a generic brand of thinking

"I'm Gonna Kill You!"

2011-08-16T22:26:00.004-04:00

Are threats permissible under freedom of speech? The law says they are not. Should they be, though?

Here is a quick anecdote to open up the debate. An upset customer calls into work and is extremely unhappy with the service he has received. In the midst of his anger, he threatens to shoot up the whole company. His threat is taken literally, the police are called, and the man is investigated by the authorities. The police find a semi-automatic pistol and a rifle and confiscate both as evidence.

Now, if someone makes a threat--especially against one's life--I think it should be taken seriously. But I don't think one should forfeit other rights they possess because a moment of anger overcame him. In the example above, should the man have to give up any guns he has because the language he used in the threat indicates he will use them? In America, we have the right to keep and bear arms. We also have the right to free speech. Is there a point at which one supersedes the other? If you use a gun to commit murder, that does not take away your right to free speech. So why should the reverse be true?

What if the threat did not involve the use of a weapon? Let's say our exemplar simply screams "I'm gonna kill you!" Is the threat treated the same way? Does the manner in which one threatens make a difference?

Here is another example, and this one is considered protected free speech under the 1st Amendment. A group of anti-war protesters are holding a rally in the capital. The leader of the country continues to fight a war that many feel is unjust. Some of the protesters have pictures of the leader with slashes through them, and others burn effigies of the leader.

The latter example is protected because a leader is considered a symbol of government. But in reality, what is the difference between an angry customer threatening the company he feels did a disservice to him and protesters acting out against a government of which they disapprove? I suppose it all just depends on the party being threatened.

I am more inclined to side with the 1st Amendment, which reads "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". Call me a traditionalist, but prosecuting threats or the yelling of "FIRE!" in a crowded theater (as the other typically unprotected speech example goes) is an infringement of the 1st Amendment, which clearly states NO LAW. I hope that we never live in the world envisioned in the movie Minority Report, where people are prosecuted for future crimes. Wait until they act, then prosecute the individual.

Speech cannot be a crime.

Defending the Defenseless

2011-07-05T18:45:00.002-04:00

It is a case like Casey Anthony's that really makes me want to become a criminal defense attorney. It's not because I get my kicks defending "murderers, rapists, and drug dealers." I want to do it because it's a thankless job that needs to be done.

I count myself among the probably less than 1% of the population following this case since 2008 to believe that Casey was truly not guilty. And you know why that is? Because I still believe in our judicial system and that it is one of the best in the world. A lot of times people seem to take the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" for granted. Maybe you're accused of stealing a candy bar or cheating on your test. Maybe your sibling is crying that you hit them. But you stick to your guns in those instances and say, "Prove it!"

Yet here we are, less than 6 hours after a verdict came back in one of the must publicized stories since at least Scott Peterson—if not OJ Simpson himself—and everyone I know is flipping out that justice hasn't been served. Hey, here's an uncanny thought. Maybe she DIDN'T kill her daughter.

Casey didn't "pull a fast one on the system". She didn't even "get away with murder". Because in the eyes of the law, she is innocent. She always has been. The burden is not on her attorney Jose Baez to prove her innocence. The burden of proof has and always will lie with the state, or specifically in this case the District Attorney's office, to prove her guilt. That is why we a jury of her peers must find her guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". If even a hint of doubt creeps into a juror's mind, that should be enough to find her NOT GUILTY.

Was Casey Anthony a bad mother? Yes, no arguments from me there. Was she a murderer? Fortunately that isn't our call to make.

Open Letter to U.S. Senators - PATRIOT Act ed.

2011-02-11T14:45:00.003-05:00

Dear Senator _________,

As we now know, despite losing a measure for immediate passage the PATRIOT Act extension has been approved by a majority of representatives. I find it appalling not only that so many congressmen would vote to continue such a horrid infringement on the rights of U.S. citizens, but that this has gone on now for 9 years. Is there no one in our government who is willing to stand up for the rights of the citizens they were elected to serve?

There is little to no evidence that our country is actually safer 9 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. However, there are ample amounts of evidence indicating that we are much less free now than we were 10 years ago. You have the power to change that. Vote NO on extending the PATRIOT Act provisions. Restore a small amount of liberty to the our nation.

With the government continually expanding under the guise of service, Americans lose more and more freedom everyday. First it started with warrantless wiretaps granted by the initial PATRIOT Act. Then the Department of Homeland Security was unconstitutionally created to oversee something... to this day no one really knows what their purpose is other than to gobble up insane amounts of tax dollars and produce nothing but frustration and torment for the people they are supposedly protecting. The Travel Security Administration continues to make travel less secure, more difficult, and overall is a horribly run organization that provides no amount of "security."

If you truly value the lives and rights of your constituents in Florida, you will vote NO on this bill when it comes to a vote in the Senate. Patrick Henry once famously said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" It has become obvious that Washington no longer wishes to give U.S. citizens back their liberty; I only hope that you do not then wish death upon us.

I appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to consider what I had to say. I will anxiously await your reply.

Thank you,

Aaron Brand

[Feel free to use this letter, modify it, and send it to your Senator. It's time to get our freedom back!]

Don't Talk to Cops!!!

2011-02-11T00:00:00.000-05:00

This may come as a surprise to everyone, but I don't exactly have a lot of respect for authority. To me, respect is something that has to be earned; it is not something I give because of the uniform you wear or the position you hold. Therefore, if I get pulled over or a police officer wants to "ask me a few questions" I am pretty hesitant to say anything. Because as we all know from any episode of Law & Order, anything we say can and will be used against us in a court of law.

That isn't just a line that Dick Wolf created for his hit crime and justice series. What is typically referred to as "Miranda rights" or "Miranda warning" is actually something that all of us have always had since our Constitution was drafted. It is a stated reminder of one of our 5th Amendment rights, which reads:

No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

So if we've always had the "right to remain silent," then why do cops tell us that upon arrest? Well, they didn't always have to tell the person they were arresting. The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona established that if a suspect was not told they have the right to an attorney any admission or evidence gathered in interrogation was not admissible in court. Therefore, the police are now required to read the Miranda warning when taking someone into custody.

Some of you are probably saying, "Well, if I'm never taken into custody, I won't have to worry about anything." WRONG. The Miranda warning is only read to those in police custody. You can still easily waive your 5th Amendment rights in something as simple as a traffic stop, or as innocent as a neighborhood inquiry.

Imagine you get pulled over. Perhaps you were speeding, perhaps not. The cop asks you if you know how fast you were going. To be safe, you reply "maybe a few miles over the speed limit" assuming the police don't care about anything 1-5 mph above the limit. Well, whether you were speeding or not, you've just admitted to the officer that you were speeding and can be held accountable for that.

Scenario 2: some police officers are canvasing the neighborhood looking for a burglar. They say a witness spotted someone who looked like your roommate outside the burgled residence earlier that night. You roommate was out that night, although you have no idea where. Not answering is the best thing you can do. If you lie to cover for your roommate, you can be charged with obstruction of justice, which is essentially misleading a police investigation. However, obstruction of justice doesn't apply to NOT SAYING ANYTHING. If you stay silent, you are simply utilizing you 5th Amendment rights, even if you are not considered a suspect in the investigation. Because, as the warning states: anything you say can be used against you. You may unwittingly release some information that the police could use to charge you with something. So, better to lock up the trap and throw away the key.

If the cops really need information out of you, they can lawfully obtain a subpoena for you to appear in court. You may still exercise your 5th amendment rights even in court if you are afraid you may incriminate yourself in some manner.

The most important thing is to be aware of your rights and to not be afraid. Whether they are aware that they do so or not, police officers can intimidate people into giving up information that they otherwise wouldn't, simply because they wear a badge and carry a gun. You don't have to be an asshole (something I constantly have to bite my tongue about), but you also don't have to kowtow to authority.

I strongly encourage you to watch this video, entitled "Don't Talk To Police." It is about 50 minutes long, but it provides a very easy-to-understand and entertaining explanation of your 5th Amendment rights by a Regent University School of Law professor and surprisingly by a Virginia Beach police officer as well.

To Watch or Not To Watch (Super Bowl edition)

2011-02-06T17:15:00.000-05:00

There's an event going on tonight that over a hundred million people could watch. And before this highly publicized episode of Glee, a football game will be played as well. Hiyo!

Truthfully though, Super Bowl XLV (45 for those playing at home) will be played tonight around 6:30 pm Eastern Standard Time. But is this game even worth watching? I mean, there have been 44 others before, and they're all pretty much the same, no?

Let's weigh some pros and cons.

CONS

The Green Bay Packers are playing for the title
Let's be honest. The Green Bay Packers were the NFC favorites for this game since 3 years ago. It's obvious that there is no one within the league who is upset that the Packers are playing in the Super Bowl. And that in and of itself is enough reason to dismiss this game. Preseason favorites, especially ones who have had as many over-publicized injuries as Green Bay has, cannot be accepted as legitimate contenders, i.e. that they earned the spot simply through their own efforts. (Full disclosure: I am a Chicago Bears fan, but I also admit that the better team did win two weeks ago).

Joe Buck and Troy Aikman are doing the play-by-play
In a game as important as this--the nation's biggest sporting event--fans want to watch and listen to a game that pits the two best teams, and everything should stack up evenly. But Buck and Aikman's love of Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers can only be surpassed by their love for their own personalities. In Joe or Troy's eyes, Rodgers is never at fault for a mistake; it was either the offensive line, wide receivers, or coaches that did something wrong. And Rodgers is always the end-all-be-all for why the Packers win, even if a touchdown came by way of the defense.

The Pittsburgh Steelers are playing for a 7th Super Bowl title
Maybe it goes back to our break from England, but our country generally doesn't like long reigns, whether it is in sports, politics, or business. The Patriots became loathed by half of the country and loved by the other half when they won 3 championships earlier this century. There is no middle ground. The Steelers are on the verge of doing the same thing tonight. When the Steelers beat the Arizona Cardinals two years ago and moved into the sole ownership of most SB titles, people were thrilled that the Cardinals were competing for their first championship in franchise history. Same thing with the New Orleans Saints last year. But now we have the most dominant Super Bowl era franchise playing one of the most storied franchises in NFL history. Despite what the media is billing this game as, that sounds like "Old boys club" to me.

The bureaucracy of the NFL has gotten out of control this season
Whatever happened to letting the players play? Whether it was the week one call that overturned Calvin Johnson's "touchdown" or the crackdown on helmet to helmet hits, the league is turning fans off of the game by over-analyzing every play on the field. Much like in the world of business, too many regulations only hinder the system itself. When a quarterback can no longer be hit like any other player on the field, how is that any different than crony capitalism that hands out tax breaks only to certain government approved industries? I was upset to see the how often the referees involved themselves in the NFC Championship game, which included the longest rivalry in the NFL with two of the league's oldest teams. That was a game that should have been black and blue all over, but over and over again we were seeing nothing but yellow thrown.

My room really needs cleaning
This is obviously a subjective objection (subjection?) to watching the game. But I'm sure we all have something better we could be doing than spending an entire day watching a football game that doesn't concern 85% of us. At least during the season "your team" is playing just about every week. But now, when we are down to two teams, is it still worth watching when one of them is not the team we root for?

PROS

The Black Eyed Peas are playing the halftime show
This interests me quite a bit, actually. Ever since Janet Jackson's boob fell out 7 years ago during a halftime show presented by CBS, the Super Bowl halftime show has featured traditional (read: boring) musical acts. I'm not saying a show has to have half-naked women to be interesting (although that sometimes helps), but with the exception of Prince's penis-shaped guitar antics, there hasn't been anything that could constitute relevance to the halftime show in half a decade. The Black Eyed Peas have the potential to make this halftime show watchable again. With songs like "I Gotta Feeling", "Pump It", and "Let's Get It Started" (oh how I wish they would perform the unPC original version "Let's Get Retarded"... Damn you Sarah Palin!) the energy in Cowboys Stadium will be immense during halftime. Sure, everyone knows Tom Petty's songs, and The Boss is famous, or something. But those old farts are just that... old. The Black Eyed Peas have been around long enough to show they deserve to be performing on this stage, but at the same time can still attract an audience of future NFL viewers.

The commercials?
There is always that niche of viewers that "watch for the commercials." But like the halftime show, the commercial experience over the last seven or eight years has been pretty lackluster. We've seen the birth of the E-trade baby that now is played out. We've seen the Go Daddy Danica Patrick commercials that sucker countless Americans into "seeing the full unedited clip online." Commercials are commercials; is there really anything revolutionary in them? I suppose we'll have to give the cryptic "wait and see" answer.

In the end, football is still football
As I stated in far more words earlier, I can't stand the Packers. I have no qualms about saying I hope every one of their players suffers some sort of injury today. But I still hope both teams bring it, and that the outcome is decided by who moves the ball the best, and not by who pleads their case most eloquently (or emotionally) to the referees.

Above the Law

2011-02-05T06:00:00.000-05:00

(In my best movie voice-over guy voice)

Imagine a world where criminal acts run rampant; a world where the line between good and bad is blurred; a world where crime goes unpunished...

There are those who stand in the way of justice, and no one can do a thing to stop them...

Unfortunately, that isn't the lead-in for a new Steven Seagal movie (although I really should do a Seagal marathon one of these days). That is actually the very real world we live in right now. And the "crimes" that go unpunished are committed every year by those sworn to protect and uphold the law.

Now give me a second to explain. There aren't Orwellian armies of jack-booted thugs wiping the streets clean of jay-walkers or litterers. And we're not in a state of martial law, where curfews are enforced at the end of a M-16. But there are instances reported daily of police officers who abuse the authority that a badge and a gun grant them; and examples of prosecutors and District Attorneys choosing not to charge said officers.

How can those who are supposed to "protect and serve" the community get away with criminal acts? The answer is something called qualified immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court created the doctrine of qualified immunity to shield "government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights." This means that a police officer or other public official can not be responsible for infringing on someone's rights if it is not commonly known at the time that said action is unconstitutional.

The present idea of qualified immunity was established in the case Pearson v. Callahan. The Supreme Court overturned a previous decision (Saucier v. Katz) that declared in cases of immunity a process must be followed: "first deciding the constitutionality and then deciding if the law had been unclear enough for officers not to be liable." Now, after the Pearson case, that two-step process was strictly advisory. If there is any doubt to the legality of a law at the time of breaking it, these special class of officials are not held liable the same way an average citizen would be.

Qualifying immunity is most often seen in cases involving the 4th and 5th amendments. The 4th amendment deals with a person's right to be secure in their person and property against searches and seizures. The 5th amendment ensures that a person may not lay down evidence that would in turn implicate him in a crime, and that they cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.

Take, for example, the murder of Eurie Stamps. While serving a warrant on Stamps' residence for targets who Stamps was not, "a firearm was discharged by a SWAT team member and a round struck a resident," says a police report. If this was an encounter between two average citizens, a "discharged firearm" would be a fired gun and a "round [striking] a resident" would equate to assault with a deadly weapon, later to be manslaughter or even murder upon Stamps being killed.

However, in this instance, none of the SWAT team members were brought up on weapons charges, nor will any likely be held accountable on criminal charges for Stamps' death. A man was killed, and for what? A poorly executed drug raid?

While the job of a police officer can be a stressful and difficult job at times, the citizenry trusts that those who wear the badge are capable of handling the stress of the job for which they willingly apply. Nobody is putting the gun to one's head and forcing him to become a police officer. More accountability--remove sovereign immunity, equal if not stiffer penalties for laws broken by officers, penalties on prosecutors that don't charge officers--for the job would do nothing but help police officers. If a police officer is truly justified in the actions he or she takes, then there would be no problem in acquitting them of all charges. Perhaps these actions will help shape the strong arm of the law from Mjöllnir to more of a carpenter's hammer.

Despite our infatuation for heroes like Dirty Harry Callahan and Axel Foley, everyone (including "criminals") has rights that cannot be violated. The police enforce the law; they are not above the law.

Election Day Picks Part B

2010-10-25T19:28:00.009-04:00

This is where I lay out my November 2nd voting picks for Florida District 24 Titusville and why I will vote they way I am. Bold will indicate the ballot item and italics will be used for how I am voting. For electable positions I will only write the position and the candidate I support, and not necessarily every candidate listed on the ballot. For ballot initiatives I will write the text that appears on the ballot.

This post will deal strictly with the ballot initiatives, and mostly the state-wide amendments. A good non-partisan website to look at for the amendments is Collins Center. I am referencing all of my write-ups to this website. I encourage you to watch the 1-2 minute videos that summarize each of the amendments.

If you have a question on how I would vote concerning something else on the ballot, feel free to ask.

No.1 Constitutional Amendment
Repeal of Campain [sic] Financing Reform

Proposing the repeal of the provision in the State Constitution that requires public financing of campaigns of candidates for elective statewide office who agree to campaign spending limits.
YES

Aside from the misspelled word, which hopefully is fixed on the official ballot--otherwise that could mean the REAL Campaign Finance Law won't be repealed--this is an easy pick for me. Campaign financing is a "noble" fix to what is really a non-problem. You see, for every big spending political juggernaut in Florida, there are plenty more little upstarts who just can't get their message out due to a lack of funds. The state of Florida will give these (typically third-party) politicians money to run their campaign. But of course there's a catch: you have to agree to certain spending limits on your campaign.

So if someone uses the public funds to generate some grass-roots momentum, and then in turn begins to raise their own money, they are locked into certain spending limits because they took the public money. Campaign finance laws essentially come down to an infringement on freedom of speech, as odd as that may sound. Because you are given public funds, the government then tries to tell you how much money you can spend on what is essentially getting your message out (your speech).

Repealing this law is a double whammy. It reduces government spending which would in turn eliminate the restrictions on campaign spending.

No. 2 Constitutional Amendment
Homestead Ad Valorem Tax Credit for Deployed Military Personnel

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to require the Legislature to provide an additional homestead property tax exemption by law for members of the United States military or military reserves, the United States Coast Guard or its reserves, or the Florida National Guard who receive a homestead exemption and were deployed in the previous year on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The exempt amount will be based upon the number of days in the previous calendar year that the person was deployed on active duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, or Hawaii in support of military operations designated by the Legislature. The amendment is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011.
NO

Don't think that a NO vote here hurts the servicemen. They already receive at least one homestead property tax. This would just be an additional benefit to them. It can be hard to vote against something that seems to benefit our troops, who do so much for our country. But servicemen aren't the only ones working in this terrible economy, and they're also not the only ones who could use a tax break.

I am very much against favoritism in legislation, and this amendment screams favoritism. If we make exceptions here, then it just opens the door for more exceptions down the road. Voting no won't take away anything from the people who have been stationed outside the U.S. It will just keep them from getting ANOTHER tax break.

No. 4 Constitutional Amendment
Referenda Required for Adoption and Amendment of Local Government Comprehensive Land Use Plans

Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by referendum, following preparation by the local planning agency, consideration by the governing body and notice.
NO

This amendment is the brainchild of a group that wants to give power back to the people. They are tired of elected officials getting cozy with developers and abusing the system, resulting in increased cost, unmet time tables, and in severe cases seizure of private property. However, it is also an example of treating the symptoms instead of the cause.

If the problem is crony capitalism (government in bed with businesses) then the solution should be a form of pushing competition. This can be done by creating a comprehensive bidding system, and if the winning bid goes over the budget they proposed then they are liable for all additional costs; the tax-payer should not be footing the bill.

Government officials, love 'em or hate 'em, are elected to do these things so that we don't have to. Despite the noble intentions of the amendment's backers, a group called "Hometown Democracy," we put these people in positions of authority so that we don't have to go to the polls every time a change is made in a development plan. There's no definitive evidence on how much this amendment would cost/save taxpayers, but the way I see it is that additional ballot measures every voting cycle would inevitably result in the "need" to create a new bureaucratic office to handle these special elections.

Proponents are for Amendment 4 because they claim it puts power back into the hands of the people. But in reality it substitutes one sort of cronyism for another: the developers are now unseated by the voter who may not like a tree in the park across the street being taken out to build a new public bathroom. Like I said before, the best way to protect against these abuses are to create a competitive market for developers and not lock a city into long contracts with a particular company.

Nos. 5 and 6 Constitutional Amendments
Standards for Legislature to Follow in Legislative (5)/Congressional (6) Redistricting

Legislative/Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.
YES

Both of these are the saying the same thing, but one applies to redistricting for U.S. Congressional districts and the other to the Florida state legislature. Part of my confusion concerning Amendments 5 and 6 was that I already thought there was something that prevented gerrymandering, or the act of drawing district lines in odd shapes (like a salamander) to favor a certain political party.

I have some misgivings about these amendments because of the emphasis that districts "shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process..." I didn't realize anyone was denying them the vote; as though we were living before the 1960s again. I think the concern is that in some districts with large minority populations, minority candidates or candidates favoring minority positions rarely run or are elected. There's no telling that with these amendments anything different will occur, though.

The opponent's position, however, is even weaker. Despite Florida having more registered Democrats than Republicans, the state typically votes Republicans into office. Therefore, the Republicans usually get to redraw the district lines. Essentially the opposition point-of-view is "vote NO on 5 and 6 so we can keep favoring Republicans." If that's how you think, then by all means vote that way. But I think you should look at some of the current districts we have and see the ridiculous shapes that they claim are fairly distributed: District 27 stretches across the entire state, District 11 includes only a tiny portion of south St. Petersburg, and District 3 starts in Pine Hills, Orlando and goes north all the way to Jacksonville, taking a huge portion of central Florida with it.

No. 8 Constitutional Amendment
Revision of the Class Size Requirement for Public Schools

The Florida Constitution currently limits the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms in the following grade groupings: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 18 students; for grades 4 through 8, 22 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 25 students. Under this amendment, the current limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in public school classrooms would become limits on the average number of students assigned per class to each teacher, by specified grade grouping, in each public school. This amendment also adopts new limits on the maximum number of students assigned to each teacher in an individual classroom as follows: for prekindergarten through grade 3, 21 students; for grades 4 through 8, 27 students; and for grades 9 through 12, 30 students. This amendment specifies that class size limits do not apply to virtual classes, requires the Legislature to provide sufficient funds to maintain the average number of students required by this amendment, and schedules these revisions to take effect upon approval by the electors of this state and to operate retroactively to the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.
YES

I had to do a double-take on this one. My first instinct was "NO," because I thought smaller classes were more conducive to learning and I thought that if the school budget was having trouble meeting needs, cuts could be made in other areas. But it turns out that a Harvard study was done on Florida based on the 2002 law that mandated the smaller class sizes, and they found no discernible differences between scores prior to and scores after. Another thing is that the new amendment would change the class size maximum to the class size average in a school.

So three classes at an elementary school, A, B, and C, under the current law have 17, 18, and 18 students respectively. Two new students transfer into the school and are put in class A, and one student transfers out of the school and class B. The current law would require a student to be moved from class A to class B to keep the maximum at 18 each. But the new amendment would allow things to remain as is because the overall average in the school is still 18 students in each class. The only problem that would arise is if the new maximum of 21 is breached, but then things are treated the same as before and a new teacher is hired and class is created.

The other thing is that an estimated $18.7 billion have been spent trying to meet the class size requirements from the 2002 law. And schools are still not close to meeting the standards by the 2011 deadline. In addition, money is saved overall by not needing to build as many additional schools.

The bottom line is the kids shouldn't suffer but neither should the taxpayer, which is exactly what's happening in this instance. Don't let teachers try to persuade you that it's "FOR TEH CHILDRENZ" and a vote for 8 is a vote against kids (although you're welcome to think that if you don't like kids). It's simply about trying to control government spending so that these kids will have a state to live in when they graduate.

Nonbinding Statewide Advisory Referendum

In order to stop the uncontrolled growth of our national debt and prevent excessive borrowing by the federal government, which threatens our economy and national security, should the United States Constitution be amended to require a balanced federal budget without raising taxes?
YES

If a family has to live under a budget, why shouldn't the government? The thing about this ballot item is that it is only asking if there should be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So in other words a YES vote will only get the ball rolling. But I still think it's a push in the right direction. For the same reason's Proposition 19 in California is getting the discussion going on decriminalizing marijuana, this kind of vote will make people consider the unrestrained spending that Congress has been forcing on us for decades.

I hope my synopses help you decide one way or the other on how to vote on November 2nd. The most important part is that you take an interest in your community, your state, and your country and vote on what you think best benefits that which you hold dear. Let's hit the polls hard, people, and let the government know what is important to us.

Election Day Picks Part 1

2010-10-22T00:55:00.001-04:00

This is where I lay out my November 2nd voting picks for Florida District 24 Titusville and why I will vote they way I am. Bold will indicate the ballot item and italics will be used for how I am voting. For electable positions I will only write the position and the candidate I support, and not necessarily every candidate listed on the ballot. For ballot initiatives I will write the text that appears on the ballot.

Let's get started, shall we?

United States Senator
Alexander Andrew Snitker
I think there's a good theme in Florida's U.S. Senate race this year. Six out of 10 of the candidates listed on the ballot consider themselves Constitutionalists or small-government conservatives. That says that at least in Florida there is a feeling that government is out of control, and a lot of people have taken up that call.

The reason I like Snitker over all other candidates is that I just think he is the most devoted to shrinking government. I don't even dignify Meek with a thought in this race because he probably won't even get a majority of the Democrat votes. Crist is an opportunist who would throw his own mother aside if it got him into a higher office. I like a lot of what Marco Rubio has done as Speaker of the House in Florida, and his stances on property rights and education reform sit highly with me. But some of his other views like being unerringly pro-Israel are kind of a turn-off for me. It's okay to view Israel as a friend and potential ally, but I don't like the idea that we're on the hook for any danger they put themselves in. Israel, after all, is the Lord's nation; they should be able to handle themselves. (They have multiple times in the past)

Of the third party candidates, Snitker and Bernie DeCastro had the most similar views to my own who also looked a little more legit than the candidates that remind me of the hobo under the bypass warning about the dangers of radio waves. I like Snitker's campaign promises to abolish the Department of Education and the IRS and instead enact a FairTax to collect from everyone within the country, citizens and aliens alike. DeCastro is also in favor of repealing the 16th Amendment (direct income tax) which would result in more money in an individual's pocket.

I suppose Snitker gets the vote for me because he is a former Marine and therefore knows the folly of our current foreign policy. A strong military is necessary, but I believe America should first and foremost be a defensive nation. DeCastro makes a play for the Monroe Doctrine, but in my mind that was the first instance of us setting actual foreign policy on the notion that we should police the world, whether nearby in the Caribbean or across the world in Iraq. Our military presence overseas is a huge drain on our economy, and so much money could be saved by removing ourselves from the hundreds of bases we have in foreign lands.

Representative in Congress 24th Congressional District
Sandra "Sandy" Adams

Sandy Adams supports a flat tax rate that could eventually eliminate the need for the IRS (pipe dream I know, but it's nice in theory). I think low taxes are important for jump-starting the economy and keeping it going. But it is just part of the solution; huge slashes in spending (and not slashes in the budget from last year's, but actually cutting and killing wasteful programs) are needed to reduce the size of government, free up capital for businesses, and overall get our country back in to fiscal security.

Because all economic bills start in the House of Representatives, this is potentially a more important choice--given the state of the union--than the Senate race. Believe it or not, Suzanne Kosmas and Sandy Adams are very similar on a lot of the issues, such as NASA, small business support, and energy policy. But their voting records tell a bigger tale.

Kosmas voted to give $40B to green schools. I don't think schools should be funded on whether or not they are ecologically stable. Kosmas also voted to enforce against anti-gay hate crimes. I've laid out my stance on legislating against hate crimes before. And she also voted for the massive expenditures known as the 2009 stimulus and TARP.

Sandy Adams isn't perfect though, either. While she did vote to privatize toll roads and voted to continue to allow the teaching of evolution in schools, she also voted against certain gambling measures, which generate a lot of money for the public school system (so much so that schools are often underfunded by state sources).

It's actually unfortunate that only two candidates are running in this election, as it turns certain issues which aren't so black and white into pretty polarizing topics. A third or even fourth candidate would have helped to draw the lines a bit more clearly.

Governor and Lieutenant Governor
Undecided still... sorry

This is the most difficult to vote for because there are so many candidates and so little known about them (at least by me). While he won't get my vote, I do like C.C. Reed's candidacy, who says we should change "Politics" to "PEOPLE-tics." Unfortunately, he also has the ridiculously expensive idea of "provid[ing] available personnel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (including holidays) to address taxpayers' concerns and issues." There's also Josue Larose who was the Chairman of the United States Billionaires Federal Political Action Committee.

Farid Khavari sounds like he makes sense until you see some of his extremely expensive ideas like free higher education for all students in Florida, and solarizing the entire state. Daniel Imperato has a lot of experience in promoting businesses but he doesn't have any other information about how he stands on additional issues.

Michael E. Arth (Earth?) is an interesting case. For every sane idea (like decriminalizing drugs and taxing the hell out of them) he has THREE insane ideas (like "taxes are the price of admission to live in civilized society" and abortion can be used as a last resort to overpopulation concerns). Still, I love his un-Politically Correct writings. John Wayne Smith is a libertarian candidate, and unfortunately as someone else said, his website looks like what you would expect from a libertarian candidate. Still, I think he speaks his mind about a lot of the topics and takes the same stance I do on most issues. On healthcare, for instance, he says this: "Most people think that this system needs to be overhauled when in fact it doesn't; it simply needs to get the government out of the business to begin with."

Peter Allen looks like he's trying to appeal to everyone with his candidacy, since he's all over the place on the issues. He says healthcare should be provided for all Floridians, but they should also be able to purchase whatever healthcare they want. His website is also in dire need of an editor: "Decriminalize the use and procession of small amounts of Marijuana. [emphasis mine]"

Neither Alex Sink nor Rick Scott look promising. Scott is embattled in cases that pin him as either an idiot for not knowing what happened with his company or as a mastermind that scammed millions in Medicaid. Sink talks the talk when it comes to fiscal conservatism, but as Chief Financial Officer the state lost billions. Sink does seem better on civil liberties like equal rights for gays, and Scott comes off as an idiot saying that children are better off "if they're raised by a married couple."

This election is a doozy, that's for sure. If I had to pick one now, I'd probably go with Smith, who has a very Ron Paul vibe to him. But it will probably end up being a GTD (game time decision).

Attorney General
Pam Bondi

My vote for Attorney General is going to someone who I believe will follow in Bill McCollum's footsteps and continue the federal lawsuit on Obamacare. The individual mandate that all Americans must buy health insurance is unconstitutional, and any attempt to knock down that massive piece of semi-aborted legislation is an A+ in my book. So that essentially knocks the Democrat Dan Gelber out of the race.

Pam Bondi has a few things going for her. She's pretty hot, and she's the owner of Beethoven. She is a prosecutor and claims to want to crackdown on Medicare fraud cases. So anyone who wants to stick it to old folks scamming the system is Aces in my book as well. She is willing to take the challenge to Obamacare as far as she can as well.

Jim Lewis comes across a lot like Pam Bondi at first--minus the attractive face and giant dog--but he says one of his goals is to "urge our Florida law schools to reduce enrollment by 25% for the next 4 years" because of an overpopulation of lawyers and too many civil litigation cases. Since my goal is to become a criminal defense attorney in the very near future, this does not sit well with me. There's also the fact that Lewis would have no actual authority to propose such an idea, making him slightly absurd.

Chief Financial Officer
Independent candidate. Ken Mazzie or Tom Stearns

When I hear Chief Financial Officer, it sounds like a glorified name for Treasurer. Like the kind the chess club has. Well apparently even that is giving the position too much credit. But this job is about money, and partisan politics should have no place in this position. So that's why I am voting one of the two independents, and more likely Mazzie since he is a Certified Public Accountant, not a career politician, and knows how to handle money.

Commissioner of Agriculture
Thad Hamilton

I'm sad to see badass Charles Bronson not running again. This is another one of those positions where I just can't comprehend why a political affiliation is necessary. Not that I thought there were any "issues" involved in being Plant Commish, but Scott Maddox has a section for them on his site but nothing listed. Ira Chester looks like a cute but angry grandfather. I'm going with Hamilton because he seems to have the most experience in agriculture, whatever that means exactly. Plus, I don't think I've voted for any black people yet.

State Senator, 24th Senatorial District
Toss up. Steve Edmonds or Thad Altman

Both candidates support measures I like and talk about both in detail. Education reform in the way of merit-pay and school choice vouchers have the most potential. Despite currently living and voting in east central Florida, I am not a big fan of NASA. That is not to say that I don't support the space program. I just don't like government in our country trying to monopolize the space exploration industry. More competition and tax break incentives to bring contractors to the Space Coast are a plus and both candidates are for that.

Member Canaveral Port Authority, Districts 3, 4, 5
No vote

My feeling on these types of positions is that they should not be the voter's choice. 1) There is no reason that someone for the position of Port Authority member should have a party affiliation. You're either for protecting the port and interests of the community, or you're not. B) We elect officials to handle these kinds of appointments so that we don't have to worry about them. While I don't think the system will change anytime soon, I can't vote for any of these candidates knowing they are only using the position as a stepping stone for future office.

Shall Justice/Judge ______________________ be retained in office?
No

I vote "NO" on all of these because I am not a fan of long incumbencies, especially for the judicial branch. Also, these judges and justices are such a low level that any decision they make has the potential to be appealed and overturned, thereby essentially making who is actually appointed unimportant.

Circuit Court Judge, 18th Judicial Circuit, Group 3
Jessica Recksiedler

When you get down this far, the candidates' websites are pretty basic. I suppose I chose Recksiedler because of a little snippet on her homepage that said she knew she wanted to become a lawyer because of a project on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence she did in 7th grade.

Member School Board, District 1
Robert Jordan

Not just because he is the author of one of the best fantasy series of all time, but because he knows things and has a tie. Also, Krupp was my principal in high school, and I really didn't like my high school.

[In writing this, I saw how many officials are elected and it is absurd. I thought we elected certain people (i.e. mayor, city council, state legislature) so that we didn't have to elect all of these other petty positions. Makes me think the people we elect do even less than I originally thought.]

Most importantly, it is our responsibility as citizens to educate ourselves before we vote. A good website to check on voting records is Project Vote Smart. But as voters we can only do so much. The people we elect should be held to a high level of responsibility to uphold the mandate passed on to them by the people who elected them.

I will offer my takes on the ballot initiatives and amendments over the weekend.

I Hate "Hate-Crimes"

2010-10-09T20:13:00.006-04:00

A student from Rutgers University committed suicide by jumping off of the George Washington Bridge. This should be a time for mourning and reflection, but instead people are calling for yet another push in hate-crime legislation. You see, Tyler Clementi's suicide wasn't as tragically simple as a boy jumping to his death. It is believed by investigators that a video published on the Internet of Tyler having sex with another man caused the boy to want to take his own life. So now, the two students who allegedly made the video, Tyler's roommate Dhuran Ravi and his friend Molly Wei, may be faced with charges worse than invasion of privacy that they face as of now.

If these two are found guilty of filming Clementi and uploading sexual content of him to the Internet, then they should be prosecuted with fourth-degree and third-degree charges of privacy invasion, respectively. But as callous as it may sound, no one should be held responsible for Tyler's death but Tyler himself. The law was on his side if he chose to press charges against Ravi and Wei for filming him without his consent. Whether he was too embarrassed of the legal battle that would ensue and bring to light his sexual orientation or was just unaware that he had those options, the charges against those who wronged him shouldn't be trumped up because he took his own life.

When crimes are prosecuted as "hate-crimes" it is because there was a bias against the victim(s). In other words, it allows people to be prosecuted extra hard because of the way they think about others. This Reason.com piece explains the difference between crimes and "hate-crimes" pretty accurately:

A mugger who robs a Jew because he's well-dressed is punished less severely than a mugger who robs a Jew based on the belief that Jews get their money only by cheating Christians. A thug who beats an old lady in a wheelchair just for fun is punished less severely than a thug who does so because he believes disabled people are leeches.

The age-old adage for prosecuting has always been "let the punishment fit the crime." I agree with that. But I don't agree with letting the punishment fit the crime and thought process of the criminal.

To me it seems that a great disservice is done to the victims when prosecutors, families, and special interest groups push for hate-crime status. It says, "This person is less than a person and therefore deserves more special treatment." I mean, think about it. The very definition of crime is hating someone enough to commit some offense against them. That's why I can't get behind the idea that certain crimes are more special than others, and therefore deserve harsher penalties.

I applaud certain groups for raising awareness about crimes to a certain demographic, such as We Give a Damn (dot) org (plus, they have a really catchy name). But despite what the organization says, bullying does not equal murder or manslaughter. There are certain charges that can be brought in cases of bullying, and they vary depending upon the severity of the bullying itself. Committing suicide after the bullying shouldn't aggravate the charges, because if that dangerous precedent gets set then it opens the door for any nut job with a cause to pile on charges (or affect legislation) by committing suicide after the fact.

Take this paragraph from the Wegiveadamn.org blog:

...crimes [emphasis mine] can happen anywhere, at any time. They are dehumanizing, willful acts of bigotry perpetrated with the intent to intimidate. They may range from harassment and physical intimidation to beatings, rape, torture —even murder. Perpetrators commit these horrific acts to intimidate and terrorize a community, and to send a message about the victim and “their kind.”

I took one word out of that paragraph while transferring it here: Hate. And you know what? It's still just as powerful, if not more so. There is nothing attractive about crime.

The United States Constitution (specifically the 14th Amendment) guarantees equal protection under the law. But I believe that protection falls more to the criminal in these circumstances than the victim. In Tyler's case, he is already receiving equal protection under the law because charges have been brought up against Dhuran Ravi and Molly Wei. It seems more like people are using his status as a homosexual to pursue unequal prosecution against the people that taped him. It is important for us as a Nation of Laws to not overreact in instances such as this, but to thing rationally and treat all victims and defendants equally. Only then, will we be able to show how truly just our nation is.

Adventures in Voter Registration

2010-10-06T14:54:00.003-04:00

The other day I heard a news report that really frightened me. It wasn't about terrorism or some global disaster. The report said voter registration had closed for the state of Florida.

I thought, You have got to be kidding me!?! It's still a month before the elections!!

And therein lies one of the bigger problems with our system. In only a few states can you register to vote on Election Day.
And even then the polls are typically open from 7 AM to 7 PM. What about the people who work the graveyard shift? Or the people who have to work multiple jobs to get by? Yes, employers are supposed to give time off to employees to exercise their right to vote, but when every dollar (and therefore every hour you work) counts, many people would not feel the trade-off is worth it.

I think we should adopt a 24-hour Election Day. We don't need the early voting system we have, although we should keep the absentee ballot system, as that benefits troops stationed overseas as well as U.S. citizens living abroad. But we call the second Tuesday after the first Monday in November Election Day, not "Election 12-hour shift", or "Election Half-day." Spend the government allotted campaign money on something that's worth it, like staffing polling locations for a full 24-hour day. And then allow people to register to vote at specific polling locations. With everything going digital, it shouldn't be difficult to set up a system to check if a person is registered or not already, and then allow that person to vote. This early registration nonsense keeps a lot of people who are maybe unable to make it to the Clerk of Courts office during business hours to register from voting in the elections (and on key ballot initiatives) every November.

Anyway, fortunately for me I was already registered from the 2008 Presidential Elections and only had to fill out a change of address form. The following is the conversation that took place when I handed over my revised information.

Voter Registration Lady (VRL): You previously lived at 2350 River Park Circle?
Me (Me): Yep, that's the one. I thought I was going to be moved back to Orlando by then, but things haven't quite worked out yet, so I'm still in Titusville.
VRL: Oh, your sex and race information are currently unlisted. If you could just fill in the rest of this section here... (hands me back my form)
Me: Well, it said that information wasn't required.
VRL: You would just like to leave it blank, then?
Me: Yes, please... Well, can I write down inaccurate information (like that I'm a black Eskimo woman)?
VRL: No, you can't.
Me: Okay, blank is fine then.
VRL: Wow. You were a member of the Real Food Party in the last election.
Me: Yeah. That one seemed the least ridiculous.
VRL: (laughing) Well you're the first person I've met that was registered with that party. I didn't think they even had a candidate in anything.
Me: Actually, they had a guy running for president, but I don't think he made the final ballot.
VRL: Really?
Me: Yeah. The only reason I joined the Real Food Party is because when I registered to vote last time they said I couldn't join the Birthday Party.
VRL: (laughing) You're a funny one.
Me: I turned in my registration form with the Birthday Party written under "Party Affiliation" and they said they handed it right back and said I couldn't do that. So I had to go look up which parties were legit and this one made the most sense.
(I looked down at a stack of pamphlets, including the "Proposed Constitutional Amendments" handbook and picked one up)
Me: Is it okay if I take this?
VRL: Oh sure. They're there to help you understand what some of the ballot items are.
Me: These things can be hard to understand sometimes. Like Amendment 5 and 6 are the same, and Amendment 7 was proposed but then got struck down by the courts, but it's pretty much the same anyway.
VRL: You seem to understand a lot more than most people do.
Me: Well I'm hoping to be a lawyer, so I kinda have to understand some of this stuff.
VRL: (laughing) If you're going to be a lawyer you are going to have to join a real party.
Me: Why?! That's the last thing I want to do! The real parties make even less sense than the Real Food Party!

(After looking at the handbook for a minute)
VRL: Here's a receipt of your changes, if you could just look over them to make sure the information is correct. You'll also receive your card and registration in the mail.
Me: Thank you very much. Have a wonderful day.
VRL: Thank you, you too! It was a pleasure meeting you.

No joke. That is how my conversation with the Voting Registration Lady went from the time I handed over my form. And it brings up some interesting questions, like why are race and sex important questions for registering to vote? Why is there such a strict adherence to what party everyone belongs to? And what will it take to establish the Birthday Party?

My platform: Once a year, every man, woman, child, and old person shall have a birthday! Vote Aaron Brand, Birthday Party, on November 2nd!

Can Trials Be Fair with Freedom of Press?

2010-10-04T21:14:00.003-04:00

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[emphasis mine]

These are some of the founding principles of our nation. They sound really good, especially the part about no hindering of freedom of speech or of the press, until you couple them with Amendment 6 of the Bill of Rights: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury [again, emphasis mine]..." With the 24-hour a day cable news channels and the even more prevalent Internet news sources, crimes are reported faster than ever, and suspects are photographed, named, and displayed for all eyes almost as fast as the police find them.

I'm not advocating that the First Amendment needs to be scrapped and remade or that criminal proceedings should go unreported by the press. But there should be a certain amount of accountability for reporters when it comes to the court of law.

Perhaps a little bit of background is in order. Less than three weeks after I arrived back in the United States after a year away in Japan, I received a jury summons in the mail. How they knew I was back in the country before most of my friends and family even knew I was back is a question for another time. Nevertheless, my civic duty called, and I answered this week (which amounted to 5 hours of waiting to not be called).

After checking if there's any legitimate reason someone is ineligible to serve on the jury--i.e. health conditions that make extended sitting difficult, single caretaker of a child/children, only employee of a business--a judge goes through a list of instructions for the remaining jurors. Included was the order that the case we hear should be decided solely on the facts and evidence presented in the courtroom. We are not to bring in an outside knowledge of the case, we are not to look up information on the case once we begin to hear it, and we are to avoid talking about the case with anyone outside of the courthouse.

But when the news and dissemination of information is so pervasive in our society, ignoring outside sources during a trial is a lot easier said than done. I could probably get by without learning much about the case I would hear in little old Titusville, Florida. Information on another trial, however, might not be so easy to escape from as a potential juror.

In the summer of 2008, a 2-year-old girl named Caylee Anthony was killed. The girl's mother, Casey Anthony, was eventually arrested after some initial dodging of the police investigation, and is now on trial for her daughter's death. A timeline of the events can be found here. Whether or not Casey Anthony is guilty should not be for the public to decide, but through the television shows of Nancy Grace and other "news" personalities, her story was made national. It would be hard for Casey to get a trial where her jury didn't already know the details of the case anywhere in the country, let alone in Orange County, where the Constitution declares she should be tried.

I suppose the burden of coming into a trial unprejudiced should be on the jurors themselves. But I can't help but rest much of the blame of bias on the way criminal proceedings are reported. Depending on the severity of the crime committed, suspects are often found guilty in the court of public opinion even before they are formally arrested by the police. What happens if a person's reputation is so damaged during the course of a trial, but they are acquitted of all charges?

Well, thanks to the 1974 Supreme Court case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the press or other entities may be sued by a private citizen should they be socially destroyed. The Court established that individual states may set the bar for private citizens to sue based on libel, and it doesn't have to be as severe as the "actual malice" standard set in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan involving public officials suing for libel damages.

So what does that mean in layman's terms? It means that it is very difficult to sue--and win against--the press or members of the press for things said about a defendant leading up to and during a trial. It is possible, but it must be shown that the reporter(s) acted recklessly and poorly investigated the story before publishing it.

The only advice I can give is to follow the Golden Rule. I know it's tough to look unbiasedly at the person sitting at the defendant's table, but if we were in that same chair, wouldn't we want our jury to act judiciously? Despite what certain pundits like Nancy Grace think, our judicial system still follows the code of "innocent until proven guilty."

Whattaya say we act like that?

That's Racist?

2010-10-01T13:07:00.000-04:00

I think that in writing this post I may have missed the mark a little. I'm not saying people can't be prejudiced, that they can't offend with their words and actions. I am saying that on the receiving end of said words, people are too quick to cry "RACISM." It's exactly like The Boy Who Cried Wolf. When every offense is punctuated by the thought that it was racist simply because it was offensive, it undermines the times when someone is legitimately wronged based on the color of their skin.

I apparently wrote this article a day and a half too soon, as LeBron James and his manager have come out and said themselves that they think the hate against James has a racial undertone to it.

While I disagree with many that racism is a complex issue, I unfortunately over-simplified the discussion by using a dictionary definition of the word in my last post. I don't think prejudiced thought is gone from our society; in fact, I said the opposite, in that people will always have a prejudice because there's something innately human about finding flaws in others to make ourselves look better. People will always be biased about something. However, I don't think the collective racism that was standard throughout the founding of our country up to the 1970s or so exists anymore.

Let me reiterate: the Ku Klux Klan and other white-supremacy groups may still meet in backwoods fire departments, and the Black Panthers may hold gatherings in their houses. But those are the principles that our country was founded on. No, not that clandestine groups can plot destruction against others, but that people of like mind may freely assemble, may speak freely, and may express their own ideas as they wish. But the second they infringe on the rights of others--say, attacking someone on their way home from school--then they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Despite what a misguided majority of the American people believe, there is no "right to not be offended." In fact, I'm probably offending people at this moment by writing this blog post. And I hope that I am, because it means that A) I still live in a country where I can express myself freely; and 2) you still live in a country where you have the freedom to read this (or not) and disagree with me (or not). People will say offensive things... it's their right to speak freely. You can try to not listen, which is not always easy in this Information-overload era we live in. But rather than screaming "Racist!" and demanding certain types of speech be regulated, why not join in the discussion and try to change these people's minds and then their tongues?

But allow me to go back to something I mentioned earlier--racism is not a complex issue. To me, a complex issue is something that has many levels which are in turn difficult to define, not unlike the dream navigation that took place in the recent movie Inception. But what about this idea we call racism? Well, to my child-like mind it seems to only have 2 layers, or faces really. Something is either racist, or it's not (and most often it's not).

When regarding a "racist" action or comment, there are only two options: YES or NO? Up or Down? Black or White? Was it racist, or wasn't it? Again, I think the reason many people get so worked up over things they think are racist is because they confuse offending someone with racism.

Don Imus was fired from his job for calling the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed hoes" on his radio show. It was an inappropriate comment made about a team that did very well in the NCAA tournament, and it was perfectly within CBS's right as his employer to fire him. But the outrage towards Don Imus went completely overboard. I think context says a good deal about someone's mindset as well, and Don Imus is a radio personality not unlike Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge, but with far less popularity. Therefore, when he calls a bunch of college girls "nappy-headed hoes," it is in very poor taste, but nothing out of the ordinary for him and his ilk.

Another story involves Michael Richards and his "comedic" tirade at a stand-up show. This is one of those cases that is harder to argue about because of the specific word that Richards used. But again, I think context plays a larger part in this. The man is doing stand-up and bombing, so when he gets heckled by some members of the audience he tries to go after them to jump-start his act. I'm not excusing his actions, but it's not as if he's throwing these epithets at some church-going grandmother that only asked him if he'd like some tea. In other words, it was a rant made in extemely poor taste but he was going after shock laughs, and the outrage towards him was overblown.

I suppose my rants on racism are really more of a problem with the ~~push~~ onslaught of political correctness in our country. Everyone has to fit under a singular label--i.e. Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative, white/black--and those who don't are thrown into any pile anyways. Someone always has to be the blame for something, and it's generally easier to blame an individual by the group to which they officially or unofficially belong. As racist speech is often the type that is most often cited as needing to be regulated, I am therefore quick to defend those accused of being racist and point out the flaws of calling someone racist. I think more discussion, and less reactionary yelling, is the only thing that will solve this issue.

Even more so now, in the Age of the Internet, cries of racism should ring hollow. Who is the person behind the comment? Do they even really feel that way, or are they being sarcastic? The truth is it doesn't matter. Who cares what they say? You can either choose to let it affect you or you can be the bigger person and move on with life. You can fuel the idiotic fire of people like Don Imus, Michael Richards, and Mark Williams by falling for their race-baiting, or you can say, "You know what? I'm not who they say I am. I'm (insert name here) and I won't be affected by what others think of me."

"That's Racist!"

2010-09-29T21:25:00.004-04:00

If you've hung out with me in the last, I don't know, 5 years, you've probably heard me say "that's racist against ______" about some off-color (pun definitely intended... "That's racist!") remark. For example, someone makes a joke about how women should be barefoot and in the kitchen; "That's racist against women!" Or perhaps a remark is said about the sexual preference of priests; "That's racist against Catholics!" Or a couple of times someone may have even stated that they think 1080i is far superior viewing quality to traditional television sets; "That's racist against non-HDTVs!"

Now, I don't think women, Catholics, or even TVs are a different biological race. But my point remains the same. And what is that increasingly confusing point?

That the term "racist" isn't even relevant anymore.

Hold up, wait a minute, is this fool crazy? Did he just say racism isn't relevant anymore?

That is exactly what I am saying my observant friend. Racism, as defined by Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, is

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; OR
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Now I believe that prejudices can still exist based on things such as, language, economic background, and even someone's name. That's called human nature. Everyone always has to think they're better than someone else. But racism as the first definition listed above, that's become obsolete. There isn't a collective mindset that one group of people is better than another based on physiological traits or characteristics.

There isn't even a need to keep track of the differences in physiological traits or characteristics. In fact, it seems like the only people who are at all concerned with race, are those who claim to be victims of racists. Why does any instance of prejudice or dislike for a person of different skin color or background in general have to be a case of racism? Some people simply hate other people. Take, for example, the case of LeBron James.

LeBron James was a hero to the city of Cleveland, Ohio. He was the star player on a successful basketball team. He had brought recognition to the city of Cleveland, and they loved him. But in the summer of 2010 his contract was up and he was a free agent. This meant he could choose to play for any other team in the NBA that could afford him. Many in Cleveland hoped he would remain with them, although they didn't expect it. Other cities, like Chicago and New York, thought he might sign with their teams. In the end, he chose to play for the Miami Heat with friends he became close with during the 2008 Olympic Games, Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade.

Now, no one can fault James for the decision he made. A free agent may go where he pleases when his contract has expired. However, that isn't exactly how it happened. In a big debacle "cleverly" named The Decision on ESPN, LeBron James took a primetime hour to announce where he would play ball in the future. Most people could see he had already made up his mind. And instead of thanking the city of Cleveland for all the love they had shown him during his years there, he basically made a show about all the good things he had done for the city; everything he had brought there. He basically chose to play in Miami and spit in Cleveland's face as he left.

Oh, plus he's black. At least, that's the only reason ESPN columnist Vincent Thomas could find for why people in America suddenly hated LeBron James. Nevermind that he acted like a complete a**hole on national television; America simply doesn't like him because he's a black man. But wait! there's more. Black people like James even more, says Thomas. He claims black people rally in support of a fellow black man, and then goes on to compare the trials and tribulations of LeBron James' off-season free agency with the actual racism legendary sports figures like Jackie Robinson and Jesse Owens.

Thomas uses the Q Scores Company data for his commentary, the "Q" most likely standing for questionable. The Q Scores Co. uses polling data across America to rank everything from brand recognition to TV show likability. Advertising companies pay top dollar for this polling data. But it's not as if LeBron James went from first to worst after The Decision aired on ESPN. And sports figures are already anathema to love/hate polling data. Tim Tebow, a talented athlete and amazing human being by most standards (eww, I can't believe I just typed that appositive phrase), is deeply hated outside of the University of Florida. Does that mean everyone who dislikes Tebow hates Christians or charity work?

The other problem with throwing out the "racist" label whenever someone is offended or put off by a group is that it diminishes the discussion that could be had otherwise. Many people have tried to label the conservative Tea-Party movement as racist. They know that when the word "racist" is thrown around, it ends any possible discussion, just as calling someone a "fascist" or "nazi" closes the avenues of conversation. Instead of arguing about the demands of the Tea-Party on a rational level, such as what can be done about the massive debt America is in danger of collapsing under, detractors call the movement racist because it was started seemingly in opposition to Barack Obama and his policies, who also happens to be the first black president the United States has elected.

Keep the lines of communication open. When speaking with someone who does spout prejudiced speech, point out out the error of their ways. If all else fails, you can write them off as an incorrigible idiot. But there is no reason to cry out "Racist!" and ask for their head on a plate just because they offended. The biggest problem with living in a free society means we have to put up with the people who say things that offend us. But that's a small price to pay for all of the luxuries and rights we do enjoy.

The shackles of disparity have been removed ("That's racist!"). Americans from all walks of life are finally on level playing field. They can be whatever they want to be. The only thing standing in a person's way is a feeling that the system is gamed against them. If you go in thinking you're going to lose, then how can you win?

Robert Phillips is An Idiot

2010-05-26T19:40:00.005-04:00

Copied from a Facebook picture comment:

Robert Phillips: I've never thought that in order to be a "REAL fan," you have to go to the game. I'm a UCF grad, a football fan, and a UCF fan. I go to as many games as I can. But you all know as well as I do why many fans would rather stay at home to watch on TV, or even go to a sports bar to watch: stadiums are hot. You'll walk in the sun and stand in line for the privilege. You'll be gouged for drinks and food. It'll take you 30 minutes to get off campus afterwards.

But other reasons to stay away include the other people who go [bullets added]:
Drunk Fratboy with the tribal armband tattoo who never really realizes how drunk and obnoxious and pathetic he's being.
College Girl who stands with her back to the field the entire game, obstructing your view while she flirts with Drunk Fratboy.
Pompous armchair analysts who pretend to know every statistic about every player and make sure you can overhear their constant overanalysis and play-by-play.
Students who think being a fan means shouting the same slurred rhymes and insults every three minutes.
Mothers and grandmothers of players who scream hysterically every time her son/grandson does something...well, every time he does anything.
Dude who can't stay seated and needs to squeeze in and out of the row of seats every ten minutes.
Dude who takes his seat and part of your area as well.
Dude who rests his foot on the seat in front of him, not realizing or not caring that that's where you're trying to sit.

Yeah, I just described some of you. So don't think for one moment that "real fans" go to the games. Sometimes real fans are such dedicated fans that they don't want any of the above to get in the way.

Now, maybe I'm slightly biased against this guy (read: I hate him and think he's an uneducated idiot) because I tend to fall under numbers 4, 7, and 8. But I think a true fan is someone who is at the game supporting his team. Sure, that doesn't mean a true fan can't watch from home; maybe he couldn't afford the ticket, or he had to work earlier that day. But I think where Mr. Phillips made a grave error was to confuse the term "real fan" with "fairweather fan."

I don't care how you act at the game. But if you go to the game, you stay to the end. That's the definition of a true fan. A true fan doesn't care about other people in the stands, because he barely even notices them. His entire focus is on the developments of the game. If Mr. Phillips is more concerned with looking around the stadium to find people to spite, then he is far from a true fan.

A true fan doesn't gripe about the weather conditions; he only thinks about how it will affect the game. If it's rainy, will our receivers be able to hang on to the ball? If it's windy, how will this affect our field goal attempts in the 3rd and 4th quarters? If it's blistering hot, will our running back be able to give his normal output, or will we have to play a 2-back system for most of the game to keep him fresh? If Mr. Phillips is complaining about the heat, in FLORIDA, then he is definitely not a true fan.

A true fan doesn't complain about the lines, or the price of food. The only line the true fan worries about is the line for the bathroom at half time, because that's the only time a true fan leaves his seat. A true fan doesn't care about the price of beer, or nachos, or water, because a true fan drinks in the energy of the stadium and feeds off of the excitement of the game. If Mr. Phillips is worried his snacks will cost more than seven dollars, then maybe he should have had his mommy pack him a knapsack. Because he is not a true fan.

A true fan doesn't care about the long waits for leaving the stadium, because a true fan waits for the players to exit the locker room. A true fan supports his team through win or lose, thick and thin, through both Hell and high water. A true fan applauds his team's performance whether they win by four touchdowns or lose by a last second field goal. And a true fan most certainly doesn't leave in the 3rd quarter to "beat the crowd." If Mr. Phillips is worried about getting out of the parking lot fast enough to get home and watch the season finale of Lipstick Jungle, then he is not a true fan.

In closing, a true fan is someone who doesn't question why he is at the game. But if you are not sure if you are a true fan, ask yourself a question: Are you there for the team, or are you there for the people you sit with?

It's obvious that Mr. Phillips is not a true fan. If anyone would like to inform him of this, feel free to send him a message via Facebook. But please, let's be civil. GO KNIGHTS!

In Your Eagerness, Please Plan Ahead

2010-03-22T09:24:00.006-04:00

It's done. The unfathomable has happened. Jesus wept. Okay that last part is a bit of an exaggeration, but the year long debate seems to be at an end, and the House of Representatives has passed the Senate version of the health care reform and sent it on its (I can only assume) merry way to the Oval Office. So what now?

"Cherish the moment.....party's over in November..." says one commenter. Hell yeah!!
"Those Democrats signed their death wish. There is little chance they will get re-elected." Yeah, okay. Alright.
"The Democrats had better be ready for a blood bath at the polls! I can hardly wait..." Wait... WHAT???

It's great to see so many people charged up over this situation, and if they can hang on to that enthusiasm until November, then even better. (Typically, that isn't the case, although there are precedents) But voters need to come to terms with why the incumbents (specifically Democrats in this case) need to be voted out in the next set of elections.

Much of the outrage towards the House of Representatives right now is directed towards these 219 Democrats. And rightly so. They have enacted one of the most overbearing pieces of social legislation in our country's 234 year history. FDR wanted to establish more social welfare than just the Social Security Act, but most of his legislation was struck down as unconstitutional. That being the first major socialized health care legislation passed by the United States Congress, the second came about twenty years later with the passage of the Social Security Act of 1965. This established the program now known as Medicare. Medicare was the first real attempt at single-payer health care in the United States (which was something that was left out of the just passed legislation), albeit for only a designated group of people. But that still wasn't far-reaching enough, as evidenced by the continued fight over the years by such stalwarts as the late Ted Kennedy.

So now we have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This legislation extends coverage to 31 million (give or take) uninsured Americans, through government vouchers and insurer tax subsidies. It prohibits denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It only "[a]llows premium rates to vary only by individual or family coverage, rating area, age, or tobacco use." So far, it doesn't sound too objectionable.

The problem has always been the money. The bill "impose[s] an excise tax of 40% of the excess benefit from certain high cost employer-sponsored health coverage." There are numerous other penalties and taxes for failure to comply with the new codes, or even by simply crunching the numbers wrong. Oh by the way, did you know that the bill "impose[s] a 10% excise tax on any amount paid for indoor tanning services on or after July 1, 2010." So all you northerners who can't enjoy the Florida sunshine year round, think about that the next time you want to go get a tan.

One of the grossest liberties taken by the writers of this bill is to "Requires individuals to maintain minimal essential health care coverage beginning in 2014." Should an individual fail to do so, the bill "[i]mposes a penalty for failure to maintain such coverage beginning in 2014, except for certain low-income individuals who cannot afford coverage, members of Indian tribes, and individuals who suffer hardship." Not only are individuals required by government mandate to purchase something they may have no interest in buying, but the penalty doesn't even affect all citizens equally, which flies in the face of the 14th amendment. Equal protection of the law means one group should not be less punishable than another.

But perhaps the biggest outrage to this entire healthcare overhaul stems back to the birth of the Tea Party movement, for it was they who were fed up with the growth of government and out of control budgets. The Patient Protection Act is estimated to cost about $940 billion ($940,000,000,000) over the next 10 years. But that's okay, says the Democrats in Congress, because the plan will also reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over those same ten years, and up to $2.1 trillion ($2,100,000,000,000) in the decade after that. Oh great, then. Why are we arguing against this again?

Well, it could have something to do with the fact that most of the taxes proposed to handle the increased spending don't take effect for at least another 4 years, even though the bill itself starts up later this year. A large part of the budget for the bill takes into account proposed taxes that aren't even declared yet, but have simply been talked about. As Donald Marron, a former CBO manager writes:

"In order to make the long-term budget impacts look better while limiting political opposition in the near term, the original Senate bill adopted a strategy in which many of the most promising savings measures—e.g., reductions in Medicare payment rates and an excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans—would ramp up substantially in later years... The Cadillac tax, for example, has been essentially gutted over the next ten years, but is designed to grow rapidly in the decade after that. That helps the second decade look good, budget-wise. But it raises an obvious question: Will future presidents and Congresses try to back out of these budget savings, just as President Obama and the current Congress want to back out of paying for more than $300 billion in Medicare spending for physicians?"

Do we really trust Congress to vote to increase taxes further as time reveals that this health reform costs way more than everyone originally thought?

So what is the point of this long-winded recap of the health care bill? My point is, when it comes to the November elections, remember why you want to vote out the incumbents, but more importantly, remember why you hated what they did. Do you really want to see them kicked out of office because they are Democrats, or because they voted for an unpopular piece of legislation? Or do you want to vote them out because they seemed to have little regard for the country's future by increasing the amount of money we spend and growing the government even further?

If you are like me, than you care about shrinking government and the deficit, and limiting spending until we get our house back in order. Think about the issues and which candidate represents them best. Look for the candidate who has freedom at the top of his priorities. And when you go to the polls over the next eight months for the primaries, and then for the general election in November, remember this: The Democrats voted on March 21, 2010 to increase entitlement programs and spending in our country to a level that had never been seen. But, they aren't the only ones who know how to grow government and increase spending.

Maybe Arbor Day Isn't So Pointless After All

2010-03-21T13:35:00.003-04:00

I really appreciate this article on Anthropogenic Global Warming, or the man-made global warming. I’ve been searching for well-thought responses to the global warming issue--as I think complete denial of humans affecting the climate is naive, yet to say humans are the sole cause of the current environmental state of being is just as misguided. And I especially like it since the author came at the topic from a libertarian point of view, although as he says it may not be the consensus view point.

I agree with him that the government should be looked to as a quote-unquote manager of the environment. But as someone who finds himself waking up more and more libertarian each day, that’s a hard pill for me to swallow. I think it’s a good thing that Teddy Roosevelt supported conservation in his presidency: "Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty... to develop and use the natural resources of our land but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us." So perhaps the problem now has more to do with environmental lobbyists than any governmental conservation. For as Roosevelt said, "[W]ith the water-power... forests... mines, we are brought face to face with the fact that there are many people who will go with us in conserving the resources only if they are to be allowed to exploit them for their benefit. That is the one of the fundamental reasons why the special interests should be driven out of politics." But measures should be taken to protect certain lands, waterways, et cetera from overuse, or misuse.

The author also makes the point in the article that CO2 drives warming; I do not disagree with that statement. However, whether or not you see it as a mechanism designed by God, I believe the earth has a natural ability to control CO2 levels through the process of photosynthesis. Yes, humans have increased our CO2 output over the last century significantly, but I don’t think that would be as much of a problem if we were still committed to preserving forests and other major photosynthesis producers. It’s especially unfortunate that the very idea of “going green” through renewable fuel sources could end up causing more harm than good, as illustrated in this Time Magazine article. In Brazil’s attempt to cash in on the renewable energy craze, large portions of the Amazon are being slash-and-burned in order to produce fertile farmland to grow sugarcane and corn, main crops used in the production of biofuel. It's a shame that the rain forest and other ecological jewels are outside the United States' jurisdiction; that’s Brazil’s land, and there’s not a damn thing we can do to stop them from using it.

Not sure if I stayed on topic through that, but if there is a way to ensure government commitment to conservation while remaining revenue neutral, then I would be all for it. As it is, the plans that get put forward regarding cap and trade and the like fly in the face of the American taxpayer. Unless the average citizen is given control in the system to use, barter, and sell their own carbon credits, then they will just remain pawns who are at the mercy of energy companies who may raise rates when they run out of their own emission credits. Rather than let markets dictate which energy sources should be pursued (i.e. if we can drill for now, let’s drill, but under the realization that we won’t have it forever) the government would rather hand out subsidies to either renewable or fossil fuels depending upon which party is in power.

In closing, the skepticism is just plain wrong; to say humans don’t affect the environment is like saying buying something now doesn’t affect my future purchasing power. We just have to be smart in how we live. And to the Al Gores out there, if we’re as doomed as you say, then drastically changing course now won’t save us… so let’s give it a little more thought, mkay?

Making Amends

2010-02-13T06:47:00.004-05:00

I can't figure out for the life of me what tomorrow is. I know it's an incredibly important day, but it continues to elude me. It's even worse, because I distinctly remember forgetting about this day last year too, but I still can't remember why tomorrow is so important.

I got it! I remember now.

Happy Birthday Grandpa Bud!! Sorry I missed it last year, but I hope this one brings another great year of the 3 F's: food, fun, and family.

In actuality, I forgot another important occasion on February 14th last year: Valentine's Day. ~~Part of~~ Most of the reason I forgot about this "important" "holiday" is because it's really not that important to guys. My argument last year was pretty much why should one day mean so much if you attempt to treat your special lady great every day of the year.

Boy did I learn my lesson. I pulled out all of the stops this year, short of dropping a couple thousand on a plane ticket for her or me so that we could be together. It sucks that we're apart. I really wanted to see Valentine's Day. (Does anyone know HTML coding for force-vomit?)

More power to all of you guys back home. I don't envy the role you are about to undertake in T-minus 20 or so hours. Still, maybe my girlfriend's different. Maybe she would have been content with a nice dinner at Texas de Brazil and a game of putt-putt. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

To be honest, I really wish we were together. I'm glad I don't have to be put on the spot about going to that movie, but maybe we could have worked out some kind of equal trade. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

There I go again thinking this day was about sharing time together. Nope, Valentine's Day has become the woman's fourth birthday, behind her actual birthday but ahead of Christmas and the anniversary. But would I give all of this insanity up? Not ever.

♥♥ Happy Valentine's Day Valerie Rohan! ♥♥

To School, or Not to School?

2010-02-05T04:56:00.002-05:00

I just discovered a new word today: unschooling. It assuages all my misgivings of the public school system and at the same time seems to be a step above "home schooling," which may or may not take place at the home.

I have long been an opponent of mandatory education, especially that which is taught in public schools. There is far too much focus on studying for "the test," and too little attention paid to developing critical thinking skills. Past the basic educational skills necessary for survival such as reading, writing, and 'rithmetic, grades K-12 do nothing more than bombard students with facts that are no more helpful than knowing which Friends alum starred in films with Bruce Willis. (It was Matthew Perry) Not to mention the ridiculous knowledge teachers and curriculum designers decide is necessary for one's development in American society. Well, they won't be able to understand a cost-benefit analysis of liberty versus security, but by God! they will know what the water in A Tale of Two Cities references.

Critics of non-traditional education claim that learning outside of a public (or private for that matter) school building would be detrimental to the child's social development. How can children learn to interact with people of all creeds and backgrounds if they are segregated by learning outside the masses? Studies have found that self-esteem is hardly different, and in some cases better, in homeschooled students than in traditionally-taught students. Since self-esteem is often used to guage one's social skills--whether they are confident, friendly, capable of having a conversation with others--it seems that this would be a good source of data to use.

Others claim that it is important for kids to be with "people their own age." This further stimulates their social abilities. But as a graduate of a mostly-traditional education, I can say that being with students my own age did little to further my own ability to succeed in life. First, people my own age will almost always have the same problems as me. The success of overcoming a problem in the midst of peers with the same problem is highly dubious.

Second--and this applies more to secondary school students more than primary--kids in public school are over-indulged, self-absorbed, neurotic attention-seekers. This ties somewhat into the first point; if they are surrounded by other kids who are the same way, there is little motivation for them to change. It wasn't until I got to college that people from my high school past began to act friendlier to me, as if they were ready to cast off the clique-oriented persona that had encompassed their entire teenage life.

By participating in "unschooling," students interact not only with other kids that are also being unschooled, but with adults as well. There is no emphasis placed on age-base classes; everyone talks to everyone. People come together because they are interested in studying the same thing, not because they were born the same year.

"Well what about kids getting indoctrinated? Shouldn't we stop parents from turning their kids into racists or bigots?" some people might ask. I can't give nearly as good a response as John Holt did, but to sum it up:

"The first question we have to answer is, do we have a right to try to prevent it? And even if we think we do, can we? One of the main differences between a free country and a police state, I always thought, was that in a free country, as long as you obeyed the law, you could believe whatever you liked. Your beliefs were none of the government's business. Far less was it any of the government's business to say that one set of ideas was good and another set bad, or that schools should promote the good and stamp out the bad... One of the reasons why growing numbers of people are so passionately opposed to the public schools is that these schools are in fact acting as if someone had explicitly and legally given them the power to promote one set of ideas and to put down others."

Public schools are far more dangerous and likely of indoctrinating young minds than any homeschool program. For starters, they have the potential to reach many times more children. Public schools, whether by purpose or accident due to time or budget constraints, also tend to have very specific curricula, and can leave out vital parts of information that would be necessary to encourage critical thinking and the establishment of one's own opinion.

As someone who was homeschooled for a few years, I think it's fairly easy to say that it doesn't damage one's ability to remain sociable (Editor's note: at the time of publishing, the test results had still not been compiled). In fact, one of the main reasons I chose to graduate high school one year early (contrary to the popular belief that I was some sort of genius boy) was because I was tired of all the social politics and bigotry that I encountered on a daily basis at public school.

The only problem I can find with non-traditional education is that it produced one of my main nemeses, Little Timmy Tebow. But if students are actually being taught to think for themselves, and that it's not the knowledge itself that's important, but the ability to learn, then even the retinal cancer I develop everytime Tim Tebow comes on SportsCenter is worth enduring.

The Downfall of Canada is Canadians

2009-12-08T02:37:00.007-05:00

Let's consider this possibility for a second. It's 1812, for some reason we're at war with Britain... again. But this time when we decide to march into Canada and defeat the British, we don't do it the wrong way. Now flash forward to present time again and Canada has been divided into additional states of the Union. All her precious resources are American, we have far more frontier, oil reserves, timber, and caribou than we know what to do with, and best of all these new territories have less French influence.

Allow me to set some things straight. I don't hate Canada. I think it's a bountiful country with great fishing, camping, and maple syrup locales. It's colder, which means less people would want to live there, thus making it a great place to vacation. Plus, it offers the U.S. a buffer zone against nuclear attacks.

But there's a problem with Canada. A big problem. Canadians live there.

"What's wrong with Canadians?" you may ask. Well for starters, they can't even refer to themselves properly. They live in Canada, and yet they are called CanadIans?? They should be "Canadans" or they should live in Canadia.

Second, they gave us Pamela Anderson, who can be seen as the birth of the decline of American civilization and the reason we were attacked on 9/11. While it's true that Bo Derek in 10 might have been first, Pam Anderson glorified the role of girl running down the beach in a swimsuit. This then led to her getting celebrity status, which turned into a failed marriage to drummer Tommy Lee, which led to her doing an ill-advised sex tape with him that got leaked, which ultimately allowed anyone to make a sex tape and become famous.

So Pamela Anderson paved the way for faux-celebs like Paris Hilton who contribute nothing to society and are a blight on our television screens. In 2001, just seven months before the heinous terrorist attacks, this article was published in The Guardian. The article calls Paris Hilton the "next It girl," even though she never did anything in her life to receive such a title. This article must have been the tipping point for al Qaeda, and they decided to move ahead with their plans and attack America, where people are celebrated in spite of no accomplishments whatsoever.

If Pamela Anderson's opening up the door for the faux-celeb isn't enough to turn you off of Canada, perhaps you would be shocked to know Keanu Reeves calls himself a Canadian. Born a naturalized U.S. citizen (through his father) in Lebanon, Reeves was nevertheless raised in Canada and holds Canadian citizenship. And even worse, he's proud of it!

We all know what kind of actor Keanu Reeves is. Sure, he brought us a great time with Bill and Ted. And he pushed the limits of our imagination in The Matrix Trilogy. But he still acts the same way in every movie. If dull, flat acting is what it means to be Canadian, I don't want any part of it.

I can imagine you're still arguing with me in your head. Maybe you've had a friend who went to Canada and said it was great. Hey, so have I. But that's the thing; your friend had a great time visiting Canada. They don't want to live here. That's like everyone who tells you Japan is amazing when they went for two weeks, but as someone who lives there, I'll tell you it's not nearly as great.

So last we come to Canadians in general. Have you ever had the displeasure of talking with one? They come across as extremely arrogant--must be the French half in them. They glorify the wonders of their health care system. They brag that their air is so much cleaner. And worst of all, they rub all their Stanley Cup victories in everyone's faces.

Quite simply, Canadians are the Frenchmen at our backdoor, and if we had done what was necessary back in the early 19th century, we wouldn't have to deal with them anymore.

But alas, all we can do now is wonder at what might have been. Imagine the utopia of a world without Canada... No Avril Lavigne and her feel-good punk rock; no Hayden Christensen and his terrible portrayal of the formerly baddest-ass badass in science fiction; no Sandra Oh and her weird pinched face and awkward stares; and no William Shatner. Well, maybe not all Canadians are bad.

Al Gore's Claims Refuted by 75-Year Old Man

2009-11-02T07:44:00.006-05:00

In a pretty interesting article (considering it talked about the formation days of the Net, before cool things like YouTube, Facebook, blogging, and Google were made available), the man credited as one of the founders of the Internet talks about how it all went down, what he intended it to be used for, and his current take on his creation.

You can read the article here.

Leonard Kleinrock, working at UCLA at the time, essentially experimented with the first "instant message." As he tells it, "...all we wanted to do was log in -- to type an l-o-g, and the remote time-sharing system knows what you're trying to do. So we typed the l, and we asked over the phone, 'Did you get the l?' And the response came back, 'Yep, we got the l.' We typed the o. 'Got the o?' 'Yep, got the o.' Typed the g. 'You get the g?' Crash! SRI's host crashed at that point."

They just don't make computers like they used to... unless you have a Dell.

He says that his test between UCLA and the Stanford Research Institute was the first message sent over a data connection. For those who aren't computer nerdy, this blog that you're reading, every picture you upload, every video you stream is really just a series of 01011011000110011s (sorry robots everywhere... I may have unwittingly insulted your mothers) that are sent between servers through said data connections and end up on your computer screen in little packets that we can view.

He also goes on to say he believed the internet would become a way for people to use devices and be connected at all times, but that he didn't know it would involve into the world of Twitter, Google Maps, and instant gratification that we know it as today. We've come to a point now that so many programs are put out, so many applications that in turn have so many features that we are experiencing what Kleinrock calls "feature shock." It's the reason some people are fine running Windows 95 still; they are too used to that system to try and change things, even if it does promise faster speed or more user-friendly controls.

Currently Kleinrock is working on a system that allows the cyberspace to interact with the physical world, and collect data from your house, car, living room and even your body. When asked what he thinks about computers being made smarter and if that means humans will get less brain exercise, he responded that "free us up to do the things that humans do so well, like pattern recognition and putting thoughts together, intuition and innovation." At first I thought he wasn't aware what sort of monster he had created, and if he was oblivious to the mindless drivel of reading US Weekly online or internet phenoms such as Dramatic Gopher. But he does confess that he is disappointed with today's youth and their inability to do calculations without a calculator anymore.

Like every parent's worse nightmare, the Internet grew bigger and stronger than Kleinrock ever expected, and allowed for demons the likes of spam, spyware, and identity theft to grab hold of his child. In the early days, Kleinrock says, everyone knew each other and there was a netiquette in the early stages. There also used to be a time when women were barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, and all was right with the world. Haha, just kidding folks... but seriously, where's my sammich?!

Lastly, Kleinrock states that privacy as we have come to know and love, and various amendments in the Constitution supposedly uphold, is dead. There are cameras everywhere, and I don't even mean the Big Brother kind (well not just them, at least). Every junior high school brat with a negligent parent has a camera phone now, not to mention every drunk college kid or rapping granny. Kleinrock thinks the only one can truly have privacy "is to go to the edge of the ocean, strip down and jump in and hope there's no sonar down there tracking you, by the way, which there will be soon." Well, at least in his old age he hasn't become some crackpot conspiracy theorist.

So all in all, we learned the Internet was not invented by Mr. Gore (sorry Al, I guess your lie of a Nobel Prize will have to suffice), we can no longer go to the bathroom in peace, and there are still more pornographic websites than any other kind online. But hey, one out of three ain't bad.

Can We Stop Calling Each Other Racist?

2009-10-23T04:43:00.007-04:00

These days it is more likely for soylent green to be referred to as people than an actual human being. Everyone has to referred to by their ancestry, which may or may not even be accurate most of the time. A so-called African-American could be a 6th generation American, and his ancestors didn't even come directly from Africa then but from Europe. A Latin-American inaccurately refers to South Americans as well as Central Americans, not to mention immigrants or descendants of immigrants from those countries in those areas; all this despite the fact that none of those countries uses Latin. The worst is Asian-American, since Asia is the largest continent in the world and contains people from the middle east, Russia, India, Malaysia, and the far east. Why can't we all just be called "people?"

While researching the old mascots of my college--which I found out to be the Citronaut and later Vincent the Vulture; the latter name dropped because vultures are disease carrying harbingers of doom--I came across the Student Profile entry on Wikipedia. I was astonished, flabbergasted, mildly outraged, calm, greatly outraged, and finally annoyed with our country after reading that bit of information.

You see, the entry contains a little chart that divides the student body up into categories. Rather than allow the population of UCF to be counted on a one-by-one basis, students have to be divided into demographics, a fancy word for categories based on physical attributes. I thought the whole point of the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s was to shed these barriers and show that despite a person's misplaced beliefs, all Americans, and in this case all people attending an American university, are equal. But I guess I was wrong (if anyone knows a way to portray in text that I am over-enunciating each word to make them longer for dramatic effect, please tell me).

I imagine this was the reaction of someone after these numbers came out:

"Sure, the University of Central Florida has 53,537 students enrolled in the fall of 2009. But how many of those students are African American? Oh okay... let me see... 8.81%. That's nowhere near the national ratio of blacks to general population! Less than ONE PERCENT are Native American! And you can't be serious that we have a higher percentage of Asian Americans and European Americans enrolled than the state averages!? We can't allow this to go on! Stop the presses... Hey you, over there in the corner! Why are you still typing?? I said STOP the presses! We have to figure this thing out!"

Why are demographics even an issue anymore? For all of its good intentions after the Civil Rights Act and the subsequent issues that came up because of that, affirmative action is an outdated method of controlling who gets something at the expense of someone else. I agree, affirmative action (or something like it), was needed at a time when certain people were getting shafted on job, college, housing applications. But now, this system giving special treatment or denying it to others based on physiological differences, even in the name of helping minorities, is creating the same problem it was meant to destroy.

Perhaps I went a little overboard regarding the student profile of UCF. There was nothing in the entry that actually suggested affirmative action needed to right the wrongs of disproportion at UCF. But it owes to a much bigger problem in our society: the issue of race.

A quick background of myself if I can. I graduated from this fine university with a bachelor of science in anthropology. Anthropology means "the study of humans." That can mean from a cultural standpoint, through biological, historical, or even linguistic study. In my biological courses, one of the main points that is hammered down repeatedly is that the races, as we have come to know them, do not exist. Sure, there are physiological tendencies, and original biological anthropologists divided these characteristics into three groups, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Negroids, which we have come to refer to as Caucasian, Asian, and African, respectively.

But even so, these features that are used to categorize humans come from the bone structures, and the differences are minor if there at all. Any outward appearance has little or nothing to do with the internal bone structure of a human, the most noticeable being the size and shape of the nasal bones and mandible. Other than the facial differences--which have everything to do with dietary and climatological differences and nothing to do with proximity to lower beasts--all human beings contain the same number of bones, the same internal organs, the same number of teeth, the same anatomy through and through.

The problem is fear. Fear that one group will be oppressed in order for another group to be lifted up. Fear that we will revert to the misinformed days of lore, when people were killed simply for the way they looked. I hope that we will never go back to the old ways of oppression, but not as much hope that we won't enter some new version, where people are oppressed just for ideas they hold, regardless of action.

There was a time when great injustices were done, but I've believed we have moved past that. That's not to say society is completely blind and fair now, as a rare event in Louisiana pointed out. But those occurrences are fewer and far between, and the norm now seems to be swinging in favor of curtailing any kind of dissension. It seems a person's first thought after not getting a job is whether or not racism had something to do with it. The same can be said for the concepts of sexual orientation and sexism (although the latter is a subject for another day.)

It's no longer about righting past wrongs. It's about having power and keeping power. Therein lies the second, and more telling problem.

We no longer live in a society where the best and brightest are chosen, because that would mean someone else could not be chosen. For the same reason that it has become a common practice for every kid to receive a trophy, regardless of how shitty s/he or their team did, the playing field must now be leveled so that everyone is on equal terms. But unfortunately that doesn't mean everyone else raising their game; today's society coddles those who can't even play.

We need to stop playing "the race card" and start getting people to make the most of themselves. The idea of racism is more like a crutch for people who are too afraid to fail, let alone to even try. Rather than work from within to become better, they would rather use the system to work for them and punish those who rejected them. Instead of showing that moxie and inner strength truly define a person, we would rather quit and rely on an outdated principle of discrimination to fight our battles for us.

Why the Internet is Funny (And Drives Me Up a Wall at the Same Time)

2009-10-21T05:44:00.003-04:00

Depending on how in to the Internet you are, you may have heard of Godwin's Law. Chances are you have most certainly come into contact with it. Godwin's Law was theorized in the early days of the Internet by Mike Godwin, who stated "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." Usenet was one of the early bulletin board systems.

Now we are much more fortunate because we have Facebook, YouTube, and millions of websites all with the ability to let people post on message boards. What we would be doing now if we couldn't watch a baby laughing and have the ability to instantly comment about it? I don't know about you but I'd probably be wasting my time enjoying nature or expanding my mind or something equally stupid.

So anyways, we have this huge collection of websites, where people gather to discuss a video, article, story, picture, or who knows what else, and for some reason unbeknownst to people with all their screws tightened, a comment gets that is insulting. And I'm not talking about a simple disagreement of opinion; that's a very common occurrence, and we don't need the Internet to facilitate people arguing. No I mean a comment with seemingly no purpose, like, "THAT WAS SO GAY!" No reason is given, no evidence to back up the opinion. And this is only the start of a negative spiral that leads to out-of-nowhere references to racism, sexism, or any other discriminatory -ism, which then conjure up the (inaccurate and overused) labels of fascist, communist, and eventually Nazi.

All this happens because people gathered, and everyone knows that when people get involved, things get stupid.

I mean correct me if I'm wrong... my history of the earth is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure that on the 5th day, before humans were invented, the animals weren't all congregating and discussing the state of the garden when all of a sudden the tiger stood up and shouted "This is gay!" and was suddenly branded a hate-monger because he wasn't happy with utopia. No, it took dumbass humans to bring that into the equation.

My problem is I don't know whether to laugh at the absurdity that I see on the Internet or cry because it's so telling of how dumb, naive, ignorant so many people are. I guess the one thing I can be grateful for is that the Internet gives people a place to vent some of their stupid so that office meetings like this don't happen in real life.

$20 Million DHS Projects to Check Your Sweat Levels

2009-10-07T08:24:00.003-04:00

The Department of Homeland Security is currently funding a research project called Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST), with the hopes of it being implemented in airport screenings. The supporters of this project claim that it gives an added insight to a person's metaphysical levels, which could indicate intent on their upcoming flight. Opponents of the project range from saying there is no statistical basis for this whatsoever to claiming it infringes on an individual's rights to privacy (most likely the 5th Amendment version of self-incrimination). I tend to fall in between the two versions of the opponents' arguments. You can read the story for yourself here.

Sure, we all want to get through the airport faster. And taking off our shoes or having to dump a water bottle we JUST BOUGHT always sucks, but would this alternative be any better? For starters, the devices aim to measure a person's heart rate, breathing, eye movement, body temperature, and even fidgeting. According to the program's proponents, this is just an advanced way of doing things that are naturally evident.

Oh, I guess I missed the science class where my teachers told us normal humans can gauge each others' body temperatures and heart rates by looking at them. Not to mention, there are any number of reasons a person can have an elevated or lowered measurement of each of these factors. Perhaps they're nervous about flying. Or maybe they are going to confront their cheating partner. Or maybe they really have to piss, but they want to get through security first. Well, fortunately for us, they have a solution to that. If a person seems sketchy according to their tests, they run them through a secondary system of questions. And what exactly are these ingenious questions. There must be some subtle way for them to tell if you are a terrorist or not: "Is this the month of September?" and "Do you plan to detonate an explosive?"

ARE YOU F***** SERIOUS!?!? Well if it's that easy, why haven't we been asking these questions the whole time???
"Oh, excuse me. Are you planning on hijacking flight 93 and fly it into a national landmark? Oh you are. Please come with us sir." I mean just look at how easy that is! And it's only taken us a $20,000,000 project, which came about because of a 4,000+ casualty terrorist attack and $1 trillion+ war to come up with these questions?! Gotta love those bureaucrats.

What are some of the devices they use for this project? According to the article, the "researchers took a Wii balance board... and altered it to show how someone's weight shifts." So now they are using children's toys in multi-million dollar research projects. It's bad for our kids to have access to video games because it makes them anti-social, overweight, and possibly violent, but when those same video games are used to stop terrorism... well now, we might be on to something.

The biggest problem with this entire project isn't even mentioned in the article. It's common knowledge that anytime technology is introduced into some human activity, it not only makes the job easier, but also makes the operator lazier. Just look at a grocery cashier. If their computer system shut down and they had to manually add up a person's items, then multiply by 6% tax, half of the people working wouldn't even be able to. And the people working security at the airport are already doing a half-assed job as it is. They give you a once over while looking at your picture ID, and then really enforce the removal of shoes, but barely pay attention to the x-ray machine as they talk about what they're doing after work, or how their kid got in trouble at school again. And somehow more technology is the answer?!

The best sentence in the entire article is attributed to Stephen Fienberg, professor of statistics and social studies at Carnegie Mellon University (aka the school that is known for doing research and reporting statistics.) "Fienberg, who participated in a government study critical of the use of polygraphs, said he worries that a lot of money is being spent on a program that in the end will show 'the emperor has no clothes.'" That pretty much sums up every piece of research currently being conducted on a government contract.

If President, My Budget Ideas

2009-09-24T05:53:00.000-04:00

I don't attempt to classify anyone who reads this, but have you noticed that many of the people who are upset, pissed off really, about the Patriot Act, and are quick to invoke the most literal reading of the 4th Amendment to oppose it (ala Franken), are the same people that want to take a very liberal approach to Article 1 of that same Constitution?

Suddenly "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..." reads as allowing government to provide a public healthcare option. The original "general welfare" most likely referred to "health, happiness, and good fortune" or well-being. Oh wow, the same inalienable rights the Declaration of the Independence says all humans are endowed with. Funny that the writer's of both would include something in the Constitution stating that the government will work to ensure no one's inalienable rights are impeded.

And it's also funny how "...to pay the debts...of the United States" is often forgotten by those in favor of bigger government. Where are we getting the money for these new programs being proposed, let alone the old programs that are already running? Oh sure, we could raise taxes on the rich. They've got loads of money. No matter what your opinion is of trickle-down economics, taxing the rich at best provides a short-spanned IV to the degenerating economy. Even if you don't think any rich person's money will come down the line to me or you, if you've taken a high school economics class you should know that the only way to make money is with money (it's called capital... hence "capitalism). So if the rich suddenly have less money to do business with (due to taxes), then they are going to make far less money.

"Well, we could just inflate the dollar. It worked for Japan in the 80s." Yeah until they hit a worse recession in the 90s. Inflating the dollar also only works for domestic debt, and does nothing to help us with the debt we have accumulating in China right now. Our best option is to start the budget from scratch. Piss off a lot of old people, pro-military people, environmentalists, students, and unions and find out what we need, what's bleeding us dry, and what can be cut.

We need defenses, but the costs can be scaled back with more realistic estimates and better contract bids.
We need to conserve our resources on this planet, but we also need to realize that humans aren't going to give up what they already have; therefore, let's give government subsidies to companies that have shown they can produce a worthwhile energy, and no more of this let's pay you for your idea bullcrap. I'm sick of seeing that we're paying some guy who says he can make fuel out of pig feces, when we know we can produce energy from nuclear reactions.
Education is important, but let's face it, not everyone deserves to be in college. We've all seen the kid that's failed the same class four times and is still pursuing the same major. It's a surreal feeling to find out you're not cut out for something, but it's also not helping our country to provide government grants to every single person who graduates from high school.
The unions were formed with good intentions, like just about everything in this world. But when did a gathering of people hoping to improve work standards suddenly turn into its own entity? The unions no longer work for the workers, they work for themselves. Everything is just a front so that they can line their own pockets off government subsidies, and therefore they need to be greatly scaled back or cut off completely.
And finally, we come to the old people. This is a difficult one, as we all know someone older who most likely uses Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But these three programs account for a vast plurality of the budget, and as the baby boomer generation enters retirement, these programs are projected to either skyrocket are debt to even greater levels or bust completely in a way far worse than the housing bubble of 2008. Therefore it is necessary to completely dissolve all three programs, freeing up massive amount of budget space, and in turn allow some of the larger corporations (like Walmart) to enter the pharmaceutical market in an attempt to drive drug costs down. If these three programs ceased to exist, it would be more money in the pockets of all employees, and more capital on the books for the businesses.

So, sorry about the tirade for something that started out criticizing Al Franken for being a constitutional hypocrite (see above). Sometimes I just gotta let these things out.

Just the Facts, Please

2009-07-08T19:39:00.004-04:00

Why is the recent trend in political disagreements to utilize ad hominem attacks? Ad hominem is defined as "appealing to the emotions and not logic" or "attacking someone's motives or character rather than their policy or position". So again I ask, why do arguments tend to be framed more around this sort of thinking rather than the issue itself?

Since George W. Bush's presidency (because that is when my political mind was more or less awakened), it seems that people who disagree with a stance, rather than use logic or fact-checking to argue against it, instead attack the character of the person with whom they are arguing. During the entire 2008 election campaigns, the common theme of the Democrat party was "We don't want 4 more years of Bush". When asked what that actually meant, most often the response resulted in a verbal bashing of the former president, including but not limited to some remark about his intelligence.

Even now that the Democrats hold the executive branch and control a majority of the legislative, the ad hominem attacks continue. Sarah Palin is constantly lambasted by the media and opponents because of her accent, hobbies, and familial issues. Mark Sanford immediately became a national celebrity when it was discovered he had an affair with a Brazilian woman. But where was the massive media coverage when he proved to be a fiscally conservative governor who did not want to throw his state under the bus after American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus bill) funds dried up.

The media focuses only on the emotional aspects of any news story. Whether that is because they know their audience is too dumb to handle a large influx of details or because so-called "journalists" are just getting lazier is hard to tell. One thing that IS certain is that this problem is not confined to just one side of the political spectrum.

Rush Limbaugh has made a living for twenty years attacking the Democrats and those he refers to as "leftists". Very rarely--of which I mean never if you've actually listened to his radio show--does he admit that the other side has a good idea or are capable of doing something right. If anyone calls into his show and disagrees with his views the caller is automatically dismissed as a "brainwashed liberal" or a "crazy leftist". Rush is just as guilty as the Democrats during the 2008 campaign of not attacking the argument, but instead rejecting the entire thing based upon the speaker's political position.

We need to return to the days of deconstructing the argument itself, and leave the person who argues out of it.

Can We Define Universal Health Care, Please?

2009-07-01T19:28:00.003-04:00

Nobody really knows what the other person is talking about when a debate about universal healthcare ensues. Proponents tend to mean affordable healthcare for all. Opponents usually mean taxpayer funded healthcare for all. While I do not disagree that everyone should have access to healthcare, especially in the greatest nation in the world (sorry, World, but you know it's true), I am of the opinion that there are other available options besides the United States government--meaning taxpayers--fronting the bill.

One of the biggest problems with the current healthcare system, excluding the abortion that is Medicare/Medicaid, is the constant threat of lawsuit that physicians face. Doctors are forced to run costly, unnecessary tests because if they don't and send someone home with a prescription for Ibuprofen and that person gets in an accident, the doctor is now liable. It is similar to bartenders being liable if someone leaves their establishment drunk and then kills another person. Tort reform must occur if there is any hope of fixing the healthcare behemoth. While not everyone agrees with me that lawsuits are a last resort that should be avoided, hopefully most people CAN agree that frivolous lawsuits have become much too prevalent in our society. There are more injury lawyers on television than reality TV contestants these days.

The second thing that needs to be considered is that not everyone deserves healthcare. At least it seems that way. People with health insurance have gotten so used to the idea of affordable healthcare that they rush to the doctor's office at the slightest sniffle, cough, or rash. In the same way that cell phone texting seems to be dumbing down grammar, the current healthcare system is turning us into a nation of hypochondriacs. Policies need to change to prevent people from abusing the system in such a way. When a test or drug is needed, doctors AND patients need to be in the habit of finding the most inexpensive option, not just the most commonly prescribed option, in an effort to cut costs.

Lastly, affordable healthcare only becomes affordable when competition is encouraged. Wal-Mart is already one of the greatest healthcare carriers in the world, with hundreds if not thousands of affordable generic drugs offered. Unfortunately, powerful lobbyists in Washington prevent this sort of competition from taking root by demanding government grants specifically for their company. When special interests are put above the common interest, the peoples' interests, we ALL lose.

Newsbreak: International Terrorists are not U.S. Citizens

2009-06-10T16:14:00.004-04:00

So why do people demand that they be treated as such?

My whole problem with this Guantanamo Bay fiasco is the treating of international terror suspects as United States citizens. The above-linked terrorist is a non-American accused of bombing a non-American location.

A few questions spring to mind...

A) Why are we (United States of America) the country still holding him? Rephrased: why hasn't he been subjected to a military tribunal yet?
B) Why is he getting a public trial in Manhattan (and seems to be receiving Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights) when he is not a U.S. citizen?
C) If the whole problem is that we are holding this prisoner "indefinitely", then why don't we just send him back to his home country? Oh wait, because they don't want him either.

I disagree with the likes of Senators McConnell and Reid, who are on different ends of the spectrum but both seem to make idiotic comments on a daily basis regarding the Gitmo detainees, but I also disagree slightly with Ron Paul, who is a strong pacifist. Someone has to keep the peace these days, with practically every fascist, communist, extremist, or psychopath capable of getting their hands on heavy weaponry, including but not limited to nuclear. The U.S. has been and continues to be the strongest military power in the world. We have not always used that power wisely (the Iraq debacle comes to mind), but it is because of our power and, in the past, our principles and dedication to liberty, that most nations and even terrorists respected our authority and have avoided pushing that button.

Why are our politicians trying harder and harder to cater to the wishes of other countries? Why do we have to be the leaders of environmentalism, when China is polluting ten times as much as we ever have? Barack Obama needs to stop trying to bow to every leader of the world (meant metaphorically, unless it's the King of Saudi Arabia I suppose). He needs to step up to the plate and do what he was elected to do: LEAD the greatest nation in the world.

"I am not a citizen of the world! Now, you can get all flowery if you want, but I'm not a citizen of the world. I'm a citizen of the United States of America, and I'm proud of that. That doesn't mean that I denigrate other countries. That doesn't mean I hate other countries or anything else. I'm proud of what we have here. There is a difference in America! America has made a difference! Our system has made a difference. I'm not a citizen of the world."
-Newt Gingrich

Americans Are Too Apathetic to Be Nationalists

2009-05-19T12:00:00.001-04:00

The unfortunate thing about American nationalism is that it is short-lived. Americans tend to display a brand of patriotism, which is sort of the younger brother of nationalism. After September 11, 2001 and the travesties that befell our country on that day, patriotism was seen in wide display through the sudden increase in flags being flown outside of citizens’ homes, and a new invigoration to stand up and state the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, less than 8 years later, the genuine love felt on September 12 for every other red-blooded American has vanished and that “me-first” attitude has resurfaced.

Recently Anheuser-Busch was bought out by the Belgian company In-Bev. Many Americans, including my friends and me, were outraged that an American staple such as Budweiser beer could give up its heritage and sell the rights to a foreign company. But according to Matt Simpson of Emory University most Americans will forget about the selling of the company as long as the price and taste of Budweiser remain the same (CNN, 7/14/08). So Americans are not too concerned with maintaining national symbols as long as they are not affected personally in the long run.

President Obama can be thought of as a very nationalistic president, because he has the ability to speak broadly to people of many walks of life and rally people to his cause (HNN, 1/21/09). Whether he uses the huge support he gathered from his campaign to move the people towards a better America remains to be seen. He has thus far managed to establish a power base among the Democratic Party, while somewhat distancing himself from the Republicans. The strong support of the Democrat-controlled Congress does give him an advantage in moving forward with nationalist policies.

Nationalist movements like the Ku Klux Klan are finding a renewed invigoration after the election of Barack Obama as president. There is a growing fear that due to the economic depression and Obama’s presidency hate groups will see a resurgence (Chicago Tribune, 1/22/09). This may not come to pass though, as many Americans do not possess the hardcore fanaticism required to start a violent uprising. Passion is one quality that Americans seem to have lost since we fought to declare independence from the British.

CNN.com “Foreign-owned Bud a wound to Americana” by Brad Lennon and Mallory Simon. July 14, 2008. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/14/busch.reax/index.html?iref=newssearch

HNN.us “President Obama the Liberal Nationalist” by Gil Troy. January 21, 2009. http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/60253.html

Chicago Tribune “Obama inauguration a recruiting tool for hate groups” by Rex Huppke. January 22, 2009. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-hate-groups,0,5420040.story

Rationalization of American Systems

2009-05-14T21:36:00.002-04:00

McDonaldization, according to Ritzer, as per Robert Keel, is the fact that fast-food ideas are dominating more and more of American society (Robert Keel page). People in our society are constantly asking of leaders, bosses, neighbors, “What have you done for me lately?” and are increasingly concerned with their own lives first. McDonaldization allows this attitude to continue in American citizens, with its more-for-less principles. The efficiency of fast-food restaurants makes people want that at everywhere, at any time. Calculability is in essence that more-for-less idea; everything we buy has to be the most for our dollar. It is why bulk stores like Sam’s Club and CostCo do so well. Predictability makes us expect certain results every time we go somewhere. We expect a certain level of service, a certain amount of food, a certain price for what we are buying. In other words, change is bad. Finally, the human element is increasingly being removed due to McDonaldization. Computers run more of our lives these days. Things can be done simply by viewing someone else doing them, and often mindlessly. Individual originality and ingenuity are almost frowned upon in today’s society, as it might not produce the expected results, even if it produces better ones.

The irrationality of rationality refers to the idea that these rational systems of fast service and cheaper food are actually worse for us. Food that is the least expensive is often the least healthy. The speed of drive-thru dining does not usually lead to us saving time, as the drive-thru may be long, or we spend time driving to the restaurant. The stability of the American family that was so prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s is waning now as families spend less time together. Dinner time is in front of the television if even there, and every member of the family is tucked away in their room on their own computer, machines that are supposed to make our lives less complicated.

An example of McDonaldization for me would be the online classes I am taking. They utilize the growing power of the internet to give me college credit, but professors often assign more work than I might have attending a class on campus. Self-service gas stations are also a source of irrational rationality. While it can sometimes save time to swipe a credit card at the pump and fuel up without walking more than 3 feet away from one’s car, if a trip inside is required it becomes an inconvenience. Drinks, food, magazines, even the bathrooms are inaccessible to someone while they have to wait to pump their gas, whereas a full-service station could handle everything about your vehicle including checking your oil while you are inside.

Many times McDonaldization can be beneficial to us. Fast food restaurants should free up more time for us to spend on something else. Internet classes should be a convenience that can be worked into our schedule, not visa versa. Gas stations should now be a quick trip to the pump. But unfortunately all of these things are not always as they should be. Technological malfunctions can slow them down where a problem did not exist before. Conveniences like online classes become obsolete when the professor dictates a strict assignment or quiz schedule for the class (my other class, I swear, Prof. J). Even with as many gas stations as there are, lines still form at the pumps when people do not follow the etiquette necessary when fueling. Sometimes I wish I could just slow everything down and not worry about my schedule, or being somewhere at a certain time. But I guess that is called a vacation.

Are Children Trained to Kill?

2009-05-04T12:30:00.000-04:00

I suppose I would fall in with the catharsis theory of media socialization. Contrary to Grossman’s article, in which he stated that media outlets are essentially programming kids to kill through desensitization and the closing down of the midbrain that normally prevents us from killing a fellow human being, some human beings are just natural born killers. It doesn’t mean they are sociopaths; it is simply a biological advantage they have over others. Grossman said himself that we are very similar to dogs in the way we think when frightened or angered; we still have that basic animal instinct. But overexposure to violent media doesn’t necessarily make us the killers we can become.

On the other hand, television is also not a completely benign invention. Another possible explanation for the increase in violence since the advent of television isn’t tied to the violent imagery we see and hear, but possibly to the fact that television keeps us cooped up inside when people used to be much more active. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn there was a correlation between the climbing obesity rate due to less active lifestyles in our young people and the increase in aggravated assault cases over the last few decades.

Whereas people used to be outside and active in the past (where problems still existed because it was more likely for someone to join a gang), the vacuum has now been filled with television watching. The viewing experience itself can be a vicarious experience to relieve the emotional rage a person may have, but now they are no longer able to get rid of that physical tension that accompanies it. So in the moment they decide they are bored of television, or simply were not home to watch it, they now have all of this pent-up physical aggression and no outlet to get rid of it.

I actually believe catharsis theory doesn’t fully explain these events. Some people are just violent by nature, and no amount of television, music, or video games--or lack thereof--is going to make a difference. As stated in 4.1.1 of this section “Agents of Socialization”, the family is the most important part of socialization. Unfortunately, this concept isn’t obvious to everyone, and blaming mainstream media for the downfall of our youth is just another tired crusade by the bureaucrats in Washington. Just like McDonald’s advertising is the reason child obesity is so bad right now. These are simply attempts to create big government that will control more elements of our lives, as opposed to blaming the real source of the problem which is bad parenting. Television, the internet, video games: these are not meant to be babysitters for children. But more and more often that is becoming the case.

Grossman, Dave. “Trained to Kill”. Christianity Today, August 10, 1998. http://www.killology.com/print/print_trainedtokill.htm

My Life as a Third World Country

2009-05-01T12:30:00.000-04:00

My family is much like the world when it comes to the distribution of power. I am the lowly third world country that depends on all of those above me for handouts and hope to escape their wrath. My dad can tell me what to do, my mom can tell me what to do, and through the manipulation of my mom and dad, my sister can pretty much tell me what to do. The power distribution essentially adds up to me being on the bottom rung; my mom and dad being sort of an off-balance bipolar system, my mom having slightly more power over my dad; and my sister wielding the majority of the power at the top.

This is easily relatable to the world stage. Until very recently, due to the economic recession we have tumbled into, the U.S. has been the leader of global power, much like my sister. Below them are the European Union, Russia, maybe China and Japan, and a few other notable countries, most of which belong to the UN’s Security Council. This is the level my parents are on. And still below them are the rest of the countries of the world, who are at the mercy of those above them should they choose to use the power they hold.

In recent years, Iran has been pushing for a nuclear program. The fear of many is that such a program will be used to make bombs. Because of the power the U.S. has (and more specifically President Bush), our country basically decides if Iran gets to start a nuclear program or not, and if it so to what extent (CNN, 4/10/06).

Another display of the power distribution in the world is seen when viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even some of the higher echelon powers disagree on how this conflict should be resolved, or who they favor. But in a recent statement by Hillary Clinton, the U.S. supports Israel in its self-defense attacks (BBC, 1/28/09), meaning the rest of the world is now aware of America’s stance in the problem and will alter their diplomatic tactics accordingly.

CNN Access. “Hersh: U.S. mulls nuclear option for Iran” Interview with Wolf Blitzer, April 10, 2006. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/hersh.access/index.html

BBC News. “Israel launches attacks in Gaza” January 28, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7853803.stm

The Future of America With President Obama

2009-04-29T12:30:00.001-04:00

My family is made up of strong Christian elements, and therefore we believe that the Lord will provide for us even in times of need. So it is not for ourselves that we are concerned most of the time, but for the nation we live within. Our concern is that America will lose sight of the morals and standards it was founded on, especially with the growing tide of globalization.

As it has already been mentioned in this discussion, President Barack Obama was inaugurated today. He has not even been in office for a whole day, so it is difficult to say what sort of policies he will focus on, especially in the foreign realm. During his inaugural speech, he said it is time for America to become the leader it was (NY Times, 1/20/09). What exactly this means is still unclear, but it is obvious at least from his cabinet appointments that he wishes to break away from some of the foreign policies of President Bush and present a more unified front to the world. I fear that Obama might become more of an appeaser to foreign powers in an attempt to stray far from the cowboy diplomacy of George Bush.

Many of Obama’s foreign policy platforms during his campaign were related to restarting American diplomacy, being willing to talk with political leaders from any nation (barackobama.com). This is a very noble goal, as long as the other party is as willing to negotiate as America. As long as Obama doesn’t stray from the ideals on which this country was founded--liberty, justice, The American Way--I believe our country will be able to survive.

Hulse, Carl. “Obama is Sworn in as the 44th President” NY Times 1/20/2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/politics/20web-inaug2.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

“Foreign Policy” BarackObama.com. http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/#diplomacy

NFL Players' Fantasy Stakes

2009-04-26T12:20:00.003-04:00

A topic that interests me is fantasy football. I’m not the only person who enjoys this football season phenomenon, as evidenced by the countless number of leagues and websites devoted to the “sport”. I find fantasy football so entertaining because it adds an extra element to the weekly football matchups. Even if my favorite team in the NFL, the Chicago Bears, are doing poorly one week, or the entire season, fantasy football can keep me interested in the games each Sunday. According to the forums on Fantasy Football Today (www.fftodayforums.com) many people participate for the thrill of the competition, others because of a monetary wager in place, and still others because they have an unhealthy obsession about football.

My question is whether the leagues of fantasy football players are run only by those who watch the games on television. In other words, do NFL players themselves participate in fantasy football leagues? This question is of vast importance because it could attempt to explain the outcome in weekly NFL games, or even more detrimental, the performances of particular players in fantasy football games. Say a player, maybe Peyton Manning, is the owner of a fantasy team. Because he may have had a bad fantasy draft number, he was unable to draft himself in the quarterback position. After viewing his matchup for the week in fantasy, he sees that if he has a poor NFL performance, his fantasy team will win the matchup because his opponent owns Manning in the fantasy league. This could be a possible reason that I seemed to get so screwed over by my fantasy players this past season.

The best way to collect data regarding this hypothesis would be to survey the NFL players. With only 32 teams and about 50-60 players on each team, it wouldn’t be that difficult to survey less than 2000 people. However, we could decrease the sample size to a random sampling of 10 to 15 players per team and a few coaches and coordinators. A few short questions asking whether they participate in fantasy leagues, as well as the frequency they checked on their team’s status would be enough to validate any findings.

Because the question asks only whether or not NFL players own fantasy teams, many details are not required. My personal stake in the hypothesis (whether players play badly to benefit their own fantasy teams) is not the subject of this study, and quite possibly could have legal implications. So for now we will omit it.

A New Dawn is Coming

2009-04-25T17:47:00.003-04:00

Well, not really. But I do hope to restart my blogging. To my two and a half faithful readers (one could be a child, or one could just be a really short person... sorry Lisa), sorry I haven't written much in the last few months. But that's going to change. I plan on having some auto-uploaded postings for the next month or two which consist of 300 to 600 word essays I had to write for my online classes this semester.

I'm not going to include the questions that spurred the assignment; hopefully my writing--albeit often hasty and done 45 minutes before the assignment was due--will display some semblance of the topic. I am uploading these because they can be controversial, thought-provoking articles, and because they offer some insight into my own personal beliefs. Any topic is open to discussion, debate, and if you so choose, insult. All I ask is that you try to use some degree of proper grammar, haha.

These articles/essays/assignments were done for my Sociology class and for my International Relations class. For the most part I had to research to the topic and provide at least one source to back up my opinion or information. That's about all I have for now. I think I'll start the updates tomorrow and allow 2-3 days for any discussion or follow-up. Don't worry, my feelings won't be hurt too much if no debate follows.

On another quick note, Happy NFL Draft Day everyone!

U.S. Politicians are the 4th Graders of the World

2009-03-20T11:03:00.004-04:00

Fickle, whiny, prone to throwing temper tantrums. That is our government in a nutshell. Not unlike the mentality of a fourth grader, our government is now in the habit of calling "take backs" when they don't like the outcome of a gift they gave "freely".

As Evelyn Beatrice Hall once wrote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Well I disapprove of the bonuses AIG is giving out, but I will defend to the death their right to give them.

Very few people, regarding this AIG bonuses situation, are focusing on Congress' nearsightedness. Congressman Chris Dodd wrote an amendment into the AIG bailout that allowed for these bonuses to be paid! Now all of a sudden the politicians are claiming they didn't know it was bad to include an amendment allowing bonuses to be paid with bailout money, like a fourth grader not knowing it's wrong to hit another child.

It's too late now, but the way to prevent these bonuses would have been to never given them the bailout money in the first place. We are supposed to be a CAPITALIST nation, meaning that if a company makes risky business ventures (like loaning money to people with bad credit or no capability of paying it back on time) that fail, then said company should fail as well. The government needs to stop throwing around this "TOO BIG TO FAIL" shit.

To start, it doesn't even make sense. If it was "too big" to fail, then why is it failing? And if it's too important to fail, then why did the government sit idly by before when AIG was making bad business decisions? It's only when the blame starts to fall on Congress, or the administration, that steps are taken to handcuff AIG. It's only when they can't have their way and still be liked (via bailing out a failing company and have public support for it) that they begin to throw their tantrums.

Our congressmen are nothing more then poorly parented children... and unfortunately, We, the people are the parents.

The "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" Government

2009-03-12T09:00:00.001-04:00

Remember growing up, when your parents would tell you not to curse, and then you would catch them utter a curse word under their breath when they accidentally backed the car into something? Or remember when they said to save your allowance, instead of spending it, but would then go out and buy things themselves?

Apparently the United States government is taking the new role of parent that it has granted itself to the next level; the "do as I say, not as I do" level. While telling all Americans to pay their own taxes, and backing banks that are coming to collect on credit card debt, Congress and Obama are considering a 2010 budget of $3,600,000,000,000 (three trillion, six-hundred billion dollars). A decent-sized portion, I want to say about 9% of the budget, is simply the interest we are paying on our past debt. In addition, the budget allows for the roughly 40% that the failed systems of welfare and social security require.

So why is every American told to be fiscally responsible, to pay off their credit cards and multiple mortgages, while still paying taxes, when the federal government has been on a spending spree since before Obama took office?

"Oh, well... you see, President Obama inherited this situation. Bush was responsible for the deficit, the Republicans in Bush's first 6 years created the mortgage crisis and major deficit that we are now in. When Bush first took office, there was actually a surplus." These are the typical responses from either the politicians in office or their lapdogs who are easily cajoled.

I'm sorry. Wasn't it a Democratic Congress from 2007 until now? Wasn't it the same Democratic Congress that said they were going to cutback on the earmarks and be fiscally responsible?

"Uh... errr... well we are just doing what the Republicans did from 2000 to 2006, and we haven't even spent as much as they have [yet]." Ouch. You got me there. Maybe I will just wait another four months for when you are attempting to push a third stimulus bill through Congress. Then you can tell me you haven't spent as much as Bush and the Republicans.

Listen up people! It's not about your state, or your district. These politicians just keep feeding the same lies around election time because they don't care about the district they come from, or the state they represent. They only care about two things: winning re-election, and furthering their career. They will make a show out of some local event they attend, or point out that they voted against an unpopular bill once in order to earn favor with the constituents.

But it's all a dog and pony show. The true statesman who cares about the state of union is rare indeed. And our current group of politicians' greatest threat is the education of the masses. They talk about education being an important agenda, and push forth "No Child Left Behind" and equally pointless acts, but that's only because the education they preach is also the kind that they teach.

Educate yourselves, America. Read books, literature, historical accounts, the news. Investigate stories you have heard; for every crackpot website on the internet there is another one that will have a grain of truth. Take everything you read, hear, or see with a grain of salt, even what I'm telling you now.

Change We Can Believe In??

2009-02-27T22:56:00.009-05:00

What happened Obama-ites? Your man made the Oval Office, yet nothing has changed. The same pork-barreled spending packages have been passed through Congress. Banks are still being bailed out despite many American citizens hating the idea. And the budget deficit is at an all time high of a projected $3.6 trillion dollars. To pay that off, the estimated U.S. population of 303,824,640 people (according to CIA factbook) would each have to pay a manageable $11,848.94 in taxes. And that includes the children who have no income, the people living on government-paid welfare and unemployment, and the retired who are collecting government Social Security checks.

So where is the money coming from? Obama just signed the $789 billion dollar stimulus plan into law, which includes $507 billion in spending programs and $282 billion in tax relief. What better way to jump start the spending in the economy than to create 282,000 millionaires? If the government just randomly selected 282,000 citizens and gave them one million dollars, instead of overall tax relief to everyone, investments would soar, new jobs and opportunities would spring up, and the recession would be curbed.

Oh, my bad. I forgot humans are greedy, self-centered people, and ideas such as trickle-down economics don't work. If we suddenly had 282,000 new millionaires, they would just hoard the money and not reinvest it, or use it to buy real estate, or share it with their friends. Better that we have this brand of Obamanomics, where the government can best decide who deserves money, and how much they receive.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake… We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."

- George Orwell, 1984, Part III, Chapter 3

College Baseball PING

2009-02-23T23:58:00.004-05:00

If you have ever listened to the Jim Rome radio show, you are familiar with his take on college baseball. The aluminum bats with their pinging every time a player gets a hit, along with the weak pitching of college undergraduates add an element of ultra-offense to the game of baseball. But at the University of Central Florida the game is still a lot of fun.

The biggest reason for that is because of the fandom of college sports. I've spoken of this concept before. College sports especially, but really all sports, are made more interesting by the fans that watch them. Without the incessant heckling and over-the-top cheering by the home team, sports would not be as relevant to the public as they are.

In the day of the coliseum events, the vote of the fans, the viewers, the patrons, often swayed the outcome of the event. If you take away the fan interaction, then you take away the reason for the fans to even be there. People want to feel like they have a purpose in what they do. It's the reason that prisoners go insane from digging a hole and filling it back up immediately after. There's no purpose in it.

So with college sports, fandom reaches its ultimate height. Basketball games are won and lost based on the support of the fans. In the case of UCF and their history of fairweather fans, of which I have spoken before, games are more often lost because of a lack of fan support; namely fans sitting behind me asking that I sit down because I am blocking their view.

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I didn't realize that your free admission was worth more than my free admission, and that the student overflow section was for people who can't support their team against one of our biggest conference rivals. My mistake, jackass.

With college baseball now heating up, I plan on attending a good number of the home games. Making insulting puns based on things the opposing team cannot control, such as their surname or height, really adds to the spirit of the game. These kids are hardened athletes; they are used to criticism. Don't weep for them. The most important thing is that the fans come to the games, as that is how we pay for the facilities and coaching staff and overall, keep my tuition costs down.

Bad Birthday

2009-02-14T23:46:00.001-05:00

I have a pretty unfortunate date as my birthday. Not the worst date; I wasn't born on December 25, or January 2, or February 29. But I was born on February 16. This is horrible for two reasons: 1) I have to buy things for my girlfriend two days before my own birthday; and 2) my girlfriend is going to dump me on the 15th so that she doesn't have to buy me things for my birthday.

Fortunately, she worked today, better known to most of the western world as St. Valentine's Day. Don't worry, women of the blogging world. I took her out to dinner on Thursday at the Melting Pot. February 14th is just a day of the month. "Valentine's Day" is a scam by the greeting card and chocolate companies to make more money.

A guy shouldn't need a special day of the year to show his girlfriend/wife/mom/sister how much she means to him. For the record, there's a different distinction between each of those. I did live in Kentucky for a few years, but I'm still cool guys.

Back to what I was saying, though, girls are funny creatures. Hear me out first, please. They need constant affirmations that they are beautiful, or smart, or whatever. This doesn't mean you should say something just because they need to hear it. You really have to mean what you say to a girl, unless it's bad of course, in which case it is always a joke, ladies.

So taking a girl out on a Tuesday, October 19 should mean just as much as taking her out on Saturday, February 14. Only then can the hold the evil corporations like Hallmark and Godiva have on all of us.

And here's to hoping I still have a girlfriend on Monday.

Contact Your Congressman About H.R. 1

2009-02-09T21:31:00.004-05:00

The Senate is discussing and possibly voting tomorrow on H.R. 1, better known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It is your right, no DUTY, as an American to let your voice be heard on this issue. Congress is proposing an astonishing, unheard-of $820 billion dollar (that's 82 followed by 10 zeroes, or $820,000,000,000, so that you can better understand this obscene amount) stimulus plan that will supposedly jumpstart our economy.

If this bill will help you by providing some sort of money to you and your family, let your congresspeople know about that aspect of it. If you are like me and find this stimulus plan to be a load of bullshit wrapped tightly with a bow, then you should let your congressmen know as much in that regard as well. We need to let the government know how we feel about something that will affect us for the next 10, 20, 50 years.

$820,000,000,000 is not something to be taken lightly, and our government should know that 95% of Americans would not make that in four lifetimes combined. Every precaution, every measure has to be taken if this money is going to be distributed by the government.

Let your congressmen know how you feel by contacting them through email, phone, handwritten letter, pigeon mail, whatever way possible. You can find out your congressmen's contact information by going to the following sites:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

My Bushido Code

2009-02-08T12:14:00.003-05:00

I try to do nothing I will regret and regret nothing I do. That seems pretty self-explanatory, but I will elaborate.

Sometimes I am faced with decisions that tear at my moral heartstrings. Should I glance at another test paper or not? Should I gossip about so-and-so to their roommate? Should I give some money to someone who is homeless?

My goal is to make the decision that I will regret the least, whatever it may be. I make the choice that will leave me with the least amount of guilt, if any is to be felt.

But sometimes the "right" path isn't always available to me. So that's where the second part of the code comes in to play. If I can't make the choice I won't regret, then I refuse to regret the choice that I made. Regret leads to guilt which will lead to indecision or bad decisions the next time the same scenario comes up.

So far I have managed to lead a pretty stress-free life by this honor code. If this code works for you, feel free to live by it. If its not for you, I wish you luck in finding your own way of the samurai.

Why Would I Want to Take the Stairs?

2009-01-29T11:26:00.002-05:00

If you've ever been sitting in the lobby of a multi-storied building waiting for the elevator to arrive, you may be familiar with this picture. A couple questions come to mind when I see it. First off, WHY THE HELL WOULD I WANT TO TAKE THE STAIRS WHEN THERE'S FIRE RIGHT UNDERNEATH THEM??? I mean, come on! Sure, maybe the elevator would malfunction and I could be stuck in there, but it's better than diving right into the fire-laden stairwell.

Second, what kind of gimp are they forcing to take the stairs during a fire emergency? This guy's got a bum leg or something, probably never taken the stairs in his life after returning from 'Nam in '72 and now a building fire is forcing him to hobble down 9 flights of stairs. That's just messed up!

Finally, let's give the artist the benefit of the doubt and say that it is a person of normal mobility taking the stairs. That is clearly not the most common reaction if there was a fire in the building, especially a fire directly under the stairs. They should have that guy leaping down a half-flight at a time, arms flailing in the air, and trampling dozens of other people just to get to the bottom and find out it was a fire drill. That's more like the American way.

The Accusatory Ambush

2009-01-05T18:54:00.005-05:00

For some reason our society has degenerated into one that feels the best way to resolve a conflict is to ambush our opponent. Our scientists and left-minded thinkers claim we have evolved so greatly from the chimpanzee-like ancestors we came from, and yet we still rely on animal tactics to solve our problems.

Part of the problem is that men and women function on a fundamentally different level. On the whole, women are emotional beings, and men are logical. Before some women throw out some snide comments about how men don't think logically when directions need to be asked, or chores need to be done, or just about anything else we do, I basically mean in an argument men and women act and think this way.

So with that said, women tend to be more guilty (although not entirely) then men of the accusatory ambush. For example, The Jerry Springer gets its ratings from men and women coming on and accusing each other of marital and relational infidelity.

A local radio show where I live has a segment called "The War of the Roses", where the host arranges to send a fake bouquet of roses from the accused party, while the victimized party listens in. Today's episode was actually funny when the call backfired on Sarah because her boyfriend said he was sending the Rachel, who turned out to be his cousin that broke up with her boyfriend on New Year's. Sarah then says she didn't believe him, because she couldn't lose face after she had gone through this entire underhanded tactic.

Is this what our world is coming to? A problem between boyfriend and girlfriend, or husband and wife, one of the most intimate relationships attainable by human beings, has to be settled or brought to light in the public forum? I'm going to go to sleep tonight; wake me up when the world makes sense again.

Lesson in Grammar #2

2009-01-04T15:22:00.002-05:00

Today's lesson comes from a typical response one would hear during the holiday season. After a few days of giving and receiving presents and the thank yous it would produce, the giver of a gift usually replies "You are very welcome" or some other variant. This phrase is often shortened in the common vernacular, and the difference is subtle.

But in an age of increasing technological interaction, including email, text messages, and internet forums, phrases are seen more often in written form. And unfortunately, people do not understand the concepts of ownership words versus contractions of words. And so I come to the point of Lesson #2.

"You're welcome" is a contraction of "You are welcome" and is a response given to someone who had just verbalized gratitude. "Your welcome" denotes ownership of a welcome or introduction.

It's obvious that people intend the first meaning of "You are welcome" most of the time. But that shouldn't excuse them from lazy writing. The masses are becoming increasingly casual in their speech and writing. This becomes a problem if carried over into the professional world, especially when dealing with international businesses. Cultures that use English as a second language learn its grammatical basics. So when our culture degenerates the language--although still understood by people within our culture--it could affect cross-cultural communication.

So please try to spellcheck your emails, papers, projects or anything you are writing to protect the vitality of the English language.

Fudging the Numbers

2008-12-29T21:09:00.003-05:00

While watching the hilarious South Park episode where Cartman and Kyle get AIDS, I saw this commercial starring Noah Wyle telling me about the danger polar bears are facing from the climate change that is warming the planet.

Is this the same global warming that is producing record amounts of snow and cold temperatures in the midwest? As it turns out, polar bears as a whole are not in danger of extinction, as their overall numbers our up. Some individual populations may be decreasing, but others remain the same and others still are increasing.

Scientists cite decreasing sea ice as the top reason polar bear populations are decreasing. It seems the entire polar bear population skipped class the day the teacher was talking about evolution.

And now it turns out the report done for the Department of Interior to decide whether polar bears should be placed on the endangered list might not even be entirely accurate, according to this article from ScienceDaily.com.

Just goes to show that it's hard to take information at face value, and even more so with the prominence of the internet.

The Most Wonderful Time

2008-12-26T22:52:00.002-05:00

Merry Christmas to all!

Christmas is such a wonderful holiday. I love buying presents for people. Some people like to say that Christmas isn't about the presents, it's not about the material things. I humbly beg to differ.

Christmas may not have it's roots in the PlayStation 3's or digital cameras we receive, but the giving of presents is an important component to the holiday. If a gift is bought and given out of love excitement for the joy it will bring, the meaning of Christmas is fulfilled.

So yes, maybe we shouldn't focus on asking for that hot new DVD, or the hottest pair of shoes on the market, but that doesn't mean we can't buy those things if we someone wants them, if we believe it will make them happy. The giver receives joy by seeing the face of the person they purchased a gift for. So it all comes full circle.

I can't wait to finish my Christmas by exchanging gifts with my girlfriend tomorrow. Britney Spears concert tickets should go a long way towards bringing her Christmas joy.

Saving the Earth

2008-12-22T22:03:00.007-05:00

Above is the aptly named “Hockey Stick” graph. It came out in the mid-90s in favor of the "Humans are hurting the planet" theories. As you can see in the graph, the planet was cooling from about the year 1000 AD (none of that BCE/CE crap here) to 1907 AD, which is convenient for environmentally friendly organizations touting the evils of automobiles and mankind in general.

These groups often say that humans are responsible for all of the warming effects we have seen in the last century. But I say, why stop assigning blame there? As far as I can tell, humans are responsible for everything that has happened to this planet, since, I don’t know, the birth of humanity. Ever since man decided to stop picking his nose and start picking up rocks, we have had an impact on this planet for better or worse.

But instead of blaming Homo sapiens for every conceivable problem (although there are still some groups that do) most will just find one thing they don’t like and say that humans are the reason it sucks. Not enough wolverines in northern California? Humans killed ‘em. Too much smog in Beijing? Humans did that. Mexico City is sinking into a lake bed? Bad human engineering. But why don’t lobbyists ever combine all these different things that humans caused, and blame humans for everything? Because they too are human, and realize that they would get caught in the blame. The lamenters drive in gasoline-powered vehicles, too.

So instead they come up with all of these short-sighted plans that to reduce carbon emissions or minimize plastic bag waste. I prefer to think on the long term, and have drawn up a the beginnings of a plan to help save the Earth.

THE PLAN - Euthanize the elderly
This plan makes sense in a couple of ways, besides the fact that some of the more senile recipients would think they were going in for treatments to become younger. Of course I understand there may be some critics out there who scream, “That’s so inhumane! How can you say we should kill the elderly?!” But I have a few responses to them:

First, old people tend to drive slower, resulting in longer drive times for themselves. However, everyone stuck behind said old person who is unable to pass will also have a longer drive time. A longer commute and more stop-and-go traffic results in increased fuel consumption, which results in more demand for oil, which drives up the price of oil, which means more wells get drilled, which hurts the environment.

Second, old people typically require specialized diets. While most normal (young) people are able to eat whatever and whenever they want, old people have to have their food mashed, liquefied, or in pill form, and they have to have someone prepare it, feed it, or shove it up their rectum for them. This means that whenever an old person wants to eat, increased man hours must be spent and additional energy consumption must go into the process, which requires more food to replace the used energy, which means more forests need to be cleared to allow for the growth of foodstuffs, which eliminates the earth’s natural ability to absorb carbon dioxide, which hurts the environment.

Third, old people are known to complain... a lot. Not only does this result in increased stress levels in those they complain to, but it most likely slows down the cogs of administration as old people clog the channels with their complaining. When more old people complain, less work actually gets done, which means people have to stay at the office longer, resulting in generators running longer, requiring more energy and adding more light pollution to the landscape.

Now as I said before, this is just a proposal. I have no idea what the minimum age should be for such a program; that is something best left to the number crunchers to decide. I doubt that such a program could become a universal overnight, as some cultures have a certain respect for the elderly (not America). Lastly, we operate within a land governed by laws, so by no means should this program commence without some sort of authortative sanction.

Vanilla Ice Gets a Bad Rap

2008-12-21T22:59:00.005-05:00

Awful pun aside, I'm serious. Vanilla Ice's hit, "Ice, Ice, Baby", which is often the joke of many VH1 specials, is criticized as being cheesy; of being soft or weak; quite frankly, of a white guy trying to play a black man's game. The Beastie Boys were originally met with the same type of criticism, but were able to move past it and establish a name for themselves.

But what exactly is the problem with this song? Is it the fact that it uses--or seems to use--the same underlying beat as David Bowie's "Under Pressure". Surely this can't be the problem, as almost all of Kanye West's tracks utilize this same technique, called sampling. Why was the same amount of outrage not evident when West debuted "Stronger", and obvious remix of the Daft Punk song?

So it must be the way he raps. Perhaps because there isn't a definite structure to the lyrics; they lines sort of flow into each other, lacking punctuation. But wait... more and more songs are using this theme as well. The rapper T.I. is practically known for this style of prose, and the Nickelback song "Animals" sounds like this as well.

Since these reasons do not make sense, it must be the lyrical content itself that is the problem. Surely a rapper claiming how he is better than all other rappers, and how he can "light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle"; surely this is an absurd notion. Nothing like the lyrical genius of Lady GaGa we are subjected to now: singing about being too drunk to remember the name of the club, but it's alright so "Just Dance", before then telling us that she's "Gotta doo-doo". Oh yeah, Vanilla Ice's lyrics are whack.

I guess there's only one possibility left to us: it has to be the parachute pants.

The Ol' Staredown

2008-12-14T15:23:00.004-05:00

We've all received it. We most likely have all given it. But what exactly is "the old staredown"? Most of the time, people want to confuse the old staredown with the evil eye, or the stink eye, or the crazy eye, but it is it's own entity entirely. It is not a top to bottom lookover, as one blogger relates. It is not a perverse leer, either, as I'm sure most young women have felt at least once in their life.

The old staredown is that moment that seems to drag on forever when a person just keeps looking at you. It's not creepy, nor is its intent of a negative origin. For whatever reason, this person just feels the need to keep looking at you. There's nothing visibly wrong with you; your fly is zipped, your face is clean, your hair is relatively neat. But this person just keeps staring.

Many people want to overreact in this situation. They choose to confront the person and demand they stop looking at them. Or they quickly avert their eyes, as if they were the ones that just got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. My response to this situation is to continue my usual conversational manneurisms and make a casual reference to receiving the old staredown. The worst thing one can do is draw unnecessary attention to the situation.

Just remember two things when it comes to the old staredown. Don't confuse it with the evil eye or anything else of an ill-nature, because its intentions are not such. And don't make eye contact with the giver of the old staredown as that could be justification enough for them to switch from a curious look to the aforementioned evil, stink, or crazy eye.

The Nanny: Face of American Diplomacy?!

2008-12-10T08:56:00.004-05:00

Fran Drescher was named by the Deputy Secretary of State Goli Ameri as a U.S. Diplomatic Envoy on Women's Health. See the video here.

Apparently being a diplomatic envoy doesn't take a lot. A C-list actress with a sob story and admirable cause can even get the title. Before Drescher the baseball great Cal Ripken, whose claim to fame includes the longest playing streak, and ice dancer Michelle Kwan, who is still famous despite never getting Jeff Gillooly'd, both had the title as well.

President Elect Obama's administration, which has even more ties with Hollywood, will hand out the falling positions as well:

Steve Urkel - Deputy Secretary of State
John Rambo - Secretary of Department of Veteran Affairs
Travis Bickle - Secretary of Department of Transportation
John McClane - Secretary of Department of Homeland Security
Paige Davis - Secretary of Department of Interior

Christian Radio: The FM Hypocrite

2008-12-08T19:28:00.005-05:00

My last post regarding Orlando's local Christian radio station, Z88.3 has incited some reactions from the masses. It's only fair that I do a follow-up post to complete my thoughts on the topic.

So to elaborate, my last post mentioned how Z88.3's playlist was glorified by the station as being "Safe for the little ears" which I believe eventually leads to complacency in one's faith. To refute some of the arguments laid out in the comments section of my last post, I am not saying other Orlando stations are more varied in their music. All radio stations seem to be increasingly guilty of saturating their airwaves with the same hour and a half cycle of tunes. But a Christian radio station should be more concerned with the Great Commission than with Arbitron ratings.

Another beef I have with this station actually seems to contradict what I said yesterday. At least it would if Z88.3 wasn't guilty of publicizing plagiarism. Perhaps an example is in order: This song, entitled "Heaven" by Los Lonely Boys, was released by the secular band in 2004 to a flurry of popular acclaim. Instead of playing this uplifting song that has been out for 4 years, Z88.3 has recently begun playing a version sounding exactly the same recorded by a Christian band named Salvador.

Before the flame war starts, let me state that I understand what a cover song is; I know what a cover band does. But generally a band covers a popular song in addition to playing their original songs to generate a fan base. A band like Salvador, who has been around since 2000, should have no need to establish a fan base. And it really just comes down to Z88.3 being hypocritical by not playing a song that is EXACTLY THE SAME just because it isn't sung by a Christian artist originally.

For a station that plays songs proclaiming the power of God, why is Z88.3 afraid to play more songs with an uplifting message (albeit sung by a secular artist) and let God's power work through that song?

Christian Radio: The First Harbinger of Doom

2008-12-05T09:17:00.003-05:00

There is a local radio station where I live, Z88.3, that plays "Christian" music twenty-four/seven. I use quotations because it needs to be emphasized that this music is not all-inclusive; they are only the feel-good songs of Christianity where God is mentioned every other line.

The motto for this station isn't even something like "Z88: Praising God on your way to work" or "Z88: Showing the meaning in a meaningless world", but actually "Z88: Safe for the little ears."

Is that what's become of mainstream Christianity??? It's safe for children?! That is not a faith I would want to raise my kids in. Safety begets comfort which leads to stagnation. I want a faith that challenges me, that lets me think and question my existence and the world around me; not some white-washed fabrication that is deemed safe for children's ears and minds.

The other problem I have with this station is that they claim to play "positive hits". Now your guess is as good as mine as to what the hell they are talking about when they say positive hits. To me, positive hits means any song that makes a person feel good. Makes sense, right? Good luck trying to hear uplifting songs like "Arms Wide Open" or "Higher" by Creed, or even songs by other Christian artists like Flyleaf because they don't expressly mention God in their works.

Z88.3 and stations like it alienate a lot of Christians who have varying music tastes. The greatest thing about music is that it is open to the listener's interpretation--a fact that this station ignores--so even a song that doesn't mention God outright can still relay a deeply spiritual meaning. Until Z88.3 changes their programming to include a larger variety of songs (or an entirely different line-up during the midnight to 4am block when the "little ears" should be in bed anyways) I am boycotting this station and writing emails, and I encourage everyone who reads this to do the same.

Mild Precipitation Causes Six Mile Pile-Up

2008-11-30T22:07:00.002-05:00

To begin, I was out of town at my girlfriend's house for Thanksgiving. We went to all the cool places: South Beach, Shorty's BBQ, some other place. That is the reason for much of my absence. Now on to the rant.

For some reason, in this state that I live in (Florida), some sort of wet substance falls from the sky on occasion. It can fall heavily, softly, or sideways. Apparently no one else in the state knows what it is either, because when driving their reaction is to simply slam on the brakes and gaze at the sky in wonder and amazement.

"Has the Universe inverted itself and the oceans are on top of the sky now?!"
"Is God finally shedding tears on the failings of humanity?"

No one seems to know how to react to this phenomenon. My first idea is to proceed as normal. Even if something is different, procedures shouldn't alter until you know the current course of action will not work.

When you see a wall of--what do they call it, rain?--when you see a wall of rain ahead of your vehicle and are unsure you can drive safely at or near the speed limit, THEN PULL THE #$*@ OVER AND MOVE OUT OF MY WAY!!!!

Lesson in Grammar #1

2008-11-21T09:50:00.006-05:00

The word "their" indicates ownership. "They're" is a contraction for "they are", showing a state of being. "There" is most commonly an adverb referring to location. Contrary to popular usage, the three words are not interchangeable. They each have a proper time and place, and those times and places are never the same.

A tangible object called a retarded has never existed. It does not currently exist; unless someone creates a play-on-words product in the future, it never will exist. Therefore, it is impossible for someone to possess a retarded. So people should stop using the phrase "their retarded".

People commonly misuse "they're" as a possessive pronoun. Perhaps it is the apostrophe; today's feeble-minded internet users can only imagine an apostrophe being used to denote ownership, thus all apostrophe-touting words indicate ownership. Nevertheless, "they're lives" does not make sense. A life is something one owns, controls, subjugates, or relinquishes. It is not something a person can actually be. Perhaps we should outlaw the contraction in common English; that might persuade people to stop relying on it in improper situations, and we can put the whole "will not" becomes "won't" problem behind us.

"There" is a referential adverb. It indicates a point (either tangible or metaphysical). Even though it can refer to a place, it cannot take the place of the previously mentioned homophones. Here is an example from a confused individual:
CORY52768 (1 minute ago) I think they're doing something constructive with there spare time. some people can learn from these two kids. (emphasis added by author)

I hope this helps in your future internetting. The great thing about the English language is that it is so dynamic; we are so capable of creating new words whenever it suits us (hell, I just used "internetting" as an intransitive verb). Therfore we should not have to bend the rules of the words we already have.

For more examples of bad grammar check out YouTube.

New Election Process

2008-11-19T11:46:00.002-05:00

For the record, this is not out of anger at who won the Presidential election, or any other election for that matter. It is simply a new idea to encourage people to actually vote, and voices to be heard.

Here's an idea: every year there is a national election--meaning House representatives, senators, or presidents get elected--the number of representatives should be redrawn. The United States Constitution states that the number of representatives a state has be relative to the state's population, and the number of electors for the Electoral College be equal to the total of senators and representatives. This was incredibly noble and insightful of the founding fathers to give voice to all states equally but also reward the states with bigger populations.

Unfortunately, now that universal suffrage exists and everyone has the right to vote (or not), the novelty of voting is starting to wear off. Sure maybe someone can show me a statistic where there were "RECORD NUMBERS OF VOTERS" this year, but it is still far from 100% of eligible voters.

So what I propose is this the following. State representatives should not be directly tied to state population, but to voter turnout from the previous election. So states like California and New York, which are the two most populated states in the Union, need to have high voter turnouts to retain their high number of representatives and electors. States like Wyoming or Rhode Island could see a quick rise in their representation with high voter turnouts.

Not only would this create more advocacy for voting, it would reward the states where the voters actually seem to care. "What's that? You don't like our policies. What are you going to do, vote us out?" to which the public responds "YES!!" and is rewarded for the next election by choosing even more better (read more better; not more-better) representatives.

But who am I kidding. There is no way this could pass as a constitutional amendment. To many Capitol Hill fatcats would lose their cushy lifestyles. We could always try to propose nation-wide conventions for ratifying such an amendment. But when people don't even come out to vote for president why the hell would they come out to vote about how to vote for president.

Blue Man Group

2008-11-15T11:37:00.004-05:00

I have to say, I don't see what the appeal is. I went yesterday to one of their shows, and it seemed like it was a couple retarded guys who bang on things.

These guys are talented; I'm not denying that. But they act so culturally inept that I don't understand what's going on.

I like so-called "stupid movies", where the characters act like oafs and the jokes can be immature. But at least the people in those movies don't have a level of naivete akin to a newborn baby. I guess I'm a fan of stupid humor, just not stupid people.

Edit: I didn't even mention the part where they get all preachy about information overload, all the while bombarding you with poster images and light up displays. Why couldn't the show be what I thought it would be: 3 guys in blue paint banging on upside down trash cans and splashing paint everywhere? I don't need your "message"; if I wanted to pay to hear some overhyped problem in the world then I would rent An Inconvenient Truth.

Friday

2008-11-14T14:58:00.004-05:00

I thought I had a pretty awesome post for today, but a few beers at the campus bar will take that right out of someone. So instead I'll leave you with a thought-provoking question:

Are cultural norms in place because there was a biological inclination towards them, or did the egg come before the chicken, so to speak?

There IS a God...

2008-11-13T21:10:00.003-05:00

...and He hates me.

Only in a world with a God could it rain during complete sunshine. And only a God who hates me would make sure that downpour starts when I am in the middle of loading vending machines onto a truck, and stop it immediately after I store and lock up all of the equipment that was getting drenched.

Tattoos Give You Power

2008-11-07T11:45:00.005-05:00

After years of wanting a tattoo, I finally got one. It's a cool dragon with flames wrapped around a sword. I got it on the underside of my forearm.

I had always wondered why tattoos are cool. Now I finally know. They must be imbued with some sort of special power. When I have a tattoo I am not afraid to holla at some cute girl. I don't care how many bullets they shoot at me. And I even talk back to night club bouncers.

Yesterday night I went out with Sonny's girl and her friends. Sonny wasn't jealous; we have a very open and understanding relationship. A bouncer cuts directly between me and the girl I'm dancing with. That's just bad etiquette. You can cut between a group that is talking, or rub against someone as you're passing them, but you don't push yourself through two who are people dancing.

So I simply asked, "Yo man what's the deal?"

To which he immediately responded, "You got a F***** problem, bitch?!" (Bitch is less severe than an f-bomb in my mind)

I told him I have no problem, just wondering why he pushed through me like that. Apparently he took that as a window for more pushing, but this kind was more deliberate. He also threw a light punch--either he's weak or he just wasn't intending to hurt me--that connected with my cheek.

The head of security came over to see what was going on. I rejoined my friends, but couldn't help but laugh obnoxiously at the whole situation. Our friend the bouncer didn't like this. He kept staring me down, until I did the unthinkable and gave him a little wave.

This sent him into a flurry of rage for some reason, where he came over, shoved me a few times, and then put me in a headlock and started pulling me towards the entrance. I just threw my hands up in the air to show that I wasn't doing anything; and I was laughing. A lot.

Another bouncer pulled him off me but then continued to lead me towards the exit, where he reached up and ripped my armband off my wrist so that I couldn't re-enter. Upon exiting I immediately sought out the cops and reported the incident. Because I didn't slur or curse and actually used some larger vocabulary words I think they took the incident more seriously.

The moral of the story is that because I had a tattoo I didn't care what the bouncer did. I could laugh in the face of "danger" and keep a cool head.

My only concern is what will happen in a few days when it rubs off all the way.

Voting Sucks

2008-11-05T00:41:00.005-05:00

There is of course, the obvious reason, that my vote being 1 out of roughly 200 million it is completely insignificant

No, the reason voting sucks is a more personal one. Let us say, hypothetically, that a college-aged individual who has had a friend from a foreign country, we'll say Japan, stay with him for two weeks awoke at 5:30 AM to drive said friend to the airport. And let us also assume this individual did not receive enough sleep and is feeling under the weather. So after dropping his Japanese friend at the airport, the individual sees that by the time he gets back home, the polls will be open. So being an upstanding citizen who cares about the future of this country, he makes his way to his specified polling location.

Now it's just after 7 AM when our hypothetical subject arrives, so a line has already formed. This slightly upsets our man, because he had intended on getting a little more sleep before going to work. Nevertheless, he exits his car and lines up. Let it be known that our individual is in no means rude, and if someone asks him a question directly he will answer with a polite, albeit short, response. But what becomes unnecessary is the woman 2 spots in front of our subject, who laughs after everything she says, and the man 5 spots ahead, who feels it is perfectly normal to interject his opinion or witty one-liner into every one's conversation within a fifteen meter radius.

Generally when you have the phrase "laughs at whatever he/she says", it is understood that this person never says anything funny.

So to sum it up, voting sucks because the people one is forced to stand in line with are idiots who can't just keep quiet and move forward in silence. Hypothetically speaking of course.

Sports is the Answer

2008-10-31T13:55:00.003-04:00

The annual match-up between the Georgia Bulldogs and the Florida Gators is tomorrow, and one Georgia county has made the necessary preparations.

It seems that over the years, twice as many teachers have called in sick the Friday before the annual game than on an average day. With the game held in Jacksonville, Florida, over 350 miles away from Clarke County, Georgia (where the UGA is), many teachers feel the need to call into work and make the drive down the day before the game. This story can be found here, on ESPN.com.

It's nice to see that some people are finally starting to understand what's important in life. Some may view this action as placing too much emphasis on athletics, rather than academics. But it really just comes down to being responsible. If you have evidence from prior years that you might have a shortage of teachers, then it is prudent to make the necessary preparations for the same time this year.

There's already too much emphasis placed on work ethic in our society. That's why Sunday's come as such relief to the working population. People can relax, put their feet up, and watch football.

But it is just as important to take a break during the week occasionally. Even Sundays can lose their luster when it's "just something to look forward to". The monotony can be overwhelming and the days of rest short-lived when not broken up by a rare vacation.

One Month and Counting

2008-10-27T00:33:00.002-04:00

Me and Sonny's girl have been together for a month now. Everyone she knows is "rooting for me".

I Favor the Best Candidate

2008-10-26T22:07:00.002-04:00

I am not unbiased. I already hate Barack Obama. I hate John McCain a little less. I am going to vote for neither person however. I will either vote for a 3rd party candidate (I like Bob Barr's economic policy ideas) or I will use my democratic right to abstain from voting for president.

I don't like what McCain stands for. He claims to be a maverick, separating himself from typical Republicans. I don't know if that means he will sell out some of the social ideals to which I subscribe to appease the liberal half or just try to differ on a few policies that the Bush administration has enacted.

I disagree almost fully with all of Obama's platforms. Besides the fact that he chose Biden as his running mate, a man who can't even answer honest questions without becoming upset, as seen in this interview with Orlando reporter Barbara West. I like the fact that a reporter is finally asking the candidates honest questions.

The problem with trying to ask legitimate questions (which would never happen during a debate, a time when the voters need to see the true side of candidates) is that people think it is a personal attack on them. They are incapable of separating themselves from the ideals or beliefs or policies they stand behind. They view everything as an ad hominem line of questioning.

That's why Republicans view all questions about McCain's service as unpatriotic. It's why most questions about Barack Obama's leadership capabilities are called racist. Candidates need to be asked real questions, and start giving real answers, so that Americans know how they will act during a situation, not in the office when everything is handled for them by aides.

Spoiler Alert Saw 5

2008-10-25T00:10:00.004-04:00

Saw V sucks. That might not actually be a spoiler though. Seriously, how did they ever make it past a first one?

Well one answer is that idiots like myself go out on a Friday night and pay $8.00 to watch this (Francis Ford) Crappola. Another reason is that, if you can get past the gruesome deaths that are enacted in the movie--which can be incredibly hard to do--there are actually some really good plot twists in these movies. I'm talking original M. Night Shyamalan type plot twists.

Here's another spoiler. An inside source of mine says he reviewed a script that got okayed for Saw 8. That's three more years of excessively violent deaths.

I lied. I'm not actually going to spoil any particular part of the movie. I feel that people are often already predisposed towards a movie, book, or even person and my opinion is not going to change their mind any. I only hope to enlighten people enough to consider the possibility of changing one's mind.

How Old is Old Enough?

2008-10-22T20:22:00.004-04:00

The world is a very confusing place.

According to this story out of central Florida, negligence charges were dropped against a mother who left her child in the care of her 14-year old son while she went to a job interview. The charges were dropped because they didn't seem justified because a 14 year old is old enough to baby-sit."

So let me get this straight. A 14 year old is old enough to watch a child, but not old enough to take care of him or herself? Put more bluntly, a 14-year old can be responsible enough for another person's life, but not one's own?

Why is it that 14 is old enough to baby-sit, but whenever a 14-year old is "the victim" of a sexual act, they are suddenly too young to understand/comprehend/take responsibility for what happened? I have always hated this double standard. Kids should either be old enough, or too young. It shouldn't matter in relation to what.

As soon as a person is capable of doing something, they are old enough. Kids these days are not naive; they know what sex is at a younger age, mainly due to television and movies. So I find it hard to believe that these stories of teachers having sex with students are completely one-sided.

It's time the children stepped up to the plate. If we are going to continue living under this notion that "children are the future" then they have to start shouldering some of the responsibility for their own actions, even at an early age. That's why at my children's fifth birthday it's going to be shape up or ship out.

Bring on the Hate Mail

2008-10-20T10:26:00.003-04:00

Once again, political correctness has gone too far, this time delaying the release of the much anticipated PlayStation3 game "Little Big Planet". It seems a background track in the game contained a few lines from the Quran.

Because this game is made by a company, Media Molecule, based in the UK, it is understandable that they wouldn't want to offend any potential buyers. But the phrase "politically correct" and what it stands for will be the downfall of earth societies.

Perhaps its original intentions were good: encourage tolerance of other people and cultures by not referring to them in a demeaning way, or using something from their culture out of context. That practice has long since become ridiculous, where a bad joke becomes the ridicule of the nation's media, or a humorous cartoon insults an entire religion.

And things of a humorous intent are not the only items to become shunned because they are not "PC". Presidential candidates can not say what they mean in the off-chance one voter will be offended, which really just leaves the rest of the nation even more uncertain about where a candidate stands. People become offended because someone referred to them by a name no longer in use, despite the fact that it is still in use.

Until I receive the memo (and I wanted it to be sent on company paper so I know it's legitimate; I must have a hard copy) people of a smaller stature will still be midgets, and I will still be freaked out by them. People of a darker skin color will still be black, because the ones I come into contact with are rarely from Africa. And politicians will all still be dumbasses, because they won't just say what they mean and they won't do anything to fix our country's problems.

I'd Love to Help

2008-10-17T08:44:00.006-04:00

I hate that point when compassion becomes sacrifice. Usually because it means I'm the one that is going to have to sacrifice something, such as my time, my money, or a virgin.

But what I mean is the tipping point after someone takes notice of another person's troubles. They offer words of condolence such as "is everything alright?" or "are you going to be okay?" That's all well and good.

Unfortunately they inevitably follow it up with those 3 words that just mean more work for me: "Can I help?" That very short expression really means "Can Aaron help? because I'll make him help."

I don't have anything against helping. I usually offer myself to anyone in need, and often times even to someone not in need, if she's cute enough. What I don't like is when someone else volunteers my services without running it by me. Who broke their arms and legs that they can't go help carry in the groceries? Oh I'm sorry, you're older; so apparently you've earned the right to be a jackass.

Economic Stimulus Plan: Smoke More

2008-10-14T20:26:00.003-04:00

News Alert America: The government wants you to smoke!!!

Despite what clever campaigns like "Truth" want to tell you (and I haven't figured out yet how hallucinogenic musicals is a good anti-smoking campaign), smoking cigarettes is good. Sure, there are carcinogens, so it's undoubtedly bad for your health. But it is good for the country because of the taxes imposed on cigarette sales.

Cigarette packs are subject to state taxes ranging from 17 to 257.5 cents per pack¹. And in 20% of the states there are additional taxes for counties, cities, and administrative fees. That means that for every pack of cigarettes not bought, states do not get this money. And when states have low revenues, they have to request money from the government, who either decide to borrow more from the American citizenry (through increased federal taxes) or other countries, increasing our national debt.

From 2000 to 2007 the U.S. median tax increase on a pack of 20 cigarettes was $1.00². So for every pack not bought in 2008, state governments are losing a dollar.

According to research done by the American Cancer Society, the decrease of smoking has reduced lung cancer deaths in males by 40% from 1991 to 2003³. This twelve year span is often viewed as a great period of economic growth. Through deficit deductions, budget cuts, and tax breaks, the economy surged during the majority of Bill Clinton's presidency.

But during that same time period, more people were learning of the health risks of cigarette smoking, and "theTruth" campaign was formed in 1998 out of Florida. Because of its youth-oriented campaign style, many young people were not beginning to smoke as they entered adulthood, as had happened over past generations. This led to less cigarette packs being bought, leading to less taxes off cigarette sales, leading to more federal lending to state budgets, which finally led to the economic meltdown during the Bush Administration.

While it is a large leap to say that a decrease in cigarette consumption was the only thing that caused our current economic crisis, it can certainly be viewed as a contributing factor. In an attempt to alleviate some of the economic woes our country is currently facing, anti-smoking campaigns should be abandoned. These advertisements have served their purpose of warning of the dangers of smoking. Parents are now raising their kids with this knowledge; children are encultured from birth with the idea that smoking is bad for one's health. It is now necessary that people choose for themselves which is better: preserving one's health or preserving one's country?

As John F. Kennedy so famously said in his inaugural speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."⁴

___________________________________________
1. State Excise Tax Rates on Cigarettes, http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html
2. Cigarette Tax Increases 2000-2008, http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cig_inc02.html
3. Thun, M.J. and Jemal A. "How much of the decrease in cancer death rates in the United States is attributable to reductions in tobacco smoking?" Tobacco Control 15: 345-347 (2006). Online: <http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/15/5/345>
4. Kennedy, J.F. Inaugural Address, Washington D.C. 1961. Online: <http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03Inaugural01201961.htm>

Dream Job #1

2008-10-13T18:23:00.003-04:00

Mr. Chairman of Iron Chef: America

Not only does he get to reveal the secret ingredient of the culinary cook-off in dramatic fashion, but his job is essentially over after that and he gets to chill with celeb judges while waiting on the chefs to finish cooking. Then they set a place for him at the end of the judge's table and he gets to try all the foods without worrying about the backlash the judges have to face if they give it a bad rating.

Hmmm... work for 2 minutes and then delight one's tastebuds with cuisine on the cusp of experimentation and ecstasy while chatting it up with guests from all over the country, or sit at a desk for 8 hours a day staring at a computer screen while the mind goes numb with repetition?

Am I a Terrorist?

2008-10-08T11:08:00.002-04:00

I saw a link while checking my gmail account that asked me that question (well, replacing "am" with "are" and "I" with "you"). Semantics aside, I naturally attempted to find out. Unfortunately the link didn't work as it should have. But I have reproduced it here for you: ACLU.org/watchlist.

Apparently our government counts terrorists as hundredths of a person, and it's alarming that the number is rising so fast. Although in reality, I'm not really that worried about fractions of people. Wait, who am I kidding, I am freaked out by fractions of people!

Maybe the government is on to something. I always thought something was strange about the family from "Little People, Big World". They're probably domestic terrorists!

While my name didn't make the terrorist watch list (according to the ACLU), many others did. They are all DANGEROUS AND SUSPECTED TERRORISTS! Avoid them at all costs. Especially that 6 year old.

Quick shout out to my (semi)faithful readers. My last post received a record high 4 comments! While some may scoff at a single digit number, I say thank you and I hope I keep you thoroughly entertained for a few minutes of your day.

I Miss King George

2008-10-06T18:22:00.004-04:00

At least with a monarchy we knew there was nothing we could do. In this faux republic we live in today, we believe we have a voice in deciding what happens to our country. That's obviously not true as evidenced by the financial bailout no average citizen wanted.

Whether they cry for change or hail that their boy is a maverick on Capitol Hill, both sides seem to be equally misguided into thinking their man can do something beneficial for America.Not only can neither of the major candidates stop us from heading into the hellhole we are sure to be in soon, they are both most likely going to get us there faster.

Wasn't there something in the Declaration of Independence that was supposed to allow the citizenry to stand up and demand satisfaction from their government? That if our government is failing us, we are morally responsible for correcting those woes?

Apparently the candidates in this year's election didn't get that memo, or never read the Declaration in 4th grade social studies. They want to lie and finagle their way into office and then continue along this same treacherous (economic) road we've been heading down for six decades since FDR's New Deals.

I wish I could end by asking for people to be smart this November; to go out and research the candidates. But I know, you know, whoever may actually read this knows: Americans are dumb. We are easily fooled by catchy slogans and bright lights. So he who yells loudest will unfortunately yell last.

Catch-22

2008-10-02T23:11:00.002-04:00

In order to walk at my commencement ceremony, I must purchase a cap and gown. If I don't purchase a cap and gown, I can't walk. It seems like a pretty open-and-close case; but I don't want to purchase said cap and gown.

I'm sick of giving this school money for seemingly unnecessary purchases. I've had to bought many textbooks and "supplemental learning materials" which I was not able to sell back at the end of the semester. Why does this cap-and-gown tradition continue?

Require us to dress nicely. That's fine. Or if you are sold on the whole cap-and-gown look, let us wear those piece of crap high school ones we were forced to buy four years earlier. But don't make me shell out whatever the hell you're asking for something I wear once. It doesn't matter that I get a deposit back. It's the principle (and money) of the thing.

Maybe I can pull a Patch Adams and be naked underneath. If anything, cap and gowns should be banned from graduations. It's only more likely that a terrorist or sociopath could sneak in a weapon underneath a large flowing gown.

Phillie Phanatic Wanted in Bomb Scare

2008-09-26T19:00:00.003-04:00

I found this article on Sports Illustrated online and it made me wonder what other baseball mascots might be guilty of crimes.

Mr. Met Murders Wife and Children
Suspect Still At Large

Homer Takes Tom Glavine Hostage
Demands Large Jar of Icy-Hot and Sweaters With Stretchable Necks

Raymond Enjoys Barbecue With Friends
Manta Rays Not Found in Tank

Trial Starts for Swinging Friar's Charges
8 Young Fans Testify Against Him

Wally the Green Monster Suspect in Muppet Serial Rapings
Grover Released

Attention Barack Obama: You're Still a Senator

2008-09-26T10:20:00.004-04:00

In case you haven't heard, McCain has suspended his campaign temporarily in order to go to Washington and work on the bailout plan. Obama has also gone to Washington to meet jointly with McCain and President Bush to discuss possible scenarios.

The difference between the two is that McCain has said the mortgage bailout plan of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is more important right now, as the Senate is discussing and attempting to vote on it today. Obama replies by saying "It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once. It's more important than ever to present ourselves to the American people."

That's perfectly understandable. The POTUS is Chief of State and Commander-in-Chief among many other job titles. However, BARACK OBAMA IS NOT THE PRESIDENT.

As this bailout plan affects the lives of every American, either directly through a bought-up mortgage, or indirectly through the taxes of everyone who has to pay for it, that should be the number one concern of someone who is still employed (as in receiving paychecks) by the people as a Senator. It shows a very large lack of judgment to say the Presidential debates outweigh one's duties as a Senator.

Imagine if I was employed by Microsoft, who is considered a very large company. But instead of working on the problems that Windows Vista seems to create for people who use it, I am instead working on Google's Project 10^100th in the hopes they like my ideas so much they offer me a job with their larger corporation. That would be irresponsible not only to those that employ me at Microsoft, but to those that buy the goods and services I produce.

The thing with Barack is, the people he was elected to serve and the ones who employ him ARE THE SAME PEOPLE! So he has decided to say that future is more important than the present.

Radio Killed the Freedom of Speech

2008-09-23T18:55:00.004-04:00

Radio edits of songs are the bane of my existence. They beat out PETA representatives, political pundits, and midgets by a long shot, and they are even worse than the media's love for Brett Favre.

Not only are radio edits disrespectful to the artist of said song, but they are just terrible to listen too. Granted, some artists have no taste, class, or dignity, and this shows in their music. But for the artists that don't curse every other word and actually have lyrics worth hearing, the radio ruins their visionary creations in the name of "public decency".

An example of this is the Black Eyed Peas' song "Don't Phunk With My Heart". The word "phunk" is in the title, and yet the radio requires a version that changes the lyric to "Don't mess with my heart".

Everlast's song "What It's Like" is an even more potent example of radio's bad influence on the creativity and power of music. The lyrics (seen here) tell three dramatic stories of people that the majority of society would look down on. But the chorus repeats the same idea: "God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in his shoes/'Cause then you really might know what it's like to sing the blues."

The effect of the song is greatly diminished when the lyrics are edited to remove curse words and references to drugs or guns. It's no longer a song with a message about putting yourself in someone else's position before condemning them; it simply becomes a song with a good beat and some noises in place of the words that give the song meaning.

Radio needs to stick with what it does best: providing [bleep] reports and inane [edit] amid the [bleep] [bleep] [edit].

At Least They are Dignified... Oh Wait

2008-09-21T16:54:00.003-04:00

Because it's no longer funny, I no longer watch it. But apparently SNL has targeted the McCain/Palin campaign for the second week in a row.

This is surprising to me. Not because SNL shouldn't criticize McCain; they are a very liberal program with a young audience so they obviously fully (and blindly) support Obama. I am surprised that, according to the article, they went after McCain because of his age. McCain went on SNL last spring to poke fun at himself for the exact same reason. So for them to call him old in a current sketch is not only redundant, but incredibly played out.

Where are the sketches that portray Obama as a self-made messiah? Maybe next week's airing will portray Barack as Hitler, since both have (had) the ability to rally massive support before enacting their socialist ideas on the people who support(ed) them.

Oh that's right, we can't do those sketches because they target a Democratic candidate who is also black.

It doesn't bother me when people make fun of someone else for something outside their control (such as McCain's age). In fact, I do it all the time. I think political correctness is a major threat to our first amendment rights of freedom of speech.

What bothers me is when one side does it, but when the return joke is made, it is deemed unacceptable, rude, ignorant, racist/sexist/pick your adjective. It's getting to the point where no one is allowed to speak their mind anymore because a soundbite will be made of it that people will inappropriately react to.

If you haven't seen/heard/witnessed it for yourself, then don't give any merit to it.

Day at the Office

2008-09-19T08:25:00.005-04:00

God forbid the free donut someone enjoys on a Friday morning not be there because someone else got to the box first. It has been said multiple times today that so-and-so is going to be very upset if there are no more jelly-filled since I grabbed one up just after I arrived. But c'est la vie in the Dean's Office where I work as a lowly student assistant.

When I'm not trying to claw my eyes out as a subtle hint to the secretary that I don't want to have a conversation with her, I have to deal with all the drama that comes from half a dozen women working in close quarters with eachother. This doesn't even include all of the people who work on our floor and frequently shuffle in and out of the dean's suite.

There's not much that can make this existence better, other than the realization that it is not permanent. It's possible that I'm the one who is at fault. But there's a huge difference between wanting to talk and wanting to talk about nothing. Unfortunately it's the world we live in, and you gotta play the game. Otherwise you're always going to get picked last.

Free Write Assignment in Class

2008-09-17T18:11:00.002-04:00

We have to write for five minutes about Hal Keller, the Executive Director of Fiscal Services. Hal was the lesser known brother of Helen Keller, and was unfortunate enough to have been born without the few senses that his sister did enjoy.

Even though Helen had no hearing or sight capabilities, she still had a superb sense of smell and tactile response that allowed her to feel sign language and the cool rushing from the spicket as she spoke her first word "wahhhtaaahhh". Unfortunately, Hal had neither of those senses, and had to rely only on his hearing and sight.

But still Hal prevailed, becoming the Executive Director of Fiscal Services at extension 4-5008. He even managed to start a romantic office fling with Lisa Freeman of the Purchasing Department at extension 4-5204. Things began to get complicated when Hal could never feel the warmth of Lisa's hands, or the softness of her lips. Needless to say, the relationship didn't last long.

Quick back story: professor put up a slide of an office telephone tree and we just had to write for five minutes using that as a starting point. I think he wanted us to explore the theory of functionalism and every one's place within that social order known as the office, but I hear free write and take it literally.

The Best Information is Disinformation

2008-09-15T10:00:00.000-04:00

That wasn't a typo... unless I have really poor typing skills. I mean, "D" and "M" aren't even near each other. But seriously, purposely giving people the wrong info (disinformation) is so much more fun than mistakenly giving it to them (misinformation) or *gasp* actually giving them the right info.

For example, every Friday in my History of Anthropological Thought class--I realize it's a mouthful; just be glad it's not related to your major--we have an open caucus (teacher's word, not mine) to discuss the week's readings. It starts out with us going around the room and each small group reciting a few sentences about their view on a discussion question. Since we are all liberally brainwashed college students, the viewpoints are practically identical. So then the fun part starts.

I begin to play Devil's advocate. Two weeks ago I suggested that biological evolution (in the sense of natural selection) no longer existed in Homo sapiens due to the development of compassion, pity, or whatever you want to call it that allows ugly people to get laid. This did not go over well in a class that exists because of Darwin's ideas and theories.

Last week I stated that history should no longer be taught, as remembering the past is the cause for many conflicts in our world, and we never follow the mantra of "those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" anyways.

Now I don't necessarily believe either of these things, but that doesn't matter. As long as I state these opinions with 100% confidence, people will a) believe that I believe them; and b) be pissed off enough to debate me on it.

So whenever someone is droning on about a topic they seem to know little about, just say something completely deadpan that contradicts their thinking.

P.S. I tried to keep the specifics of the discussion out, as I wanted to try and ensure at least some readership to this post, and we all know that no one knows what anthropology is.

My Mom the P.I.

2008-09-11T18:59:00.002-04:00

So I haven't told my parents much about the girl I like, partly because I don't want to jinx anything, partly because it's fun to watch them squirm. But a coworker let slip that there was a girl in the first place, and that she works at my favorite restaurant Sonny's. So my mom had that much to go on.

Today she asks me who so-and-so is, referring to the sister of a friend of mine. We had all gone to the game this last weekend, and my friend's sister had posted pictures online. My mom came across a photo of me from the game via the all-seeing eye of Sauron that is Facebook. And so she asked me who this girl was.

I didn't respond, which for some reason confirmed in my mom's mind that this was the girl. Eventually I convinced her that this was not so; also that she was really creeping me out by investigating so thoroughly.

Now I'm getting ready to leave, and my mom still won't let it go. She says she is going to call my roommate and ask him who the girl is. I respond that she doesn't have his number. She says she get his number from my sister. Then she gets on the computer and goes to the cell phone bills. She begins looking through all of the numbers I've dialed, cross-referencing them with the area codes most commonly associated with my roommate's home state. She states a number. I say it is actually my roommate's dad's number. As I was leaving she had started looking for the number I was calling the most often, assuming that it must belong to the girl.

And after all this trouble she gave me, she still expected me to give her a hug. Mothers! haha

The Gun is Loaded

2008-09-10T08:45:00.003-04:00

I've already received the ultimatum from many people.

My best friend says that if he becomes involved in politics, I should kill him.

My cousin said that if he ever ends up like a homeless guy we saw on an episode of Cops, I should kill him.

Others have said something along the lines of "If I ever become a vegetable, I'd rather be dead."

I say that if our next president doesn't have the preservation of our country as his number one priority, I don't think I can live ~~here~~ anymore.

I have a horrible feeling that mine will come to fruition long before everyone else's.

Winning the Vote; Losing the Game

2008-09-07T11:15:00.001-04:00

This was awesome:

I'm really proud of the presidential hopeful taking sides here. I was a little pissed off when he says Cubs fans are fairweather fans, and White Sox fans are legit. Especially when we sell out every game, and the White Sox suck.

Anyways, the game atmosphere was awesome. It was the War of the I-4 Corridor. An in-state rivalry game. And hopefully the geographically challenged University of South Florida (located in Tampa?!) Mancows would go home losers.

I can't believe I almost forgot this: On the shuttle ride to the game, a USF fan got on the bus. This would not have been a huge problem; sure we would jeer and give them a hard time, but it would all be in good fun. But this girl gets on decked out in full body paint, with a really gay viking helmet on and a hula skirt as well. That's just disrespectful. If you are gonna come in full outfit, you do not try ride our UCF shuttles. So of course I let her know that. Before I was fully aware that it was a girl, I told my friend to punch him in the stomach. Fortunately someone took the initiative and yanked off her hat and stomped on it, to which I applauded. And then the so-called UCF fan sitting next to me says something like "Is anyone else embarrassed to go to UCF right now? I want to transfer schools so bad." I told her to shut the hell up.

Anyways, on the long walk to the stadium, I was really letting the Mancows fans hear it.

In the stadium I was really happy with the amount of enthusiasm; it seemed like my voice wasn't even needed. Of course my friends said I was always needed with my off-the-wall commentary. Trash talking the USF band at halftime was great too. Unfortunately, the fairweather fans left in their ridiculous fashion. We were only down 24-10 at the beginning of the 4th quarter. I let them hear it too.

With five minutes left in the game we made a spectacular comeback; putting up two touchdowns and blocking their field goal attempt to send it into overtime, where we ultimately got gypped. The refs were so confused they didn't even know which way they were pointing half the time. They were really acting like idiots. So of course I let them hear it.

What upsets me more than this disappointing loss are the people who claim to be fans of their school, and then say they are embarrassed by the actions of their fellow students. How about some freakin' school pride? These people wouldn't no pride if it came up and shanked them in the side prison-style. And of course I let them know that.

Women's Volleyball: The Perfect Spectator Sport (For Me)

2008-09-04T11:30:00.004-04:00

Well at least until I go to a golf match.

The other night I went to the women's volleyball home opener against #2 ranked Stanford. Let's just say it looked like they deserved that ranking; or at least we deserved whatever shoddy one we had.

Before the match started we ran into the bracelet peddlers.

"Do you want to buy some bracelets that support orphans?" she asked.
"That's alright," I replied. "I already adopted five orphans."
"Oh is that true?" She didn't seem very convinced.
"Yeah they are back at home with the wife."

And then she walked away. My friend told me there's a special place in Hell for people like me. I think that if I have to listen to their pitch, the least they can do is listen to my made up excuse.

Anyways, we were there for the volleyball. They had to announce before the game started not to make crude references or something to that nature. I really didn't hear because I was too busy whistling and calling to the players.

I don't know what it is exactly, but there's just something about yelling at referees that is awesome. Maybe it's my disdain for authority figures. Perhaps it is my desire for fairness. Or it could be that I just need to take my pent-up rage out on something, so college referees are the most logical target.

Whatever the case may be, I think it's fun, my friends think it's hilarious (when they aren't distancing themselves from me), and it really fires up the 300 fans within shouting distance of me.

You Won't Win If You Fight Cancer

2008-09-03T08:22:00.003-04:00

This was the horribly read horoscope I heard on the radio during my drive to work. I'm sure it was supposed to be "You won't win if you fight, comma, Cancer" but that doesn't change the fact that it sounded hysterically bleak at 7:30 in the morning.

Now I'm at work writing (more like BS'ing my way through) an anthropology discussion paper that's due later today.

If you're 100% confident in what you say just 24% of the time, over 70% of people will believe you. That was totally a made up stat, but because I used a specific number like "24 percent", it makes it more believable. Just something to think about today: Confidence cancels out ignorance.

College Football has Begun

2008-08-30T12:31:00.004-04:00

I love the games. I love the school spirit. I love the cheerleaders. But more than anything, I love being "that guy who yells a lot".

At baseball games, I heckle. At football games, I jeer. At basketball games, I scream for a giveaway T-shirt.

Sometimes what I say is witty and gets a laugh, but it isn't even about that. It's about the sheer intensity that makes people around me say "What the hell is this guy on?"

So bring it on South Carolina State. And don't go crying to your mamas when we wipe the floor with you.

P.S. Look for my arrest footage on Fox 35 news at 10.

EDIT: We won 17-0 and not only did I get told by some cute girls that they love my enthusiasm, but 2 freshmen came over and practically worshipped me for my unbridled passion.

Disney Becomes New Campaign Sponsor for Obama

2008-08-29T09:52:00.003-04:00

I tried to avoid watching the Democratic National Convention. There were better things on, for one thing, like an astounding Cubs come-from-behind victory, a Law and Order episode I hadn't seen, and really just about anything else. I am also fed up with all of the hype surrounding the elections.

If the Olympics gave us one thing, it wasn't unifying humanity at the world games. It wasn't a new wave of patriotism and nationalism. It was a glorious 3-week break from campaign coverage.

Maybe you've seen this commercial by John McCain's campaign referring to Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world" and comparing him to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. That commercial is wrong though. Obama is nothing like Hilton and Spears.

He's really more like Hannah Montana. Disney built up this alterego of Miley Cyrus which has taken off, despite the fact that she cannot sing or act, and has a really weird looking face.

Barack Obama has been built up as the next great leader, bringing forth a new era of "change" and "insert synonym for change". Most of his ideas sound rather socialist, but that's my opinion. The problem I have with Obama is that everyone has become brainwashed by this Disney-esque propaganda.

When a great leader speaks, people listen. When Barack Obama speaks, people scream like raving lunatics. Gee, I wonder where McCain got the "crazy" idea of comparing him to a rock star.

It could be worse; we could all be actual zombies. At least then I wouldn't have to hear election coverage because I'd be too busy eating brains.

An Open Letter to Bill Clinton

2008-08-27T18:12:00.002-04:00

My request is that you do not play party politics in your speech tonight at the Democratic National Convention. You said somethings after Barack received the nomination that you might regret, but you sincerely meant them. You naturally wanted your wife to win the nomination.

And now Barack hasn't even reached out with an olive branch of peace by not offering Hillary the VP nod. You are upset. That is understandable.

The Democratic Committee has honored you by inviting you to speak at their convention. But you don't owe them anything. The Democrats didn't elect you in 1992, and again in 1996. The American people voted you into office. You owe them EVERYTHING.

So if you honestly believe that Barack is not the best choice for president--even if you don't think John is either--then please say as much. Your endorsement means a lot, so don't throw it around to a party who tells you to remain loyal.

Be loyal to your country.

Sincerely,
Hoping for a Better Future

The Worst Day of the Year

2008-08-25T08:57:00.003-04:00

School starts today. I haven't actually been to class yet, but the reality has already begun to sink in. For one, getting to campus was about 10 times more difficult than usual. Parking was already borderline crowded--at 8 in the morning. And I paid over $200 for 2 classes' worth of textbooks that I probably won't open.

It is pretty amusing to watch freshmen get lost on their way to class. If they are cute enough, I usually offer my assistance to the ladies.

I have a meeting later today that will tell me if 2 and a half years worth of college was a waste of time, depending upon whether or not my minor gets credited.

At least there's only 122 days until Christmas, 112 days until I graduate, and 94 days until Thanksgiving.

I Don't Believe in Santa; Therefore He Doesn't Exist

2008-08-24T17:00:00.005-04:00

I read this article about the Freddie and Fannie buyout in hopes of finding out more about it. What's it going to cost? Who's it going to cost? What are Freddie and Fannie?

Unfortunately, the article focuses mainly on how current shareholders will be affected. Nevermind that it is ALL U.S. taxpayers that are now going to be responsible for the bailout. Considering I had never heard of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae before this huge fiasco earlier this year tells me that I'm either way outside the loop when it comes to our economy, or these companies were traded by elitists who should have to deal with their own messes.

Even though the former is true, I still lean towards the latter. I'm going to ask the same question every blue-collar to middle class American has/is/will be asking: WHY ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S MISTAKES?

I've said it before, but maybe it isn't actually true: America is a capitalist country. People use money in their business ventures. Good ideas pay out; bad ideas fail. Nowhere in that formula does it say that bad ideas that fail should then be bailed out by rubes, aka taxpayers.

I really wish the atheistic viewpoint could be applied to the real world, and not just their little fantasy world:
I don't believe Freddie and Fannie are a problem; therefore they aren't.
I don't believe the Iraq War is as bad as people say; therefore it isn't.
I don't believe school will start on Monday; therefore: 3 day weekend!

It sure would be nice to live a life as delusional as an atheist's.

Hurricanes: Pros and Cons

2008-08-23T15:33:00.003-04:00

Pro: You can watch more TV.
Con: The only thing on TV is repetitive hurricane coverage.

Pro: School can be canceled if it rains a lot.
Con: It rains a lot.

Pro: They let you realize what a luxury AC in your car can be.
Con: My AC is broken.

Pro: They allow you to spend time with loved ones.
Con: They force you to spend time with loved ones.

Pro: They give ample time for around-the-house chores.
Con: I hate cleaning.

Con: They cause me to become lethargic and overly tired.

Pro: They give people a better appreciation for sunny days.
Con: I live in Florida, so sunny days are just as bad, if not worse.

Mistakes I Made Last Night

2008-08-18T14:26:00.003-04:00

So as I said before, there's a girl I'm kind of seeing that works at a restaurant I love. Yesterday, after picking my friend up at the airport, I ask if she wants to eat at Sonny's, since I had to go alone on Friday, and she hasn't been for 3 weeks. I called up another friend of ours who also missed on Friday, and we proceeded to head to the one where this girl works.

At the time, I thought nothing of it, but mistake 1 was not calling ahead and telling her I was coming. Apparently she would have rearranged her schedule to serve us if she knew we were eating during her shift.

Even though me and the friend I picked up at the airport are strictly platonic friends, mistake 2 was made by bringing another girl to Sonny's. It doesn't matter that my other friend was there, making it two guys and one girl; I was already in trouble from mistake 1 for that to make a difference.

We parted ways after eating; Sonny's girl was going out to Friendly Confines with her roommate and I had to get back to my place for my fantasy football draft. Oh yeah, that was mistake 3 by the way.

Still, I managed to convince her and said roommate to come over for a bit, where I subsequently committed mistakes 4-7.

When asked why I didn't go to Friendly Confines for drinks and BINGO, I said I had a fantasy draft to worry about (4).

I said "fantasy drafts have priority because they only happen once per year, whereas I can spend time with you any night" (5).

When roommate asked for a massage following Sonny's girl's massage, I was willing to give one (6).

When the girls were leaving the apartment, I didn't get up and walk them to their car, let alone to the door (7).

It's a good thing women aren't complicated, or else I would be in trouble.

It's About Capitalism Vs. Communism

2008-08-15T12:41:00.002-04:00

People seem to think the Olympics are about individual determination, skill, and athleticism. Or maybe they think it's about patriotism or dedication to one's country. But they are SO wrong. The Olympics, or at least the 2008 Beijing Olympics, are about capitalism vs. communism. America vs. China.

As soon as China got the bid for the 2008 Olympics they began picking kids out of their billion person population and training them for specific events. The Chinese women's gymnastic team members were allowed to call home from their training facilities once per year after being taken away at age 3. The Chinese strategy seems to be "You work for good of country. We win Orympic gold, all for grory of country."

The United States method is very different. Sure, kids may start at a young age, and be encouraged or pushed to continue by their parents. But there's no government mandate that says "From birth you will train to compete in this Olympic event in 15 years." Much like the free enterprise system our country stands for, we allow kids to choose for themselves what they excel in, and only after they train of their own accord and it becomes obvious that they are the best in the country do we ask them to compete on our behalf.

That's why it pains me to read an article like this one. Apparently U.S. swim team members feel uncomfortable with the amount of attention Michael Phelps is receiving. Without saying as much, some are even hoping he loses.

But for every gold medal, or any color for that matter, that we don't win, China's lead in the medal count only increases. So if we have an utterly dominant athlete, then he should win and keep us in the competition. China has already come out and said they want to win the most golds in these short weeks. That is why we need to dominate in every sport we are capable of winning: swimming, basketball, softball, volleyball, track and field.

It's already disgusting to me that China has 7 medals (including 4 golds) from shooting events. SHOOTING! The United States practically invented shooting!!

As I watch the Chinese women's domination of double's badminton, it only further confirms that the Chinese have practically rigged these games in their favor.

Why I Must Have Been Adopted

2008-08-14T16:30:00.003-04:00

The rest of my family won't openly admit it, but I am too good looking to be a biological part of this clan.

In an unofficial survey my friend conducted on campus, in which he asked random girls if I had random good looks, every girl said yes, and only one hesitated long enough for me to tilt my head at a different angle before she too agreed.

I have blonde hair, which my dad had growing up but now has brown hair if he doesn't shave his head bald. My sister only had blonde hair until about age 12, and now she dyes it so I don't even know what it naturally was. My mom has alwasy had brown curly hair; fortunately she grows it out now because I told her she looks like a Jewish boy when it is cut short.

My dad has blue eyes; my mom and sister both have brown. I have the good fortune of my eye color changing based on what color shirt I am wearing. It's really quite spectacular, and I have received many compliments from the ladies about this thing.

While I do not have an athlete's body, I am still in the best shape of my family, and have a crazy good metabolism. I do not have to be an Adonnis to still be better looking than the rest of my family.

Before you condemn me for being to boastful, or hating on my fam, know that I never asked for my "obvious good looks" ^TM. And there's no reason the Brand curse has to be passed on genetically: The guys want to be like us, and the girls want to be with us. It's a tough life I live.

Welcome to HoIP

2008-08-13T16:30:00.001-04:00

I propose that The International House of Pancakes, also known as IHOP, should really be known as The House of International Pancakes.

Let's look at the facts.

1. IHOPs exist in only three countries: America, Canada, and Mexico. There are only 2 IHOPs in all of Mexico, and even though there are about 7 times as many in Canada, let's be realistic; Canada is really just America's hat. I imagine them to be one of those Russian hats, cossacks, since Canada is pretty socialist.

2. In the English language, the word "of" as used in this instance denotes ownership. Therefore, the House is one that has pancakes, and is being described as international, meaning more than one nation. This is confusing, as I showed in my first point. The only other option besides HoIP would have to be IPH, or International Pancake House. "Pancake" would describe the purpose of the house, and "international" would describe what kind of pancakes the place served.

3. They serve more than just regular pancakes. There are crepes (Sweden, Germany), waffles (Belgium), and toast (France), not to mention the large variety of omelettes (Mexico, Colorado) and cheeses (America, Switzerland) they offer.

So the next time your family wants to go out for pancakes, please, for all of our sakes, boycott IHOP and suffer a little bit in the taste category by visiting Denny's or Village Inn.

Work Sucks, I Know

2008-08-12T22:43:00.004-04:00

Thanks, Blink 182, for the title of my post.

To clarify, I work two jobs right now. One is in the Dean's Office of a college, which is truly the most boring job imaginable. For the 15 minutes a day I'm not answering the phone I am usually reading online articles or other people's blogs. The one cool thing is I get to drive a golf cart around campus for 30 minutes to an hour each day running errands and documents for my bosses. But that doesn't make up for the droll existence that is the front desk of the administrative offices.

Fortunately, I only work that job two half-days a week (although soon three as school starts back up). My other job title is Underlord of Oversight, and I am the warehouse manager of a vending machine company. I am in charge of finding machines that work and cleaning them for potential customers.

Most of the machines we have, however, are in poor condition, or if they are in good working order, I can't find working bill validators. Today I spent about 3 hours trying to fix a single bill validator (the thing that accepts your dollar bill before allowing a selection to be made). I took apart at least two other mechanisms to find parts to exchange. Finally, when I got all the wires plugged back in and ran it through our tester, the bill comes back out with melted rubber on it.

Neither of my jobs are horrible. They are both part time where I make ~~decent~~ money, and I know once I graduate in December things will become a lot more hectic. But it's just frustrating to have a job where I'm confined to a desk, or another where I can never solve what's in front of me.

Is it possible to have a midlife crisis at age 21?

Obligatory Olympics Post

2008-08-11T17:00:00.000-04:00

If you haven't been under a rock for the last month, then a) that's a good thing because I imagine you wouldn't have lasted long under a rock; and b) you probably know the 2008 Summer Olympic Games have started in Beijing.

I have to admit my favorite event to watch right now is probably weightlifting, probably 10% due to the power of the competitors and 90% due to the name of the event, which is Clean and Jerk Lifts.

Will Michael Phelps win 8 gold medals, surpassing Mark Spitz's already unbelievable record? I'm going to say probably not, and hope I'm not marked as unpatriotic. Considering the only reason he won the 4x100 relay was because of the last leg swimmer on the U.S. team, it's going to be tough for him.

My least favorite thing about the Olympics (besides synchronized swimming; sorry sis) are the human interest stories. Think back to the origin of the Olympics: the games were created to showcase the capabilities of people that were superior to most everyone, and only had the gods above them as rivals. These people were practically gods in their own right.

But when random NBC broadcast announcer wants to tell me about how this person overcame immense physical and emotional and familial problems to compete and win at this level, it makes them look human in my eyes. When these demigods suddenly become human in my eyes, it forces me to see how out of shape and unhealthy I am. Maybe if I had just stayed with soccer instead of taking a year off in 9th grade, I could be in the Olympics.

So thanks Olympics, for making me feel fat and regret my entire life.

What's Next? The Ku Klux Klan Bypass?

2008-08-11T09:00:00.002-04:00

Sorry, it's another road trip post.

While passing through Columbia, South Carolina, I noticed one of the exits was for Strom Thurmond Boulevard. I realize this man was a longtime Senator for the state of South Carolina, but his long streak of racism is also well documented. This got me thinking what other far-from-noble street names our country may have.

I wonder in what state we would find Dr. Kevorkian Freeway. If traveling in Oregon would you find the Ted Bundy Memorial Highway?

Maybe I-55 in Mississippi is the Choctaw Indian Expressway (aka Trail of Tears). I'm sure there's no hard feelings in Oklahoma City anymore. There you can find Timothy McVeigh Drive.

Well, time for me to go. If I want that street in downtown Orlando to be named after me in 30 years, I have a long career of hate and oppression towards others ahead of me.

My Brief Stint as a Paranoid Driver

2008-08-10T11:40:00.004-04:00

Okay, I guess I'm always a paranoid driver, but when its 12:30 am and I'm driving through South Carolina, I tend to be a little more paranoid.

It started with "Headlight" speeding up to tail me immediately after I passed him. The name is pretty self-explanatory, but I'll elaborate anyways: the car only had one working headlight. Naturally, the driver decides to compensate for this by using his brights. Since he was driving at my 7 o'clock, this got to be very annoying.

So I increase my speed to 85. Of course he does the same. I slow down to 75. He does the same, always keeping just off my left rear bumper. And then we catch up to the street racers.

Apparently, just south of Savannah, GA the kids have nothing better to do at 1 am than race on I-95. If this consisted of Fast and the Furious, 2 Fast 2 Furious, Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (which I call 3 Fast 3 Furious), or coming in 2009 4th Installment of Fast and the Furious style racing, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But instead, these knuckleheads decide to create a roadblock of cars the width of the 3-lane highway and slow down to 35 mph directly in front of me, before all speeding up to 100+ mph.

At one in the morning I can honestly say I'm not at my peak performance levels, so a row of cars suddenly driving 50 mph less than me is not an easy thing to adjust to. And driving a straight-4 cylinder Camry, there's not much hope of me getting back up to original speed anytime soon.

I think that this street race was a ruse by Headlight to catch back up to me, since I lost him in a bit of traffic. After the racers exited, Headlight was back to his usual tactics of fog-lighting me and matching my speed. Then I had the bright idea of matching speeds to the next car I caught up with.

Just my luck that as soon as I reach the Dodge Neon in front of me and slow down to 75 (with Headlight doing the same), there's a cop half a mile ahead in the median. If this doesn't confirm in Headlight's mind that I have a way of sensing speed traps then nothing probably nothing would. For the record, I don't. Although that would be an extremely awesome and marketable power.

Next we approach the construction zone. As we are going from 3 lanes to 2 lanes, Headlight finally decides this is where he wants to pass me. I whisper a quick prayer of gratitude, only to have it thrown back in my face as Headlight gets in front of me and then blocks the left lane by matching the speed of the guy in the right lane. This continued for about 20 minutes.

I don't know if Headlight tired of his little game or what, but finally he moved over and I flew past him. I could tell he was trying to keep pace with me, but I was too skilled in weaving between cars and fluctuating my speeds in an attempt to lose him for good. When I felt he could no longer see my actions, I pulled off at the nearest rest area.

I never saw Headlight again, but I still feel like he's out there, always driving just off my back bumper, blinding me.

Hey, I gotta have some kind of entertaining storyline to keep me awake at 2 in the morning.

I Thought It Was a Minimum Speed Limit, Officer

2008-08-09T18:00:00.000-04:00

I have never liked the speed limit system. Sure, there are reckless drivers who speed and swerve in and out of the lanes. But cops are never around to pull those people over; or those people are rich and can afford luxuries like a radar detector or nitrous oxide boosters.

But most recipients of a speeding ticket are going 10-15 mph over the speed limit, and are driving anything but reckless.

The real danger on the highways are those that drive significantly under the speed limit. If 90% of cars are driving 5-10 miles over, and one or two cars is driving 10 miles under in the left lane, they are putting every car behind them in danger because it causes a line of cars to use the brakes.

This is all coming out because over the last day I drove from Florida to Virginia. The entire trip through five different states I only drove on FEDERAL INTERSTATES. I enunciate that last part because in Virginia, the speed limit (on the same highway as in North Carolina) dropped down to 65 mph. I was driving 80 mph, but no one was in danger because I was driving in between a pack of cars going the same speed.

Still, only I got pulled over, and received a ticket and not just a warning, probably because I am from out of state and they know I won't fight it. Whatever happened to civility in the work place? It doesn't exist here either.

But I... And You... What??.. Arrrgggghhh!!!

2008-08-08T19:30:00.000-04:00

I realize traffic cops are "just doing their job" as many people would put it, but every other job on the face of the planet requires some sort of empathy with, if not respect for, "the customer".

When I worked at a grocery store, I had to keep from laughing in the face of old ladies every time they asked me where the NAPOLEON ice cream was. You know, NAPOLEON ice cream; the one with strawberry, vanilla, and chocolate. But I respectfully led them to the ice cream section and showed them the Neopolitan ice cream, pronouncing it correctly without waving my high school diploma in their noses.

However, ~~traffic cops~~ ticket-givers in general seem to be the only regular job (I exclude politicians because they are known to be without morals) where they don't care about your life in the least. You could have parked your car half on the sidewalk because you had to run in to your apartment to save your triplets (more kids is always better in a scenario... ask Nancy Grace) from a combined ninja and KGB attack, only to come back down and see the metermaid finish typing your license plate into that stupid little computer they carry on their hip.

"But I just saved my three children from ninjas and Russian spies!"

"Oh really? In that case let me just rip up this tick... oh, I already hit enter. If you could just sign here and initial down here. You have until October 9th to appeal. Thank you, have a nice day."

The only thing that could make this situation better is if you revive the ninjas and point out the parking enforcement officer impounding their rickshaws.