It’s a no-brainer. They’re both terrible, and until the people of the United States relize this, we are doomed to continue our downward spiral with regard to the national economy and governmental corruption.

Admittedly, I’ve been apathetic this election season. The media’s loathing of Dubya prompted a much earlier than usual coverage of the nomination process, and I, being upset by this, refused to look at a television or read the paper if either ever mentioned anything about the 2008 election.

But alas, the nomination process is all but over. The actual election is only a few months away. So now, I feel much better about delving into the candidates’ platforms. Upon doing so, I am completely revolted at what I am finding.

Before we get to that, I feel compelled to rant about the media and the Democratic party and their focus on race and gender this election season. This is not important. Sure, one may regale on how far the US has come in the past fifty years, nominating and then possibly electing a black man… but wouldn’t it be even more impressive if that topic wasn’t even brought up? Obviously we still look at race as an issue, and until the media stops bringing it up, there’s no way that America will be able to move past it.

Anyway, on to the nominees. Basically, my argument is about the unconstitutionality of what they have done so far as Senators and what they propose to do if they get into office. McCain supports the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and thousands of other programs that require the Government to tax every fucking currency transaction just so they stay afloat. He has no problem with the wiretaps and incessant spying by the Government on it’s own citizens. He doesn’t think that the hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo, taken into custody without a documented reason, should have basic human rights to a trial (this honestly blows my mind). He has also somehow come to believe that it’s OK to torture of these prisoners to elicit information that they may or may not possess which, in turn, may or may not be reliable. It’s as if the Constitution doesn’t exist, or at least that Government officials are allowed to cherry pick which parts of the Constitution apply and to whom.

Obama’s absolutely no better. He is enamored with the concept of redistribution of wealth through Government-administered programs, which in turn would balloon the deficit over the next twenty years to 50 trillion dollars or more. He thinks the Government needs to be in charge of health care, retirement, medication, education, transportation, and every other blasted industry currently covered (very efficiently) by the private sector. To slightly offset this, he believes we should jack up the taxes even more so that our economy’s trip down the crapper will be complete. This is socialism at its finest, folks; Marx defined socialism as the point between Communism and Capitalism… seems we’ve arrived.

I’ve heard from so many people that I need to “vote for the lesser of the evils.” I could not disagree more; the American two-party system is a sham. The vast majority of citizens are forced to sacrifice one or more of their beliefs when choosing who to vote, and because they believe the quote mentioned earlier, not a single third-party candidate has ever been viable. People are afraid of voting for them, and as such we are never and will never be able to attain any substantial change (which, by the way, is a nice-sounding word which Obama likes to use a lot, but doesn’t seem to know what it means). I’m fed up with this, and from today forward refuse to bend to the status-quo.

I’m going to now quote/paraphrase a passage by my cousin, outlining our collective problems with the current candidates

First, it is refreshing to actually join the ranks of people who cannot stand McCain. Second, I will be honest, Obama, to me, is no better in my eyes. I will openly admit I am an avid Ron Paul supporter. After analyzing each candidate’s policy platform, I have come to the realization that each candidate has great policies and absolutely terrible policies. However, in the end, ultimately, both candidates are proposing unconstitutional policies. Thus, I have decided to vote for neither as I refuse to be forced into another two-party sham that results in the confirmation of the useless status quo.

I do not believe either candidate is insane. Instead it is the classical situation of each candidate attempting to appeal to as many voters as possible while maintaining party interests and loyalties. Obama is a left winger, and McCain…well, he is a hybrid, which I would have envisioned as a good thing. But not the way he’s going about it. I like that Obama wishes to bring our troops home. I like that Obama wishes to do away with the Patriot Act. I like that Obama is for gay rights and woman’s rights. I like his foreign policy better as well. However his idea to combat global warming is flawed, his economic policy simply will not work, he plans to spend quite a bit, and, frankly, taxing the “rich” is not the way to fix the economy or lower the deficit. He is creating class warfare and wishes to redistribute wealth. Increasing the dividends tax? Maintaining the AMT and estate tax? Neither of these are economically beneficial in any way.

For example, when Bush lowered the dividends tax and estate tax, the government actually took in more revenue from those two taxes than when each was higher. Why did this happen? Simple: because more people were willing to invest. Not to mention that making $250,000 a year does not make you rich. Unless you have no family, no wife and no dependents, it’s not much. How would I know? I have family that makes more than that, and not a single member lives an extravagant lifestyle. Personally, I am very middle class, and even though Obama wishes to give breaks to me I do not support the redistribution of income. Ever. Remember, rich is word that can be applied very differently by different people.

A lot of people fear Ron Paul and his ideas because the mainstream media pushes that agenda. I read his works, and what attracts me to him is that he follows the Constitution. Yes, that document that our politicians have disregarded for about a century or so.

Freedom. Liberty. As little government intervention in my person life as is feasible. I want my rights back. Obama may give me some of my rights back, but he will take others. A profit windfall tax on oil companies? Yeah, that worked really well when we did it in the late 1970’s [/sarcasm]. Universal Health care? Look at Europe and Canada. Hell, 68% of France’s GDP is debt stemming from their health care department! In the UK, citizens are now told what they can and cannot eat, what they can and cannot do because the government cannot continue to cover everyone unless their citizens’ health visits are minimized.

So what’s the common denominator in all of these issues? Government. Government is the problem. Do you truly want the same government that has destroyed Social Security, ruined Medicare/Medicaid, and mismanaged so many wars to run your health care? I certainly don’t. I know our system is flawed, but more Government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem! For another example, congress mandated that HMOs be put in place; now HMOs are the problem. The system perpetuates itself as a means to maintain itself.

Here is my dilemma. Each candidate, according to his platform, will do a handful of things very well, but a lot of things terribly. We’re faced with a Catch-22. If we get Obama, we gain a very few rights back and our foreign policy will be marginally better, but his economic policies won’t work. If we get McCain, we’ll probably lose some rights, have a terrible foreign policy, but the economy might be slightly better off.

And we are left in the middle, deciding what issues are most important to us as individuals. I refuse to do it. We have a document, beautifully constructed, that answers all the questions and provides solutions, and yet for so long we have disregarded it. Now we are beginning see the end result. Therefore, I am forced to write-in Ron Paul. His voting record is impeccable. He is a self-made man. He only follows the Constitution, and that is what we need. Not more Government. Not more Religion. Not more bureaucrats. Not more special interest groups and lobbyists. Not more party loyalties.

Being a free thinker is key on this issue. I’ve attempted to mix things up in a conservative environment, but I was attacked from all sides just for trying to talk openly about the presidential race. One girl even stated she would be voting for McCain because she was anti-abortion! I could not believe that was all she cared about. But that’s what I mean when I say people are now voting for what the government will do for them. Not what is constitutional, not what is best for everyone’s rights, freedom, and liberty. It disgusts me. The more research I have done, the more I have become disillusioned over the politics-as-usual status quo that does nothing but damage our great nation. Thus I have broken all party connections and loyalties in search of the truth, liberty and freedom from the relentless tyranny of USA.

I couldn’t have said it better.

So we’re narrowing down the list of candidates for which the two major political parties may select from when choosing their nominee. I’m less than impressed with nearly everyone.

On the Republican side, we have Romney, McCain and Huckabee (listed in order from with whom I’m least disgusted to, well, Huckabee, whom I’m most disgusted with).

Romney: seems like a decent candidate. I think the GOP would have the best chance of winning the White House if this man nabs the nomination. He’s said and done a few things I don’t agree with, but religion doesn’t play much into it (if it had, he certainly wouldn’t have even been mentioned initially). The only reason he’s known as the Mormon candidate is that the fundamentalist Christian groups keep beating a dead horse.

McCain: This guy actually had a chance with me (despite McCain-Feingold), but antics as of late have cast him into a shadow of doubt. Specifically, he has jumped into pandering to the fundies to get their vote by suddenly making “family values” a major part of his campaign. I don’t have to go into what a crock this is, but I will say that his personality and history of speeches and votes have made me put him into the category containing other flip-floppers (like Kerry).

Huckabee: I am beyond revolted with this man. Every time he opens his mouth, he adds more shit to the list of issues I have with him. Let’s start with this: his entire campaign (and why he considers himself qualified for the job he’s after) is based on his ministry. To convince those who still don’t believe he wishes to stomp on the Constitution by not keeping Church and State separate, he has made the statement that “it is easier to change the Constitution than the word of God, so the Constitution should be changed to reflect this.” No more comments on this, I might break the keyboard with my rage.

Across the aisle, the Democrats have a very public, emotionally-charged combat between two candidates: Obama and Clinton.

I’m not very impressed with Hillary. Even in the primaries she has begun slinging mud in the direction of her opponent, and has made abundantly clear her distaste for him. Barring the common rhetoric by her detractors that we would be continuing this “Bush-Clinton” reiteration, I don’t think I could be even remotely happy if she were to become president. Her policies that she is campaigning on are very old-politics, something that, I believe, the American people are tired of; the only difference is that she is a woman, which is the only reason she has gotten this far.

Obama, on the other hand, is a breath of fresh air. While he may have liberal leanings toward inflating the government, he also seems very keen on handing power back to the people. He presents and supports many new ideas, and I believe he would actually try to stay true to his word once in office. Most of all, though, he is able to connect with an audience, and his recent speeches only serve to accentuate this observation. Because of this, he would be able to unite and lead this nation, rather than alienate and upset it’s citizens. (UPDATE: The feel-good hold which Obama may have had over me is gone; see the next post for details)

So, my predictions? Who will get the nomination? Well, I’m not so sure on the republican side. I’m leaning towards McCain, but his recent return to faith-campaigning might end up splitting the ticket between him and Huckles, handing the nod to Romney (let’s hope). Huckabee won’t get the nomination, and even if he did, he would definitely not win the presidency. I just hope he doesn’t get picked as a VP. Not that the Republicans are going to win it anyway.

As for the Hillary-Obama freakout, I really think Obama’s going to get it. He has had his life history plastered on the news, his dirty laundry out for all to see, and he has yet to gain the ire of anyone (save the GOP extremists, picking on his middle name) because he just doesn’t have anything to hide. He is also viewed as a uniter, someone who doesn’t necessarily ride party lines and regurgitate rhetoric. Hillary, on the other hand, is truly viewed by the GOP as the enemy, and she views them in the same manner. If she gets the nod, our country will be in for another four years of feces-throwing party politics. A Hillary nomination would also give the Republicans the best chance to win again (as long as they pick the right candidate).

The key to unification and, ultimately, victory in this race, is not to alienate. When speeches are made, a hopeful candidate should refrain from criticizing other groups, and rather focus on their own plan for the betterment of the country. This alone will put said hopeful candidate leaps and bounds ahead of his or her opponents.

One thing I feel compelled to comment on is the one belief that I hold true. There is no unequivocal evidence of it’s truth, but neither is there evidence that it is false.

Basically, I believe that all human beings contain the same cognitive reasoning ability. We have either been given or somehow developed a set of rules which govern how we interpret knowledge which we perceive. One reason for our vast and varied uniqueness is that, while we all have these rules, our brains perceive, process, and store things in different ways. And we all have different experiences, of course.

If these differences didn’t exist, we’d certainly have a very boring planet in which to live. But if they were circumvented, for example if all knowledge, perspectives, experiences, etc. were ubiquitous and collectively stored in all of our brains, there would no longer be arguments. We would no longer be able to justify our anger at someone else by writing them off as “stupid” because we would be able to understand where they are coming from, and they us.

This is being too idealistic, though. I mean, to have a system that syncs all of our brains instantly? Not only does this leave open frightening possibilities for mind control, but it’s also unnecessary. All we have to do is recognize the same thing I pointed out earlier: we all have the same cognitive reasoning ability. So, if there’s an argument between two people, you can be sure that there is an answer. The key to finding it is breaking things down into the basic details of the dispute and going at it one thing at a time until the faulty logic of the wrong side of the argument is found.

This isn’t easy. It takes far less work to say they’re just too stupid to understand and move on; just remember that this isn’t true. Then there are those of us who recognize the falsity of the previous statement and therefore want to understand others’ opinions and share with them our own, but, already knowing all the details, it’s very easy to unintentionally leave holes in an argument. Persistence, cooperation, and desire for knowledge on both sides is key.

Lastly, the desire for knowledge must supersede our pride and desire to be right. We have to be able to admit we were wrong if we are indeed proven as such. I understand that this can be horribly difficult for some people to do (hell, I’ve experienced it!), but unless you are willing to do so, the above method won’t give you as much satisfaction. The whole point to this exercise is for more knowledge and shouldn’t be used only to prove someone wrong.

If nothing else, just remember this: if you run across someone who has a differing opinion on something than you do, don’t just say “aww, they’re just idiots.” Accept the fact that they are reasoning humans just like you, and have just experienced different things that may have nudged their opinion in a different direction.

While I generally agree with Scott Bradford on many things, I have found that I take issue with one of his posts last month regarding the 2008 presidential election:

I have no favorite candidates. Heck, I’m not even paying attention to who’s running at this point. I’ve heard most of the big names—Clinton, Guiliani, Obama, Romney, etc., etc., etc.—but have fervently avoided paying any more attention than I absolutely have to. I just don’t care right now. It is too damn early to be making political decisions for an election over a year away.

As much as I understand and empathize with his opinion, I believe that, considering the massive scrutiny the current administration has faced during its tenure, we need to care about who our next elected president and subsequent officials are, whether we want to or not. If the presidential hopefuls on both sides of the aisle are already campaigning in full swing, so be it. Seems to me it gives us more time to consider our choice, and, at least with me, the more time given to consider choices, the better.

Irritating as it is, we need to be sure we pick a president who will be at least favorable in the public eye. To do this, we must first identify what exactly it is about the current administration that irritates the public so (something all of the opponents of the current administration’s party are essentially basing their entire campaigns on). Personally, the fault I hold with Bush’s policies are as follows, starting with most important: Runaway Fiscal Irresponsibility and Spending, Attempts to Pass Unconstitutional Laws and Amendments (resulting in big government), Foreign Policies resulting in Lacking Foreign Opinion of the US… there are more, but I have to think. I’ll update as the need arises.

Interesting, isn’t it, how these problems are, in a general sense, utterly opposite of the campaign points of the Republican Party of Yesteryear?

In comes the new guy. While I tend to disagree with his non interventionist war policies, he is, as stated on Andrew Sullivan’s blog and RTFLC, the only candidate truly addressing my #1: fiscal responsibility:

An angle of the Ron Paul story that is missed in most reports is the party affiliation of those who are contributing. I am a registered Democrat. I am making my only substantial contributions during the primaries to Ron Paul. Why? He is the only candidate on either side who is truly addressing my concerns about our current lack of fiscal responsibility, our interventionist foreign policy, and the executive branch’s utter lack of respect for the Constitution.

It is well worth a few hundred dollars of my money to help him stay in the debates to present substantitive arguments on the most important issues we face as a country. It is my sincere hope that at least a few percent of Republicans hear his message and insist upon a serious candidate, not just the candidate who presents himself as the biggest bully.

While it is most certainly too early to even think about making any kind of endorsement, I am keeping my eye on Paul. So far the only Republican candidate I would consider voting for (lest someone issues a flip-flop on issues reminiscent of Kerry), Paul seems to be the only true candidate not solely effected by party politics, religious constituent groups, money and fame.

Lastly, I personally think the old-world broadcast and print Media is in for a surprise this election season. They underestimate the power of the Internet and its users, taking advantage of these resources only when it benefits their political position (Macaca, anyone?). Seriously, just think about it: The Ron Paul movement online is huge, and consistently ignored by the Big Media. Paul constantly wins Straw Polls where he is involved, and these media outlets try to mention him as little as possible; has anyone seen anything on TV about Paul’s fundraising successes (he raised over five million his second quarter campaigning, this after having more money on hand during his first quarter than McCain)? Nope. The Big Media, like I said, acknowledges the internet only when someone there has unearthed some dirt that furthers their own agenda, and I think the outcome of the 2008 election will be a big surprise to these people.

Which is more moral: helping other human beings out of concern for their well being, or because of the notion that some ubiquitous creator will reward you for it in the end?

Do humans have to have a reward? Scientifically speaking, yes; our only purpose on this earth is to spread our own genes and procreate the population, and thus the only underlying theme in the furthering of our own existence is staying alive as long as possible. This is only done through putting our own well being above others’s, which is only natural. However, psychologically speaking, we have developed natural instincts pushing us to help others in their own times of need, at our cost.

Why would we do this? Lots of reasons, actually; prior to religion, humans lived in nomadic groups where it became obvious that if any member of the group was in some way suffering negatively, such conditions would have a negative impact on the group as a whole. With the logical advent of the golden rule (which, by the way, was around much longer than most, if not all, organized religions of today), humans realized that if they express compassion to those in need, if ever the roles were reversed in the future, there would exist a greater possibility that the individual on which compassion was imposed previously would return the gesture.

From these notions and instincts — which are basic and logical “rules,” if you will, of living — our present definition of morality has emerged, summed up very succintly by the following mandate from Mahavira, the Jain patriarch (who lived approximately 6,000 years before Christ):

“Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.”

Anyway, the point here is that it upsets me greatly that the very same people (missionaries, volunteers, etc.), those who help the needy through Christian establishments and claim to do so out of the kindness of their hearts, are lying. Please, call it what it is: you have your own interests at the forefront of your focus while doing this, and it’s a load of shit when you start saying that your naturally kind soul (possibly religiously influenced) is why you are performing these actions.

Seriously, beyond looking better in God’s eyes (which is a load of shit too, considering God is supposed to see your soul and know your true feelings), you make yourself look like a huge dick to the logical human population. The extreme self-absorbency paraded as humility is truly sickening, and it needs to stop. Stop the lying, the deception, and the facade; we all have the exact same interests at heart, and to state otherwise is… uh, well, I think I’ve run out of adjectives to describe it, but you get the idea.

Following up on the previous post, I am putting up a list of rights gay couples do not have (especially here in Virginia) that I stumbled across a few days ago at The Republic of T.

• Hospital Visitation Rights – Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital.
• Health insurance – Same-sex couples have no automatic right to visit one another in the hospital or make medical decisions for one another. Having medical power of attorney documents may help, but there’s no guarantee and hospital will recognize those documents.
• Spousal Privilege – Same-sex couples have no right to refuse to testify against one another. So everything you say, write, email, fax, etc. to your partner is admissible in court and can be used against. you.
• Inheritance rights – Same-sex couples have no automatic rights to inheritance in the absence of a will.
• Family leave – Same-sex couples have no legally protected right to unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse.
• Pensions – Most pension plans only pay survivor benefits to a legal spouse. Same-sex partners get no pension support for surviving partners.
• Nursing homes – Same-sex couples have no legal right to live together in a nursing home and spend their final years together.
• Home protection – The laws that protect married couples from being forced to sell their homes to cover high nursing home bills don’t apply to same-sex couples. A same-sex partner can be forced to sell, and forced out of the home to satisfy nursing home bills if he/she lives in the home but does not own it.
• Retirement savings – Married people can roll over a deceased spouses 401(k) into an IRA without paying taxes. Same-sex partners must withdraw everything, pay income taxes on it, and lose the tax deferral benefits.
• Taxes – Married spouses may inherit unlimited property from a deceased spouse, tax free. Same-sex partners pay taxes on any amount over set state and federal limits.
• Social Security benefits – Unless you’re married, you get no Social Security from a dead spouse. If you have kids, they will get it and you may be custodian of it until they’re adults.

Allow me to add one more: Married couples can apply to be in the Peace Corps together, and, barring the possibility of rejection, are guaranteed placement at the same location. I don’t think I have to tell you that the same does not apply for same-sex couples.

Honestly, I don’t see how the U.S. Government, the same entity that is supposed to be a paragon of separation of church and state, can do this with the Equal Protection clause located right in the 14th amendment of the Constitution, the basis for all laws and court rulings.

These issues can be fixed quite easily, though: instead of changing all of the laws to include same-sex couples, just give them the right to acquire a marriage license. Oh, no, we can’t do that… marriage is a religious institution, and the government doesn’t have the right to define what constitutes a marriage and what doesn’t, so say the religious leaders.

Ok, fine. Next proposal: remove any reference to marriage from the laws. Why? Well, quite simply, if marriage is a religious institution, as stated by all of the religious people, then why is the government even dealing with it? If it’s only to promote the institution (because, according to some sociologists, two parents that are together are usually more beneficial to children than one), then there should be no problem with changing the name of it to, say, “civil union,” and, because civil unions are not religiously based, their definition can be made to include same-sex couples.

Once you get a civil union (and are united in the eyes of the law), go ahead and have your marriage ceremony at a church or temple or wherever. And trust me, the number of these ceremonies will not decrease simply because they’re not necessary. They aren’t necessary today what with the ability to be joined in marriage by a justice of the peace, but traditionalist-churchey weddings are still very common.

But wait, if civil unions can be granted to anybody, what’s gonna stop people from marrying animals or children? Well, look at it through the eyes of the government: children and animals are not really considered “people.” Children can’t sign a legally binding contract without their parents’ consent nor do they have any useful legal standing, and animals aren’t recognized as intellegent sentient beings by the government, and as such don’t have a legal standing either. Logically, beyond the obvious pedophilia/zoophilia issues, do you think anyone would want a child or animal making such important decisions as whether the hospital continues respiration treatment if they’re in a vegitative state? Zing, there goes that argument.

The point I’m trying to make here, in case you haven’t gotten it yet, is that officials in the government are naming marriage as a religious institution to prevent major alterations in its definition, simultaneously stomping on the constitution by conveniently ignoring certain parts. The ones that recognize the hypocrisy of this are frantically scrambling to come up with secular explanations of this position, but none of them are very convincing. Here is the list (including some sarcastic remarks), this particular one from craigslist:

• Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
• Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
• Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
• Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
• Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
• Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
• Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
• Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America, and why we fought to separate ourselves from the completely secular British Empire in the Revolution.
• Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
• Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector of the economy, or longer life spans.

So there you have it. If your argument against the governmental recognition of same-sex unions had absolutely nothing to do with religion, the above list should have been a wake-up call. If it does have to do with religion, I ask you: do we live in a theocracy? Uh, no. Governmentally-imposed laws come first, religious laws come second. Oppressing a group through state and federal laws because it is written in the Bible to do so is an extremely asinine (and illegal) thing to do in a democracy.

Let’s theoretically swap percentages really quick, to prove a point: approximately 0.6% of the US population is Muslim, and 81.1% is Christian (wikipedia). Swap it, and you have a huge Muslim majority. Islamic fundamentalists, as reported in a previous post, have denounced some of the clauses of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; one of these they decry as inherently false is the concept of separation of church and state. Essentially they believe that religion is very necessary in government. Now imagine that the number of people who are against same-sex unions (essentially the fundamentalist Christian group) were instead Islamic Fundamentalists. For simplicity’s sake, we’ll assume the population ratio of the whole religion versus the fundamentalists is about the same with Christians and Muslims. Think now that this population instead voted with equal conviction that the government should be converted to a theocracy (an issue they care deeply about), and thereby adopting many Muslim rules and regulations that are highly oppressing of the religious minorities. Would you be in favor of this? I know I wouldn’t. One problem: it’s happening here, now in the form of many Christians voting in accordance with their religious convictions. A little hypocritical, huh?

I think lack of information regarding homosexuality is the main culprit surrounding the issue, though. A majority of the 81% Christian population don’t base their judgement on what the Bible says, but rather look at the gays who are present in the media and are disgusted by what they see. Who can blame them? The pride parades in San Fran are nothing but gay men wearing leather assless-chaps and lesbians without a top on. The message they say they send is one of “we’re just like you, and we want to have a normal family just like the rest of the US” (which, for the majority of gays, is the truth) but the message that’s getting through is more along the lines of “we’re sex-crazed maniacs leading lives very different from the stereotypical American.”

These people also don’t ask themselves the one question that would help them understand the situation. Generally they grow up in a straight environment, learning of homosexuality only once they are older (and most of the time through the common usage of the term “gay” as an adjective for anything that is bad, irritating, or generally negative, and thus applying the same connotation to the original definition). Even the most open minded soul, when brought up in this environment, is going to denounce homosexuality as evil. They simply can’t fathom why anyone would be attracted to the same sex, and, as it isn’t a very important subject for them, they don’t spend much time thinking about it. The issue is then written off as just a cry for attention, or to be different.

To these people who ask me “How do you know?”, I respond with the following: Suspend reality for a moment and imagine yourself in a world run by and populated with homosexuals. Your parents are gay, your friends are gay, everyone’s gay. The religion you were brought up in denounces the straight lifestyle as one of sin, requiring a punishment of eternal damnation. This is what they know, and they can’t comprehend anything else. Now suppose you are no different than you are in this reality. Completely straight, with straight urges, mannerisms, and opinions. You have a lot of options, but generally they fall in the following categories: 1) denounce the straight lifestyle and marry someone of the same sex; 2) avoid the issue entirely, refuse to confront it, and live a lonely life of celibacy; or 3) announce to family and friends your sexual preference, find someone with whom you wish to share your life with, and live happily ever after. Which would you choose? Think carefully about every detail of each option, and get back to me. I am interested in your choice.

Even though you may not admit it, your choice is probably going to be #3. #1 is, in all likelihood, a pretty disgusting proposition for you due to the graphic details of attempting to satisfy yourself and partner intimately, and #2 is highly undesirable considering the natural human need for companionship. This places #3 as the logical choice because, religion notwithstanding, it satisfies you and your prospective companion, it hurts nobody physically, and if it is problematic emotionally for your family or friends, that’s their problem.

Seriously, I can’t find any holes in my argument. If you think I’m wrong, tell me why! I enjoy a good intellectual joust as much–no, probably more than–the average person. This issue also personally affects me, and the fact that religious bigots in the government make decisions without utilizing logic before their religious convictions upsets me more than anything. After presenting the above evidence, I would honestly love to hear how someone justifies their opinion, if its different. Also, I haven’t had any comments on the site yet, and I’m waiting for someone to break it in !

This is one of the main reasons I originally got pissed with religion and started looking at the situation objectively:

Anglican leaders demanded Monday that the U.S. Episcopal Church unequivocally bar official prayers for gay couples and the consecration of more gay bishops to undo the damage that North Americans have caused the Anglican family.

In a statement ending a tense six-day meeting, the leaders said that past pledges by Episcopalians for a moratorium on gay unions and consecrations have been so ambiguous that they have failed to fully mend “broken relationships” in the 77 million-member Anglican Communion.

Okay, so basically they’re making a gigantic deal out of this same-sex thing. Damage? The Episcopalian church has caused major damage? Riiiight. I mean, honestly, is this really an issue that requires week-long summits and meetings and hollering back and forth between the groups on either side of the aisle? Aren’t there other things we need to be worrying about? Seems to me the issue regarding the blessing of homosexual unions needs to take a back seat to dealing with rapist priests, cliquey churches, and general ungodliness in societies around the world.

::sigh:: I don’t know… I suppose we’re dealing with the definition of sin, and whether one sin carries more weight than another. While that concept is not in scripture, it certainly is a very common staple in modern churches of many denominations. Personally, I don’t perceive homosexuality as being a sin in the slightest: it causes no harm whatsoever to my fellow human beings or any living thing on this earth. It is honestly the only thing the church defines as a sin that I don’t understand the reasoning behind its classification as such, aside from cultural ideals 2,000 years ago when the Bible was first adopted.

Personally, I think it was only a social taboo because anal sex, widely thought as the main form of sexual expression between two men, has a tendency to spread disease and cause medical problems. Without medical knoledge, governmental leaders just knew it could make you sick. This would be a major concern in the days before modern medicine and medical care, and to ban it would seem a completely logical action, human rights notwithstanding. Anyway, whatever the reason, logical or otherwise, it was not something that was permitted by society at the time.

Interestingly enough, nor were women’s rights. This is a much more prevalent subject in the Bible, and one must think about how there are hundreds of passages placing women below men in one form or another compared to the handful of verses that (theoretically) mention homosexuality. For example, in numerous places the Bible states that the woman is not to have authority over any man. Another verse states that the wife is never to ask a priest if she has any questions; she is to wait until she gets home and ask her husband so she doesn’t embarrass the family.

Both of these ridiculous statements, if presented to society today, would be widely rejected, and the modern church doesn’t follow their decrees either (without risking major societal upheval from the feminists and their supporters). Some denominations still don’t allow ordination of women, but the majority do (including the Anglican church). Where are the “strict constructionists” of the Bible when regarding this? Nowhere to be found, and absolutely silent.

Here’s the deal: when the Bible was written, Christianity was a new religion. To be accepted as a valid religion, they had to incorporate societal and “pagan” traditions so potential converts weren’t turned off by any vast differences between their prospective new lives and their old ones. From this, we get those leftover traditions (such as demeaning women’s rights and lists of various punishments [stoning, tongue removal, etc.] for certain ridiculous sins like growing a beard) that don’t really reflect God’s will and completely smash any chance of Christianity actually growing in today’s society ( down 8% from 1990-2002). Anyone looking around for a religion to follow is going to be turned off by the medieval sins and punishments.

Even some of the evangelicals try to make religion seem like a really cool and hip thing to do, what with their music and young, tattooed, and pierced authority figures; this makes me laugh, especially since they are among the strongest proponents of the strict Bible interpretation. Take a look at Ted Haggard… that situation really makes me want to place all evangelical leaders in the category of “Most Trustworthy People,” huh?

Still, the majority of Christians think of Christianity as just the ten commandments + the Jesus thing… but when fundamentalists start advocating strict interpretation of scripture, this view (and all the progress we as a society have made through technology and thinking globally) is thrown out the window.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying the Church has no right to claim homosexuality as a sin; quite the contrary, they have every right to do so. I just simply won’t join a church with such convictions, and I think quite a few Americans feel the same way (certainly not the majority, but we’re working on it). Hopefully when membership drops, the elders of the church might take the hint, and the gay issue will go the way of the feminist issue. We’ll see. But anyway, the only thing I am questioning is their logic behind such decrees. I mean, why would God find it displeasing? The common answer to that question is “it’s not what he intended,” meaning the relationship cannot bear children. Okay, well what about people born sterile? Are their relationships to be shunned? So again, for real this time, I ask: Why would God find this displeasing? I probably wouldn’t be satisfied with their “reasoning,” but with religion not being based in reality, that’s probably to be expected.

I leave you with an excerpt from the article referenced above, which really made me laugh (all emphasis mine):

In 2005, Anglican leaders had asked the Episcopal Church to temporarily stop electing gay bishops and developing official prayer services for same-sex couples.

No sarcastic comment could make that statement any funnier.

To expand on the last comment of my previous post, I decided to write some of my opinions regarding Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is great; a combination news source/history book/truth machine that should have been invented a long time ago. I should be able to end here, but I know you want some reasons, so here goes: It’s free; it’s translated into a whole heckuva lotta different languages; it can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection; if sources aren’t supplied, a message to that effect is generally displayed; all entries are moderated, especially high profile ones; bias rarely exists, even less so on a high profile entry; extensive information can be obtained on some of the most obscure topics; profanity and graphic language is not used unless the entry is actually about such words… I can go on and on.

But why is this so great? Let’s start from the beginning. The fact of the matter is history and facts, at least as we know them, have been altered. I’m sure there is at least one fact reported in every U.S. History book in high schools around the country that is false, simply because the winners of wars write the history books, generally portraying their previous enemy to be some inhuman monster, and in the times before video/audio recordings, a majority of these reports logically could have been embellished, especially if the report is based on one or two people’s accounts. This is human nature; bias exists when you are on one side of an argument, all because of perspective. Try as we might, we simply cannot imagine exactly how someone of a differing opinion could come upon that idea. We are inherently incapable of “walking in another’s shoes.”

Wikipedia solves this problem, not perfectly, but much moreso than getting your information from a TV/print news source or a history book. Because it can be edited by everyone around the world, those of differing opinions tend to come into conflict with one another, and the biases in one direction or another are more or less eventually cancelled out. Those that propose a change in the article must present their argument to the general public, who discusses the issue, subsequently voting on it; they don’t necessarily have to be experts, but the civil arguments between the people, each presenting their own logic supporting or denying the truth of the original post, are what decide what is factual and what is fallacy. This same thing occurs in the backroom of TV news stations, but on a much smaller scale. While these national shows might have vast expendable resources to validate stories, neither they nor any other entity have the combined resources and education of everyone on Wikipedia.

Some might ask, in reference to my previous post, about the inherent stupidity/apathy/lack of education that the public has, as shown in the World Public Opinion article. I certainly made myself clear in stating that the vast majority of the world population was stupid, apathetic, and did not have enough education to make its opinions matter to me. I guess I was a little harsh, that maybe it isn’t a vast majority, but a simple majority.

I still stand by the argument in both posts, though. How? Well, look at the demographic of registered people on Wikipedia. First, they must have a computer, and must be proficient in registering with websites; this establishes their technological proficiency (and establishes them as “smart,” or at least smart enough for all intents and purposes). Second, they must care about the topics which they are commenting on (otherwise they wouldn’t comment in the first place); this removes the apathy portion of the equation. Last, all different opinions are available for them to make an educated comment describing how they feel; this takes the “lack of education” problem out, as well. Compare this to the pollsters who ask questions to the general public walking the streets without giving them any information. Because of this, poll results end up showing people’s opinion of facts, rarely the actual facts themselves.

This is why I am upset at teachers/professors who completely ban any usage of Wikipedia. As it takes fewer resources for one to post on Wikipedia than to publish a hard-copy book with his or her opinions, I can understand some of the logic behind it. This does not make it right, though. Wikipedia is an infinitely valuable resource that hopefully will one day remove the clout of the mainstream media. It ensures that the information presented is without bias and increases the relative reliability of the information presented, because people who are experts can provide hard data, or people who were involved in a specific event (for example) can post on the site as a primary source, something news outlets can only do through interviews (which aren’t completely reliable because the interviewer controls what information gets passed to the public with what questions they ask). One can trust Wikipedia a lot more than normal news and information sites because of the people voting on what information is posted care so much about presenting the truth and debunking fiction.

I honestly don’t know much about the actual inner workings of the site, as I am not a registered member. I have never proposed an addendum or amendment to a post, and nor do I know the experience of doing so. Therefore, my last proposals could be already in effect, I just simply do not know. Anyway, here goes: I propose that Wikipedia keep a cache of old entries each time they are updated, when they were updated, with what specific information, why the update, any arguments/disputes surrounding the update, the vote count of who wanted the update versus who didn’t, and sources cited (if any; if none, why there is none) to validate the update. This information would greatly help those who actually care about the validity of the sources they cite, and, if there is a signed document by a student stating he or she checked the background of the information, teachers might be a little more at ease with allowing information from Wikipedia to be published as fact. I have my doubts, though.

The key with using Wikipedia is to take all information with a grain of salt. If the topic is high-profile, chances are there is a huge debate raging behind the scenes about trivial details, and the information presented to the public will likely be true. If the article is about some obscure person Google doesn’t even know about or the article is riddled with grammatical/spelling errors or the layout is not professional or the article makes wild, unsubstantiated claims about its subject (etc. etc. etc. etc.), the information is probably not reliable. Also, the longer the information is up and remains unchanged, the more likely it is valid (for the simple reason that by that time, many people would have had a chance to read over it and had not taken any issue with the information nor had anything of any importance to add).

So, basically, it’s a whole new way of researching and finding out information. It’s an original idea, it’s been decently executed, and it is actually a major advancement in the way humans communicate factual information. As for the teacher deal, they’ll come around, just like they did for the Internet. Remember back in the days when the Internet was new? “Absolutely no internet sources!” was a common sentence to see on a grading rubric for some paper you were to write for English. That’s changed; the teachers just say to look the site over, check to see if they have any sources listed, if the info. could be impacted as time goes on, check the “last updated” part of the site, yadda yadda yadda. Not much different than what I discussed two paragraphs ago, was it? The same thing will happen for Wikipedia, mark my words, and ease of research will launch into a realm never before attained. Heck, smaller wiki-sites that go into more detail about information in specific categories will become more and more popular (they do exist now, but almost certainly will grow in popularity).

My advice to students, though: if your teacher bans Wikipedia, that’s ok. Go there anyway, it gives you an overview of information about the topic and breaks it down into logical parts. Read the wiki post and become familiar with it, it will definately help you later. With this in hand, you can research the subtopics to get a better understanding of the topic itself; your teacher will be impressed if you took the initiative to research the topic “vaso-occlusive crises” if your topic only covered “Sickle Cell Anemia” alone. Next, do the “real” research (use sources cited in wiki article for hints regarding where to look, if available) in venues approved by the teacher: library (which is never banned), online databases (i.e. Grolier, World Book, Sirs, etc.), and finally Google it to see if you can find a reputable site dedicated to your topic, or a category in which your topic falls. You never know, you might get lucky and find something. An example of a reputable site would be Web-MD if you were researching the chemical construction, manufacturer, use, side effects, and other information about MAO-Is (or one in particular). Now consider your paper, as long as it’s a research paper (if not, I can’t help you… position papers and such are graded as much on research as your ability to analyze the facts and present them in a specific way unique to each topic). This is where the wiki article will help, as long as when you did your research you didn’t come across any bit of information critical to the topic that wasn’t listed in the article. If so, follow these steps while thinking of ways to add the new info so it makes sense. First, use the wiki article to answer the following questions: With what main points are you going to convince your audience that your conclusion is valid? How are you going to organize these points into a logical progression of thought, so it makes sense to the reader? You can use the subheaders under the main topic in the wiki article to help you answer them; for instance, look at the previously referenced entry about Sickle Cell Anemia. The first section can help you develop your introductory sentence and paragraph, and the contents pane (that lists the topics of each section below) can help you develop an outline detailing a logical flow of thoughts. The key-operative word here, though, is help. Don’t blindly take organizational ideas; Wikipedia isn’t going to get points taken off for having it’s information out of logical order, but you will. Not only that, but stealing ideas regarding the flow of your paper is most definately a form of plagarism.

One word of caution: if you use information that you could only find in the wiki article but don’t cite it because the teacher told you not to use that source, its plagiarism. Do not do this. Remember, the teacher said not to use Wikipedia at all, so to him or her any information pulled from this source is wrong. You and I know better, but that doesn’t change anything. If you can’t find any sources other than the wiki article with a specific bit of information, don’t use it in your paper. Trust me, the teacher will not be nice about it. I believe the program that detects plagiarism that some teachers use does contain some high profile wiki articles, and can bust your ass if you are found out. I will not be responsible for this, either, and am not advocating the use of Wikipedia in this manner. Wikipedia should be used more as an idea aide and a tool for students unsure of where to begin research on a particular topic. Technically, I should tell you not to use any of the information from wiki, but I’m a realist, and honestly, if the info can be found in another reputable source and it is the same, it truly doesn’t matter.

Anyhow, good luck with all of your endeavors. If any of you are familiar with Wikipedia and the process an article, addendum, or amendment goes through to get approved, leave some comments and let me know if I am genuinely wrong on some aspect of it. I’d tell you not to if it really had no impact on any of the points I made, but I really want to be correct on all statements I presented as fact. Even if you don’t, I do plan on registering with Wikipedia one of these days and experiencing it myself. One of these days, anyway…

According to a recently dugg article, 52% of polled audiences around the world believe that tensions between Islam and the West (read: United States, Western Europe, et. al.) are not due to differences in religion and culture, but about political power and interests.

The global public believes that tensions between Islam and the West arise from conflicts over political power and interests and not from differences of religion and culture, according to a BBC World Service poll across 27 countries.

The idea that violent conflict is inevitable between Islam and the West is mainly rejected by Muslims, non-Muslims and Westerners alike. While more than a quarter of all respondents (28%) think that violent conflict is inevitable, twice as many (56%) believe that “common ground can be found.”

Is this not ridiculous? Utterly proposterous and absurd. Let’s take a step back, and look at the entire situation. Logic dictates that the polled folks had the Iraq war in mind when they answered this question; fine. That makes sense, right? Ok, well, why did the US invade Iraq?

The uneducated, ignorant, and generally apathetic (I know I’m being redundant, I don’t care) audience might answer this question in a similar fashion as the following: “Well, all the citizens Stateside seem to think Bush lied about something, and really this war is all about oil. Hmm, well that’s pretty politically motivated, right? Ok, well, I’ll go with Political Power and Interests. Next [generalized] question: Is a violent conflict between the West and Islam inevitable? Hmm, probably not. If Bush wasn’t so big about his oil, he wouldn’t have invaded, and there wouldn’t be any violent conflict, and Iraq would be the beautifl paradise it was before his troops arrived, with lovely streams and colorful, tropical wildlife, where all food was free and everyone lived in peace, harmony, and love, with rainbows and sunshine shooting out of everyone’s ass.”

Ok, I got a little cynical there towards the end. But it’s not really that far from the truth, though, is it? Let’s look at the facts. We were attacked by terrorists on 9/11/01. It was then discovered that the perps were originally from the middle east, probably members of a sect of Islamic Fundamentalists. Yup, Al-Quaeda, headed up by Bin Ladin. Tape release: Bin Ladin hates the West, praises the actions of these brave terrorists. We get pissed, invade Afghanistan looking for Bin Ladin. Hussein mocks us, refuses to allow UN inspectors to do their jobs. We suspect he is friendly to terrorists who probably infiltrate his government, and could have nuclear weapons he would be willing to share with them. Not to mention the unacceptable treatment of the citizens of the country, what with the reduction of rights of women, religious and cultural minorities, and secular persons. We decide to invade the country to remove the potential terrorist threat, relieve the citizens of the oppressive fundamentalist rule, and set up a democracy so all citizens are a part of their government. The rest is irrelevant to this argument.

The point of that was to show you all the problems we have encountered dealing with the middle east and our response them. Guess what? Every one of those problems were due to Islamic Fundamentalists, who, obviously, obtain their motivation through Islam: 9/11, committed by Al Quaeda, an Islamic Fundamentalist group; Hussein’s regime, a radical Islamic movement, allowing crimes against religion to be punished by his government. Today, we still face opposition in Iraq. Are these people the non-radical citizens, upset that we are in their country? NO. They are some of the remaining sects (sects, which are very anarchical in nature, bound by nothing but the Koran and their documents; there is no physical ruling entity) that are attempting to carry out the wishes of their god, or at least as interpreted by them out of the Koran (see “Organized Religion” if you don’t understand).

Now comes the question of common ground. Well, in the eyes of the fundamentalists, there is none. This is not the US’s choice, nor the choice of any opposing forces. The radicals want us dead. Remember last year, when there was the big to-do with Hezbollah? I don’t remember the actual events, but whatever they did opposed the US, and we retaliated. Thousands of people in London alone got all upset over our actions, and staged protests and demonstrations, stating “We are Hezbollah.” The response from the real Hezbos? “Yeah, umm, thanks for the support, but you really don’t need to do that. We don’t want you as converts, we just want you dead.”

I think that illustrates my point perfectly. Many folks believe the US has gotten itself into this in accordance with it’s own desires, especially a politically and economically strategic occupation of Iraq; this is shown partially through the poll referenced above. If people would just take a look at the facts once in awhile, maybe search Wikipedia for Islamic Fundamentalism, they might understand.

I love wikipedia. I’ll explain later.

Economics is an absolutely fascinating study. Instead of interpreting observations subjectively (i.e. sociology), we look at facts, manipulate data through extensive use of graphs and numerous equations, and report our findings. These findings are completely objective, and leave any subjective interpretation to the reader.

Today in Econ we discussed elasticity, a fascinating subject. The form of elasticity I am going to address today is Income Elasticity, or how demand for a product changes as average income increases. There is a formula for this, but that’s way too hard to try and place here, so I’ll just explain it.

Income Elasticity of a product dictates whether the product falls in one of the following categories: Inferior, Necessity, or Luxury. Basically, if a product is inferior, as average income increases, the demand decreases; if it is a necessity, income has little or no effect on the demand; and if it is a luxury, demand increases as income increases.

Simple, right? Let’s discuss examples. Canned foods, frozen vegetables, and cigarettes are all generally inferior products. Countless studies have shown that as a family’s income increases, the consumption of these items goes down. As Prof. Salehi put it, they are products of the poor. Food in general, though, is a necessity. Whether families are rich or poor, their demand for food remains somewhat constant. They may shop at discount grocery stores and whatnot, but their consumption does not fluctuate with income. Foreign travel (or travel in general, really), on the other hand, is a luxury for obvious reasons.

Okay, but why does this have me so interested? Good question. Prof. Salehi discussed coffee in depth, recounting facts and whatnot to interest the general student body in the subject. What kind of product do you think coffee is? If you guessed inferior, you’re right. As the general wealth of the nation has increased, the consumption of coffee has decreased. Let’s think about coffee, the raw product, for a second. Due to markups and countless middle men, less than 10% of what you pay for the coffee gets back to the farmers in the third world countries like Colombia, India, etc. These farmers have been known to commit suicide because of their severe debt and bleak outlook for the future, especially as a result of the massive decline in consumption of coffee between 1997 and 2002. Since then, the average cost of coffee has risen about 100% and things are slowly getting better as coffee gets to be more and more popular again, possibly attributed to the Starbucks craze.

That’s an interesting subject: let’s consider Starbucks for a second. This is what Prof. Salehi calls the “Latte Effect.” The company adds froth, sugar, cream, ambiance, and social status to it’s cups of coffee, charging $4 for a small. You can be sure that less than 1% of what you pay goes back to the suppliers, at least of the coffee beans. This interests me for one reason: Americans today have incredibly guilty consciences, the “bleeding heart” syndrome, if you will. Socially, they express concern for the fighting in Darfur, apartheid, poverty in third world countries, hunger, and others, sometimes even setting up little find raisers and pickets to end such horrors. If this coffee thing were in the mainstream media as constantly, they might flip their lids over it as well.

But it’s not. Why? The only thing I can think of is that they really don’t care about any of this, just the social reverie they receive for supporting Katrina relief efforts, Tsunami fund raisers, and writing checks to stop the fighting in Darfur. They don’t really want to do the real research into more issues around the world, don’t really care. They only care how they appear to the public, and if it was a popular thing to gripe over, they would. But it’s not, so they don’t, and life goes on.

Paralleling this topic, I was thinking what kind of for-profit business one could start up to help these farmers. What I came up with was a business that would give them a venue to directly sell their products to the consumer, or as directly as possible, anyway. One would have to market this to the bleeding hearts of the country in order to have any competition with the other businesses; it would have to be a smear campaign on Starbucks, as the patrons of this establishment are the ones most likely to express concern and change their consumption habits. It seems to me, though, if you offered much higher quality coffee to the public for a price much lower, but supplying the farmers with more income, its a win all the way around (except for the big coffee businesses).

Who knows. I’m in an introductory Econ class, so my ideas are really worth nothing, and I’m definitely over-simplifying the situation. Dealing with economics, anyway, you can expect a rant on the minimum wage sometime in the future.