odd noises in my head

the ongoing distress of a non-violent anarchist in an unabashedly violent capitalist republic ...

2006-08-26T01:36:00.000-07:00

not quite a year, but close. not that i give a fuck how much time passes between the bullshit i enter into this journal. i don't.

i have decided that, without debate, republicanism is second only to despotism in worst possible governments. of course, this is under the assumption that a monarchy can, at times, be called despotism. but outside of those times, it is a superior form of government to republicanism.

i don't really care to offer supporting evidence. so ... yeah, fuck off on that one. i can, though, ramble on about some of the natural faults of the republican system. the primary of said faults certainly being the illusion cast unto the citizens of the republic that they live in a democratic society, or even a society that aspires toward democracy.

think of it as such, votes in this nation are cast for one of two options, whether on measure or on public servant. there cannot be a democracy, by definition, if there are only two parties in power. such a notion stands as an assumption that all citizens fall within two groups. (other than by gender ... the separation by which would actually be far more democratic, for what it's worth. as if we simply voted by gender and not party, there would be a balance of power between the two and a far more representative diversity in each camp.)

i mean, if given only two choices, are you really fucking free?

not that i give a fuck about that shit either. i am not sure it is even wise to trust anyone who is not an anarchist, or a libertarian at least. that which stands between an intelligent man and anarchism is a general distrust of his fellow human beings. i make no attempt to see into the hearts and minds of women, but just note that i have noticed that trustable women are more often given to libertarianism than men of the same worth are.

this distrust of human beings, though, represents a profound and broad gap between our present society and a utopian society (or at least world peace on a realistic level). people believe that others are not trustable, and that laws and governments keep those people in place -- preventing them (to a certain extent) from committing crimes against the well being of others.

of course, if those people were simply wrong, as i assert, than i would imagine one might suggest there would be no crime. alas, this is a false suggestion ... and for that matter, the reason one should not trust someone who does not lean toward anarchism as a general philosophy. the problem is that those who do not trust others lack in trust because they know their own hearts.

fundamentally, i suppose i am asking how one can trust someone who does not trust them in return. of course, that doesn't fucking matter anyway.

i am just saying that it's hard to convince yourself that you live in a democratic society when you are forced to vote for cocksuckers who don't even trust you. you certainly can't convince yourself that you have representation in washington. and what the fuck do i care about washington either?

i am convinced, however, that it is best to just imagine that wherever you go is an autonomous collective with a democratically elected local governing body to maintain the infrastructure. at the same time, one must ignore all laws, and act only on one's moral intuition. at least, that seems to work for me as a way to pacify my own growing disillusionment.

what i am really saying here is that the government of the united states is a sick despotism, and the citizens of the republic are so void of critical thought that they can't even see it. and one doesn't really need to look beyond the prison system and statistics to find supporting evidence.

of course, one must also eventually accept that not everyone wants anarchism, and the cornerstone of anarchism demands that one not be forced into something they do not want. a simple but seemingly insurmountable obstacle.

and moreover, oft times one finds anarchists who do not aspire toward anarchism at all, but rather some sort of chaotic and unappealing general anarchy. where they think they would find popular support for such a notion is beyond me itself, still they soil the ideals of democracy, autonomy, and liberty.

i do, though, believe in an anarchism that can accept individualism and collectivism, as well as a reasonable notion of property ownership for rural people who have only known said property as a means to identify themselves. in that, i am saying that poor people in urban areas equate property ownership with the evils of society because they have never known property ownership. conversely, poor rural folk think of themselves in terms of the property that they own, and have been forced to spend most of their lives fighting off the advances of the authoritarian regime on that property.

certainly the concept of property rights has been the downfall of society, and is beyond any doubt the root of the violence that plagues our world. it is property taxes that pay for virtually all of the violence, except for the violence in pursuit of capital -- itself based on the notion that laws established to protect property serve the purpose of making lawlessness profitable and leaving virtue without value. violence is little more than a physical manifestation of capitalism, and will only intensify the further away society moves from its humanity.

i will find pictures later.

i toed the line, and the line won ...

2005-11-29T00:02:00.000-08:00

there is certainly a delicate balance in the nature of government, at least one that i have never seemed to feel at ease with. and through this, i am always led back to my anarchism rather than a want to embrace socialism, though at the same time i am more at ease with the liberals than my fellow conservatives.

really, my problem with conservatives is the tax issue -- and it's really a fundamental issue. by virtue of my anarchistic roots, i fully believe that government should be as small as possible. in fact, i would suggest that any level of government is going to lead to a consistent balance in the favor of corruption over productivity (using some socratic logic, i call that balance 60/40 or closer).

but the motive has to be, honestly, less government and less that the corrupt can use to get their feet in the door of power in the united states. being that the united states is the most powerful nation in the world, it is essential that no one political aim should have power. this, though, is not the problem now. the problem now is an unholy alliance between warring factions. i do not believe that george bush and donald rumsfeld are from the same school of thought.

i am concerned that when conservatives have money, motives quickly evolve. one could, and should, argue that to have more is to fear your government more. certainly i have nothing, and fear my government not at all -- despite my distrust in the system at large. so in one sense, that argument would hold water. and to that extent, i do not doubt that the begotten child of conservative values and wealth has some conservativism left in it.

i am saying that i believe that mainstream conservatives would prefer to pay less taxes, and have the government protect their increased value to an increased degree. that would be getting your pussy and eating it too, and i can't help but want to salt that game.

ideally, we would want a system that allowed for power to center around the more naturally powerful individuals, and the residual powers be balanced evenly throughout society. in that, two weaker individuals would hold equal weight, and a more powerful individual would have both more responsibilities and a natural authority over them.

a natural authority is distinguished from other authorities in that it is not dictated by writ but rather assumed via common respect. in that, i am saying that to have a true authority, your jurisdiction must only encompass those who fully endorse the authority.

a natural power, therefore, is an authority that encompasses those who do not endorse it.

there are two significant reasons that i can think of for power to be centered around the naturally powerful ones, whom also receive the natural authority. the first of these reasons is in the mentality of those who possess natural power.

there is a common mentality among weaker individuals to try and gain power via intimidation. you see this most common in a smaller dog -- thus labeling it the "small dog" mentality -- in how it relates to the other mammals ... whom it fears. small dogs act in haste, with straw defenses, and without the means to enforce.

those who have had natural power all their lives are more comfortable with authority. they are far less likely to use it with the same tendencies as the small dogs.

the second reason is that if one wishes to challenge authority, the authority should have the natural power to enforce itself over the challengers. this is because the primary agreement between the governed and the government is physical protection.

that leads to the dilemma. if you first enter into this governing agreement, and you know full well that you will have a nearly 60/40 balance of corruption and productivity, then don't you have to endorse more authority, leading to more productivity, and causing more corruption until you have a payout in productivity that makes the corruption tolerable. the logic being that 6 dominating 4 is bad, 60 dominating 40 is less bad, and 60 million dominating 40 million is not so bad. the dilemma is an avoid/approach. approach ideal productivity and avoid an intolerable level of corruption.

that's a really complicated way of saying that if you give into the evil that is government, then shouldn't you get the most out of it as is practical? so ultimately, i would prefer no government, but any government should not be content until it has pleased all who endorse its authority.

i am not sure what i think of this, i am going to have to read over it tomorrow.

it could have been this simple ...

2005-11-01T04:02:00.000-08:00

bush had always been called stupid. he knew that's what people said, and he knew he was a lot smarter than they thought. laura was all he really needed anyway. she was the one that saw him through the darkest times. fuck cheney. that fat bastard was using him to bring his fat bastard dreams to fruition.

george thought about everything for a second, as he rose from his uncomfortable (or too comfortable?) bed in the west wing, and looked down on laura's naked body. he knew he was still in love with her. and he knew that she wouldn't take this shit, if she were standing in his shoes.

he thought the leak had been the straw that broke the camel's back. sure, the war in iraq was his idea. but he knew he didn't need a lot to go to war. he was a simple man, sure, but he read the art of war, and understood the aggression of alphas. but he didn't really understand time.

time is so simple in theory. but something is lost in the translation from the watch to the real experience. dick cheney seemed to understand time. and george stood there thinking about how he thought dick was so right when he said that we had to invade iraq soon, as time would run out before the blink of an eye.

and he had to be right. bush stood there thinking that saddam was done for. the old man didn't have many bullets left in the gun, but he had one last trick. and that he would sit silent for years, maybe even beyond the sanctions (enacting trade agreements that would allow russia access to a lot of oil). but then, without warning, saddam would just blow his wad. and bush coudln't wait for that day to happen.

he remembered that day he told dick to just get it done. he knew in the back of his head that he had used the wrong language for a man with such a violent tendency. he knew that what was really bothering him was that guilt eating at the back of his heart -- that's why he was having these silly but romantic feelings of devotion for laura ... she never made him feel guilty.

he decided right then that he was just going to take the bull by the horns. his father had put together his administration, and that if he asked it of him, the old man would do the same again ... on a moment's notice.

bush called a meeting that morning. he said his good mornings to everyone, and then immediately asked who had leaked the wife's name. but no one answered. he then patiently explained how he thought that joe wilson was simply trying to hurt him, but that there was a line that should never had been crossed.

"we are americans," he said. "when we stop being americans, we have gone to far. and i just don't see anything american about surrendering the name of one of our own intelligence agents."

dick was the first to speak up. "the reporters had the woman's name." he didn't get much else out of his mouth.

"just shut the fuck up, dick. i am not in the mood to be lied too. now i want the name of the leaker in front of me now, or you are all fired." no one moved. bush sat there for what seemed like an eternity, just waiting to see if anyone on his staff had the stones to step forward, but he already knew the answer.

he picked up the phone, and asked his assistant to get his father on the line. he looked around the room, and no one seemed to move.

when his father came to the phone he said, "daddy, i am going to fire my entire staff. can you help me put a new one together." that was when someone cracked ... it was dick.

"it was scooter. it was a number of us. you wanted him burried. you can't be mad at us."

"you're right, i am not mad. but it's time i stepped up and did what was right ... what my wife would be proud of. you're fired dick. i want your resignation on my desk by five tonight. anyone here that leaked that woman's name, you're fired too. if you think you can get away with it, go ahead and try. but the second i see the evidence, you're gone. it's best to confess now. waiting will only make it worse."

loose lips sink ships ...

2005-10-26T02:51:00.000-07:00

it really does bring a smile to my face to see all of this shit turn on dubya. i was just looking at the video on foxnews.com about the leak controversy. i have been seeing some of the punditry lean away from the old "dubya was sent to us by god" stance that had been executed so flawlessly for years now.

of course, dubya wasn't sent by god unless god is trying to punish us. not that i am saying that god wouldn't want to punish us. fuck, it was general knowledge for most of human existence that god very much enjoys punishing humans. besides, knowing that god is punishing you is far more ... satisfying than accepting eastern notions of suffering being caused by selfishness.

i mean, seriously, what kind of sense does that make? there is no existence without selfishness. if you don't first accept that this is your world that you created for your own purposes, then why would you need spiritual responsibility? it just doesn't make sense. first you accept responsibility, then you feel no need to blame others or look outside of oneself for strength. i really don't know what kind of crack the buddha was smoking.

not that this has anything in the world to do with leaking the names of cia agents.

i have to say that i really kind of like joe wilson. how lucky is this man? he marries a hot cia agent, and then becomes an ambassador, then finds himself in a cycle of events that could very well change the landscape of american politics.

and make no mistake about it, it is time for a change in american politics. i am not going to ramble on about how the voices of socialists, anarchists and all of the ground in between are the roots of true democracy -- i am just assuming that allowing people to think for themselves is the cornerstone of the future.

first, the current system must collapse. obviously, i would prefer that it were a violent revolution, but i do think i am out here pretty alone on this one. i mean, i am sure there are others that think the same way, but i would probably think they are crazy. the first rule of life: never trust anyone that thinks like you do -- they will fuck you over.

but with the democrats crying impotent in their corner, trying to jack off over the apparent collapse across the isle ... and said collapse, it seems there might be another plausible option. of course, the problem with this weird rut that our country has (rather unfortunately) found itself in is that we find ourselves completely void of leadership.

and you look around and see all the weasels trying to act like leaders, and well, it just makes me sick. if i have to hear john edwards talk about what it's like to be poor one more time, i am going to stick a fucking ice pick through my ear. i am sure he was poor at one point in time, but he isn't any more.

besides, poor people know not to talk about the things they have done. well ... that's not true. but who fucking cares, this is my blog.

what i am saying is that we need teddy roosevelt to come back and be teddy. this country has to be shaped by the people in charge. we can't sit here and rely on stupid old people telling us about how they want to fix the problems. i only see one problem: this nation has stopped trying to get better.

or maybe it's what people think of as better? people just think that better is more like the way that it used to be. but this country has never worked right. it was built on top of slavery. the saving grace of slavery was a betrayal of property rights (the cornerstone of the federal infrastructure). then, we replaced slavery with a new class system (complete with drugs, guns and gods) and the appropriate prejudices that accompany it.

it's one thing to have leaders who think wrong and push the country in a new and far too chalenging direction. it's something else to have them use the rest of us to protect what was never ours at all. i think of my favorite presidents, and i can't help but like the ones that i would disagree with most.

maybe with historical perspective and genuine conviction on his part, i could have grown to like bush. i have certainly come to respect reagan, carter and nixon.

i guess i should be rambling on about the right thing to do, though. if you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem right? i don't know, i am tired and partly entertained by american politics. i am sure tomorrow i will return to the comfort of my own apathy.

until then, i will just think about how fucked up it is that this judith miller chick is looked upon as anything other than a spy for the administration in the same "left-wing" newspaper they both criticize and cite. how many times did cheney leak shit to the new york times and then quote himself via the times to justify his sick treasonous bullshit? and when the fuck is that fat bitch going to have his heart attack? i feel like i have been waiting forever.

the truth about gas and hogs ...

2005-09-27T01:20:00.000-07:00

i like the more conservative george bush. i don't mean conservative the way he would mean it, of course.

for some reason conservative came to mean "moral" or something. and by moral, i mean in the graces of the "one god" -- whom i am convinced is just the god of war. yep, i have been doing a lot of thinking about it. and i know i have written about it before, though i am not sure where.

but there is part of me that wishes i were homer or something. i guess that's where the vergil comes from -- he always wished he could be like homer too. but i imagine there was a war, a great war between all of the gods and the god of war himself.

the god of war, of course, was stronger than the other gods as he had humans on his side. humans are just more given to war by nature. war is, after all, the grand sagacity of life. it is war that we find the greatest range of humanity and human emotions. it is no wonder we have become such cold voyeurs.

it was not hard for the god of war. it was a plan he had worked on for a long time. step one was to convince the humans that he was the only god. this would not be an easy task. the humans had seen what they had seen, and knew first hand of the existence of all gods.

but other gods were not able to strike fear into the human heart as the god of war was. he pointed his finger and told the men, "i am an angry and jealous god," adding "and you shall have no other gods before me." he codified his decree by designating the other gods as "false idols."

from there, it was pretty simple. the only prayers that were answered were answered with war. glory was promised for an afterlife, allowing the new plebs to step loyally into the dark future. ... or something. i don't know. i guess i am not homer.

i guess you can be conservative in a number of ways. three of them are as follows: this "morality" and adherence to the laws of the god of war; belief that government is a necessary evil and should be treated as such; and one who believes that conservation is a prudent course of action. george bush finally became one of these today.

the man can't be moral. he leads an immoral existence, with selfish physical gains and little spiritual responsibility. you couldn't convince me that he has a lack of trust in the government. he is the prince, and his government is his sword. does a prince not trust his sword?

but apparently the man has decided to take a turn at the third. faced with a war that he was unprepared for and a desire to save face before he runs from his responsibilities as he has done time and time again throughout his sad pathetic life, he figures that he can evoke some sort of loyalty to our grandfathers' generation when people were so convinced that war brought peace they took personal sacrifices to see it won.

we aren't our grandfathers, nor our grandmothers for that matter. we saw the peace they brought with their grand weapons fashioned from the nightmares of future generations. war heals. war provides for honor. war turns love into legend. but nothing brings peace other than death. and through death is the only way one finds peace in war.

it's too late for the president now. wars are won before they are begun. and the true mark of a great leader is to recognize when a war is lost, cut your losses and regroup for the future. one who hangs onto foolish ideals in the face of the hard truth is a daydreamer, not a visionary.

i like that george bush thinks that we should now save some gas. but i would have liked it better if he would have had the forethought not to get in a war over oil if you don't have enough to survive if severed from the source. i can't say it enough, the man should be removed from office and tried for the high crime of treason.

random heartless thoughts on natural disasters ...

2005-09-08T02:02:00.000-07:00

it didn't take long for all of the lemings to jump right off that huricane cliff. i guess it doesn't suprise me. fuck, it would shock me if people thought for themselves, and a little bit less about themselves.

i don't really know where to start. so i guess that leads to bush -- as all good things do.

i am sure that i am not the only person that could give a fuck less about how many people are floating down the mississippi river into the gulf of mexico, poluting all the water for the backwoods crackers and the like. and i am just as certain that not too many people are going to openly agree with me.

no, right now, it seems to be a little bit more like a contest to see who can pretend like they really give a fuck about homeless people. homeless people who were told to get the fuck out of the area. homeless people that instead chose to take this superdome handout and then complain that not enough was done on their behalf. forgive me if i don't feel too compasionate about it.

in fact, all i can really think of is the way that people have always said that i was stupid for my fondness of earthquakes. guess what ... shit happens. and it happens where ever you go. and in most places, it is a lot worse.

i have seen stupid fuckers on the television saying that we are seeing third-world horrors in the united states. they are wrong, very wrong. if this was the third world, we would be talking about tens of thousands of dead fuckers floating around. this isn't even close to what the rest of the world has to deal with on a regular basis.

and here's some consistency for you: just like i didn't give a fuck about the tsunami, i don't give a fuck about katrina. and if an earthquake were to come and drop this half of the state into the ocean, i wouldn't really give a fuck about that, even as my ass was drowning in the placerville bay.

this shit has been happening for a long time. people have been dying on massive scales. and that really sucks for them. i certainly have some sort of empathy for the matter. but i have the respect for the earth to know that it knows better than i about how the world should work.

what does all of this have to do with bush? nope, it's not that i am going to go on about how he doesn't really care about black people -- though i am sure that mr. west was quite correct. but i don't think that was any suprise.

but i just don't like the way that all of these other people now care. they are now concerned with poor people and how many of them wash away. the fact is that the ones that complain about the slow response to katrina are just complaining about the war -- in a very pathetic passive-aggressive manner.

if you are suprised that george bush is not a very good president, then you really need to no longer vote. and fuck, if you don't understand that ... who fucking cares. the fact is the man is doing the best that he can, if you consider what he is made of. that's right, this is all that he can do.

it's funny to me that more people seem to respond to this than to the war. i would actually be more willing to support the war effort if bush would just come out and say that we are superior to the rest of the world and that it is their for our taking. but no, he just lies and says it is about some archaic notion of democracy and allowing people to think for themselves and forge a way through the world -- as long as they don't do drugs, have pre-marital sex, cuss, fuck someone of the same gender, get an abortion, and on and on.

i guess i am saying that i just see too much hypocracy in the whole thing. and i just don't have the emotional depth to really care about it anyway.

don't get me wrong, i am very glad that the whole world seems to be thinking that the problem was mismanagement and not global warming. i mean, fuck, if we ignore global warming, more shit like this can happen, and we can all find a little bit of roman-esque entertainment, watching the corpses float on down the line.

i do know that we can't afford to pay all of this money for rebuilding. we do need to pull out of iraq right now, or some of that oil money better get filtered right into the fema budget.

just what were you thinking, buddy?

2005-07-26T01:54:00.000-07:00

it all comes down to abortion, really. this judge, judge roberts or something, sucks. he is just some hack that pushes a christian/elitist agenda via a bench and gavel -- and i guess that's ok. that is the way the system was set up. but there has to be a high correlation between western religions and fascism.

seriously, have there ever been more judgmental sects than the jews, christians and muslims? these people are worse than pythagoras killing fools because he didn't understand the square root of two, or irrational numbers -- thinking of course that the discovery of such numbers would shake the cosmology of his sect.

here are some tips for you: if your religion wants you to do anything, it sucks -- it looks to control you more than it does to help you find a significant relationship with the creative force. if your religion tells you that other people are not living their lives as they should be, you are part of a psychotic cult, and you should kill yourself in a closet without asking others to join you.

oh, and did i mention that not only do i not give a fuck about the ridiculous laws under this obsolete constitution, but i could really give a fuck less about who they put in a little black robe to interpret either the laws or the constitution? (ok, i am going to pay attention, but for reference more than reverence.) and most of all, i could care less about whether or not women can have abortions.

this is a point that i would like to stand on. there are many, many, many developments in the past 200 or so years that have made the constitution obsolete, and just below the advent of the nuclear age and above the outcome of the civil war rests universal suffrage.

when the framers of the constitution lived, you had to be a white, land-owning man to vote. and i suppose that if you understand that all rights insured by a constitutional republic are paid for by property taxes, that might seem logical to you. it sure seems logical to me. with the advent of universal suffrage (meaning collectively women, non-whites and non-land-owners), a peculiar thing happened. all of a sudden, the united states became a little (ok, a lot) less representative.

you see, back before this suffrage, the electors and the electees were from the same groups (rich, white, male). this seems to be the way that it should be. ideally, a representative government would have a similar structure to a sample in mathematical statistics. you would want it so that the smaller group (sample, electees) is a microcosm of the larger group (population, electors).

but oddly enough, with universal suffrage, what does this sample look like? i know, rhetorical question. that's right, they are all still white, land-owning men. now i can't say a lot about white, as i believe that whites are a majority in the united states (though i am not the least bit interested to look and see if that is correct).

land owning is pretty significant, though. as i mentioned, all of the rights insured by the constitution are contingent upon property ownership. though i could certainly go into some depth on the matter, i will simply point out that if a right is violated and the government must right the wrong, it is done with funding that comes from taxes ... property taxes. without the property taxes, there is no money to pay someone to protect your rights.

not that you really have rights to begin with. they are more like limits on how much the government can do to use you as its base for building a stronger future ... with the hopes that at some point in the future we may have either world domination or world peace, or better still: both. remember, think globally.

but back to my point, once women, in specifics, were allowed to vote and participate in government, we really needed a new structure. with demographics so easily split in two, the answer seems obvious to me. a government should have two positions (one male and one female) where ever there is one now. two presidents. two supreme courts. twice the number of congressmen.

i am no longer interested in wasting my time defending issues that pertain to women, and not to men at all. men have as serious of problems in american life as women do. in fact, we are more violent, more absent, more ignorant and more counter-productive to the furthering of the species.

and on top of that, when i look at the way that society is set up (not meaning the government or the financial system), i see a giant rat race designed with the express purpose of man's procurement of woman. power, wealth, strength, success, skill ... each of them serves only the purpose to differentiate who the men are that deserve the line share of the women.

i find it kind of insulting that women have gone along with this for so long, when implied is what all men KNOW, that women have all the power in the world with them wherever they go. and moreover, i find it down right perverted that women are beginning to measure themselves in these same terms. there is a more respectful way for us all to live, i am sure of it. and i am sure that it begins with women having as much say in the future as men do, which is not the same as women being allowed to have as much say in the future as men do -- as semantic as the difference may be.

i do hold some relevant minor beliefs.

1. i believe that abortion is not a wise decision. most of the time, i would suggest having the baby and letting the fates have their say in life.

2. i believe that it would be more detrimental to society to not allow abortion than to allow it. there is no threat of abortion killing off the species. but i can assure you that without abortion, there would be more crime. logic is as follows: no abortion = more unwanted children; more unwanted children = more crime; ergo no abortion = more crime.

3. i believe the express purpose of putting judge roberts on the supreme court is to outlaw abortion. because of his age, it is possible that he will cast a vote for as many as 50 years (given an increase in life expentancy).

4. i believe that because it is a decision that affects a woman's own body, and not a man's body, that a woman should decide by her own values (which may or may not include input from the man) on an abortion. and that whether or not she tells the man is also her own decision. in short, i pass judgment on neither. this translates to law as saying that no man should be part of any legislation for or against abortion.

in contrast with that last one, i actually think that it is the duty of any man to support a woman in her decision.

i remember we had these dogs once. pete and repeat were their names. half german shepherd, half pit bull. pete was a boy (shortly thereafter killed by a car), and repeat a girl (who lived a long and normal life with with a nurse who was one of my sister's closest friends).

on the day that repeat had gotten fixed -- often an abortion for farm dogs, as it was for my own dog -- none of the dogs were allowed near her. she had one of those stupid collars on, and laid all night on the couch, and maybe for a day or two following that. the entire time, the dogs were banished to the out-of-doors.

but pete, he sat there on the front porch, and any time a dog approached the house, he stood tall with the hairs on the back of his neck standing straight up, barking out some sort of machismo code that no one was coming near his sister until she was fine -- no fights were fought. this is as it should be.

men are better creatures than what they seem to be. and really, the guidance they lose searching for women, they gain it back in spades they have women in their lives. there is certainly method to the madness. but men are utterly lost without the guidance of women. and whatever we can do to repay them for our survival, we should do.

really, i don't have a clue what i am talking about. and to stress that, it actually took me a long time just to have anything to say on this matter. sure, i rambled on senselessly once again, but ... fuck it.

a few items of interest ...

2005-07-19T03:52:00.000-07:00

music, part one

i can't even express how disappointed i am in the world when i hear iron and wine on that m&ms commercial. iron and wine grows on me more and more. and i guess there is part of me that hopes popularity doesn't ruin the wonderful art being made in the world of lo-fi folk. on the other hand, i guess that the world will never really be able to get lo-fi. and that's totally cool.

i won't deny that i like music that sounds good. i like pink floyd, dr. dre and even elvis. but i just believe that what makes music special is the art and the message that drives it. again, not to take anything away from music that is meant more as entertainment than to make you think. (of course, the three aforementioned bands/musicians sound good to my ears, i do not wish to imply that they have no art in their music.)

really, though, what i find noteworthy is this life long attitude that i, and a lot of others, have with regards to popularity of the things that we like. it certainly seems like a goal in life is to have interests that set you apart from others. and with that, we do not wish to share that which we like the most with others.

at the same time, i remain convinced that people always seem to do their best artistic work when they are quite young ... meaning early on in their careers. i make this distinction because a person can begin their career late in life and it will still seem as if their best work comes early on. this is especially pronounced in music.

i point these two things out because i find it interesting how many people share these same perspectives. it is quite the phenomenon.

politics and shit

ok, i have to take some shit back. as of right now, i am feeling like bush will not fire rove at all. he has laid the ground work for not firing him, declaring today that he would fire anyone that committed a crime. and as i pointed out the other day, my dreams are telling me that the man will not be convicted of any crime, being the large burden of proof in a crime of this sort is probably insurmountable ... especially for a "special prosecutor." i mean, it's in the name.

laying ground work, as i called it, is a fundamental part for any good lie. before you lie, you should always prepare the other person's head with the appropriate truths that will mask the lie, including lies of deception or omission. this will make them less likely to question the validity of the lie, if executed properly.

the reason being that, according to me, every person knows when they are being lied to. we get a feeling that, if we are paying objective attention to it, will be undeniable. that being said, we often prefer to be lied to, and often don't pay said feeling any mind -- and we shouldn't. it's ok to be lied to. it's as ok as it is to lie.

either way, bush sucks at lying. but that doesn't matter, because a lot of people want to believe him. and that too is ok. as much as i hate george bush being in power, i am willing to let the average man or woman decide the path of the nation.

poker faces

i hate sportscenter. i had been trying to not hear who won the world series of poker, so that i could find it more interesting on tv. this is a path that i often take for kings games. i will come home, avoid seeing the end of the game, and then try and see if i can watch the end and be surprised by the outcome. of course, i am always stiff-armed in that quest.

anyway, today, sportscenter announces who won in the fucking top-ten. and they are the ones broadcasting it. don't they know what that does to the ratings? seriously, do they? i don't have a fucking clue. but i know that i don't like it.

i wonder how long the poker craze will go on. hopefully, it just continues to gain momentum. gambling is a lot of fun. and i rather like that vices have become more widely accepted than they have been in the last century or so. i am not sure what happened after the end of the victorian age, but i think that everyone jumped off the highest building around onto some sort of stick that is now firmly embedded into their asses.

either way, i feel that more people drink, cheat, lie, do drugs and gamble than ever before, and it really is quite wonderful. this body is a temple bullshit never really did fly with me. and why should it? this is the life we are living, and sometimes you just have to accept that.

music, part two

i stumbled across a great web site today. it has a ton of concerts that you can stream for free ... if you, like me, are too poor to go to concerts. it is located at http://fabchannel.com. i guess that's it. now i am going to try and go to sleep at a decent hour.

on accepting the truths of other realities ...

2005-07-18T17:48:00.000-07:00

i suppose i should take a few minutes to define some terms, before i senselessly ramble on about concepts that i don't really understand. it just seems like the right thing to do. that and i always hear the voice of my junior college -- lower division + existential -- philosophy professor (joanne bielick) saying "always define your terms."

so ...

truth - the factual perception of one's reality

as compared to

Truth - total and complete factual record

and

reality - the world that is relative to the individual, serving as the base for all of the individual's perceptions

as compared to

Reality - the world that is shared by all individuals, serving as the quarry from which their realities are mined. this means that all individual realities are dependent upon a greater truer reality that provides all of the "material" needed ... or perceived. it is truer because it is based upon, and in symbiosis with, that total and complete factual record.

of course, i lower case all letters when i type for the internet (a stylistic preference). so will try and make a distinction if i am referring to the capitalized or interdependent definitions, as compared to my common place use of the two lower cased or independent definitions. i will define anything else as needed.

--

the scenario: i feel myself often faced with the conflict of the importance of the two worlds. all rationality would say that my world is greater and more important than other worlds, being that it is not only my creation, but the only world that i will ever know -- regardless of events or realizations -- possibly beyond the day that i die.

yet, i am instinctively convinced that the truer reality and its truth are in fact the greater ones, even though i do not think i can grasp it -- thus the capitalization in the above definitions. and moreover, i believe that virtually all other people also recognize this instinctively.

--

i said to preacher mike, in the aforementioned conversation (circa the day of the london bombings), that i didn't have an answer. i think i mentioned that he said i should not assume that it is correct to assign more value to the other reality. but i find that to be more playing the devil's advocate, rather than offering clarity to my confusion.

but i told him that night that i would have it all figured out within a week. of course, i am still just as confused. i have thought of a few things. really, i think it's a fool's game. i am convinced that our individual realities are more alike than they are similar to the greater reality upon which they are dependent.

here is an example. it is based upon a common example that my metaphysics professor often used in college. i won't name him because i wasn't to impressed with him as either a teacher or a philosopher. though, i should note that i find it odd how much better the instructors as junior college were compared to the instructors at the university (barring the adjunct faculty, who were always on the top of their game). but of course, i digress. so ... here is the example:

the two of us are standing in the same room. there is nothing in the room other than a plain green desk with a single drawer and even legs. in fact, there is nothing out of the ordinary about this desk whatsoever. it is, for all theoretical intents and purposes, ideal. and so is the room.

the two of us, on the other hand, are of different heights, weights, genders, economic backgrounds, ethnicities (and on and on). the distances from the desk, as well as the views employed, are of no consequence. all of these variables would be perfectly reasonable in a practical world.

the language: there is, of course, no reason for us to assume that we would have the same terms for the desk, its color, or our perceptions of it. with this, in theory, we have severed all expected ties between you and i in relation to our sharing the experience of the desk. i tell you that i see a green desk. you, of course, have no idea what i said. but with time and patience, simply repeating the words and pointing, i can relate to you that "desk" is what i call the object, and "green" is what i call the color.

perception: now that we know that it is a green desk, we have to figure out what a green desk is to us. for example, do you even notice that it has a drawer? do you see it as something other than a table? and the answers are that it doesn't matter.

the greater reality at ends with our shared realities: here is the monkey wrench. we can all accept that green could, in theory, be colorless and based only on the way that light is reflected off of one object and into our eyes. not only could the object not really be green, but the colors that we are seeing could not be the same whatsoever. if i could see what color you are seeing, maybe i would see that you are seeing only red, but that you see all red objects as "green." and conversely, if you saw what i was seeing, maybe you would see that i was seeing only blue and calling it green, as with all objects of similar ilk.

for the greater reality, there is no color (again, this is an assumption as i have no way of accurately interpreting the greater reality). in fact, for the greater reality, there isn't even a concept of color as the individual perception of any individual object has no bearing on the greater interdependent truth.

at this point in time, you and i have come to a relatable conclusion (that the desk is green). we came to it because of our incorrect shared perception of the greater reality, yet we are in agreement with each other ... accepting that even our agreement could be incorrect. but no matter what, our agreement with each other is more in tune than either of our perceptions to the greater reality.

further still, we have come to the (much easier to accept) agreement on the object being called a desk, regardless of the practical use. and the reason for such is that we can both see practical uses for the desk. the greater reality is, of course, not concerned with the practical applications of individual objects. for the greater reality, the desk (as are we) is just a non-random collection of molecules that, in whole, make up the universe. there is no concept of individual objects or and specific collection of molecules.

--

of course, this distinction is of little importance to our realities or the point of this post. no, the effort is to discover why it is that my reality is not the most important reality. and really, so far i have merely demonstrated two things. one, that my reality is not similar to the truer reality despite being dependent upon it. and two, that if i show effort, i can get you to see my reality easier than either of us can see the greater reality.

these things only go further to reinforce the notion that my reality is more important -- a notion that i believe is incorrect.

--

where i am trying to get: i want to demonstrate that the actions of individuals should be based on a conscious realization of interdependence. but the more i think about it, the further i get. nonetheless, i have found myself at the same conclusion accepting only my own reality plus one not-so-risky assumption: the realities of all individuals have the same value.

why? well, because anything i can say about my reality, any other individual can say about theirs. at the same time, i know that all of the individual realities are dependent upon the greater reality.

using that, i see that if i base my actions upon what i believe is best for the greater reality (no matter how wrong i am), i will be doing what is right for the greatest number of people, starting with and mainly benefiting my own reality.

no matter how wrong i am because the greater reality is not concerned with individuality at all, so i cannot be wrong. the greatest number of people because despite the discrepancies in shared realities, all realities are dependent upon the greater one.

i don't really know if any of that made sense. maybe i will come back and read it later on and see if i still think so. if that is the case, i may make some edits. oh ... and the photos: the top one is just a photo of the sunrise. the sunrise and sunset are probably the most common misperceptions of light -- after all, the sky certainly does not change color, if it has any color at all. the second image is of immanuel kant, whose discussions of duty and a priori v. a posteriori has influenced this entry a great deal.

the first addendum: i should note that i believe that to act on behalf of the greater reality is often manifested on an individual level by doing what is best for the individuals involved. and that to be incorrect about other realities mattering more than my own in judging how i should act has little consequence. after all, if i created it all, than i created it to act with agape, adore and consideration.

conservativism v. socialism, an american direction ...

2005-07-16T05:13:00.000-07:00

i wonder what it was like to live in time of the old crusades. what were relations between israel the surrounding area? were there even jews in palestine?

i don't really have a good grasp on history. sometimes, when i am in the right mood, i will do a little independent studying on the internet. and really, that's a lot more than i ever did for a history class. fuck, that's more than i ever did for just about any class. nonetheless, i don't have a good grasp on history.

the first class i ever failed was a history class. of course, it was in my drug-laden sophomore year of high-school. but my freshmen year, i got a d in history. so ... yeah. either way, i don't know anything about the crusades. i just might go and read about them in a few minutes, but who really knows ... it's getting kind of late.

i am pretty sure that i am living during the crusades right now. people are so quick to say that this is not a war on islam or one on behalf of christianity, and i can't really argue against that. in my history of the middle east class (failed, fyi), i tried to argue that the war was clearly a religious venture, citing speaches made by george bush.

but the problem is that in order to assume that bush is leading a crusade, you have to first give him enough credit to do such a thing. i kind of figure that bush is a decent man. in fact, here is a list of attributes that i assign the man ... without ever having met him:

slightly ignorant, as in not "book smart"
funny and upbeat
honoring god, his wife, his family, his state and his country -- in that order
stubborn and vengeful
loyal
open-hearted and close-minded

and looking at him in that light, i do think he is capable of leading the crusades without really having what it takes to lead a war. and really, that's because he has surrounded himself with people that you would think would be capable of leading a war. but i am certainly having my doubts. i think that if we were not capable of taking the entire arabian peninsula, we should not have invaded iraq. i can't find the rationale. it's almost like they thought they could ride in and wipe iraq away and use the uncountable loot to fund the rest of the war.

maybe the problem is that it has been so long since the united states tried to take over someone. i don't really know. but i do know that i am really not impressed with this american war machine either. i am not saying that they are as bad as al qaeda (why can't i spell that stupid word?), but just not impressive. how would we ever fight china? fuck, how would we even fight a unified islamist front?

really, thank god this isn't the crusades. because if these people had any muscle or unity, our military would have been descimated. that's how much we suck right now. oh shit, i think i got off on a tangent.

so when i would argue that the motivation for the current situation in the middle east (american wars + palestinian conflict) was religion, my teacher -- a brilliant woman -- offered insurmoutable evidence that this war had largely geo-political motives, including the securing of oil reserves but more based on access to water.

but i have never been able to shake this feeling that we are in the crusades, and this war has little sanity to its motivations ... and that americans do not seem to care.

i am pretty sure that if the congress wanted the war to end, it would end. and the motivation behind any freely elected republican legislature is re-election. thus, if the people wanted the war to end, then so would the congress.

but no, people are caught up in stupid politcal bullshit. you would be suprised at how many republicans (clearly liberals, if not fascists) are calling themselves conservatives because they are right-wing and how many democrats (who are nothing left of moderates) are calling themselves liberals because they support machiavellian social programs. meanings of political aproaches mean nothing any more.

there once was a day when conservatives didn't believe that the government should be in your bedroom. there was a time when a leftist would argue on behalf of the poor, asking for a greater distribution of wealth and more strides to lift up the ass end of the bus to that future.

seriously, what the fuck are we exporting? how could we even think that someone would be interested in this brand of "democracy"? there is no free exchange of ideas. in this modern age, how can you expect to even have a discussion without representing the views of the greatest political thinker in the last 200 years?

i would like to see the day when america matters again in the formation of a modern government. our fucking puppet regimes are more modern than us. i want a socialist to win a seat in congress. really, i want more political parties. it would be nice if we had as many political parties as we do political viewpoints. that would be a democracy i could be proud of.

as it is now, i am embarrassed on behalf of my government. it seems retarded to tell the rest of the world that you know the structure of a perfect government when we are still living behind a constitution that was written before there was electricity, cars, trains, light, computers, atomic bombs, flight, revolvers, cameras, etc.

long story short, israel attacked palestine yet again today ... with american built attack helicopters. i am also confused why we continue to support israel. eventually you have to put your foot down ... right? they already have me worried with the weapons we have given them. i am convinced the end of the israeli dagger is less than an inch away from the kidneys of the american effort to secure arabia. and of course, the first crusades pitted christians against jews.

i guess this is all just further proof that i don't really know anything.

on the validity of two worlds ...

2005-07-13T03:08:00.000-07:00

i walked to the back of the pizza parlor the other night to find preacher mike sitting in the dark by himself, finishing off one of his american spirits. i don't particularly like those things. they are hard to smoke, and i think the additives of regular smokes are far better tasting than the raw tobacco ... but i digress.

i sat down in the dark next to him, and we began to shoot the shit. i don't remember what we talked about. i don't really have anything in common with anyone, so talking to me is rather like talking to a wall ... except i am familiar with current events, sports, music and the weather, so i can often feel my way through the small talk.

i think we began to talk about the bombings, or something. that was thursday, so i would guess so. but it doesn't matter because at one point in the conversation, mike made a comment about the two worlds. he already understood -- i didn't have to explain a thing. most of the ones who pretend to be "philosophical" will quickly drift into science fiction (i.e. other worlds, alternate realities, multi-dimensions, and even crazier shit) as soon as you mention the two worlds.

i suppose if i would have done my reading in those philosophy classes, i might be able to reference old dead people who have made this point before me. but even in those classes, the people you would talk to were more concerned with theory than with metaphysics and their impact on our reality. well ... the truth is that i probably just was spending too many nights doing my philosophizing over a pool table with a pint in my hand. ... but again, i digress.

mike and i imediately began to discuss the different aspects of the two worlds -- about how our individual worlds were closer to each other than they were to the truer world, for example.

mike set me back that night though. he is probably a hippie or some shit. so really, how much can you really listen to? but i do remember my principle of charities, and that any person can be completely correct at any point in time.

i told him that i knew the truer reality mattered more than my own personal reality. and he asked how i knew. i told him that it was because my world was a temporary creation on my behalf to help me cope with being conscious in a living experience, and that it began with my birth and ends with my death. but at the same time, the truer world lives on to be experienced .

here i would note in this entry that in order to have the true reality be your reality you must be the atman. and i am defining atman as the complete collective of all that is part of the universe. nothing that is short of complete is the atman. it contains all, and though its contents adopt individuality, atman experiences nothing other than interdependence. if there is no being or consciousness to the atman, than nothing experiences the truer reality as reality.

mike quickly pointed out that there is no reason to assume that our realities do not have to end with our bodies. in fact, it is just as likely that are realities carry on. i am not too sure i buy that one. but i admit that my understanding of reincarnation has no dependency on consciousness or spirit. in fact, it's rather sterile and more dull than this already dull entry.

i do believe that you should not make conjectures about the events before your birth nor the ones that shall come afterward. and i think that expressed in that is a notion that the healthiest idea (both existentially and rationally) is to assume that this life is your one chance. and personally would put the likeliness that this is your one chance at life at nearly 99 percent. but that's just me.

so i guess the point is that i have found some validity in the two worlds. i am still trying to figure out semantics about the difference between the two, but whatever.

on another note, i did some reading about karl rove and the leaking the identity of a cia agent. these are my initial thoughts, none of them have supporting premises or even appropriate perspective in judgement:

karl rove did not commit any crime. in that, he will be found innocent in a court of law if tried.
karl rove will and should be fired as the sacrificial lamb.
george bush was just as responsible for the leak, and his responsibility is an impeachable offense. thus the previous thought.
the leak was revenge for a damaging op-ed story that i am not familiar with
this is a political story, and does not affect me in any way
if the wife was not an active agent, than this story is a total bust
it is more ethical for a journalist to blow the whistle than to go to jail in the name of journalistic ideals.

how can you not love this movie?

2005-07-11T21:56:00.000-07:00

Peter: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man - two chicks at the same time, man.
Peter: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, 'cause chicks dig dudes with money.
Peter: Well, not all chicks.
Lawrence: Well, the kind of chicks that'd double up on me do.
Peter: Good point.
Lawrence: What about you ... what would you do?
Peter: Besides two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Well yeah.
Peter: Nothing.
Lawrence: Nothing, huh?
Peter: I'd relax, sit on my ass all day. I would do nothing.
Lawrence: Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke — don't do shit.

i swear, the stuff about two chicks isn't the only reason i love this movie. i think there are these rare films that speak to our existential desires. and one of them is this notion of wanting to do nothing. really, i didn't have a point to this entry, i just wanted to record this conversation while it was still fresh in my mind.

some neutral perspective ...

2005-07-08T23:23:00.000-07:00

i admit that i am tempted to feel like a prick, saying that al queda is weak, and then they set off a few bombs in london. well ... i don't know who set off the bombs. i do know that i was suprised on the morning of sept. 11 about how soon they were able to say that it was osama bin laden behind the attacks.

and in fact, until i read the translation of osama admitting to the attacks ... (i don't speak arabic, or whatever language he speaks -- it is a common misperception of white people that all muslims speak the same language, when i believe there are many more languages in persia than arabia ... and more still in the rest of the central asian republics. and though osama is from saudi arabia, afghanistan is a central asian republic closer to india than to arabia ... i think.)

talk about a tangent. nonetheless, i don't know what he said. but suffice to say, his admission in the sub-titles was enough for me to finally choose to accept his responsibility. blah blah blah ...

but i don't feel like too much of a prick. in fact, i will argue that the london bombings are proof that they are pussies. one, they were trying to get to the g8 in scotland, london was as close as they could get. two of the bombs did not go off (stinking of the same failure as the columbine kids -- whom i watched something on earlier today). also, the bombings didn't kill many people (i will get to that). and, on top of that, it was england.

england may be the most committed of our allies, but they are our bitch. bush owns blair. when bush says jump, blair says how high. when bush says he wants a blow job, blair asks if he should service him personally or if he would prefer that blair's wife does the trick. england is a weak country that has not mattered since before the first world war. and that's 100 years, if you are counting.

seriously, al queda can't actually think that attacking our allies is going to do any good. they aren't retarded. anytime they attack a non-american target, they are yelling at the top of their lungs: "we suck harder than the bitches on the corner of stockton and broadway!!!" i am just saying, real men would come with it.

think about it. let's say that you and i got in a fight. you punched me in the nose, and i beat the shit out of you. then, to get revenge, you attack my handicapped friend. now really, are you a man? no. the answer is no. you are not a man. and even your angry and jealous god spits on you.

and moreover, if sept. 11 was a punch in the nose, then london was a kick in the shin. and just like a bitch that would kick you in the shin, those bitches turned tail and ran.

the strongest argument against my claim that they are over and done with is that yesterday's attack was significant. so i figured that i would randomly track down some death tolls, to put london into some perspective. they are listed in the order i found them.

london bombings; 50+ dead; 700+ injured
iraq war; 22, 787 dead (min.)
2004 tsunami; 240,000+ dead
columbine shootings; 13 dead; 24 injured
oklahoma city bombing;168 dead; 800+ injured
sept. 11; 2,986 dead
hiroshima and nagasaki; 100,000+ dead outright (many more dead over time)

ok, i am not going to do this forever. the point is just that what happened in london, when compared to notable terrorism acts in history, london was pretty minor. and when compared to mother nature, it is inconsequential. but what really dwarfs london in comparison to sept. 11 was the historical significance.

no matter how you feel about politics, war and george bush, there is no way to deny the effect that sept. 11 had on the world at large. for example, without sept. 11, there would have been no bombings yesterday. but more than that, i believe that sept. 11 spelled the begining of the end of the pax americana, which i believe will prove to be one of the most significant periods in recorded history ... if only based on the the onset of the nuclear age.

what the fuck is the g-8?

2005-07-06T18:55:00.000-07:00

i remember watching tv a few weeks ago seeing some commercial about how you needed to "watch e3 on g4" or something like that. one of the basic fundamental laws of media communications is that if there are problems in the communication aspect, then it is all for naught. and to that degree, using ad hoc abbreviations and acronyms is often going to cause confusion and inhibit communication.

not that i am in any sort of position to criticize ad people, when they are by far the most productive and effective propagandists in recorded history. but it always annoys me when you are reading something and it uses this obscure (and often awkward) acronym for something that could be reduced to a simple noun. you wouldn't believe how long it took me to catch on to anwar (or however it is written) as the national wildlife refuge in alaska.

in context, anwar makes you sound like an elitist, especially when "the refuge" would often work just as well. it's like, people are always trying to prove what they know.

of course, when you are talking about something like the g-8, i guess the rules are a little different. either way, i must have been lost on the formation of its relevance, as it was in the wake/midst of the post-911 propaganda onslaught.

for clarification, i believe that al queda is a giant group of pussies. i think that they, quite literally, blew their wad on the attacks that tuesday morning. that was it, the big bang. that fat lady sang the opening number, if you will. sept. 11 would not have taken place without the inaptitude of the time. and i am positive that it has been corrected, if only by the vigilance of the common man/woman.

in that, i am expressing two points. the first being that without said vigilance, the minor security upgrades and bureaucratic awareness of today, sept. 11 could not have happened. the second being that even if it were possible, the common person on a plane is going to know that they will die in a hostage situation, and more people would be willing to take greater risks to do what they can for the greater good.

and thus, since 2001, the aim of american propaganda has been to perpetuate the fear that some of us felt that morning. the fear, though, is completely irrational. and it is clear to me that i have more to fear from george w. bush than osama bin laden or a pre-deposed saddam hussein. and i would point out that when you examine that statement, it is not so outrageous.

i believed, correctly, that saddam could never hurt me as long as i lived in california. and at the same time, i could care less about what he did to his neighbors ... and certainly not israel, which is certainly an oppressive theological based government with no legitimate claim to the land is "possesses." and that, as i expressed earlier, osama bin laden had showed his hand, and would no longer be able to attack the united states.

bush, on the other hand, is a far greater threat. though i do not believe that the patriot act will ever be used against me, or any white american-born man. really, i don't think bush is much of a threat either. i do, despite how i may sound from time to time, believe that there are safeguards to protect us from bush. of course, there are no such protections for the rest of the world against a bush led american war machine. but fuck them, that's their problem.

either way, i figure that few of my friends have any clue about the g-8 either. in fact, my money says that they have never even heard of it. i mean, my smartest friend couldn't tell me who dick cheney was. as apathetic as i may be, i am far more interested and active than most of my peers.

bbc describes the g-8 as:

The G8 comprises seven of the world's leading industrialised nations, and Russia.

damn brits. we go ahead and name our language after them, and they can't even have the decency to speak it correctly ... and always with that sissy accent. no matter, here's the translation:

the g8 is comprised of eight of the world's leading industrialized nations. fuck you, russia.

the union is a superficial one of the following nations:
germany
france
italy
japan*
the united states
ab the uk*
ab canada*
russia

*ab stands for "america's bitch." these are countries that would not even exist without dependency on the united states, and really have no claim to any influence on a global level. japan receives an exemption from this classification because, i believe, that japan is secretly and patiently waiting for the day that they may take revenge on the united states for perpetrating two of the worst crimes in recorded history in august of 1945.

the g8 was apparently formed in the 1970s. who knew? and really, no one should care. it is a union without any strength. the g8 fits exactly the image that the bush administration has painted of the united nations. i guess i don't really have enough interest in them to find out more.

i do, though, realize that this was a mighty long entry to say absolutely nothing useful. i guess that sucks for you. but, i am sorry. today's photo ... well, i am not sure what i think of it, other than it's funny.

rational denial of oppression and the media that hide it

2005-07-05T04:16:00.000-07:00

i have to admit, it peaked my interest earlier this week when i was looking around the internet at news and discovered that the international herald tribune had a story about the disappearance of an egyptian diplomat and despite scouring the new york times, i was unable to find any reports of the kidnapping.

of course, the reports came in the next day. i suppose you could argue it had something to do with the time difference. and that is probably the situation, but for a second, i was thinking it was that the new york times was suppressing the news.

but then, when i looked at the tribune today, i see that there has been yet another attack on a diplomat to iraq from an arab nation. his name is hassan malallah al-ansari, and he is the chief diplomat from bahrain. bahrain is an american bitch. like most of the arabic nations, it is ruled by a corrupt and archaic government. but of course, it is a very rich government -- largely because of geopolitical placement.

the plan of the insurgents is quite clear. make it extremely trying on the united states and its allies to continue the oppression of a free iraq. i am not sure that americans realize that it is a free iraq. remember, our government went in there and freed them from the evil dictator that was saddam hussien. i think that the tendency for americans is to think that because we gave them their freedom, they could not possibly be asking for said freedom from us.

bahrain is, obviously, very important to the raping of iraq. bahrain itself does not have the large oil quantities of its neighbors. the country relies more on refining and export for its riches, as it is conveniently placed for mass distribution -- also unlike its neighbors. large amounts of the oil that is stolen from iraq "to help pay for reconstruction" will undoubtedly go through bahrain. my money says that al-ansari was in iraq helping lay the foundations for trade. just a hunch.

back to the point ... the tribune article was from the associated press. that's right, not exactly the cutting edge of alternative media. and in the article, the attack was paired with the new declarations from some (presumably) hard-lined sunnis that sunni iraqis ought to prepare to vote and take part in the formation of the new government (possibly finally realizing that the best way to succeed in an american environment is to play ball).

so this time, when i flipped to the new york times, i figured that i could work two angles in the double checking of the "breaking news." sure enough, the top story for the iraq war (which rarely makes the top stories for the times, but consistently is the top story for the tribune) is that clerics were calling for the involvement in elections. but yet again, there was no mention of this attack.

soon after sept. 11, when the distrust and disenchantment was at a peak, people with a more liberal perspective and a more peaceful approach to foreign policy often suggested that the mainstream media were not doing their jobs helping people understand current events and their ramifications.

more than one person pointed a finger at the times and said that any corporate media was untrustable and often stood to benefit from the new america. i am sure that a lot of that was hippie paranoia and rhetoric. but i look at this, and the only motivations i can give the times is to help the government create this image that all is going relatively fine in iraq.

of course, i am sure that by the time that i have posted this entry, the new york times will have the attack up on its web site, and that all of my conjecture has been in vain.

either way, i think it is important to look at things in iraq on an honest level from time to time. of course, to do that, we must assume that all that has happened was supposed to happen and did so just according to plan. and in that, we start here, with the united states in the role of the in-house oppressors who stand to gain trillions upon trillions of dollars with the continued occupation, and that without said occupation, the entire nation of iraq would grow into a mess far beyond what it is now.

from there, we should as the single most important question: why not have peace?

me, i am going to say that peace is the best answer, even now. that tomorrow, bush should announce a total and complete withdrawal from iraq. that the united states has done its job, and that iraq is now free. and that just like every free nation that has before it thrown off the shackles of oppression and made its way into the future, iraq will have to make the rest of the journey on its own.

oh fuck. once again, i have rambled on senselessly, and without resolution. i am tired. that's it. time for me to sleep. oh, the photo. this is the diplomat from the attack. i will just say before i go that peace in the region will never be possible until the west decides that there is a place in democracy for islamic fundamentalism, and the islamists understand that god doesn't really give a fuck about how other people live their lives. god created you, and you created god. it is a personal relationship that is completely independent of any relationships with other living things.

the future of this blog ...

2005-07-04T17:38:00.000-07:00

i have decided to put some of the shit i learned in school to some sort of practice. and boy, that segways perfectly into a short rant.

when i first got to the newspaper, and the journalism dept. in general, they were luddites. the darkroom was seldom used, and only for black and white photography. at the same time, digital cameras were not capable of taking large shots, and certainly not the size of the cover of the tabloid newspaper. in fact, the digital cameras were often inferior to any private digis.

and worst of all, the web sites for the entire journalism dept. (including all publications) were archaic in design and considered last priority. the job of web master often fell on the only person/people who knew html -- with the exception of the rather eclectic crew at the radio station (few of which were journalism majors). no money was ever spent on web design software.

pieter was the first one i ever heard talk about the future of electronic media in journalism. even the instructors, knowing far less than the students about technology, downplayed electronic media in lectures. talk of the internet was usually saved for the last week, and usually only one day. the first time i heard an instructor say the word "blog" was in my last semester. and, of course, it was an adjunct professor. i am pretty sure the tenured faculty could scarcely use their e-mail.

i often thought it was a crock of shit that students were asked to be familiar with the newest technologies to graduate, yet the professors were often in the dark, at least in the journalism department. but i digress.

the advisor at the newspaper (adjunct again) was quite interested in the newest technologies on the other hand. and as the students began to become more and more interested in the future, he began to do what he could to help us.

our first step was trying to find a way to apply the current thinking in newspaper design to the internet. newspaper people tried so hard to move past their "fathers' newspapers," but they went ahead and stepped back a few epochs to design the web sites ... which you would think would be more modern.

nonetheless, we fell back on a few priniples we felt were key. the utilization of minimal white space. the use of images and broken down, "digestable" news items. clear thinking and progression expressed in design. and so on. it is amazing how much such simple steps enhance reading ... a necessity for such abstract writing as my own.

so i guess this is all my way of saying that i am going to post images. blogspot has made it rather easy (as it should be) to do so. this first picture comes from me having limited resources. in the future i will try and make the photos more relevant and whatnot. but it is pieter konink -- the man who taught me how to build, run and maintain a web site.

my other thoughts have been to start writing regular entries into this blog. i have no set pattern as of right now, nor am i that interested in conformation. but i would like to write more often, and it may serve as some sort of motivation. if i should do that, be forewarned that my writing may be less ... of whatever it is, and more organized. but only on those days.

for example, i may choose to once a week write an article, if you will, about a certain artist that is interesting to me at the time.

of course, with all of this, i am wondering how much is just to convince my so-called "friends" to read the shit that i write. i should know by now that would never happen. but there can't really be anyone out there that is interested in my random thoughts about metaphysics.

for what it's worth, my next such entry will most likely be diatribe focusing around why it is more important to act on behalf of the world that you cannot understand rather than the one that you are familiar with. and why that may sound simple, the dilema comes into play when you realize that your own reality is more consistent with your peers' realities than it is with the true reality. but i digress yet again.

anyway, i am going through the process of making the sidebar more pretty. i am afraid that i am going to have to ditch some of the things i have added, but i am not sure yet. eventually, i will set up another php web site and move all of this over there. so i am a little hesitant to devote too much energy to anything other than content.

things worth mentioning ...

2005-07-04T04:05:00.000-07:00

justice sandra day o'connor has quit. most people are concerned that this will affect the federal government's stance on abortion. me, i am a man. i could really care less about whether or not women can have abortions ... on top of that, i am not even sure that i support abortion -- though i certainly support the women in my life who have chose to get them.

i do believe that when you are faced with demographic numbers as evenly split as gender, it would be wise to insure that each gender is appropriately represented in the governments. and by that, i mean that for every position, including president, there should be a female and a male. but i digress.

the fact is that i can't be fighting for the rights of women. men are in a pretty fucked up situation right now as well. and someone has got to stick up for them. no, the thing that concerns me about the retirement of o'connor is that she has always been (to my knowledge) a states' rights judge. and i honestly believe that the conservative point of view is becoming obsolete in the united states.

people are always so apt to point out the apparent shortcomings of the so-called "left" or "liberals." but really, it is the neo-conservative right that is calling for more government and less libertarian freedoms. really, we have something that amounts to little more than a power struggle between socialists and facists ... and the facists seem to be winning.

so what concerns me is that i am fairly sure, no matter what the stance on the abortion rulling, that the new justice will be less conservative and more of a right-wing idealogue.

ok, i admit .... that's all i have to mention. it's hard for me not to rant on about iraq and the metaphysical ramifications. it's hard because i don't want to give the impression that iraq matters, per se. it's a common misperception. who gets killed ... no ... who dies and who lives can't matter very much at all. life is so fragile, both in theory and in practice, that to give it a value based on when it ends doesn't make any sense.

either way, tonight i shall give my mind a rest. i don't feel like i am at the top of my game. i am not sure i have even cussed once in this whole entry. today is the nation's birthday. it is a time to celebrate. i even think i might find my hands around a samual adams by the end of the night.

it will be fun to sit and watch people set off their fireworks -- imagining in my mind the progression that leads from rebellion and enlightenment to the mindless following of customs and blah blah blah. i have nothing to say tonight.

half-assed world domination ...

2005-06-28T05:00:00.000-07:00

you know what really pisses me off about the war in iraq? no, i am not some pussy that is going to cry about the deaths, whether they are american soldiers or iraqis (either of the "innocent" or of the "insurgent" variety -- matters not).

really, the only part of the death that has every really bothered me has been that i have been living, continue to live, and will most likely always live on the fat of the lamb that is american policies, both foreign and domestic. and though it is the same sort of policies that "hold me down" and whatnot, i know that my existence would be pretty meager if it weren't for slavery, capitalism and mindless following and the likes that have produced this great union.

on some sort of stoned sidenote, i wonder what whitman would think if he ever read my writing. would he adore in me what i have taken from him? or would he even be able to understand? my guess is the latter. no one ever really understands. and how could they? and that's the end of the tangent.

i guess i don't like it because i would gladly choose the meager existence if that is what i thought the fates had planned for me. i would certainly opt consciously to live a meager existence if living the life i live had to mean the deaths of innocents ... or even offenders. no matter who you are, i do not believe that you should have to die for me or the likes.

at the same time, i am not so idealistic as to reject all that i am in favor of what i think should be. one of the ways that we are certain that the existence we have created for ourselves is not the truer existence is that we are faced often with the conflicts of worlds. when my world and your world come to head, logic dictates that my world should always win out, as i am the omnipotent creator. and at the same time, logic also dictates that you should always win out. but what really happens seems to be interdependent not only on each of worlds and existences, but of all relevant ones to the scenario. and with fear of starting some sort of butterfly effect tangent, possibly more than just that.

that was the long way of saying that i realize that even with some sort of incarnation of "free will" i am still a slave to the existences of others. and that, of course, is a good thing. don't get me wrong. i am attempting to use the word slavery with some sort of positive connotation. but at the same time, i am equating such a connotation with the positive connotations of words like disgust, hurtful, and (most understandably) death. in these connotations, the positive aspect is a deeper, longer and more aesthetic expression.

well, those are both the long ways of saying that i have no intention on changing my life because i don't like my government's foreign policy. the truth is, and this is what does piss me off about the war, is that i don't see the logic in this shit.

i do think that we are at an interesting crossroads in the history of american civilization. this is undoubtedly the end of the pax americana. this thing has run its course, and it is time for the union to adjust or fall. i think (and often like to hope) that people will soon see how obsolete the constitution is.

but i watch what my government does, and i am just baffled. why make this commitment to iraq? why not invade mexico or canada? yes, i sort of joke. obviously, it isn't very logical to assume your neighbors are your friends and go ahead and attack the rest of the world. this is just not wise. in fact, if america goes too far in the wrong direction, i can assure you that both mexico and canada will be significant factors in the end of the american empire.

but iraq means nothing other than oil. does that mean that the only motivation for iraq is greed? is that what our government has become? i think that if you asked most people that support bush and this war effort, they would like to be kicking ass because we are american and better than them, not because some stupid fat bitch wants to get rich on a fuel source that itself will soon be obsolete. it is all so half-assed.

the problem is that most of our man power is going to be either deployed or with a low morale by the time that we come to blows with korea (china) or someone that really matters. i mean, fuck this iran and syria shit. and yes, i know that it is important to get the natural gas from the central asian republics down to a coastline where it can be shipped to ... me. i really am not as stupid as i sound.

i am probably about as arrogant and ignorant as i must sound. and i certainly am as tired as i sound. so i think it's time that i lie down and pretend like i am going to get some sleep tonight. it's really become quite the habit.

brilliance as bullshit ...

2005-06-27T04:20:00.000-07:00

i swear, i have been working on another entry. one of (little) substance and whatnot. of course, i am not very good at writing anything of substance. it's like a little curse of mine. i prefer to sit around and write cuss words until people stop thinking and start getting real ... or something.

it is an interesting curse though. i don't really know where i got it from. it's like, one day i woke up and realized that i was the center of the universe, and all that the universe could ever mean, i could only understand what it is in my perspective/reality.

dispite how enlightened that may sound, it is really quite the opposite. when you realize that the world that you understand and know only exists in your head -- and that it is scarcely similar to the true world that exists without knowlege or regard to life and consciousness (do they walk hand in hand?) -- you are left feeling horribly alone.

it's like, nothing you do matters anymore. after all, it stands to follow that if existence is only in my head, then nothing will exist after i die. and one of the cold hard truths about life is that life itself has little if any value within the context. it is only when we take life out of context (i.e. deny fundamental truths about reproduction and evolution) that we are able to convince ourselves that an individual's life matters.

this is, of course, evidenced in the common experience of one giving his/her life for the greater good. think about how this works for a second.

let's take a mother in the naturally dangerous process of giving birth to a child. of course, i make this distinction because in the modern era, where life has been augmented by medical science, it is expected that all mothers will survive child birth, and that does not serve my purpose. but sans medicine, it would not be uncommon for a woman not to survive the process.

now her existence began on the day of her cognito and ended with her death. that means that her world was created and ended all in that span of time. she left no legacy in her existence, and no legacy on that other greater existence that has no relation to life. but we can look at the life of the child, and convince ourselves that her life did matter. after all, she, at that time, gave the world a new existence.

but the problem is that the new existence will only matter in the same way that her's did, at best. it, like her's, will never impact the truer, greater existence. and therefore, it is out of the context. but at least while it is out of context, it does matter.

and at the same time, there is a larger picture. in this picture, both the woman and the child fill the roles of personifications of perpetual life and the greatness it encompasses.

what the fuck happened? i really just started rambling this time. i think my head is falling apart. and, as you can see, this is the problem that faces me. whenever i think about my own life, i am confronted by these notions that i consider to be the fundamental truths about the universe.

i feel like i am on this constant quest to figure them all out, and figure out (more importantly) exactly how they affect me and the way that i want to live my life (as living life is always an active process). but the more i get into it, the more i wonder why i even care. it's the trail head of the wonderful path known as apathy. anyway, it's nearing 4:20 ... time for me to relax and try and convince myself to sleep.

through the eyes of a lazy, unlikable bastard

2005-06-22T17:17:00.000-07:00

i really am quite lazy. i don't know what exactly it is. i am just not interested in very much.

i remember when things started to get quite tense between myself and my college newspaper adviser when she began to characterize my writing as "apathetic." i think it confused me because i knew she didn't mean it to be complemetary, but i couldn't see exactly how that was a negative.

it really is hard to care in this day and age ... at least for someone like me. i am not really impressed with achievement or even really having something to show for your trouble. i would much rather have the trouble.

so maintaining this blog is often hard work for me. i could care less about michael jackson or the runaway bride. i could care less about politics or the tweaking of meaningless laws. i could even care less about an american foriegn policy that makes our peers on this planet tremble. and it seems to me that the true nature of war is boredom ... some sick war of attrition. fuck people, seriously.

i can't wait until the day that this whole shit pile goes up in smoke. i envy the day when we run around like the little cockroaches that didn't die when you set off the fogger. there is something quite romantic about a new world, a new start. and there is something quite romantic about the notion of rebirth.

of course, there is little chance that any one individual would survive any sort of catastrophy. but i do think it would be very cool to be part of that pack of people that made it far away from the ocean before the astroid came crashing down.

i think it would be fun to help craft a new world. of course, it would be unfortuantely similar to life in the old world. no matter what you did, what you learned or accomplished ... all of your work is for naught. people don't learn.

i have this love/hate relationship with history. it's like i want to learn it, i want to understand what it is that happened before the creation of my world. but at the same time, i know it is as much bullshit as anything else -- filled with the tales of the victors through the eyes of the lemmings. and as much as i like the intention, it doesn't make much sense to me to base your knowledge on your sucesses, forgetting all of your shortcomings. ... especially when life seems to be a long series of shortcomings.

of course, it's not wise to turn to apathy based blindly on pesimism, i guess. i think that it serves some sort of calming purpose. i think it is best to live my life without the influence of other lives. given the laws of permenant independent realities, it doesn't make much sense to assume that your life will ever affect anyone else's. and that's not to say that it doesn't, just that you would never be able to see evidence of such during your own existence.

so you throw it all out the window. you assume that kindness is a token, and that the goal is to serve your own reality with the assumption that in creating the best reality for yourself, you create the best reality for the interdependent collective -- or history if you will.

i guess that's my way of saying that if you don't try to please that collective, than you will do so anyway ... and maybe to a greater degree. i don't know. really, i don't know anything. but eventually, i will find something of interest to write about.

taking punk rock to bed ...

2005-06-18T05:05:00.000-07:00

i know the sun has got to be on its way. it's a strange feeling i get when i look at the clock and see that it's surely morning for most people. for me, it's yet another night without sleep. got to love the life.

i do try and lay down, seriously. but there i am with one thought running through my mind: "if you could sleep with liz phair, that would be your crowning achievement."

i suppose that is a commentary on who i am as a man. i see so little accomplishment in the good that humans do for each other, and so much accomplishment in the act of getting naked before the one you love. and i don't really have an explanation for that. i guess that's just the way that i see the world.

i stood at the pizza parlor the other day and listened to one of my friends talk about how her boyfriend would let her stray as long as it was for a celebrity that she had dreamed of. and it got me thinking, who would i want to sleep with ... if the opportunity presented itself.

of course, i am not the kind of man to fantasize about a woman that i don't know. and surely, i have never fantasized about liz phair either. don't get me wrong. i guess it's just not my deal. i think i would want my girlfriend to let me sleep with one other person, no questions asked. is that asking too much?

to me, it feels like it's the exact same thing. in fact, i am not sure that i could allow my lover to take to bed with a rich and famous man. where would be the sanity in that? i mean, why would she ever want to come back to me.

i am not sure what this american fascination with the celebrity is. maybe it's just that we see them as living that american dream that we would like to believe is a real possibility for the rest of us. of course, that makes me wonder what exactly constitutes the american dream. is it having sex with multiple women? having all the possessions that one man could dream of?

i guess i always thought that if i could have anything (other than the opportunity to have sex with two women at once) it would be to ensure that my children and their children would be able to live happy and productive lives for the rest of their existences. is that asking too much? and why is that not the american dream?

sometimes i wonder if parents understand how much they owe their children. do people understand that children never choose to be part of this world. and i am sure that if you gave most children the choice, they would opt to go back to wherever it is that they came from.

well ... no, that's a stupid thought. there i go again, thinking i understand what would make other people happy.

do i even have a point tonight? seriously, i need to stop writing when i am tired and wishing i could sleep. i am not sure that this serves any purpose. for my experience, i find that it is best to write stream on conscious when you are tired and listless. but what the fuck do i know. after all, i wrote this shit. but at least i didn't read it. so the joke, ultimately, is on you. hahaha.

keep the government's hands off my pipe!!!

2005-06-12T00:32:00.000-07:00

yeah, i just kind of let the whole medical marijuana thing pass. i was aware of it when it happened, but i just didn't feel the motivation to write on it ...

... and why should i? yeah, i smoke weed. so what. that doesn't mean for a second that i support medical marijuana. in fact, i get tired of all these fucking pussies talking about how "sick and dying people are being denied their medicine." it's not medicine, it's weed. and it's fun to smoke, but it ain't going to cure your cancer, and it ain't going to cure your aids, so give it up already.

and really, that's where i was coming from when i first heard the decision handed down by the u.s. supreme court last week that denied states' rights for the first time in my (pot-shortened) memory. it seemed to me, at least when ever i would pay attention, that the supreme court appeared to stand adamantly in the corner of states' rights. that, as far as i know, has been a cornerstone of the conservative soap box for decades ... since before goldwater.

of course, i don't really know anything about history or politics, so please don't take my word as truth.

from what i understand, the claim made in the majority decision of the court on the matter was that the prohibition and regulation of controlled substances falls under the jurisdiction of interstate commerce. and that's a pretty solid argument ... being that one of the fundamental demands for a union such as ours is the need for continuity in interstate commerce.

still, i am not buying it. i find little in the constitution to protect a lot of our government's practical applications. and most of my complaints about said applications would center around interstate commerce and the so called "eclectic clause" of the first article of the constitution. and i blame this largely on the often stubborn approach to government of alexander hamilton. but really, i am quite far away from any point that i had when i began this entry.

i just don't like medical marijuana. i think that last week's ruling was most likely bullshit, not because of the constitutional basis of interstate commerce, but because of the fascist notion of controlling what "free" adults do with and to their bodies.

i don't even think there should be an argument about medical marijuana. i have long held the opinion that all substances should be legal and readily available to the public (meaning no government regulation). obviously, if it can't be got, then there is no discussion.

but i think that doctors should only make "recommendations" and not "prescriptions." if some moron wants to go to the pharmacist and buy a bunch of vicadin and kill himself ... then more pot for me.

and pot, of course, should be totally legal for recreational use. and if aids patients and cancer patients want to get high because they think it helps them in their illness, then more power to them. but i hate to see people expend energy to save marijuana as a medicine, when they should be using that energy to let ME get high. there is nothing that marijuana can do for you that there isn't a better, stronger pharmaceutical for.

on a side note, i will someday learn to spell ... well ... probably not. and you know what? fuck this entry. i am so full of shit anyway. i would rather just get high. of course, the funny thing is that there is nothing the government can do to stop me from smoking weed, but they sure seem to be doing a number on these sick people. sucks for them, i guess.

i should point out, in the name of full disclosure, that i have always voted against all medical marijuana propositions. and i feel that if people win on the medical front, they will forget that there is nothing wrong with getting high. what really needs to happen is those powerful tobacco lobbies need to realize that if they were allowed to grow weed, they could save their industry.

planning mass murder ...

2005-06-07T03:34:00.000-07:00

now if i were a terrorist, i think i would strike this eu summit coming next week. don't get me wrong, i realize that all these terrorists were pussies ... one hit wonders exploited to keep a nation in a constant state of fear.

but i would think that anyone could see a terrorist attack on the scale of sept. 11 stands miles ahead of its kin in that it has historical meaning and value. if the goal of terrorism is to gain political ground through the use of violence, then this is one hell of a political opportunity. i have a feeling that the whole world will be watching ... except america, we could give a fuck less.

i would be willing to bet that if i asked all of my friends about the european union, three would know what i am talking about. there is no such thing as good news to us anymore. i know one person who watches the nightly news. i don't know anyone that reads the newspaper.

the point is just that you could really drive home the fact that there is a sincere clash of cultures here that needs to be addressed imediately on an honorable and level table very soon. i guess that's just what i would get out of it. but fuck, i have kind of lost track of whatever it is that the terrorists want.

would it really be as simple as turning our back on israel? and if it was, how many americans would be down? that's what i really want to know. how much does the general american public really care about israel? i mean, if we fail to make the connection between iraq and oil, than how are we going to see the connection between israel and oil?

my sense is that we could never even ask these questions. and there is a large part of me that believes the answers would not be what i expect.

i think that if god talks to you, then i am pretty scared of you. that's really what it comes down to. i don't want to fuck around with someone that thinks that they are getting hooked up on the other side of the big sleep. it's like bribery. it just isn't right.

i wonder what turning our back on israel would result in. would israel kick eveyrone else's ass? i mean, these countries are pretty weak, as near as i can tell. there was the whole six-days war thing. and this last little battle with iraq, who was punking all these bitches anyway.

and would israel use nuclear weapons?

whatever, it's not going to happen. i know that i won't die for israel, and that's something. shit ... did i have a point?

this machine kills fascists ....

2005-06-02T04:45:00.000-07:00

i just read most of an article about the dutch and french rejections of the new european union and constitution in today's times. clearly propaganda, it pushed all out capitalism (is that the key issue of the new union? i guess i should have been paying attention.), and did little to answer key issues. for example, instead of focusing on how it was a "democratic infitada," it should have focused on what exactly the people were opposed to.

in that, i am saying that i felt the article was far more concerned with how the rejection of the constitution was a referendum of the european politicians, and not a genuine vote on the constitution.

it should be noted that any progression toward a world community cannot be based in values that are not shared universally. for a communist and a capitalist to agree, they cannot discuss social and economic structure. a true democracy would not enforce ideals. and for democracy to spread, it cannot attempt to do so.

in saying this, i am rejecting any democracy that doesn't cooperate with any and all structures. and by rejection, i mean that no such democracy will ever be the "more perfect union" sought in the united states' constitution. and i am leaving that vague because it is still hard for me to imagine a democratic system that allows for unity and peace more effectively than a rolling empire.

of course, that conquering empire is not an option in the nuclear age. and so i am convinced that the solution is in a more true, more representative form of democracy that allows for all religious viewpoints and political approaches -- as god and country are almost always the causes of war.

either way, this article did bring up one valuable point (at least in the part that i read). and that was that a lot of europe is worried about the inclusion of turkey into the union, and it implied that europeans do not want the increase in the islamic influence in europe. for obvious reasons, i think this is pretty significant.

it will be hard to find peace in a world where hurtful prejudices are so ingrained. in that, i am not saying that i don't find it a legitimate concern for the minds of europeans. but with regards to my vision, i am not sure how many, if any, religions are really ever going to be happy sharing the planets with others.

i still remember the day when kermit (an elderly pakistani man that worked at the store around the corner -- we called him kermit, because he look and spoke like the furry frog; we called the store "hallah" or "goat head" because it sold hallah brand goat meat) and i spoke of kashmir.

if you don't know, kashmir is probably the most likely scene for the opening act in a nuclear exchange. this is a land between pakistan and india; both nations lay claim to it. pakistan and india are both nuclear powers. and pakistan, an islamic nation, is ruled by a military dictator who often cooperates with the west.

at this point in time, i feel that the most likely scenario for the first nuclear exchange would be an islamic revolution in pakistan, followed by islamic extremists control of nuclear weapons, and yada yada yada.

either way, i asked kermit about kashmir and he switched from kermit to hitler. he began to preach rather violently about how the indians weren't even on the same level as the rest of us (meaning jews, christians and muslims) because they did not even believe in god. he repeated several times "they worship rocks." it was one of the most amazing and powerful experiences in my life.

i guess i am saying that i can't forget how much people hate each other. and that to want to change how someone feels, even when they feel hatred, is wrong. it presumes that you know what is right and wrong, and you are willing to enforce it. and where that may be just manipulation in a social environment, when you are talking about people you don't know, it is fascism.

and it's in this clash between common interests and intolerable means that we find the greatest hurdle in the race with the nuclear age.

i think i am rambling now.

screaming at your television ...

2005-06-01T12:54:00.000-07:00

ok, i admit that when i am doing laundry, i am often smoking pot and watching the news. i don't know if that means that there is something wrong with me, but it definitely means that i enjoy the finer parts of life. some have their wine and cheese, i have my herbs and cnn.

but the problem with news is that only fox news is worth a damn, and i hate the viewpoints expressed on the propaganda network. but cnn is such a sad state. i am convinced that you aren't going to find quality information on a 24-hour news network. but fox news has created a new type of news and sold it to a mindless, slightly retarded public. cnn doesn't even do that much.

cnn seems to be crossed between dedication and reactionism toward whatever fox news does on one hand, and some horribly egotistical declaration that they were the first and (at one time) the best 24-hour news network out there. as if television news can even compete. most people, i think, pay attention to the television to stay abreast of what is going on, and then they turn to a newspaper or the internet to find out the details.

i know that when i hear something interesting on tv, i often leave the room and head to the computer to find out what is really going on ... or at least what information is really out there.

today i laughed at the tv, right before i changed the channel. cnn is celebrating its 25th anniversary. and if that wasn't pitiful enough, today it celebrated its coverage of the 2000 presidential election. and if that wasn't pitiful enough, the anchor was showing a clip of herself, talking about how she covered the news.

i just couldn't take it. i admit that i look back at that election and see a drastic change in my life. and i didn't particualary feel like having cnn hold my hand for the duration of my nostalgic look back to the old world and how it began to change in a demonstrative way.

i think if there is one thing that i have learned from my ventures into the news world, i know that all news people are incompetant. they can't even adhere to their own archaic beliefs about truth and service. i think it stems from the method in which we breed the journalists of the future.

but i guess what they are doing is far more productive than my aimless rambling.

another thing i forgot to mention last night, largely because there is no definable resolution, is the comotion of the new european union and constitution. i am not too sure about what the french people think, but i know that another european nation today followed suit with a clear rejection of the constition.

i have always liked the idea of a european union. in my vision of a peaceful world, political and national issues are settled in bloodless meetings. and as the first major step toward that world, nations must unite and grow larger. i envision one nation per continent. two united states (north and south america); an african, asian and european union; and one union of island nations for a total of 6 distinct political entities. but more than that, i will not get into right now.

the point is just that i am watching this rejection of the european constitution. and i am very interested in motives, shortfalls, cultural oppositions and everything that goes along with it.