Sir Real's Words of Wisdom

2012-01-11T14:08:00.000-08:00

It is so magnanimous of taggers to grace us with their artwork on city buses!

The FCC Can Go F*@k Itself!

2012-01-10T14:43:00.000-08:00

The FCC can go fuck itself! The federal government has no motherfucking business in regulating what people watch or read or smell or drink or whatever other fucking thing on earth you'd like to do. If parents are concerned over what their children watch they can use the goddamn remote like God intended them to do!

I sincerely doubt ABC will automatically become porn central or blood-and-guts television just because there's no FCC to control what can be broadcast. And even if they did admit a plethora of colorful epithets and gratuitously sexual and violent images, change the FUCKING CHANNEL! You are not forced to watch every shitty program that comes into your idiot box. Is it really that fucking hard to do things yourself! Who the fuck wants the government watching over their shoulders? Have we all become morons?

If Republicans were truly the party of smaller government they would help abolish the FCC. If Democrats truly cared about free speech they would abolish the FCC. But everyone's a goddam, motherfucking hypocrite on this issue and you can bet the only people who really need supervision on television need to be reading a fucking book!

Internet Archive for Monday Afternoon

2010-05-10T14:30:00.000-07:00

I don't want to be at work! Who wants to be at work? Here's some links to help lighten the load:

If you don't already know about it you really should check out the Internet Archive. You could watch old cartoons, download ebooks, and hear various audio (among other things)--all for free! Because it is non-commercial there are certain restrictions to what you can view, read, or listen to: but that only makes things more interesting.

Since I sit at a desk for most of my workday I listen to a lot of stuff on the Internet Archive. Here are some of my discoveries and recommendations:

     The Smashing Pumpkins "album" (never commercially released): Machina II.

     Crap From the Past--a radio show hosted by Ron "Boogiemonster" Gerber. He plays pop music mostly from the '70s and '80s, a lot of it obscure and out of the way.

     Psychedelicatessen--a radio show showcasing a lot of rock/psychedelic music from the '60s and '70s.

     Some music from Al Jolson.

     A few Grateful Dead live recordings.

     And some Old Time Radio shows.

Arizona's New Immigration Law

2010-05-05T13:44:00.000-07:00

The new immigration law enacted by the state of Arizona is ridiculously broad and seriously disturbing. It is silly to think that certain groups will not be targeted. And it is horrifying to see how blasé people are concerning how much power this law gives to the government.

This quote is particularly horrendous: "Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S." [Emphasis mine]. This gives any law enforcement officer complete license to stop anyone they want for any reason. How exactly, just by looking at someone, do you determine someone is in this country illegally? I know people have their ideas about what illegal aliens are supposed to look like but they can come from any country in the world--even Canada! Obviously, law enforcement is going to stop people based on their prejudices.

Of course, law enforcement officers can stop people that are any race and/or from any nationality. Is that truly what we want? One of the primary reasons the United States had a war for independence was to not allow any government official have the authority to stop people for any reason. Yet, here we are, 234 (or so) years later, reversing what our forebears fought for. I can't imagine living somewhere where a cop can stop me for any reason...(oh yes, I can...I've been to Mexico). It's ironic. In order to deal with our immigration issues and fears about people coming from Latin America we are going to enact laws as draconian as all the crappy laws and practices from Latin America. I suppose it can work, but at what price? You can execute all people who steal cars and you'll likely reduce car theft, but is that truly a solution? When did we become some third-rate nation like Mexico or China or France?

If this law were enacted in New York or Michigan I'm sure many people of Middle Eastern descent would be targeted. Since it is a law being enacted in Arizona it is obvious that Latin Americans will be targeted. I sincerely doubt illegal aliens from Sweden are going to be suspects. (And yes, there are illegal aliens from all over the world). So, even if the intent may not be racist or xenophobic, it can easily be racist in practice.

I personally think we should make it easier for immigrants to come to our country and work. I don't think it would be a bad idea to spend more time trying to find people who come in here with bad intentions (gang members, terrorists, etc.). But just because some bad people come in it doesn't mean every immigrant is bad. If immigration were easier, it would be easier to tax immigrants because they are not in hiding. I personally think we should do away with most of our social programs, but even if we keep them we can easily tax legal immigrant non-citizens to help pay for those programs.

We shouldn't forget how well off our nation is because of immigration. People who leave their homes to go to a foreign nation and work are usually industrious, ambitious, and tend to love a nation that will give them opportunities. There is a lot of illegal immigration in this country because the process to be here legally is so Byzantine. Even if you don't agree with open borders (an idea I'm starting to like) you can at least agree the new Arizona law is too broad, too harsh, and too difficult to implement.

I grew up around immigrants. Half of my family are immigrants. I lived in a largely immigrant town. Most people who come to this country from elsewhere are here because we are an exceptional nation with a lot of hope and a lot of promise. Let's not kill the American Dream by acting like all the petty tyrants that all these immigrants are fleeing from.

*Just as an example, here's an article about my hometown.

Friday Links

2010-04-30T13:44:00.000-07:00

Now it's time again for the Friday links (oh, right...I've never had a links posting before...):

I've often had to explain to horrified people why I think the United Nations is crap. It seems we have some idealized notion about that organization. Well, here's yet another reason they are less than ideal: Commission on Status of Women

How Capitalism eats its critics .

A more libertarian approach to immigration reform .

Do you ever suppose that some environmentalists care more about being sanctimonious than they do about the Earth ?

Is George W. Bush our worst president? Many would say so but their opinions seem a bit too biased and too close to the actual events and policies they deplore. And, of course, a lot depends on your criteria. Luckily for Bush though, his reputation has nowhere to go but up!

Hugo Chavez is now on Twitter and would like Fidel Castro to get on too! I wonder what Goebbels or Stalin would've done with Twitter?

Don't Republicans realize how much the new Arizona immigration law can hurt them politically? Maybe they'll self-implode and we'll finally have some new blood in Washington, D.C. (One can dream).

Many people don't realize just how tough it is to make a great roast chicken--much less a perfect roast chicken.

Some thoughts on the Democrat immigration plan. I'm still shocked that they even have a plan!

And finally, people will find the silliest reasons to discriminate against each other.

[*With many special thanks to Marginal Revolution from whom I stole many of these links!]

Racist Tea Party Discussions

2010-04-28T08:30:00.000-07:00

A couple of days ago a friend forwarded to me a blog post from here on Blogger which included an article from some guy named Tim Wise (click on the title to this blog posting to see what I am referring to). Tim Wise tries to boil everything down to race. He basically claims that if the Tea Party were black (which, by the way, is like saying, "What if Republicans were black?" as if there is one, racially monolithic group of people called the Tea Party) then all of the United States would be up in arms and fear for their lives because we could never stand for black people to criticize the government and would take it as some precursor to a violent insurrection. I hate thought that is so simplistic.

If you only watch MSNBC or only listen to Air America or only read The Huffington Post I'm sure you'd probably get the impression that every person that is in the least bit conservative can only possibly be so because they are somehow racist. But, of course, that's just as misinformed as if you were to only watch FOX News for everything. I realize most people choose to stay misinformed because it flatters their prejudices. But please don't make such stupid, racist generalizations as the above and pretend you are doing nothing more than perpetuating your own prejudices.

Isn't it about time we all stop listening to people like Tim Wise and instead of stereotyping groups of people we actually engage in substantive discussions about different policies and how they affect the American people? Every time I turn on CNN or MSNBC I hear nothing but sarcasm and name calling. I have no problem if someone thinks the Tea Party movement is stupid. But it would be nice if they had a reason for it and not just some prejudice. (A reason means you have a problem with their ideas or maybe even just their mode of expressing those ideas. It doesn't mean constantly pinpointing the few stupid extremists that show up and claiming all people in the movement are represented by no one but them).

So I threw in my two cents to this blog posting a couple of days ago. I tried to be to the point and respectful. The blog owners have one of those verifying steps where a comment has to be verified before it is posted. It is still not up. Maybe they are busy. Maybe they just take long in verifying comments. I can understand that. Sometimes, I get the sneaking suspicion that people just don't like to have actual debates. It's happened several times on the blogosphere. From both left and right people are quite intolerant and do not like being shown that it is possible they are wrong. So, instead of waiting for the venerable blog owners to go through their tons of comments before possibly putting up mine, I'll post the comment I sent to them here:

Truly troubling blog. Here’s why: it is kind of sad that someone would think in such a “black vs. white” way (pun intended). There are people out there who will criticize our president for nothing more than racist reasons. But to equate an entire group that has grievances with the government with the few, racist extremists is silly.

Also, the thought experiment is pointless. There is no right answer. “Imagine if all the protesters were black…” If I say nothing would happen I’d be right. If I say there’d be violent revolutions and riots I’d be right. If I say pigs would fly down from the sky I’d be right. Which is to say there is no right answer because there’s no way we’d know what would happen. All this thought experiment proves is one’s own prejudices and preferences.

Plus, to think that the only thing that matters is the color of one’s skin is troubling and demeaning. There are “people of color” who are part of the Tea Party. Are they necessarily racist? Is it not possible that to criticize Obama can have no racial context? Can it not be the case that most of these people have a problem with the administration’s policies and ideology and it has nothing to do with his race? To think they are extreme or wrong headed is one thing. To think they are so because they are racist is another. Instead of criticizing the Tea Partiers for being racist, or dumb, or any other epithet why not actually debate the issue they raise? Doing nothing more than name calling only shows one’s own superficialities.

Much seems to be made recently about the current vitriol hurled at Obama as if it were something new and never done by people on the other side. Just as a curiosity I googled a few things on Bush and (to no surprise) found some pretty intense accusations and comments said about him. This does not mean I believe Republicans or Democrats or Whigs or Tories, etc. are any better. I just find it curious how quickly amnesia about the very recent past sets in. It is distasteful how sanctimonious a political party’s supporters become when they get into power. In all honesty I could’ve gone back to the beginning of our nation’s history to find slanderous, hateful, overly emotional speech about plenty of presidents and candidates for office. But, for your perusal, I thought just some of the choice words said about our most recent ex-president would be enough. (By the way, the last link is an essay that shows a little more balance about the whole subject from the American Conservative):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557447/Bush-like-Hitler-says-first-Muslim-in-Congress.html

Democrat congressman accuses Bush of being like Hitler

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/10/a_new_low_in_bush_hatred

Some of the anti-Bush rhetoric chronicled, mainly about film “Death of a President” about killing Bush

http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html

Links to different comparisons between Bush and Hitler

http://www.democrats.com/special-prosecutor-for-bush-war-crimes

Petition to try Bush for war crimes

http://www.amazon.com/Hate-George-Bush-Reader-Absolutely/dp/1560255897

“I Hate George Bush Reader” on Amazon

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/28/152665/-Why-We-Hate-George-W.-Bush

“Why We Hate George W. Bush” at Daily Kos

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/01/00008/

Balanced assessment of Bush/Clinton hatred

I don't think my comment is particularly inflammatory. Maybe I'm wrong. You be the judge.

Jimmy Carter Is A Moron: A Rant

2009-09-16T12:40:00.000-07:00

Oops! I suppose by calling Jimmy Carter a moron I'm showing how racist I am against old white men. Nevertheless, think of me what you will, I still think Jimmy Carter is a moron. Here is why:

Carter claims that Rep. Wilson is racist or his remarks show racist overtones merely because he yelled, "You lie!" at the president. He has no evidence that this was racial, nothing showing Joe Wilson might have been motivated by racial prejudice, no way of reading Joe Wilson's mind and being able to tell how racist he might be. Yet he makes a nasty assertion against someone because he doesn't like how he conducted himself in public. Carter is not only a moron, he's also quite rude.

I suspect Carter says this because it is impossible for some people to believe that anyone could think any other way than they do. For someone as stupid as Carter is showing himself to be it must seem that the only possible reason someone could think Obama is lying is because he's racist. It can't possibly be that he is merely acting asinine because he disagrees with the president! Of course, that is just my opinion of Carter. I'm not going to pretend, like he does, that I very definitely know what is going on in someone else's brain.

This reminds me very strongly of the state of politics just a few years ago. Whenever someone disagreed with George W. Bush (some quite disrespectfully) there were many Republicans out there claiming that these people must be unpatriotic or just plain stupid. They wouldn't concede that people could disagree with the president. And, of course, many Democrats played their tiny violins and sang, "Oh, poor me!" because of all the dumb epithets hurled at them. Now there are plenty of Democrats all too willing to do the exact same thing(http://www.reason.com/news/show/136032.html). It never ends.

If people would just stop acting with their prejudices (and I'm talking about Carter and his ilk, not Rep. Joe Wilson) and act reasonably instead, maybe we could actually accomplish something.

Casual Prejudice

2008-06-26T18:33:00.000-07:00

Many will rail against racism or sexism but what I've noticed to be more prevalent is prejudice against homosexuals. Whereas, in polite company, I rarely hear somebody say something against different races or women, it is more common to hear some stray remark about gay people.

Twice it has happened at my job that I hear someone say something disparaging or condescending about gay people. And what that tells me is that these people think it is socially acceptable to talk that way without fear of censure. For all some people know I could be gay myself. How would they know?

There are many people out there who have grown up in a culture where this is accepted. There are some who have religious reservations. And there are some who are just plain stupid. It also irks me to assume I'm as stupid and narrow-minded as you are. I wouldn't put myself in a position where I'm with people I don't know that well (like work) and say things that might cause offense. Even if you're some narrow-minded bigot, don't you at least have manners? Weren't you taught by your mother how to show some class?

I hope that the younger generations are getting used to treating gay people (or anyone for that matter) as decent human beings. It's a lesson it seems that we always have to re-learn. It is so asinine to dislike people simply because they have sex differently than you do. What is equally disturbing is that both those people who made those comments at work are black. With all the history of discrimination in our country that they have they should know better than that.

The King (er...President) of the United States

2008-05-13T12:46:00.000-07:00

One of my pet peeves is calling an ex-president, "Mr. President." Did you ever notice how often that is done when watching an interview with Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, or Bill Clinton? They are not the president anymore, they each are just some old fart who used to be president.

One may well ask (as my wife does), "Who cares?!" But if you click on the title of this and read the article by Gene Healy in Reason Magazine, you'll start to get a sense of why that is a pet peeve of mine.

I am enchanted by the conception of the original Founding Fathers concerning the presidency. Just an ordinary citizen who now had the responsibility of executing the laws of the land. Thomas Jefferson himself is supposed to have ridden and walked to his own inauguration in a plain coat. When you consider how monarchical and extravagant most governments were at the time, that is just astounding!

Another disturbing trend I noticed a few years ago concerning this issue was what happened to Terri Schiavo. People were asking for the president to intercede on her behalf. They didn't care what the courts said or what the legislature might have on its books. They wanted a hero...er, king...er, president to step in as if he's above the law and change everything for them. That is beyond disgusting to me. The president should not be asked to step above the law. No matter what you think of his/her policies.

Which reminds me of another thing--aren't there two other branches of in the national government? Whatever happened to the power of Congress or the umpire role of the Supreme Court? I've been recently reading about the "Great Triumvirate" of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John Calhoun. All of them were in Congress in the early 19th century at some point in their careers and all were seen as very powerful men. They had influence, were famous, and were able to help shape public policy. Does anyone even know our Congress members anymore unless they run for president?

I, for one, think there's a tendency in the public to gravitate towards "heroes." The public at large wants to see some great person who can get everything done. We don't want some committee deciding our policies. We revere the powerful monarchs and public figures of the past and see that as some national glory. But the obverse is the tendency towards tyranny.

I know it's been said before millions of times but it is true that Republican Rome slowly decayed into the Roman Empire. And sometimes I see this happening to us in my more pessimistic musings. Let's hope that the American spirit of independence guides us through.

Movie Review: "Zoo"

2007-05-04T23:03:00.000-07:00

Zoo has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It is one of the most pretentious and boring movies ever. If you have any inclination toward suicide, watch this movie!

Zoo is a true story about a man who died from internal bleeding after having sex with a horse. Actually, the film is about the "zoophiles" who engaged in this. It is not really a documentary since everyone is an actor, but it is taken from several audio interviews.

Problem 1:

The music is horrible. It is overbearing and obviously intended to make you feel "poetic" or "haunting" as some asinine critics have said. There's no subtlety at all about the director's manipulation of his audience.

Problem 2:

One-half to 3/4 of the film is poorly lit or actually a black screen. I don't go to movies to watch a black screen. Again, this seems to be another manipulative device used to make the audience feel "moody".

Problem 3:

The whole film is one long monotone of audio interviews. Almost the entire film is a voice-over of interviews with the different people involved. That wouldn't be a big problem if there were actually something interesting to see. In this case, it would be better on radio.

Except, it wouldn't be better on radio. Almost every interview in this movie is dull. One interview in particular stands out: one of the actors is interviewed against a white background (finally) who talks on and on about nothing. He is pointless and the director insists on cutting his one scene up several times. Actor talking, black screen, actor talking, black screen, etc. No reason whatsoever for it.

Problem 4:

The acting is atrocious. While you're hearing the boring interviews you get to see the actors who make this film look like a parody of bad silent film melodramas. Every action is overdone, there are several moments in slow motion, tears abound. I've seen better acting in dramatic re-enactments.

Overall I would say--don't see this film. It is complete crap. And I have a bone to pick with some film reviewers. There seems to be several critics who say how "lyrical" and "poetic" and "daring" this film is. This is actually the kind of film that turns people off of independent or arty films. There are many good independent or art-house films out there. Don't waste your time with this.

Dancing as Salvation

2007-04-21T12:41:00.000-07:00

We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. --Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

I do not know what the spirit of a philosopher could more wish to be than a good dancer. For the dance is his ideal, also his fine art; finally also the only kind of piety he knows, his "divine service." -- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

I should not believe in a God who does not dance. --Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Dancing in all its forms cannot be excluded from the curriculum of all noble education: dancing with the feet, with ideas, with words, and, need I add that one must also be able to dance with the pen? --Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

After quite awhile of sedentary pursuits I went out dancing last night. I'm a horrible dancer and will probably need time to recover now, but it was quite fun. Now that I am not young and single and no longer feel the need to go to a club to try to get laid, I can relax with my woman and just let my body make all the decisions.

There is a freedom in physical activity that just can't be acquired through the intellect. Whether it is dancing, or running a few laps, or pounding something with a sledgehammer, or sexual activity, we are animals that need to exercise our physique. Being a part of the animal kingdom we need to remember the joy in physical activity (just as bear cubs or playful dogs "know").

We should strive to live the ancient Greek ideal. Not only should we pursue intellectual goals in our education but need to stress the physical. A well-rounded person should be in good health.

One of the most pernicious ideas given to our culture through Christianity is the horror of the body. From the prudishness concerning sex to the extreme derangement of ascetic behavior, Western culture stopped caring about the body. Fortunately, our growing secularism is coming back to appreciating the importance of our bodies--by way of science. Contentment might well reside in a balance between what we need for our mind and what we need for our body. Better yet, we should realize there's not even a schism between the two and are both the same thing.

My advice: dance! read! fuck! meditate! Just be aware of going too far in any direction.

Don Imus--Who Cares?

2007-04-12T14:57:00.000-07:00

There seem to be several "faux pas" occurring lately in the media: Michael Richards, Mel Gibson, that guy from Grey's Anatomy, Ann Coulter, now Don Imus. Now Al Sharpton wants to have a discussion on where to draw the line about what people can talk about. If you click on the title to this post you will find a good article on this whole issue. But I would like to add my own two cents (for what it's worth--two cents I suppose).

There should never be a line to draw. Everything is permitted. I think (especially for comedians) there can't possibly be a line to draw. Many people will go over that line just to be provocative anyway. But, not only that, it is something that is so complex it can't possibly be defined. Some people saying some things in some situations is fine; it can also be completely offensive in other situations. And there's no lack of sanctimonious people out there who find many, many things offensive that others would not.

The easiest and best solution is the market. If many people are really offended with Don Imus they could easily stop listening to his show. His show slips in the ratings, advertisers pull out, his bosses fire him, and he's gone. Someone like him should be fully aware of the possibility that people will not like him and does not have to listen to him. It's part of his job.

I think it is hilarious that all these people are feeling pressure to apologize to this or that group or civil rights "leader". It's also a spectacle for people to poke fun at and for hypocrites like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to seem righteous. But to see Michael Richards on the David Letterman show look dazed and terrified for his life is funny and might stop other public figures going over the line (unless they really want to stick by what they're saying). So all these public apologies might actually stop some people from shooting off their mouth.

I've heard Don Imus in the past. He was syndicated on the radio and I listened for awhile. He sounded like a rude, crude, typical, over-the-top male-ego dominated radio personality. What really offended me about him is...he's not even funny.

Just A Few Things That Caught My Eye Today

2007-04-09T18:10:00.000-07:00

It's a wonder that I get out of bed sometimes when I have to read of the sad state of affairs our nation is in:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_el_pr/presidential_debate: Democrats are boycotting any debates hosted by the Fox News Network. In a nation built on the foundations of free expression and open debate our politicians back down and show how poorly they understand what a democracy is all about. Instead of embracing an opportunity to show how well they can defend their positions and confront an audience with different views, Democrats fail us again and show how cowardly they are. It seems they would prefer to speak to an audience that already congratulates them and defends them like CNN. Sometimes it seems this nation is turning into an aristocracy.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119562.html: In yet another concession to intolerance and stupidity a university (in San Francisco, of course) presses charges against campus Republicans for stomping on terrorist flags. Why are students being taught that it is a good thing to not allow different perspectives? Isn't a university supposed to be the sanctuary where diverse views are heard and discussed? If they had been stomping on American flags no one would try to stop them. But Allah forbid we should offend Muslims! At some point these ignorant, intolerant morons will become Democratic front-runners for president.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDY3N2IwMDBjZDM4Nzc3NzdhMjg1YWRhOTVjYzQxZjc=: There was a time when (or maybe I just bought into the hype) it was easy to tell the difference between the backward, stupid, evil, racist rednecks and the enlightened, tolerant, refined, well-educated liberals. I suppose I shouldn't have believed everything I was taught in public education. Now, apparently, if anyone points up how hypocritical Al Gore's stance on conservation is when shown how little he practices it, you are ignorant or racist or any other stereotype you could imagine for Southerners. I guess we should all worry about the state of our ecology (unless you're rich, liberal, and get to appear on the Oscars).

I was not searching for a theme. I was just perusing different websites I tend to read and it struck me how many articles pointed to the intolerance, cowardice, and general ignorance of the left. Maybe it's time we provided our public with a real education and emphasize the core Western values that we've all seemed to forget.

Why Easter is Pointless

2007-04-08T18:20:00.000-07:00

If you don't already know I am an atheist. Consequently, most religious celebrations mean absolutely nothing to me. But I can see reasons for having civic holidays made for Christmas or Thanksgiving. But Easter is one holiday I almost never remember or care about.

Easter is the holiday for Christians. The whole religion revolves around this holiday. All of Christianity revolves around the belief that Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected for all of humanity's sins. So Easter must be celebrated if you truly believe in all of this (since Easter is the day he was resurrected).

For me Easter has always been a day that kids get an Easter basket and eat a lot of candy, engage in Easter egg hunts, and go to the park in nice clothes. Except as a day for kids to party, it really means nothing unless you're religious. Although early Christians took over the holiday from pagan celebrations commemorating the coming of spring and new life, I can't seem to care much about that aspect either. If humanity is to be "saved" it will come from within ourselves, regardless of an ancient myth about Christ. If I want to commemorate life or fertility or spring I'll live, have kids, play in the grass on any day, not just Easter.

Maybe it's just me but I think the merger of Easter with pagan spring festivals was a poor marketing decision by the Catholic church. If you really care about the resurrection of Christ all the bunnies and eggs detract from that. What should be sacred to many seems to become rather foolish and petty.

But that's just my opinion.

Movies and How They Fail Us

2007-03-01T15:12:00.001-08:00

latimes.com has an Op-Ed piece by Neal Gabler concerning the loss of centrality with films in our contemporary culture. He comes up with many excuses for why this is so without ever coming to the obvious: films suck. In general, movies coming out of Hollywood are a complete waste of time.

True, the internet, video games, YouTube, tabloid journalism have chipped away at the popularity of movies, but I don't think that's the whole picture. If films were really good they would easily hold an audience's attention for longer than the 20 minutes of special effects they contain. Now that Oscar season is over I have from now until November/December to be annoyed by all the horrible genre films that come out: shall I watch the comic book hero film with poor dialogue and cheesy characters? shall I go to the theater and enjoy the chick flick with stereotypical characters who end up singing a song from the '80s while they share in the glow of "good" female relationships? or maybe I can sit through another remake of a classic horror film that gets worse every time it's remade?

Hollywood studios insult their audience's intelligence by assuming we'll spend $10-$15 a ticket, $8 popcorn, and $5 drinks to watch a film we'll forget a few minutes after it's over. I can remember how exciting it was for people when Pulp Fiction came out in 1994. There was a sense that this was a film that expanded our consciousness and changed the way we viewed a film or narrative. I don't really get that sense anymore. The thought did come to me that maybe I'm just getting older and I don't connect, but I love Titanic and I was well beyond the 12-yr. old demographic that everyone says it was for when it came out. That movie, while it has its flaws, is definitely an experience that makes you want to go to the theater to experience it.

People seem to be turning to television for good entertainment now. Talk around the proverbial "water cooler" concerns characters on TV dramas when it comes to fiction. I read an article not too long ago about the loss of screenwriters to television. Audiences like good fiction, characters that have an emotional impact, stories that are interesting. I first saw Urban Cowboy a few years ago when I rented it on DVD. What struck me is how rarely a film like that gets made anymore by major studios in Hollywood. It is not the greatest film on earth, but it has a story, believable characters, an almost sociological feel for setting. I'm sick at how little of this ever comes across in films anymore. It seems every studio green lights a film on the basis of the gimmick it can offer--fire, CGI, or happy endings. Movies need good writers, not more special effects and gimmicks.

If Hollywood really is interested in making films that matter to the public they have to stop allowing business executives to make all the decisions. They don't have to make a timeless classic every time they set out to film something. But they should stay away from making nothing but gimmicky films that are all fluff and go for the lowest common denominator. They don't seem to see how they are slowly killing their own industry.

Review: Superman and the Mythology of the American Hero

2006-07-06T21:54:00.000-07:00

For the July 4th weekend I decided to see a prototypically American film: Superman. I didn't watch the new one but the older one with Christopher Reeve. This film, and the mythology underlying it, exhibit two related facets of American culture: secularist values and a uniquely American faith in law and order.

When Friedrich Nietzsche famously proclaimed, "God is dead," he saw nihilism triumphing over all of Western culture and decadence ensuing. As the Western world became secularized a vacuum needed to be filled. Some turned to esoteric societies like the Order of the Golden Dawn, others tried to revive religion with fundamentalism, and some turned to Superman.

In the film Superman's mythology follows the broad outlines of ancient hero stories in various religions. He has a somewhat "miraculous" birth by being born on another planet. Like Moses he is allowed to drift away to be adopted by other parents to guide and protect him. He even has a period in his Fortress of Solitude where he learns about his powers and uniqueness. In a parallel fashion Jesus disappeared right before his ministry and Buddha had a period in the wilderness where he strove to find the "truth."

The makers of this film made this into an American hero story. He grows up in a town called Smallville which looks like it lies somewhere in the American Midwest. By the look of the students and the cars he seems to be in an idealized, Norman Rockwell-type of Fifties America. And when he gets to the big city, Metropolis, he is in an idealized New York City.

There are other ways Superman's story is uniquely American. He responds to Lois Lane that he fights for "truth, justice, and the American way." By "truth" he doesn't mean it in the dharma sense or as in philosophic truth, but more like the myth that George Washington never told a lie. And Superman's resolution of problems is not at all spiritual but a matter for the authorities to ultimately resolve. (He rounds up the criminals and sends them to jail). It is almost as if Superman is an ultra-cop.

The film does a good job of summing all this up into something very enjoyable. Without the use of computers they have very good effects--even for today's standards. And by focusing on the mythology and a ready-made story there's not much need to worry about the acting (even though there are some very good actors in here) or the script. The filmmakers relied on the look of the film and the actors and how well the story can be carried along by the mythology. It is a well made piece of American pop culture.

Malice and the Appeal of Sociopaths

2006-06-10T10:43:00.000-07:00

I just finished watching Malice half-heartedly. I remember seeing this movie at the theater when it came out and being heavily disappointed. After seeing it today I remember why.

This movie could've been great. As the film begins it seems like Alec Baldwin's character is some immensely egotistic, tragic character out of Marlowe's Dr. Faustus or Milton's Paradise Lost (Lucifer). And while watching the film I thought it was very appealing to see the development of a supremely arrogant character who sees himself as above everyone else. When he gives his speech proclaiming himself to be God, I secretly rooted for him. Just like Byron understood when creating his heroes, there are many of us who like attractive, charismatic, independent people with a supremely strong will.

But somewhere in the middle of the film, the story cheeses out and becomes a typical Hollywood thriller. It becomes a scheme for money with adultery and the usual backstabbing that has been going on in Hollywood thrillers since the days of film-noir. I lost all interest in the doctor's character and what I thought was the initial appeal completely vanished. I spent the rest of the film hoping Nicole Kidman would get naked.

Alec Baldwin's best talent is playing arrogant characters (and appearing on Saturday Night Live). The filmmakers chose a perfect actor for the doctor--then they wasted him. They give Alec Baldwin one very good speech but don't follow through. And even though this film is tolerable, I hate when I am given such high expectations and then completely disappointed.

International Morning

2006-06-09T12:41:00.000-07:00

This morning I went out on my usual smoking break at work. Three of my co-workers joined me outside of the office building and we stood around and talked while I polluted their lungs. After talking for awhile I noticed something: each one of us was born in a different country. I was born in the United States, one guy is from Armenia, one guy is from Peru, and one guy is from Indonesia. All four of us moved here to L.A. to find work and make a decent living. And we've all been here at least 6 years or longer.

So I wonder--where else but in the United States? Of course people move to other countries but it doesn't seem to be as easy in some places. Besides, who wants to go to France where if you're not a white French-person you'll probably be placed in some ghetto? Or who wants to go to China or Cuba where they'll torture you for having the wrong opinions?

With all the recent protests about our immigration policies one might very well get the impression that this is a racist, oppressive society. While I don't deny that racism exists in the U.S. it is absurd to claim that it is as much of a problem as some would like us to believe. I grew up believing that the U.S. was a nation able to absorb many diverse opinions and peoples without breaking. I was taught that the ideals this nation was founded on did not always mirror our current situation, but many of us still strive for those ideals and we have come a long way. And while some people, on both the left and the right, would like to take away our liberties, I think we can still live in a great, multi-cultural society with a diversity of opinions and lifestyles.

I get so weary with having to hear the typical rhetoric from the idiots on the left or the nutjobs from the right. But I must always remind myself that most of those people are on the fringes of their respective ideologies and only represent a very vocal minority. Most people I meet are somewhere in the middle. And most of us don't have a big problem with different people or different opinions--we all just want to live secure, worthwhile, fulfilling lives. And when I see or meet people from other countries who come here to live here, most of them know that what I am saying is true--else, why leave your country of origin to come here?

It is great to live in an international city like L.A. There are many problems with this town but a lack of diversity is not one of them. And it's my personal opinion that so many people come here and stay here not just because of the money to be made or the relatively lax immigration laws, but because the U.S. has a lot to offer in the way of security, being able to live a worthwhile and fulfilling life, and not having to live in fear and oppression.

Why is Bush Such an Ass? (Gay Marriage Ban Amendment)

2006-06-05T07:08:00.000-07:00

With all the problems we have in our country right now, why do the Republicans worry about gay marriage? They make it seem as if allowing gay couples to marry would destroy the very fabric of our society. If you ask me, they should stop misreading the Bible for once in their lives and start picking up some real books.

This is one of the main reasons I would not join, nor would support, the Republican party. They are too invested in the lunatic fringe of the conservative movement and concede too much to an ideology which only allows for a conservative-Christian outlook. This kind of legislation and the espousal of these kinds of ideas are the reason so many people make fun of Republicans--with good reason. There is nothing more asinine than having someone else tell you how you should live your life. But when the government makes it their responsibility to dictate how you should live your life then it becomes oppression.

There are some people in the Republican party who will tell you that they are the party of "smaller government." Although not all Republicans believe this (it is a political party after all, not a philosophical debate society) they do generally claim it as their ideal and use it in their rhetoric. A ban on gay marriage is not only oppressive to a part of our population, it is also hypocritical on the part of conservatives.

I would like to hear a real objection to gay marriage. All the objections I have heard have something to do with religion or "traditional values" (which just means religion). I don't think I should have to follow some other person's religion in a country renowned for its religious tolerance. I don't need anyone else's "traditional values" nor am I arrogant enough to want to impose all of my values on the rest of the nation (and I'm pretty damn arrogant). If anyone has a problem with gay marriage then maybe they shouldn't marry someone of the same gender. But they don't have the right to tell someone else that they can't do that themselves.

It is not the government's responsibility to tell its citizens whether or not they can marry someone of the same gender. If I marry a man, it harms no one. If I marry a woman it creates as many problems for society as marrying a man would. We should stop allowing the government to dictate what our beliefs should be. I have no problem with homosexuality. I do not enjoy being in a society which heaps scorn on people just because they have sex in a different fashion. I can't think of a stupider reason to dislike people.

Whenever I hear some conservative complaining about liberals who want to make everyone like them, I am reminded that many conservatives would like nothing better than to have everyone in the United States become born-again, conservative Christians. Just like everyone else in this country Republicans are too divisive and uncompromising in their politics. We, as a nation, should stop allowing ourselves to be sheep who blindly follow such simplistic political ideologies. And furthermore, the alternative to the stupidity of the Democratic party should not have to be the disgusting ridiculousness and hypocrisy of the Republican party.

Pearl Jam Vs.* Nirvana

2006-05-13T12:48:00.000-07:00

*"Vs."--get it?!

Pearl Jam just recently released a new CD, Pearl Jam. I was talking to someone who is a huge Pearl Jam fan and I jokingly mentioned that I prefer Nirvana just to rile her up. She, of course, disagreed but as we were talking about each band's merits it reminded me of the debate back in the day.

It was 1991. I was in my last year in high school. For most of my high school career I listened almost exclusively to heavy metal. Other students fell into general categories: goth/alternative, pop/dance music, country, Tejano-ranchera-banda music (I went to school on the border), rap. But overall there wasn't much that could be considered new or interesting in popular music of the day.

Pearl Jam's first release, Ten, and Nirvana's first huge hit, Nevermind, both came out around the same time. The first one I was aware of was Nevermind. It was hard to ignore. Smells Like Teen Spirit, the now infamous anthem, was being played everywhere--on MTV, on radio, by young bands playing shows at school, in people's cars. And I think that most people were mainly dazzled by hearing something that just wasn't being played in the mainstream. It is easier now to see where Nirvana got some of their ideas from (every artist does that, it's not an insult), but back then it just seemed so completely new and different. It was, in the truest sense of the term, exciting.

After Smells Like Teen Spirit every song that Nirvana released was yet another amazing, pop-punk-heavy-weird single. And when you finally bought the album (I had it on cassette) you were amazed at the wit, the depression, the gross and disturbing imagery in the lyrics, the perfectly crafted pop-like direction of each song. It was provocative and fun and horrifying all at the same time.

Pearl Jam, I thought, was very good. I really enjoyed Ten and it did very well. If you weren't watching a Nirvana video it's probably because you were watching a Pearl Jam video. But they were not revolutionary. And it's not because they were compared to Nirvana and paled in comparison. Without the grunge juggernaut I think Pearl Jam would have done well. They've always had a knack for writing heartfelt songs with good lyrics. But the problem was, there are many bands like that. What Pearl Jam lacked was any sense of doing something unique and so completely different.

When I went to college grunge became a huge phenomenon. Everything that was around before in rock music was completely decimated for a time. Pearl Jam quickly became one of the biggest bands on the planet. Nirvana were like living legends (not for long). I read somewhere that John Lennon referred to Paul McCartney's music as "granny music". He was referring specifially to Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da I believe and meant that Paul wrote music that even grannies can enjoy. Pearl Jam, to me, became "jock/frat-boy" music. It was the kind of music that everyone could enjoy including a bunch of drunk jocks and frat-boy's at a party. I see nothing wrong with all different types of people liking the same kind of music. But it seemed to me that the reason Pearl Jam's music appealed to a variety of people was because it was so "safe" and conventional.

Pearl Jam reminds me of the Black Crowes. Perfectly good music but nothing that exciting or innovative. I can always listen to their music and know that I will get some listening pleasure out of it but it's generally not going to surprise me or change the way I look at things. Pearl Jam is very safe music. Since 1995/1996 or so I haven't really followed their career much but the few songs I've heard from them since then are still pretty much the same stuff that came out when they started. Their music deepened since Ten but it hasn't changed all that much. And I do like what I hear when I hear them but it doesn't normally compel me to go and get their CD.

As for Nirvana--they remained exciting until their demise. I don't know if they would've developed beyond what they did but they remained very good throughout their short career. I personally prefer In Utero but I think all their music has a lot to offer. There are gems in every CD of theirs. I also remember their videos were great--odd, disjointed, creative. They just seemed to go from creative triumph to creative triumph. And I do believe they will remain a band that is talked about for a long time to come. It seems that even younger generations still revere this band or hate them with a passion that can only be mustered for people who truly make a mark. Overall, Nirvana had something which no one else had.

Pearl Jam is a good rock band. Nirvana went beyond something so simple as that.

"Black. White."

2006-03-31T12:45:00.000-08:00

I've been watching the new show Black. White. on F/X. I didn't want to say anything until I saw enough to have an opinion. Now that a few shows have been aired I am going to rant.

First, let me explain what the show is about. Two families, one white, one black, trade races. Make-up artists make the white family look black and the black family look white. They all live together in a house in the San Fernando Valley (Southern California) and discuss different issues that arise with each other.

Both sets of parents are middle-aged with one child who is around 17 or 18. The black couple comes from Georgia and have one son and the white couple are from Santa Monica and have one daughter. The white parents are named Bruno and Carmen with daughter Rose and the black parents are named Brian and Rene with son Nick.

Overall, I like the idea behind the show. There are differences between people and I think it is worthwhile to explore those differences. The only thing I would say is that the differences are more cultural than racial. A lot depends on how and where you grew up. Upper middle class families in the Beverly Hills area of different races have more in common than a white family in the Midwest and a white family in Santa Monica.

One of the things that irks me is the fact that the producers chose a family from Santa Monica. For anyone who has not been to Santa Monica you should know that they are special there. A lot of people from that area remind me of the parents in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? with Sidney Poitier. Well-meaning, liberal types with good intentions but overall kind of clueless. And that describes Carmen (the white mom) very well I think. Maybe the producers could have picked a family not tainted with all the weirdness of Southern California.

Bruno (white dad) is a complete moron. I don't see why he got on the show in the first place since he does not seem interested in having an open mind and trying to experience a different culture. On the last show aired he seemed to be implying that all black people listen to rap and don't work hard enough while complaining about racism. He is intent on proving that his ideas are correct and everyone else's have no validity.

Carmen (white mom) is dressed as if she were going to a Black Power protest in 1971 or thereabouts. They really should've tried to modernize her hairstyle and clothes. As stated earlier, she seems well-intentioned but is really kind of naive about a lot of things. On the upshot, she also seems headed for divorce with Bruno now that she's discovering what an idiot he is.

Brian (black dad) has many of the same problems that Bruno has. He is intent on proving that racism exists everywhere in America, around every corner, and is a constant threat to living a peaceful existence for black people. I just don't see racism everywhere. He does find evidence of people treating him differently but he seems to be just a little bit paranoid.

Rene (black mom) has the same problem as her husband. They both seemed to come onto the show to teach white people how hard blacks have it. She doesn't seem all that interested to see the other side and frankly, the producers don't show her all that much.

The kids are another story. Nick (black son) mumbles his way through almost everything. He is kind of listless and doesn't really have a problem with anything. One of the things that bothered me is the fact that it's already been mentioned that he was kicked out of school at a very early age yet his father is more concerned about teaching him about racism. He should try to get him back in school so he could have something worthwhile to do when he's an adult.

Rose (white daughter), on the other hand, is the most enlightened. She is interested in looking at a different culture and trying to learn from the experience. She doesn't have an agenda like all the adults do and is observant of some of the subtle differences between the two cultures.

One of the big problems is how white people are portrayed. When Brian is first made-up as a white man he decides to do something "white." So he goes to the golf course. I'm half white and my father's side of the family is white--I've yet to know any one of them that plays golf (except miniature golf of course). Why are the producers so intent on portraying white people as a bunch of clueless dorks? I've always had a problem with white people claiming they have no culture. Unfortunately, that is what Rose (the enlightened (?) one) believes also. There is an Anglo-American culture in our nation with its own traditions and cultural icons and codes. Just because it is not predicated on nationality or does not have the same norms as other cultures does not mean there is no culture.(I remember as a kid having my "Mexican" Christmas with tamales and my mother's family on December 24 and my "white" Christmas with my immediate family eating turkey and ham on December 25).

It also would be nice to see the Sparks family (the black family) experience more and stop being so preachy. They need to go out into the world as white people and walk around South Central or East L.A. Let them experience what it's like to be hated because you're white. White people are not the only people who are racist. And they should stop sending Nick to etiquette school as if that kind of school were representative of white people. (Who the hell goes to etiquette school?)

But, even with all these problems, the show is still interesting. It does not really say much about different races so much as it says about these two families and how they specifically see the world. It's just too bad that they probably won't get much out of it since they are all pretty stubborn and/or dumb.

2006-03-30T16:09:00.000-08:00

Me, smiling.

Update: Fun With Chicanos

2006-03-29T16:00:00.000-08:00

After posting a few comments I was blocked from being able to post on that site (see previous post). It spurred me into doing something I've been contemplating for awhile and gave me a good diatribe. So check out my new blog, Tio Taco Blog (http://tiotacoblog.blogspot.com/). It will deal specifically with Hispanic issues if you're interested.

Fun With the Chicanos

2006-03-28T16:22:00.000-08:00

Check out this website:

http://chicanoartmagazine.blogs.com/cam_blog/2006/03/after_the_prote.html#comment-15514606

Read the article called "After the protest march in L. A." by Laura Molina and pay special attention to the comments posted by goddan (yours truly). Just a little fun. Love to stir up some controversy with these morons.

Update: Why Russ Feingold Is Right

2006-03-15T16:17:00.000-08:00

I found an interesting defense of Bush's program. Check out this article: http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp

I still wonder why Bush did any of this before it was concluded that it was legal. And I don't remember anyone in the administration mentioning any of this. If it's such an airtight case for what he's been doing, shouldn't he have mentioned all this in the first place?

Why Russ Feingold (even though he's a Democrat) Is Right

2006-03-14T13:13:00.000-08:00

I generally try to stay away from supporting what Democrats say because they are generally very, very stupid. But in this instance, I agree with Senator Russ Feingold.

Feingold introduced a resolution to censure president Bush for his NSA spying program. (Go here: http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.html for a full-text of Feingold's remarks--read it, it's not too long and it perfectly encapsulates the opposition's sentiments.) A censure is the bare minimum of what I think Congress should and could do. I understand that Senator Feingold is running for reelection and it seems this is his way of making himself seem tough, but regardless of the political manuevering his argument is sound.

Republicans and Republican supporters are, of course, disappointing. I have not heard any major Republicans calling for something similar. They are typically making excuses for the president's actions and emphasizing how well the NSA spying program has helped to curb terrorism. For one thing, they have no proof that this curbed terrorism because the president will not allow anyone to see anything. But also we shouldn't applaud someone for doing a good job when they used the wrong means to perform that job.

If there is a problem with the FISA law then someone should change that law. Isn't that what our government is for? If, as I've heard some people say, the FISA law is unconstitutional, then take it to the Supreme Court [has anyone ever heard of judicial review?]. But we cannot allow a president to decide which laws to follow and which laws to ignore just because he has a philosophical disagreement with those laws.

When president Clinton was impeached many of these people who are now supporting Bush were completely against Clinton. Clinton broke the law. He perjured himself and he was obstructing justice. Whether we like Clinton or not should not be the criteria for impeachment or censure or anything else. Our presidents are not monarchs and they should not be allowed to act as such. They are not above the law, nor should they be.

Will we ever see a Democrat supporter agree with me that Clinton's impeachment was wise and that at the very least Bush should be censured? Will we ever see a Republican supporter ask for Bush's censure and agree that Clinton's impeachment by the House of Representatives was wise? I doubt it. Most people seem to be sheep who will stick to their "man" regardless of what they do or stand for so long as they are their "man."

If anyone has a different opinion or feels that Bush was in the right in what he did, or if anyone can give more information on all that happened with the NSA spying to give me more background, feel free to respond.

The Oscars

2006-03-06T13:00:00.000-08:00

Just a few comments on last night's Oscars:

1). I like Jon Stewart. I think he's one of the better comedians out right now. I thought many of his jokes were on the mark and rightfully poked fun at everything. My favorite: "Martin Scorsese: 0; 3-6 Mafia: 1".

2). What George Clooney said was classy. He seems like a cool guy. And I do agree with his point: sometimes, not always, what comes out from the Hollywood community is ahead of its time because it's on the edge. There are instances where Hollywood has stood for what is right but is not viewed as such by the mainstream.

But he did forget to add a couple of things: Hollywood, like many areas of predominantly leftist rhetoric, is also very intolerant at times. In our day and age, Hollywood rarely tries to speak to the values of middle America or the right. I'm not saying that they should have to. But for them to pretend that everything they do is just and fair is a crock. And George Clooney's implication that what Hollywood espouses is "progressive" and will be seen to be "forward-thinking" in the future is a bit arrogant.

Also, let's not forget, even though what might come out in a film or any other art form can be inspiring, it does not necessarily change people's minds nor change public policy. He mentioned Hattie McDaniel. That was a great moment in our history. But what really affected change in civil rights happened elsewhere. People like Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. DuBois, Adam Clayton Powell, and the NAACP had more to do with changing our history than Hattie McDaniel. It is regular people like you or me who change history--not necessarily celebrities.

3). I only got to see two of the films nominated for Best Picture this year: Brokeback Mountain and Crash. I thought Brokeback Mountain was a superior film and should've won the Oscar. Crash was a bit weak in the story department if you ask me. After leaving Crash I thought, I've seen a better movie with the same themes and same kind of structure, it's called Do the Right Thing. Oh well, the Academy Awards rarely satisfy me.

4). I don't really know but I suspect that the films nominated this year were nominated for political reasons and not artistic ones. Like I said, I did not see most of the films, but I do know what they are all about. Everyone of them just happens to say the kinds of things people like to hear in Hollywood. I loved Brokeback Mountain, I would hate to think it was merely nominated because it says the right things about being gay. I think that would cheapen the film. It really does have artistic merit.

5). Overall, I would say that the Oscars this year were a little boring. I liked many of the actors nominated this year. I liked the kinds of films they nominated. I like Jon Stewart. I even liked all 3 songs nominated this year. But something about the show was a bit dull.

Abortion and the Sincerity of the Other Side

2006-03-02T12:53:00.000-08:00

Yes, I'm going to write about how intolerant and stupid people are on both sides again. But hey, this is MY blog!

This morning, while smoking outside my office at work, I was talking with a fellow smoker I see every now and then out there. She is an older lady, (about 65-70), dresses very smart, very friendly. She asked me about the book I was holding (John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court by R. Kent Newmyer). I was explaining to her that ever since the two new justices to the Supreme Court were announced I've been assiduously reading about early American history. And I told her that what sparked my interest was the current arguments concerning Constitutional and judicial philosophy. So I wanted to know a little more about why we think the way we do about the law.

These comments made her think about Roe v. Wade and that she thinks it is an unfortunate decision. She gave me a long argument about children being God's gift and how much of a blessing children are. She also mentioned that she thought birth control was okay but many young girls now have casual sex and get pregnant and have abortions. So she disagreed with Roe v. Wade and thought it was a bad decision on the part of the Supreme Court.

I myself think that abortion should be legal. When it comes to an adult or teenage woman vs. a tiny embryo, I think the woman should be the priority. I'm not sure if I agree with the way the Supreme Court came to their decision. Even though I like the idea of a "right to privacy" I've yet to find it in our Constitution or other works that would have a bearing on the decision. But I reserve judgment until I've educated myself more on the details.

But my point is this: even though I disagree with my fellow smoker, and even though I might think some of her ideas are jejune, I don't think she deserves to be demonized as being a barbaric, anachronistic zealot. I find it disheartening and disgusting how intolerant people are of the right and/or conservatives.

I'll give you a perfect example: Last night, while driving home, I was listening to KPFK in Los Angeles. That radio station is part of the Pacifica network which is a subscriber driven radio station (as opposed to commercial). Just a few minutes listening to the radio station and anyone can tell that their politics are definitely to the left. I enjoy listening to different points of view, and if it is intelligent and well-expressed, I might even be persuaded by it.

So last night there was a program where the host was interviewing Sonia Nazario who did a series of articles called Enrique's Journey for the LA Times. She wrote about a young Mexican's journey from Chiapas to the Mexican/American border in order to cross illegally. One of the comments which the host said interested me. He said that, "Republicans call this 'illegal immigration.'" Now, I'm not a Republican. I grew up right on the border. My mother is Mexican and pretty much everyone I grew up with is Mexican or has some kind of Mexican heritage. I call it illegal immigration when somebody migrates from one country to another and does so illegally. But this idiot on the radio, and many others, make it seem as if that were not a fact and want to demonize anyone who would even use the words "illegal immigrant." Plus, it irked me that he uses the term, "Republican," as a short-hand for anyone with a racist, narrow-minded view.

If the left would get out of their bubble and tried to be a little more objective, then more people might respect them. I might agree with some of their positions but I refrain from being identified as one of them. Many on the left seem to me to be raving idiots and lunatics with no consistency in their philosophy and no integrity. I do not say that to be mean or to demonize them, I merely say that to show my observations from personal experience and from reading things from the world around me. I have many friends and acquaintances who identify themselves as some form of the Democratic Party or at least believing in a more leftist agenda. Of course I think they're intelligent and thoughtful or else they wouldn't really be my friends. But I seem to find that they are in the minority. The leaders in that movement do a disservice when they also look and act like morons: Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore, and every actor/actress who pretends to know about politics.

That's all for today.

"Popeye" and Robert Altman

2006-02-28T13:10:00.000-08:00

Apparently, Robert Altman will be given a lifetime achievement award at the Oscars this year. I haven't seen all his films (it would probably take a few centuries), but I have seen a fair number of his more famous films. All in all I think Robert Altman deserves more than an Oscar for Lifetime Achievement. He is truly one of the few directors who is willing to take risks and make films which many people may not like.

That said, I decided to rent one of his films the other night: Popeye. Popeye is probably one of the worst films I've ever seen. While watching it I kept thinking that this actually could be a good movie. There are many characteristics that would make it seem as if it might be a smashing success: lyrics by Harry Nilsson, elaborate sets, great actors (Robin Williams in the lead and Shelley Duvall as Olive Oyl), and a great director--Robert Altman. But I think that is the problem with this film.

Robert Altman's films tend to be meandering ensemble pieces with a very loose plot. Musicals, and especially musicals based on a comic-strip and cartoon character, don't seem to fit in well with loose plots. One of the big problems in Popeye was the fact that it is a musical, with very little musical direction. One of the things I liked about the recent musical of Chicago is how intrinsic the music is to the movie. I felt like it was an afterthought in this film and there was much time between the musical numbers. I thought the movie had changed for a second when there was too much silence.

The songs in the film are actually good. I thought many of them were charming. And Shelley Duvall's weird, whiny voice works perfectly for the songs she sings and for her character of Olive Oyl. And Robin Williams isn't too bad either when he sings his Popeye songs.

Plus, the two leads do very well as their characters. Robin Williams' mumbling throughout the film is a perfect mirror of the old Max Fleischer cartoons where Popeye always had some witty asides he would mumble in the background. And Shelley Duvall even mimics the cartoon Olive Oyl to the point of imitating her "hmmm"s after her statements.

The sets were elaborate. I like the colors in the film and the very good sense of an actual seaside village you get from the film.

The only thing I can think of that was really bad was Robert Altman. If he hadn't been the director this film might actually have worked.

To honor Robert Altman I suggest you go out and rent Nashville, M*A*S*H, Short Cuts, or The Player. But whatever you do, don't get Popeye. You'll be sorry.

Godless Capitalist: A Worm Curls Up

2006-02-23T16:14:00.000-08:00

Godless Capitalist: A Worm Curls Up

Just a nice little blog entry from one of my fellow bloggers here on Blogger! (Damn I sound redundant).

--[Click on link above, please.]

Yet Another Reason To Be Disappointed in the Mainstream Media

2006-02-23T15:02:00.000-08:00

(Click on the above title for link).

William J. Bennett and Alan M. Dershowitz have written a column in the Washington Post entitled A Failure of the Press. They write about the mainstream media in our nation who still have not (for the most part) published the cartoons which are creating so much controversy and violence in the Middle East and with Muslims across the globe. The gist of the column is how the media has failed in one primal aspect: they are not reporting the news. And they are not reporting the news (by not publishing the cartoons so people can see what all the fuss is about) because they all of a sudden want to show "tolerance."

From my point of view the media is showing two things:
(1) They are afraid. Even though we are talking about publishing the cartoons in American newspapers, one of the freest societies on the globe when it comes to free speech, they are afraid of the Muslim reaction. They have been (as noted in the column by Bennett and Dershowitz) intimidated by the violence and protest occurring across the globe. If this were any other group other than Muslims then very few people would fear having their lives threatened or places bombed and destroyed. People can call Islam the "religion of peace" all they'd like but too many of its adherents are barbaric idiots who don't care one bit about anything other than Islam.
(2) Muslims are becoming one of those "special" groups that people are not supposed to criticize. Everyone knows if this were some Christian group who was offended then the press would step in and talk about free speech, not "toleration." Because of 9/11 and the Palestinians and the war in Iraq, Muslims have to be seen as "victims" by everyone who are misunderstood and should be given special consideration. Increasingly in the United States certain groups must be shown much reverence and little to no criticism: blacks, homosexuals, Jews, Latinos, women, people with handicaps, and Bill Clinton. We are coddling people and allowing them to do or say anything they want regardless of how stupid.

What a sad state of affairs.

Update: Austrians are Idiots

2006-02-22T12:58:00.000-08:00

Just thought I'd share a blog entry from one of my new favorite blogs Captain's Quarters. Above you will find a link relating to this story. (Just click on the title of my blog entry and read the entry entitled Turning Idiots Into Martyrs). Captain's Quarters is an intelligently written conservative blog. So far, most of the commenters on the site write much better than other such blogs I've visited. Check it out: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

Austrians are Idiots

2006-02-21T16:02:00.000-08:00

Yet another reason to dislike Europeans. It seems you can't be a moron in Europe without getting arrested (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-irving21feb21,0,7077075.story?coll=la-headlines-world).

I always vaguely knew about the anti-Nazi laws in various parts of Europe, but this is the first time I remember hearing about someone being sentenced to a prison term because of it. I don't know about you, but I personally would like to be able to say whatever stupid thing I desire without fear of prosecution. How exactly is this hurting anyone?

Europe is yet again showing one of its many stupidities by doing this. I understand that this was the Austrian court which sentenced Dr. Irving, but other countries in Europe have similar laws. So I'm not just making a generalization. They apparently do not understand the concept of freedom of speech.

The question that would pop into my mind if I were a Muslim living in Austria is this: If some British historian is jailed for denying the Holocaust, then why can't newspapers be punished for satirizing and ridiculing Islam? After all, we should all have respect for each other and try not to offend others.

The problem with these kinds of laws and many of the PC regulations the left would like in the U.S. is that you must be consistent. To be just and fair you cannot protect some groups of people and not worry about others. And after all, why should it be a crime to be some stupid, racist historian? As long as he's not throwing bombs, defacing property, or killing people, let him be an idiot.

The funniest thing about this on this side of the pond is the reaction of the left: some of them don't see this as a problem at all. Leave it to the liberals to yet again be hypocrites. Or in other words: "We value freedom of speech, as long as it's something we agree with." Read the comments from the Huffington Post to see what I mean (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/02/20/british-historian-gets-th_n_16036.html). Not all the commenters are happy about the Austrian court's decision, but it is alarming how many people on the left agree with this decision. Here's one of my favorite comments from there:

"I say the Dude got what he deserved, at least he can be some skinheads bitch while he is in.
Posted by: Beckster on February 20, 2006 at 04:09pm "

It is quite sad how easily we give up our ideals in the interests of being politically correct. In a truly free society, one should be able to speak one's mind no matter how shallow it is.

Danish Newspaper Cartoons

2006-02-08T13:08:00.000-08:00

Muhammad (the Prophet) can kiss my ass. All the crap going on right now in Europe over satirical cartoons criticizing Muhammad and Islam shows exactly why there is a problem in the Middle East. To help Americans understand this stupidity read here:

Imagine the U.S. taken over by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Fred Phelps. First, all the fun stuff would go (pornography, violent/sexual movies, education, and homosexual sex). Second, we would have to hear their stupid sermons over and over on TV and radio and it would be mandatory to listen or watch. Then our kids would all learn about Creationism and how the earth is 6,000 years old. And we would have to live our lives per the dictates of people who lived a few centuries ago and had no conception of our modern world. We'd be dumb, desperate, hysterical freaks. And that is exactly what seems to come out of the Middle East.

I think the biggest problem with that area of the world is religion. Once you give religion that much power then all the stupidities inherent in any religion become dominant.

The cartoons themselves that are causing all this mess are pretty innocuous.

(Check them out: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146 )

For anyone to get offended by this crap shows a level of stupidity I dare not fathom.

Typical Liberal Blog/Forum

2006-01-19T15:58:00.000-08:00

Here's a page from what most liberal blogs/forums look like:

THE HUFFING & PUFFING POST

President Bush Walks Dog

Today, on the White House lawn, President Bush walked his dog. It was around 6:00 AM most sources confirm. A source close to the President's dog (who refuses to be named) verified that walks like this are a common occurrence with the President. The French are claiming "typical American arrogance."

Comments:

I must agree with the French on this one. President Bush shows no regard whatsoever to the rest of the world and is giving us a bad name.

posted by: bushwhacker at 5:33 AM

Your right bushwhacker. How dumb GWB and co. are!

MURTHA FOR PREZ!

posted by: bushhater at 5:41 AM

the dogs probly sad to be with Head Moron!!! LOL

posted by: michaelmooreforpres at 5:44 AM

All you liberals ever do is attack Bush II. What about Clinton? He walked a dog once too!

HA! HA! HA! HA!

Stupid liberals.

posted by: Godlovesbush at 5:46 AM

Clinton Clinton Clinton! ....when are you neo-cons ever goin to get it

CLINTON IS GOD!

posted by: unwashedhippy at 6:01 AM

Bush is a Nazi and bigot hypocrite asshole liar liar liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take that chickenhawks!

HE!HE!HE!

posted by: semolinapilchard at 6:03 AM

You liberals are nothing but a bunch of baby-killing, God-hating traitors! Just like Clinton.

Down with Hilary!

posted by: Godlovesbush at 6:04 AM

Godlovesbush, why is it always Clinton and abortion with you conservatives? Why don't you talk about the present administration's plan to take over the Middle East so all the bigwigs in oil companies can have all the free oil they want? Or how Bush lied and misled us into a second Vietnam? What about this administration's plans to take away all of our civil liberties or the fact that Bush hates black people?

Afraid of the truth? (silence....crickets)

posted by: iluvpinkfloyd at 6:13 AM

bush is goin to get you!!!

posted by: jackanapes at 6:21 AM

YEAH!!...Buck Fush!

He sucks.

posted by: dogballs at 6:23 AM

Will any one of you actually ever talk about real issues or are you too busy watching Michael Moore movies and getting Noam Chomsky quotes? Do you really think all this screamin and moaning and bitching and groaning will get us anywhere or are you just a bunch of tards alone in your room staring at your computer screen while you listen to AirAmerica and bitch about George Bush and how all Republicans are set on taking over the world? Why not have some debates with a little substance?

You're all just as bad as what you complain about in your paranoid delusions.

posted by: Daniel at 6:25 AM

Daniel,

Fuck off, troll! No one feed the troll!

posted by: gigli at 6:27 AM

Bush sucks

posted by: bushsucks at 6:31 AM

Food Critics Corner: My Dinner Last Night

2006-01-18T12:41:00.000-08:00

While at my apartment last night I was treated to a rather sumptuous meal. The chef, me, had prepared a simple, rustic pasta dish.

The penne pasta was whole-wheat which gave the dish a rather dark color. And the pasta was just slightly overcooked so not al-dente which is my preference. But the sauce was amazing and highly overcompensated for the slight weakness in the pasta itself. The red sauce was freshly made with chunks of whole tomatoes still scampering about. And just the slightest hints of onions peeped through. It was very hearty but amazingly sweet. One must compliment the chef for this minor miracle.

The entertainment was not too bad either. A re-run of Law & Order: SVU was showing. But that was bolstered by my very lovely company. All in all a good dinner.

I give it a 3 out of 4 possible stars.

What the F@#k Is Wrong With the Media?

2006-01-06T14:58:00.000-08:00

First, there was the plagiarism in the New York Times. Then there was Dan Rather's political manuevering against George Bush. Next the false rumors reported as fact concerning New Orleans. And now we have more false rumors reported as fact concerning the mine-shaft disaster in West Virginia.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE MEDIA?

I'm starting to wonder if anyone really trusts the media at all anymore, or if they should? People of all stripes distrust the major news media. Should we care anymore what they have to say? I start to listen to, or watch, or read news like I would listen to some overwrought homeless person yelling on the street--there might be some truth to what is being said but you have to be somewhat sceptical.

Personally, I'm kind of glad. So many people complain that the media is biased or that it's not as trustworthy as it used to be, etc. But I don't see why anyone would trust one source of information wholeheartedly in the first place. That's not to say you shouldn't ever trust the media or believe anything they say. But you must always, regardless of the source, be critical in your appraisal of what you receive as information. Just like in historiography: always consider the source and its context.

But on the other hand, I do expect some level of intellectual integrity and hard-work behind the news media. By that I mean I just wish they would do their job thoroughly and as objectively as possible if they want me to listen. It seems to me they are all just out to make a buck and the quicker and easier they can the better. Consequently they get lazy and sloppy in their work methods and people who are supposed to be overseeing everything don't really care all that much when it is so much easier to sell something sensational.

Odd, now that we have better access to information than ever before, much of the information we get is bad.

The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins

2006-01-06T12:56:00.000-08:00

I just finished Richard Dawkins' now classic The Blind Watchmaker. Not a bad book at all. But before I tell you about it I should provide some background.

I have a degree in English and American Literature and my minor was in History. In other words, I'm not great at science or math. But I've always been interested in some aspects of science and biology and evolution happen to be subjects I like. I'm not a complete moron when it comes to scientific subjects but I'm sure any 8th grade science geek could probably run rings around me.

Consequently, this book by Richard Dawkins is made for me. The way I understood it it was written with a general reader in mind. The book is well written and plausibly argued. And as long as you pay attention and follow the logic of the author's arguments it's not that hard to follow.

The basic premise of the book is to show how life could appear in the universe without a creator or any pre-conceived notion of design (the whole "Intelligent Design" argument now being debated across the U.S.). Dawkins obviously loves Darwin and bases his argument on cumulative evolution over billions of years (the age of the Earth [and please shut-up you stupid creationists trying to argue that the Earth is only 6,000 years old!]). Dawkins patiently explains how such a slow and random process like natural selection could evolve our life-forms over vast amounts of time. Like I said, I'm no great scientist, but the argument makes perfect sense and I still fail to see why anyone tries to argue otherwise (except, of course, for religious reasons, but those are very silly reasons).

Overall, this is a good way to try to understand evolution in more depth than the few words hopefully given to you in high school and college. There are a few parts which I found to be boring (like the taxonomy debates and different schools of thought in taxonomy) but I think this book is an important read--especially now that religious nuts are trying to dumb people down.

Brokeback Mountain (or, My Attempt at a Movie Review)

2006-01-04T15:03:00.000-08:00

Brokeback Mountain I would rate as a very good film. Apart from whatever political or social issues it raises, it is a good film.

Very simply, it is a love story. The film, in episodic fashion, captures the love affair between two men in Wyoming from the 1960s to the 1970s. Their meeting, the awkwardness of their initial feelings towards each other, their drifting apart and coming back together over the course of a lifetime is shown (for the most part) just as it should be in a love story--slowly, like melting butter.

But then of course there has to be complications in order to make drama. Considering who the characters are (two gay cowboys in Wyoming and Texas in the 1960s) it's not hard to see where the drama comes from. Of course the characters have to confront their own position in society. Plus they have to confront whatever ambiguous feelings they themselves might feel because of how they were brought up (which Heath Ledger does remarkably well). And, sadly, they have to confront their ruptured family lives, again because of who they are. The actors, in my opinion, did superb in capturing all that conflict.

One of the strengths in this film is the understatement. The time, the place, but most especially the characters are very muted. Heath Ledger is wonderful as a man struggling very hard (and winning) at trying to not allow the emotions to seep through. The kind of world they live in doesn't allow huge dramatics from anyone, least of all a couple of gay men. Consequently, much of the film has to work against itself by trying to make the drama as undramatic as they possibly can. There is much loss, anger, heartbreak, and sadness in this film--but very few "Oscar winning moments."

I think this film captures the best and the worst in all of us. It is amazing when feeling those initial slings of passion when we fall in love. It is degrading and dehumanizing when feeling the heartache and grief that can come from it. That is all here. And anyone who thinks this might be just some novelty because there are so few films with gay characters with such depth should watch this film. It is so much a story of our own fragile heart.

The Ripping Apart of Culture

2006-01-04T13:10:00.000-08:00

A few days ago I was out on a break at work smoking my ubiquitous cigarette, when a lady noticed the book I was reading: Thomas Jefferson: A Life by Willard Stearne Randall. She herself was reading from some papers in her hand and she mentioned to me that she was just reading a quote by Jefferson. So I went over and asked her what she was reading and we got to talking after awhile. She told me she was very much into politics and said she was quite the liberal Democrat. (If you've read any of my posts you might conclude that I'm not.) And then she said that she read a lot of material with that kind of slant to it (books, internet news sites, etc.) and listened to Air America. What struck me is what she said next. She told me that it used to be the case where everything was conservative (she was talking about radio talk-shows) and everything political she heard was biased; but now that she only listens to Air America Radio she is able to hear better news.

Why do people insist on only hearing the views they know they like? What is the point in going from one biased viewpoint to another? I listen to talk-radio and I like to hear both sides (so long as it's intelligent and interesting). I'll listen to Larry Elder and Al Franken (but definitely not Rush Limbaugh as he is a "big, fat idiot.") I have my biases and opinions but I would really get bored if all I ever heard was everything I already thought.

So many people in the media ridicule the so-called "Red States" and point to some stereotypical blue-collar, poorly educated, white, rednecks in the Midwest or the South for marching in lock-step with Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. Isn't this lady I met doing the exact same thing with the "liberal" side? Aren't people on the left doing the exact same thing when they refuse to read anything but Noam Chomsky (if they like really boring and dense tomes), The Nation, and Al Franken? And believe me, living in California, you get to meet all the liberal stereotypes (among others).

But this brought to my mind a broader concern. I now listen to Pandora Music on www.pandora.com . For those of you that don't know this is a music service on the web in which you select an artist name or a song name, input that into the service, and the player will keep on choosing music which is similar. I like the service but I get bored after awhile. The main reason I get bored is that I don't want to hear the same thing over and over and over again. There is a magic to discovering something so completely off-the-wall (to your point of view) that you would never think of it unless you didn't have a choice. I personally want to hear something that to me would be a complete surprise.

But in our increasingly specialized world we are getting further and further apart from each other precisely because we control so much of what we see and read and hear. Go to Amazon and you'll get only books that are like the books you already like. Go to Fox News and you can hear all the things you want to be told. When you go home you can set up your remote control so that only certain channels you want will be flipped through. Doesn't anyone ever want something different? Isn't it fun to find something so completely not you?

The only solution I could think of is an education. It used to be common that people who went to a university in the Western world were given what is called a Liberal Arts education. Even if they were interested in science they still had to have a good grasp of the Liberal Arts. I see nothing wrong with that. We should all have some level of social cohesion. And what a good Liberal Arts education can do for you is show you something about our world (and yes, it is our world even if you think our society is Eurocentric and imperialist and all other such "rebellious" fads). Besides giving us a common foundation from which to build our culture, an education makes one curious and critical and willing to look at other points of view.

Something must be done. The more we seperate ourselves the harder it will be to live in our world.

Master of Puppets by Metallica

2006-01-04T13:05:00.000-08:00

(this is a blog entry from another blog of mine now defunct; originally posted 8/25/05)

Master of Puppets (1986)Produced by Metallica and Flemming Rassmussen

One of the best albums ever, in my opinion. This was Metallica when they started to take over the world.I first heard Master of Puppets shortly before the release of ...And Justice For All. A friend of mine loved Metallica and kept telling me to listen to them, but I wouldn't because another friend of mine who was a huge Iron Maiden fan told me they sucked. Eventually I gave in and borrowed a tape of Master of Puppets. I was amazed that something with that much power and heft was coming out of my cheap stereo. For the next two or three weeks I listened to it non-stop, very loud, over and over again. (My father was pissed!)

What struck me about Master of Puppets initially was how heavy and fast it sounded (at least back in 1988 or so when I heard it). The songs seemed very well-developed and not just a collection of melodies (they almost have a narrative drive behind them). And the lyrics were menacing. I loved it.

The work starts off with Battery, one of Metallica's best songs. There is an acoustic guitar which opens the song--kind of haunting--then the loud electric guitars kick off, picking up the same melody. The rest of the song is like a frenzy, with much power and rhythm.The next song is the classic title track. This is one of the songs on the album which seems to have a narrative drive. There is a purpose to the way the song is structured, with a definite opening, middle and end. The solo in the middle is quite lovely and the "cackles of the damned" at the end add a nice touch.Other songs of note: The Thing That Should Not Be has a very menacing, mesmerizing opening and H.P. Lovecraft-inspired lyrics; Disposable Heroes has a great, driving rhythm throughout the whole song--when you hear the song it feels like going to a war; Orion is a great instrumental with a nice little part by Cliff Burton (bass)--very moody song with a lot of different parts to it (I wish Metallica still did instrumentals); Damage, Inc. closes the album on yet another frenzied note, the song is harsh and ugly (I love it!).

Overall Master of Puppets has a sense of menace, madness, and "hell on earth." Plus it still is one of the heaviest albums I've ever heard.

Cover Art:The cover shows a military cemetery with a reddish sky in the background and giant hands in the sky playing with the puppet strings attached to the crosses on the graves. Very doom-laden cover.

Links:Metallica.com--official website http://www.metallica.com/index.aspThe Metallica Club--fan club website http://www.metclub.com/

Bush Spying

2005-12-20T16:00:00.000-08:00

All the extreme loony lefties might have gotten their wish. If, as it appears, George Bush illegally spied on people in the U.S. he might very well be impeached.

I don't think our president is wasting his time reading my goofy e-mails. But the problem is not what motive this president has (fighting terrorism), nor how he's using his power (unless it is found to be creepy and reprehensible). The problem is even if George Bush is an angel in the way he's using these domestic spying techniques, it doesn't mean everyone else will be who would be able to use the same arguments and same techniques as he does.

The reason for our open democratic institutions is to be able to hold the government accountable for its actions. It might be inconvenient and annoying to have to go through our maddeningly slow legal process, but I think most Americans would prefer freedom over the ability of the executive to become a tyrant. And if it is found that Bush ignored the law for his own convenience, even if the reason was to protect our citizens, then he should be impeached.

But there is one problem I foresee. The Bush administration is citing its "use of force authorization" as a defense. They are claiming that Congress gave him the right to go after terrorists in such a way by its authorization after 9/11. Here's the resolution:

"107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 23
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.
Attest:
Secretary.
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 23
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. "

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

I'm not a lawyer, but this does seem pretty vague. I can see how they can use this as a defense. I think there should be an investigation into what went on to be able to determine if Bush abused his power. I'm not making any conclusions yet, but from my initial take it does seem bad. And I just do not sit well with allowing my president to secretly spy on people in our country without any kind of oversight by either the public or another government institution. We'll see.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=fundLaunches&storyID=2005-12-19T225913Z_01_SPI957096_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-SECURITY-1.xml

La Academia

2005-12-19T14:59:00.000-08:00

Does anyone here furiously commenting on my blog watch La Academia? For those of you not in the know, La Academia is a TV show shown on Azteca America, a Spanish-language television station. It is basically the Mexican version of American Idol. Auditions are held in various places and several people are chosen to compete in weekly shows showcasing their singing and performing abilities. Then they are voted off one by one by the public.

One major difference with American Idol though is that on this show the contestants are actual students. When they are picked they get to live in a school with several instructors who show them vocal techniques, body language, acting abilities, etc., in order to enhance their talents. Also, every weekday, the audience gets to watch them at school learning and interacting with each other. (Plus, I saw a commercial the other day advertising a satellite station which shows them 24 hours a day!) Because of this school situation I think the contestants end up being better singers than those on American Idol.

I tried watching American Idol when it came out and I did enjoy the auditions with all the bad singers. After that though, the only reason to watch the show is Simon Cowell. Overall I think the show sucks. But that is not the case for La Academia. For one thing, the judges are much better. There are four judges and for the most part, although not always the case, they have better credentials. They are not only from the music business but they give more thorough critiques as opposed to the Beavis and Butt-head type of criticism given on American Idol. And also, but again not always the case, the judges tend to be harsher. They have no qualms getting a performer to cry (which is lovely to see).

So far there have been five concerts with four contestants being booted off: Fatimat, Diana (I mean Bianca [see comment below]), Carlos and Alejandro (who was kicked off last night). This season is actually called La Academia USA because the students are either from the U.S. or have spent a significant amount of time in the U.S. Consequently, it is quite interesting to see them mangle the Spanish language or the English language (whatever the case may be). And if you watch the daily show it does have a Real World type of appeal. But at the very least watch the concerts every Sunday night to hear some great Latino music.

Links:

http://www.terra.com/laacademia/
(official website for the show)

Paean for McRib

2005-12-16T12:44:00.000-08:00

Just the thought of a McRib gets my panties all in a bunch. I start to salivate at the thought of processed meat in tangy sauce, wrapped in rubberized buns. The pickles and onions are superb. And the cute little patty which looks absolutely nothing like a rib just drives me up the wall.

It's a genius marketing ploy. McDonald's releases the ersatz rib sandwich on an unsuspecting public only occasionally to create interest. Months go by with no McRib sandwich in sight. Then, all of a sudden, a commercial appears on local stations. McRib is back (for a limited time only). Fans go into a feeding frenzy (literally) and buy nothing but McRib sandwiches every time they go to McDonald's. Big-Mac, what's that? Quarter-Pounder with Cheese, not today. I want a McRib. Then, just when you feel your food dreams have been realized, it is gone. And you wait, expectantly, until it comes back.

I suggest we start a religion, whereby we can make Americans act politely and civilly to each other by suggesting that heaven is filled with 70 virgin McRib sandwiches ready to eat. If you are nice to your neighbors and are productive to society you will be awarded the McRib. That's as good a reason to join a religion as any other.

Check out these links:

http://www.mcrib.com/

http://nessart.8m.com/mcrib.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McRib

Whatever Happened to Corn Quistos?

2005-12-15T16:08:00.000-08:00

Since I'm a fat guy and grew up a fat kid I spend an inordinate amount of time wondering about food. And I was wondering the other day, "Whatever happened to Corn Quistos?" For anyone who doesn't know what the hell I'm talking about, Corn Quistos were a snack sold in the 80s. They were little hard, rolled pretzels with creamy cheese filling inside. I loved them. I remember walking on over to the 7-Eleven to get these and various other snacks (nachos, beef jerky, Big Gulp, ice cream)....mmmmmm!

Summer vacations were an endless round of junk food, TV watching, reading, and video rentals. Picture this: hot June and July days in El Paso, Texas, fat kid with glasses (almost a mini-Roger Ebert), walking a few blocks under a clear, desert sky (did I mention it was amazingly hot), sweat pouring down oversized T-shirt, in the armpits, on the chest area, a pair of "Husky" jeans. Said kid walks into the local 7-Eleven to feel the cool, refrigerated air and gets himself a Big Gulp, candy (Reese's or Twix), some nachos with gobs of gooey, yellow-orange cheese and slabs of jalapenos (they're not as good anymore at 7-Eleven), maybe a packet of Big League Chew, and possibly a comic book or two. Then rolls on back home to await his favorite cousin so they could go rent Spaceballs or Conan the Barbarian. Domino's Pizza delivers some pizza later on that night and we play on the Nintendo 64 the next morning.

Ain't a bloated, spoiled, American life grand?

Tookie Williams

2005-12-14T16:24:00.000-08:00

Let's get this straight. The recent brouhaha over Mr. Williams' execution was about whether or not he deserved clemency. This was not a quorum on the death penalty nor a place to get Tookie out of jail by claiming his innocence. He had 25 years of appeals, overwhelming evidence supporting his guilt, and absolutely no admission of guilt from the mouth of said Williams. Gov. Schwarzenegger was called upon to decide the merits of Williams' pleas for mercy. If people think he deserved mercy that is a valid issue to debate. But since the governor is not the King of California, his job is not to all of a sudden stop the death penalty. If anyone is against the death penalty there is a perfectly legitimate way of voting for legislators who will move to stop it. I am sick of people looking towards the chief executive in any democratic form of government to do their bidding. He is the executive, he is in charge of executing the laws, not changing them. If you would like an enlightened despot try traveling back in time and going to the court of Frederick the Great. We are a system of laws--if you don't like them then seek out ways to change them. Don't look for everything to be changed for your benefit just because you have Hollywood celebrities and the typical rabble-rousers screaming loudly.

That said, are any of these fools ever going to support someone who is innocent? It'd be nice for a change.

THANK YOU CALIFORNIA!!!!

2005-11-09T13:12:00.000-08:00

Now that it's pretty obvious that none of the reform propositions in the California race will win (big shocker blue state!), I just want to thank California for yet again showing how stupid we all really are. I can't say that I'm surprised but it still is disappointing.

I have a few questions for Californian's who voted "no" on every measure.

1). Why did we have a recall election? What was the point in electing a new governor if we really don't want him to do anything? We could've stayed with Gray Davis and gotten the same results. There's no point in electing a governor to fix California's problems if we are not going to support him when he attempts to fix some of the many problems in this state.

2). Does this mean we're overwhelmingly happy with the way things are run in this state? Do we now agree that teachers, for some unfathomable reason, should get tenure and that it should be unreasonably difficult to get rid of bad teachers? Are we saying that unions should not ask their members for consent to spend their dues? If I'm in the teacher's union, and I believe that the probationary period should be longer (and there are some who are like that), I should be forced to support something I disagree with? Are we happy with the way our legislative districts are drawn up? Do we really want our spending practices to remain the same in this state so we could yet again go into near-bankruptcy?
Ask your legislators, union leaders, and Judge Wapner these questions because so far, they seem intent to keep the status quo. I have yet to hear any ideas to change any of this so I must conclude that people who didn't support any of these propositions are perfectly content with the way things are run right now.

It is funny that there are always jokes made at the expense of the so called "red" states, but believe me, living in a "blue" state is just as much of a joke.

California Propositions (Part II)

2005-11-07T16:13:00.000-08:00

1). Prop. 76: This concerns spending limits. Basically, the governor can have emergency powers to dictate what the state will be spending during a fiscal emergency. Considering California's chronic wasteful spending and the legislature's constant refusal to come up with a balanced budget I think this is a very good proposition. There are checks and balances incorporated into the proposition, so people's fears about the governor having too much power are largely unfounded. Besides, the governor is actually addressing the fact that our legislature has too much power themselves and now use it to obstruct anything that is not in their own selfish interests. Yet another instance where the California legislature refuses to compromise on anything and are bringing the state down. If you ask me we need to curb the state legislature's power.

2). Prop. 77: The redistricting measure. Retired judges would be selected to redistrict legislative boundaries. I'm all for changing our redistricting policies. The way it is now there is no true choice in legislative elections. Republican districts remain Republican districts and Democratic districts remain Democratic (and fuck any third-parties!). But I'm not entirely clear on how this proposition would work and I'm not fully in support of retired judges doing the redistricting. Simply for that reason I would vote no.

3). Props 78 and 79: Both of these propositions concern reducing the cost of prescription drugs to low-income families. The first is advocated by drug companies and health professionals while the second is backed by consumer groups. Maybe I'm just dumb but I don't see a big difference with either of them. Plus, I'm always wary of creating yet another government bureacracy to deal with social problems. I'm not really enthused by either proposition.

4). Prop. 80: Re-regulation of electricity. I personally prefer deregulation and never understand people who complain about monopolies and corporations yet want the government to step in whenever we have a problem with these kinds of entities. Energy policy is enormously complex and I will not pretend that I understand it even marginally, but my gut instinct is for deregulation. I would vote no on this one.

Ultimately, it seems that Governor Schwarzenegger is trying to actually solve many of the problems with the way California governs itself. I fail to understand the vehemence which his opponents show against practically all of these propositions. California is in a state of crisis, yet none of Schwarzenegger's opponents offer anything in the way of solving our problems. I can see a few valid arguments against some of these propositions but it seems to me that the legislature, the unions, and the "consumer" groups are merely against all of this because they refuse to let go of any of their entrenched power regardless of what kind of harm it might be doing to the state. I applaud Gov. Schwarzenegger for at least trying to do something as opposed to our former governor, Gray Davis, who seemed like a complete idiot who was intent on making the situation worse.

California's Propositions (Part I)

2005-11-03T16:35:00.000-08:00

First, let me apologize for those not in California because these propositions don't apply. But it is interesting to read about any political process even if it doesn't directly apply to you.

Second, just in case you want to read the propositions more thoroughly here is a link: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm
This link is from the California Secretary of State's office, I believe, and it explains and summarizes each proposition and gives brief arguments pro and con for each proposition.

So here I will try to give my position on each:

1). Prop. 73: Basically, this proposition is a constitutional amendment requiring doctors to notify parents/legal guardians before they perform an abortion on a minor (with some exceptions). I can see a young girl being forced to have a child she might not want; I can see a young girl possibly having an illegal abortion in a dangerous situation. Here's what the con argument states from the link I gave earlier:

"CON
Prop. 73 says government can mandate family communication. It can’t. Scared, pregnant teenagers don’t need a judge—they need a counselor. Vulnerable teenagers who can’t talk to their parents may resort to unsafe, illegal abortions. Parents rightly want to know, but keeping teens safe is even more important."

I think, regardless of how many bad parents there might be out there, we need to leave the state out of our business. If I were a parent, I want to be able to take care of my child as I see fit, not as the state sees fit. In effect, voting no on Prop. 73 does not allow a parent to take responsibility for their child. In everything else, just about, we want parents to take care of their children, but with this, we prefer to not let them in on the secret. I'm sorry, but minors should not be left alone with such an important decision. If a minor can make a decision like that, then we should start allowing them to vote, allowing them to join the military, drink, drive, get a job, and pay taxes.

2). Prop. 74--this proposition would extend the probationary period for public school teachers. Instead of the current two years before they're allowed tenure, this proposition would extend that to five years. I strongly support this. Here's the CON argument:

"CON
Prop. 74 won’t improve student achievement, punishes hardworking teachers, and ignores our schools’ real problems. California’s teachers can be and are fired. They’re not guaranteed a life-time job, just a hearing before dismissal—this initiative revokes that right for many. Prop. 74 discourages recruitment of quality teachers we desperately need."

This argument is hilarious. It reminds me of Lewis Carroll's Alice Through the Looking-Glass or George Orwell's 1984. Nothing in this argument makes sense unless you look at the world backwards. First, "won't improve student achievement." If we get better teachers, we probably will get better students--I think that qualifies as improving student achievement. Or how about, "punishes hardworking teachers"? If you are a hardworking teacher, you get rewarded for your hard work, are kept on as a teacher, and can easily stay 5 years to be able to get tenure; conversely, if you are a lazy-ass, stupid teacher, you won't get very far, you'll be fired from your job, and you won't make it to 5 years to get tenure--hence, we get rid of a bad teacher. Very simple really when you think about it.

Next, "They’re not guaranteed a life-time job, just a hearing before dismissal—this initiative revokes that right for many." First, everyone knows it is not that easy to get rid of a tenured employee, that is why it is given as an incentive for these jobs. Second, when did tenure become a "right?" Do you get tenure at your job? If you perform poorly at your job do you get a hearing before you're fired? Don't you go to work and try to perform well partly because you want to keep your job? When did teachers become these gods who can do no wrong and are allowed a lot more leeway than the rest of us poor slobs? To hell with teachers. I'm sick of hearing them complain about what a crappy, hard job they have and how they need so much more than everyone else in order to stay in their jobs. If you don't like it, leave--and make way for people who can do the job.

If anyone knows anything about Los Angeles Unified School District, you know our schools are shit. And everyone can constantly complain about funding and the administration and poor parenting (and all these arguments are valid), but teachers must take some of the blame for the poor performance of these students. I have been a substitute teacher, have met teachers, and personally know about some people getting their teacher certificates here in California--it's pretty fucking grim. Let's try to make teaching a real job, not a soft job that people get into when they can't do anything else.

3). Prop. 75--this proposition is to make public unions get written consent from their members before the union makes political contributions. How is this bad, exactly? What are the unions afraid of? Do they think their members will say no? Is it possible that I can join a union and not agree with everything my union stands for? Can you say democracy? Here's the CON:

"CON
Prop. 75 is unfair to teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters. It makes their labor unions play by different rules than big corporations. It’s unnecessary. The U.S. Supreme Court says no public employee can be forced to join a union and contribute to politics. It’s sponsored by corporations who oppose unions."

And here's the summary on the fiscal impact:

"Fiscal Impact: Probably minor state and local government implementation costs, potentially offset in part by revenues from fines and/or fees."

If it's unnecessary and has a minor impact fiscally, where exactly is the problem in voting for this. The only problem I see is that unions will lose some of their power (possibly) because not all of their members will agree with various political positions they might take. That's too fucking bad. I don't think union members should be forced (in effect) to contribute to political causes they don't agree with. We are a democracy, people! Come on! You really expect me to believe that this is going to be harmful. Maybe, just maybe, the unions, yet again, are trying to keep whatever power they have. If they can't keep that power because some of their members will not give money for political causes, then maybe the union didn't deserve that power in the first place.

If this is truly "unnecessary" then there's no reason to even be against it. (Of course, we know it is necessary.)

Bush's Incompetence and My Own Political Evolution

2005-09-03T11:27:00.000-07:00

Considering what has been going on recently in New Orleans and the response to it, it is increasingly obvious that Bush is incompetent. Revelations we've had from people we can reasonably trust, like Bob Woodward and Frontline on PBS, have shown that he relies too much on other people and his own personal ideology. It's also apparent, just from the facts we can observe (handling of the war in Iraq, handling of the situation with Katrina), that he cannot handle situations very well.

People who know me might well wonder where I stand. I've gone from being a marginal "liberal" in college to being a marginal "conservative" after college, and now I'm kind of in the middle. By nature, I'm a skeptic (even about that). The terms "liberal" and "conservative" don't sufficiently describe the nuances I think most Americans would fit into politically. When I actually come across a person who is extremely liberal or conservative they are usually unthinking ideologues or people with sentimental ties to their respective parties (much like religious people). I can't belong to either of the two major parties in the United States when they don't adequately describe my political stance and when both of their ideologies are contradictory.

I've never liked the Bush haters on the left. They spew all sorts of venom and caricature our president without even thinking about what they are saying. It is at best distasteful, and at worst hypocritical: when the Republicans had the same kind of vitriolic rhetoric against Clinton these same Bush haters were complaining that Republicans and conservatives were being stupid. Furthermore, when you constantly scream instead of engaging in a reasoned debate about public policy, then you simply look like an idiot. Many attacks from the left towards the right are unjustified and completely silly.

By the same token, Republicans and others on the right are just as stupid. Many claim to use reason instead of emotion when criticizing the left, but that is obviously not always the case. And one must be a little worried when a political party has a strong support base from religious nuts and reactionaries. There's something about the Republican party that appeals to complete morons.

The Democratic party is in complete disarray. They stick to social programs which are unworkable and tend to fail. They pick horrible candidates for public office (John Kerry is a prime example) and heroize people for all the wrong reasons (Howard Dean and Hilary Clinton come to mind). They seem to be dying right before our very eyes. If they persist in their present state we might actually have a new major party come along in the U.S.

The Republican party is a more complex danger. They have some people in their party who might be good candidates (John McCain or Rudy Giuliani?). They have some in their party who aren't totally intimidated by the president (even Newt Gingrich is now criticizing the president for his handling of Katrina). And there are people in the party who are not satisfied with the religious nuts and the straying away from what they see as their ideology. But the problem remains: if they pick candidates who truly want a smaller government and is more fiscally conservative they might very well lose power. Proposing cuts to social programs and getting rid of much of the extraneous apparatus of modern American governmental bureaucracy does not get votes in our political climate. Politicians are in politics to get votes after all. If they can't win, then I doubt they would care what their ideals are.

Consequently, I am still in the middle and still belong to no political party. None of the minor parties I've researched really interest me. They all seem to be not only small in numbers but also in ideas. What is one to do? I love the ideals this country was founded on, but I realize I am a tiny minority when it comes to my political ideas. I hope against hope that more and more parties gain more and more power in this country, but even if that happens it is probably for the distant future. I will keep on voting for candidates for different reasons, but no one really seems to satisfy me. I guess I'm just out in the wilderness.

Testimonial From A Compassionate Atheist

2005-09-01T12:43:00.000-07:00

I was watching the news this morning (as I always do) and saw images of what's going on in New Orleans. I can honestly say I feel really bad for all those people and what might happen to that city, and is already happening to that city. I don't pray, but I do hope and wish that everything turns out alright. And just like watching the horrors of 9/11 on TV or what went on in Rwanda, or Thailand, or watching the L.A. riots, I dislike seeing people suffering and hurting each other.

All this made me think. There is a certain contingent of theists who believe that atheists, because they have no God, cannot possibly have morals or feel anything approaching compassion or altruism. It is presumptuous, and just plain rude, of theists to assert that anyone who does not believe as they do, is a bad person. One may well ask why we feel feelings of compassion, generosity, altruism, etc. and there are quite a few ethical philosophers and now scientists who try to determine why. I have no simple answer, but I do know that, deep withing me, I also feel the same kinds of feelings which religious leaders claim as exclusively their own.

It is not necessary to have a god or belief in a god in order to have compassionate feelings and a desire to help humankind. Religion is not needed to validate any of those kinds of feelings. I myself was raised atheist. I have never attended a church. I was never baptized, confirmed, circumcised, etc.--in other words, I've never gone through any of those religious rituals. The only times I've stepped into houses of worship have been for weddings or funerals and the like. Does that necessarily make me an "evil" person? Isn't it a bit anachronistic and narrow-minded to believe that we need religion at all in our lives?

Chicanos cannot back their claims of racism

2005-08-30T19:30:00.000-07:00

After my previous post I decided to do some research. I ended up at a Chicano forum ( http://chicanoforums.com/ ) , registered to the site, and started posting under the name "goddan." (Check it out for some interesting reading). My first post on their site is my previous post on this blog [edited in order to tone down some of the language]. I was hoping for some serious, intelligent debate. Instead I just got a bunch of rhetoric and notions of Aztlan. It's amazing to me the depths of ignorance some of these people show. They claim, as usual, racism at every corner, and even believe Mexico is not as corrupt as the United States. I wish people would seriously examine their beliefs before they start uttering a bunch of nonsense.

Anyhow one member from the forum challenged me to back up my claims championing the Minutemen. I thought it might be interesting reading to post my response on this blog. You can tell what kinds of questions he asked me by reading my response. Or you can go to the original site to see other posts I submitted and what these people truly talk about.

Here's my post on that site:

I'm glad you responded. Thank you for bringing up relevant points. So let me answer you:

You ask about my job. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything but I work for an insurance company. I have also worked for the phone company, Barnes & Noble, a liquor store, a convenience store, a landscaping company, and as a caterer. My father is a mechanic, my mother has been a maid, worked at an electronics company, and was once a nurse for elderly people in a retirement home. I have a Bachelor's degree in English & American Literature with a minor in History. Again, I'm not sure how that is pertinent, but there is the answer to your question.

You ask me what I came on this forum to do. I said earlier to someone else's response that I came here to debate. Why? you may ask. I love to debate. I love to test my ideas. I love to hear different points of view. If my views change because of the exchange of ideas then I feel that's great--that only means my former ideas were not strong enough or no longer workable so why keep them? But I do have ideas which I believe in, I just wish someone could effectively challenge them.

I don't feel I have a holier-than-thou attitude. As I've stated earlier, change my ideas. I would be gratified if someone could engage me intellectually. I don't know everything about history or politics, but I do know several things. If you feel there's some enlightenment you can provide for me, by all means go ahead. I am not insulting you, I am challenging your ideas. Why don't you challenge mine? I made one post where I used the term "idiots" but I did apologize for that, and I truly am sincere in my apology.

You say, "You came here and say that not every Chicano is like us, good for them, but let us focus on the Chicanos here, they all bring something to the table in an attempt to find out about their history, or to realize their potential, and that in itself is a wonderful thing, a community brought together by a common cause." If, by Chicano you mean Mexican-American, then I am also a part of your group. Isn't a different viewpoint from another Chicano just as valid? If you want to find out about your history and your culture, shouldn't you examine all viewpoints? What is wrong with a Chicano who champions our American form of government, conservative Hispanics, or alternative ideas from the ones given to us by the Chicano movement for the past 40 years? I know my ideas are stronger because I try to examine different viewpoints and see which one I think is best. It is a disservice to reaching your full potential if you only look at one side of the argument. At worst, I can make your ideas stronger by making you defend them.

As for the Minuteman Project: I'm glad you brought that up. I believe it is imperative in the free flow of ideas to have some evidence, something to back up your assertions. I wasn't being mean to jaguar, I was merely pointing out that if he makes a statement and/or opinion he should back it up or else it doesn't really mean much of anything. You asked me to provide you with something to back up my claims. I'll be glad to oblige:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8246010/ This article shows plans for the Minuteman Project to also go to the Canadian border. I've heard claims that they are merely attacking Latin Americans because they are racist. If that is so, why would they want to go to the northern border also? They surely are not being racist towards Anglo-Canadians or the Quebecois.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/rssstory.mpl/metropolitan/3328782 This article points out plans by the ACLU to keep watch over the Minutemen to make sure they do nothing illegal or assault any immigrants coming over. Even if there is a possibility of anyone in the Minutemen being racist and/or violent, there are organizations who will make sure they are taken away by law enforcement.

http://www.inic.org/board/?topic=topic2&msg=1 This is the Minuteman blog. I've included a quote from them showing their intentions and motives:

"The Minuteman Project is not that different from your local neighborhood watch programs. The neighborhood watch initiatives do not result in citizens arrests, rather the civilians patrolling their neighborhood contact police when they encounter suspicious activities. The results are two fold: first, the individual crimes are prevented and the perpetrator is arrested by police. second, the very notion of a neighborhood watch program deters criminals in general. In much the same way, the Minuteman Project is designed to alert border security guards when illegal immigrant activities are spotted, resulting in arrests and deterring future attempts at crossing the border."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050328-125306-7868r.htm This article points out that Central American gangs already have plans to "teach the Minutemen a lesson." Let us not forget the violent gangs and drug smugglers who also cross illegally to bring even more problems into the United States.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19314 This article focuses on a group called “La Tierra Es De Todos” which accuses the Minutemen of racism and have already picketed in front of Jim Gilchrist's (founder) house and church. They also provide some important information concerning some of the problems with illegal immigration along with links and references just so you know it's not just an unfounded opinion:

Some facts from this article (which also provide references and links):
Winter 2004 “City Journal”
"(a) In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens, as do up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000);
(b) At least 60 percent of the members of southern California's 20,000-member 18th Street Gang are illegal, and police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. This brutal organization not only collaborates with the Mexican Mafia on drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, but also commits an average of one assault or robbery per day in Los Angeles County. The gang has experienced dramatic growth over the past 20 years, recruiting primarily illegals from Central America and Mexico; and
(c) The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the Los Angeles drug market, was approximately 60 percent illegal in 2002.

a) California's nearly 3 million illegal immigrants cost taxpayers almost $9 billion annually (source: Federation for American Immigration Reform);
(b) Illegal aliens cost the federal government $10 billion more each year than they pay in taxes (source: Center for Immigration Studies); or
(c) It costs taxpayers $750 million annually to house the 18,000 illegal aliens in California prisons (source: U.S. Government Accounting Office)."

And here's some information from the same article concerning Jessie Diaz from La Tierra Es De Todos:
"The 39-year-old Diaz, who has a recorded history of drug use and gang involvement, graduated from Pitzer College in 2002 after developing his own major in Chicano psychology. In 2003 he was awarded an American Sociological Association Minority Fellowship. Diaz is also a member of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), a race- and ethnicity-conscious “civil rights” organization that seeks to expand race-preference programs and the rights of illegal aliens in the U.S. José Velez, who headed LULAC from 1990 to 1994, is a kindred spirit to Diaz. According to Velez, the U.S. Border Patrol is “the enemy of my people and always will be.” Several years ago Mr. Velez reportedly submitted false papers for more than 6,000 illegals seeking amnesty, an action that resulted in his conviction for 10 counts of immigration fraud. Consistent with its opposition to measures intended to protect America from foreign would-be terrorists, LULAC has given its organizational endorsement to the “Community Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties” campaign, a project of the California-based Coalition for Civil Liberties (CCL). The CCL tries to influence city councils to pass resolutions creating Civil Liberties Safe Zones; that is, to be non-compliant with the provisions of the Patriot Act, a federal law. Such are the values and ideals that Jesse Diaz embraces as a LULAC member; and these ideals are entirely consistent with those of La Tierra Es De Todos.
At UC-Riverside, Jesse Diaz has been exposed to the teachings of the radical professor Armando Navarro, a Mexican nationalist and anti-American activist who chairs the university's Ethnic Studies Department and who has, like Diaz and La Tierra Es De Todos, also denounced the Minuteman Project. “These are the critical years for us in the Latino community,” says Navarro. “We're in a state of transition. And that transformation is called the browning of America. Latinos are now becoming the majority.” With this trend in mind, Navarro advocates the reclamation of the Southwestern United States by Mexico, and the “liberation” of the ancestral Mexican homeland of “Aztlan.” "

Again, the specter of returning the Southwest to Mexico. Which I've stated before is, in my opinion, an, at best, foolish notion.

http://www.minutemanhq.com/project/ This site is the home for MinutemanHQ. Here is their statement:

"MMP is affiliated with MinutemanHQ.com, the new National Organization for the original Minuteman border project. It is the only group authorized by Chris Simcox and Jim Gilchrist. MMP has no affiliation with, nor will we accept any assistance by or interference from, separatists, racists, or supremacy groups or individuals, no matter what their race, color, or creed."

Again, how can they be accused of racism when they say themselves they will not accept assistance from racist individuals or groups?

http://www.laopinion.com/archivo/index.html?START=1&RESULTSTART=1&DISPLAYTYPE=single&FREETEXT=minuteman+project&FDATEd12=&FDATEd13=&SORT_MODE=SORT_MODE

This is an article from La Opinion, a Spanish-language, L.A. based newspaper. They have an interview with Jim Gilchrist (founder of Minuteman Project). Here are some pertinent quotes:

"El ex veterano de la Guerra de Vietnam aseguró que no se trata de instigar un conflicto armado entre los voluntarios y los inmigrantes que sean referidos a los agentes de la Patrulla Fronteriza.
“Esto no es una operación militar, estamos hablando de gente profesional, doctores, ex policías, contadores, pilotos, médicos y periodistas que se han inscrito como voluntarios porque están frustrados con la falta de respuesta por parte del gobierno federal por resolver de una vez por todas la inmigración ilegal”.
“No vamos a confrontar a nadie, pero al momento de detectar a los indocumentados vamos a notificarle a la Patrulla Fronteriza para que los detengan”. "

I see no evidence of racism nor ill-intentions. Couldn't you possibly admit to the possibility that this group and many other Americans who share their views merely want to see our country safe? I think it is irresponsible to claim someone as racist when you have nothing to back up your claims.

Maybe people, especially Chicanos, should try to understand why Americans are frustrated with the illegal immigration problem instead of just labelling it "racist" without any justification. Maybe people, especially Chicanos, should be worried about high dropout rates among Chicanos, poverty in the inner cities, and the problems associated with gangs, instead of stressing some mythical "Aztlan" and labelling anyone who doesn't share their view as racist.

I backed up my claims. You can check out any one of those sites and see that I did not misrepresent anything. Is anyone finally willing to back up their claims of racism? Or will I keep getting opinions with absolutely nothing to back them up?

Thank you for your time.

Someone Please Tell Chicano Activists, "Que se chingan!"--Minuteman protesters

2005-08-28T15:17:00.000-07:00

While taking the bus home the other day I saw a group of protesters outside a Beverly Hills shop protesting the Minuteman Project. Most of the signs made accusations of racism. The first thing I think when I hear someone accuse another of racism is, "Their argument must be so weak that they must resort to accusing people of racism in order to get others on their bandwagon." I am generally sceptical of anyone claiming racism. I rarely see it in action and when I do I'm so shocked because it is so rare. (The few times I've actually witnessed racial tensions it was either towards myself because I look white [I'm both white and Mexican] or against my father because he's white. Of course I grew up on the border with Mexico in a predominantly Mexican town so obviously we were the minority.)

I'm sick of these idiotic Hispanic "leaders" pretending they are fighting for their people. Just like Jesse Jackson they are nothing but a bunch of con men who know how easy it is to get votes and/or political power by being a minority and pretending to fight for the rights of the "oppressed." Do you know how ridiculous these clowns are? They seriously (some of them at least) argue for a return of "Aztlan" to Mexico--in other words the entirety of the Southwest which was conquered by the U.S. from Mexico in the 1840s. It's absurd to contend that the U.S. was justified in conquering this part of Mexico, but it is equally absurd to desire a return of this land to Mexico. Mexico is a corrupt, elitist, backward-looking nation with a disastrous economy. I love my Mexican heritage, but there's a good reason most of my family now lives in the United States.

From all the reports I've seen or read the Minutemen are doing nothing illegal. Their stated objective is to spot illegal immigrants crossing the border and informing the Border Patrol so they can be rounded up. I'm sure if our neighboring country to the south were Sweden no one would try to claim racism. It is appalling that our government cares so little and are so easily swayed by big business (agribusiness) lobby groups that people in our country feel the need to help with our illegal immigration problem. Considering how easy it is to cross our southern border it is definitely a concern to our nation post-9/11. Not to mention the economic and labor issues involved.

Whether we need better protection of our borders or a guest-worker program to solve our illegal immigration problem, the point is that right now it is illegral to freely cross our border without the proper paperwork. It's absurd to protest someone doing their job and it is not racist. Someone please tell the Chicano idiots to shut-up. They do not speak for me and I want no part in your "Aztlan." Call me "Tio Taco" all you want (and I have been called that) it doesn't change the fact that you're all a bunch of idiots and I'm not the only Mexican-American who feels that way.

FCC Hires New Idiot to Control Our Lives

2005-08-09T12:48:00.000-07:00

Just recently the FCC hired an out and out idiot to be an adviser for them (whatever that means). [http://www.latimes.com/business/custom/cotown/la-fi-porn9aug09,1,330346.story?coll=la-headlines-business-enter] This idiot, whose name is Penny Nance, is typical of right-wing Christians in wanting the entire country to have "Biblical" values--regardless of what others want or view as right.
I've had people tell me, "Who cares? There's real problems in the US. Why worry about television/radio?" To them I say, be careful. First it's the free-flow of ideas the government wants to control (media), then it's the access to means of defending ourselves (gun-control), and finally it's our ability to protest (media again). After that it all goes to hell. Anytime we allow a governmental body the ability to control what is said in public, whether its in books, television, films, radio, internet, etc.,etc., we allow them to control our public discourse. Since, in a democracy, we're not always going to be happy with the people in power, we shouldn't allow anyone in power to have that control over us.
One other point I'd like to make is this: why do "conservatives" who supposedly want less government, never have a problem with censorship and/or telling people what they can watch or read? But also, why do "liberals" who want the government involved in so much of our lives, complain when that same government shows the stupidity of allowing the government too much power in the first place?
Just a thought.

The "Hispanic" Vote

2005-08-03T13:02:00.000-07:00

While listening to talk radio this morning I caught something about politicians trying to capture the "Hispanic" vote. Whenever this mythical "Hispanic" vote is mentioned I always wonder the same thing--what Hispanic vote? I'm Hispanic, I grew up in a town right on the border with Mexico which was about 80% Hispanic, and many of my friends are Hispanic. There's no consensus on anything.

First, the term itself: Hispanic. It's almost completely meaningless. If you mean Spanish speaking then that's just about every country south of our border and Spain. That's a lot of different types of people. And they all come to our country and have children here and work here and are part of that mythical "Hispanic" vote. The Mexican-Americans where I grew up in Texas don't have the same concerns as the Cuban-Americans in South Florida or as the Puerto Ricans in New York.

Second, there are many different types of people in each Hispanic group. I know in Mexican culture for instance there are many people who come here in search of a job because they are devastatingly poor in Mexico. They don't have the same issues that Mexican immigrants have who came here during the Mexican Revolution to escape political persecution or economic injustices. And there are many Mexican-Americans here who have been here for at least a couple hundred years (mainly in the Southwest where older families were disenfranchised when the U.S. conquered this territory). There are some who align themselves with the working poor. There are some who are middle-class. There are some who speak no Spanish. There are some who call themselves Chicano. There are some who fight in gangs. There are some who don't care about their culture at all. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. How can this constitute a "Hispanic vote."

I saw a news story on Spanish television during the presidential election. It was interesting because the reporter went to a family's house where part of the family was Democrat and voting for Kerry and part of the family was Republican and loved Bush. There's no such thing as a Hispanic vote. We can't be marginalized that easily.

Bush's Appointment of Bolton to U.N.

2005-08-01T12:54:00.000-07:00

Finally, George Bush appointed Bolton to the U.N. (It is being done during a recess of Congress, so who knows how serious the appointment is, but hey...) So far, what we know about Bolton is that he has attacked the U.N. in his rhetoric and that he is a poor boss with a bad temper. Yet, there is a glut of attacks on him. I personally think the U.N. is has become a completely hollow institution with little chance of surviving. Hopefully, someone like Bolton, who we already know doesn't like the U.N., will change things.

I think most people believe the U.N. to be some benign organization we helped to create in the '40s in the interest of promoting peace. The U.N. is a complete joke. Many nations in the U.N. believe the United States to be an "evil empire" out to conquer the world, so they don't much care for our interests or policies. The Security Council consists of the U.S., Great Britain, Russia, China, and France. (One Communist country now trying to compete with us economically, one former Communist country that cannot control its own people and is again showing signs of being yet another ultra-authoritarian state intent on keeping whatever power it used to have, one semi-socialist country which does not like us and believes the U.S. to be vacuous and determined to control the Earth, and one ex-empire holding on to what little power they have left in the world.) I think we should treat the U.N. with some caution and try not to allow their agenda(s) overwhelm ours.

I still hear from people all the time that when we started on this disastrous journey in Iraq it was because we did not pay attention to the U.N. Regardless of what you think about the war in Iraq, don't be fooled. The U.N. is not trustworthy. Don't forget that France had lucrative oil-deals with Saddam Hussein. Don't forget that many of the people in positions of "power" in the U.N. are complete jokes and corrupt. And don't forget, our government is not here to placate other nations. I should hope that we want a president who puts the U.S. agenda first and foremost. Then, we can worry about other nations. Hopefully, Bolton is cut of the same cloth that George Bush is when it comes to diplomacy.

2005-06-16T12:08:00.000-07:00

People on the left are just as bad as people on the right. Both sides of the political spectrum are increasingly alienating the body politic. Both sides are equally self-righteous. And both sides are incapable or unwilling to engage in serious, polite debates to help solve issues which concern us all. It is quite sad and disgusting that educated and compassionate Americans are more and more forced to pick between one moron who wants to raise taxes on the rich, destroy small businesses, and abridge our rights to carry arms or the other moron who wants everyone to be Christian, heterosexual, and abridge our rights to free speech. Neither side can say anything that isn't completely hollow rhetoric, chock full of quotes from either Noam Chomsky or the Bible, designed to manipulate those so inclined into a false sense of fellowship and common goals.

What Is Wrong With The Left?

2005-06-14T12:55:00.000-07:00

I attempted to find blogs or news sites with a liberal slant. There are plenty out there, but so far, they've been kind of boring. On the blogs I immediately noticed that every comment on the discussion at hand was very complimentary and congratulatory. I wondered, "Isn't there anyone out there who reads this and disagrees?" Then I noticed something. Admittedly, I did not look at the rules for every site I visited but here's an example of rules to post on some of these sites: "Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html). You've got to be kidding me, right? Apparently, the only people allowed to debate on these sites, already agree with the point of view expressed. Are they scared of someone with a different viewpoint?

Also, I've been trying to listen to different liberal shows on talk radio. I've been listening to Air America and Pacifica radio in Los Angeles (if you don't know about them a good example of the kind of programming they provide is a show which talks only about gay issues and other shows love to cite Noam Chomsky). So I listened patiently to what the hosts had to say about different issues and I waited for some calls. First of all, many of these shows don't even take any calls. In other words, no one ever challenges what the host has to say. Second of all, when they do have calls it will be from someone kissing up to the host and again being congratulatory. I've heard plenty of talk radio programming that is conservative (mostly out of the Los Angeles area) and almost all of them have call-in shows. And I know for a fact that many of them want people to call-in who disagree with them. Whether you like someone like Bill O'Reilly or not, part of the fun in hearing a show like his is hearing his ultra-stupid arguments with his callers and guests. So why is the left so afraid to have a debate? Can they not debate? Are they not intelligent enough to debate? Maybe they're just too self-righteous to want to demean themselves by speaking to the public.

One wonders.

What Is Wrong With Conservatives?

2005-06-14T10:09:00.000-07:00

I've been looking through a website called "The Conservative Voice" (http://www.theconservativevoice.com) and I comment under the name "goddan". One thing I keep noticing is how silly many of these conservatives are. I agree with many conservative viewpoints but what the hell is wrong with these people who want to legislate every aspect of our lives. Many people of that ilk want to regulate who we marry, what we watch on TV, how we treat our bodies. And of course there is always the extreme, conservative, religious idiots.

I can't help but wonder: if conservatives stuck to their message about less government and got rid of their religious fanatics, wouldn't more people go to their camp? Well, there is some hope. Now, more middle of the spectrum conservatives are gaining power: Rudolph Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain. At least they're not as foolish as the left.

Drugs? Are We Still Worried About That Old Thing?

2005-06-06T12:28:00.000-07:00

Today I read that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it's okay for federal prosecutors to go after people using "medical marijuana." From what I've read, the courts have a pretty valid argument since the federal laws state that certain drugs are illegal and federal laws supersede state laws. But my question is this?--WHO CARES?!!!

Let's admit it--all drugs are bad. From caffeine, to tobacco, to marijuana, to fat pills, to alcohol. For any government to pretend that some drugs are bad for you and others are not is ridiculous. Any drug can be abused and used in such a way that it is harmful to one's health. True, some drugs cause worse health problems and some drugs are more addictive than others, but again--WHO CARES?!!!

I am a reasonably intelligent human being living in a reasonably free society. Why should my government tell me what I can or can not ingest. Does anyone remember Prohibition? I was raised in a household where smoking and drinking were prevalent. I do smoke and I do drink on occasion. And while in college I took my fair share of illegal substances. But guess what, I was raised well enough to understand the harm I do to my body and my brain by taking certain things. And if I smoke and drink it is ultimately because I choose to do so knowing full well how it might kill me in the end. But none of this need not interest my senator, my congress-person, my president, the courts, or anyone else for that matter. And if I chose to smoke pot everyday, shoot up heroin, drink loads and loads of caffeine, diet pills, ephedra, or anything else then that is my problem.

When are we as a society going to get it into our thick skulls that we don't need the government to be our Mommies? I resent people telling me what to do with my life (which is why I hate meddling Christians or meddling liberal-types). The most horrifying thing I can think of for our world is to be programmed and dictated to by bureaucracies and mediocre politicians. Whether you're on this side of the issue or on that side more and more government is not the answer to all our woes. Communism doesn't work. We need to grow up and discipline ourselves enough that we can come up with answers and solutions ourselves without government intervention.

Get rid of the antiquated drug laws. If you don't want to see your children destroyed by drugs then raise them well. But please stop telling our governments to regulate every aspect of our lives!

Why "The Da Vinci Code" strikes such a nerve

2005-04-25T07:23:00.000-07:00

It is interesting that a book of fiction, "The Da Vinci Code," strikes such a nerve in the religious community. Not only is the book a popular novel but apparently many people are taking its theories as valid and many people in the Church and elsewhere are fighting back. There are many books supporting or refuting the theories espoused in the book and I've seen at least 3 shows on the subject. Basically, the argument that is getting people talking is that Jesus Christ was actually married to Mary Magdalene and has descendants. There's more to it than that but that's the gist of it.

I think there are 2 reasons why people would want to believe this. One, it brings a sense of humanity to the divine; and two, it makes women more prominent in the theology. If the church would realize this instead of trying to refute it they would try to remedy the situation.

First, there is the humanizing of Jesus Christ. I think the pagans had it right when they made their gods human. Maybe they went too far and made them too human but there is something to be said for a god that one can relate to. In traditional Christian orthodoxy, especially Catholic orthodoxy, Christ is more of a savior. God is father, judge, and punisher. But I think people miss the sense sometimes of God as brother, husband, son, friend. Obviously that interpretation is there but I don't think it is emphasized as much as it should be.

Secondly, women are obviously missing from the theology. Sure there are women in the Bible but just look at who they are. In the New Testament the most prominent women are the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene. One has become enshrined as a chaste, saintly figure who does no wrong (Virgin Mary) while the other is a follower. There are no women apostles, no prominent women as leaders. I think modern people want to see women as leaders and not, like the Virgin Mary or the female saints, as some distant and weird woman who never has sex or makes mistakes or really relates at all to us as people. Women are an integral part of the human experience and they are needed in our conception of the divine.

I think it is a gross error to leave all this out in religion. The Western world is at a point where it wants something more than what the ancient world or medieval world wanted. But of course the church, as usual, does not get it and they will eventually be exterminated. Because, just like the pagan religions it supplanted, the church cannot keep up with the world around it.

Why I love the new pope

2005-04-21T10:06:00.000-07:00

From what I've been reading this new pope is an arch neo-conservative. He wants to get away from the "progressive" tendencies of Vatican II and get back to a stricter interpretation of the Church's teachings. He seems like he would love someone like Mel Gibson's interpretation of the Catholic Church.

I think this new pope is great. I believe that the church might have been straying from its true teachings and ideology. Now the church can be more honest in showing what it really is--a medieval, backward, barbaric, decayed institution which has no place in the modern world. To me the Catholic Church is just as disgusting as fundamentalist Muslims. They are just as backward thinking and stuck in the Middle Ages.

It seems to me this pope is helping the Church closer to its death. As Oswald Spengler noted, cultures are born, grow, thrive, wane, decay, and die. This culture--the one which started around the 300's A.D. when the emperor Constantine recognized the Catholic Church--is in its death throes. Hopefully this new pope will help to euthanise this old, haggard institution.

Oh, and by the way, they still don't acknowledge the severity of the crimes committed against children in the U.S. by abusive priests. Just so you know where this great church is coming from.

Why Democrats Suck

2005-03-28T12:42:00.000-08:00

Just this past weekend I was reading a story in the "L.A. Times" about our mayoral race. It seems that Rep. Maxine Waters (Democrat) is giving her support in the upcoming election to Anthony Villaraigosa. She says there are various reasons for not supporting the incumbent, Mayor Hahn, but she did state that one of the factors was the fact that Mayor Hahn let go of police chief Bernard Parks.
In case you don't know, Bernard Parks was L.A. police chief a few years ago. The police union had many problems with him while he was chief. During his tenure, in one memorable year, L.A. was the murder capital of the U.S. Most of those murders occurred because of gang warfare in South Central L.A. And, oh yeah, Bernard Parks is black...as is Maxine Waters.
Maxine Waters started a campaign to get voters from South Central to go vote in favor of Anthony Villaraigosa. And remember, the ousting of Bernard Parks is a factor in her support of him.
Does anyone see this as illogical? I'm not a big fan of Mayor Hahn, but I think one of the great decisions he made was to get rid of Bernard Parks. Crime has decreased in our city. If you're a resident of South Central, where many of the murders occurred, I would think you'd be happy that Bernard Parks is gone. But that's not the way things work in L.A. Doesn't it seem like the only reason Maxine Waters is unhappy with the mayor is because he dared to fire a black man from an important position in this city. Even though Chief Parks did not perform his job well, the mayor is obligated to keep him at his job because he is a black man. The vote has not happened yet but I can easily see residents in South Central supporting Anthony Villaraigosa for the same reason. This is ludicrous.
This is yet another example of how brilliantly the Democrats use the race card. They've done it before. Every time Jesse Jackson speaks, every time Bill Clinton is called the first black president of the United States, every time people scorn, insult, and belittle Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, or Clarence Thomas because they are perceived in some circles as "traitors to their race" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), the Democrats show how shallow and ignorant they truly are. And every time a citizen of this country supports those kinds of statements and attitudes, it shows how ignorant we are.

Why the FCC sucks

2005-03-24T10:00:00.000-08:00

When exactly did we give up the right to free speech? If an advertiser who sponsors a program on TV does not want to support a certain show because they think it is offensive, they have every right to do that. Hell, it's their money and their support they are giving. They can do with it what they please. But when the government steps in (FCC) and tells broadcasters what they can or cannot run on TV or radio, then there is a problem. I don't care what parents want, or politically correct citizens who want "what's best for the children," or what right-wing loonies want--this is our government, and whether you like it or not the 1st amendment protects us from being thought-controlled by the government.

Doesn't anyone care? Nobody does a thing about it. We're so afraid of showing a boob on TV or hearing the word "fuck" on radio that we wholeheartedly give away one of our most fundamental rights. When the 3 branches of government, heads of major corporations, taxpayers, voters, and the media is composed entirely of children--then maybe we'll do everything in the interests of children. Until then, I'm sick of passing legislation in the interests solely of children. That's your problem if you're a parent, not mine or anyone else's. Someday soon I hope we are able to have hardcore pornography on regular, basic, no cable TV and the ability to say on radio, "cunt...cunt...cunt...cunt...cunt...cunt," over and over again without fear of reprisal.

Why Republicans Suck

2005-03-22T13:12:00.000-08:00

The supposed ideology of any good conservative in this country is to limit the power of government in our own personal lives. In the case of Terri Schiavo many conservatives are showing just how much they resemble liberals in their insistence that their values are the only ones that matter and that the government should be involved in all of our personal matters. When one looks at what has happened with the Ten Commandments in public places, gay marriage, and now the Terri Schiavo case, it is clearly evident that the lunatic, religious idiots are taking over the Republican party yet again. It is irrelevant what your own personal beliefs are concerning this issue. What is important here is that the current administration feels the need to step into a matter that needs not concern them.
I myself am registered Independent (or in California, "Decline to State"), and this is a perfect example of why that is so. When exactly did we as Americans give up our right to judge for ourselves what we can do with our lives. I don't need the President or the Congress telling me how and when I can die, or who I can marry, nor do I need to be reminded of all the idiotic evangelicals and their disgusting proselytizing for their dumb superstitions. Please! Enough with the self-righteousness already.