Learn2Liberty | Freedom. The Rights of the Individuals.

Open Letter to President Barker on A Better Clemson

2011-10-28T11:31:00.000-07:00

Dear President Barker,

It has been over a week since the off-campus altercation between four individuals, one of whom was severely beaten. Alcohol was involved, but that should not overshadow the fact that homophobia and misogyny also fueled the fight.

A year ago I wrote to you about the dangers of bullying that occur not just in high school but among college students as well. This bullying often targets members of the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer) community both within the student body and the faculty and staff, and even people assumed to be gay because of common misguided stereotypes. I asked that you write to the student body and employees about the importance of accepting the diversity around us. We should see everyone as a valuable individual with much to offer Clemson University and society.

I write to you again, now, in light of the “LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index” in which Clemson University recently participated. It was possible to score 5 out of 5 stars in relation to eight LGBT-Friendly factors such as LGBT Policy Inclusion, Support & Institutional Commitment, Academic Life, Student Life, Housing, Campus Safety, Counseling & Health, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts.

Our top two scoring categories were Counseling & Health, in which we scored 90%, and Support & Institutional Commitment, in which we scored 56%. The rest of the categories were well below 50%, and the score for the entire index for Clemson University was a 2 out of 5 stars.

Almost all of the Top 20 public schools in the country have taken this test and have scored well over 3 stars. Our neighbor to the south, University of South Carolina, is the only institution in the state to have an LGBTQ Resource Center.

In this email I am requesting, as a gay staff member of Clemson University and a graduate, that you give me permission to begin forming a Presidential Commission on the status of LGBTQ Students and Faculty/Staff in order to address these issues and more on campus. I still see Clemson University as a welcoming institution for all people, despite their differences of color, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, but unfortunately I constantly hear from new and existing LGBTQ students that they do not feel safe. They do not feel welcome by the body of Clemson University. They do not feel as if our leading institution has their interests in mind to any degree that was offered to another marginalized group not too long ago: our fellow African-American colleagues and students.

Now is the time that we show our students and those who work with us that they are here to experience Clemson University as it should be, and we are dependent on their future.

During the town hall, coming up on November 1st, there will be several members of the LGBTQ community and their allies posing questions to you about why Clemson University has failed to reach out in its recruitment and retention of not only students but faculty and staff as well. You will be asked why partnered or married gay faculty and staff, who work hard to make Clemson one of the top universities in the country, are not given the same health benefits as their straight counterparts. They will ask when Clemson University will take a stand in ending benefits discrimination in the state of South Carolina.

There will also be questions about gender-neutral bathrooms, living learning communities within housing to create a safe environment for incoming freshmen and others, LGBTQ-specific courses. the lack of a resource center. the information in acceptance packages for incoming students about services for LGBTQ people, and many other topics.

I write to you in the hopes that together we can show our current and future members of the Clemson Family that we can provide them with an equal, healthy, and safe learning environment of the 21st century: that we truly can be A Better Clemson.

Sincerely,
Joshua Morgan
Clemson University Libraries
Class of 2010

Police Brutality during Occupy Wall Street and Why They Do It

2011-09-27T07:15:00.000-07:00

Remove tax exemption from churches and allow them to apply like a non-profit organization

2011-09-23T07:56:00.000-07:00

SIGN THIS PETITION, PLEASE

"Remove tax exemption from churches and allow them to apply like a non-profit organization
Currently, churches usually receive tax exemptions based of off their specific religion and sect. If a specific sect is not already recognized, they are able to apply to become a recognized religion. This process gives the government the authority to determine which religions should and should not be recognized as 'true' religions in our country, a clear violation of the first amendment."

Civil Disobedience = Domestic Terrorism

2011-08-25T13:32:00.001-07:00

There’s a fundamental difference between two divergent interpretations of the Constitution’s intent and purpose:

The original idea that the Constitution informs the State of citizens’ natural rights and restricts it [the State] thusly; and
The modern and pervasive idea that the Constitution informs the citizens as to what rights they have and what they are allowed to do within the laws.
At first glance these two statements may seem just as similar as the Golden Rule and its inverse: don’t do unto others as you would not have them do unto you. We must look beyond the elementary meaning invoked by merely skimming over both and nodding our heads as to say that they mean one in the same.

The polar syntax machinations in both sets of statements become only clearer when we appoint examples to all four sentences. Though it might be argued that in both instances both sentences can be applied together, I think to do so would only confuse people even more. It would be to say that the State and the citizens are a symbiotic relationship rather than the State ruling the people or the people ruling the State. We have been led to believe that we are a democratic society and that the State is for and by the people, but this holds no water when you take two seconds to imagine disposing of the current elected elite and consider your chance of success.

The rule of law and respect for the State has been a slow and steady propaganda campaign wrought by countless committees, congresses, and presidents. Those charged with maintaining law and order at the point of a gun do so by first considering the law and second, the rule. The citizen does not fit into the equation. The mass are too well disciplined to obey at the bark of an order by an authority figure.

Armed service members continue to be members while fighting overseas burying their moral confusions about the entire bloody situation. Policemen too often act first and question later. This has been defended by staunch statists who put the policeman’s safety first over the citizen’s. And we have been told that this is morally just, that the policeman puts his/her life on the line to protect us. They must act in accordance with their own self-preservation first and foremost. But to what extent? More and more, thanks to the liberating power of the internet, we read stories and reports of policemen going above and beyond just handcuffing someone. They are killing people without restraint in the act of “self-defense”; guilty before the idea “innocent” is a thought that can pass through a policeman’s mind.

Through this method of discipline and demonizing those who break a law but create no victim, the government has been able to secure a passive people. Any civil disobedience has just become another phrase for domestic terrorism. In Europe they are rioting over what we might consider to be quite silly and some times over things that we can solve in court or through referendum. We have become a country that is a combination of the prophecies of Orwell and Huxley; something I’m sure both of them would have dreaded more than their own single fictitious creations.

The Constitution is not a restriction on the people. The Constitution is a restriction on the State. It’s a restriction the State has ignored and trumped and abused with law after law.

You SHOULD not respect every service member or every police officer or every legislature you come across. You DON’T know each and every one of their morals and reasons for taking on the job that they did. You don’t have to physically fight back but being verbally strong towards “authority” figures is a step in the right direction. If they’re being ugly you need to voice it out and tell them to back the fuck up. Carry a copy of the Constitution and shove it in their face to remind them that that little book is the supreme law of the land and their guns are not.

Fourth Amendment Victories

2010-12-16T15:53:00.000-08:00

Krugman, Keynes, and Roosevelts, Oh my!

2010-12-16T15:52:00.000-08:00

My Coming Out Story

2010-12-16T14:59:00.000-08:00

Morals

2010-12-12T13:58:00.001-08:00

Cause: People keep posting this as their status on Facebook

Homeless go without eating. The elderly go w/o medicine. The mentally ill go without treatment. Troops go without proper equipment. Veterans go without benefits that were promised to them. Yet we give billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans, those who already own half...of everything and need it not at all. If you think this is profoundly wrong, will you re-post this message as your status update?

Effect: This is my Facebook response to that

These statuses people put up about 2% getting tax breaks, fail to realize how all of these problems got started. When you get the government to run so many programs designed for welfare, they become so tax dependent that none of us are paying the amount that would really need to be paid. But when you let the government, not specialists, in running a program to benefit hundreds of millions, it is doomed to fail.

Yet we expect it to be run like a well-oiled business machine. This isn't possible. Businesses know their budget and can make cuts easily or attain capital more readily than a group of people whose political lives depend on pleasing their constituents.

This is a fundamental flaw in people's thinking of how a government should operate. We are rolling in debt from foreign countries, all of our income tax goes to paying off that interest, and the government is running one of the largest deficits in US history.

When something becomes "too big to fail", there are always two different oppositional sides. It has come down to classes. Would we be looking at this situation the same if the top 2% earned only $100,000 a year? Or $40,000? Yes, you would be.

In the sense of stealing others property you will obey that principle, that some have more than others and it is the governments to take. Have you questioned: how did they come upon such means? Was it from stealing from others? Or was it from using the minds? To provide us with the goods and services the VAST majority of us love so much.

This government has become so bloated that we are down to making decisions that our human nature pushes us to avoid moral principles that we live our lives by. And when we sacrifice just a little bit of those principles, we lose everything. We lose the right to say, "Well I don't make much, and this is my property. Who are you to determine whether you can take it from me and give to those I don't know, I don't trust, I don't consider good."

But it's too late. You've already let the government take from those who you believed had too many. And soon it may come down to you, once we have drained the top 2 and make our way down the percentages.

Oh...this could never happen? That's what they said in the 1940s with the New Deal. That's what they said in Johnson's term, and then we saw how terrible this sacrificing of the principle was in Carter's. But we didn't learn did we? Now we see it again. And you can take the top 2% money, but in thirty forty years, my fellow generation, and this vicious government cycle has continued, it will be our turn to be legally plundered.

I don't think that the 2% should be getting tax breaks because the entire tax code needs to be changed. And so, I don't agree with any of the people with those statuses, because I'm operating on a different principle. While you operate on the idea of legalized plunder that knows no bounds because it doesn't operate on principles. Foundations.

God and Chalk | by Me

2010-10-22T07:46:00.000-07:00

Originally Published in the Tiger Town Observer, September 2010

Glenn Beck. What else is there to say to someone when you utter his name? For some people you will get the reaction of a crazy man, a conspiracy theorist, and/or a right wing radical. For others you get a man of truth, a man of principles, a man ready to stand up for his country and say that's enough! When I watch or read Glenn Beck, I like to see a little of both. Here is a man who has recovered from an alcohol and drug addiction to become one of the most idolized talk radio/TV hosts in the nation. A man whose politics I find myself agreeing more and more with. From his views on the liberated markets and limited government to legalizing gay marriage and the freedom to practice your religion whether you are thirty states away from Ground Zero or two blocks down.

Beck's road to TV superstar has not been one to smile at. In his early years in radio he had few friends, made enemies easily and even called the wife of another local AM radio station rival DJ days after she had a miscarriage and said: "We hear you had a miscarriage." When the DJ's wife responded, "yes", Beck went on to joke about how the DJ couldn't do anything right, even having a baby. In those same days Beck also did several impersonations, one of which was an over-the-top black man impersonation. According to a colleague who worked with him, Beck was always fighting for the highest ratings and would say anything to get them. One can still see this same mentality when we flash forward post drugs, alcohol, and born again Mormon.

Just recently Beck was discussing the idea of Jesus Christ choosing death instead of being a victim. Beck explained that had Christ chosen to be a victim instead, he would have come back and made the Jews pay for what they had done. He goes on to explain that Jesus Christ is who he is, exactly because he didn't punish the Jews. When Beck had Keith Ellison, a Muslim congressman, on his show, he said: I want to say, "'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' And I know you are not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel." I try to operate on the dialogue ideal of attacking the idea, not the person, but for Glenn Beck, taking on 11 year old Malia Obama isn't out of the question. When Malia asked her father, Barack Obama, whether he plugged the oil hole yet, Glenn Beck mock impersonated her voice and then said: "that's the level of their education…" Instead of going after Obama, Beck went on a four minute impersonation of Malia's voice asking her father about different liberal policies.

These are the little details most people don't mention when they speak of their distaste for Glenn Beck. The cool new thing to do now is to call someone a fascist or compare them to Hitler. Once you've done that, you need to make sure you lump them in with the liberals and progressives because they're just as fascist as driving a VW Thing. But why does Glenn Beck believe that the new progressives are easily compared to Hitler and the Third Reich? Well, he takes a step back into history to look at one of President Woodrow Wilson's propaganda advisors, Edward Bernays. Bernays specialized in public relations/propaganda and is considered to be the father of public relations. He believed that in democracy it is necessary to transform and control the ideas of the people. His book, "Crystallizing Public Opinion" was Joseph Goebbels', Hitler's propaganda minister, main instrument in his push to turn the German people against the Jews. Bernays just happened to be Jewish himself.

In those couple sentences I gave you more detail than Beck did in his program about Bernays. Because he claims Woodrow Wilson to be one of the first progressives in America and that one of his advisors' book was used by the Third Reich to help kill more than six million Jews, that all current progressives using any public relations tactics reminiscent of the Wilson years are just as bad as the Nazis. Too bad I don't have a chalk board for you to look at. The Nazis also placed a strong emphasis on the strength of the family unit and on driving VWs and gosh does this Jew want to drive one of those new Volkswagen CCs!

What am I really trying to get at here? I mean this isn't the first time someone has called one or more of our politicians Hitler or a Nazi. Hardcore left liberals believed Bush to be Hitler reincarnate, and now the same thing is being done, especially revolving around the Tea Party phenomena in relation to Barack Obama. Oh my democrat readers I just saw your eyes roll at the mention of the Tea Party. My eyes would roll in response of yours rolling! The Tea Party was born out of the negative response to the massive government, or should I say tax payer, bail outs to corporations and banks. "Limited government" they shouted, as I did. It was a nationwide push that only the likes of Ron Paul could unleash upon our corrupt two-party system.

Then something unfortunate happened. Due to the emphasis on fiscal responsibility which happens to be a Republican ideal (I beg to differ), major GOP and conservative politicians participated in Tea Party rallies. Glenn Beck and his female counter-part, Sarah Palin, saw their chance to grab hold of a movement and give it the impetus it needed to become a national ideological force. Enter the throngs of ignorant and ill-informed or as I like to refer to them, Palin's Posse. By their God given, divine speaking powers combined, they stripped the Tea Party from the hands of Ron Paul libertarians and created a new breed of tea baggers; one whose driving force wasn't reason but faith. Returning to God is what Glenn Beck believes will bring this country back to the ways of the founders and it really is what his whole show has become.

Glenn Beck has gone through many transformations in life and his most recent three are in chronological order as follows: from moderate conservative to pure constitutionalist and finally to what we have now, God touting sensationalist. Beck doesn't believe that politics will save this country. What will save this country is the common man going back to God for his principles, and this applies to any religion, and then applying those principles to help him vote. Dear Glenn, not all religions follow the same principles and they definitely don't have the same justice practices for the ones that are the same.

Let me bring this almost full circle to our progressive Nazi-like liberals. Just like the Nazis, the progressives are going try and take full control of our churches. And when that happens, according to Beck, "we have all these stupid people who will listen to whatever their pastor says." He also says that when you take church and combine it with big state and get people to do what the state says, it always leads to big death. In his show when he discusses the true reason for the separation of church and state, he explains it was to protect the church from state control, and I agree with him on that. But this idea works both ways. When your constituents turn back to God for their morals and principles they are going to vote for the politician that claims Faith comes first and country, second. In America what do you think the largest and loudest faith is?

When we vote that way, we can't help but have Christian based morals and principles in our government. Is that a problem? Well I kind of like the commandment of "thou shalt not kill," but for those who don't believe in Christianity and some of the principles derived from the religion, their politicians are elected because others do. What we then have is a faith perverted system of government. The more I think about it the more I really want a chalkboard! So what am I getting at here? Glenn Beck tells us that the government doesn't need to be telling us what to do and then turns to the other camera and says, "I'll tell you what you need to do."

Beck is one of the greatest showmen around. He knows that a vast majority of Americans are Christian and he argues the state controls the people through religion. But it is also exactly what he is doing with his radio and TV shows. He is driving a majority of Americans down a road using the motor of faith and himself as the driver. He is the Bernays of our day, the Goebbels of the conservative right. You see what I just did there, readers? Imagine my hand, with white chalk, drawing a line from Goebbels to Beck! Gasp! Beck is doing what he does best and has always been motivated to do: achieve the highest ratings and say anything to do it. He is the greatest megalomaniac of the 21st century; a man driven by the need to be loved and followed. His tools: God and chalk. Some things never change.

Social Security and Taxes are a contradiction to the Rational Human Ideal

2010-08-13T12:04:00.001-07:00

The State and Federal government's attempts to promote and execute themselves as my nannies are demeaning to me as a human capable and proven of rational thought.

The fact that I have to pay into a Social Security system that uses only a portion of the money I give it to pay its current receivers and spend the rest instead of saving is a very contradiction of the idea of preparing for retirement.

The fact that in no point in the history of this Welfare State has the government EVER been able to properly calculate its budget or how much a vastly large program will cost over half a century culminates to the most perverse and purest form of irony there is; that is, that the government is "planning" for my retirement because it believes I am incapable of doing so myself.

All governments', federal, state, and local, attempts to balance their own budget and fail so terribly begs the question as to the rationality of those individuals.

They act as though they are a teenager with his/her brand new "limitless" credit card, unleashed unto the world to spend as they please; making only so little payments to their debt that within time the interest will be crushing their parent's, ie the taxpayer's, wallets.

But this teenager, who "supposedly" is governed by their parents; directed by their parents; given life by their parents; given POWER by their parents, feigns the ailment of being deaf and continues to spend more than they have.

What can the parents do? The teenager has strapped them in a chair and told them to keep calm and carry on; for all their worries are for naught! The teenager is a responsible entity.

What am I to do against this teenager? This grossly overgrown obese teenager?

I watch as they spend my hard earned money frivolously and without oversight. Losing a few billions here and accruing a few trillion in interest there. I struggle in my chair, arms held down by lawful binds; making it illegal for me to refuse or strike my teenager for that is child abuse and the punishment is imprisonment or a fine.

Merely WITHHOLDING my dues to this teenager's credit card spending frenzy is punishable at the point of a gun. Yes, a gun. I will be handcuffed and dragged to the nearest jail and given a court sentence. A gun pointed straight at me the whole time, removing my choice to get up and leave. No, gun is not some fantastical form of a metaphor but the real deal. The bullet shooting, head exploding, gun.

What can I do? Any legal objection I have is merely thrown out the window. And the other forms of objection? Illegal. Point of gun illegal.

My voice. My choice. They do not exist in this teenager's mind. My well-being? Well that factor's in.

It factors into the teenager's ends without any consideration as to the morality of the means.

A slave is a slave whether he is aware of that fact or not.

The Rubicon Of Revolution

2010-08-09T11:41:00.000-07:00

In all my years of being alive my government has given me no reason to trust in its idea of an institution to protect the people. I first experienced the false golden years of the Clinton administration during which the prospering economy was propped up by the criminal tax rates applied to those that dared to live the American dream. The integrity of a largely popular president dissolved under his exposed sex scandal. This only aided in the further division of the political ideologies of our country.

My eyes were privy to the election that divided a country. Half of America felt the morals of the Democratic Party had fallen by the waist side and were wooed by the scarred president’s predecessor’s son. Born of the Lone Star state he was the face of rugged American individualism. Before we knew it our American way of life was knee deep in social- and neo-conservatism. Two beliefs thought to be divergent, but both forced about the nation in foreign lands and our own. Bush and his party invaded this country with the dangers of theocracy combined with the corruption of corporatocracy.

The very baby boomer generation, born out of the ashes of a second great war meant to bring about peace to every country around the world, voted in the very type of man they fought so hard in the sixties against. This was the generation that was raised on the idea of democracy for everyone and no more blood was to be shed fending of ruthless tyrants in Europe. Their innocence was not intact for long as they committed the ultimate rebellion in protesting against the only thing their parents knew: war. The administration of their young age delved itself into Vietnam and a greater need for American imperialization. This generation fought a war of words with the older ones and brought about a immense social change, civil rights.

It is one of the greatest tragedies of the twentieth century for the children born of the peace generation to be dropped into two major conflicts in the Middle East by the very man their parents elected. Having secured the civil rights of their fellow black man and woman, the irony that their gay and lesbian children face the same great social prejudice and governmental oppression is only a slap in the face to what they stood for so long ago.

The illusion of Hope brought their children to vote for a man they believed would bring about the end to social- and neo-conservatism and help secure the peace their parents had protested so hard for. Only this new president brought about the horrid ideology of collectivism, the all too close cousin of religious rule. Though this country was founded by a collected group of men, the very beliefs that spawned the Constitution were anything but collectivist. Our constitution was inspired and formed on the basis of independence from any all-ruling power.

With his successful election to President, he was joined by his party that ruled over the majority of Congress. What Hope and Change did they bring? More corporatism.

What can be done? What should be done? No official running for office will ever be able to change the status quo. Fox News has done its job brainwashing the right just as every other major news organization has brainwashed the left.

Before us flows the Rubicon of Revolution. The same Rubicon that our founding fathers in crossed in 1776.

I don’t know about you, but I’m ready to get my feet wet.

Fannie Mae Seeks $1.5 Billion From U.S. Treasury After 12th Straight Loss

2010-08-06T07:00:00.000-07:00

Fannie Mae Seeks More Money from The Gubment

"Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance company operating under federal conservatorship, is seeking $1.5 billion in aid from the U.S. Treasury Department after a 12th straight quarterly loss.

Fannie Mae had a loss of $1.2 billion in the second quarter, compared with a loss of $14.8 billion in the same period a year earlier, it said today in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Washington-based company posted more than $147 billion in losses in the preceding 11 quarters, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."

It’s funny how these things go. The government is planning to increase taxes on the top percentage of earners, who happen to be the bosses and CEOs. These people are already cutting back spending and you want them to hire people or give higher wages to their middle income workers? Well guess why Fannie is tanking? No one can afford a damn mortgage or loan to buy a house. The recession barely affects the upper and lower class people. Why? The upper control the companies and everyone needs the lower to do the work no one else will do. So what is the middle class doing? Those that lost their job have more than twice the amount of bill payments than the lower class does because the lower class lives paycheck to paycheck.

The middle class needs to pay their house, car, cellphone, cable, internet, child’s college, etc etc; and so when they lost their job that allowed them to pay for all these things you think they went to the nearest grocer asking for a job? No. Some, if not all, went straight to unemployment and started collecting checks, and the others took it upon themselves to quickly jump out there looking for another job. How many of you actually think that this middle class person will accept a job earning half the amount they used to? A rational person might think, well some money is better than no money.

Unfortunately there are few people that actually think this way and our sense of entitlement pushes us to get that job that will help us keep all these luxuries. So while we’re defaulting on our loans from Fannie Mae, and no one is searching for more loans because they KNOW they could never afford a house at the moment, the government (or should I say we the taxpayers) will give them more of our money to help prop them up. Those who are paying on their loans to Fannie Mae are paying TWICE! Granted not in the same dollar amount, but if you would refer back to your high school lessons of a cartesian circle you will automatically have known where I was going from this by reading just the first sentence.

Now, this is all speculation but seeing as how I haven’t seen any evidence to negate said assumptions, I find it rather safe to hedge my bets on the irrationality and desperateness of the human spirit.

SOCIALISM! In big letters...

2010-07-22T08:06:00.000-07:00

So I was walking to work today and said "Morning" to the man cleaning windows of our theater building. Then I started thinking, "how fair does he think his wage is?" Granted I do not know at all how much he gets paid but I started to play a scenario out in my head:

So I run a company that has over a thousand people working for me and I run across one of our window cleaners. I begin to wonder if his wage pays all of his bills and he can manage his life just fine. So I invite him into my office and we sit down and try to brainstorm what I can do for him. I start to explain that there is a hierarchy of wages in the company and it is there because certain people went through years of school (and had to pay for those years) to acquire skills that were in higher demand than those of someone who cleans windows. Obviously he wouldn't just be cleaning windows because that doesn't take all day and he must do other custodial things within the company's building.

Where does this leave him then? I can't create a perfect scenario of me running a company because I wouldn't know all the figures. But, I knew I couldn't justify a raise of his work if all he did was clean. The pool of unemployment is too large; there's too many people that are willing to clean windows.

I proceeded to go on a tangent and imagine everyone making the same amount. Even if it was a small amount, all of our living expenses would be taken care of. We would be granted things equally. There could be no special treatment. Right now, I would be fine with that! I wouldn't be in debt or worry about having food. I could live happily with everything taken care of.

But is that enough? Would I be able to spend my leisure time reading the same types of books? Would turning on the TV give me the same sort of laughs or drama and mystery that the show LOST gave me? Would I be able to walk to my computer and watch anything I wanted?

How different would information dissemination be? Some of the most world changing ideas have come out of open source thinking. No monetary profit involved: wikipedia, google, the internet. Each one of these has totally changed the way we think and do things. Eventually Google is doing things for profit but so many of their services are free to the public. But, would I be able to play WoW? Would the game exist? That idea didn't just come out of wanting people to have fun but also to make money off their intellectual property.

Would I be driving my childhood dream car, a Dodge Stealth? Ford didn't come out with his first car just to improve human life. There was a profit motive. Why the hell do we need this profit motive? To afford the things that people create and provide us with. Socialism can't do that for us. People won't be driven to create a sports car or a multi-million player video game. Why you might ask?

Because a socialist government wouldn't think it to me prudent. Why waste the people's resources on that which doesn't support necessary survival? Socialism planners are to think big and long term. These are but whims of our human wants. I decided I couldn't live in a world like that. Where the human mind ISN'T challenged to its full potential; to one up the next person. It's human nature, you can't control it without shackling it and throwing away the key. You can only provide it with a release!

Now, my main goal isn't to rant about socialism. I don't think it is an impending doom that will happen any time soon. But my mind did make the easy transition from socialism back to my original scenario with the window cleaner. The government wants to help those out that haven't been able to afford their own housing or keep up with their car payment or just simply have food. The government does this on our dime.

The principle: taxing anyone, no matter how much they make. With a principle you can't add a footnote that says, well if this person makes this much... No, it's an arbitrary number, it can always be changed. The current system has a funny take on this principle, mainly none. We have a vicious progressive tax system that puts people in categories based on how much they earn. This is a system more designed for: socialism. In a socialist society if people made different amounts of money you would have to make it equal by taxing higher wage earners by a different ratio. But why tax them till you bring them down to their fellow brothers who make less than they do but pay less in taxes? Why not just pay them equally.

So you see, this is why the progressive tax system has no principles and has no place in any form of government or economy. It doesn't have a true moral basis. Morals are based on principles or they aren't morals at all but the whims of men, easily changed to meet their wants and "needs".

I've come to a rather weak conclusion. The tax system is immoral and unjust. There is NO fairness in it. Even those making under $25,000 a year find it hard to watch their paycheck shrink from the taxes being taken out. When our society is built upon the greatest of the human mind to grant our wants and needs, I find it disgusting that our government is so ready to start tearing the very fabric apart through taxes. The government is so bloated and corrupt. Our military stretches its fingers way beyond the mandate of protecting the American people. Our drug laws and foreign aid send money where it shouldn't and doesn't help other countries. Where both the republicans and the democrats have so blinded you into thinking that by paying your taxes you are helping others in society, have you ever stopped to think: Will I finally succumb to financial burden and become one who recieves benefits because I can't lift myself back up again? In this false world of morals the government has created, it keeps the low wage earners down and wreaks havoc on those already standing upright.

So many of you think it's the large corporations fault. Yes, they have a large part of the blame when you look at how easily they can corrupt our elected officials. But it isn't rape if you don't say no, which is what those elected officials are not doing. So many government agencies are created and bloated every year; sucking up your tax dollars like they are the newest Dyson on the market. Stop believing the issues the democrats and republicans say they stand for! No one can stand on Capitol Hill with a straight face and say: I want to improve America by creating universal healthcare and reforming social security!

Any sane person would laugh themselves to tears. You are working inside a system you refuse to believe is broken! There is no 1,000 page legislation to fix the government! A bonfire at the steps of the Capitol building with current legislation being tossed in by the truck load is the only way to start making a change, a difference, something people can actually hope and believe in.

Thank you Jon Stewart for hitting back at FoxNews and others over “Muslims in Space” and the building of mosques in the U.S.

2010-07-08T10:43:00.000-07:00

Watch Daily Show clip here

Thank you Jon Stewart for hitting back at FoxNews and others over “Muslims in Space” and the building of mosques in the U.S.

“No other religious system makes rules for people who are outside those religion, but Islamic law does.” - Robert Spencer with Sean Hannity on Fox

“What? So I guess in your town I can go buy booze on a Sunday to bring to Adam and Steve’s wedding reception?” - Jon Stewart

I don’t like religion at all just like…well shit I can’t really think of anything else a lot of people do that I would never do myself, but I do know people should be free to practice their religion in their own privacy without forcing it on other people through laws.

This blob of an idiot Robert Spencer pisses me off with his hypocritical writings and speeches. He is most known for constantly haranguing Muslims for quotes in the Quran that talk about destroying infidels etc etc, and Jon Stewart politely points out several instances in the New Testament saying the same thing.

If Spencer were a true academic who fully understood the principles he preaches about then he would immediately quit what he was doing or at least attack all religious texts that call out to convert or kill nonbelievers. But again, we have a fake, nonsensical blabber mouth who enjoys sticking his foot in his mouth.

Vote by the People...or a vote by the people?

2010-07-07T08:51:00.000-07:00

Another veto of Civil Unions and another cry to put the vote to the people.

“It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials.”- Hawaii’s governor, Linda Lingle.

Now look at this, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of Government…” - THE CONSTITUTION

What is a republican form of government you ask? Well it just so happens that the power is in the people’s hands WHO then VOTE for a REPRESENTATIVE to…represent (their vote) them in the state legislature.

The Civil Union bill was passed in BOTH houses by a good amount.

The only way we are a DEMOCRACY is when we vote for these people and they are then elected by popular vote.

So why are we putting this to popular vote?

Slavery, the Women’s Right to vote, and Segregation weren’t put up to a popular vote were they?

The more I sit here and think of what else I need to mention and add a sentence here and there, it makes me angrier to just think about putting someone’s rights to the vote of other people. It’s sick, annoying, and denigrating.

So for now, this was going to be a somewhat mild post, Fuck you very much, Linda Lingle.

Signed,

A GAY

Progressive Tax System and the Parallel of the Law of Principles

2010-06-23T12:08:00.001-07:00

Democrats and Republicans are calling for an offset of the out of control Federal Spending and building debt.

Democrats’ solution? Lowering the tax bracket from $250,000 down to $200,000.

“You could go lower, too — why not $200,000?” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “With the debt and deficit we have, you can’t make promises to people. This is a very serious situation.” (Thehill.com)

This is our government protecting us with the ends justifying the means.

I drone on and on about sacrificing the principle. I sound like a broken record probably. Repetition is the only way to really drill into people’s mind the importance of an issue. Principles should be leading our decisions. Without them we can jump from decision to decision without cause or reason. It leads to irrational decision making and a lack of vision for the consequences. Principle-sacrificing is a great threat to freedom.

With that being said, when you sacrifice the principle you lose everything. Maybe not at first, but over time you will.

This proposed decrease (this time not being a good verb) of the tax bracket is an example of the old cliche “where does it stop?” Say later on down the road they want to reduce the tax bracket again, and again. Until soon taxes being paid by the middle class are almost equal to the amount the elite class pay right now (close to 50%!). How many of your families could afford to pay 50% in taxes? I can BARELY make ends meet paying 26% right now.

One other example of sacrificing the principle even applies to the First Amendment and the FCC. Or when we ban violence inciting remarks. This may seem like a really good idea at first, but then what happens when the government decides that we need to stretch it a little further. Maybe we should ban any sort of hate message? Who defines whether a hate message is good or bad? Is hating Nazis a good or bad thing? Without the Freedom of Speech being TOTALLY unrestricted we don’t have the freedom at all.

Before you argue that the government’s decisions are made for the greater good, first question what that greater good is. Is the greater good the good for the individual? The individual is, after all, the smallest minority is it not? The greater good is an example of sacrificing our principles, torture being the main focus here. But we can’t just rule out torture as being the only form of greater good that MAYBE we aren’t willing to enforce.

As always I love playing Devil’s Advocate with any discussion. If you disagree that the greater good is actually not good at all. I dare you to come up with an example of how it isn’t. Can you think of one?

BP: Who's Right and Who's Wrong

2010-06-17T10:10:00.000-07:00

First off, BP, you fucked up, majorly. You failed to listen to the people that worked for you and warned that there were potential dangers. You failed to install a fail-safe device. Why would you do that? Cut corners? Cut costs? Or did you have a more legitimate reason? This legitimate reason may have been that the fail safe used on oil rigs to avoid this disaster wasn't completely proven to work at such deep levels and at times would fail itself cutting the pipes when not necessary.

One problem with the regulation is that there really isn't any. We'll hold off on whether this is a problem or a solution, more regulation that is. When it comes to oil rigs the certification that they have the proper safety requirements is done by the company itself, but not by the people at the top. The certification is done by the workers who will be working on the rig. We like to think that the worker knows more because he/she is on the ground than his "counterpart" in the air conditioned skyscraper. Why would the worker risk his life when it comes to making sure that such fail safe measures are in place? The answer to that probably isn't as simple as we would think. Those above them could easily influence their decision with threats of job or lures of pay. But this is merely a digression from the beginning of the paragraph. BP merely didn't submit proof of it's possession of fail safe requirements. Why? Lack of reformed and modern regulation. The law is still in the works. (I can hear you liberal conspiracy theorists yelling out oil lobbyists stalling it, and I will agree with you).

One of the main things we hear from the other side is that this wouldn't have happened if we had drilled closer to shore. One of my earlier posts commented on this. Drilling closer has several benefits: fixing a problem like this would be easier due to temperatures not being able to freeze machinery; the pressure would definitely not be as great; and most importantly allowing companies to drill closer to shore would also charge the environmental lobbyists (I did not say environmentalists because that is a positive word, but in truth, they are just the same as oil lobbyists) to pressure legislators for tighter regulation and control over the drilling due to the proximity of the coast line. If such a spill happened closer to shore, the current wouldn't be as likely to pull the oil further along the coast to the eastern seaboard.

The angry response to the spill is understandable but also disproportionate. Crushing a company is not the way to deal with this problem, but a slap on the hand is obviously not enough either. BP provides thousands of jobs and is not an OPEC member. BP most definitely (not based solely on any liberal environmentalist reasons) should be forced to pay for all the damage they have caused. This is based purely of judicial reasons, because it has obstructed lives, resources, and tourism. They must deal with the consequences of their failure.

I stand up for big companies because so many stand against them without realizing the benefits they have on the economy and the journey they had to take to get there. Every entrepreneur is the same whether it is a small business or a mega corporation. People are so influenced by the left that they fail to recognize this. The right's blind crusade to stand up for each and every large corporation though is just as lacking of reason as the left's continued attack upon corporations. Both sides throw themselves into two very divergent ideologies. I'm not saying there is a middle ground, but what I am saying is that every case is different. Each company has gained it's prominence through all different means, whether they are political means or just plain hard work and determination. The left and right defend only those that gained their power through political means, though they delude themselves into thinking otherwise and always blame the other side for doing the same.

BP was wrong and should pay. The pay should be determined by a third party and not by THE GOVERNMENT.

The government is wrong in thinking that it should control every move and regulate heavily. Heavy regulation forces companies to take short cuts, and the blame to me, is on both sides. Heavy taxation makes people put their money in off shore accounts. I would be one of those persons.

The people need to think for themselves for once and stop believing that the government should do everything for them.

Alvin Greene...SC Dem Nomination for U.S. Senate

2010-06-11T09:24:00.001-07:00

An absolute fucking idiot. Doesn't know a damn thing about politics. Won't answer questions on how he campaigned. Won't give a straight answer. Says he cares about the issues, but won't tell us what the issues ARE. 170,000 Democrats voted in the primaries (prob not all democrats). Over 400,000 Republicans voted in their senate primary. Those numbers alone give you a good picture of November 2010.

There is no way in hell the SC Democratic party will give this man their support. It is a PR disaster, and a waste of money. They will recognize there is no way you can make him into a public speaker by November. If he does debate against Jim DeMint, South Carolina's Democrats will be in tears watching the t.v. thinking: this is the best we could get out there??

Facts:

* Alvin Greene doesn't have a website.
* Alvin Greene didn't have any fund-raising.
* Alvin Greene didn't send out any mailings.
* Alvin Greene didn't receive funds from the Democratic Party.
* Alvin Greene will not answer why he was involuntarily honorably discharged from the military.
* Alvin Greene's Dem Opponent Vic Rawl served twice as long in the military than Greene and retired voluntarily.
* Alvin Greene is unemployed.
* Alvin Greene's Dem Opponent Vic Rawl has been a lawyer all his life.

What the fuck?

This situation either proves:

1. People vote on race in SC
2. Voters are as ignorant as your poli sci professors tell you
3. He is a republican plant
4. The numbers are fudged
5. This is way too fucking ridiculous, it goes beyond conspiracy theories

Obama pledges $400 million in Aid to Gaza

2010-06-09T11:32:00.000-07:00

One historical name for you: Arafat.

One term for you: Fungible Aid

One common occurrence for you: Corruption

Current ruler of Gaza: Hamas

Tell me what can come of all these words?

The funneling of millions of these dollars not reaching their intended “targets”. Arafat was a millionaire if not a billionaire from the amount of money he stole from his people. And they loved him nonetheless. Hamas is no better and dare I say worse than Arafat (though he appeared to have come around to peace after he got his slice of the pie).

Without proper handling, which has NEVER happened not even under the Marshall Plan, this money will do very little to help the people. When you want to eliminate fungibility, ie keeping money from going to weapons instead of food, this 400 million in Aid has to be in the form of food stuffs, medicine, etc. But then again this isn’t even perfect, because we have to be careful of Hamas grabbing the aid and trying to sell it at a horrible price to their constituents. Good argument against that, though is Hamas has been treating the people of Gaza with schools and medicine etc. Fair warning, when they get the opportunity to strike at the Zionist invaders they will, and they WILL use part of this aid to do so.

If the U.N. or Egypt doesn’t handle this aid, it will all go to waste. Foreign aid has, ninety percent of the time, failed at fulfilling it’s potential to the people.

CIA Plan to portray Saddam as Gay

2010-05-25T10:49:00.000-07:00

Washington Post Article

Discussion on Tumblr about article:

c-newt:
OK, I’M THINKING MORE ABOUT THE “TURNING SADDAM GAY” THING
So, here’s the problem I have with it.

War sucks. I mean, it just really sucks.

But when you go to war claiming moral superiority, shouldn’t you play by higher standards. Like, I understand that there are going to be some people on the ground who get out of hand and do things that we really don’t want them to do, and we need to handle that.

It is much more frustrating that people who are sitting over here, outside of the heat and dirt and suck of battle who start entertaining those thoughts that really bothers me. Moreover, if we’re going to say that our way of life is better because we’re supposedly more tolerant than “they” are, let’s not play in to the intolerant values “they” hold.

jansencomstock:
I would think that the effect of Saddam being “gay” would have an effect of undermining his legitimacy, which would have undermined support for the Ba’athists by the Sunnis. If it saved lives it would be worth it.

Me:
Ends justifying the means…this is never, ever, a good thing.
Basic understanding of principles: sacrifice the principle you lose everything

jansencomstock
What principle was sacrificed? the one that attempts to spare the most human life? Besides, the CIA didn’t do it (though we have done so in the past), probably because they thought it wouldn’t be effective.

Me:
So we’ll pin him for being gay, in other words we’re going to exploit the belief that gays are immoral and an abomination. By reinforcing this idea, how are you helping anyone? If I’m not mistaken, gays are punished severely in certain countries not under Western ideals (and sometimes not even that is enough). How many lives are you really saving? How can we really justify that this way is better? What are the long term effects of reinforcing the idea that gays are a bad thing?

The principle of means justifying the ends is what is being sacrificed. Your integrity is what is being sacrificed. To cite an overused example but the best one of principles is not negotiating with terrorists. You know the very justification for not doing such a thing. Negotiate with one, you open the floodgates for more terrorists to take the opportunity to do the same thing. Too bad we don’t apply the same philosophy to dealing with pirates.

Again, you say sparing the most human life? But you cannot be entirely sure of that. Going into the war was based on false information and lies already. One reason a lot of people don’t support the Second Gulf War.

You would be using a scapegoat. The Jews are a good example of what happens when a group is constantly used as scapegoats. You would wish that upon another group, the gays? Just because you THINK you will save more lives by exploiting biblical beliefs of a country to turn against its leader? And what happens if they find out it was a lie?

Acceptance vs. Tolerance

2010-05-17T12:57:00.000-07:00

Acceptance vs. Tolerance

Joshua Morgan

Published in Tiger Town Observer Summer 2010

I present a conundrum to you: tolerance versus acceptance. These are two very reasonable terms wouldn’t you think? Tolerance is pretty important when we think of the person next to us yelling at the top of their lungs while we try to study. Acceptance is important to let people know that you appreciate them in life and have respect for them. Now which one of these terms should we as Clemson University students, faculty, and staff adopt as something we believe the university should uphold as one of its values. Tolerance sounds pretty good to me, I’m not being forced to change my way of thinking too dramatically. I’m just being encouraged to be able to handle myself around people that I need to learn to tolerate.

Clemson University students on CollegeACB obviously still need to cover the whole tolerance of other races and genders. What I see on there is not my general or experienced idea of how people view other students here. I’ve been here for five years and have run into very little racism or homophobia since. I know both are there, but the fact that I have heard maybe one or two comments over the years is surprising to me and breaks the stereotype that so many hold of Clemson University attendants. Sexism may be one of the most pronounced attitudes around this campus. I overhear guys talking about what they would do to that girl that just passed them or how slutty this girl is they know. It is kind of disturbing but they have every right to their opinion. We are at an institution of higher learning, though, get your shit together and grow up.

While we tolerate women, blacks, and gays; what we don’t do more often is accept them. The idea of acceptance that I present is one where we recognize that it is a good thing and a benefit to society that a group or ethnicity exists. We accept heterosexuals because without them our human race would die out. We generally accept women in the sexual sphere because they are a big factor in the equation of human babies. But do we accept women in the academic sphere or in the work place? Do we accept women in the athletics sphere? How many of us watch WNBA?
What about black people? What is our acceptance of them? At Clemson it was originally the idea to tolerate black people (except at admissions where acceptance is sort of an everyday thing for them). The government has started forced integration so just deal with it, right? But how many people actually really accept black people? A writer on CollegeACB asked the question as to why there were so many black people on campus. The fact that this person believes there are “so many black people on campus” blows my mind due to the obvious fact that there really isn’t. The black percentage of the total population at Clemson may be around ten percent if we account for the international students as well. I’m sure we at Clemson tolerate the black people who exist but do we encourage the expansion of the black population or try to attract more of them to Clemson University? For the most part it is an institutional directive that we do try to attract more diverse students but is this just for the Affirmative Action quota or accreditation?

Now it’s time to talk about my favorite topic, homosexuals. Do we, at Clemson University, tolerate gays? For the most part, from what I have seen, yes most students do. From what I have heard from other friends, certainly not as much as students at the university could. A good example of tolerance may be Professor Woodard in the political science department. Does he tolerate gay people? I’m sure he does. Does he accept them? In his “A Graduation Address to Conservative Students”, he certainly doesn’t seem like it. His article obviously has a target audience: conservative students. Conservative is pretty much a broad category of students though when we look at the current shift and mesh in the ideologies of the republican and tea parties. Not to mention the polls indicating that our generation believes in marriage for everyone, but I digress. A faculty member of Clemson University is not displaying acceptance, and he is in fact going against the very idea of acceptance. I quote: “Third, cultivate loyalty. Get married to someone of the opposite gender and stay married. It is still the best way to happiness.” The “third” refers to one of three pieces of advice he is giving to conservative students. So let us begin.

When he writes, “cultivate loyalty” Dr. Woodard is insinuating that homosexual relationships fail to have loyal partners. I take personal insult to this idea. Am I pulling that sentence out of context? Certainly not. Read on, “get married to someone of the opposite gender…”; the first statement to reveal the denial of the idea: acceptance. In this sentence he is simply saying that it would be better if gay people weren’t born; society doesn’t need them. How many institutions (church, school, military, government, etc) that you have been to have actually said that having a gay child is a good thing? That you should be happy if your child comes out to you? Can you name one? No, you can’t, because we are a society risen on the idea of tolerance and not acceptance. How many people wish for a gay child?

Woodard’s insistence that marrying someone of the opposite gender is the only way to be happy is the next thing that really bugs the hell out of me. How many heterosexual couples are happily getting divorced right now? The idea that one’s sexual orientation is going to determine your happiness in marriage is absurd. Your marriage is made happy or unhappy by your interactions with the person’s principles and values you are involved with. One might infer if Woodard believes that sexual orientation determines your happiness in marriage, would it be too much to suggest he thinks that of race or religion?

From the rest of his article, Woodard is of the same generation that he so detests, that waters down your education so you don’t get the idea of god. He is part of it, the part that in my opinion needs to retire and move on. Our generation’s values will dominate those of the future. Our values of acceptance will prevail and prosper. Our values of respect will help shape a better future for our children (even the children who get a chance at a family life by being adopted by gays) to come. Move over Dr Woodard. We have no time for your bigotry.

Gallup poll on Problems the US Faces: No one if safe from my colorful language...

2010-05-13T11:38:00.001-07:00

Poll image here Google isn't uploading for some reason.

Where the fuck is social security? We can worry about unemployment now…fix it with a short term solution, super. SS is the long term, modify that for optional private portfolios and we set ourselves up for a long term solution. Stop fucking with the economy, government.

The dichotomy of poor healthcare and high cost is simple. The lower the cost (forced) the poorer your healthcare is going to get. There is thusly a fundamental flaw in this “problem” the US is facing. But I don’t see that changing, Barack do you?

Federal budget deficit and debt go hand in hand with lack of money. Lack of money for who? Stop taxing, stop so many ridiculous subsidies and welfare. More restrictions on welfare (ie drug tests).

For the love of god, people get off your damn religious high horse. Ethics/Morals should not fucking be above National security…or the War in Iraq, why? Because it is immoral to continue having thousands of troops over there for one. Both for the troops and the Iraqi people. GTFO. As for religion, I don’t give two shits what your religion is or your views, don’t shove ‘em at me and we’ll be good. Worry about your own damn family.

Environment/Pollution all the way at the bottom: this is where you can tell Americans even those bleeding tree hugging liberals who spout global warming like it is a religion, are more pragmatic than they claim to be.

There is a problem with pollution, but don’t use your fear tactics one day, lose your job the next and throw it down the bottom of the polls because it doesn’t suit you best for the time. That is exactly what they blame businesses for doing. Who the hell thinks in long term anymore? Sure isn’t this government.

Fin

Fact Check on Health Care Bill by Yahoo News

2010-03-24T08:11:00.000-07:00

Article by Yahoo

Few important things to point out, Republicans/Conservatives please pay attention so you can stop forcing everyone else to generalize that we are all loud-mouthed idiots:

1. Abortions: "There would definitely be a demand for such plans, and not just from people with moral objections. Single men and older women would have no reason to pay an extra premium for abortion coverage." Pick a plan that doesn't cover abortion and you will not be charged for someone else's.

2. So-called "Rationing" - Gov't requested research as to the cost effectiveness of "treatments, medications and technologies" but "The legislation specifies that the research findings cannot be used to impose mandates, guidelines or recommendations for payment, coverage, or treatment — or used to deny coverage."

BUT

3. Medicare Bankruptcy: "Savings from the Medicare cuts will be invested in government IOUs, like any other trust fund surplus." Social Security account is filled with IOUs, I see a major correlation between the numbers for Medicare and SS. Just like SS, when the baby boomers begin collecting their checks so they will need Medicare even more.

4. Premiums: I wasn't going to mention this but two for Republicans means two for Liberals. Premiums may be lowered for some people (and by that the CBO means lower than they would have been without the bill), but for everyone else this isn't the case.

Nutritional Value of a Family

2010-03-19T12:40:00.000-07:00

What’s in a family? What does it mean to be a family? Do we need two parents to be a proper family? Do we need both a mom and a dad? Social conservatives answer yes to the last two questions, but they don’t discuss the exact qualities a mom or dad brings to the family. They never want to broach the gender differences to remain politically correct. In their attack upon same sex marriage, the evolving view of conservatives, in order to avoid a media disaster by directly attacking homosexuals, has been to defend the institution of the family and marriage rather than say that a homosexual’s lifestyle is immoral. Marriage is an institution that protects the children rather than the bonding of two loving individuals and that a man and a woman are needed to foster the child’s growth according to today’s social conservatives.

So why do only four states block single gays/lesbians from adopting a child whereas just a handful of state laws allow same sex couples to marry? Wouldn’t two parents be better than one? To start we have to address the idea of a parent. What is their importance in the family structure? First off, they provide for the family, whether it’s the mom who is the provider or the dad or both. The family’s sustenance depends on a parent old enough to work. A parent is then expected to raise the child teaching him/her morals and ethics, maybe religion, etiquette, a basic education, and the beginnings of communication. We’ll skim over the part of whether most parents raise their children on all or just some of these ideals. Teaching that we have all experienced is the gender socialization of children; something that a man or woman can do. Fathers could force their daugh ters to play with dolls and keep the same toys away from their sons, and mothers could shove the boy outside with a football and dress the girls in pearls. Generally though the socialization is done naturally, without thought, but the one time a boy picks up a Barbie we have to rip it from his hands.

A woman’s “touch” isn’t necessary and neither is a man’s. Not all men are fully masculine and the same holds true for women who are not feminine, but we still force children to pick up either the Barbie or the G.I. Joe rather than choose for themselves. A person’s morals aren’t dependent upon whether their sex holds up to socially constructed gender roles. It is dependent upon how they are raised and in what environment they are raised in. With the past century’s technological advances a woman is no longer necessary to provide the breast milk. Baby formula can now be used in its place and machines and technology at home and in the industries allow women to do the work men do. The propagation of the separation of gender roles fails to acknowledge the capacity of the human mind to reason objectively apart from the sexual organs between one’s legs.

So how exactly would two men or two women raising a child together hinder the child’s development? In order for a family to be functional it requires two basic pillars: justice and love. Plenty of families with a mother and father lack one or the other of these qualities. Compare these two examples: a family of a single parent lacking one of the pillars and same sex parents with both justice and love. The single parent family fares far worse in their dynamic as either justice is missing, or love is; even the traditional family with the father at work and the stay at home mom missing one of these pillars fares worse than a same sex couple with both. Without justice a family can’t morally address the needs of each individual and treat everyone in the family fairly. Secondly, without love a family can’t truly be a family. The care for each other is essential for the cohesiveness of the relationships and shared interests of the family.

With these two pillars in mind, what can we say about the types of problems usually raised by society when it comes to the dynamic between parents and their children? Going back to the social conservatives, the problem with arguing that is for the purpose of having children is that plenty of couples don’t wish to have children. Do the conservatives’ ideas of protecting marriage affect these types of people? If we aren’t to deny marriages to those that aren’t going to use the institution for the purpose that conservatives claim it is used and needs protection for, procreation, then why should we deny it to gays?

More importantly we should address the divorce rate that tears apart a family whether for better or worse. Following the conservative’s logic this is one of the biggest threats to the safety of the children. Should divorce be more regulated? I think if this was proposed the majority of Americans who argue for the protection of marriage and the family would be very much against this. The idea that the government should restrict two people who have fallen out of love to stay in this family is ridiculous. Now, isn’t the idea of keeping two people who love each other out of the institution that allows them to publicly declare their love and say their vows just as ridiculous? That being said, it stands to reason that the conservatives’ stance on protecting the children by restricting marriage rights to same sex couples is purely hypocritical when they do nothing to address the rate of divorce, which can damage the dynamic of a family that does have the love and justice.

Moreover, the over half a million children currently in foster care would receive an ever greater chance of being adopted. Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, a group from the Williams Institute of the UCLA school of law compared same-sex “unmarried partners”, to different-sex married couples in the U.S. Gay individuals in those couples are twice as likely than their straight counterparts to have a college degree or better and are 13 percent more likely to be employed. The comparisons of the two different couples reveal that the same-sex couples have a higher average household income by at least seven thousand dollars. These statistics can lead us to the conclusion that a same-sex couple has the ability to provide a more financially stable family structure compared to their straight married couple counterparts. This aspect, combined with the wish to adopt, greatly benefits both the children and the same-sex couples that want to have a family of their own.

This can all be summed up into one simple observation that we all want in a family: love and justice. If two partners have the potential to provide that one thing to children, then why does it matter whether the parents are of the same sex or opposite sex?

-Joshua Morgan

Originally published in The Tiger Town Observer, March 2010.

America's Enron Today

2010-03-19T12:36:00.000-07:00

For some of you the memory of Enron has yet to vanish and neither has the controversy the largest bankruptcy in America up to that time generated. The mega-corporation’s debt was hidden on paper and its numbers cooked to make the company look more profitable than it actually was. The employees’ pension funds took a big hit and were mostly lost till they finally sued Enron. Enron gave little control to the employees over their retirement funds nor could they diversify their savings under the company. This reminds me of another program run by one of the largest institutions in the world. Oh, right, the government’s mishandling of social security. Just like Enron in the aforementioned ways, social security is also going bankrupt, but when that happens, the government will simply raise our taxes even more.

Few Americans really know how the social security system works. Most of us probably think it goes straight to those currently receiving their benefits or maybe our own personal social security bank account, but that’s not the entire story, nor is it so straightforward. When you, the average American, pay your 12 percent FICA tax, or Federal Insurance Contributions Act, the money goes straight towards the current retiree, but more is collected than is passed out. Since Congress is allowed to use any money that enters the capitol, they will easily use your money to pay for whatever projects they have, including pork barrel spending. The funny thing about those who receive social security benefits must reach the full retirement age of 67. Once that happens they can then receive their pensions but an interesting point to note is that they have no legal right to these benefits. Congress essentially has that obligation to pay back the retirees but there is no written guarantee that you will receive the same benefits; the levels of which can easily be altered by Congress.

So what is the actual problem with social security right now? According to the Social Security Administration, it is facing a 13.4 trillion dollar deficit. This means that in 2016, the government will not be bringing in enough tax revenue from the FICA tax to pay for the baby boomers that are going to retire. Currently, 23 percent of the tax revenue brought in by the U.S. government goes straight to social security! Funny story about that, there is no bank account that the money would go into for future pensions. That account is full of government IOUs.

The government likes to tell us that surplus will go into a “trust fund” which pays future pensions. This trust fund, though, is used to buy government bonds to help reduce the national debt. Remember the part about Enron’s debt being hidden on paper? Well this is the same thing. Social security debt is not counted as national debt. That neat little ticker you sometimes look up on the internet to see the monstrous over-twelve trillion number doesn’t count this payment from one government program to another as a debt. Thus the debt “vanishes into thin air”, Thomas Sowell from Capitalism Magazine points out. The government is simply paying one credit card with another, still owing on the other. The debt is still there, whether it’s a twenty dollar payment or a two million dollar payment. It is still owed in social security down the road.

Three of the main solutions for fixing the social security retirement portion problem are as follows: raise taxes, cut benefits of current pensions by 25 percent, or allow the young to invest in private accounts. Raising taxes is never a popular idea and for social security it would fall upon the companies to pay the payroll tax which would lead to increasing unemployment and rising costs. Not to mention the 12 percent you already pay, which only gets a 1.5 to 2 percent return, wouldn’t increase the return if it was increased to a higher tax percentage. This would also hurt young workers and low income workers by removing money from the private sphere and putting it into the government; an institution not known for amazing savings and investment plans. Cutting the benefits would greatly negatively affect the 20 percent of retirees whose incomes rely almost entirely on social security. The option to allow the young to invest in private accounts is my favorite.

The option for a 401K already exists but depends on if the company you work for allows for it or not. Low wage earners are most likely not going to see a 401K option and will pay into the failing retirement system of social security. 401K puts money into stocks and is pre-tax, meaning that if you set aside two thousand dollars a year, while earning $40,000, you will only pay income tax on $38,000. Eventually when you withdraw the money from your savings, you will have to pay taxes on those earnings.

Younger workers would invest in a personal account that have a potential return rate of 5.5 percent which would make a 175% return on their investment. Social security would remain, but people would have an option of whether they wish to leave it up to the government or to throw their money into a diverse portfolio. I state a diverse portfolio to defend against the criticism that the average American doesn't need to be sitting at the breakfast table following individual stocks every morning. The long term investment in the stock market is proven to be safe. Even throughout the depressions and the great wars, the stock market has had an annual 8 percent increase. The “Project on Social Security Choice” gives the argument that someone retiring today would have begun saving 40 years ago when the Dow was at 1000. Even with all the crashes since then, the Dow is now over 10,000. This return on investment is much greater than anything social security could ever dream of.

The option to use personal accounts would also benefit the economy from increased savings and investment. Those currently receiving benefits would not have their rates changed unless it was by the will of Congress. And the reduction of those paying into the social security tax due to personal accounts, would not be receiving a return, saving Congress from having to cut benefits for everyone. A poll conducted by Sun Life Financial revealed that 48 percent of Americans would opt out of social security for private investment even if it meant losing all future social security benefits. 59 percent of workers under thirty agreed with this sentiment. Other polls conducted on social security reveal that a large portion of Americans are not confident at all that social security will be able to pay full benefits throughout retirement. 36 percent, in a CBS poll, believe the current system is in serious trouble and 30 percent believe it is a priority crisis. Over half of Americans believe that social security should be fixed now.

The pyramid scheme our government is conducting on its own citizens is a morally reprehensible fallacy that will potentially bankrupt our future and childrens' futures. Drastic measures need to be taken to reform this failing system that will crush us in debt unless something is done soon. Every year that passes, social security reform costs increase by 600 billion dollars. By allowing the option to privatize our earnings now, we can prepare ourselves and our children for a more financially stable future.

-Joshua Morgan

Originally published in The Tiger Town Observer, March 2010.

America's Education System

2010-03-19T11:45:00.000-07:00

Our nation's education system is behind Lithuania! Why can't the most powerful nation in the world produce students of a higher caliber? Is it because we don't privatize education or is it because we don't put enough money into public education? The test scores between private and public are not that far apart. Some private institutions score better and some don't, but that is all based on national averages.

I believe, among others, the main problem is the teachers. Teacher unions dominate the school systems demanding higher pay. High school teachers in some areas earn over $70,000 a year! Most people assume it’s the amount of money we put into our education. This is a factor but it is not the leading problem. No matter how much money you pour into education, you are going to need qualified teachers and a curriculum that is worth a damn. Building new computer labs, updating textbooks, and expanding a school's ability to provide a unique library are all needed things in a K-12 environment. The underlying problem with these two factors is they are both controlled by the state.

So maybe it's the curriculum? South Carolina says the minimum required standards are best for our schools. Minus the fact that this is an abhorrent policy, the curriculum factor's underlying problem parallels that of throwing millions at a school. Now we get down to the meat and bones of our public education system: the teachers.

They [the teachers] are to blame. Entirely? In my opinion, pretty damn close, students spend almost 8 hours a day with their teachers and less than that with their parents (bedtime). According to Newsweek's article "Why we can't get rid of failing teachers": "...about 99 percent of all teachers in the United States are rated ‘satisfactory’ by their school systems". Without proper teachers to employ the newly procured technology and execute a well rounded curriculum, we end up with the current system.

So what needs to change? Well the Newsweek article pointed out that Louisiana's school system is making better headway than anyone else. Why? A hurricane took the entire thing out. A clean slate was given. This would be great across America, but also a shit show would endure. The problem with state employees is that they are so damned hard to fire. I would like to thank unions for that and politicians wanting to not get voted out of office next election. Basically, that is what it boils down to: the people we elect to oversee our school systems have to answer to us, and are thus directly under the political pressure of not being a mean boss by firing teachers. The position itself, teaching, has been seen as one persecuted by the government by being underpaid and under-appreciated.

Programs such as KIPP and TFA have proven to increase test scores and graduation rates. But, these are people who are motivated to teach the young. They have more motivation than earning their living, which in my opinion to be good at your job you need both a passion for it and the notion of earning a salary based on your productive output. Higher standards and more money into the system aside we need better teachers, ones who will not sit on their thumbs and continue the same day to day dreariness of simply regurgitating a curriculum but actually teach it.

(Pt. 3) My response to her latest response on my Illegal Immigration article, this isn't hard to keep up with is it? :P

2010-01-29T11:02:00.000-08:00

First the cost of education for out-of-country students is not my problem. And I say that such a blunt way, because I have to worry about my own cost. This parallels my answer to a question posed to me about why I think gays should be in the military:

"The problem isn’t that “gays” aren’t allowed in the military. The problem is that “a certain minority” isn’t allowed in the military. There are several different forms of equality. The one I prefer is “equality of opportunity.” This isn’t to say that I support a mandated “equality” of wages or welfare in the sense that everyone should get the Same amount rather than work for it. This isn’t monopoly where we just get handed an amount of money along with everyone else and go along our merry way around the board of life.

This is where we all have to start out differently. Which IS, let me stress, IS fair. The only thing that all humans should start out with equally is their right to their own life and the government protection of that from outside forces. End of story. Whatever class you start in, you can change. Plenty of people have done it. Plenty of people will not do it. Your life is in your hands.

So when I refer to equality of opportunity, it merely is that. The opportunity to work in the military, to work in a fortune 500 company, to work cleaning bathrooms, should all be equal. The road you take to get there will always be different, and some may have to change their direction. Shit happens.

I’m going more into this than you probably expected but I’ve faced several questions about how equal people’s footing in life should be. I didn’t choose to be born in my family, with parents who earned their living and increased their wages. And I didn’t choose to live in this country. I was just born into it. No one should be faulted for that. And to fault someone for it, would be to tax them for someone else’s luck that is born into a poverty income family. Now that isn’t Fair, nor is it Just. Nor is it my definition of equality of opportunity."

Without the border fence we have nothing else. We have no way to prevent massive border crossings. I am more than happy to listen to someone's better (realistic) solution. I hesitate to say this, but our impact will only last so long. Nature will claim it back. Remember that series about the Earth with no humans?

Chertoff's exorbitant lack of intelligence combined with the Bush administrations failure to recognize the separation of powers and the Consitution, much like Obama's current administration, is another story.

Amnesty is NOT an option. And I can never be broken from this standpoint. I stand on principles and refuse to believe in a road plan that would involve the forgiving of 12 million people for invading. I have no impact on the past, I can't be blamed for the colonization of the United States. I will only take what I have now and work with it.

(Pt. 2) Again, my sister's latest response to my Illegal Immigration

2010-01-29T11:01:00.000-08:00

"My intent in expounding on American history was not merely to point out the hypocrisy involved in debates such as this, when someone less educated (a common man, so to speak) would argue this point with no factual basis, using a more racial sphere as a point of reference. I also wanted to point out the dangers in the common failure to study the further implications that choosing to ignore prior data hold.

Traditionally, we see that International students work harder and score higher in class because they are semi-forced into that position by their extraordinary circumstances. We also see that students who come here on work visas are forced to pay out-of-pocket for their education, a fact that cannot be ignored when evaluating the progress of International students.

It is true that the end does not justify the means, but that was a more radical example than I would choose, because it involves a discussion of personal scholastic ethics. As a mentor, I am more likely to encounter an International student seeking assistance for a class (lets use the example of ENG 101), and an American English 101 student, who consistently misunderstands the entire concept of plagiarism, and some who never even care…hence, I mean that I explain the concept in its entirety, and then watch them practice academic dishonesty. There is a range on which the means is based, and it is a range with a foundation in personal ethics.

As for the wall, I must point out that the issue, although mostly involved in two separate county entities, has grounds in a continent, and for that we must be more careful about the future impact. As evidenced, the building of any wall has a tremendous amount of impingement, beyond a socio-economic stance.

From an ecological standpoint:

When placing an enormous structure across the site of any land mass, the natural migratory as well as hunting patterns of a species is interrupted. Studies show that a segregated species will produce idiosyncratic characteristics, the product of which is the evolution of a new species altogether. In effect, this type of biological divergence would produce two distinct species on either side of the structure, according to the theory of evolution. This fortification involves the use of materials hazardous to the natural water systems surrounding them, causing further damage to the indigenous wildlife. Pollution from increased visitors to the area, as well as diversion of naturally flowing waterways further inhibits the natural restorative ability of the surrounding terrain.

In the case of Hadrian’s Wall (a subject and example I am more apt to argue), the level of deforestation surrounding the area, as well as the sudden eruption of settlements surrounding the Wall, devastated the original ecosystem. Pollen diagrams in another study show that there was a major clearance of wood for grazing during the Roman period, and that the regeneration of the forest only occurred 100 to 200 years after the Romans left. The United States Environmental Protection Agency recently released a detailed commentary on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure, U.S. Border Patrol San Diego Sector, California (CEQ# 20070555). The EPA recommended as stated:

“[…] that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) develop alternatives that avoid the filling of Copper and Buttewig Canyons. We recommend the use of clear-span bridges to cross drainages, wherever practicable, or the use of bottomless culverts or oversized box culverts buried below stream grade to encourage natural channel substrate for terrestrial and aquatic life and a more natural sediment transport regime” (United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX).

The United States border fence will not only separate two distinct peoples, each with their own distinct culture, but will also split three Native American tribes in the center of their reservations: Kumeyaay in California, Cocopah and Tohono O'odham in Arizona, and the Kickapoo in Texas. Private landowners are facing the same fate, their land split between two countries, the border fence running right through their front lawns. The proposed route for the border fence would divide the campus of the University of Texas at Brownsville into two parts, according to Antonio N. Zavaleta, a vice president of the university. The United States government, without concern for its citizens, will bypass a multitude of laws, by way of the Real ID Act, attached as a rider to a supplemental appropriations bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.”

On September 22, 2005, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff used his new power to “waive in their entirety” the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, in order to extend triple fencing through the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve near San Diego. Furthermore, Chertoff’s actions are not subject to judicial review.

So, I pose the question: What is the real issue? Are we more upset that there is an incredible influx of illegal immigrants into the United States that will undoubtedly have a negative impact on our socio-economic status, or should we force lawmakers to amend the current legislation to allow for those here on illegal status to access the American way of life more readily, if they choose to work, as we do? When our own legislators and leaders choose to bypass laws with real tangible consequences to Americans, as in the case of Michael Chertoff, how can we argue against illegal immigrants who are doing less damage to the American people as a whole?

By the way…I do love our debates, and I am proud to be your sister. "

-Morgan Sullivan

(Pt. 1) My sister's comments to my Illegal Immigration article in the Tiger Town Observer, followed by my response.

2010-01-29T09:06:00.001-08:00

"Well written, I must say, sir, but I hesitate to remind you:

Members of society have no difficulty in berating the current legislation for its stance on immigration reform, and you said, ?Our government needs to develop a road plan that increases legal documentation enforcement for employers, and deports illegal immigrants by the truck load.? In 1492, there were 7-10 million Native Americans, with nearly 600 established tribes living in North America alone. Through the ?Colombian Exchange,? not only was there a transfer of cultural ideas, flora and fauna, and neat little trinkets to bring home to the wife, but also diseases, like smallpox, measles, mumps, and rhinovirus (the common cold), which imparted an instantaneous massive depopulation of hundreds of native tribes.

You quoted some stats, so I have one for you: in Haiti, which was settled by Spaniards, a census reports from 1493 totals the population of natives at around 8 million. Nearly fifty years later, the 1543 census reports 25 remaining natives. Most of the population died of disease and overwork forced upon them by the Spanish ?immigrants.?

Jeffery Amherst was an English immigrant, a British army officer in 1763 during Pontiac?s Rebellion, who used bioterrorist tactics to kill off the Native Americans by gifting them blankets covered with smallpox virus. This nearly eradicated the Shawnee and Delaware tribes within weeks of exposure.

During the 1630?s, 10,000 European ?immigrants? arrived to the ?New World? and began to colonize, populate, reorganize, micro-manage, and otherwise virtually destroy the Native American?s way of life. These same immigrants brought 10-24 million slaves with them, adding to the already rapidly growing population of immigrants in this country, and they all reproduced.

Fast-forward to now, where we are all descendant from these original ?immigrants,? and we have such a huge issue with more people wanting to move into a country built on immigration without legislation. Why is this such a problem now? Immigration should be considered a way of life in the United States, not the bane of modern civilization in America. It is one of the paths of progress, and the very reason that the United States is the country it is today.

Are they really taking the jobs we want? Are they really causing the moral decline everyone is so ready to debate? Perhaps we should instill a better sense of direction in our children, giving them the tools to be more productive members of society by instilling the importance of a proper education, regardless of their mother?s immigration status. Better yet, we could use the money we are squandering on that monstrosity of a wall known as the ?Border Fence? towards a better education, including lessons based on tolerance and equality, and we might not have to worry so much about whether we need the ?Johhny on the Spot emptying? job, or the ?migrant orange picker? job, or the ?janitorial? job of our immigrant friends.

Perhaps practicing tolerance as a visual lesson to those around us might help to change the wave of violent intolerance we see every day by Americans against Americans. After we have that under control, we can then began to complain about more important issues, standing on a less hypocritical platform."

@Morgan

History has played its course and right now we have to address the current and future situations.

Immigration, in its legal form, in the sense that someone comes here with the honest intention of applying for citizenship or residency is a good thing.

Now, the problem we have to address, with the help of a border fence and increased border enforcement and legal work status enforcement, is the illegal immigrants that come here with the full intent of working. Supporting one's family is a just thing. BUT the ends to not justify the means. Ever. Your end may be to pass a class but your means are everything in this. You wouldn't cheat would you? Would that justify you passing the class?

You may view this example as having nothing to do with immigration, but we have to understand the importance of principles. Once you sacrifice a principle, you lose everything. Maybe not now, maybe not in the year to come, but you will lose it. As evidenced by our constant fight for political free speech.

Immigrants must come here legally. If the problem is that their visas expire or their application is taking a long time, then we have to address the immigration laws themselves. When you have a mass amount of illegals coming in, you can't expect those attempting to legally be here to have an easy time. Enforcement is going to always assume mal-intent if you stay here past your visa's expiration. The fact is illegals flood the U.S., thus the U.S. strengthens its laws. Now this can have a negative and positive impact on immigration. The laws can be double edged swords in themselves.

With that in mind, as I stated before, we have to direct our attention to slowing and hopefully stopping the illegal crossing. We have to build a fence because we simply do not have the man power to guard the entire border. With the fence comes the help with the "drug wars" because of the constant threat of Coyotes' drugs. Thus by directing funds from this war to building the fence and broadening security we can slow this rate of immigration down.

We must also push for enforcement of legal work status. There must be tight regulations in place that will fine a business for having illegals. This isn't a business regulation in the sense of restricting free markets, this is an issue outside of that sphere. Data has shown that because of the recent economic downturn and the shrinking of available jobs, the amount of illegal immigrants has declined.

Now that presents a mild solution: less jobs available to them would, in a cause- effect argument, reduce the amount of illegal immigrants. I'm no expert on writing legislation, nor am I an expert on law enforcement, but the basics are there. Target the areas with increased hispanic population; which does not mean to say to target hispanics because plenty of them are here legally and are American citizens. This policy should be there Because that is the largest group of immigrants coming into the U.S. via the southern border.

When we have tighter border control, we can address the failures in the current immigration system that restrict the legals from attaining worker status and/or residency. When we talk about better education we have to ask the question, "Who is going to pay for it?" The answer is taxpayers. Illegal immigrants ARE NOT tax payers, yet we want out education to better fit them. No. Wrong.

I will have more to address on this issue later.

Thank you all for comments they are always appreciated! Keep an open mind.

An interesting message I received on my "lrn2liberty" blog about Gays in the military:

2010-01-29T08:20:00.001-08:00

Question: why do you think gay people should be in the military? wouldn't that take away the whole hotness of military gay porn cause the guys aren't supposed to be gay and all... and you know what i mean ;) yeah!
Anonymous

My Answer:
The problem isn’t that “gays” aren’t allowed in the military. The problem is that “a certain minority” isn't allowed in the military. There are several different forms of equality. The one I prefer is “equality of opportunity.” This isn’t to say that I support a mandated “equality” of wages or welfare in the sense that everyone should get the Same amount rather than work for it. This isn’t monopoly where we just get handed an amount of money along with everyone else and go along our merry way around the board of life.

This is where we all have to start out differently. Which IS, let me stress, IS fair. The only thing that all humans should start out with equally is their right to their own life and the government protection of that from outside forces. End of story. Whatever economic class you start in, you can change. Plenty of people have done it. Plenty of people will not do it. Your life is in your hands.

So when I refer to equality of opportunity, it merely is that. The opportunity to work in the military, to work in a fortune 500 company, to work cleaning bathrooms, should all equal. The road you take to get there will always be different, and some may have to change their direction. Shit happens.

I’m going more into this than you probably expected but I’ve faced several questions about how equal people’s footing in life should be. I didn’t choose to be born in my family, with parents who earned their living and increased their wages. And I didn’t choose to live in this country. I was just born into it. No one should be faulted for that. And to fault someone for it, would be to tax them for someone else’s luck that is born into a poverty income family. Now that isn’t Fair, nor is it Just. Nor is it my definition of equality of opportunity.

As far as porn goes, there are plenty of other themes we can run with. :P

Thank you for your time.

My interview and discussion of Scott Brown on WSBF Radio

2010-01-28T11:32:00.000-08:00

Click here for the first of the interview about the first issue of the Tiger Town Observer and Illegal Immigration and click HERE for the second part of the interview that basically goes over the implications of Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts.

I would like to thank Travis Anderson the host and WSBF for having me on the station.

My article on Illegal Immigration in the TTO

2010-01-24T14:38:00.000-08:00

"Many of us see them at least once a day or week. They do the menial labor that many American's have decided they are above and deserve better, although in the recent economic downturn some of us have reconsidered said jobs. Not all of them, but most of them don't even speak more than a thousand words of English. My biggest problem is that they don't pay taxes. No, I'm not talking about Obama cabinet officials. I'm talking illegal immigrants. Illegals have flooded the U.S. by the amount of 12 million or more. That's close to the world population of Jews. Over 10 million immigrants have arrived since 2000 and more than half of those are guessed to be illegal.

How could such a vast amount of immigrants breached our borders? In 1924 the U.S. Border Patrol was created by Congress. Legal immigration at the time was based on a quota assigned to each nationality. In 1965, this system was replaced by one built to unite families and attract skilled labor. With this change came a shift from European immigrants to ones from Asia and Latin America. A major change to legislation came in 1986 with the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

Two principles were built into this law: amnesty and enforcement. Three million immigrants were granted legal status because they had lived in the U.S. since January of 1982 or they had done ninety days of agricultural work between 1985 and 1986. A large part of the applications are said to have been fraudulent! The enforcement side of this law prohibited the hiring and harboring of illegal immigrants but the lack of proper funding hurt the ability of law enforcement as it still does today.

In 1990 the IRCA was further expanded and the amount of available visas increased by forty percent. 1996 saw another bill that sought to expand the amount of border patrol and INS agents and began construction of the border fence for San Diego. It also gave the power to local law officials to enforce immigration laws. Several smaller amnesties were passed during this time allowing the legalization of over one and half million illegal immigrants.

Half a decade later, America witnessed the destruction of two towers and the lives of three thousand citizens were claimed in the name of radical Islam. The hijackers were on expired student visas. Remember a couple statistics back where the amount of visas were increased by forty percent? And did I mention that lack of funding has pervaded the enforcement system since the very beginning? I have a feeling both of those factors played a major role in the terrorists' successful attacks. This only grabbed the attention of the Congress in 2006 and 2007 though when several different bills were drafted by both chambers but were ultimately pushed aside. It's very disturbing that Congress could so easily pass the Patriot Act which infringed upon the rights of American citizens before they would address the bigger problem of how these terrorists came to be in the United States in the first place.

In 2007 Congress proposed a bill that would have granted amnesty to a majority of illegal aliens in the country but also increased enforcement, again. Have you noticed a trend concerning the enforcement of immigration? The very people we elected to represent us were all for this bill and yet the majority of Americans were against this legislation and it was killed. In 2007 immigration approved a little over one million applicants for permanent residence.

What is the Obama administration prepared to do? White House aides haven't said much but what they did reveal was rather disturbing. President Obama plans to back a "solution" that would allow for 12 million illegal immigrants to receive citizenship or legal-worker status. Essentially this is a "road plan" which would operate over several years with the inclusion of expanded border enforcement! Is it Obama's big heart that would lead him to such a conclusion or is it something else?

According to a UCLA study done on the amnesty granted to three million back in 1986, Obama's plan would create a positive impact on the U.S. economy and its GDP. The study projects an increase of $1.5 trillion to the U.S. GDP if the 12 million were granted amnesty over a period of time. In 1986 the regions in which a number of illegals became legal witnessed an increase in tax revenues and economic boosts. The UCLA claims the immigrants will seek higher education and pay taxes due to the fact that they no longer have to watch out for ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents.

Whether this claim rings true or not, our principles as a nation must determine our actions. More than a dozen million people are here illegally; making it even more difficult for those in line to obtain their own residency. Did I mention illegal? Our stance on the issue should be the same as not negotiating with terrorists. Its a simple of matter of opening the floodgates. This is exactly what has been affecting our immigration problems in the first place. We have granted too many aliens amnesty, and more want the same. They don't want to wait in line. America isn't free, ladies and gentlemen. This is the land of self-made men and women! Or so I thought until a recent increase of large government hand outs.

Our government needs to develop a road plan that increases legal documentation enforcement for employers, and deports illegal immigrants by the truck load. We need to redirect funds and man power from this useless drug war and put them into border patrol and local law enforcement. What is the status of this border fence? I'm sure many liberals disagree with the structure but the need to protect our leaky border is paramount in the fight against global terrorism. The Transcontinental Railroad was built in less time than it is taking for the US-Mexican border fence.

The terms may be harsh but the lack of vision by Congress over the better half of the past century has allowed for a vast influx of illegal aliens that consume our tax dollars and jobs that true, legal Americans deserve. Write your congressman and stress to them the damage these illegals are doing to our great nation that is the United States of America."

-"Not So Liberal Solution to Illegal Immigration"
Joshua Morgan
As seen in the Tiger Town Observer, Jan 2010

The 2010 January issue of the Tiger Town Observer is now online!

2010-01-24T14:15:00.001-08:00

My first issue as editor of the Tiger Town Observer is out now on stands and online!

Tiger Town Observer Online

The Year in Review 2009 and a look at 2010

2009-12-22T11:48:00.001-08:00

This year, well semester, has been a mess! I've been juggling lots of responsibilities and sometimes feel as though I have take on too much. Then I remember all the time I spend procrastinating and tell myself no, I just need to work at it.

This semester's grades weren't the best but they weren't the worst. Can I blame the professors? Not this time around.

Being President of the Gay Straight Alliance has been arduous and not as rewarding as one would have hoped. Our meetings showed great potential in the beginning with 55 people in attendance for the first two weeks. The numbers started to decline exponentially. I had no explanation for it. No one would tell us why they weren't coming. It has happened for years, but this year has just brought in a lot of freshmen and not too many people who care. I ran into a graduated member and he said one of the first and most famous president called it the meat market.

Essentially, and I hate to say this, a good portion of the members come to see who is new to Clemson, or to check them out. Then they don't return. It is perfectly fine with me that they don't return, because I don't want them there. That is NOT what the organization for. We are here to protect the interests and rights of the LGBT community on campus. If there was only one person coming to the meetings, or in fact no one, I would still be president and still be doing my job. Their interests and rights are mine as well.

We lost a member to the exec board because he didn't agree with my politics (which were discussed outside of the group, I never bring them to the group). Our website is in great need of revision and actual building. Our webmaster failed to inform me that he would not be returning to school that year and so he couldn't constitutionally hold a position anymore. Members haven't paid any fees yet, but in the constitution it makes no mention of them being mandatory to attend meetings. For me that seems counter-intuitive and we can still hold meetings without funds, just not as many events.

Our events have been lack luster this semester. Everything comes too quick. We need to move from planning a meeting every week to planning at least one or two events a month. People need to start taking the initiative rather than relying on me to keep track and plan events. The execs haven't been doing their job. Thankfully, our constitution has been amended (most of my additions) and the officers' powers have been revised and spelled out. Next semester should have people doing their jobs or they won't have one.

We are redesigning the logo, changing meeting times (our meetings ran into math tests constantly), creating a brochure, putting together a more robust calendar, and contacting more members to see why they aren't coming.

As for being elected editor-in-chief, I have a lot to learn. Our past editor is more than willing to help me out which I couldn't be more thankful for. My staff is excellent and I look forward to more reporting on all venues of the news, more commentary from all ranges of the political spectrum, better copy editing, and a positive gain to our reputation.

The newspaper was once a mouthpiece of hardcore conservatism (in the religious George Bush way). In their defense, they did have free speech zones removed from campus but only by protesting the Clemson Gay Straight Alliance's rally for equality in marriage in 2006. Can you see the irony as me being their editor now? They have been at the forefront of talking about the news no one wants to talk about,pushing the buttons of the liberals, and addressing the controversial issues on campus and off. A raffle for an AK-47 for example.

With Amanda's leadership the commentary has moved from conservatism to libertarianism, even though we still host republicans in the staff. She has moved from a homophobic stance to an all inclusive one. She has helped attract the attention of news agencies across the state and the country. I hope to continue this momentum and attain the reputation this newspaper deserves.

I also signed up for 15 hours of classes, which doesn't sound like much, but as my last semester at Clemson University as a student, its a handful.

I am continuing my position as lead scan tech at the Digital Imaging department of the CU Libraries.

I used to ask myself, "whatever happened to time to yourself." All this work is my time to myself. This is me, this is what I have chosen to take on, and this is what I will accomplish.

Edit: And as far as boys come, the weekends are mine, I will spend them doing work. I can't make sacrifices this semester.

On Sanford and Principles

2009-06-25T11:13:00.000-07:00

Sanford is well known for being fiscally conservative; bordering on libertarian. The one thing I know about myself as a libertarian and others is that we have principles and ideals to uphold for ourselves and not just to put on a show. Sanford's ardent opposition to the Stimulus money was thought to be based on a principle of fiscal conservatism. Not wanting to put the future of the state in even more debt and seeing that the way to progress an economy was not to spend money but to conserve it or chip away at previous debt. What we do in the short term has to impact the long term or we would forever be digging a hole that at some point we could never climb out of. Rather than trying to use our hands to get out we need to build a ladder. The ladder symbolizes our long term need for fiscal responsibility to help expand growth. Obama is merely creating another bubble, and those can only stretch so far till they pop.

Sanford recognized this and fought against it. I was behind him trying to fight for our individual rights and monetary responsibility. I thought there was a good, strong hand guiding the Republican party. I thought that if Sanford could push his principles that he could show others that these ideals are the only things keeping us from being people running our lives by whims and ruining the futures of our children. I thought this was a man I could support more than McCain, whom I didn't, or any past Republican candidates.

The past couple weeks have turned that idea upside down. Sanford has done irreparable damage to the image of the party when, now more than ever, it needed a face lift; a rejuvenation of life to get the republican party surging again by adapting to the ideals of a more libertarian view point. My trust in him has been shattered. I am severely disappointed in his leadership and have lost faith in the politics of South Carolina. The rest of our legislators continue to deny the rights of some while screaming at the liberals in Congress to stop infringing on the rights of all Americans. The hypocritical stance of the Conservative party is slitting its own wrists, holding the door open to the liberals to finish sweeping this country of its feet and into their waiting arms.

Sanford's lack of faithfulness to his own wife and children is more than just a slap in the face of the family values he so upheld and used against gay marriage. It is a discredit to the idea of the man having principles. Trust-broken is nearly impossible to regain in my eyes and the eyes of many reason driven individuals across the nation. He defrauded the rest of his ideals with this on-going affair and his statement disclosing the truth does not forgive anything. Any person can apologize, but it takes a strong reason minded individual to never need something to apologize for. Nor would they ever apologize for believing in their values and opinions. Sanford is not this type of man. Maybe once in the past we could have believed that he would be a key figure in leading the Republican movement forward; regaining its lost shine of the Reagan years.

Not now, and not for a while.

-JM

His Hands Were Bound.

2009-05-12T09:01:00.000-07:00

His hands were bound. It was dark, wait, that’s a blind-fold over his eyes. He felt the rough polyester texture wrapped around his head and covering his sight. Plastic wrapped his wrists together and no struggle would release their grip. His feet were relatively free but what was the point to kick, he couldn’t see or fight back. Fight back against what though? He couldn’t remember the last thing he was doing or who would do this to him. Confusion pretty much summed up his situation. Footsteps sounded in the room a few feet from him. The reflex to move one’s head in the direction of the sound was strong but what was the point. A second set were heard and felt to his left. One and one makes two he thought. His mouth wasn’t gagged meaning they wanted him to talk. That’s all the name they had: they.

“Why am I here? What do you want?” He pleaded, with an even voice yet a tinge of pleading in his voice. No answer. “How long are you going to hold me here?” Another question, but the same response as last time. He chuckled to himself, and people talk about water boarding being torture. The silent treatment is the worst form of torture. Not knowing what was out there, why he was here, and with no answers to follow his questions was the worst form of torture known to him.

Guess I could try standing up. That should get a response from them, he thought to himself. He leaned forward and pushed up with his legs; bending his arms back to get them from around the back of the chair. A strong hand pushed him back down catching one of his elbows on the side of the chair, sending shrills through his entire arm. Funny bone, he thought, there was nothing funny about that. He could hear a scraping sound now coming from in front of him. The other one seemed to be walking in circles around the room.

“Dammit! What do you want?! Answer me, you bastards!” The man cried out his voice shouting towards the heavens, only to stop at the ceiling. The scraping stopped along with the circle walker.

“Which one of us do you think is going to save you?” The man scraping asked, suddenly going back to his scraping.

“Wha…What? One of you just shoved me back down in my chair and I have no idea what you are doing with my eyes blinded! Which one of you is going to save me?!”

“You didn’t answer my question.”

“And you haven’t answered any of mine!”

“You don’t seem to be in a position to be asking questions.”

“I beg to differ. You didn’t gag me,” yet he thought, “and you haven’t told me to shut up. I can question away all I want.”

“Won’t do you any good. Only answering our questions might good be brought to you.”

“I don’t think either one of you is going to save me.”

“Do you know where you are?”

“I have no clue! I don’t even remember where I was!”

“You have always been here.”

“That doesn’t make any sense, I don’t ever remember being.”

“Do you know where you came from?”

“No! I just told you. I don’t know how I got here.”

“We do.”

“So tell me dammit! Where did I come from!”

“No, I’m sorry. That would only set you free.”

“Wait, you just asked me which one of you I thought was going to set me free.”

“Which one then?”

“Where did I come from?” No answer. “Damn you both!” He struggled to get up. The scraping and the pacing both stopped. He didn’t even hear them step over to him. They simply pushed him back down. He could feel their hot breath next to both his ears.

“Please stay seated,” they both said in unison. Their voices were different, the pacer was to his right ear and the scraper was to the left.

The scraper walked away and the pacer remained. “I can unbind you hands but the blindfold must stay.” He walked away and the scraper approached from the left.

“I will remove the blindfold but your hands will remain bound.”

“Can I have both?”

They replied in unison, “no.”

“Why not?”

“That is simply not how it works,” the pacer replied.

He heard a back slam against the wall behind the pacer and scraper. A foot placed itself on the wall and a silent sigh was let out. He then heard both the pacer and scraper about face for a few seconds and then return their attention to him.

“Which is it?” The scraper asked.

“Neither one of you.”

“You have to make a choice.”

“I just did.”

Suddenly the blindfold disappeared. His hands were free. He was in a more comfortable chair and the room wasn’t as congested. He noticed the one who had been posted on the wall. The other two, left and right, were nowhere to be seen. The one left approached him with a smile and a hand extended. “You set yourself free,” the one smiled and said, “now I will tell you where you came from.”

I hope, through at least half of this, you realized who the pacer and scraper are. This is my view of the government and political divide. The left will remove our blindfolds and let us see everything they are doing yet keep our hands bound so that we can’t do anything about it. The right will remove our binds presenting us with the illusion that we can do something, but maintain the blindfold so that we may not see what they are doing. They present us with their opposing sides and expect us to choose between the two of them. We don’t have to pick between the two that will never give us full freedom. We can choose ourselves.

Looking Back on Past Blog Posts

2009-03-13T09:01:00.000-07:00

It is always exciting for me when I return to my room at home and sit down on the floor next to my book shelf and start reading things I have written a long time ago and looking at the pictures I drew in elementary school and beyond.

I find it fascinating sometimes when I look at something and I question myself: "Did I really write this?" or "Did I really draw this?" and I guess the simple answer would be yes.

Being part of Digital Imaging at Clemson I realize how important it is to document our past (though the funding for it I don't exactly agree with). We can look back and see what has helped shaped the people we are today and can appreciate or condemn that which has happened.

I've personally come a long way, as would be expected in almost 22 years of living. I think, out of everything that I have been through: meeting my best friend Dan more than a decade ago and going to college, have been the most influential events.

College threw me into a world where I was mostly dependent on myself in terms of a social and professional environment. There was a routine to the days but one I had to come up with, not one my parents or high school dictated for me. I saw a more diverse group of people which was a very important factor in me accepting myself.

I accepted the fact, within a year of attending Clemson University, that I am gay. It took a while, I knew I always thought boys were cute but the thought just never crossed my mind that I would ever love another boy. It was supposed to be girls, that's just the way the world was. And yet, growing up and seeing gay people, I just thought that's who they were. I didn't think it was a choice, I just accepted them. I never had a talk with my parents about what a gay person was or how they felt, or how different they were.

I regret the social conformity that I participated in when it came to name calling. I never called a gay person "gay" or "fag" to their face but when joking with my friends I would say, "thats gay", "you fag" etc. High school is unfortunately not the best breeding ground for proper young adults. That is not saying there is one, but I believe there should be a strong guidance of principles in a child's development. My parents are some of the best that I could ever have hoped to have! I just never used those words in front of them or any other adult.

In college I was exposed to a more socially liberal environment with much less secular conformity and more "Do what you wanna do, we don't care", attitude. People weren't jumping down your throat because you didn't dress the same way or looked differently. College just isn't the place for that. Its a place for you, a student, striving for your future.

I approached my good friend, Hannah, that I have known for most of my life (and whom I dated in middle school :P) and told her I was questioning my sexuality. At the time, she just seemed the most appropriate person I could turn to. She was very supportive and helped me with decisions I would need to make.

I then turned to someone I was more hesitant to tell but someone I knew deserved to know and would possibly be supportive. That night Dan and I went out to San Jose for dinner. I cannot remember my exact words but it definitely had something to do with, "I am not exactly your straightest friend." His reaction was a huge weight off my shoulders, though more weight would still be there for another half a year. He was accepting and more supportive than I could have ever imagined and it still today waters my eyes to have a friend such as Dan. He has been there for me every step of the way and I am forever grateful for his love and friendship.

I slowly informed my first ring of friends and began to branch out. My friend Patrick was going to be my roommate for the Sophomore year of college and I felt it was his right to know. While in the car on the way somewhere, I cannot recall Senator, I said about the same thing to him. Patrick was like, "Ok". Another very supportive friend, and has been ever since just like Dan.

At this point, it was clear to me that I have been an excellent judge in character when it comes to my friends. None of them have turned me away and all are accepting of me. One doesn't usually hit the jackpot in life but I feel as though I did.

As the year progressed I was out to anyone who cared to ask and I began my crusade at the gym to rid myself of being overweight. My facebook and myspace status said interested in men AND women because I hadn't fully accepted that I was gay and would never like being in bed with the ladies. I am sure I could love a woman but not the same way I would a man. My brother noticed this change on my status and questioned me and I simply said yea. The time came when my sister called and questioned me about it.

I was full disclosure with her. I have always been her last bastion of safety with her feelings and I knew she would always be mine. She has trusted me with so much and I felt I could trust her as well. She was fully accepting and a bit excited as well. The next question was how to tell my parents? It was tricky, I was never sure how they would react because we have never approached the subject. My sister had something to tell me as well that night and informed me that she was pregnant.

The summer before Sophomore year, and after I had come out to my friends, I was working at Dodgeland where my dad worked as well. No one there knew I was gay. One day my dad, brother, grandpa, and a few other workers went out to lunch at Chilis I think. I was facing the door, and watching people go in and out as I usually do. One of my dad's co-workers pointed out that I positioned myself so I could watch all the girls coming in. My dad said, "He better be looking at girls and not boys."

This hit me like a sledgehammer, and I was pissed. I became quiet, which isn't unusual since I was not a big talker and still am not, but I never said another word the whole time. It hurt that he would say something like that. I take that comment now as just what I was doing in high school, socially conforming.

I have been saving this post as a draft for the past couple days because it is taking me sometime to collect my thoughts on the matter and a lot of things can happen in just a few days or even one. This past Friday we took my mom out downtown for a couple drinks on her birthday (well the day after). My coming-out story somehow found its way to the top of the list of things to talk about.

This is what I was told happened: My brother informed my mother that he was the straightest son she had. I think this confused her a bit and my dad had said that he had asked me this past summer, which I do not recollect at this time Senator. My mom said she used to always scroll down to the "interested in" section on my "myspace" and take a peek. She had not been checking for a while and that night after my brother's announcement she did and so I was out.

Big deal? Maybe, they haven't acted like it is a big deal but my mom did mention that everything she had envisioned for her son had been turned on its head. My parents are pretty much already egalitarian and very much liberal in their voting as well. They were both military kids though their parents do not support the life style and may not even know about me. My mother is a librarian, a very specialized one, and my dad is one of the nicest fellows you may encounter. He works in a body shop. Both of them practice Conservative Judaism and raised us Jewish. Which of these factors helped to shape their acceptance? Or was it the fact that I am their son and that they love me? Did they know that being gay is not a choice? I cannot answer any of these questions. But I can tell you that they love me for the person I am and the son they raised, and that love is not unrequited.

They have been supportive ever since and I believe they had some hesitations in the beginning about me being fully out, but I no longer get that vibe anymore. My synagogue had a viewing of the documentary "Trembling Before God", which was about orthodox Jews dealing with being gay. It wasn't the most appropriate film for a Conservative audience or one for me to give my opinion about because they are in a different environment. One that is more hostile to gays than their conservative counter-parts. After the viewing we had a discussion and I was put in the spot light to talk about my experience; which I detailed as being a very fortunate one and it makes me sad to think about the terrible stories I have encountered from other gays and gay friends.

It brings tears to my eyes now as I type. My current boyfriend cannot even come out to his family or they would most likely disown him or worse. It is absolutely revolting to think that a parent could hate their child for how they were born and fail to see who they have become. We had a break for coffee and snacks and as I walked to the table my dad said to me, "I am proud of you." That moment was perfect for me. It was one of those times in your life when you are fully emotionally moved by the love of your parent; so much so that it floors you, and this time in a good way.

I joined the Clemson Gay-Straight Alliance and within a year of being a member I ran for the office of Vice President to help promote and protect the interests of the GLBT community in Clemson. The CGSA has made bold new steps this year in its political activities on what one would consider a very conservative campus. I am proud of our members every time they walk into the meeting room and sit down to either have a fun social meeting or a (possibly fun) political meeting. GSA is not a hook-up group or place, it is where Gays and Straights come to share stories and to help each other feel more comfortable in their surroundings and provide long lasting friendships.

I was a major supporter of Obama back when he started running, and had been a die-hard liberal for so many years. I never really questioned "why?". My parents are liberals and persons I have much love and respect for. Then came Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugged". My world was totally turned around again. Was I really about to question the idea of a "common good" or "society" or morals for that matter. Why do we have morals? To guide us through our interactions with others? Or rather to guide our lives to pursue our interests and happiness as individuals and human beings.

Upon finishing the book I began to question more and see what Ayn Rand was showing her readers. I found my political niche, my philosophical niche, and myself. I moved away from bleeding blue and moved towards a middle ground. A libertarian view I adopted. Not sure which one my mom took worse, me being gay or me being fiscally conservative!

And so here I am now a secular gay left-handed libertarian Jew who loves everything computer; going outside in the sun; going to the gym; posting on my blogs; chatting, texting, and talking all at the same time; hanging out with all my friends; hanging out with my family when I can; enjoying a good book; enjoying a good movie; having someone to love; having someone to hold; listening to good music; sleeping in; being productive at work; writing stories; drawing; and so much more.

We look back on our lives and have either good things to say or bad things to say. It is always good to look back once in a while and see how far we've come but we must always look forward again and see how far we have to go. I have looked back and have regretted but persevered. I continue to look forward though, and see a road fogged over with uncertainty. But not impassable!

lrn2liberty blog

2009-03-12T13:37:00.000-07:00

Due to the ease, efficiency, and "right for me" of Tumblr blogs I will be posting mostly there from now on!

lrn2liberty

The Few

2009-02-16T09:22:00.000-08:00

I started to type on my sister's wall just some random stuff about Gods and blah but after the first paragraph I just kept going and moved it to word to make sure it wasn't erased and continued to make it a note on facebook dedicated to my sister. Here it is:

Oh the gods hath placed before me a conundrum of a magnitude Great Thor's thunderbolt could never match. Their juggle of the stars mesmerize those grounded and free the Icaruses of us all. Their flight guides the few and puts fear in the many. They follow the moving lights, twisting and turning by the Gods' playful will. Those Gods whom hath placed this riddle before me.

The few followed the dynamic trail, never stopping, never faltering, never crying. The first to find the end of the lights stopped. The second stopped in front of the first and the third in front of the second.

The Gods only gave them a finite trail but the Icaruses of us all that guides the few and puts fear in the many continued to stop one in front of the other. They pushed past the Gods' trail, they feared not the unknown but the known. The known that was the end; the end of that finite trail.

The Gods, the omniscient Gods, the omnipotent Gods, those Gods that placed that damn riddle before me. They knew not the this power of the Icaruses. They knew not how these Icaruses, the men to be grounded, had lengthened a finite trail conceived by the Gods themselves.

The Icaruses’ line was faulty though, like the Gods trail, their line was finite. Their numbers stifled by the many still grounded. The irony of the two sides was too clear to no one. No one but me. I waited, I faltered, I blinded myself for two decades of a heavenly body’s movements around a greater one. Ah, I cried out, irony strikes at my thoughts again.

Not but one revolution ago, as I looked up, not down, upon those foolish Icaruses flying away. Following a trail that the many knew would end, for the Gods, the omniscient, the omnipotent Gods hath made only a finite trail. My mind jerked my eyes to the heavens, my eyes were thrown into focus for the first time in those twenty plus revolutions.

The water that makes up the essence of the Icaruses, the few, the many, and me burst forth from my focused eyes. Listen Reader! The riddle Reader! The riddle! that the Gods hath placed before me that not even they knew the answer to but they placed it before ME! I know the Answer Reader! The focus was unlike any other that a microscope could compel out of its lens. And the Answer you will learn.

The Icaruses and their few that follow and become them, they are the omniscient and the omnipotent. Not these Gods that hath placed a mere FINITE trail before them. That greater heavenly body was not greater than the one revolving around it. For it did not host those Icaruses.

But there is more Reader! There is more! The many that viewed the foolish Icaruses flying away, THEY created the Gods. They stifled the knowledge of the few only to stifle their own knowledge of their own creation. Reader! Are you seeing the vast irony that consumes this story?! Are your eyes in focus too?

If not, than you are the many.

If so, than you are me.

Do you wish to know the end of the story?
The Icaruses and the few never stopped stopping in front of each other. Their trail...their path...because of me, it was infinite, and unlike the many, whose trails stopped from fear of the Gods they had created, the few never died. How could they? They were the true Gods. Those that never stopped, faltered, or cried on their way to the end of this trail. They created an infinite trail of the known. And it continues as I continue it.

My comments:

Yes I know Icarus got too close to the sun and died but that is not the point of this story, the name merely applies to the act of defiance of the ground.
The stars freeing the Icaruses means they wish to pursue that which they are told by the many should never be pursued, nothing mystical in its meaning.
The Icaruses never stopped, yes they stopped one in front of the other, but they went beyond a finite trail, thus not stopping on this trail.

Israel's Uncertain Future - News and Opinion

2009-02-14T14:16:00.000-08:00

Israel's Uncertain Future - News and Opinion

This is a link to my most recent article for The Tiger Town Observer.

School, Work, and this!

2009-01-18T14:33:00.000-08:00

Beginning of a new semester brings about more challenges and obstacles. Negative connotations are sometimes applied to both these words but in a way it can be positive. Challenges push you, make you strive to do your best, can bring about change in your life. The benefits of overcoming a challenge are on a such a vast spectrum. Some challenges this semester such as Arabic are on one of the spectrum, the one that reaps rewards, others such as writing for the Tiger Town Observer (Clemson University's Conservative Newspaper) are on the other end at this point. That could change as my political knowledge potentially expands from this opportunity to reach a larger audience with my opinions. Work is another challenge I face this semester. Since the beginning of my job in the Digital Initiatives Department of Clemson University's library, I have been learning so much from my super awesome boss Mandy and teaching myself so much at the same time.

I have learned the language of Wiki, which is rather simple. I have greatly expanded my knowledge of Mac's and their workings. I have learned the importance of archiving our past and the standards and procedures for digitizing such documents. I have learned more about Access within a few months than I have ever known my whole time dealing with computers. I work with Photoshop, Acrobat, and several other document editing applications. This job isn't exactly what I would like as a future career but for now its what I know and what I am best at, next to ranting about politics and the decline of American morality.

This job will no doubt improve my knowledge in how to work with others and listen carefully to my bosses. It is preparing me for the world outside of college, or at least I hope it is. I spent the past winter break working, albeit few hours a day, for my mom at the South Carolina State Library. There I had to help her and those under her put together work-flow procedures and digitizing standards for their Digital Imaging Department. I was not paid, except in lunch by my dear mother : D It was a successful winter break to say the least. The rest of it was Dan and my computers side by side as we tackled the great lands of Azeroth, Zuchini and Zuchino!

I have had a major writer's block for my story, which still does not have a title! A brief conversation with my mom in the car on our way to Books-a-Million put new life into the story. I have worked slowly going through editing, adding, removing, and improving. It appears all I needed was an ear to get going. I have found a stopping point for book one. Not sure how many books will be involved. Hopefully it will be three but so far the first isn't finished and the second has little to it. The stopping point for the first book is perfect, a massive buildup of events tragic for the semi-allied Encreatians and Usyllians as the Kirlatos unveil and unleash a force upon the galaxy so vast and deadly, the allies have a ghost of a chance to counter the Kirlatos and restore peace. The mystery of the Kirlatos' motives for galactic domination begins to unravel at the end of the first book, only slightly, and becomes more apparent to the careful reader into the second book. Stay tuned for the conclusion of Book One Chapter IV Bloodlines!

Automakers

2008-11-19T20:51:00.000-08:00

So we are going to bailout automakers huh? We are going to bailout companies that seem to have a hard time selling cars. We are going to bailout companies that can't sell a product because no one can buy them. We are going to bail them out. Why? So they can keep not selling cars? Simply giving them operating funds will not change the market. It will not decrease prices nor increase demand.

The representatives keep bitching about automakers closing factories down in America and keeping their Canadian and Mexican factories open. This is directly from Atlas Shrugged, you can not have your cake and eat it too mr. representative. You want them to keep their factories open here? Decrease their operating and wage taxes. They are trying to stay in business by being able to provide their vehicles at a cheaper price while maintaining a profit. Keeping their American factories don't allow this because of what is called a worker's union.

You want higher wages? Blame it on the car companies, sure do that. Or you can blame it on the government for taxing them so much and taxing you so much. No thats not what you do though. You force the companies to increase your wages till they can't even afford operating costs and have to shut them down. Then the government "in defense of you" yells at them for keeping their foreign factories open. Guess who doesn't demand higher wages? Guess who is still keeping their jobs? Not you.

Now I am not condoning the auto industries business practices, dear god, they need to make (wince) sacrifices to maintain their own business survival. I mean seriously, private jet to the hearing that is determining whether you recieve federal funds, nay, tax money to maintain your current operating procedures, lets look in the mirror and say "I know how to run a business", keep saying it and you might just convince yourself and maybe the idiots in America as well.

Recently my university's newspaper had a guest columnist write about socialism and how with Obama's election we are still not headed in that direction. He defined it as government control of the industries. Bailing out companies doesn't come without strings. I personally see a future very close to government intervention in industrial decision making.

I end on that note. Till my next post, stay free, protest for capitalism, protest for your rights and never concede your integrity to what those might call "the greater good" or as I like to call it "the greatest farce imposed on America".

Response to "Rebirth of Reason" forum on voting

2008-11-17T08:46:00.000-08:00

After reading the posts it shocks me that those who have registered for this site are not close to living a life of reason and rationality.

Obama is a vote for the policies of a greater socialist government, we all know that, but some of you seem to think voting for McCain is better...is it? In my opinion and my apparently better judgment, it is a vote of the same horrible magnitute, for the same reason. He is staunch in his fight against spreading the wealth around but he is still a member of the compassionate conservatives. He has no voice for business but cutting their taxes. Other than that he would have raped America, he would have been the modern day Robin Hood, the true villain in that so called story, as Obama is now.

Those that abstain or vote for Obama because it is inevitable are part of the problem in this two party tyranny, this lack of freedom of choice, this monopoly on politics. Those that abstain think they are boycotting, protesting the election and the two party system. But in this action, you are indicating your failure to respect your own life. You don't vote, you don't think, you don't act, you don't live. It is a contradiction to abstain in order to protest. A protest unseen, unanalyzed until the Republicans and the Democrats go at it again in four years when they try to sway those that didn't want to leave their home for the inevitable.

I went into that voting booth, and though you may say my vote was thrown away, I kept my integrity. 'Like Reagan said,"It's just one battle in a long war. Don't give up your ideas. Don't compromise...Don't get cynical", I voted for the person I thought represented the policies I wanted my life to be "ruled" by. I voted for my rights and life (the two are not separate), not for some altruistic, "self-less" act of abstaining.

The Election and our Job as Citizens

2008-09-04T14:08:00.000-07:00

In today's Presidential politics it is unfortunate that the majority of Americans, such as myself, throw our allegiance to one of the two ruling parties, Democrats or Republicans. Some would say, as I used to, that voting Libertarian or independent is throwing away your vote; taking away from a lesser of two evils. Ignore such people. Throwing away your vote is not voting at all; which, in my opinion, is one of the greatest evils an American citizen can perform. They are simply stating through this action, “I do not care who dictates the laws I am to live my life by, nor am I concerned with what happens to my natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

I found myself torn between the two candidates; one supporting my right to ALL the fruits of my labors, where as the other wishes to throw my tax money into more welfare, and a failing social security system. One doesn't believe I should marry whomever I wish and at the same time adopt with that person a child. The other believes I should be able to engage in a civil union with anyone I wish.

I would be very interested in seeing the results of a nationwide poll, first informing the people of the policies of Ron Paul, and then asking them if their reservations for voting for a third-party candidate is influenced by the idea that they would not be contributing to the race and taking away from a lesser of two evils.

Voting for the candidate you think would best represent your values and ideals should be your prime objective when stepping into that booth. You shouldn't think that your vote will not count because that is exactly what leads most to not vote in such a way. Integrity is one of the virtues that all humans should uphold. Having the will to vote for who you want to be in office and standing by that vote no matter what the democrats or republicans say about throwing the election because of it.

I have tried my best to look at McCain’s stances and say, “Yes, that is a good idea and I prefer it over Obama’s.” But every single time I look at McCain’s stance on marriage which is this:

“The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.” (Johnmccain.com)

I see it as a personal attack on me and the LGBT community. There are a few things going for him in my favor when it comes to the issue of Gay marriage and gays in general. One is that he believes it is up to the states to determine whether they wish to recognize same-sex marriages. Let’s not forget though, that he supports the proposed California amendment making marriage between a man and a woman. If we do not like the policy in one state, just move to another, at least we have a choice. In a telephone interview McCain stated that he would not be opposed to a gay president nor would he have a problem with it. But, he voted no on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation and expanding the hate crimes bill to include sexual orientation as well. It does not appear in his policies though that he has a problem with homosexuals but he does wish to “preserve” the so-called sanctity of marriage. On the issue of adoption McCain has yet to release an official statement, but in a recent interview he states, “I am for the values and principles that two parent families represent.”

McCain also wishes to expand the military and continue the war in Iraq. I believe these are poor decisions. The government should only be using the military to protect us from eminent threats such as Iran or terrorist networks. Continuing a war in Iraq is doing neither and only inflaming the terrorists’ agenda. Iran is a threat because they have the potential to develop nuclear weapons and use them against us. Saddam failed to ever produce anything close to what the Iranian government is capable of doing.

For more information on the candidates’ stances on the issues check out my links of interest. This election year 2008 I will be voting for Bob Barr. He is not a choice of a lesser evil but a choice of reason for the future of America!

Apri 25, 2008 Day of Silence

2008-04-24T15:21:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow will be the Day of Silence. It is a national youth movement that wants to bring attention to the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their allies. Students' silence across the US is to echo the silence, which is caused by anti-LGBT bullying, name-calling, and harassment. This year's DOS is held in memory of Lawrence King, a 15 year-old student who was killed in school because he asked another male student to be his Valentine.
I look forward to the day when one of my friends, or anyone else for that matter, can come out the closet without feeling guilty. Our lives are ours to live and not to be lived for anyone else's life. We should not sacrifice our happiness to please another person. I never will. I will never let another person tell me how I should live my life. It is one of the greatest sins upon another human being to hold their guilt and shame over their head in order to keep them in the closet.
Will I wish for this day to happen? No, it is useless to wish to one's-self. I will actively pursue this day through my own actions of protest and promotion of tolerance. I will be silent tomorrow except for Safe Zone training, which I define as an acceptable excuse for speaking. I want people like me, to know they have an ally they might want to talk to. What will you do to end the silence?

Syria's 'Nuclear Reactor'

2008-04-24T14:34:00.000-07:00

It has been reported that the site bombed by Israel last year in Syria was in fact a nuclear reactor "not intended for peaceful purposes (BBC)". The United States Central Intelligence Agency has not released the images yet as evidence of North Korean aid in building of the reactor but says it will soon (these images were collected by the Israelis). Syria and North Korea have denied the allegations.
The timing of this report can not be coincidence. The US delayed the release of this information for eight months. Not sure how long it takes to build a case against either country, and last time I checked one can print photos in under an hour! Another article released a few days ago on the BBC page said that Israel was "ready to give up the Golan heights in pursuit of peace". I cursed the news article out loud when I read it. I have been to the Golan heights and it is of great strategical importance to either country. The last time the Syrians occupied this patch of land they would snipe Israeli farmers as they worked. Eucalyptus trees were planted in order to provide cover from Syrian snipers.
Why would the CIA make this reports about the Syrian nuclear reactor unless some party wished to stop the peace process by creating friction. But why? and who? Did Israel ask them to do this so they could take back this statement of "ready to give up the Golan heights for peace"? In other words a "legitimate flip flop" that the international community would take into account in favor of Israel's position. This is something I will have to brainstorm on some more.
One other possible explanation could be a "semi"-show of force against Iran. A week ago the Iranians held a military parade to display its power. Their persistence to obtain nuclear energy has not been deterred by international pressure. Thus by finally explaining that the bombing in Syria was in response to a nuclear reactor they are telling the Iranians, "you can try, but this is what will happen".
In politics, there is no such thing as coincidence.

To Quote the great Author: Myself

2008-04-13T16:32:00.000-07:00

Five years ago I would never have uttered these words but now after achieving so much and having so much more to achieve, it is imperative to accept this phrase:
"Wishing is the purest form of laziness." - Me
I used to wish because it seemed much easier to blame someone else for something I want, but really its much easier to just stop the wishing and do things yourself. Go out and take it!

Fitna and its Consequences

2008-03-30T13:59:00.000-07:00

Fitna is a film recently released by Dutch politician Geert Wilders. The film is about fifteen minutes long and throughout it citations from the Koran are shown. Following these quotations that instruct Muslims on how to deal with non-believers including Jews, several video clips of Muslim speakers are shown with them reinforcing what the Koran says. This film is clearly anti-Islam and is viewed as being anti-Semitic.

Most people will realize the film was not widely distributed because of its purpose; which is to call the religion of Islam one of violence. In a recent discussion with several students and a few professors I stated that releasing this film through official newscasts would be very damaging and we would see countries that have been our allies for decades come to the point of turning against the West. I stated that its possible even Jordan would become enraged and this has been proven. 53 Jordanian MPs have delivered a petition to their government asking to cut off political ties with the Netherlands.

The question is: Should the West, whose proudest freedom is the freedom of speech, air this film through their newschannels? Is it the West's moral obligation to promote the freedom of speech rather than silence it?
Since this is my blog I will give you my view:
I am a gay Jew so believe me when I say that I am very liberal and I believe greatly in the freedom speech and saying whatever you feel. However, not releasing this film through official channels is the best choice the West could have made. There are over one billion Muslims in the world. The type of fighting in Iraq our military faces is proving that the labels of Superpower or even Megapower no longer apply. OBL states that Iraq is sending the US into bankruptcy and this is not far from the truth. A multi-polar world is coming back; though the definitions may have changed a bit. We are facing a force that is difficult to locate and difficult to silence. On one polarity is the US and its allies and the other terrorism of all kinds and its ideas.

We can not win this war. Yeah, go ahead and label me a pessimist but in my opinion I am a realist. If anyone has seen V for Vendetta then you know what I am talking about. You can not kill an idea, thus how can you defeat the enemy of that idea? People who are quick to accept this film should take a look at the Torah and the Christian Bible. Each religion has their faults in today's terms. By releasing this film it is most probable that an entire nation of people would turn on the West; not just those we call terrorists but every Muslim. They will see this as the official war against Islam.

The West must denounce this film as inflammatory material because it does call for violence against Islam. In America holding a speech that calls for violence against someone is considered terrorism and is illegal.

I regret that religion is not only one of the foundations of a civilization but can also lead to the destruction of civilization. I do not see how either side can fight based on words written way before our time. We must continue to promote freedom through soft power and stop giving radical Muslims an excuse to attack us. When their arguments are no longer valid, the rest of the Muslim nation will see the truth in Peace and help change their brothers and sisters. Global stability should be a major priority for everyone on Earth.

My final statement: We should allow this video to be posted on the internet where it can be accessed but we can not promote it. Eye for an eye is the greatest moral failure in ideology ever conceived.

Women's Rights

2008-03-25T12:25:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note, please contact your senator via email, mail, or phone and tell them to vote no against the bill that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. This is a direct infringement upon women's rights to their bodies. Sex should not be taboo, it is something that mostly everyone practices. Do not let these right wing groups to take away another right of women to control their body. This sort of denial is something we see in Africa and other third world cultures that subjugate their women. This is AMERICA!

Death Toll 4,000 or is it over 90,000

2008-03-25T10:48:00.000-07:00

Since the time President George W. Bush declared the major combat in Iraq was over, 97% of the deaths of our troops have occurred after that speech on May 1st, 2003. The American forces in Iraq have suffered over 4,000 deaths now. Just to include another number: to date 55% of those have been to roadside bombs. Please refer back to my post of the Anniversary in Iraq and the HUMVEEs.

What makes me even more ticked off is that Bush said, referring to the recent four soldier's deaths, that their passing would not be in vain. A president can not make this kind of promise to the families! In vain: "to no end", "without success". This war is in vain! We face a task unlike any other America has encountered in its history. This is not rebuilding Europe... We have to rebuild the infrastructure, including their military, in a country where a good majority of the people do not wish to see us there. We are caught in a conflict between two opposing sides that wish to be on top and see the other as subservient. As if I have to mention the insurgents fighting just us thanks to OBL. They will not tire out. They realize their mission in life and that is to fight the infidel attacking Islam wherever and whenever they can and the bonus for them is death! I task you to find a soldier whose ultimate goal in this war is to die. Fighting an enemy like that requires generations (as seen in Israel) to do...

I would like to also mention the Iraqi civilian deaths. Figures put them at 82,408 to 89,928. This information is from http://www.iraqbodycount.org and you can look up where they get their numbers from. These deaths are caused by military and paramilitary actions.

We are told to think that, (and thats another major problem is that we are always told to think a certain way!), us staying there for as long as need be is absurd! We need to, again, help get their economy going and establish bases for their military. With the money the government will make selling oil to the world they will have more than enough funds to rebuild schools, mosques, hospitals, government buildings etc. To reiterate the presidential candidates stances on the war:
Obama wishes to withdrawal all troops except for a small contingency within 16 months of being elected.
Clinton will start to withdrawal within 60 days.
And McCain...well I don't want to get started on hsi ideas for withdrawal IF THAT.

One solider questioned by the media stated that coming into Iraq in 2003, he never imagined he would still be there in 2008. Military commanders give credit to the decrease in deaths of American forces because the soldiers are adapting their tactics in battle and know what to avoid. However this is a double-edged sword (as everything else in life is): these soldiers have adapted because they have been going back tour after tour after tour after tour after tour (I repeat this to show how many times service members have been recalled). Two summers ago I was driving home a former marine after he dropped his car off at the Dodge dealership I was working at. He told me he is tired of all this war. Since he was in there has been non-stop deployment to some war torn area of the world.

Now I know that is what the military is for, but I personally believe we should only be involved if say the fate of the world is at stake, you know, such as World War I and II...Personally a defensive military is something I look forward to. I would not mind having a draft then.

Pastor Parsley as McCain's Spiritual Guide

2008-03-24T17:27:00.000-07:00

Pastor Parsley is the pastor of the World Harvest Church in Ohio. His views are quite radical. They include but are not limited to: Islam as an enemy of the US and Christianity; America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed; and the clincher Christopher Columbus' goal in founding the new world was to help the European armies defeat Islam. One of my professors raised the point as to why the media has not created a firestorm of McCain calling Parsley his spiritual guide. My professor's argument was that Americans either agree with that Parsley is saying or that they realize McCain is simply using his support to win votes.

Either way, this disregard for media attention is immoral. Especially when compared to Obama's pastors remarks that are not as damaging to the moral fabric of American society as calling Islam a danger to America. Obama even distanced himself from Reverend Wright whereas McCain is, again, calling Parsley his spiritual guide. This only provides evidence to the corruptness of the media, but what else is new?

Democratic Primary Distractions

2008-03-21T14:56:00.000-07:00

The news has distracted us so much from the issues that need to be addressed. Obama and Hilary are having to defend themselves on the comments made by persons close to them. Both persons made inappropriate comments but the candidates are spending to much time distancing themselves. They need to be reminding the people of WHY they are running and WHAT they wish to see change. They are not going to be the king or queen; they will not be in some ceremonial position such as the SC governor (lol); they will be affecting our lives on a daily basis. I don't want to hear what Ferraro or what Reverend Wright said!

I want to hear what the candidates have and will say, because that will influence my decision. Ferraro and Wright are of no importance to me unless their views are reflected in the candidates.

Btw Vote Obama, and he better help legalize Same-Sex marriage!

The Oil Business

2008-03-21T14:47:00.000-07:00

I find it very interesting that VP Dick Cheney goes to the supplier, not the person that actually sets the price of oil, in order to increase the output of oil. Why not go to his oil buddies, which you know exist, and ask them to control the spectators and help Americans afford getting to work etc. This sort of situation by inserting a, b, or c is very prevalent in politics and moral dilemmas. If the people are to help the economy they have to get to work to earn their money and then spend it. The way gas prices are going yes they will go to work, but will they go out and shop?

This is such a hypocritical way of going around the problem, of which, the outcome will yield disappointing results. But hey, look at the official I am talking about. The man who invested millions in the foreign market and in an account that is not affected by inflation. Good job at setting an example Mr. Vice President!

Hamas Accusing Egypt of Torture

2008-03-21T14:39:00.000-07:00

This is a story that slightly surprised me, and would have shocked me more if I wasn't on this medication that makes me feel like I am drunk. Hamas members who crossed over to the Egyptian border accused Egyptian authorities of torturing, now listen to this, demanding to know their movements in Israel and where they are holding the Israeli soldier that has been missing for a year. According to the Hamas spokesman, none of the questions pertained to the security of Egypt.

This demonstrates the change that is occurring in the Middle East with regard to the state of Israel. The Arab states are either realizing that since they can not defeat the state they should make friends; or they are doing this because they want a democratic society that cooperates with other countries especially ones adjacent to them. To have a country like Egypt, that has shown in the past to allow protests of Anti-Americanism in their streets, to help Israel, albeit with torture, is something quite remarkable.

France's Reduction of Nuclear Weapons

2008-03-21T14:34:00.000-07:00

Good for them. If you haven't heard France is reducing their airborne nuclear arsenal by 1/3rd thus they will have less than three hundred missiles. This is still quite a lot in the grand scheme of things because, lets face it, a nuke is a nuke. But hey, at least they are taking the steps the United States will never do for some time. Nuclear weapons are overkill, I know that you need them as a deterrant to other countries that have them but our main goal now is fighting terrorism and you can't nuke an idea...

Facebook Note

2008-03-20T15:46:00.000-07:00

This is a facebook note that I posted a week ago that I feel should also be posted here but I have toned down the language. I have also received comments that my last post and probably this post comes off angry but I assure you, even though I do respond in a displeasured manner it is not anger that motivates these statements. If it was, well much more colorful language would ensue.

Screw the Airforce.
Screw the FBI.
Screw ignorant people, though not really if only you would open your mind I might not say screw you, but for now...screw

Screw my entire plan I had for the next 40 odd years of my life.

I plan on fighting this god damn fucked up system any way I can whether it be through law, counseling those who need someone to talk to, working for the HRC or a NGO.

I plan to fight this system, help those in need and in return ultimately helping myself.

Shit needs to change,

We can't live in a society where an elected legislator believes that homosexuality is the greatest threat to America since terrorism.

We can't live in a society where a human being is denied the right to serve their country because of who they are ie their sexual orientation.

We can't live in a society were a human being isn't allowed to obtain the job they desire and have worked for because of who they are.

We can't live in a society where a human being is killed or severely beaten for who they are.

We can't live in a society where ignorance rules the masses from a position of power.

We can't live in a society where a human being isn't allowed to say, yes I have committed myself to another person in a legally and spiritually binding relationship and not be able to receive the benefits other human beings receive.

We can't live in a society which denies a couple the right to raise a child in a household of acceptance, tolerance, love and care.

I refuse to accept this as a functioning society.
I refuse to stand by and do nothing when millions suffer.
I refuse to be discriminated against.
I refuse.
And I hope you all do too, and join me in fighting this injustice that our country is supposed to be against!

The Anniversary of the Iraq War

2008-03-19T21:05:00.000-07:00

Ok so yesterday, as in one hour (at the current moment) ago Bush recognized the 5th "anniversary" of our stay in Iraq. That, just in case you missed it, is five years of being in a country that, to the greater public opinion of Iraq, does not want us there. Not only do they not want us there, bin Laden doesn't want use there and neither does any state in the Middle East, save for Israel or Kuwait. Five years of sending soldier, or should I say American citizen, after soldier into a battlefield of which we are still mastering the basics in fighting. People this is a guerrilla fight...humor my ranting.

How many years did it take for us to realize that Humvees are not designed for this style of warfare. It is a relatively unprotected vehicle, such as the one you drive, packed full of soldiers driving through a congested street. Can you say Somalia? Bottleneck rhymes with that I think in the metaphorical sense. So we upgraded the armor, well thats all and dandee but you are gonna need a striker to survive an IED and I don't see those vehicles coming out of the woodwork. Then we have a problem with those vehicles, lack of maneuverability and firing sights. What the hell are you going to do with an M1 Abrams on a street like the one you might live on? You can't just go blasting the hell out of someone's house! Unless of course you plan on inviting Ty Pennington to redo it for them.

On to the soldiers; the poor sign up, or those who wish to serve their country, and get trained on how to fire a weapon. Can you say "thanks dad?" Moreover, in most cases (I can't speak for all dads) your good ol' pops doesn't send you into a battlefield where the people you are fighting are better trained than you are! I see you, about to step on that pedestal of yours, but come on, these people are trained and you know it. We are close to having lost 4,000, and I mean damn close, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, aunts and uncles to this war. Not to mention over 500 billion dollars! Repeat that number in your head and look up how much your state receives in federal funding per year. To put it in terms relative to me, that would be like sending 9 million students through a full four years of Clemson. And according to some estimates this war could cost us over THREE TRILLION DOLLARS. And for what? To make our country safer? I am sorry but according to the National Intelligence Estimate this war in Iraq has increased the terrorist threat to the US and spawned a new generation of Islamic radicalism.

For most people in America they have not read anything bin Laden has ever written. I can see why. Why would you want to read literature written by someone who hates you? That question just answered itself. Know thine enemy. People have already taken the position that this war is shit and we should get out of Iraq. A great majority of Americans believe this, just look at Bush's approval rating. bin Laden is what one might call a polemicist, to put it in layman 's terms, the man knows how to to talk to the people. He is an orator. He is someone who can get the people behind him. That is not to say that Muslims are so easily swayed by his writings, but it would be hard for those living in the Middle East who have terrible jobs to ignore what he says. If you still might not be getting the point I am trying to make, let me put it this way: bin Laden is to Muslims as Hitler was to Germans. If more people realized OBL's potential to move people, they would voice their great displeasure with this war even louder.

Now I know taxes are unavoidable (in the legal sense), but if there was to be a nationwide vote, just like an election, I think the vast majority of American's would refuse to let their tax money go to making bombs, tanks, fighters, bombers, aircraft carriers, tomahawk cruise missiles etc. By all means they would feel it to be their moral obligation to the soldiers to continue funding their paychecks but who wants their dollar to be that bomb that hits the wrong house? That mortar shell that went off target? That bullet that ricocheted into a child? (This is the part where the war supporting conservatives that may read this start to get all huffy puffy.) Collateral damage? Casualties of war? No, my friends, this is not how a war should be fought.

Now if you aren't liking this so far you may be trying to pose the question to me, "ok well then how would you have done it?" And I answer: Support a group that despises Saddam. Fund them at a much lower cost than what the war is costing us now. Saddam never controlled the entire country. If he were to bring his army against a rag tag group of guerrillas, the end result would be that of Afghanistan with the Mujihadeen and the Soviet Union. Saddam led a conventional army. With weapons supplied by the United States this group could have struck fatal blows to what was the Republican Guard! But it is too late for that now.

Was removing Saddam from power a good thing? Morally, yes. In the grand scheme of the global situation, no. The man was controllable in a sense. After the Gulf War he knew not to screw up too much. America had him right where they wanted him. The current administration will deny this statement saying that he was a threat to the stability of the Middle East. Wait wait wait...do you smell that? I do believe it is coffee, and that the government should probably wake up and smell it. It is the coffee of great destabilization that is the Middle East NOW!

A major issue in the elections is of course going to be the war in Iraq. What are we to do? Obama says lets get the hell out of there now. Hilary says lets get out slowly. And McCain? Well he says we need MORE troops to finish the job! What is this JOB he is speaking of? In my opinion it is morally wrong AND morally right to pull out of Iraq and let the people of the country sort it out. Help the government get the oil pumps going to provide a stimulus needed to fund part of the countries rebuilding.

If it goes to Civil War, let it. But Joshua! Letting the outcome be civil war is just horribly wrong! No, my friend, it is not. Civil wars are a way of settling the issue between the people that actually LIVE in the country. I do not want my parents to come between a fight with my brother. I want to solve it our way, on our terms. Even if we both end up with black eyes, bloody noses, and cauliflower ears. Now think of it in a grander scale. They do not want a foreign power, from tens of thousands of miles away to determine the fate of their state! I know America sure as hell wouldn't! We would be exercising our 2nd Amendment right to the fullest God Damn extent! I guaranfuckingtee you that.

There is much much more to be said on this but I will end on this note:
When you come home from work, school or whatever, sit down in a quiet place. Look out your window and just Imagine a tank rolling by with troops on it that speak a different language than your own. Imagine bullet holes in your walls. Imagine having to be home at a certain time. Imagine pushing your cart through the super market anticipating at any moment an explosion going off outside or in the store itself. Imagine the constant noise of gunfire, mortar shells or even bombs going off at all hours of the night. Imagine foreigners busting open your door, guns loaded and pointed at you, demanding to see the men of your house. Imagine losing your friend to a suicide bomber or a stray bullet. Imagine losing a person that lives in your house to one of those. Imagine losing a limb or body part to one of those.
Just sit there, and imagine all of those.
Would you want this in your own country, town, or neighborhood?

First Post

2008-03-18T22:35:00.000-07:00

Hi reader, first post, obviously, the purpose of this blog is mainly to post anything I might feel the need to post lol such as my opinion on current events or just to share what my day was like. I will also post sections of a story I am writing which I have yet to give a title to. It is a science fiction story and will maybe have the smallest bit of fantasy involved but not an influencing factor in the story. I hope you enjoy and post any comments you have.