Vice Presidential Debate After Thoughts

I have not posted in a while. I may not be even super regular again, but I have to get this off my mind.

Thursday night was the Vice Presidential debates, and they were ugly. At least to my conservative/Republican friends. Biden came off as disrespectful and both Paul Ryan and Joe Biden interrupted each other a lot. Both told lies as well. Whether is Paul Ryan about Iran's current nuclear capabilities or Joe Biden on the events on Libya or omitting that he too voted for the two wars that were paid for by a credit card; it was ugly.

To me it was ugly because it was not a discussion. It was talking points, it was a battle to speak most and correct the other the most. The Moderator was forceful this time, which was good in that all topics were covered but bad in that the candidates were interrupted in the middle of the points they were making. By all conservative accounts (friends or what I have read in the media), it was an ugly hatchet job of a debate.

But then I spoke with some liberal leaning friends, and saw some tweets by liberals, and saw a different picture painted or viewed. They strongly approved Biden's tactic of being forceful and commanding, a stark contrast to when Obama was interrupted a lot and lost the debate the week prior. Because apparently being polite means being stepped on in politics, and looking weak. Where the moderator was firm and put the schedule before talking points of candidates. Strict with the time.

One friend mentioned Obama's politeness and I caught myself thinking how funny it was that no one was saying Obama was just being polite until I wondered if I get caught up in the rhetoric and flow of politics; of just viewing talking points. Of going with the flow.

But I digress, Those who plan on voting for Obama saw the Vice Presidential debate as a great victory, while those favoring Romney saw it as ugly. As no winner because of the constant interruptions, and also due to the perceived disrespect of Biden.

Personally I would prefer a debate where no candidate is allowed to interrupt the other. Where the other can strongly rebut the other when it is their time to speak, with maybe a shorter follow up after. That way it becomes a matter of talking to the American People and not trying to overpower the other. But that may just be me.

Because Conservatives and those who favor Romney loved the first debate because he was masterful, because he too charge, because in the view of Obama supporters, Obama was just being polite. And thus the Liberals loved Biden for being aggressive and not backing down.

And that is precisely what is wrong with this country, with current politics. We have each side shouting things, taking things out of context, lying, aggrandizing statements and making them bigger than we should. But it is not limited to the campaigns themselves. It is considered a miracle these days if a congressional bill gets bi-partisan support. And even worse, we as Americans refuse to listen. We don't listen to the other side, we mock, we deride. When watching debates we make fun of the candidate we don't like for something slightly or not-so slightly untrue or not to our liking. We make fun of others for being in the opposite party.

Yes, we should be able to express our views, our opinions. But it seems like we are unable to do so without criticizing those with opposite views. Even a simple status reminding people that a particular day is the last day to register to vote can get a trollish reply by someone of a differing mindset saying they are going to vote for a candidate they know I do not intend to vote for.

And then we complain at how Congress cannot get anything done when we cannot communicate among ourselves peaceably, without mocking others not of our viewpoint.

Which is why this debate in particular has turned me off to politics like it does to so many others. Because things are only going to get much worse in the weeks to come.

So excuse me while I go hide and cry in a corner, because something a brother of mine said rings true; it doesn't matter who wins the debate, we lose as a people regardless. For we will have learned nothing, for none of the campaigning or debates will make us want to be better people. Just either strive to fight for our preferred candidate or stay quietly out of the limelight.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Dear Trump,

To my good sir Donald Trump,

From the looks of things, you are aiming to be president. Maybe you're tired of being dirt rich and want the power of being president. Granted, having never watched your tv shows or followed how you do business, I don't know much about you. What I do know is that as a presidential candidate you have failed to make a good impression on me. Maybe you think only die-hard republicans are following what you say and do since it is the conventions that choose the party candidate and thus you are only speaking to them. Besides the fact that I find the primary system ridiculously broken, focusing for a year on one group of the American people is not a good thing to do.

Back to my point, if your idea of leadership is attacking our current president on his nationality and whether he went to college or not, then count me out. I see leadership as finding solutions to problems, not attacking current leaders. Thus far you have said nothing that strikes me more than a panderer to the Tea Party Republican right. Nor do I care if you have more money than Romney. How much money you have is not a measure for leadership either.

Of course, since all you have done in life is satisfy the shareholder, if that is how you see politics and leadership, then there is no chance that I will vote for you. Plus, there is the fact that when it comes to corporation and writing laws to protect the public that you probably can't be neutral. But maybe you can surprise me.

My advice however is to stop this nonsense and let someone with real ideas and leadership run.

Election Night Rant

I am sure everyone has watched the news, I am sure everyone sees what is going on. And honestly, I am sick of the story that is being spun, cause nothing is how it is being portrayed.



The straight fact of the matter is that many journalists, and the Republican party treat this as a referendum against Obama, against his administration and his policies. But franky, I doubt it is him that they are frustrated about. I mean joblessness is high, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, the value of the dollar is falling... And instead of saying that people are frustrated with what is happening, or not happening as the case may be, Republicans are controlling the message and saying Obama and the Democrats are to blame. People like Sarah Palin; who haven't done well in office, who lie, who avoid the press and won't allow themselves to be subjected to scrutiny are taking over the media, taking over the mesage. On CNN it is a little better than Fox, but the Republicans are controlling the message by downplaying how bad things were in 2008, and being the party that has been sore about losing power for the past two years. Because honestly, that is true. They have opposed almost every major piece of legislation, any passing of it nearly impossible, or very hard to pass. Yes, there are some bad things in the legislation, like the mandate that requires everyone to purchase insurance; but there are also some good things too such as pre-existing conditions being done away with. Or will be when the full legislation goes into affect. Nor are Democrats innocent either; I'm sure more could have been done to be bi-partisan and there may have been some attempts. But that's not the point. The point that is being made on the news isn't that Congress will be partisan, it's the Republicans essentially gloating that they won, that this is referendum against Obama and that it is essentially their way or the highway. Yes, having a balanced Congress is good, I am not complaining about that; but the attitude I see particularly of the Republican party; where they have been anti-Democrat, anti-Obama since day one and nothing that I see being said about that indicates any sort of change.



And the ironic thing, I am watching CNN, watching John Boehner talk and I find it funny that he is saying that change will come to Washington, that things will be reformed. Cause that is what Obama said when he was running for president. Also the other sneaky thing he said, he said that the President sets the agenda of the government. Meaning that Republicans are not taking responsibility if things don't improve the next two years, and will point fingers to Obama. Politics as normal.



What is frustrating is the USA chants, making the other side, the Democrats, out to be the enemy. What is frustrating is that this is just politics, horrible politics, as usual. I listen to what is said and the Republicans are being cocky, saying they are ready to lead, saying that this election is a message to Obama to change course. It is politics, pure and simple, entertainment. All show.All about power. And it is both parties. Yes, there are candidates out there on both sides who genuinely want what is best for their voters; but in some Democrats, and a great majority of republicans, I don't see that. I see neither side willing to admit that they made a mistake, neither side say that they erred. Apparently we the people, or the news networks, don't allow for our congressmen to be wrong, and voting and blindly following your party and defending it with the utmost loyalty is the most common thing I see in politics and the stupidest.



But to get back to the point, about the message tonight, because honestly, if the Republican party wanted to lead, they would have done so. They would have worked more with the Democrats during the past two years, they would not have been the party of no, or been upset about losing power, or making this about a vote against Obama; they would have worked more with the Democrats, would have realized how America voted and worked with what they had. And it goes for both parties to a certain extent, but honestly; watching the polls, watching what is said depresses me. Cause it doesn't seem like things will change. Yes, things will have to be more partisan because of the change in power, but honestly, all I see tonight is more of what is said by every politician, the same thing. No real change. Just a game of musical chairs with the same idiots running around in circles.


And so here I am, watching the polls, watching news coverage, and just being depressed that even though congress has changed; it really hasn't.

Sarah Palin Declares She is the Prophet Tiresias!

Late Tuesday evening Governor Drop-out Sarah Palin declared her ability to see the future like the blind prophet of Greek Mythology; Tiresias. By declaring that she can see November, she declares that she is more than the mortal coil that we peonic humans see her as; she is able to glance upon the 4th dimension and relate what she sees.

Notwithstanding the criticism of of such claims, one only need look around to see that Sarah Palin is indeed the Prophet Tiresias, for while able to see future events, she is blind to that which is around her. One only needs to look at the book that is written by her, and the writings upon her hand to tell that Sarah-Tiresias Palin cannot see reality for what it really is.

Nor should Democrats fear the power of her prophesy. After all, just look at the tragedy of Oedipus and Antigone to know that by listening to such words results in incest, eye gouging and other depravities.

So rest assured Americans, despite Palin's claim to see into the 4th dimension, it won't land her the White House. Just a seat on Jerry Springer.

That One Arizona Bill

So that one Arizona Bill passed and has people up in a grand hullabaloo about things like racial profiling being allowed and whatnot when it comes to finding out the legality of illegal immigrants and all. Many claim racism, many claim racial profiling will be used. Until a few days ago, I had not read the bill, which can be found here.

Anyways, as far as immigration goes, I think the system is broken overall, the system to allow people in. Obviously when amnesty has been granted twenty or so years before and it is being talked about again, it means the something is wrong. But this post isn't about the ethics of illegal immigration per se, it is about the bill that has been passed.

As far as the the law, I disagree with racial profiling people to boot them out of the country just because they are illegal. The fact that there are 12 million plus illegal immigrants who take jobs most Americans don't want, how they're trying to make a living and all doesn't mean they should be booted just because they didn't get in the processing line to move here. Again, there are many factors and this post is more about the Arizona Bill and less about illegal immigration. So when I heard about the bill, an Arizonian said that things like out of state license plates, thick accents or their inability to speak English could be means to determine if someone is illegal, which I don't think necessarily serve as a good measuring stick to find out if someone is here illegally. But that is the hearsay talking points of the bill, of how everyone understands it, or how at least the Media portrays the bill as a license to check every Hispanic in Arizona to see if they are illegal immigrants and boot them out. Again, I don't think that just because someone is here illegally, they should be booted out if found out.

But from reading the bill, here is what I, some average Joe college student can determine about the bill:

Section 2, Article B says that,

"Where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person" and will verify with the Federal government the immigrant's status.

This is probably part of the bill that gives most people concern, reasonable suspicion. What is reasonable suspicion, how is it determined? I disagree strongly with this part of the bill because I don't think illegal immigration itself is bad for the country. The system needs to be fixed and simplified so people can enter. Make it less expensive to get a visa, to become a citizen. So honestly, I don't think an officer who suspects that someone is an illegal immigrant should be able to check to their status. Nor do I think that the officer should be able to take into custody anyone who is unlawfully present in the country, which is what the following allows:

Section 2, Article D: "...A law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency's custody to a federal facility in this state..."

Now this last part I am iffy about:

Section 2, Article E: "A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may 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 united states."

Again, talking to Gio_s, I found out that before the law was written, officers of the law could not deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes. So while I agree that if an illegal immigrant commits a serious crime they should be deported, I think that the wording of "Any public offense" is too vague. There needs to be some qualification on what they can be deported for, because speeding could be construed as a public offense (I am not sure, I am assuming. I am not a law student) and they could be deported for that. So I think a qualifier has to be added in, so it isn't any public offense, but stuff like class 1 misdemeanors or the like. Something serious like breaking and entering.

What I do like about the bill though are these:

Section 2, Article C: "If an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed, the alien shall be transferred immediately to the custody of the united states immigration and customs enforcement"

Again, my last statement already talks about transferring illegal immigrants imprisoned to be deported, but the part about any fine bothers me. A parking violation fine or something small should not mean someone is deported. There needs to be a qualifier added in for how or when to deport people.

Section 2, Article J: "This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of united states citizens."

This is good that it is stated, I think it means it will assume everyone is a citizen of the United States. I am not sure about this, honestly and I wonder how the reasonable suspicion declaration would mesh with this. I mean, if an officer pulls you over for speeding, you should give him your identification, but where does reasonable suspicion come into play in other situations? Is it lawful for a police officer to stop someone walking down a street and ask them for identification if they suspect that person is an illegal immigrant? So I am curious how the two would interact without negating or side stepping this provision.

Section 3, Article B, sub section 1 and 2: "In the enforcement of this section, the final determination of an alien's immigration status shall be determined by either: 1. a law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status. 2. a law enforcement officer or agency communicating with the united states immigration and customs enforcement"

This I like because it ensures that a police officer or department has to work with the federal government. They cannot just decide to deport someone they think or believe is an immigrant. They have to confer with the federal government in finding out the legal status and on what to do. Nothing in this bill says that that state can deport someone without the federal government's say so. So this I like and agree with.

And then there is Section 4, Article E which says that police officers can pull over anyone who violates civil traffic laws. On a first glance, one should think that "Duh, any officer should do this", but on second glance I read the part that says, "NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW..." and wonder if a police officer can pull over a diplomat or someone with diplomatic immunity.

So while I like the bits where it firmly states that if an illegal immigrant commits a crime that they can be deported, I think it is too "all or nothing" when it comes to immigrants, in that it gives officers of the peace the power to check the citizenship status of anyone they suspect as being an illegal immigrant, and the ability to confer with and deport any illegal immigrant. As stated above, I think some qualifiers need to be in place in determining who can be deported, because I don't think it feasible in terms of costs of determining illegal status and deporting, nor do I think illegal immigration is entirely bad for the country as it means 12 million more people buying things, paying sales tax, doing jobs most Americans don't want, and other things of that sort.

That Pesky Glass Ceiling

A few weeks ago the Daily Universe had a front page article about Sarah Palin and while I think she is a loon who should not be given attention, there is something else that I would like to address; the glass ceiling.

All during the 2008 democratic primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton spoke of breaking that glass ceiling, as if being president would mean that equality in the work place and in the culture has been equalized. Susan Merrill, of the aforementioned linked article, said that Sarah Palin has come close to breaking the glass ceiling as well.

Frankly, I think this is bull. I am not so sure there is a glass ceiling. Why? Cause female politicians are elected. They run for office. They are in House of Representatives, The Senate, the Supreme Court and run fairly for president. Is there a disparancy in congress about the number of women elected vs the number of men? Women held 15% of the seats in congress in 2006 I believe. But does that necessarily mean that there is a gender inequality?

I think that since more women and more women are running, that no, it does not mean there is gender inequality. Which is why I think that glass ceiling was probably shattered when Senator Clinton ran for the presidency. She was allowed to run, and no one maligned her for being a woman. She was not treated unfairly by the candidates. Maybe there were some negative stereotypical ads from a small group, but not by the opponents.

So from my point of view, the glass ceiling has been shattered. Shattered and mocked, depending on how you view certain vice presidential picks... But regardless, Senator Clinton ran and was close to winning. She didn't lose the Democratic primary because she was a woman, she lost because more people voted for Obama. Even during the vice presidential debate, Joe Biden could have trounced and ripped Sarah Palin a new one, based on her politics. But he didn't. Doing so would have played in McCain's hands who was using Palin to win the election. In that case, since Biden went easy on her, the glass ceiling was existent, for fear of looking like a sexist.

But regardless, women can run for political office and can have any job they chose. Yes, there are some wage discrepancies, but those are being solved slowly.

So with all that in mind, if a female politician mentions breaking the glass ceiling, I take it to mean that one her arguments for being elected is because she is a woman, and is just using it as a political ploy.

At least, those are my thoughts on it.

That One Health Care Bill.

First off, I don't know much about the health care bill, I don't know what it all entails. I do support such legislation that eliminates pre-existing conditions when it comes to paying for health care. I am not sure where I stand on a public option, at the very least I do not think it can be afforded at the moment.

But there is at least one deal breaker that I think is dumb and qualifies the legislation to not be passed. H.R. 3590 section 5000A: REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.

You heard me, we will be mandated to have health insurance. We will have to tell the IRS and if we do not have health insurance, then we will be penalized at least $750 or so.

We should not have to be forced to have insurance. The government has no right to force us to obtain insurance. If someone who can afford insurance does not get insurance and gets sick and has to foot a large bill, that is their decision and they have to live by the consequences. And if someone cannot afford insurance, well that is what the health care bill should be for. So it is affordable. Not to be charged for it.

That is my opinion on things, and I do not think it should be passed. Do what republicans suggest and build it up again from scratch, or build a new bill out of pieces of this bill, but with this and other questionable sections of the bill, the bill should not be passed.

Weird Dreams

There was some type of press conference going on. It must have been in Utah, or rather in Povo because I saw many people in my ward there. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, Steve Jobs and some other politician. There was some talk going on about the Ipad or the the Ipod and connecting it to National Security and Foreign policy. Do not ask me how, but that was what was being discussed. Friends were joking around, not really listening, but I was listening and thinking of some question to raise about the Ipad, but I could not think of an intelligent reason for some reason.

The press conference ended, and my friends are gone. I leave to my car and drive to where I grew up in Kearns, and I see Hilary Clinton yet. I decide to ask her something, I asked her about Iran and Israel. I asked Clinton that if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities and Iran declares war on Israel, if we would go to war with Israel. Hilary Clinton said yes. I replied that was dumb.

And then the dream ended.

Violent Protesting

There is something that I have been thinking about since Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building last week. It is not a question of terror, at least I do not think so. But that is not the point.

Reading Stack's manifesto online, he expresses the frustrations that many of us feel. The same outrages that many feel about how Government is ineffective, how Wall Street was bailed out, frustrations about taxes and just how the government does not serve the people, but rather the rich executives and businesses.

We all joke about it, about the elections, about government on one level or another. And while I do not agree with Stack in deciding to try and end human life, I see his point. When I first heard about Stack and his flight into a building, I thought of Shays' Rebellion, the rebellion in 1787 where a lot of farmers rose up against the government under the Articles of Confederation. In fact, because of the rebellion, it helped show some of the flaws of the Articles of Confederation and led to the Constitution being written.

Although I do not agree with using violence, Shays and his fellow farmers used force to close the court houses so judges could not order the collection of debts. Although I am not sure if the tax situation was resolved promptly, Shays did prove a point. In fact he and his rag tag team of farmers were all pardoned in 1788.

Thomas Jefferson said in regards to the rebellion that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

And so while looking at that aspect, I think that Joseph Stack has a point. Yes, it is criminal what he did, and I do not think it was correct to fly a plane into a building, it does not surprise me either. Sooner or later people are going to transition from peaceful protests to violence. If the Government does not restore its image, restore the faith that people place in government, sooner or later armed protests will take place.

So what of Joseph Stack? Yes, his action was wrong, but what about what he wrote? as I wrote above, many agree with many of the concepts he stated. Many have the frustrations that Stack had. The difference between Stack and the majority of the American people is that Stack lost hope in the political process, while most of America still believe things will improve.

I guess my point in writing this is that there is a fine line between patriotic and criminal. Cause certainly Stack's intentions were as noble as those who have proceeded us in the cause for freedom. The wrong execution, obviously, but the message is still true. Something has to change.

So I guess the only question is, when will thing change?

(And feel free to comment and tell me I am wrong. I enjoy all opinions)

There Once Was...

There once was a woman,
A woman red through and through
who thought we should bomb
those who would do us harm.

Not a drone missile or two
but a nuke, or a few.
And in all seriousness said,
their country should be made
into a parking lot.

Nothing could be said
to turn her from the red.
Just inward groaning
and maybe a chuckle or two.

You're Not Listening!

To the Democrats and Obama supporters that were in the House of Chambers last night when President Obama gave his State of the Union speech,

Were any of you really listening to anything Obama said? Or were you merely clapping at every pause of breath that Obama took? Was it a chance to get up and stretch your legs?

Yes, you may have well been listening to some parts Obama said, and you all do not deserve entirely what I just said, but sometimes I think you just clap because Obama is up and speaking.

Starting at the 39 minute mark or so, Obama said,

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.

And the crazy thing is Democrats and Obama supporters? You all stood up and applauded President Obama for saying that. Obama said we are in a financial hole, a huge financial hole, and you applaud that statement? What in that statement was applause worthy, honestly? Was it because you somehow viewed that statement as Obama bashing the previous administration?

Honestly, it is these moments where you applaud Obama for saying we are in massive debt that to me, you do not seem to be listening. It is embarrassing.

Which is why many people don't have much confidence in Government, because politicians seem to blindly follow and support their respective political party more than they serve the people who elected them and they represent.

So honestly, I hope honestly that one of my congressmen was not there cheering at the moment, because I now question your intelligence for cheering then.

So that is my little rant. Oh, and you republicans, you don't get off the hook so easily. None of you seemed to applaud at all. You all were seated in stoic silence, or the occasional boo. Except for that one senator who clearly stood up because everyone around him had stood up and pity clapped Obama for a second or two and just stood there. You don't fool me either. You made me laugh actually.

So kudos to both parties, you either clap like blind fools or not at all. Actually, everyone may have been clapping at the end, it was hard to tell with the camera angles. So actually Republicans, you at least have the decency to clap at the end instead of at every pause Obama had.

So I just had to say that, because incessant clapping is annoying, especially when you clap at the wrong things to clap at.

New Template

So a quick explanation for you all, I support the Green Revolution. I want help out the Iranians who do not have a voice, whose votes where not counted, who are protesting the votes, who are starting to overthrow their dictatorship.

So I changed my blog layout to signal my support. Sorry if it annoys you.

And if anyone knows of any way to help out more, such as setting up remote servers for Iranians or something like that, let me know. I want to help.

Funny Protest Signs

I saw these here: 50 Best Protest signs of 2009. I just thought I would share some that I found funny.

There goes my AYBABTU hopes of salvation...

I agree. That was an awesome show.

Wait, if we spend Congress to the moon, and we declared war on the moon, have we declared war on Congress?

Also, don't we pay taxes for sewage? If we do, we already are taxed for peeing...

Enough said.

 

Just made me laugh is all.

A Little of Obama's Speech Tonight

Yeah, I'm delving a little into Obama's speech here. Just a little of my thoughts on it. I'm not going to go into a full analytical discussion to persuade you to believe one thing or another. I'm not that into politics, I don't hope to ever be that into politics and will run from it. I like to be informed and get involved locally. That's it.

If you didn't watch Obama's speech, I suggest you read his speech so you know first hand of what was said and generate your own opinion before reading or listening to other sources. Find out what was said then listen to the analytical discussions of it.

I think it was a well written speech. He gave a time line of our occupation of Afghanistan, with an emphasis that because the Taliban would not hand over Bin Laden, because they refused to cooperate, we invaded and were unified. It was not like Iraq where we had false information of Nukes and went in. We were all for it. I think on some level or another, that is important to remember. That we, as a nation, were unified in wanting to kick Al-Qaeda's butt.

So given that and the 8 years of occupying Afghanistan, we are sending 30,000 more soldiers to help with nation building. There are clear time lines and objectives. Whether or not they are feasible is not something I can reasonably analyze. But we're trying at least.

As for what is not said, or can be read between the lines, I think is this: President Obama has studied this issue long and hard, despite Cheney and others saying he was dithering, he studied the issue out, he took his time to read into it. And he has so much more information that he cannot share because of their classified nature. We cannot leave now because we have a responsibility to at least try and help the Afghan government to grow. We haven't done that. But Obama also let know those in Afghanistan that they are to take up responsibility, that we will be leaving.

I think it is a good time line. I think, politically, it is good for Obama too. If it does succeed, then it means we would have drastically ended an 8 year conflict, right around the campaign season too. So if it goes well, it benefits him. It benefits us as a nation because we don't lose face. We give it one more try, and if it fails and we pull out, we pull out because we gave it our all. And if it succeeds, it means Al-Qeada is scattered more, the government secured, the people safer.

Anyways, that is all I am going to say. There are tactics and all sorts of information that hasn't been told to us, nor do I think it will be told any time soon, but I think because of how we have handled Afghanistan, and our responsibilities, we cannot just withdraw. We also cannot stay forever.

So yeah, read his speech. Educate yourselves. Do it!

The Ending of an Era

The parting of a curtain,
The glimmer of hope,
A ray of sunshine.

For nearly a quarter decade
Suffering, tyranny, mind control
Things that just seemed to be

An empire. Controlling and inflating worth
Downward spirals, control
Control, control control

But today...
A new dawn breaks. A glimmer of hope.
A tearing of the great scarlet curtain.

For it was on this day that the news broke.
The toppling of an empire, the end of tyranny

The day people were free.
Free to think for themselves.
Not to be told what to do
Or who to vote for

All because of who said endorsed it,
But now people look, with hope.
Hope of a new future without such Tyranny.

For this is the day that Oprah Winfrey announced her resignation. The day that hope sprung forth into the world again.

And it was a good day.

The Sutherland Insitute, Asexualism, and You.

With the two Salt Lake ordinances that passed this week granting work protection rights to gays, and with the LDS/Mormon Church backing them, you think all would be happy in Utah, right? Not so, one group, the Sutherland Group, disagrees. Upon hearing their representative talk, you'd think they're speaking out against gay rights equality.

Not so. If look into the bad grammar and oddly placed logic, you'll see that they're suggesting something else entirely:

Sexual orientation is an illusion. Your idea of rights is an illusion. Your equality is illusory.

"Sexual orientation is an illusion". Apparently the Sutherland institute believes we're all supposed to be asexual. This is further apparent by their statement,

It only exists in the minds of activists, and their academics, who need to explain away why people do what they do even when they don't want to do it.

So, according to Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute, he has no sexual orientation and believes that there should be no sexual orientation at all. He's either a cyborg with robotic manly bits, or he's completely asexual. Although the more logical answer would be that he's a cyborg, his states,

The truth is that we are born male and female with moral agency.

See! He says we're all born male AND female. Not 'Male or Female', but 'and'. Clearly that means he is arguing that only asexual humans have rights.

Of course, it doesn't help that he contradicts his asexual argument by saying,

Because it's behavior, our sexuality is always a choice, and any other sexual construct is an illusion.

Of course he could just be saying that heterosexuality and homosexuality are both illusions. That's probably it. He thinks everyone who isn't asexual is actually holographically projecting their sexual behavior, since they aren't asexual.

And, as a follow-up Mero said,

Your idea of rights is an illusion. With the backing of every miserable misanthropic philosopher of the post-Enlightenment era, your initiative feeds on the unreasonable notion that you have these magically organic rights to do whatever you desire.

Clearly the only explanation is that Mero is Morpheus, an asexual cybernetic humanoid who is subtly informing us of the Matrix that we live in, and that we're all an illusion because we aren't asexual. It has nothing to do with his views on homosexuality or that a gay person could view heterosexuality as an illusion, it's that we're all battery-like slaves and he wants to set us free.

I think we should listen to the man, cause I can't wait to asexually split with myself.

Political Hypocrisy

This is going to be short, but when watching the news and reading some News Stories about the Health Care Bill passing in the House, it was mentioned that Catholic Popes are directly influencing House Representatives. In fact, Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania told CNN that He must have approval from his Catholic Bishop before he can vote yes on the bill.

Now what sort of political hypocrisy is this? Catholic Bishops can directly affect legislation, can directly influence politicians and no one says a thing about it, but the LDS/Mormon Church asks it's members to donate money to Prop8, to fight what they see as a moral dilemma, and everyone gets outraged?

Come on. This is a load of bull. Really it is. There is clearly a double standard going on here, a severe double standard. Yes, I understand that people are upset because they see the LDS Church as "Voting on their marriage" and sticking their beliefs in the legal system and all that, but when Health Care Reform is being voted on, something that will actually affect the quality of life and so much more, nothing is said when the Catholic Church directly influences Congressional Representatives to vote yes or no on a bill.

I am so glad our nation is full of a bunch of hypocrites. I really am.

Provo's Mayor and City Council Elections

Tonight, I had the opportunity to attend the Provo Mayoral and City Council Debate. I unfortunately was late to the Mayoral debate, but from what I can tell, between John Curtis and Steve Clark, that I prefer Curtis. Clark was talking about 2.5 emissions that cause the flu during this cold weather, which from what I can see by a few quick google searches, is bull. I unfortunately don't have much to share.

As far as the City Council goes, it was a wonderful debate. I fortunately was joined by a friend who helped understand a bit more of the issues, which greatly helped me.
But, from the debate today, here is the rundown: You have three city council positions up for vote; The District 2, District 5 and the City wide seat.

The debate overall for the city council was fairly played, everyone had their time at the mic and there was not political mud-rucking, except for District 5. In District 5 you have Sterling Beck and Cindy Richards. Cindy Richards, unfortunately, could not be there as an emergency occurred with her husband, so a supporter of hers filled in for her. But even so, it seems that Sterling Beck is just running to slam the city council for past mistakes (real or unreal), and especially to slam on Cindy Richards. He didn't say anything that really stood out, as he was always pointing out stuff that Cindy Richards has maybe failed to do, and his proposals to do so. He doesn't sound like someone I'd really want to vote for, especially after implying that the many on the city council are elitist. Honestly, from reading his web site and listening to him, he sounds like a wannabe, toned down, Superdell.

From what I have heard about Cindy Richards though, is that she isn't for students. Her representative talked about putting families in homes and cleaning up homes, but although that sounds good, basically it implies converting homes that college students live in to be family houses. So I don't agree with her on that.

For District 2, there is David Acheson and Rick Healey. Both seem like really good, experienced dudes who will do their best to improve Provo. Acheson appeals to me more in demeanor I think. So unfortunately for those of you who live in District 2, I don't have much information for you. Although, Acheson did say something that greatly caught my attention; he proposed to work with the student governments of BYU and UVU, get them involved in decisions that affect the city and students. I think that is a great idea. The city council should totally do that.

Now, for City-wide council there is Coy D. Porter and Laura Cabanilla. Both are well experienced for the position, Porter highlighting his strength in budgeting while he was a firefighter, getting grants and stuff for fire engines without asking the city for money. However, in terms of parking, he proposes a one bed to one car ratio for apartment complexes. He clearly favors overnight parking fees.
Cabanilla, on the other hand, is more assertive and appears to be more of a people person. She looks beyond budgets (well, made the joke about budgets being boring after Porter spoke) and wants the community and students to be more involved.

And, overall, they were all vague on how they want to improve downtown Provo. They all want it be historic, preserving the history of the city, but inviting business in. So I'm unsure how they want to accomplish that.

That's about as far as I can remember from tonight's debate. You all should check out their respective websites, and vote on Tuesday!

Brief Nobel Prize Thoughts

So it's been a week or two since Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. People were generally upset that Obama got it, since he hasn't done a whole lot to merit the award, but upon thinking about it, why are we all making fun of Obama and being upset with him for winning the Nobel Peace Prize?

Yes, he doesn't deserve it, but he didn't ask for it either. If news reports of his reaction are to be trusted; Obama was genuinely surprised that he got it. So because of that, it just makes little sense to be mad at Obama for being award a, until now, highly coveted and prestigious award.

Yes, there's the politics of it all to make fun of Obama, but shouldn't all this anger, all the jokes be at the Nobel Committee?

Think about it, they're the ones who gave Obama the award, knowing he hasn't done anything to get it yet. They gave it to him, with the hope that it would help him resolve the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So shouldn't all the jokes, and anger be at the Nobel Committee? Because they're the ones who stepped out of the process to the award, and gave to someone who has barely began to influence the world. They're the ones tarnishing the name and prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize, so why not point at them and laugh, rather than point at Obama and say he hasn't accomplished anything when we knew all along that he has still a ways to go get stuff done?

It just makes no sense to me. So for my part, instead of making fun or being angry at Obama for something he had no power over, I'm going to make fun of the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Committee.


It's only fair. They need someone to get on them for awarding to Obama, and so thus will my attitude be until they take the Nobel from Obama, or at least concede that they should not have given it to him.

It's only fair. Right?

We Must be Crazy

Let me get this straight... President Obama is supposed to select someone to be a Supreme Court judge to uphold the laws of the land and defend the constitution right? And Congress is supposed to grill her to ascertain her position on a variety of issues and see if she a capable person, able to review cases with the certain neutrality, poise, knowledge and ability to review cases that come to the supreme court, right?

My question is then, WHY ON BLAZES ARE WE SERIOUSLY THINKING OF ALLOWING SOTOMAYOR BECOME A SUPREME COURT JUDGE?!!!!!!

I was watching her confirmation hearing, and from her own mouth she said that she doesn't consider the second amendment right to bear arms a fundamental right to our society. And furthermore, she said that the second amendment doesn't apply to state and local governments. To re-emphasize she believes that THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

Which means, in her opinion, that state and local governments can restrict gun ownership all they want. Bull!

This of course came from a case where a lawsuit came before her that she dismissed, that challenged the owning of nun chucks. This isn't a direct quote or anything, but she said they were allowed to be banned because swinging them around can break someone's arm or give someone a concussion. So, shooting someone tickles then?

She can easily apply her decision on nun-chucks to guns.

So my question is, why are we letting Congress make someone a supreme court judge who essentially doesn't believe in the second amendment? Have we really fallen that far now? Honestly people!

/Rant over