, citizen. I will avoid the un-necessary and cut right to the point. America needs you. America needs you or it's going to be destroyed."

"Yes, Mr. President, I'm well aware."

"Good. We are flying a plane to Tri-County Mall to pick you up right now. You must come to Washington immediately. We will discuss what to do next when you arrive."

"I understand."

"Remember, Criss, one very important thing... any one of them could be an alien. Don't trust anyone except the man in the red suit."

"Oh. I thought you were talking about the imminent social security disaster, rising dropout rates and the effect of political lobbying on the economy."

"Hah! Those aren't problems, you silly. Now go wait for the plane."

2005-04-07T12:05:00.000-04:00

Homosexual Liberals Endorse Murder

I couldn't think of a better title.

After reading Drew’s ridiculous defense (well, it was really just the follow sentence: Islam is a religion peace!) of Islam as a “religion of peace” that could show Christian fundamentalists a thing or two about co-existing peacefully, I began to ponder on a subject which my mind has been directed more than a few times: why do homosexuals defend their enemies? Whether I am reading an “article” on gay.com about one gay black man’s respect for Louis Farakkhan or Drew’s retarded post about how Islam is peaceful, I can never understand why gay people defend their enemies (the ones who would actually like them murdered) over their other, less-violent enemies, THE EVIL REPUBLICANS!

In nearly every Islamic country in the world (except Iraq, hahahah!), the punishment for male-on-male homosexuality is death, and the executions aren’t fun little syringe-in-the-arm deals either. Nope. Some of the ways in which homosexuals in Islamic countries are murdered:

Drawn-and-quartered (I shit you not)
Decapitation
Hanging
Stoning

Those are just a few of the fun ways that the homosexual “problem” is dealt with in Iran, Syria and other Islamo-fascist countries. It’s also interesting that while Christianity suits itself to live in modern times, since it’s basically a religion that is constantly modernizing itself, Islam is a religion that wants us living in the Stone Age as Mohammed lived. This religion does not evolve itself - it tries to devolve the rest of us. Why have Islamic countries - sitting in a land that was originally called the CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION - not quite become the economic juggernauts that the United States and Japan have become? I mean, they have every tool at their disposal - they control a large quantity of the world’s oil (one of the world’s most needed and important resources of all time).

It’s pretty much because they’re fighting all the time.

All.

Of.

The.

Time.

Is this just a coincidence? Why is it that when liberals mention that the Middle East is constantly in turmoil that they forget to mention why? It’s Islam. It’s the Koran. This isn’t idle speculation, it’s a proven fact. The core reason of almost every skirmish in the Middle East is based upon some ridiculous land inheritance right or inconsequential interpretation of this stupid ass book that has caused more pain and suffering in the world than two Christianity’s combined. Fuck Mohammed, fuck Islam, and fuck the homosexuals who defend those who would have every homosexual in this world murdered (that includes you, Drew).

Maybe when homosexuals stop defending murderers and rapists over republicans, the rest of America will start taking them seriously.

2005-04-06T19:21:00.000-04:00

Phobohomia

I bash homosexuals so often that I forget how truly homophobic some people are. While searching the web for execution statistics of homosexuals in Iran, I came across a forum with the loveliest little fascists… here are some fun quotes.

“Since you missed the point.....
Homosexuality is NOT tolerated in many places...3rd world or 1st world.
In many countries, they are simply "put down" , the same manner in which a Rabid dog is dealt with in N. America. A sick being. Time to put it out of its misery so that it cannot harm others. 3% of the total population is degenerate, and fighting for "acceptance"...No. It is not acceptable. It is repulsive. The underlying agenda is the problem....the little dirty secret that they won't come out of the closet with just yet. [ 25% and over of all the child molestation cases were at the hands of "homosexuals"...those stats are real. That info and link was posted previously]

The children. <-----That is the goal. Man/ Boy love and all the filth that goes with it.”

(What about the dykes?)

"Of approx. 200 People I know on a personal basis from all walks of Real Life, none would associate with, except perhaps at 'arms-length' in Business, with any homosexuals, nor with those that support them. The 'Disgust' Factor will always override any 'Homophobe, Bigot, Hater' label-garbage their Public Relations Firms spew out for them. Its called an intuitive deep-down correct sense of the Natural Order of Things, the way Nature had intended Things to be, something completely lost to those not excessively intelligent by parroting back 'Phobe' PR Jargons. … I'd say they do not wish to be associated with Deviates & Perverts. Plain and simple. Its called an intuitive deep-down correct sense of the Natural Order of Things, the way Nature had intended Things to be,"

“Here are some FACTS:
Pedophilia and homosexuality are BOTH sexual preferences.
There are plenty of images of naked pre-teens that are completely legal.
You can be a pedophile without breaking the law.
You can be a pedophile without having non-consensual sex.
Now if a male gets off and masturbates over naked pictures of men is he a homosexual?
If a pedophile gets off and masturbates over naked pictures of children is he still a pedophile?
The answer to BOTH questions has to be yes.
Now the homosexuals and those that support them will argue against this comparison but the facts are they are BOTH sexual preferences and they BOTH require CHOICE to act upon them.”

(This idiot fails to realize that heterosexuality applies in exactly the same ways)

I can’t go on. I generally just ignore any claims of homophobia because they’re shouted by whiney, self-victimizing homosexuals and are typically unfounded. But then people like these ones come along. I am truly disgusted.

2005-04-03T20:43:00.000-04:00

The Pope Died, and Americans don't care!

Well, at least that's what Matt Drudge is implying.

Every time I think that he may be not-so-much of a tool, he goes and proves me wrong by making dumbass comments like this on his website:

"# 1 MOVIE IN USA WEEKEND POPE DIES 'SIN CITY' FEATURES A CARDINAL AS CANNIBAL, IN LEAGUE WITH A SERIAL KILLER WHO READS THE BIBLE, A CROSS IN JUST ABOUT EVERY SCENE... MOVIE FEATURES BRUCE WILLIS RIPPING A MAN'S PENIS OFF..."Yes, Matt - it's clear that Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez wanted to portay the following ideas: all cardinals are murderers, all serial killers are fanatical Christians, crosses are powerful symbols (wait, that one is true!), and serial killers/rapists deserve absolutely no sympathy (I personally don't have a problem with that one!).

This movie was clearly about corruption, and the fight of individuals to protect themselves against that corruption (well, the second vignette was more about protecting a corrupt group from corruption that would hurt them, but still).

It's clear that Matt Drudge keeps randomly losing focus with reality - only a pandering idiot would act as though Americans went to see this movie in spite of the Pope, or think that Sin City is somehow anti-Christian. I always wondered why images offend some Christians, rather than the ideas that those images are supposed to represent... I guess that the images aren't really offensive at all. But just like the politicians he so highly supports, even Matt Drudge must pander to some of the partisan goons that help pay his bills.

2005-04-01T03:10:00.000-05:00

Luke Skywalker, Frodo Baggins... George Washington?

Liberals are a much bigger threat to this country than the GOP, although the GOP is becoming more actively socialist with every passing day. Maybe the reason I hate liberals so much is just because I have to deal with more liberals, but I think it's more likely that the media is saturated with leftist nutjobs. The internet is filled with pseudo-intellectual liberal elitists, and I see a hell of a lot more of them than I do pseudo-intellectual conservatives. Most conservatives I see arguing conservative viewpoints are basing their beliefs in reality. The GOP is not the republican party, but unfortunately, the DNC IS the democratic party, at least in terms of ideology. Most republicans disagree with the way the GOP is handling nearly everything except terrorism. But democrats? They're such drones, they'll believe anything some shithead like Howard Dean mutters.

So this - Tom DeLay, to be crucified by both democrats and republicans for being “unethical” in his dealings with special interests, is about to see the shit hit the fan. Politicians are such bullshitters - they're all lobbyists and special interest caterers, how dare they act like Tom DeLay is unethical? You want an investigation of ethics? Lets investigate every fucker in political power right now and throw the cheaters and liars out of this country forever. I am so sick of politicians acting like they serve the interests of the people. I am filled with a seething rage against almost all politicians.

I think people anthropomorphize the government too much.

1 - It's certainly not "my" government, I didn't elect any of these motherfuckers.

2 - The government is a collection of individuals, and people (citizens) can take people (politicians) out of power. At least that's the way it is here in America.

The government only exists because the people allow it to exist, so we need to wake the people up and re-create the government the one way we KNOW it will work, and the one way it worked all the way up until the stock market crash and the "new deal" - republicans and democrats can go fuck each other in the pits of hell for all I care. I don't want to vote for republicans OR democrats, I want to vote for GOOD PEOPLE. But no one ever really cares about that anymore, because public education is killing intellectual America. It is murdering it. If you ever have any children, I BEG you, do NOT send them to public schooling! If you want your child to achieve anything worthwhile, if you want your child to think for himself, then please, for the love of God almighty, send him to a private school. Public school creates idiots and ignorant people who get buried alive by the mentality that "one vote can't change anything" - as a result, the only people voting are partisans and suckers (what‘s the fucking difference, anyway?).

Knowledge will save us, but knowledge doesn't spread itself. Knowledge is food, but politicians have tricked Americans into thinking that they have the food we need and there’s nothing to really worry about (social security and medicare are two perfect examples of this).

To democrats: I know you hate the way big businesses run America. But big businesses have power because politicians get in bed with them. You need to take away the power from politicians and you take away the power from big business and special interests.

To republicans: I know you hate activist judges and minorities fascistically forcing their beliefs and ideas down the throats of the rest of us, so why do you vote for socialist republican “conservatives” who are really only interested in keeping you powerless? You need to take the power away from murderers and liars and put it back in the hands of the American people, where it was supposed to be the entire time.

Libertarians will never give absolute or incredible power to an individual person or a big business because once they do, they stop being libertarians, and once they stop being libertarians, Americans revoke their mandate (afterall, how could a libertarian ever get elected without a popular public mandate?).

The socialist parties in power keep third parties suppressed by campaign finance reform, and they also refuse to allow third parties even into the debates. John Kerry vs. George Bush? Who cares? Neither of them can fix this country, so why would I want to watch two lawyers debate over how to construct my house?

Power is so corruptive and corrosive to the human soul... time and time again people see this idea being played out, whether it's through big movies or books like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, but no one FUCKING GETS IT. No one understands that too much power is evil. People say "those movies were great" they think about what they meant, the leave the theatres feeling enlightened and smarter, and then they don't do a god damned thing about it. And why not? Well... "One person can't change anything." It's not easy for Luke Skywalker or Frodo to destroy power, and it wasn't easy for George Washington for that matter, but in the end, the power of the human spirit, collectively massed and aimed at the right goals, can achieve nearly anything.

You, the individual, can’t do it alone. But there are people out there willing to help you, even if they don’t know it yet. The power of the truth is on your side, and believe it or not, the truth has the power to ultimately convince everyone.

No, you can’t do it.

But we can.

The US to be obliterated by tsunami… in 2 years.

According to a very reliable source (broken link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1111980180248 (that’s sarcasm for those of you don’t know me), Father Allah is going to destroy the United States with a tsunami apparently more powerful than the meteor that created the grand canyon in about 2 years.

Yeah right.

Allah is such a kind and caring God that he's going to kill millions of Americans for something that their ancestors did (because, you see, this is a punishment for the way that Americans treated blacks and Native Americans when we first got here). He didn’t punish the actual perpetrators of the crime - that wouldn’t fit in with the Koran’s consistent theme of punishing the innocent - he just waited a couple hundred years to smite us all. Wow, Allah is a really unfair asshole.

Allow me to utilize my God-given right of free speech (a right that the Koran doesn’t allow for, really) to offend people with the truth: I'm sick of this evil religion, and I think it's about time someone flushed the shit that is Islam down the cosmic toilet.

Hilary Clinton is a whore

Well, a media-whore anyway. She’s gearing up for attacks from the “vicious right wing attack machine” - luckily the vicious left wing attack machine, known by most Americans as the media, almost never needs an oil change.

2005-03-29T23:19:00.000-05:00

A Voice and a Vote.

It appears that the IRS has determined Americans owe the U.S. government about $300 billion dollars. Some hilarious quotes from the article:

"Even after IRS enforcement efforts and late payments, the government is being shortchanged by over a quarter-trillion dollars by those who pay less than their fair share," said Mark Everson, IRS commissioner. "People who aren't paying their taxes shift the burden to the rest of us."

The government is being shortchanged? What do I owe the government for, exactly? I mean, I paid my taxes, as I don’t want to be coerced into not paying them (I’d hate for the IRS to brutally throw me in prison), but most of the things I paid for were things I never requested in the first place. I didn’t request special interest taxes or the new Wal-Mart parking lot - in fact, most of the shit I’m paying for I actively oppose. Why do I owe the government money to give to Wal-Mart, anyway? Why do you? Why does anyone? Wal-Mart is one of the most successful businesses in this country (if not the most successful of all time) - why do they need government grants? Corporate welfare- the republicans probably pushed that one through.

Here’s the real kicker, though:

"People who aren't paying their taxes shift the burden to the rest of us."

Yeah, right. If everyone were complying, the government would just raise taxes anyway. There’d be more special interests to feed money to. It’s been happening for over 70 years, why would it stop now?

You put these people in power. You can take them out - all it takes is a voice and a vote.

2005-03-25T12:33:00.000-05:00

The Savage Nation

When I'm not listening to Outkast, Britney Spears, 50 Cent, or whatever, being billboard slut I typically am, I listen to talk radio. I actually listen to political talk radio about 75% of the time I'm in the car. I listen to conservative talk more than liberal talk for two reasons (though I'm not really a conservative): 1) Conservative talk-show hosts are less oriented towards statist ideas, and thus provide a more intelligent and overall realistic examination of world events, 2) Liberal talk shows are snooty and extremely dull.

My favorite talk show of all is The Savage Nation, with its wild, intellectual, firebrand host, Michael Savage. He's not a conservative, per se, but a survival-centric nationalist. That identification is difficult to explain in a few words, so I'll briefly reveal that he's a registered independent and moderate statist. I agree with him often, although usually when he's deriding other people's views, and not so much when he expounds upon his own. He's the only guy on the radiowaves that isn't saying the same, mainstream googly-glock with different shades of eloquence (not that you don't need the typical mush from time to time). He is a brilliant, radical man, and he simplified the Terri Schiavo fiasco for me. I'll try my best to condense and relate that knowledge to you, because it completely stopped any vacillation I experienced on the matter of her life or death by starvation:

Can you prove that a conversation was had between this man and his wife, one where she gave her explicit consent to any such practice of assisted suicide on her behalf? No, you can't. Is there a motive for him to want her dead, or any question of that possibility? Yes, there clearly is, and if there is any doubt, one must err on the side of life. Michael Schiavo already did everything he could to degrade the quality of life that she could have, and now he is successfully starving her to death.

I read Boortz's letter (a Libertarian), and considered his thoughtful idea that Teri Schiavo's soul is being needlessly trapped inside a body that no longer functions (although that is arguable, and even possibly irrelevant in a sense). He suggests that her family was simply and unnecessarily prolonging her inevitable escape from this mortal coil and into paradise by attempting to retain her so-called "vegetative state." Right as I almost began to change my mind with these thoughts, I realized, "what does his subjective, Judeo-Christian influenced belief about a soul have to do with anything at all? Who is to determine what quality of life is worth living?"

I marvel at the fact that secular socialists and those who agree with them have decided to claim that the pro-life movement is going to delay her spirit from entering Heaven and that the government is over-stepping it's dutiful reach in this affair! Furthermore, they are starving a weak, unfortunate woman to her death by a process of nutrient depravation that has been deemed intolerably cruel and unusual torture to captured Al Qaeda terrorists. This sort of disorderly inconsistency is not intellectually or ethically tenable.

It, of course, is more important to the Left that they filter this dreadful calamity through the irrelevant and ordinary prism of "sticking it to the religious right," as opposed to maintaining a cohesive, consistent view of objective reality apart from the cultural landscape we see today. Should this surprise me though, really, since that's a rudimentary concept of Socialism - that the truth is only important as it is deemed useful by certain people? Truth, to a moral relativist, is not real, per se, but only a tool that can be conducive to the establishment of certain ends. For those that already see individuals and their production as dispensable for the good of a collective, is it so hard to believe that they would have any problem integrating the Schiavo drama into the advance of their subjectivist, pseudo-altruist, culture of death agenda?

2005-03-22T15:38:00.000-05:00

Addendum

This is a follow-up to an essay I wrote about privatizing the entire school system, which can be found here.

Four other points about privatizing and diversifying education:

1) In accordance with the very first, always and most important premise, the Libertarian Party is the party of principle, an organization that asserts the paramount values of objective truth and the primacy of our moral responsibilities therefore unto. We as individuals must do what is right. We must not steal, or lie, or force other individuals to do what they would not, so long as they themselves do not deprive other people of their freedoms. We must abolish violence from human interaction wherever we are able. Because taxation is violence, we must diminish the apparatus of government, which perpetrates the taxes, to its most minimal form, reducing it properly to its honorable shape as an adversary to the enemies of honor and truth, beheld totally to the absolute authority of the people who empower it.

With this in mind, and assuming that in a free society there will be a large segment of our population that goes uneducated altogether (which, I believe, would not happen, but is essentially already happening right now), and even assuming this is an inherently bad thing (a lack of formal education is bad only in the opinion of most people), we still would have no right to establish a "public" school system of any kind, one in which we corral the poor and the disinterested into state schools. And furthermore, we still would have no right to take any money from any unwilling to establish those centers of indoctrination.

2) Mass institutionalization of education has generated an increasingly numbing and stupid culture of complacency and isolationist tendency in individual human behavior. Aversion to social activity, physical activity, written expression, and many of the arts are all indicative of the harmful psychological effects experienced by those who have suffered through twelve straight years of the essentially similar circumstance of the thoroughly claustrophobic, un-free, unvaried and controlled atmosphere of the government's education centers.

3) The quasi-private (although extremely regulated and closely observed) schools that exist today are better than just about any given public one out there. There are, of course, exceptions, but those are especially rare. Why would you want to deprive anyone of that sort of private benefit and opportunity? In our current society, very few people can enjoy the benefits of private education, usually only the elite.

4) There are those who would be quick to point out that the federal government still does not control our schools as much as the individual states do. That is irrelevant to me for several reasons: a) it doesn't matter what government(s) is(are) creating the monopoly; all government education must end everywhere, forever, b) government education is still provided nation-wide, so it doesn't matter if the effort to control the minds of our children appears to be somewhat disjointed, c) the federal government continues to play a more and more active role in education as it has done without ceasing since the 1960s. I must stress that I do not target all of the politicians and their indirect agents (government teachers), but rather an inherently tyrannical and deceitful system that is always mobilizing towards greater and greater control in order to maintain efficiency and effectiveness, which it must and can only do in order to survive. Once any fundamental relationships of an organization are based on force, the rest of them must naturally follow suit.

2005-03-20T13:19:00.000-05:00

Hello?

Yesterday, many of us life loving, freedom oriented Libertarian, Republican, and Conservative types were fearful that Terri Schiavo would die before her time, killed by the courts. While that is still an open possibility, I am happy to report that Republicans in Congress have decided to step up to the plate to challenge the evils that have gone on in Florida.

I'm not going to act as a journalist, because that's not what I am. Read the news here.

2005-03-19T14:01:00.000-05:00

Goodbye

The following is a short list of popular misconceptions about the tragic Schiavo case that finally closed in the horrific conclusion of Terri's murder, yesterday.

Michael Schiavo cares about his wife and wanted her to be comfortable. This is part of the reason why he wants her to die a painless death.

Truth: He refused to let nurses brush her teeth, and as a result, her teeth all rotted out, which can cause excruciating pain even if you are in a 'vegetated state.' Terri's brother snuck into the hospital to feed his sister some food (doctors, at the time, believed that activating her eating function may have helped awaken her fully), but Michael had him arrested.

They are husband and wife.

Truth: Michael is married to another woman now, and has no viable connection to her welfare.

She was completely unaware, and in a "persistent, vegitative state," as the leftist media described it.

Truth: Her eyes were open, she was able to respond to basic commands, and she could even laugh and express other basic emotions.

He would do everything in his power to have her wake up, but there's nothing that can be done.

Truth: He fought every attempt to resuscitate her over the past seven years. He often refused to let her parents see the body and talk with her, which has been known to grow the brains of the unconscious and rouse them to awaken (a human mind requires constant development to keep sane). He also disallowed keeping a television in her room to help patients which can help do the same thing (not at all an unusual device to that end, either).

He loved her very much, and it pains him to have to do what he did.

Truth: There was a history of abuse in between the couple. The parents want to see the body after they allow her to die, to do an autopsy or to attempt to uncover any possible abuse (another reason he may want her dead -- he wouldn't want to be exposed), but Michael refuses to hand it over and is instead going to have it cremated.

Removing "the tube" will be a quick and painless way to end her life.

Truth: If you believe that she can feel pain, starving someone to death is one of the most cruel and unusual ways to end a life.

The only comfort that we now have is the fact of Hell, which will incinerate his soul for eternity.

2005-03-18T16:32:00.000-05:00

The Heart of Liberalism (not the good kind)

“simply being human prevents objectivity”

Someone said that to me today. So I questioned - what does that mean? How can you prove that? How is that an end-all to the argument? It’s a sweeping generalizing, the type of “objective truth” that liberals claim can’t exist anyway. How can that statement be true if truth does not exist? Or perhaps liberals believe that truth does exist, but that it’s (literally) impossible for humans to ever come to terms with it. Without any hint that truth exists, without understanding it on some level, without ever being objective, how can humans claim that this abstract concept, which could only exist in the human mind, ever exist outside of it anyway? Objectivity - truth - is not necessarily a human concept, but the fact that we are grasping it, and comprehending it, means that yes, it does exist. So why do people use this shitty argument?

I’ve heard it used by numerous people over the years - people who use it to END an argument. People who use it as an argument in and of itself - one of the most complex questions in human history - does truth, does God, does objectivity exist? - answered in a fucking sentence. Right. I’m supposed to believe that. This “truth” has never been illustrated to exist. Humans have acted objectively in the past - I mean, if humanity had never acted objectively, how would it be possible that we’ve survived as long as we can? On pure selfishness and greed? We would’ve killed and looted each other into nonexistence long ago. Societies thrive as they accept objective truth - which I cannot really attempt to define, as I do not grasp the full concept yet - and as they decry it, ignore it and often, as in Communist Russia and North Korea, attack it, those societies fall apart. Yes, it’s true that what is good for some is not good for others - but that doesn’t change the simple fact that what is good is still good. Different people find different ways to make objective truth for work for them, or they find different methods of achieving objectivity, but an objective person can still understand why differences must exist. In fact, without objectivity, there is no point in anyone different on anything. In a society where the truth is created by the government or the ruling class (who am I kidding, they’re the same things), then a set of individuals decides what’s best for the mass as a whole.

Objectivity is not some idea of morality that we mere mortals can never truly understand - objectivity is the realization and pursuit of a logical end. And logic is not really a human idea - you’d be hard pressed to find any member of society who can’t understand a simple logical truth. Some people can have a perverted logic - some people might find use in cutting themselves or skimming a bit of money from daddy’s wallet, but these incidents are located within a smaller realm of logic that does not fit into the big picture. Yes, on the one hand, it may be logical for you to pick up that $20 you find on the kitchen table because you need money, but on the other hand, you never worked for that money, you never earned it, and you never asked if you could have it.

I’m rambling, I can’t even think straight about this right now. I guess I’m a little… confuddled. I’ll continue on this train of thought later.

Terry Schiavo

Well, I went to fark.com and read the replies, and not surprisingly, most of them are absolutely disgusting. Allow me to share a few:

"This is just sad. Seven years of litigation has established that Terri Schiavo did not want to live like this. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, it's over. The court has ruled."

Right. Because the Court is God. The Court knows the truth, and when the truth disagrees with reality, too fucking bad.

“I'm not sure why we need to keep brain dead people with no hope of recovering alive. I've never been in the situation, so I don't have an experience to jusify my opinion, but I would like to think that my parents or wife or brother (family or close friends) would pull the damn thing if I was that fukt. Sad, but necessary.”

Necessary? In what way is this travesty necessary - why does a “braindead” person, incapable of suffering, really need to die if people are willing to pay her bills? If people are willing to try to rehabilitate her? To prove a point that no one cares about? Disgusting.

“Finally, Terri gets what she always had the right to have.”

She has the right to die, but not the right to live.

“This has gone beyond Terri Schiavo's life, I'm afraid. This is now about legislatures attempting to neuter the Constitutional power of the courts. And I think that sucks.”

Courts have never had the Constitutional power to murder accident victims.

“Dear Terri Schiavos Parents,

I am so terribly sorry that you've had to watch your daughter go from a healthy, happy woman to a vegetable - I most sincerely am. I realize that the pain you feel is the worst pain imaginable for a parent and that you both love her more than anything. It is this love for her that needs to guide you toward letting her go now. There is nothing else medical science can do for her and she is not coming back. It is time to let her go now and not prolong her suffering - and yours.

Thank you.”

This is just based on a fucking lie - Schiavo’s evil dirt bag of a husband won’t even let them try rehabilitation treatments on her. He wants her dead, and he wants her dead about five years ago. Also, would any of this human scum cheering for her death like to explain how a braindead person can suffer?

“I hope they don't put the tubes back in, like they've done before. Let her die with some dignity.”

Starvation - the most dignified death of all!

How ironic that liberals think it’s immoral to kill murderers, yet it’s perfectly fine to kill innocent accident victims.

This country is being taken over by evil people who are indoctrinating these state-educated goons to endorse and indeed spread that evil. Those of you who know me know that I’m not some crazy, far-right psychopath. But that’s a realization I’ve come to, and I hope you’ve come to it as well. The question remains: so what are we going to do?

2005-03-17T16:31:00.000-05:00

Why Don'tcha Do Somethin'?

Republicans throughout history have been just as much statists as any Democrats. In fact, Democrats have run on Libertarian concepts (FDR) to defeat meddling Republicans (Hoover) in the past (although after winning, FDR immediately reversed the anti-bureaucracy agenda of his campaign and revealed that he was the most socialist president in American history).

Putting up a nominal defense of capitalism and then relying on socialist economics in your actual policy is in many ways worse than just being up front about your collectivist beliefs, as the Democrats are. When Republicans criticize the DNC for being “too socialist” and pride themselves as defenders of capitalism, they give capitalism a bad name. Republicans are like Christians that wouldn’t hide the Jews in Nazi Germany. These hypocrites are completely destroying any chance that real capitalism has of getting intellectual recognition.

What president has increased the size of the state bureaucracy over its educational facilities more than any other in history?

George W. Bush

Are the Republicans interested in privatizing social security?

No, they are nimbly arguing for around 4% of the total funds to be forced into “private accounts,” that are only private in the sense that we get to choose where a tiny sliver of our money can go to among a handful of state selected options (creating a social security oligopoly). Any variety is better than none, but this is hardly a capitalist ideology, the notion that the state has any charge over your life in your old age and must decide for you how best to spend your own money.

Are they expanding our imperial role throughout the world, or are they running a trim military that does not spend millions of dollars a bomb?

I think we all know the answer here. Unlike the anti-military left, I do see the need for a strong army, navy, and air force, but I don’t see any good reason to be poised in hundreds of bases throughout the entire earth. When it comes down to it, we just don’t need to be everywhere on the planet. It is not immoral for the United States to ignore conflict; the only way that a government can conduct a war is to conduct a tax war on citizens who would not otherwise freely donate their funds to the cause that the majority or its politicians forces on them. I am okay with the Afghan/Iraq campaigns, but I am not okay with the dozens of bases that remain all over Europe, ready to defend the semi-communist states of France and Germany from the semi-communist state of Russia.

I am even sympathetic to the liberals who realize that every transaction that they make, for every hour that they work, some of their money is being shipped to send our military to kill this or that. I am only sympathetic to a point, however, because liberals are the first people to turn to the government as a solution for everything else. Usually I'm even persuaded by the idea that war is necessary for peace, but when you stop to think that for about 80 of the last 100 years, the United States has been involved in some kind of war for brief moments of peace, it looses its merit.

Honestly, I prefer Christian fascism to humanist semi-communism, but I prefer freedom from government to both. I don’t think that either modes of administration and socialism will work to accomplish whatever they are trying to achieve, not because either framework is necessarily led by crooked, ignoble politicians (although they are there), but because statism of any variety does not work on a systematic, natural level.

2005-03-16T22:38:00.000-05:00

Toxic

If you believe and can demonstrate that the effects of global warming are hurting you, find the industries that you can prove have polluted your environment, and sue them. They have violated your property rights. It is doubtful that you'll be able to figure this out, however, because the laws concerning our private property are so poorly defined in America.

Viewing global warming and pollution in general as a property rights violation is yet another easy solution to our social problems that the Libertarian Party advocates. The biggest polluter and disturber of the natural system of accountability in our society is the state bureaucracy. Not only does the government inhibit the logical contract breach adjudication that would speedily and immediately occur between parties that feel that their rights have been abrogated, but the government is the direct cause of the resulting majority of pollution in our own country. Direct pollution from our government is often caused by giving land grants to companies that are no longer responsible for the area they work on (since they are not tied to the resale value of local grasslands, waterways, or whatever, they pollute at will), or just regular old-fashioned government facilities that dump on “public” land or emit noxious gasses into the atmosphere that we never hear about.

For example- let’s say that you own part or whole of a river. Right now, the government owns all major rivers (not just the few you can name, but thousands of them) in "your" best interests, which it decides for you as though you can't be left to figure out what those are, or as if the state could do a better job anyhow. Anyway, let’s say that a factory builds upstream; let’s say that this factory is inconsiderate and wasteful, and wants to save some money by draining its toxic slop into the nearby water supply, your river. The company that owns this factory will argue that it is helping wage the War on Poverty that "great" Democrat, LBJ engineered. After all, this upstream factory provides the economy necessary goods (creating mufflers and door handles) and it employs hundreds of people.

Depending on who is in power, liberals or conservatives, the government will control people’s lives in one of two ways. A Republican government will (ironically) argue that big business is necessary to a strong economy and it will decide that the factory is allowed to dump waste (a socialist distortion of capitalist enterprise) into the river in such a way as to result in, because your house is downstream, unsightly and unhealthy water pollution. The local conservatives may or may not stop any contamination whatsoever, because your little shack on the shore just isn’t as important to other people as the factory is, or to “capitalism” as a whole. The Democrats will look at this situation and say, “hey! They’re polluting! That isn’t healthy to the planet!” They will immediately introduce numerous regulations that will be forced on to existing factories everywhere in different circumstances than this one, some that different businesses did not figure into their competition models and will drive them out of the market. They will argue that they are helping a lot of people overall, like the Republicans, even if many factory owners that could have worked towards new forms of disposal and energies have had their lives destroyed.

Any moderation between these two views will just be a mixture of which special interests are pleased and to what extent. Either way, both approaches to governing rely on the assumption that politicians know what’s best for everyone; the two major parties have different beliefs about who to support and who to vilify, but they both agree that the state needs to actively marginalize or prop up something, always. Both parties are ‘trying to help’ as many people as they can, ignoring what may or may not be ethical to do in a given situation, choosing truth only as it is beneficial to their constituents. They will never consider leaving the issue alone, and they will certainly never relinquish ownership of the river.

If you were allowed to own part of the river, you could personally allow for as much or as little pollution to come in to your segment of the water-flow as you so choose, provided that you keep up your end with the contracts downstream. If no one on the river was aversely affected by the pollution, or if they worked out a tolerable solution, then no bureaucrats from hundreds of miles away will ever be required to arbitrarily pick sides, setting legal precedents in this and other scenarios where the laws may not fit the circumstance (after all, every law is just a series of compromises worked out by people that are not immediately affected by the impact).

By allowing factories to violate your property rights, Republicans have removed the incentive to develop minimal-pollution methods of manfucaturing. By disregarding the property rights of businesses and maintaining collective ownership of resources, Democrats have ensured that no new solutions to pollution problems can ever develop.

2005-03-15T16:43:00.000-05:00

Remember the Other Day?

To follow up the older oil entry (Too, Too, Too Many Options - a Libertarian look at the oil problem), I thought I'd put out a couple of references related to my claims that our own government is directly causing the high price of oil:

If you figure the U.S. into this list (which can be used to compare us to the EU sans the United Kingdom, which is not a full member in the strictest sense), the U.S. isn't even the biggest importer of oil, even though we consume more of it than any other nation on earth (by far):

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables3_4.html

While the US economy used to be dependent upon oil from the Mid-East in the 1970s, Japan, Europe, India, and China still are. This page appears to contradict the 10% figure I threw out earlier, but it does not account for the ammount of oil the United States produces internally and consumes overall, which is considerable (making the figure I gave look as though it was half of the size it should be):

www.afa.org/magazine/June2002/0602chart.pdf

It appears that Neal Boortz is a couple days behind Yakuza in his reaction to the rising cost at the pump. It's a good thing he's a Libertarian too or I'd... well, gosh darn it, I'd do not a damn thing!

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Neal is bringing out similar facts from different sources, and he's a good read in general, albeit a Libertarian with a conservative edge. For the moral liberal converts to the truth, check out Harry Browne at:

http://www.harrybrowne.org

2005-03-14T15:13:00.000-05:00

Fight the Power

My following statement has two functions. Reason first, I'm sure it has seemed to some that I have found Libertarianism more compelling than Christiainity in the past few months. In truth, I have, but now that my fascination with the discovery of man's greatest and ongoing sin, one that was concealed to me by the aparatus of the evil itself, the state, has begun to subside, I am again considering things in terms of the greater metaphysical concept of goods and evils. Reason second, I do not believe that libertarian themes (notice the decapitalization of that word) is any different from the truth of the Christian message. I think that this truth, the only truth, unfettered by the hazes of men and unrestrained by other artifice, will defeat any error with no problems whatsoever:

I do not mean to exalt the political topic above the theological one; I believe them to be different disciplines, one necessarily subservient to the other. Matters between men are of less import than the decree of our almighty creator. However, due to this subservience and considering the nature of truth in its oneness and totality, we must not separate collective evil and the systems that harness and endorse multiple sin from our ethical concepts.

Normative epistemology is the notion of what ought to be. I cannot separate my desire for justice into disparate branches of disconnected philosophy, nor do I think anyone ever should. To excuse the actions of many men because of the complexity of their organization or their number is a mistake of democracy that has little to do with right or wrong, let alone wisdom and efficacy. Do not let the terminology of politics cloud what is ultimately an agreed upon framework of objective morality to which we demand from ourselves loyalty and obedience. To set aside your beliefs about the world at large when trying to support the constitution of a nation in specific is to imply that one of the two is less real. My paradigm is not split into portions, only into concentrations of relevance. Those who feign an open mind to one part of existence and resolution on the other profess an unacceptable, impracticible and confused worldview unless in admitted development.

2005-03-12T14:36:00.000-05:00

Officially Irrelevant

That’s right, I’m talking about Andrew Sullivan! But no, I’m not attacking his partisanship, as many republicans tend to do (some democrats too, although Sully is still unsurprisingly liberal) - I’m talking about the fact that he is, and I’m surprised it took me so long to see this, totally oblivious to anything that matters. In grabbing his seemingly arbitrary stances as soon as the new hot button issue comes up (how’s this for consistency: pro-gay marriage, against statism, against welfare, against Abu-Ghraib, pro-Kerry, pro-Bush, blah blah blah), it’s become increasingly obvious (not only to me) that he really has no clue what he’s talking about anymore, if he ever did at all. Sullivan is the type of state-indoctrinated lovely little pseudo-intellectual that both republicans and democrats love to claim as one of their own (when he’s agreeing with them) - he has an expansive vocabulary, seems like he’s reasonable, and claims to be a “moderate independent/libertarian” - whaaaaaaaaaaaat?

First, we must attack the issue of “moderation” - the only people who are “moderate” politicos are people who really have no clue what’s going on, or why they should care about it. You don’t have a firm moral stance on what the government should and shouldn’t be doing? Then I betcha you’re a moderate. And if you’re not deciding what’s right based on your morality, then you’re deciding what’s right based on what you personally like and dislike (and believe it or not, that’s not always based on your morality) - aha! That’s why Sully is pro-gay marriage, pro-gay pretty much everything (except for the “LGBT community” or “GLAAD” or anything like that because, well, at least he’s logical enough to see that these institutions are making it seem like it might be better if homosexuals had simply stayed in the closet) - Sullivan even admits he can’t think about the homosexuality issue logically, because it’s too personal and emotional for him.

Now… er… typically, when someone realizes “I’m not being logical, I’m being too emotional” they stop trying to argue their point, realizing that they are, lacking in logic, merely wrong. But not Sullivan. In fact, his “I can’t think logically about this personal issue” is a line used in his defense on numerous occasions. So the truth isn’t always in Sullivan’s best interest. Probably not in the best interest of the success of his blog either, since most of readers are probably opportunistically conservative homosexuals or liberal homosexual sympathizers (most republicans know that his blog is really just trash). So what has Sullivan battled against in the last few months?

The evils of Abu Ghraib… I-Pods… against George Bush… for George Bush… against Kerry… for Kerry… is it just me, or does Sullivan miss the point on nearly every issue he tackles? For someone who rages against the evils of statism (when it’s convenient), how can he possibly be so pro-gay marriage? Does he have any principles, or does he write the things that inflate his ego when he gets dumbass “moderates” e-mailing him in responsive agreement? Why compare the man in charge of Abu Ghraib to a murderous monster weeks after his outing, when Saddam has been doing much worse to people for years? Where were you then, Andrew - railing against the “evil monster”? I guess that Sullivan wants the same things that every other non-intellectual moderate American idiot wants: he wants blood.

2005-03-10T14:09:00.000-05:00

There Aren't Too, Too, Too Many Options

When people discuss the awfully high price of gasoline, and how that sort of thing was better under Clinton (or Reagan, or whomever), they fail to put the altering value of the common unit of exchange, and of the ever changing concept of wealth altogether into perspective. In the 1700s, was gasoline very valuable to an individual? Was it as valuable today to most people as it was even sixty years ago? How about during a war? Do your traveling desires compare with those you had ten years ago? What about the traveling patterns of American culture today versus last generation? How much has the government changed its tax laws concerning gas distribution? How many new regulations do American oil refineries have to abide by that the Middle-Eastern and African refineries we hypocritically purchase gasoline from do not?

In fact: Adjusted for inflation, the actual record high for gasoline prices at the pump over the last twenty-five years was set in 1981. Today, at least 47 cents of the total cost of gasoline is mere taxation. In 1981 we also had 324 refineries, while today we have 149, and no more have been built in nearly 30 years (how is that for supply and demand?).

So in short, I feel sorry for those American oil barons after all (who we are taught to despise by our history teachers when the Gilded Age is discussed in the government’s schools), but mainly I just feel sorry for myself and everyone else, who will have to put up with these outrageous prices because of the silly beliefs of a minority of environmentalists who push their eco-conservatism on us, even flouting human property rights in favor of their rigid apocalyptic, pseudo-scientific global warming based faith (or global cooling, depending on the decade).

I bet though, after a while, Americans will be fed up with high gas prices and we’ll start demanding that the government solve this problem that supposedly developed as yet another shortcoming in that wretched ol’ free market of private interests. “Not enough fetters” the Democrats will say, “it was the environmentalists fault that we’re in this situation,” will chime in the Republicans that have had control over the entire government, and each party will fight over who gets to waste more of our money constructing something that everyone already wants; as though a central, democratic mind-force were necessary to establish what the total sum of individualism already is trying to. The progress we might make as a society, if energy suppliers were allowed to respond naturally to public demand, is unimaginable (and even if it were no different, somehow, it would at least be an ethical progress).

Of course, neither party will be accused of collaborating with the automobile industry, the biggest companies of which have been working with politicians to provide us with necessary safety regulations that make it nearly impossible for new, innovative car makers to eke out a share of the market, ones that may not rely on gasoline as a primary fuel-source. I mean, hell, if the flow of gasoline is going to be this controlled, why not try to keep us in the age of fossil fuels for as long as we can, stimulating an endless shortage that we’ll blame on OPEC and the rest of the Mid-East, which supplies a mere 10% of American oil.

“Fine,” you say, “but why aren’t changes being made, if the truth of the situation is so apparent to some 18 year old that took a quarter off of school to deliver tires?”

Well, for two reasons, among a myriad of others: 1) you were not taught to think independently, like a Libertarian, 2) someone is making money off of the current situation, and those people will want to continue making money for as long as they can. Because they are making more money than you, and are more knowledgeable about their own scheme, they have considerably more interest in continuing their scams. Not coincidentally, politicians need a lot of money to maintain their authority. Can you imagine the outcome of the 2004 election if Bush refused to attend the debates or air commercials or spend any of the hundreds of millions of dollars, public and private, that he used to re-elect himself?

So now ask yourself, did Bush jack up the prices of oil by going to war with Iraq? Yeah, probably. Have OPEC and other oil-rich Arab states created considerable cartels that challenge the resolve of a free market, driving up the cost per barrel? Sure.

While these things are also problems caused by states, the biggest energy crisis we’re in has been an ongoing problem instigated and perpetuated by our own government and its inherent bureaucracy of politicians that don’t want to and can’t keep track of what happened in the Congress a generation before.

2005-03-10T01:54:00.000-05:00

We Are Living In a Material World

Wealth, money, and happiness are all different things. The differences and relationships between them are intriguing, and I thought I’d share some thoughts about that with you.

1. Money is the common, basic unit of exchange in a society. It represents potential services and goods of almost every kind (eliminating the cumbersome and limited barter system), and is nearly always the most valuable, transferable and divisible commodity within a society. In the West, this commodity is gold. It has inherent value, it can be moved, and it is infinitely divisible. Free economies are almost universally founded upon gold, which, while mobile, can still weigh a lot in large quantity. Therefore, a society’s gold is stored in a few locations, and those repositories issue receipts to represent that wealth (saving even more time, since people don’t have to use the commodity directly). These receipts then become just as good as the gold (or silver, or tobacco, or whatever), are traded, and usually become referred to as “reserve notes,” by the commodity holders (bankers or reservists). If you look at your dollars, you will find, “Federal Reserve Note,” bedecked across the top.

2. Happiness is the state of well being achieved when a sufficient or pertinent amount of desires are being fulfilled. Happiness can come from any number of things, but all of those things have in common that they contribute to a person’s mental sense of well being, as opposed to discomfort or despair or a feeling of emptiness. Every human desires to be happy. Whether or not the point of life is to be happy is a different question altogether, but it is an undisputed truth that all people seek contentment on some level.

Premise two: Every individual is different, and what will provide happiness for one person will not provide contentment for everyone else. Whether or not there are some things that every human does or should want to make themselves happy with is an epistemological/ethical question.

Premise three: Humans are innately selfish creatures. Everything that they do is done in their own self-interest. That is not to say that basic selfishness is wrong, it is only natural and in fact rational. Excessive self-centeredness is typically a psychological and social problem for humans, and what most people mean when they refer to someone as “selfish.”

3. Wealth

Wealth is typically defined as a great abundance of something. Wealth, however, is subjective, unlike the other two concepts of ‘money’ and ‘happiness’. There are personally but commonly held goals that create a sense of societal, quasi-objectivity to general wealth defined as "rich." In capitalist societies, even semi-capitalist ones, wealthy people are those that have the most capital, the most of the valuable commodity. However, politicians, for example, have a wealth of power. You may have a wealth of knowledge. Your wealth may satisfy you in many different ways, but it may not, whatever wealth you have, be of any emotional significance to you at all.

The point:

In 1933 the United States government, under the direction of four-term president and most prominent American socialist in history, FDR, confiscated all of the nation’s gold reserves. This led to the elongation of the Great Depression (another phenomenal economic disaster created by the government’s monetary policy), the freedom to inflate the now (yes, even to this day) fiat currency, one without any material standard, among other things.

A certain amount of money, therefore, is not necessarily a sign of wealth, and wealth is not an innate sign of happiness, because money is merely a potential of a form of wealth that the government can alter to its favor at any time, even if they claim that they are doing so to bring you happiness, which you rationally value to money or wealth.

(I am going to follow this up tomorrow with an example of this dynamic that affects everyone’s life all the time, although you can see how this would already be the case in many ways on your own)

2005-03-08T19:18:00.000-05:00

AMERICAN CITIZENS DETAINED -
Split Into Geographic Districts, Assigned to Government Education Compounds!

There's a good conversation about "public," "free" schools that's cooking over at Enhasa Online.

Ch- ch- check it out!

2005-03-07T21:14:00.000-05:00

The Real John McCain

I guess it’s finally becoming clear to me that John McCain is nothing more than a socialist sleazebag intent on winning some higher position of power based on his populist reform ideas - and it’s disgusting.

McCain actually wants to force cable companies to allow their users to only pay for certain channels.

Yeah. He’s worse than a fucking democrat.

"I have been fighting the cable companies for years on the issue of cable rates and I after numerous hearings came to the conclusion that we should not force people to pay for programs that they don't want to see, and that's why I supported a la carte."

I have a suggestion for John McCain: shut your fucking mouth and do your job. Your job as a politician has nothing to do with forcing the private sector to reduce the rates that consumers obviously have no problem paying. This is just an attempt to win votes for a future election - I mean, everyone loves low cable rates, right! There’s nothing in a politician’s job outline about “winning votes” either - career politicians make me sick.

On top of this bullshit, John McCain enacted campaign finance reform in an attempt to keep the two party system in power for a few more decades. But the worst thing about this is he’s already broken it - if you read the article, you’ll discover that…

Sen. John McCain pressed a cable company's case for pricing changes with regulators at the same time a tax-exempt group that he has worked with since its founding solicited $200,000 in contributions from the company.

Disgusting. I don’t know how much more I can take.

2005-03-06T18:24:00.000-05:00

I'm Not Sorry, It's Human Nature

Competition in capitalism has little to do with the more familiar kind of competition that exists in many, small ecosystems around us. Unlike the heterogeneous populations of organisms in general, human society is not made up of wolves and rabbits, and our habitat is the entire world. Some humans do not have to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others as the rabbits do for the wolves, and there is not usually a severely limited pool of wealth that must be balanced out by what we forcibly, systematically hunt out of one another. The successful predators in animal nature are the strongest and most cunning animals; they who are able to trick and devour the most prey. The successful members of a free, human society outlaw this brutality from their relationships. The most prosperous humans are the ones that help everyone else transcend whatever iniquity they face, resolving their every deficiency they are able.

Within socialism, however, a mindless apparatus that is influenced by those elected within its posts seizes the pool of wealth. It is they, the politicians that must distribute amongst segments of the collective as they see fit, or else they will all perish. Capitalist ideology is what separates man from animal in a politico-economic sense. Exchange and wealth are not entirely based on the quantity of the monetary unit involved. Competition in a capitalist society is not predatory. The relationship between members of a free society are symbiotic; all organisms must agree to the exchanges that they activate. Within a socialist society, however, competition is predatory, because resources are perceived as being entirely limited, forcing members to feed off of one another for sustenance: there is no individual production that is of immediate value to that person unless it is stolen and hidden from the rest (and when found out, that person is murdered or imprisoned).

Therefore, the degree to which a state is present in human society is the degree that society has been overall debased unto its lesser, wild, beastial tendency. We are not entirely intellectual creatures, thus only a small state, a minarchy, is necessary, one bound tightly by the leash of a Constitution.

Which system is more barbaric? Which system is more alike the behavior of our thoughtless, animal underlings? The supposedly intellectual system of socialism, where everyone lives directly off of everyone else, or the system that man invented, the one based on the intellect and not on our brute muscular force, tooth and nail?

America has been running with the dogs for too long.

2005-03-05T13:02:00.000-05:00

Wasted Vote Syndrome

Among the unconvinced, the timid, those unwilling to relinquish their unnecessary support of the two, primary socialist organizations in the United States (The GOP and the DNC), those unwilling to acquiesce to the truth of the Libertarian effort, there is a common strain of a mental sickness, a retardation, if you will, that I like to call WVS, or “Wasted Vote Syndrome.” Symptoms include so-called political moderation, intellectual apathy, shaman-esque doomsday predictions, failure to recognize objective truth, etc. Whatever your WVS looks like, it’s bound to result in one crucial problem- the unwillingness to “waste” that oh-so-precious vote on the beloved, third largest party in America, the Libertarians.

So, why should you vote Libertarian, even though they aren’t going to win next year?

- How do you think that other parties began? Do you think that the Republican and Democratic parties have been here since the dawn of time? Neither of them have even been around for too much longer than half of the existence of this country (before them existed much more Libertarian type parties, in fact). Do you think that other countries have had only two parties that are roughly similar? While it is true that a major change in the political landscape often results in the emergence of a new party, a well-organized, living organization, if it doesn’t exist to receive and energize the masses, simply will never have a chance to influence the nation. If you don’t support the Libertarians now, these changes will never occur.

- Libertarians do not have to reach 50.01% to change things. Libertarians need only to garner the percentage that divides the major socialist organizations to shake things up in the monopolized political field. If any third party reaches the 5% margin, they’ll receive federal funding (which we would flatly reject), and a lot of free media attention. The Greens got media attention heaped on them and they never even eked out that figure. This small percentage is all that we are asking for right now, an expanse from 1 to 5 percent. You make more of a difference in a smaller group of people than you do in a large party. This is not impossible to achieve.

- Even if the Libertarian Party still never comes into the spotlight, its ideas must. It is absolutely vital to our own well being that we create this new party, but if we can’t do that, we can alter the tone of the other two parties, refocusing them on their more Libertarian principles (and they do share some). Just think about how the Democrats are being forced to deal with the “moral” issue now that a single, misinterpreted poll put out by US Today merely suggested that common ethics alone is what re-elected George W. Bush (the vast majority of more precisely worded polls identified that Americans chose out sitting president because of his foreign policy).

- You do not want to vote for the other two parties because you do not want them to believe that you support what they are doing. Your vote will not be confused as anything other than total support by the Democratic and Republican politicians, plain and simple. As Harry Browne says, “vote Libertarian, or don’t vote at all.” So tell me, can you name your state senators and representatives? Do you know what judges were appointed in your region? Do you really know what they stand for, outside of their labels? If you haven’t a damn clue, why are you voting for them? Why are you giving them power over your life?

If you think that politics have become too time consuming and that the government has become too intricate to understand and keep track of, so do we. This bureaucratic mess is precisely what the Libertarians aim to utterly destroy.

- Either your vote makes an impact, or it doesn’t; be consistent in what you believe about the power of a collective of individuals. If your vote doesn’t matter, why must it go to support options that aren’t a reflection of what you really think? Does one vote sway anything either way or doesn’t it? Do you believe in the popular appeal campaigns that the government ran last November, or do you not?

- If a national election came down to one vote, it still wouldn’t matter that you voted for the Libertarians and not for Hilary or Condoleeza (er…), because, while the chances of that occurring at all are essentially nonexistent, the chances of it happening again, ever, are even less possible.

- Your vote DOES matter, and the Libertarians need it to know that other people believe in our unique and just mode of economy and law. It’s discouraging to attend the local LGC meetings and know that people aren’t voting for our local candidates or for our presidential nominee when we know we were promised support by enough people to have made a difference. Stand up for what you know is true!

- Roughly 50% of the population still doesn’t vote, even after P.Diddy’s vote or die campaign (amazing, really), and if an active third party were to convince them to get political matters out of their lives forever, they’d oblige. In 1992, when only 54.8% of eligible voters cast a ballot, Clinton received 23.6% of votes cast. In 1996, less than half of eligible voters (47.8%) went to the polls, meaning that Clinton only received 24% of the possible votes in that year as well. These figures may strike you as strange, but the key reason that Clinton and Bush fared so low was that Ross Perot, Reform candidate, took away 19% of the vote in 1992 (less in 1996, because the two major parties worked to shut him out, as they do regularly to outsiders).

- Increasing the size of our party will allow us to draw out and educate those who aren’t voting for the two socialist parties, because their views aren’t being represented. There are Libertarians amongst us who still haven’t even heard this word. There are millions of people in the United States, a country with a strong heritage of capitalism and personal freedom who think, “Why should anyone be running my life?” Neo-liberals (what I call the leftists in this country) and Conservatives both feel this way about each other, and it’s not hard to expose the inconsistencies of the special interest civil war that is raging on right now.

- The Libertarian vote is a good protest vote. It is a rejection of the way things are being run by the media-corporate-big-government system (in a word, “Establishment”). It is a rejection of what the other two parties stand for. If you are looking for change, if you are just looking to voice opposition but don’t feel like wasting it on whatever the third party flavor of the year is (Nader, Perot, etc.), then vote Libertarian. Nader didn’t even run as a Green both times. The Libertarian Party is consistent, and will allow the other two parties, once it becomes more prominent, to specialize in their capacity to represent their own special interests.

- And finally, because it is the right thing to do. If you agree with Libertarian principles, why aren’t you endorsing them? Would you vote between two Nazi parties if the Germans had won World War 2, just because one of them wants to kill a few less non-Aryan races off? Why are you limiting yourself to the two socialist parties that exist now? Is it because you have never really thought about what a government actually is, and what size government is not just efficient and appropriate, but morally right? Can you identify the difference between taxation and theft, or do you just excuse the government because… well… you just do?

Interesting enough, they’ve developed a cure for WVS, and it’s a shocker: dancing.

So why not dance at the Yakuza Disco from now on?

2005-03-04T20:21:00.000-05:00

brief update…

Apocalypse Soon!

This is it folks. One of the socialist left’s ultimate goals, likely to come to fruition if all goes well for them (and wrong for the people of America). So is the end of an era, an era where recovery of our economy is likely? Well, it could be. ^_^

A right to healthcare? I mean, if we have a “right to education,” why not? If we can pay for poor children to go to school, we can pay for poor people to go to hospitals, right? Whether you want to or not.

Your money belongs to the government, and so do you.

No Fatties

More bad news for personal rights. I bet the bitches will win too - but hey, what’s one more shitstain on the Constitution?

2005-03-04T02:03:00.000-05:00

The sins of the father…

Apparently Uday Hussein was preparing to overthrow his father on the night of the US attacks in Iraq. How tragic! How Shakespearian! How uninteresting.

I’m wondering where the media is going to go with this. I can see some sort of “If the US had just waited one week…” spin where people say that Bush jumped the gun (literally) a couple hours before the problem would have worked itself out, but I’m hoping no one in the media is stupid enough to go that route (I don’t have that much faith in them however). But Uday was even more ruthless than Hussein - I mean, he was going to have his own father deposed, and probably assassinated, using money he obtained illegally (through “murky oil deals”?), and then change the regime using the force of the Fedayeen. If anyone thinks the soldiers at Abu-Ghraib were bad…

Well, regardless, as wary of the war in Iraq as I may be, the fact remains that both - yes, both(!!!!!!!!!!) of these murderous lunatics are now deposed, and I’m willing to be that within the next couple of years, both of them will also be dead. Hurrah!

Michael Jackson - innocent?

Well, no, probably not. Even if he’s not a child molester, he’s still guilty of something - it’s just hard to figure out exactly what it is. I don’t think he’s a malicious paedophile. I don’t think he intentionally boozes up children and rapes them. I think that the fact that he sleeps with young boys is pretty damn creepy, and he seems to have a Peter Pan complex (take that Freud!) - I mean, he’s clearly deranged. Just look at his face. People don’t get that much plastic surgery unless they’re fucked up in the head, and far be it from me to argue that Michael Jackson is normal.

However… I think that the accuser’s mother is pretty much a lying, disgusting con-artist - based on what I know, her stories aren’t checking out. She was held forcibly at the Neverland Ranch? What are the odds of that? I mean, she was even seeing a guy at the time, who came to visit on numerous occasions - a military officer, no doubt - and she never told him “Michael Jackson is holding me and my son captive so we don’t tell anyone he’s molesting him!” What the hell? Even if that boy was molested, this lady has just about as many problems as Michael Jackson. I don’t actually believe that he was though, seeing as she’s targeted celebrities in the past - I hope this case blows up in her face, and I hope the media stops trying to humiliate Michael Jackson. There’ve been a few stories (which I have the dignity not to link to on this site) that just bluntly invade Michael Jackson’s privacy in an attempt to make him a laughing stock, and apparently it works, since he’s a rather convenient scapegoat for some malicious, hateful bitches. The freak must pay, huh? At the expense of his Constitutional rights, I guess. He doesn’t really deserve a trial by jury, I suppose, being a freak and not a human being.

Awful.

2005-03-04T01:38:00.000-05:00

Drowned World, Substitute Teacher

Yo, yo, yo! Dis be ya'llz new DJ here at da joint, Yakuza Disco, and ya'll better raise the roof on this bitch because things are about to get rowdy as hell, ya heard? Yeah, yeah, yeah, it aint even nutin' like that do' becuz...

Well.

Anyway.

I'll write a little, extremely truthful, Capitalist sermon on this blog from time to time. I'll try not to rant, keeping things short and... succulent. Since I won't feel any pressure to write every day, I'll be able to express my thoughts to our audience (who is in this audience anyway?) only when I think they'd be valuable.

2005-03-03T19:57:00.000-05:00

We’re Sorry (…that we hit Iraq first)

Apparently North Korea is demanding an apology from the U.S., specifically from George Bush, for being deemed an “outpost of tyranny” - maybe they’re insulted that they were given such a shitty title (outpost of tyranny? Why not Citadel of Terror, or Coven of Murder?). What are they going to do if we don’t apologize? Well, they’re threatening to resume missile testing. I think this is the point where the rest of the world should just give up, laugh at Kim Jong Il and stop pretending North Korea is any real threat to the safety of the world. Kim Jong Il is a fat, childish little tyrant, and he becomes more of a joke with each passing day. I’m tired of all of these idle threats we constantly receive from this tasteless buffoon.

I think we’ve reached the point where we start ignoring the screaming child and see how long it takes him to shut the fuck up.

2005-03-02T20:02:00.000-05:00

The Parent State

Apparently, state “lawmakers” are now considering a bill which would hold game-makers accountable for the actions of the consumers who buy their product. So, if some kid pulls a gun out and kills everyone in his school, and GTA was sitting on a shelf at his house, Rockstar gets to face some of the consequences. Does that sound insane to you?

Well, it should.

Apparently the art that you create can be used as a weapon against you - what’s my incentive for creating art, for voicing my opinions, for anything? What’s next? Will movie makers be held accountable for creating slasher flicks, will writers be held accountable for writing about murder? Then what? People who make documentaries will be held accountable for “inspiring violent acts” - this is so disgusting. Why does our state want to take responsibility from the shoulders of the perpetrator and place it on the shoulders of the innocent? Why must one man pay for the sins of another? This is so disgusting. This is beyond socialism - this isn’t “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” - now we’re dispersing the blame for heinous, criminal activity, and who’s to say you won’t be the one paying next?

"If you sit up and watch this and play these games over and over again... it seems that this is alright to walk up and hit a police officer over the head with a bat," Hanson said.

Now, maybe I’m just a bit biased, but it sounds like this guy is a fucking retard. I’ve never heard of anyone beating the shit out of a police officer because of a videogame, and to be honest, I’m pretty damn sure I’ll never hear about it in the future either.

The religious right gets itself bothered about things that don’t matter, or they miss the point entirely - whether it’s about the morality of gay marriage, violent videogames or pornography, it seems these fuckwads are just as stupid as the liberals they constantly defame. The freest nation on earth gets a little more shackled down every few hours, you know…

At least someone makes a little sense:

"We're removing the responsibility from the person who committed the act, to somebody else who's completely removed from the situation" McMurran said. "There's a very strong video game industry in this state that we want to support. We don't want to bring undo attention to an area where there's actually jobs being created, where there's actually some good economic development in our state.”

But I guess religious conservative extremists don’t really care about our economy or money, right? I mean, as long as some pointless, ineffective moral precedent is set, they’re still scoring “righteous points” with God.

If you can’t take back the streets…

…then at least you can take back your front yard. This seems like a pretty damned effective way of curbing gang violence in your neighborhood. But apparently anti-gun activists aren’t interested in your best interests.

2005-02-23T00:38:00.000-05:00

I think I should probably explain first... I read an editorial by some cuntface named Toby Jeg from Punkvoter.com and got outraged that the editors at Alternative Press decided to give this evil fascist a voice with with to lie to America's youth, so I wrote a pretty nasty letter to them. I e-mailed it a few minutes ago, here it is in full.

My Letter to Alternative Press

Musicians speak out? Toby Jeg isn't really a musician, is he? I think he's more of a malicious, vindictive bigot. Sound a little harsh? It's certainly not any more harsh than Toby Jeg's accusations that EVERY SINGLE BUSH VOTER IN THE COUNTRY is a "dumbass homophobe," "misogynist," or an "evangelical zealot" - Toby Jeg thinks Bush voters are intolerant? Doesn't he threaten them all with incredible violence for merely stepping into "his" cities?

I am sick of all of this hypocritical bullshit, and I am even more tired of a fucking MUSIC magazine being a forum for it. If you want to support a pro-socialist artist, be my guest - it's all about artistic expression, right? But Toby Jeg isn't an artist. He's a violent fascist, trying to force his controversial views down the throats of millions of Americans who OBVIOUSLY disagree with him. You know what, Toby? I'm gay, and if anyone has any reason to be offended by anything, I have the right to be offended by your disgusting "editorial" - how dare you hijack my beliefs and way of life and use it as a tool to champion your fascistic political agenda? Are you seriously saying that most of those people who voted for Bush are "dumbass homophobes"? I know lots of people who voted for Bush - including incredibly tolerant family members and friends - who voted for Bush for reasons that had nothing to do with gay marriage. But you have to blanket everything, don't you? Perhaps you narrow each potential voting group down to one issue, because no one agrees on EVERYTHING, except for perhaps mindless, brainwashed drones like you. So you shout at women: "Women's rights!" African Americans: "Racism!" Homosexuals: "Gay marriage!"

While we're on the subject of gay marriage, why didn't you use that actual term in your various political ads showing how Bush was different from Kerry? Why did you use the term "equal rights" instead? Afraid that "gay marriage" is a bit too polarizing and might lose you some support? You hypocrite - you exploit people and use them to gain power, lying to them all the way to the top.

To Toby Jeg: You are one of the most intolerant bastards I've ever seen get something published in a relatively mainstream magazine - I'm glad most democrats don't act the way you do, or else this country really WOULD be filled with intolerance and hatred. Sure, George Bush is a fascist, but how do you avoid that definition in ANY way? You just fall right into it, and so does Fat Mike and his typical band of goons. Fuck Punkvoter for trying to destroy the youth of this nation - why aren't you teaching people to think for themselves, why are you lying to us?

WHY?

Punk rock was created to decry the evils of big government and the power it gives to evil men, so why do you just want to hand that power over to different evil men? Power corrupts - give anyone too much of it, and they turn into a moral dictator.

To the youth of America: Open your minds! Open your eyes! Only WE have the power, the strength to end ALL big government, to end ALL fascism in our country, and it's time we learned to utilize that power! Do NOT vote to use force against members of your own democratic society - protect your rights, and the rights of your brothers and sisters, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The future is in OUR hands, so don't let profit-seeking hypocritical bullies like Toby Jeg con you into ignorance.

Think for yourselves. True power comes with knowledge, and the only thing assholes like Toby Jeg and Fat Mike are peddling to you are lies.

- Chris Thompson, Cincinnati, OH

(do not print my e-mail address)

2005-02-15T14:20:00.000-05:00

Gas taxes won’t work forever. The solution?

Apparently the solution is to tax your mileage. That’s right - taxing a non-product. Taxing the amount of distance you travel. What’s next? This is seriously starting to tread into an air-tax territory.

How can a government tax things it doesn’t own? Believe it or not, a government doesn’t own any of the United States of America (and I‘m talking about a state government). The people do. But you wouldn’t be able to tell that based on the ridiculous taxes that are being thrown in your direction, would you? I mean, a cow shit tax, a gas tax… what ridiculous tax is next? I don’t remember ever hearing about anyone voting on these taxes. I know these aren’t effecting Ohio yet - but if, based on what’s been said in the link I provided above, other states are “keeping a close eye on Oregon” to see if this mileage tax works (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it does), Ohio could be the next state to institute a lawn tax, or maybe a window tax. Who knows? We’ve already instituted a phone cord tax, and now the FCC collects an extra $20-$30 from us since they can’t legally tax the internet.

Why aren’t the citizens of America standing up and demanding answers as to why these insane tax laws are being drafted and ratified by people who would NEVER be elected on such pro-tax platforms?

The cow shit tax and the mileage tax are results of the failings of the government, anyway. With gas costing so much, people go to fuel efficient cars, and since the government can’t collect as much revenue with gas taxes, they need to find a new way to tax you. But they’re not even taxing you for product now - they’re taxing you, quite frankly, because they CAN. You’re being taxed for the distance you travel! You can’t even freely travel across the United States anymore, much less freely speak or freely live as you wish to.

One more day in the USA.

2005-02-15T03:00:00.000-05:00

Outrage in Michigan!

A Union is annoyed that a non-unionized Wal-Mart is moving in next door. In fact, according to this article:

“Although 800 jobs could be created by the development anchored by a Super Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, likely none of those workers will belong to a union.

That infuriates some of the leadership of the UAW.”

Aw, well I’m sure it does. The initial $40,000 they’d get from employees forced to join the Union simply being stolen from them by this giant, evil corporation might have helped them buy new televisions! Not to mention the mandatory Union dues. How dare Wal-Mart try to run it’s own clearly successful business in the same way it’s run it for years?

2005-02-13T18:26:00.000-05:00

Too much to ask?

The fact that I think of people in political terms is circumstantial and often times moral. It’s moral because I could never date someone who I thought would support theft, murder or treason - and unfortunately, most staunch democrats or staunch republicans tend to support any combination of those rather unfavorable traits, often times all three. So why do I hate democrats more?

Democrats parade their “amoral objectivity” in front of republicans, screaming “Don’t push your morals on us!” while they sit back and write their proposed endorsements of homosexuality and abortion to draft into physical, enforceable law. I also just deal with a lot more democrats because of my homosexual disposition. I get random, faux-political wankers instant-messaging me who segue into conversations about how evil republicans are for not allowing democrats to shove gay marriage down the gullets of the obviously unwilling American populace - I have a solution! Why doesn’t the government stop endorsing all sexuality, why doesn’t the government stop shoving any morals down our throats? Obviously, all law has to be based on morality. There is no such thing as amoral objectivity when it comes to law enforcement, and that’s really all there is to it. So we should stick by one prescribed morality when it comes to running our government, right?

But however will we decide what that morality should be! Christianity? Buddhism? Mormonism?

The fucking Constitution defines the way our government should be run. The government should never be able to impose on the freedom of any citizen of the United States (or any citizen of the world for that matter), and freedom is defined by three ideas: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights go as far as the next person’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That is it.

The only laws that should ever be able to be defined, at least using the pretense that these laws are Constitutionally endorsed, are laws that keep individuals from treading on the life, liberty, and/or pursuit of happiness of another individual.

So is it unfortunate that I demand this of any potential partner? Is it unfortunate that I will not in any way tolerate barbarism, fascism or socialism when they go against the very core beliefs that I hold, the very beliefs that define my intellectual and philosophical existence?

I don’t think so.

Which is why I will never, ever, ever have a boyfriend.

/sigh

2005-02-13T13:27:00.000-05:00

The FCC Knows What You Want

The House Commerce Committee just voted 46-2 in favor of allowing the FCC to fine individual broadcasters up to $500,000 for airing “indecent material” - the maximum before hand was somewhere around $32,000.

Why is no one screaming to our government about how insane this is?

This is one of the worst things that could possibly happen to the United States Constitution. A bunch of un-elected asswipes now have the power to censor the press - they can fine you for using your first amendment rights. But that’s not all. The FCC now (and maybe they did before, I’m not entirely sure) has the power to REVOKE YOUR LICENSE. It’s bad enough that you need a license to broadcast in the first place, it’s worse that it doesn’t even matter now. You have to be speaking in a way that Big Brother condones if you want to speak at all, or else you’ll be raped financially and forced out of business.

I can’t believe the public isn’t outraged about this. But I think maybe this isn’t getting around enough, which brings me to my next question.

How long ago was it that our country stopped pretending to be a democracy? Ask the next five people you see if they think the FCC should be able to censor the free speech granted to us in our constitution, then please, post the results here of what they say. I think that would be pretty interesting.

I really think that the FCC can be defeated, if the public just bands together to do something about this. I’m open to proposals, but the first way to get this started is through a petition. I’m not entirely sure how to go about starting that, but I’ll look into it. Everyone reading this should also do the same - we shouldn’t lazily sit back while the most fundamental of our rights are pissed and shit upon by the federal government.

Don’t play with fire!

So, Iran is threatening us. Why am I not surprised? I guess every shithole nation in the world has a right to develop nuclear power as long as the US can do it.

It’s really sort of sad that the United States has put itself into the position where we now have no choice but to police the world, or to be attacked by it’s criminals. If there were some magical button to press to get rid of all the nuclear weapons ever created, I’d be happy to press it. But there’s not. And now, Iran wants to test us along with North Korea (even Iraq tested us, and that nation is forever fucked now - way to go U.S., w00t w00t) - why? Maybe Zaire wants to start developing nuclear “energy.“ Or some other pointless, hole-in-the-ground country. Although the danger automatically increases if the country is predominantly Islamic (Islamo-fascist, if you prefer, but they’re all “islamo-fascist”).

If Iran really was just developing nuclear energy, that would be startling, but we would not have a right to do anything in particular about it (and this is actually the current position we’re in, I suppose) - but “don’t play with fire”? What the hell does that mean? I think when it comes right down to it, Iran is the one that’s about to get burned.

Maine is taxing cow shit

Yep, it’s true. Grass is next!

And…

Sorry, I’m a little off right now. Thus concludes the worst week of my life.

2005-02-01T01:40:00.000-05:00

Why is an individual so much to ask for...

I hate Cincinnati. There is no one here at all who is even remotely interesting, intriguing or intellectual that I already know, and of the people who I already know like that, I am never going to date them. Instead, I am confronted with soul-less idiots, trying to impress me with disengaged, fake intelligence - using rhetorical reasoning to debate, not having any passion for anything. I want someone with a passion for SOMETHING - I want someone who knows so much about something, or is at least pretentious enough - to talk for hours, to not be able to even shut up... no one has any passion for anything except sex, and I fucking HATE SEX. I want someone with interests. I want someone who wants to do something with his life that he really, honestly cares about, and I just can't find a single damn person in this entire city...

I would kill for someone who is honest-to-God pretentious to instant message me, or to talk to me in public, or something... at least pretentious people tend to be intelligent enough to think they have a reason to be. But no one ever does. All I ever get is "hi how r u" or "hey wuts up" - DOES IT KILL TO USE PUNCTUATION!? DOES IT KILL TO USE CAPITILIZATION!? What the fuck is wrong with everyone! Everyone is so fucking stupid! I remember thinking, a few nights ago "Well, why would intelligent, attractive people use XY? Everyone on there is so stupid." The problem with that question is that it assumes that intelligent, attractive people exist in this city and choose to go elsewhere to find each other.

Well, where is it that they fucking go?

It's not Jacob's. It's not CYG. It's not fucking Bullfishes. And they certainly aren't on XY. So where are they? How do they know about each other? Am I out of the loop? Does a loop even exist?

The truth is, no, a loop probably does not exist.

There probably aren't any true individuals among Cincinnati's homosexual populace. Where are they? Will I ever find SOMEONE who is intelligent, attractive, and romantically interesting enough for me? Or am I destined to just deal with endless bullshit, endless confusing closet-boys, endless liars and fakers... what the fuck am I going to do.

I am so lonely right now.

2005-01-30T03:51:00.000-05:00

Kill Will Volume 2

Apparently the worst room-mate in the history of room-mates wants to veto my best friend moving in - probably because he's gay.

So Will - who brought a dog in our house and let it turn our living room into it's toilet for somewhere in the vicinity of a full-month - someone who opened his window to let the smell out, and turned up the heat in order to combat the cold he had from an open window and in the process got our heating bill up about an extra $60-70 - the same Will who informed Chris he was "indulging (him)self in (his) homosexuality by listening to Britney Spears and Madonna" - wants to veto my less messy, less irresponsible friend Erik from moving into our house because he's gay. Will just couldn't live with 3 gay people.

I say let Erik move in - and I say audios Will. I am really just outraged about this entire "predicament" - it doesn't effect me anyway, but if Erik doesn't move in because of this, I am moving out. The only reason I agreed to stay anyway was because Erik was moving in, but I could use an extra $250-$300 a month and I could definitely use living-without-Will if he wants to go through with this.

2005-01-25T19:22:00.000-05:00

Fascism against fascists

Now, I can’t particularly say that I support the ruling in this decision - censorship is always awful, and this guy is being fined almost $7000 (probably not in American money) for “libeling” the Pope by criticizing his age in a Polish newspaper called “NIE” (“no”) - but I can’t say I feel too much sympathy. Afterall:

“The ruling against Jerzy Urban, a onetime spokesman for the former Communist government of Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski, sparked cries of "Too little!" from opponents of the publishers. Jaruzelski's government had imposed martial law to try to crush the Solidarity freedom movement.”

What goes around comes around, eh?

Read this:

“Urban, 71, had professed his innocence, saying he only exercised the right to free expression.”

The exact same right he tried to take away from others by helping to impose martial law on innocent civilians, right? What a cunt. This takes the cake though.

“Last week, the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders, warned that Poland would violate European Union (news - web sites) guarantees of freedom of expression if it sentenced Urban for defaming the pope.”

Where were the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders when Saddam killed those who freely expressed their opinions of him?

The future of advertising

This guy sold his forehead as advertising space for one month, for almost 40 grand. I’d even sell my dignity for that chunk of change.

Oh, and I’d quit my job.

This is giving me an idea.

The FCC is showing some restraint

story

Apparently the FCC has decided to reject some indecency claims. Now, I don’t know about you, but I think a nipple shot is less offensive than any single episode of Friends…

2005-01-25T08:38:00.000-05:00

American royalty

Tips sent in from Wonkette readers:

"At around 1pm last Thursday the Capitol South Metro station was packed with tourists, Hill staffers and apparently members of Congress. Rep. Flake (R-Arizona), his wife and son were in line to get through the ticketing gate when Mrs. Flake's ticket was rejected because the ticket only had a 90 cent credit. While all other patrons of the Metro would have had to get out of line to add fare to their ticket, Mrs. Flake pulled a 'Do you know who I am?' move by pointing and loudly declaring that her husband was a member of Congress. Metro staff followed by allowing the entire Flake family in for free. Is this fair?”

Sounds like Mrs. Flake may be the Duchess of Arizona. But hah! Even the Duchess has to ride a fucking Metro.

“Senator Bunning gave some crazy ass speech in which he proceeded to name, individually mind you, all of the reporters who wrote bad op-ed pieces about him during the campaign that he almost lost. Oh, and most of them were sitting right there. It was more than a little awkward to say the least."

The British economy… sucks

According to this story, the British economy is at it’s worst ever. Good thing the government is there to take care of all of it’s unemployed and indebted citizens, huh!

2005-01-23T10:56:00.000-05:00

Why I Hate the Left

sassydude148: If I were socialist, what exactly would I
not be applying for? :P

AngelGoneHeathen: Wait, what?

sassydude148: socialist cunts need not apply

sassydude148: Your banner on XY.

AngelGoneHeathen: Oh, okay.

AngelGoneHeathen: Sorry, I'm tired.

sassydude148: I was curious, if I were a socialist.
What would I not be allowed to apply for? lol

AngelGoneHeathen: Having any sort of discussion with me in
which I listened to something you said with any degree of seriousness.

sassydude148: It's 3:30 in the morning, I understand
being tired :P

sassydude148: I see... I see. I'm not socialist. I
suppose I'm liberal. But, eh.. who's payin' that much
attention for me to care anyhow?

AngelGoneHeathen: Well, liberalism is getting pretty close to
socialism anyway.

AngelGoneHeathen: Actually, it just is watered down active
socialism.

sassydude148: Frankly I hate to say I'm part of any of
it. I'm me. I believe what I believe etc. If that falls
under Socialist, conservative, or liberal. Whatever. I
don't care. lol

AngelGoneHeathen: Well, I mean, that's fine... this sounds
really mean, but yes, of course you believe what you believe... but
those beliefs may happen to be socialist, and being socialist, they may
happen to be evil, which makes them not okay.

sassydude148: Right, but opinions are meant to be just
that. Opinions. Your not supposed to care if everyone
agrees with ya or not.

AngelGoneHeathen: No, you don't have to, but opinions can be
wrong.

sassydude148: Opinions are never wrong. They have
no right or wrong. That's why they are opinions...

AngelGoneHeathen: Opinions are wrong all the time - I can be
of the opinion that George Bush is being influenced by the direct will of
Satan, that doesn't make it right.

sassydude148: There is no proof that he isn't though... is
there?

sassydude148: :P~

AngelGoneHeathen: So? Just because there is no proof for
something doesn't mean it's suddenly true or untrue.

AngelGoneHeathen: There is no proof that plants exist billions
of miles away, but there is a likelihood.

sassydude148: Right, well then that comes back to
when there is no for-sure right or wrong, true or untrue,
then we have our opinions.

AngelGoneHeathen: There is a for sure right and wrong.

AngelGoneHeathen: Anyway, you're obviously a socialist,
later!

sassydude148: Ummm? What makes me a socialist?
Having an open mind?

AngelGoneHeathen: Your mind isn't open.

AngelGoneHeathen: It's just that a different door is closed.

sassydude148: None of my doors are closed. You
don't seem to be listening to me.

sassydude148: *sigh* Nevermind. What's the point.

AngelGoneHeathen: No, I hear what you're saying, so don't
pull that shit on me.

sassydude148: I was messaging you just to say hi.. and
that I thought you were interesting.

AngelGoneHeathen: Your'e just an elitist who's been fed lies by
liberal public education teachers.

AngelGoneHeathen: Sorry.

sassydude148: You can say that about everyone.

AngelGoneHeathen: Lately I just have no tolerance for that.

AngelGoneHeathen: No you can't.

AngelGoneHeathen: Not everyone believes those lies.

sassydude148: Yes, you can. And by turning everyone
away who clashes with your opinions or beliefs. Your
the one who is being close-minded right now. Turning
something I say into something socialist. I am not
socialist. I am myself. Don't try and put me into some
group you dislike.

AngelGoneHeathen: Right, I'm closed minded, but if the only
thing I'm keeping out is stupidity, then I can't say I'm bothered. I'm not
trying to put you in a group I dislike, you put yourself there a long time
ago.

sassydude148: And btw, I didn't have liberal teachers.
lol

AngelGoneHeathen: All public school teachers are liberal
because they don't teach you anything about America's real
foundation.

sassydude148: Who said I want to a public school?

sassydude148: Your assuming I did.

sassydude148: went*

AngelGoneHeathen: I can already tell you did by how dumb
you are.

sassydude148: Oh really? That's interesting. I'm far
from dumb; but, thanks for your opinion. I respect it.

AngelGoneHeathen: No you don't, so don't lie to me.

AngelGoneHeathen: I'm tired of liberals pretending they believe
things they don't.

AngelGoneHeathen: Be honest with m e.

AngelGoneHeathen: Open up, yell at me, let out your liberal
rage.

AngelGoneHeathen: Stop being so disingenous and
intellectually dishonest.

AngelGoneHeathen: You don't tolerate everything so STOP
acting like you do.

AngelGoneHeathen: I am SO SICK of liberal elitism

sassydude148: Mmmhmmm, keep going...

AngelGoneHeathen: JUST FUCKING STOP. :-)

sassydude148: Who's the one having a liberal rage
problem?

AngelGoneHeathen: My rage certainly isn't liberal.

sassydude148: I beg to differ.

AngelGoneHeathen: Do you even want to explain, or are you
just going to leave it at that?

sassydude148: I don't see you explaining your opinion
of myself to me, do I?

AngelGoneHeathen: I don't have to because the explanation
behind my opinion is implied and obvious - however, you're just saying
irrational bullshit and refusing to back it up.

AngelGoneHeathen: How the fuck is my rage liberal?

AngelGoneHeathen: You already seem like some
faux-intellectual collegiate, some totally mentally undeveloped
incompetent dumbass.

sassydude148: Wow, that was an easy way out. Here,
let me do the same thing. I don't have to, because the
explanation behind my opinion is implied and obvious.

AngelGoneHeathen: No it's not - you're just an idiot.

AngelGoneHeathen: You seriously are just an idiot.

sassydude148: Your adjectives are boring me.

AngelGoneHeathen: Would you like to see naked pictures then?

sassydude148: I'm sure that would bore me too. But
thanks.

AngelGoneHeathen: I don't think it would bore you, since
obviously intellectual challenges aren't really the sort of things that
stimulate you.

sassydude148: So, what kind of pizza toppings do ya
like?

AngelGoneHeathen: Dead liberal flesh chunks. Mmmm.

sassydude148: So basically fish?

AngelGoneHeathen: No.

AngelGoneHeathen: Dead liberal flesh chunks.

sassydude148: Sorry, not sure I like those. Would you
compromise with some pepperoni?

AngelGoneHeathen: No.

AngelGoneHeathen: I'm surprised you're not a vegetarian
though.

sassydude148: Perhaps some Vegan Cheese?

AngelGoneHeathen: You seem like a PETA member.

sassydude148: lol

sassydude148: PETA.... eh, I have mixed feelings.

AngelGoneHeathen: About what? Whether or not the blood in
the new ad is gruesome enough?

sassydude148: PETA generally goes to far in the
expression of their opinion.

AngelGoneHeathen: Generally?

AngelGoneHeathen: Their opinions are just stupid anyway.

AngelGoneHeathen: They're opinions are fucking lies.

sassydude148: You don't believe that animals should be
treated humanely?

AngelGoneHeathen: I believe that for the most part animals
are - how do you humanely kill something?

sassydude148: I've noticed that you use vulgar language
a lot. Why is that/

AngelGoneHeathen: I think manufacturers will treat animals
cost accordingly and if their customers don't like it they'll stop buying
their products.

sassydude148: The companies that PETA targets
generally aren't the ones killing animals. They are the
ones testing things on animals until they die.

sassydude148: Perhaps you should visit the website and
view some of the things before you flaunt your
uninformed opinion off.

AngelGoneHeathen: Then consumerism will decide whether or
not to buy products from those companies.

sassydude148: Most of the customers don't know that
this stuff is happening.

AngelGoneHeathen: My "uninformed opinion"

AngelGoneHeathen: If you're going to be elitist, can you at least have some substance?

sassydude148: Nah, that would please you... and that's not my aim.

AngelGoneHeathen: Are you even attractive?

sassydude148: Does my physical appearance have
some kind of impact on this conversation? No.

AngelGoneHeathen: Of course not, but I'm not being
disingenous like you are.

sassydude148: I'm sure.

AngelGoneHeathen: I'm sure you're actually not, because you
probably don't even know what that word means.

sassydude148: Assume what you'd like.

AngelGoneHeathen: Your dumb liberal ideology is seriously just
embodying everything I find wrong with people right now, so I'm
actually just directing all of my rage at you.

sassydude148: How sweet of you.

AngelGoneHeathen: Stop acting like an idiot.

AngelGoneHeathen: It's not even making me angry.

AngelGoneHeathen: -

sassydude148: btw, if your going to claim I don't know
what a specific word means... you might want to spell it
correctly first.

AngelGoneHeathen: Oh, I left out a U.

AngelGoneHeathen: You might want to capitalize. :-\ Who
fucking cares if I leave out one letter?

AngelGoneHeathen: You're just misdirecting the conversation.

AngelGoneHeathen: What, are you trying to say I can't spell?

sassydude148: I'm sure I am. That's my goal. To
misdirect the conversation.

sassydude148: If your going to comment on my
knowledge of a word, it'd help if you had spelled it
correctly.

AngelGoneHeathen: You aren't even trying to have a
conversation, you're just mentally masturbating your ego in order to
feel morally and intellectually superior to me, which is fine, except you
really just aren't.

AngelGoneHeathen: You're really just a dumb liberal jackass,
and I bet you're probably a hardcore socialist too. Later.

2005-01-21T01:08:00.000-05:00

One sound: Ugh.

Gays really want to get that amendment passed, don’t they? They’re already challenging DOMA - and the HRC has decided to run anti-Bush ads during the week of Bush’s inauguration. What good does this do? It’s about as stupid as the “Bush, you’re fired!” signs these stupid assholes paid for during the campaign - you know, the ones that they pointlessly carried to Bush rallies and succeeded only in creating more anti-gay animus among conservatives with? Yeah, those signs. But that’s not all! Not by a longshot.

Lambda Legal wants to force a business to amend it’s dress code in order to allow a lesbian to refuse to wear make-up on the clock. Homosexuals want to tell you what to do with your property! Of course, so do blacks, Jews, Latinos, and any other random minority (soon to include Satanists). Of course, I think these businesses should allow minorities to be employed within them, because I personally find racism wrong - it’s race culture I have a problem with. However, should I be able to force businesses to comply with my morality? Should they be allowed to decide what you do with YOUR property?

It’s even more obnoxious that this lesbian isn’t even bitching about being fired because she’s a lesbian, she’s being fired because she won’t wear any fucking make-up. What does make-up have to do with your sexuality? I am so sick of this bullshit.

And I’m GAY.

2005-01-20T23:27:00.000-05:00

Michael Moore NEEDS protection

Apparently Michael Moore’s bodyguard was arrested on an airport gun charge. I guess Michael Moore just needs guns to protect himself from people who would do him harm, right?

The Ayatollah of Coca-Cola

Those crazy Iranian Ayatollahs! Apparently the death fatwa for Salman Rushdie has been revived! British officials are playing down the comments as well… how dumb. Don’t you find it absolutely hilarious that Allah grants power to men to decide who gets to be murdered without it actually being a sin? I also think it’s pretty damned cool that the entire idea of a fatwa is to pray on man’s desire to murder and get away with it. Maybe if Rushdie is killed, Allah will reincarnate him as a Muslim woman.

And all the rest

Well, my car is still in the shop. I’m waiting for a phonecall from someone (I really hope I get it!), I started over on FFXI as a Taru named Tomirura (he’s cute) and I still could use a tiz-on of money. What else is there to say? Nothing else exciting happened today. Bush was sworn in, but I mean, we knew that was coming weeks ago! That’s not news. That’s shoes.

I guess.

2005-01-20T01:13:00.000-05:00

Playing the game - are you just a pawn?

So, I sit here tonight, thinking of ways to word the realization I’ve been coming to. And it really is just one giant game, except the fate of freedom is on the line. Does it have to be? No… but in the same way that a compelling force can coerce a man to put his own life on the line in a game of Russian roulette (sorry, I know that’s a complicated example), liberty is unjustifiably on the line in this stupid game of politics. On the one side, you have conservatives (socialists). On the other side, you have democrats (socialists). One side claims to be anti-socialism, pro-Constitution, yet at the same time they have no problem with corporate welfare, taxes spent on foreign wars, business regulation, donations to sketchy charities or projects, etc. On the other side, you have some democrats who in some cases actually claim to be neo-socialists, yet they still exploit the words of the Constitution for political gain - they have no problem with social welfare, business regulation, taxes spent on foreign wars, donations to sketchy charities and projects, etc. What is the real difference here?

Our money is still being stolen, and it’s still going to places I don’t want it to. My money going to the republicans is enacting prejudice fueled smear campaigns against homosexuals in order to ban gay state-marriage (this totally ignores the fact that the problem shows exactly what’s wrong with state marriage in the first place) - on the other hand, my money is going to abortion clinics and useless environmental research. Why?

Why does it have to be this way?

The only people who know that this is a game are the politicians themselves - the pundits do sometimes, but then you have the innocent goofs who fall for it, who buy the propaganda, who support John Kerry over George Bush or George Bush over John Kerry. What makes either of these candidates good? There is no “lesser of two evils” - there is only EVIL, and our social contingent, and probably you as well, define theft as evil, it defines murder as evil - yet our government uses force to enact both of these undoubtedly evil actions. And you support it. Why? The government claims it has a compelling interest - look deeper. What is that compelling interest?

Money. Power.

The politicians say they want to create a greater good, and that’s why they work for you. They want to use their powers for good. That just creates two problems: one, if all of these politicians want to create good in our world, then why the fuck have things been getting progressively worse since government lodged itself firmly in America’s ass in the 1960’s? Think of a good program that government has enacted in the past ten years. What problems did it solve - did it solve problems that government created in the first place? And did it REALLY even solve those problems, or did it just hide them a little better?

Don’t be a pawn like Andrew Sullivan, or like Michelle Malkin - don’t be a pawn like Bill O’ Reilly - you want to know how to win this game?

There’s only one way that you can be guaranteed to come out the moral victor, and there’s only one chance that you have to come out as the literal winner - and to earn that, there’s only one thing you have to do.

Just stop playing.

That’s all.

2005-01-19T23:17:00.000-05:00

The Portal to Smell

According to a very reputable source, the Eiffel Tower is a portal to Hell. This is in the breaking news section of the WWN website - but really, the French aren’t the only ones who knew. Americans have known for years as well - breaking news? You want breaking news?

Ted Kennedy is fat and stupid.

The Outposts of Tyranny - LVL 65 and up only

Apparently the Axis of Evil wasn’t quite evil enough to satiate America’s hunger for an epic, Final-Fantasy style alliance of enemies, so we now have the Outposts of Tyranny - does Bush have a high enough level and expensive enough equipment to take out Fidel Castro, Alexander Lukashenko, Robert Mugabe, Mohammed Khatami, the Mysterious Ruler of Burma (who’s name I can’t find), AND Kim Jong Il? And once he deals with the Evil Squad, will he have enough hit points left to deal with Satan himself? I personally think he’ll get maybe to Khatami before Khatami uses his awesome summoning abilities to call forth Jacques Chirac. Do you really think Bush has a high enough gun skill to deal with that? I don’t. Khatami is fucking LVL 72. Bush can’t find five people willing to go through that to even make a full party.

The Outposts of Tyranny only come with the expansion pack anyway.

P.S. I actually think it might be smart to deal with the remaining members of the Axis of Evil before we start adding to the list, don’t you agree?

The Ten Commandments - Coming to a Courthouse Near You

I’ve seen some bitching about this article, but I personally think it’s a great idea.
- It pisses off stupid liberal activists, as well as makes them powerless
- It doesn’t effect me in any way.

My two favourite things.

2005-01-17T21:51:00.000-05:00

Sully’s going crazy.

While I generally admire Andrew Sullivan and agree with his opinions, lately he has been saying some pretty odd things. Examples?

“Charles Graner, the sadistic monster of Abu Ghraib. I'm not so much shocked as intrigued by the relatively light sentence. It would be hard to find or invent a more graphic example of evil than that perpetrated by Graner in Abu Ghraib.”

Have you lost your mind, Andrew? You don’t even have to find or invent a more graphic example of evil - they’re all over the place! What about Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Josef Stalin, al Zarqawi, Drew Carey, Al Gore, Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy? I think you’re getting caught up in the romance of this whole thing - the fact of the matter is, while Graner may be sadistic, he’s certainly not a monster, he’s just a stupid asshole American with a lot of arrogance and a little penis. To call him a monster, especially when real monsters are actually out there today (Zarqawi, Hussein and bin Laden all individually multiply Graner’s “atrocities” ten times over) is just a tad bit excessive.

2005-01-17T21:33:00.000-05:00

Political Magic Tricks; Today? Making the deficit disappear!

But not really.

This story acts as though the 11 billion dollars from last years deficit that haven’t carried over to this years deficit is some sort of huge, spectacular news. The article itself implies that liberal bias in the media is keeping this news from reaching the ears of the American public, who would otherwise realize just how spectacular Mr. Bush really is. Bush has, afterall, eliminated more than 11 billion dollars from the deficit!

What really annoys me, though, is that this article praises Bush as somehow eliminating government interference in civilian life - as though Bush is actually restricting certain programs or making some significant change. Privatizing social security? That’s good, right?

Why don’t we just fucking eliminate it? The same principle applies: my money is being taxed/stolen from me by the government. 15% of my money, which is the amount I pay in social security tax (not 7.5%), is not going to be coming back to me, and EVERYONE knows it. So why do we sit idly by while the government steals money from us, and is then audacious enough to not even deny it? If you’re lucky you might get 1-2% of that 15% back at some point, but you wanna know what? Probably not. Not if you’re under 50. I bet you’ll get back a whopping 0%, actually.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not offended by this particular usual set of useless symbolic bullshit. What really offends me is this quote:

“A supply-side tax-reform movement, a shrinking budget deficit, newfound spending discipline, and a determination to confound conventional wisdom by reforming Social Security has George W. Bush’s second term off to a roaring start — even before he is officially sworn in.”

Yep - what really offends me is that this tool acts like only stealing 46% of your income instead of 47% is somehow a fucking improvement (and I doubt you’ll even keep that extra 1%).

5 Years has sensitized you to animated asses.

Try saying that five times fast. O_o

Fox has blurred Stewie’s butt out of a Family Guy re-run that was originally aired five years ago. Why? - well, I guess we just can’t handle ass after 9/11. Or maybe some unelected cunts want new Ferraris? Who am I to judge?

2005-01-17T17:53:00.000-05:00

Wrapping Up

I just got back home from work. The bus didn't arrive at 5:10, as I had been planning on, so there I was, stranded at the mall. Luckily, I had a coworker drop me off, so nothing particularly awful happened. There was actually no real reason for me to include what I just did, but I did anyway. I was supposed to get my Skylark towed to Firestone tonight, but the road there is closed... I'm not sure why. But that road was exactly 5 miles, which meant it wouldn't cost me any money to get it towed. To take another way there would cost me a lot of cash that I don't have, so I have to wait until tomorrow. It's a reason to procrastinate I guess. I'm off, so it shouldn't be a problem. But now I'm stuck here without food. I can probably get Chris to take me to Krogers later, where I can buy lots of cheap groceries, but I'm not entirely sure. It's also freezing in my room, I just kinda wanna curl up under a blanket and go to sleep (and I may very well after I'm finished posting). So without further adieu...

The Future!

Tonight I guess I am going to work with the projects I have started on Frooty Loops. I like some of what I've done, so I'll take two or three of them and turn them into synth songs to back up Michael's basslines. After these are done, I'm just waiting until I get my keyboard. Frooty Loops is really just too annoying and too hard to be any fun. But I was thinking, while listening to music at work today, I keep making the songs too busy. Why? Why do I think I should just create this confusing wall of sound? Some of the best songs just have cool drum loops and a few overlayed sounds, so why can't I do something like that? I can. I made a hip hop loop the other day for fun, and I was wondering at work today, why can't I just use something like that? I think it might be cool to turn that into a dance song. I need to stop limiting myself, and telling myself that I can't do things that I easily can. So... wish me luck!

The Present!

I saw someone familiar at the mall today, and I made a decision: shut the fuck up about him. So, unless something happens, this isn't going to be bothering me anymore. And I won't talk about it on here (I probably will still bitch to my close friends, or at least... wish? o_O).

The Past!

In the past 10 minutes I've seen a really bad Britney Spears video for "Do Something" - yeah. I think it's time to let the past go and move forward with my life - forward into a future where I'll never see that video again.

2005-01-17T01:47:00.000-05:00

Cristian Valentino, Multi-Talented and Well-Endowed

To direct, or not to direct, or to just direct music videos, which aren't as good as movies, but I can still technically direct them.

So, I was thinking today, about how I've been thinking of directing lately, and writing - although this clearly comes to a head with my dream of becoming a pop superstar (which is definitely inevitable) - and, it occurred to me, that I can do both of these things by merely directing. For instance, if I were to release the title track of the album I plan on writing with Michael as a single, which is called "This Is Take 1, Dance or Die Trying" - then I could easily do a music video for that involving Yakuza gang rivals going at it in the middle of a neo-disco in Tokyo, with guns, and when the bullets run out, samurai swords. The fight would explode into the middle of a Tokyo in the center of a blizzard, and the fight would involve blood flying out into the falling snow. But inside the club, there would just be a lot of multi-coloured lights and disco balls and whatnot, and aside from the two swordfighters, the Yakuza members would actually just be dancers, and holy shit I'm fucking gay.

But I'm going to continue anyway.

The video would be ridiculously homoerotic, and it would involve two really, really hot Japanese guys. Obviously everything would be choroegraphed, but the swordfight would be so badass that I can't begin to describe it here. By the end of the video, they'd both looked pretty ragged, but... well... yeah. Maybe I would have them dance with each other or something. I don't know.

But anyway, Michael wants me to start making some synths on Frooty Loops. The problem here is, I hate Frooty Loops, so I'm going to just buy a keyboard/synthesizer and an amp with part of my tax return and use that to make music, as I hate making it on this computer. I'll post up some MP3's when I get the chance.

2005-01-17T01:23:00.000-05:00

ANGER

Well, I can already tell you I hate the way blogger unleashes awful HTML errors and glitches on all of my posts, every single time I make one. What's going on here?

Oh, this is how I'm going to update. I'm not doing "daily" updates because that just means I'm going to forget half of my thoughts throughout the day. So instead, I'll just allow some random post I make in the day to allow for comments, and the rest just won't. So... there.

Socialists know what's good for you, volume 1.

2005-01-17T01:16:00.000-05:00

The Samurai Disco!

I know that lately, it's becoming increasingly obvious that my new political stance is going to annoy most of you, because, as with all passionate beliefs I've held in the past, I tend to push them onto my friends when they least want to be pushed, or when I find the things that they are saying the most annoying and inane. So I guess it would be better for me to vent here, as opposed to merely yelling at them for being wrong (or engaging in futile 'debate' - debating IRL, I've determined, invokes emotion, and emotion really has no place in any sort of debate, coming from either side - and I've noticed I tend to get emotional a lot, IRL, so yeah) - so here goes. Here is what annoys me today!

Don't Steal From the Rich - Just Make Them Pay More for Welfare!

This story reveals how absolutely absurd the Left is becoming - it charges that because rich people have more money, they should pay higher fines when caught speeding or breaking any law in which there is some sort of fine imposed. My, that's convenient, isn't it? This involves government invasion of privacy and is a relatively obvious example of unusual punishment, but this isn't taking place in America. I mean, the government wouldn't invade our privacy or impose any sort of cruel or unusual punishment on it's own citizens, would it?

Nah. That could never happen in America.

I swear I'm not crazy.

2005-01-17T01:15:00.000-05:00

Anti-government paranoia, or justified distrust?

So I understand that my constant complaining about the government must be getting annoying to some of you, and to others, I probably sound like a psychopath who sits in his basement and bitches about how the government is evil and how it must be brought down, and blah blah. You know - the type of people who Michael Moore puts in his movies and parades around as a bunch of weirdos in order to discredit anyone who disagrees with his fascist agenda? Well, yeah. I probably do.

But why should I trust the government? What problems has the government ever successfully solved that it didn't create in the first place? Or a better question - how many problems has the government been unable to solve that created in the first place? Government solutions only create more problems anyway. The government has given me plenty of reasons not to trust it in the past - I can't trust it with my money, I can't trust it to enforce laws that are actually needed, and I can't expect it to uphold the rules set forth in the Constitution.

I know it sounds cliche. But please, bear with me. I'm not crazy (yet)

Hi!

2005-01-17T01:11:00.000-05:00

The first thing that I will say is this: I hate this design. So I will be fucking with it on and off for the next few days until I find something that I like. The second thing is, I really dislike Livejournal, so I guess I'm done with that. I think this just looks a lot more professional, and posting on it will, of course, make me feel much more important. But in order to fulfill my fantasy of seeming more important than I actually am, I'm going to need to post about more important things than my life, so it's time to start being intellectually dishonest! Are you prepared for the same old me, re-packaged in newspaper and claiming to be brand spanking new? I hope so. Because I'm going to be really annoying, and you can't do anything about it.

I'd also like to give a shout out to my dawgs in Compton: Yo, T-Boz, J-Lo and Left Eye! R.I.P. gurl. U know what I'm saying?

Peace out until I return in five minutes with a bunch of news stories that I find annoying.