Insanity at Its Finest

Separating Church and State Keeps Us Free

2007-08-08T07:53:00.001-07:00

What many on the religious right do not understand is the importance of separating our church from our state. In a free nation that allows them to practice their religion, it also allows others to practice what they want as well. I know it probably seems obvious, but our theocratic president challenges that notion.

read more | digg story

Importance of Research

2007-08-01T21:55:00.001-07:00

It is important to read articles before you post them on sites like Digg, otherwise you get an amusing occurrences such as this. One links goes to a blog, the other to the actual Treehugger.com website.

From what I can ascertain from reading both articles, Discovery Communications is actually buying Treehugger.com, although it's more like a merger. The title on Treehugger's article is misleading, which proves my point further. You must actually read what you're submitting and the world will be a better place.

Rove refuses to testify on role in prosecutor firings

2007-08-01T20:15:00.001-07:00

White House senior adviser Karl Rove has rebuked a Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena and will not appear Thursday to testify about his role in the firing of nine US Attorneys, Sen. Patrick Leahy said late Wednesday. Anyone surprised?

read more | digg story

Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

2007-07-31T08:31:00.001-07:00

Should not the "moderate" imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?

read more | digg story

Creating Peace in the Middle East

2007-07-31T07:32:00.000-07:00

The Middle East is a hellhole. I'm not saying America's much better these days, but I stand by my statement. To create peace in the Middle East and absolve ourselves of wrong doing, we must simply follow a few steps.

1) The Israel-Palestine-TheRestOfTheWorld Conflict has been going on for far too long and there's a simple solution. You simply irradiate the entire region. Sure, this will cause a refugee crisis, but there's a simple solution to that too. The Jews can have Florida and the Palestinians can have Oregon. Neither state has much use to us, so it works out well for everyone, especially those in Oregon and Florida who didn't realize they were living in such crappy states.

2) Next the problems in Iraq must be solved. First, the land must be partitioned into thirds. One third to Saudi Arabia, one third to Iran, and then the third with oil to the US. We then pay off the Saudis and Iranians with our oil money to keep the peace and allow the spice, I mean the oil, to flow freely. The Baghdad embassy could be Bush's palace as he oversees Arrakis, I mean Iraq, after his presidency.

3) Stop pestering Iran about their nuclear program, since they have now become now business partners in Iraq. Just keep a few Ohio class subs around Iran in case things get out of hand. Also as a secondary option, drill underneath Iran and take their oil. Without that, they'll go broke and won't have the money to continue their nuclear program. They'll then become desperate and accept our Iraq oil money gratefully and we will become the best of friends with them.

Now the Middle East should be quite safe and peaceful. If any other conflicts arise we will just have to irradiate the conflicting parties or drill under them and take their oil. Once that's all done, the Middle East should look something like the following artist rendered picture.

No, Fat Is Not Contagious

2007-07-27T01:20:00.000-07:00

I awoke Thursday morning ready to read The Seattle Times. I'm sure many people read their local paper in the morning as well. It is an activity that seems retrospectively moot most of the time, since the paper mostly glosses over the news I already saw on the Internet the day before. But I digress.

I've become accustomed to sensationalism in the media, including in my newspaper. They have to make the lead story and the rest of the front page interesting to grab the attention of potential readers. I expect this, but I also expect that behind that relatively mundane sensationalist attired there to be some actual information. Unfortunately, Thursday morning my trusted newspaper let me down.

The lead story was about Boeing's 787 and its first flight coming up. It's at least a competent story, seeing as Seattle was once called the Jet City. But the story that took up the majority of page was actually one about a new study that had been released, titled "Is fat contagious?"

The piece was written by The Washington Post and was quite disappointing. First off, the title asserts that fat can be "caught" from one person to another. According to the "study", being around people greatly increases your risk of being fat. I presume these assessment techniques would also find that bread causes people to commit crimes, since many criminals had carbohydrates in their system during criminal acts.

The article even states:

"[T]he researchers are not saying that obesity is literally caused by a virus or some other pathogen, or that factors such as poor diet, lack of exercise or genetics are unimportant.
Rather, the findings suggest that once a person becomes obese, for whatever reason, it may make it more socially acceptable for people close to him or her to gain weight, and that new social norms can proliferate quickly."

In other words, humans are affected by their environment. Bravo researchers, bravo. You've stumbled across a textbook from psych 101, applied some simple statistics, and magically you have what the Times calls a "trailblazing study." I just hope the next time they decide to ignore a fairly large story, such as the fact that US Attorney General may have lied under oath to Congress, that they actually obtain material that can even be considered news.

Top 10 Alberto Gonzalez Quotes

2007-07-27T00:08:00.000-07:00

Alberto Gonzalez has been taking his lashings in Congress and on national news due to his ability, or inability as it may be, to testify honestly. To honor Mr. Gonzalez's terrific service to his country, here are ten of his best quotes.

10) "We're talking about the lawyers for the United States of America. And I think it's very, very important that the lawyers be comfortable being very candid and open about their views on very sensitive issues affecting the United States."

9) "I want to be clear. No company is too big to be prosecuted, ... We have zero tolerance for corporate fraud, but we also recognize the importance of avoiding collateral consequences whenever possible."

8) "We're...looking very closely at the issue of fraudulent charities. We're looking at price gouging. I've asked the lawyers in the Department to be as aggressive and to be as creative within the bounds of the law to ensure that people do not take advantage of the situation in this tragic circumstance."

7) "Some in this country mistakenly believed it could not happen here, ... Today we have chilling evidence that it is possible."

6) "Justice must serve offenders and victims as well as the economy and the general public,"

5) "To preserve the integrity of our free market economy, individuals who defraud American businesses and consumers by participating in international price-fixing conspiracies will be prosecuted and sent to prison no matter where they live or where they commit the crime."

4) "I don't think you should be disqualified from being considered for an important position simply because you have a relationship with the person making the decision on who to nominate. You have to look first at a person's qualifications."

3) "I'm primarily worried about what does the president think,"

2) "There is no express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution"

1) "I do not recall."

Is Congress Paid Too Much?

2007-07-25T22:52:00.000-07:00

In a capitalist society, money is an important part of almost every aspect of our lives. In America, we don't do too bad, despite the increasing gap between rich and poor.

The median income for Americans over the age of 25 is about $32,000. Of course, those numbers increase with higher levels of education. The median income for full-time employees with a Bachelor's degree or higher is $56,000. This is more than enough money for a single to live off of, but still congress gets paid much more.

In 1815, Congress began getting paid an annual salary of $1,500. Before that they were paid $6 per session. To complicate things Congress went back to the per session pay in 1817, but this time it was $8 per session. In 1855, Congress went back to getting paid an annual salary, this time at $3,000 (about $65,000 in today's money). Since then they have been getting paid more than then average educated US citizen is paid currently, each year. The question I put forth is, do they really deserve to be paid as much as they are?

This year (2007), each normal Congress member will be paid $168,000. The median income for persons over the age of 25 is about $32,000. People over the age of 25 that work full-time and have at least a Bachelor's degree earn a median income of $56,000. Even the highest paid group of full-time workers, those with professional degrees, only earn a median income of $100,000. So does it still seem fair that they earn as much as they do?

There are 251 business days in a normal year (accounting for federal holidays). Assuming Congress members worked each of those days, which they don't due to their lucrative vacation package, they are making $669 a day in salary alone. At the same time, educated Americans are earning $223 a day. Should educated Americans make only 33% of what Congress does?

I am not saying being a member of Congress is easy. I probably wouldn't be very good representative myself. It takes quite a bit of hard work to get to that level of politics. But being a member of Congress should never be about the money, it should be about serving one's country. They should be willing to work for a comfortable pay, but not an excessive one. The ultimate question is should Congress get paid as though they are representing us, or as though they are representing an elite pay grade of society.

Sources: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

What Prison Recreation Should Be Like

2007-07-20T22:09:00.000-07:00

No Man is Above the Law

2007-07-16T21:27:00.000-07:00

"No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it."
-Theodore Roosevelt

Do we adhere to this simple doctrine in our society? No. President Bush is a perfect example of this. For some reason our politicians and many Americans seem to think it is okay that a president be above the law.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
-Article II, Section 4; United States Constitution

President Bush has clearly ignored or incompetently misinterpreted many laws throughout his presidency. You can find books and material all over the Internet that lay out the case for impeachment on Mr. Bush, so I won't bother repeating them here. My main point is that nobody, including the president, should be above the law.

I understand the idea that impeaching our president may hurt the country. Gerald Ford thought this, and pardoned Nixon so we could just move on (or at least that was part of his reason). But we need to understand that holding our public officals under the fire of the law makes our country stronger. Thomas Jefferson once said that if the government fears the people, there will be liberty.

If government officals know that we are willing to impeach them for their breaches in the law, perhaps they will think twice before unlawfully destroying haebus corpus, or spying on law-abiding Americans. For once I would like to see some integrity in the people we elect into congress to do their job.

In the end, it is our duty to make sure our elected officals are following the Constitution and the law. If you believe your president is breaking the law, insist our lawmakers in congress to begin impeachment proceedings (I already know there is a bill gaining cosonpors in the house as I type this). If your congressperson is not willing to impeach those who break the highest laws of our country, than look into their record. Find out if your congressperson has been breaking the law and perhaps impeach them as well.

No person should ever be above the law, including those who make the laws and enforce them.

10 Signs You Use StumbleUpon Too Much

2007-07-15T09:35:00.000-07:00

In no particular order, here are the ten signs that you use StumbleUpon too much.

You miss a meeting because you went online to check your e-mail real quick and wound up spending an hour stumbling
The first thing you do when you wake up is turn on your computer and start stumbling.
You never use the word stumble to refer to walking.
You wish there was a thumbs up and down button on your TV remote.
You actually think of StumbeUpon as a social network.
You get frustrated because you've see a page twice while stumbling.
You watch more of the StumbleUpon video channel than actual TV.
You accidentally press the "mod down" button while reading a stupid e-mail from a coworker.
You've stumbled more pages today than words have come out of your mouth.
You begin measuring time on the basis of stumbles (e.g., "How long was that meeting? Oh, about 40 stumbles.")

Baqubah in Video

2007-07-14T07:55:00.000-07:00

On June 18th, the US forces in Iraq launched Operation Arrowhead Ripper. It is a large scale effort, mainly in the Baqubah region, with a strength of approximately 10,000 soldiers. One US soldier has been confirmed to be killed so far in the operation, with 12 being wounded. Seven other ally soldiers having been killed, with 10 being wounded. Over 113 enemy combatants have been killed, and over 100 detained.

The following videos are not all specifically from Operation Arrowhead Ripper, but are also from similar, operations in the region.

U.S. Army Soldiers from 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division battle Insurgents in Baqubah, Iraq.

American and Iraqi Soldiers take and return fire while clearing houses in Baqubah, Iraq, March 28, 2007. One American and one Iraqi Soldier were injured during the exchange.

U.S. and Iraqi Soldiers search for insurgents and interact with the local populace.

A Stryker battalion engaging insurgents immediately upon arriving to the area. Heavy house to house fighting with tanks and small arms fire.

Stryker Soldiers of B Company, 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Division take up blocking positions on the western outskirts of Baqubah, Iraq in support of Operation Arrowhead-Ripper, a major military offensive to clear insurgents from the city. They make sure no one gets in or out of Baqubah, ensuring insurgents do no escape the city. Soldiers are equipped with the new Land Warrior System.

B-roll of U.S. Soldiers and Iraqi forces distributing food to local citizens in Baqouba, Iraq. Scenes include Iraqi women carrying a bag of rice, a large group of women waiting to receive flour and rice and U.S. Soldiers and Iraqi forces addressing the waiting crowd.

Finally, I show you a video montage of the faces of 3,480 of the soldiers that have given their lives in Iraq. No matter, whether you're for the war or not, these brave men and women must be honored and remembered for their ultimate sacrifice.

Sources: Wikipedia, YouTube

If the United States Were A Free Country...

2007-07-13T22:50:00.000-07:00

If the United States were a free country, its citizens’ mail, phone calls and electronic communications never would be subject to warrantless government snooping . . .

Read more here.

Service

2007-07-12T22:31:00.001-07:00

A Letter to Diggers

2007-07-12T21:33:00.001-07:00

Dear Diggers,

Ron Paul will not be the next president. The iPhone is an over-hyped piece of crap. Possession of marijuana should have a minimum sentence of 20 years. Bush is one of the best presidents ever. The Wii is a wannabe gaming machine that looks like a toaster. Windows is better than Mac OS and Linux combined. The PS3 will trample the 360 and Wii in due time. Atheism is stupid. The new comment system is awesome. Fox News is actually fair and balanced. Kevin Rose is an ass. Global Warming isn't real. A picture section isn't needed. Ubuntu is a terrible operating system. Top 10 lists are idiotic. Steve Jobs is a douchebag. Osama planned and organized 9/11. Homeland Security is a necessary agency. The Iraq War was necessary.

Sincerely,
Ted "King of the Internet" Stevens

We're Already Paying for Universal Health Care

2007-07-11T08:29:00.000-07:00

According to the World Health Organization, France is ranked number one in health care. At the same time the United States is all the way down at 37. So should we change our system to mirror the French system since it seems to outshine us so well? Well, that would drown us in horrible new taxes wouldn't it? Nope. In fact, you may be already paying for universal health care, but not receiving it.

To figure this all out, we're going to have to know how much the French actually pay for their health care system. According to BBC, France spends about 9% of their GDP on their system. The French GDP is estimated to be $1.9 trillion in 2006. 9% of 1.9 trillion is about 170 billion. France's population is about 64 million. That means that the per capita cost of health care in France is about $2,700. Multiply that by America's estimated population of 301 million, and you get a cost of about $813 billion. That is definitely a lot of money, but we may be already spending it on socialized health care in America. It is estimated that Americans spent about $2 trillion on health care in 2005.

Medicare and Medicaid are government run health care programs. The House Ways and Means Committee stated that in 2002, Medicare expenditures for the government were about $257 billion. At the same time, premiums paid by Medicare subscribers were about $231 billion. Medicaid on the other hand had a budget of $295 billion in 2004. So, the total costs of Medicare and Medicaid in America is about $783 billion, just $30 billion short of equaling the relative cost of the French system.

Government spending on health care does not even stop at Medicare and Medicaid. According the the Journal of the American Medical Association, the government subsidizes about 45% of US medical care costs, covering Medicare, Medicaid, workers' compensation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, public hospitals, and government public health activities. It is estimated that in 2005, Americans spent about $2 trillion on health care. If the government is paying 45% of this, they are actually spending about $900 billion on our health care system, more than enough to pay for a French health care system in America.

So, now we have to ask ourselves if we're up to the task of matching the French health care system in America. I say we can do even better. No system is perfect, including in France, but for $2 trillion we should be blowing the competition out of the water.

UPDATE: The two Wikipedia links were fixed.

The Better of Two Evils

2007-07-10T10:42:00.000-07:00

Often, when I ask people why they voted one way or another, they tell me it was the better of the two evils. Most of the time it is said jokingly, but there's always at least some hint of truth in their words. And it's true, we are often forced between two choices we do not like. This seems especially true when it comes to presidential candidates. But why can't we have the lesser of two goods to choose from?

The problem with the system is not necessarily the evils within it. There will always be people and candidates you probably won't like. The problem primarily lies with the fact that we have narrowed ourselves down to a two party system. There is nothing in the Constitution that states we must limit our votes to certain parties, or even a party at all.

There are lots of reasons why we have a two party system, such as the fact that the debates are controlled by an organization that is owned by the Democratic and Republican parties. But that's just part of the whole mentality that not voting for one of the two major parties is throwing your vote away, which has been shoved down are throats for longer than we can remember.

I hear people say, "Well I like this candidate, but they doesn't have a chance to win so I'm not voting for them. The proper way to look at it is, "This person supports most of my views better than anyone else. I'm going to vote for them and trying to support them as best I can." If everyone took more of an optimistic view towards elections, then maybe that candidate that you like could actually become president of these fine United States.

So go out and change the system so that you are voting for the better of many goods, rather than just limiting yourself to two evils.

Parents and Computers

2007-06-24T10:02:00.000-07:00

This morning I came across a page on Microsoft's website about interpreting computer slang for parents. It amused me so much I actually laughed out loud. The very image of a person sitting there trying to interpret "leetspeak"is absurdly hilarious.

The idea that someone is trying to learn this, so called, slang is ridiculous. You either know it or you don't. Why would you ever want to learn it? Most people who know it just from playing computer games, such as Counter-Strike, with immature or "special" people who either think it's cool or are using it in an ironic manner.

More to the point, I see parents trying to spy on their kids or control what they do on the Internet and I think it's quite silly. Of course, I'm not talking about really young kids, I mean teenagers mostly. Unless you monitor a teen all the time, you're never going to be able to control all the content they are exposed to anywhere, let alone on the Internet.

Trust me when I say there's a lot of unfounded fears that parents have about the technology their children are getting into. I once worked for a company that made computer security and monitoring software. A specific portion of my workweek was spent on a quality assurance panel that reviewed customer concerns. They had a software package that allegedly allowed parents to control everything about how children used their computer. The biggest concern parents had was stopping their kids from viewing porn, which is understandable. The second biggest concern was stopping creeps from talking to their kids. It is another understandable fear, but it has been fueled too much by the media and taken out of proportion in most cases.

The best way to protect your children from the sickos out there, is to talk to them about it in a manner that's not condescending. Trying to irrationally restrict a teenager's access to something one of the worst mistakes parents can make. If you make something seem taboo, it will only make them want to find out why it's such a taboo. Plus, there's that whole thing about teenagers being rebellious towards authority figures. And if your kids really want to access something on the Internet, they will one way or another, especially with the wide-spread adoption of computers in the majority of American homes, schools, and libraries.

So, don't makes yourself look like an ass trying to learn slang that your kids use. If you're worried about what they might be doing, talk to them.

And don't even get me started on the stupidity of the V-Chip...

Throwing Money Away - Presidential Elections

2007-06-23T22:40:00.000-07:00

Officially, candidates for the 2008 Presidential Election have raised over $150 million, although that number is probably closer to $200 - 250 million by now. In 2004, the total contributions ran up around $880 million. The 2000 election drew in about $540 million. So, in less than a decade of presidential elections, about $2 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) has been spent on bids for the White House. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. If you factor in all the money spent on elections for congress as well as the presidency, it's nuts. But let's focus on that 2 billion.

So what could you actually spend $2 billion on that wouldn't be a a complete waste? Well,

a loaf of bread costs on average $2, so a billion loaves of bread could be bought with all of those greenbacks.
About 4 million cheap $500 laptops could be bought for schools.
Over 16,000 full-ride scholarships to Harvard could be given out.
About 250 water treatment plants could be built in poor nations with bad water supplies.
4,000 $500,000 homes could be given to the less fortunate
0.023% of the nation's debt could be paid off
Over 1 million high-quality body armor vests could be purchased for soldiers in our armed forces
So much more...

So do you think all this money is going towards a worthy cause?

The iPhone is Amazing

2007-06-23T12:17:00.000-07:00

But it really isn't worth it.

The iPhone is an interesting device. It can can play music, movies, view pictures, access the internet, and it's even a phone, with a nifty touch display. Yet, the cons seem to outweigh the pros.

It can only be used with Cingular, or the new AT&T, or whatever the hell they decided to call themselves this week. But the point is their service is one of the worst of the major carriers, which is saying a lot. Then it uses the terrible Edge network instead of G3.

The battery life surprised me quite a bit, I was expecting closer to 4 hours max, so kudos on that. But the battery is not removable, which is nothing more than a horrible design flaw. Whether or not your phone has good battery life you want to be able to swap a battery out, especially if you go on long business trips.

Another gripe of mine is the screen. I do like the innovative idea of having a large touch screen phone, but it will scratch. I guarantee it will scratch. Albeit, the face is glass, but glass scratches too. Trust me on this one, I had a HP TC1100 tablet with a glass screen. I was ever so careful with it and made sure to buy protectors for it, but nevertheless it still got scratched during its thorough usage. Not to mention since you have to touch it, there will be oily fingerprints all over it.

But other than that the iPhone is great. Oh, there's also the PS3 style of insane pricing. So if you're willing to put up with all the cons and have lots of cash burning a hole in your pocket, have fun with the amazing iPhone.

Images of War

2007-06-21T06:45:00.001-07:00

The News is Shit

2007-06-20T11:15:00.000-07:00

We all know the news is shit. If you don't know it's shit, you're full of shit. The media around the world, but especially in America, feeds pile after pile of steaming manure down our throats and we sit there taking it as if it's delicious chocolate.

So who's at fault? These damn network executives and producers. Of course... wait, NO, it's our fault. Guess what, we live in a nation with a capitalist economy in which businesses don't do something just for the sake of doing it. They do it to please their shareholders by earning as much profits as possible. They get these profits through advertisements that are worth more the higher the ratings. Which means, the more you watch, they more they make. The more they make, the more they think what they're putting out is what you want.

The more you watch stories about Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith's baby, the more you perpetuate the sloth and idiocy of the "news". We have Americans and Iraqis dying in Iraq everyday. The Bush Administration is pushing for a new war against Iran. Gross criminal acts are taking place in every branch of the government, why the fuck do we care if a spoiled slutty brat is put up in jail for a few weeks.

I hear people say they hate Fox News and Bill O'Reilly, but watch it just to see how bad it is. Are you fucking kidding me?! You're just making the man more money! Why would you ever do that if you don't like him or his network. Admittedly, I too am part of this problem and have done this on multiple occasions. But unlike me, most don't see a problem with this.

Samuel Clemens once said the problem with newspapers is that people mistake their content for news. Think about that the next time you open a newspaper or turn on CNN and how much you and your fellow man have influence on their content.

Chili is All About Improv

2007-05-24T15:52:00.000-07:00

What better time than May is there to begin practicing your chili artistry before the next Superbowl. Well, at least that's my mentality. I admittedly love making and eating chili, but because of that people are always asking me how I make such great chili. So, I'll lay down my tips on how to make some insanely good chili (okay, admittedly, it's probably not insanely good, but I had to work something in there to follow the loose theme of this blog).

Basically, I cook my chili in three stages. You can break them down into two, but I usually make two batches, one spicy and one not-so-spicy to cover everyone's tastes.

STAGE 1: Cook Some Meat
Some people go all out on the special types and cuts of meats they use in their chili, but I like to keep it simple. I use high-quality lean ground beef with 7% fat. You can definitely use beef with higher fat content, but you get about the same taste with leaner meat that is healthier.

Find yourself a good sized pan, chop up an onion (any type of onion will usually do), and mix in a few pounds of ground beef. You can cook the meat and onions with some oil, but I just keep it simple.

STAGE 2: Meat, Sauce, and Stuff
Once the meat is cooked, you'll want to put it in a big pot with your tomato sauces. The amount of tomato sauce you use is dependent on how much meat and beans you plan to add. For a couple pounds of meat I use about 30oz. of regular Hunt's tomato sauce and 28oz. of chunky tomato sauce. Some people prefer stewed tomatoes over the chunky sauce, but not me. Next you'll want to add some beans. S&W has some good chili beans, which I believe are just kidney beans with some extra flavoring. In reality, just about any type of canned bean will do. I usually use about 30oz. of beans with the previous stated amounts of sauce and meat.

At this point you'll want to cook your chili for about 30 minutes. During this time is when I add some basic seasonings and spices that don't really add too much heat to it. Some seasoning ideas are oregano, ground cumin, mustard powder and/or just plain mustard, Jack Daniel's BBQ sauce, beef botulin, and a nice bottle of Sam Adams Summer Ale. I don't have any specific guidelines on how much seasoning to put in, but the idea in any good cooking is to keep mixing stuff up and tasting it to how everything blends. Also for an interesting twist trying adding a couple stalks of chopped celery to the mix.

STAGE 3: Make it Hot
This is the point where you'll want to separate the chili into the two batches if you want one to be less spicy. Just keep cooking the non-spicy chili for about another 1/2 hour and then let it simmer for a couple hours, while stirring every once in a while.

Now, the main ingredient to making chili hot is of course chili powder. I would suggest using just regular chili powder. You can use habanero chili powder, but I would only use a pinch at most if you want a sharper spice, because that stuff can kill your tastebuds and stomach if used too liberally. Another alternative/additive to chili powder is cheyane pepper, which is usually hotter than standard chili powder, but not as bad as the habenaro.

Once you have the basic spicy flavor I would suggest adding some chopped jalapeños, red pepper (the kind you get at a good pizza place), and some chipotle Tabasco sauce. As always, be careful in how much you add, some of these spices can be very volatile, especially to people with sensitive taste buds. A good way to lessen the bite of the spices is to add some sour cream.

Cook the chili for about 30 more minutes and then let it simmer for a couple hours. Technically it can be served at any point while it is simmering, but the longer chili is left out or kept in the fridge, the longer the flavors are able to develop.

Good luck, and have fun making a nice batch of chili.

Anti-Drug Commercials Miss the Mark

2007-05-23T21:19:00.000-07:00

The War on Drugs was lost before it started, yet it continues on and on wasting taxpayers' money. Part of that waste is directed towards "informing" people why they should do drugs, whether it be tobacco or meth. Millions of dollars go into adverts every year to convince people that they should do drugs, when in fact all they do is annoy both users and nonusers.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be drug education programs. Those can be useful if they are honest, but many are not. The only way to deal with the drug problem is to openly discuss it. Kids and teens need to be treated as equals on the matter. By making drugs seems like a forbidden fruit, it only makes them want it more. Teens are rebellious (at least I was) and if their parents drink, but tell them not to, guess what they're going to do. The same thing goes with drugs.

If you want to prevent your kids from smoking pot or doing even worse things, be honest with them. Tell them about the times you did those sort of things (if you did) or about experiences you've witnessed and what you learned. Let them know that they probably won't die or ruin their life from doing one joint or taking a hit from a bong, but that doing it too much will ruin any possible good experiences. Moderation is the key to teach your kids about anything, why not be honest and tell them the same thing when it comes to mild drugs like pot.

These commercials on TV are really not helping anyone. They either insult the intelligence of the target audience or gross out the person who's just trying to watch a rerun of The Simpsons while they eat their diner. Hell, I almost lit up a cigarette just to rebel against the stupidity of one of the commercials before I realized I just should act my age. If that's my reaction, how do you think teenagers with the same sort of mentality are going to react?

Ron Paul, Not Just Another Canidate

2007-05-21T11:08:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul has been an Internet sensation since the first GOP presidential debate, but recently he has garnered more attention from his statements in the second debate. Although most of the attention Paul had been getting was from the Internet underground, but recently that has spilled over into the main stream media. But is Ron Paul really a serious candidate for president of the United States of America?

The simple answer is yes. This is the guy people should be looking towards if they are conservative. Paul is really the only candidate with the spine to show true conservatism instead of the stale taste of neo-Republicanism. It's hard to respect most Republicans in politics today because they do not follow the simple beliefs of conservatism that the party originally held.

Dr. Paul takes a position and stays on the position while talking straight to people about it. While I do not agree with all of his beliefs, he is the only Republican candidate who has shown any sign of integrity. Is what he said at the second debate, about America's foreign policy, inflammatory? No. You'd have to be a completely arrogant lying politican who wants a neo-fascist police state in America to not see that our previous Middle Eastern foreign policies have attributed to what happened on 9/11. Was Paul giving Osama bin Laden and other terrorists refuge because we are partly to blame for why they want to attack us? No, of course not. He was stating something that seems to be a taboo in politics these day, dissenting against the current government.

According to the latest FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, Guilliani's numbers have dropped significantly in the last month. At the same time the other candidates have not really gained any more support, which moves a lot of people into the unsure category. In fact, people are equally supportive of Guilliani as they are unsure, both coming topping out at 24%. This is a good sign that people disagreed with Guilliani's message during the second debate, and candidates such as Ron Paul have a chance at gaining a chunk of that unsure category. With his ability to differentiate himself from the crowd with actual conservative views, the next month of watching the presidential race should be a bit more interesting.

Source: Polling Reports

The Devil Made Me Do It!

2007-05-20T23:52:00.000-07:00

In a tragic, yet sadistically amusing story, a baby was put in a microwave by her father. Luckily, the 2-month old child was not killed, just severely burned. The mother of course doesn't blame the the 19-year-old father.

Eva Marie Mauldin said Satan compelled her 19-year-old husband, Joshua Royce Mauldin, to microwave their daughter [on] May 10 because the devil disapproved of Joshua's efforts to become a preacher.

Satan is a great scapegoat for any problems you're having. Didn't pay the rent on time? The devil of course made you do it! Ate the heart of a small child? It's not your fault, the devil was controlling you.

Praise rationality, for the justice system has yet to fall for this silly ploy and Mr. Mauldin could receive up to 99 years in prison.

Joshua Mauldin faces a charge of injury to a child causing serious bodily harm, which carries a possible prison term of five to 99 years, as well as a fine of up to $10,000.

Too bad castration isn't allowed in cases such as this. People like Mr. Mauldin and his stupid wife should not be allowed to unleash their horrible seed upon this world any further (no offense to their already born and tramatized daughter). It's bad enough that the man tried to kill his daughter in a microwave, but it's even worse that the mother can't even come to terms with the fact that he is responsible.

By the way, I think it might be important to note that this occurred in Texas.

Source: Associated Press

Atheism in America

2007-05-03T13:05:00.000-07:00

Religion is a hot topic for many people. In America, this seems especially so, since we are a melting pot of religious freedom in which church and state are supposed to be separated. This can often cause many societal and political debates that involve religion (gay marriage and abortion come to mind). Because of this America seems to be a fairly religious state, but is it?

The majority of the world's population is religious, which isn't surprising in the least bit. But about 1.1 billion people fit into the non-religious category, which includes a wide range of people from secularists to the anti-religious. With about 6.7 billion people on the Earth today, about 16% of them are non-religious. Of this 16%, between 12 and 15 percent are estimated to atheist. Only Islam and Christianity encompass more people, with 21% and 33% percent of the world's population respectively. But even with this large number worldwide, how do non-religious people fare in the United States?

Various findings show that about 9-14% of Americans are nonreligious. That's about 27-36 million people. Only a surprising 0.4% of these people actually claim to be atheists, while 0.5% claim to be agnostic. No matter your religious standing, those numbers should seem low. What's more interesting though, is how high the percentage of atheists and non-religious people is in other first-world nations.

Sweden is routinely considered to be one of the most non-religious states, in which only 23% of the populace believe there is a god. In Europe overall, about 18% are atheist, which is at about 45 times higher than in the US.

So why is the United States so religious? Or are people less open about their non-religious attitudes in a nation where religious freedom in explicit? One comment I often hear is that America was founded as a Christian nation. This is actually not true. Albeit, Christianity was, and still is, the most prominent religion, the majority of the founding fathers were either non-religious, or at least rationalists. So the questions still stands, why is the United States of America so religious, or at least seem that way?

Sources: Wikipedia, World Religion Day, World Population, Adherents.com, CIA, About.com

The Power of User-Created Content

2007-05-03T07:41:00.000-07:00

The fury of the Internet was released, especially on the Digg, when the HD-DVD encryption hex key was leaked. I'm not sure how many people actually know what to do with the key, or could even put it to use, but it was an interesting showing of what a revolt on the Internet looks like. Most people who care already know the story behind the whole fiasco. But I found a website that sums up the whole situation pretty well; http://www.09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.ws/. Anyways, fight the power and so forth, the only way Internet nerds with too much time on their hands can do; with a hexadecimal number.

Media Contact Info

2007-05-02T21:35:00.000-07:00

A list containing much of the contact information for the majority of major media outlets has been Dugg and revealed to the world. The source of the list is the Palestine Media Watch, whose main purpose is to "promote fair and accurate coverage of the Israeli occupation of Palestine in the US mainstream media."

The list is currently available at their website, and as a Google document. So, get in contact with your favorite/most hated media outlet and let them know how you feel.

Libby found guilty

2007-03-06T10:41:00.000-08:00

Irve Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., an ex-aide of Vice President Dick Cheney, has been convicted on 4 of 5 counts of obstruction of justice. This ends a long chapter in the whole Plame affair with only a conviction on an aide and the person who actually revealed Plame's identity to the media.

"We're all going back to our day jobs," Fitzgerald said outside the courthouse. "If the information comes to light, or new information comes to us that would warrant us taking some action, we will do that."

So many high-level people are implicated in this whole situation that I do no understand why not more people are coming to justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has already stated that Richard Armitage was the first one to leak Valrie Plame's identity, but he supposedly did it by "accident".

All of what's been revealed about the Bush administration's dealings with this situations has be highly suspicious at best. First of all, I don't trust Armitage. He's a dirty guy who had shit up to his ankles in the Iran Contra scandal during the Regan era. Not surprisingly, he's been in the Bush administration almost since the beginning.

Then there's the question of why would Libby lie if there was no connection to Cheney in the investigation. The only person that I know who hasn't been officially implicated into the whole affair is Bush himself.

Everything is highly suspect, and the even the jurors know it.

One juror, Denis Collins, said "there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury.
"It was said, 'Where's Rove, where are these other guys?'
"We're not saying that we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was the fall guy," Collins said.

I call bullshit on the whole situation. I'm glad Libby will be going to jail, barring a successful appeal, but the American people want justice against an administration that seems to play by their own rules, even when it comes to our national security interests.

The Compton Effect

2007-02-16T10:22:00.000-08:00

The Compton Effect is an observation in physics in which energy and momentum is transfered between two electrons when they collide. This is evidence towards the idea that light is made of photon particles. The Compton Effect is also an album being produced by independent hip-hop artist Greydon Square.

In his own words, Greydon Square is "an artist that promotes rationality and freethinking reality through hip-hop." This is a unique form of hip-hop that is not seen in the mainstream music industry. He is an aggressive atheist that strikes against the foundation of theists' beliefs.

I am not a big fan of hip-hop, I'm more of a rock aficionado, but his lyrics are engaging and very intelligent and I can't help but enjoy his music. With a mediocre mainstream music scene at best in America, independent artists, such as Greydon, are a nice change of pace. Not since 2Pac have I seen a hip-hop artist who equates to this level of quality lyrics.

Best of luck to Greydon on finishing his album, which is due out June 6, 2007. You can find more about Greydon Square and The Compton Effect at TheComptonEffect.com.

Anti-war = Anti-troop?

2007-02-16T10:00:00.000-08:00

Almost everyone I know is against the occupation of Iraq, similar to the majority view of America. I, myself, am against the way the occupation is being handled. Basically, we should either be there to win or be pulling out, and we don't have the support at home to win the war, so we should be pulling out. But that is not the point I'm trying to make.

Many conservatives on the floors of Congress, and elsewhere, have said that not supporting the war is the same as being against the troops. I just don't buy this argument. A lot of my friends are against the war because they are sick of our soldiers getting killed and maimed for what they believe is a unnecessary cause.

I personally have a problem with this argument because I have friends and family over in Iraq and I don't want them to be harmed whether that means pulling them out or putting the necessary number of troops in. So am I anti-troop because I want to see the ones I care about come back in one piece? I would say no. Therefore, most of the people against the war for the same reason are not anti-troop, they are simply against a war that was poorly planned and executed.

1/2 Hour News Hour?

2007-02-15T11:22:00.000-08:00

Why?

This is the question I ask whenever I think of Fox News' new "comedy" show 1/2 Hour News Hour. Why would you create something like this? Why would someone watch something like this? Why would someone fund this show?

The show is supposed to be a show that is a conservative parallel to Comedy Central's The Daily Show. Unfortunately, what Fox doesn't realize, is that they are supposed to be a news network. I know, I know, they really are just a extremely conservative facade that just pretends to tell the news (not that CNN or MSNBC are much better at reporting news). But The Daily Show just makes fun of the news and other absurdities in the world. They aren't inheriently liberal, the fact of the matter is Republicans just tend to make bigger asses of themselves than Deomcrats (but not by much). If you actually watch Jon Stewart, you know that he makes fun of Deomcrats a lot, especially back when Clinton was president.

The problem with 1/2 Hour News Hour, other than its pourly contrived name, is that it is just not funny. If the preview (video below) of the show is as bad as it will be when it airs, it will not last long (I would hope).

Basically the preview shows an overly rehearssed faux news script that has either a really annoying audience laughing at every little thing or an overused laugh-track. In either case, they focus on Obama and come up with really stupid jokes about Marion Barry supporting him and Obama's "new" magazine, BO, filled with ariticles who's titles I think were supposed to induce laughter (since the "audience" was laughing so hard), but really just made me cringe. I'm suprised they didn't tell the joke about why the chicken crossed the road so that Obama could fry him up on the other side.

The "jokes" feel so forced and poorly written that I don't know how they even got the funding to make the first few episodes. Then again, they did fund the publishing of O.J. Simpon's If I Did It, so who knows what they're smoking over there. In any case, the show is bad and should be pulled from the air sooner than most of Fox's new shows.

The show is supposed to air Februray 18th, but I could not find any offical announcement to this point or an actual airtime.

Rogan vs Mencia

2007-02-15T10:31:00.000-08:00

If you haven't noticed, there's been a feud sweltering between Joe Rogan and Carlos Mencia. Rogan is know to go after comedians that steal material from others. In this case, Rogan went after Mencia at The Comedy Store (video bellow).

Basically, Rogan claims that Mencia has stolen a number of jokes from various comedians. From what I can tell, there are two pieces of allegedly stolen material presented in the video. One, a joke about building a massive wall on the border of Mexico using illegal immigrants, that comedian Ari Shaffir originally performed. The other was a 13 minute segment in one of Mencia's HBO specials, that was supposedly taken directly from George Lopez's HBO special. The rest of the video is mostly just Rogan and Mencia arguing and talking shit.

Some make the argument that Joe is jealous of Carlos, but I don't think that is the case. Joe is just pointing out something that he's observed and he's sticking to revealing what he believes in the truth. He's done the same thing towards Dane Cook, who allegedly has stolen material from Bill Hicks and Louis CK. My problem, is with the way Rogan is presenting his claims.

What Joe Rogan needs to do is create a second video, highlighting Mencia's allegedly stolen material and the performances they were stolen from. In fact, he should make a documentary about how plagiarism is rampant is all of comedy, because that's the truth of the matter.

I like what Rogan is doing, but I'm not entirely convinced that Carlos Mencia is the uncreative bastard that steals other people's material, that Joe has made him out to be. I'd like to see more evidence presented in a less adversarial manner.

Joe Rogan VS Carlos Mencia onstage

In related news, Joe Rogan was banned from The Comedy Store due to his on-stage confrontation with Carlos Mencia.

What's Wrong with You?

2007-02-08T20:58:00.000-08:00

Have you ever had someone ask you what was wrong with you? I'm sure you have, whether you'll admit it or not. I know it has happened to me a many number of times. For a long time I was not be able to come up with a generally good response to that question, but now I think I've come across the solution.

Make a list. It's actually quite simple. Just make a list of all the things that are "wrong" with you, the more nonsensical the better. You should keep it with you at all times, possibly in your wallet or purse.

The look on people's faces when you actually pull out a list is priceless, even more so once you proceed to name each item on it. I have attempted this a total of four time on unique people and have received some fairly hilarious responses. Most people have a puzzled look and just are speechless.

P.S. Remember to add the fact that you carry the list around with you as an item on your list.

'Homophobic' Snickers

2007-02-07T10:07:00.000-08:00

Apparently Snickers insights homophobia. Or at least, that is what The Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD are claiming.

If you are one of the people who did not see the Super Bowl this past weekend, then you pissed a nonsensical and fairly benign advertisement put on by Snickers. The ad showed two garage mechanics working on a car and one of them pulls out a Snickers bar puts it in his mouth and attempts to eat it without hand while continuing his work on the car. The other mechanic looks longingly at the Snickers bar and begins to eat it from the other man's mouth, eventually ending is a "kiss". The two men jump back and one nervously proclaims that they just kissed while the other decides they need to do something manly to counteract the kiss. They then proceed to pull hair off their chest while yelling in pain.

I found the commercial somewhat amusing the first time I saw it, but once was enough. I did not see any harm in the ad, and I am sure most of America did not as well.

What gay rights groups do not seem to understand is that is was meant to be humorous, not a serious bash against gays. Now if one of the mechanics started acting gay and the other one beat the hell out of him, that would obviously be crossing the line, but it was a harmless joke. A harmless, 30 second, fairly lame joke. Get over yourselves and realize that gays are the butt-end (no pun intended) of many jokes in our society. We all need to be able to laugh at ourselves and each other, so the best thing you can do is make a joke right back.

I think Carlos Mencia puts it best, "Gay people, if you can take a penis, you can take a joke."

Walker Lever

2007-02-07T06:48:00.000-08:00

It has been nearly 3 years since NBC merged with Universal Studios. Once this happened Conan O'Brien had a running joke on his show in which he would pull a lever and have small clips of Walker, Texas Ranger, which was previously owned by Universal, to be shown.

I had almost completely forgotten about this segment until I came across a couple of clips on YouTube. If you haven't seen it yet, or just want a good laugh for the day, I have posted both bellow. It just shows how awesomely bad the writing and acting was on that show (which lasted for 8 years!). Enjoy!

If you find more clips, please let me know. I would love to be able to post all of them here.

Format War with No Winners

2007-01-12T10:12:00.000-08:00

Lately I've seen a lot of people in Digg arguing about whether Blu-ray or HD DVD will win the current format war and most of them are either bashing Sony about Blu-ray or bashing the Sony bashers. It's a vicious cycle. The problem with these arguments (other than a lot of personal attacks), is that neither format will win this war.

If you have not heard about the format war between Blu-ray and HD DVD, then you probably are not into technology all that much. But in any case, there is a format war going on for supremacy of the next generation multimedia medium. Blu-ray is technically superior, but costs a bit more to make. Neither format is inexpensive at this point and the main reason to get a standalone player for these formats is if you want to watch video in high definition (both are currently encoded in 1080p, the highest definition in present commercial TVs). Blu-ray can hold quite a bit more data than HD DVD and comes standard on a PlayStation 3. Microsoft released an HD DVD attachment for the Xbox 360 late last year as well.

Both formats are going head to head with each other, but my prediction is that neither will win. Friends of mine often talk about the format war while not understanding what's actually behind it all. The assumption many have is that there has to be a winner in a format war. This is just not true. Many formats that seem superior to others in the past have failed to become adopted (can you say laser disc, MiniDisc, Betamax). The truth of the matter is that there really is not a relatively high demand for either of these formats.

Back when VHS's ruled the world there was this thing that came out called a DVD. It supported a huge technical advantage over VHS and was eventually adopted as the current standard format for video and many other applications. We didn't just change formats for video, we changed the entire medium. There was a relatively large plastic box with magnetic tape in it and then there was a small disc that held much more data, easy tracking, no need to rewind, and enough space to now put movie "extras" in with the movie. Now we have the choice of going from a small to disc to another small disc that basically only increases the resolution of the video and room for more extras. The only real reason to change to this new format is if we want to see movies in HD on our new shiny HDTVs. The only problem is that just about everybody has a regular DVD player and those who don't can get one for very cheap. This along with the price of the DVD being about half of a Blu-ray or HD DVD makes a very bad case for buying one of these new format players.

Consumers don't like format wars. It confuses them and so most will wait until just one remains standing. Of course, Warner Bros. recently developed a disc that will store both Blu-ray and HD DVD formats on it at the same time. Unfortunately, unless this is heavily marketed, the majority of people will still think there is a format war going and will be hesitant to decide on a format. The biggest chance this generation of media has of succeeding is if the PS3 begins selling like hotcakes around the world. This is what happened with the PS2, which helped the DVD get adopted much faster, along with the fact that there were not real competitors to the DVD format.

So with all of these factors, my prediction is that these formats at best will get a lukewarm adoption in the world, as they have so far. Most likely what will happen is the actual medium will change eventually, just as when we went from VHS to DVD. The next step in the media evolution seems to be solid-state memory. Flash drives have been exponential decreasing in price and companies like IBM and SanDisk have found new ways to create high density solid-state drives. By the time Blu-ray or HD DVD has the chance to become well adopted there may be a new format dangling in people's faces.

Of course, I could be wrong about this format war as I have been wrong about things like this is the past. I once predicted that MiniDiscs would take over the CD format, but I was obviously proved wrong and that is what partly leads me to my conclusions this time through. The MiniDisc was technically superior to CDs in many ways, but there was already a high adoption rate for CDs and MiniDiscs and their players were generally more expensive.

So you won't be seeing me watching at Blu-ray or HD DVD any time soon. The lower resolution DVD format still looks fine, even on my beautiful HDTV. Once you're immersed into a movie, your eyes will not really care if the video is in 480p or 1080p, they're busy enjoying everything else about it.

Bush, A Page Behind the Rest of the Nation

2006-12-20T16:58:00.000-08:00

President Bush finally admitted to the nation today that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq. It only took him 3 1/2 years to realize the obvious, while the rest of us have been yelling this at him for quite some time. I guess when 70% of the American public disapprove of your handling of the war it becomes harder and harder to be oblivious to reality.

Mr. Bush, you say that the insurgents are the ones hurting US efforts in Iraq, but they wouldn't even be there if you would have followed the first basic rule of occupation, secure the entire country. There were so many things that went wrong that I'm not going to even begin listing them here. My point is, we need to admit to ourselves that this war is not worth it any more.

I don't like drawing too many similarities to Iraq and Vietnam, but some are unavoidable. During the 1968 presidential election, Richard Nixon ran on the platform of getting us out of Vietnam. In the four years of Nixon's first term, he tried just about anything to "win" the Vietnam War without a full military withdrawal (read: defeat). Nixon even contemplated using nuclear weapons on North Vietnam. Even with the best efforts of the White House, America was unable to solve the debacle that was Vietnam. Hence, in 1972, Nixon ran on the same platform as '68, ending the Vietnam War.

So what was accomplished during those four years? The war was still raging in '72 and American society was at an interesting point in our cultural history. Oh yeah, also an approximation of 32,000 US military personnel were killed during that four year period. And what happened in the end? We pulled out because the war was not worth it. From a military standpoint America was "winning" the war in Vietnam, but from a realistic standpoint there was nothing to win, nothing to gain, no real accomplishment. So, here we are, more than three decades later in the same sort of situation.

Mr. Bush, you failed your country by not learning the lessons of history. You failed your country by not planning a realistic occupation. You failed your country by ignoring reality for more than three years. If we are to fight a war against terror we must first look within ourselves before trying to quell the external forces. You cannot fight an enemy abroad if you cannot even fight your own incompetence within.

I hope for the sake of our brave soldiers and their families that you realize what you've done. Realize that there is no victory in occupation. There is no victory in sending soldiers off to die for nothing. The only victory that we can hope for, is that America will finally learn its lesson after history repeats itself for a second time.

Yes, Your Daddy is a Criminal, but so is Everyone Else

2006-05-02T17:41:00.000-07:00

The debate about immigration seems to be flaming even greater recently than usual, which was made even more obvious by the marches that were just held. In case you’ve been oblivious to the recent discussions around the nation regarding immigration, Republicans don’t know what to do, the American people are divided on the matter, and Democrats are pissed because nobody cares what they are saying.

So as I was watching the news about these wonderfully productive marches I noticed one of the most amusing signs. It stated, “My Daddy is Not a Criminal”. Let’s think about that for a second. Is he an illegal immigrant? Hmm, well it has the adjective illegal attached onto it, so I would be inclined to say yes, he is a criminal. I’m also sorry to say that every illegal immigrant in the United States is a criminal. When they wake up they are criminals, when they go to work they are criminals, and when they go to bed they are criminals. That father may be a perfectly law-biding citizen in every other way, but his mere presence in this country is illegal, and therefore he IS a criminal.

Now, what I just said might sound a little bit harsh, but it is the truth. There’s also another truth, everyone is a criminal in America. I’m sorry I had to break the news, but yes folks, you’re all criminals. You’re probably thinking to yourself right now, ‘this guy is nuts, I’m not a criminal!’ Guess what, I bet most of you break the law everyday, whether it be speeding in your car, jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk (this actually illegal in a number of cities), or maybe even loitering (you damn whippersnappers always loitering around). So aren’t we all criminals at least to some degree? Is being an illegal immigrant more criminal than some of the criminal things we do every day?

Illegal immigration is going to happen, that’s a fact, and we Americans have been able to deal with it for quite some time now. The question is should we accommodate illegal immigrants? It seems that many Americans are empathetic towards immigrants whether illegal or not, but also understand that we can’t just allow everyone who wants in to actually come here. To me it seems that the majority of illegal immigrants come here so that they can work, and companies are willing to hire them because they don’t have to pay those minimum wages. The simplest solution to this is to crack down on all the companies that hire immigrants illegally. If there are fewer jobs available for them, they may not be willing to come over quite as quickly. My only concern with this solution is that companies may be fearful of hiring legitimate Mexican workers just because they will not want to take a chance of being investigated at all for hiring anyone who is illegal, thus making life worse for those who are already American citizens or have visas or green cards.

The people I feel who are getting the shortest end of the stick are the legal immigrants. These people have to work so very hard just to get into our country and then they have to know more than almost any state-born American knows about this country to actually become a citizen. Here they spent a lot of money in many cases and worked very hard to get into this country legally, and these illegal immigrants are undermining all of that by just waltzing their way into this country.
So here’s my final solution (I know that sounds bad) to the immigration problem. We give illegal immigrants an ultimatum. We know that we cannot deport every single illegal immigrant in America, and it would be a waste of time to do so. Also many of them obviously love this country and would love to become legal citizens. They get 90 days to take a naturalization test, just the standard one that is used for the citizenship process of green card and visa holders. They may only take the test once and after they have passed it they must take a basic English test to see whether or not they have decided to at least pick up some English and naturalize themselves with our culture. They may only take the test twice. If they fail both times then they are immediately deported back to their country of origin. This of course only work for people who do not have children. If you have children who were born in the United States or are citizens of this country then their parents are automatically given citizenship as well, of course stepchildren do not count. I know this might not be a perfect solution, but I think it’s at least a starting block towards an actual solution towards fixing the immigration problem.

Your daddy may be a criminal, but if he truly loves America and wants to become a citizen he should be given a chance, as should everyone else already living the US.

Should America Leave Iraq?

2005-11-16T21:27:00.000-08:00

Recently my liberal friends have been raising their voices about getting America out of Iraq. I myself was against the war in the first place or at least against rushing to war. However, pulling troops out of Iraq at this stage would be like pulling a first-string quarterback out of football game in the fourth quarter just because he is sweating. It’s just bad strategy.

The Iraq war was poorly planned and executed; most people would agree with that I think. Unfortunately we are in the war and we cannot change that. You cannot go into reverse when your car is already going 60mph in drive. You could put the brakes on and wait for the car to slow down before going into reverse but if you slam on the brakes too fast the car behind you might hit you. That is how the war in Iraq is. We need to put on our brakes and eventually go in reverse and allow Iraq to be a sovereign nation. Leaving too quickly could be a cure that is worse than the disease.

Becoming a sovereign nation that can run itself is not going to be an overnight job though. It will take time. No one is sure how long it will take and that is why setting up timetables for leaving is backwards thinking. But becoming a sovereign nation also requires the people to take part of the government and control of their own military. They have taken great strides in doing this but there is a lot of work ahead and progress has been impeded by continuing insurgency.

One of the main things that need to happen is to get the international community involved in Iraq. This is not a new concept, but nothing is being done to get the world involved. If we allow the entire world help in the rebuilding of Iraq it will be a strong push against insurgents showing them that it is not just the US and UK who is behind all of this; the whole world is.

Another concern of mine is the amount of money being put into Iraq. What happened to the idea that Iraqi oil would pay for all of our troubles? Somehow the government has to find a way to balance fighting a war and paying for war. The best way to do this would have been to get the international community involved in the first place to share some of the costs of rebuilding. Of course America has the money to do all of this, but is it really worth it to the American people? To continue our campaign in Iraq we need to find secondary sources of funding since the original ones are not working. The question is whether or not the current administration will be able to accomplish this task.

So the obvious fact is that there is no simple solution the Iraq problem. But I do find that it is obvious that we should not pull out of Iraq before they can run their own government. To do so would create more problems then solve. My only hope is that our current leaders can get this job done right and bring our troops home.

Letters to Political Parties

2005-11-15T10:49:00.000-08:00

I have never been apart of any political party. Although most of my friends and family would call me a liberal, I have never joined a liberal political party. I have decided to go straight to the source of the political parties and ask them questions that might give me an answer to which political party I would want to affiliate myself with. I am starting with the chairmen/chairwomen (not sure if there are any chairwomen) of each political party I can find.

My first target is going to be Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee. Bellow I have included a letter that I am planning to send to him via snail mail (I feel actual mail to be much more effective when trying to get responses from politicians then E-mail or fax). Feel free to tell me what you think and if I should add and/or omit anything from it. Keep in mind though this is a first draft so there are probably some grammatical and spelling errors I have not caught yet.

ATTN: Ken Mehlman
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Dear Chairman Mhelman:

I am currently writing a nonpartisan piece on varying political parties in the United States and their goals and views presently, and for the future. My goal is to hear from each chairman of these political parties and their personal views on certain matters at hand.

As you are probably well aware of, the American budget deficit and debt has grown quite large in the past several years. There are understandable reasons for some of these deficits, but how does the Republican Party plan to pay off these debts? If Republicans stay in control of the House what plans will be put into place to compensate for increased spending of the federal government?

In America there is currently a debate on Intelligent Design and its place within our public schools. What is the RNC’s stance on this issue? Should the federal government become more involved in the issue?

Abortion is a hot topic at the moment especially with President Bush’s current Supreme Court nominations. What is the RNC’s official position on this matter? Should the federal government limit abortion further or should it leave it be and let the courts handle it?

According to the polls President Bush’s approval rating has hit record lows as of late. Why do you think this is, and how should President Bush increase his standing with the public?

What is your prediction on the outcome of the 2006 midterm elections? Will Republicans keep their lead over Democrats in the House and by how much?

As an independent I would like your best reason why I should join the Republican Party.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Jon Fowler

My next letter will be to the Democratic Party. I do not plan to stop there though. So far I have contact information of the Green Party, Libertarian, and Socialist Labor Party. If there are any other parties that you would like me to write to please tell me and give any contact information you have on them.

To keep up-to-date on this letter writing campaign you can visit my blog.

Bush’s Humor Becomes Tiresome

2005-11-13T00:18:00.000-08:00

There was a time in which I thought having George W. Bush as president wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Well, not such a bad thing for comedy that is. In truth Bush’s humor ran out four or five years ago. Every time this man speaks he says something funny, but it’s becoming predictable and bland. Please Mr. Bush, get some new material. I mean you do have some of the best writers working for you.

It became more apparent this Veterans Day during Bush’s speech that he needs a new comedy writer. You know when you hear a joke and you know it’s funny, but you’ve heard it so many times you can’t laugh at it anymore, that’s what his material has become.

My favorite joke from Friday’s speech was the one about baseless facts. You all know how that one goes. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." I know I should be laughing at this, but I just can’t bring myself around to doing it anymore. It’s just not funny anymore.

Take another example, "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." Now this one did make me smirk a bit, but I should be laughing my ass off.

Maybe I’m just becoming too depressed of the fact that none of this is actually a joke. This man is serious. The fact that he is serious about what he says used to add to the comedic factor, but nowadays I find myself barely acknowledging the humor behind what Mr. Bush says.

I used to also think that this whole war thing that he’s been building on was just part of an elaborate act, but I haven’t seen the joke behind it yet. Maybe it’s one of those Andy Kaufman types of jokes where you don’t realize it’s funny until later. I sure do hope that punch line is coming up soon.

Perhaps twenty or thirty years from now we’ll get the joke. I mean we’re still waiting for the punch line form the Vietnam War and that thing ended a while ago.

Washington I-901 Passes With Flying Colors

2005-11-09T10:43:00.000-08:00

In the local Washington State election voters passed I-901 which makes illegal to smoke within “public” places. This includes privately owned establishments. I’m not a smoker myself, but I believe in a free market. I voted I-901 down and I implored other to do the same. It is one thing to limit where people can smoke but to completely illegalize it in places that are not truly public is going too far. I think DJ No Name on local radio station 107.7 The End put it best. He pointed out that everything in Seattle is so close together that this law would make it very difficult to smoke even outside. Another point is that businesses that want to make non-smoking sections, but don’t have much room to do so under the 25 foot rule have to completely ban smoking in their establishment. The fact is that a free market will take care of this problem of indoor smoking. If there is market for having smoking free establishments, then the business will take care of it. Something like 75% of restaurants and bars in the state of Washington already have banned smoking and most that still have smoking have non-smoking sections. I think this initiative went too far and I’m sad to see my fellow voters decided to pass it.

On a positive note I-912, I-330, and I-336 all were voted down. At least Washington voters decided rationally on most of the issues.

Poor Saddam

2005-11-08T13:56:00.000-08:00

With the murder of another defense lawyer for Saddam Hussein the question arises whether or not Saddam can even have a fair trial while he is still in Iraq. If America wasn't behind the trial they might have been able to get it to go to the International Criminal Court. But we all know the American government hates justice on an international scale. So maybe if we can't get a just trial for Saddam we can just throw him intro the street and allow there to be mob justice. We could get Fox to tape it and then everyone in America can watch this awesome new reality show. Now there's some good TV.

2008 and Partisan Politics

2005-11-08T10:53:00.000-08:00

As President Bush becomes more and more of a lame duck after only a year of office in his second term shift begins to focus on the 2008 election. Speculation over who will be running for office and whether or not Republicans will retain control of the executive and legislative branches has been thrown around, especially as of late. The problem that I see is that everyone is still thinking in a partisan fashion. It seems that the problem with politics in modern history has been due to partisan politics and the ruin they have had on democracy.

The news media never covers this, but what happened to having more than two parties actually having a chance in a presidential election. With all of the corruption within the parties, especially Democrat and Republican parties, the best solution would be to elect someone who is independent.

The main problem with this is that the little guy has a hard time competing against the corruptions of corporate contributions and lobbying. So whenever someone small wants to even try to become big time they have to soil themselves by playing dirty politics. The question then comes up, is there any way to have a fair election without infringing on the rights that are outlined by the Bill of Rights? I don’t see a solution in sight.

As a proponent of near absolute free speech and free media, I don’t want to hinder what the candidates can do or say. I also support capitalism and free market for the most part. That throws campaign contributions out the window. Or does it? Should corporations really be able to contribute to a candidate? Well, legally a corporation is considered a person so they can. But the truth of the matter is that corporations are not legal citizens of the United States in the sense that they cannot vote on a candidate. So perhaps we should just outlaw the financial contributions of corporations in political elections. The problem that arises from this is that then the corporations can funnel money to executives and workers with an implication that they contribute it to a corporation. Although this is possible, it still makes is more difficult for candidates to get corporate contributions, but doesn’t really solve any problem in the long run.

So what can we do to fix partisan politics? Well without infringing on rights, I don’t see how it can be done. Does that mean that we are doomed to live with a corrupt political system, where true democracy cannot thrive?

Well all hope is not completely lost. Americans can be quite resourceful if they want to be. If the majority of voters decided not to back anyone who took in a corporate contribution or affiliated themselves with a party then maybe there is some ray of hope in all of the corruption.

As Madison said in Federalist Paper #10, “The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.” Without faction, in the theory of pluralism, democracy cannot truly thrive. But if you only have two factions running the government pluralism doesn’t work. Many factions need to contribute otherwise stagnation occurs and the idea of a republican government fails. To fix this we need to break down these factions farther than just Democrat and Republican otherwise you will get what Madison feared with a tyranny of one faction controlling the majority of the government, i.e. Republican control of Congress and Executive branch.

Torture, an Art of Secrecy

2005-11-07T23:08:00.000-08:00

First off, if you're going to lie be consistent about it. The Bush Administration likes to say that "we don't torture", and then tries to block any legislation that limits and outlaws torture under the US.
Seriously though, what is the big deal about limiting torture? What ever happened to the good ol' days when you never openly tortured people so no one could point at you about it, but everyone knew it probably happened. The truth is, if the US wants to get information out of someone they will do whatever is necessary, which includes torture. The point is that you do it discretely and professionally so that is doesn't become a public debacle.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning torture. I think it is a grave issue that should be dealt with, and that no one should have the legal authority to do it. But the fact of the matter is that it's going to happen if higher-ups think it needs to happen whether or not there are laws in place. So why is Camp Bush putting the spotlight on themselves by openly rejecting anything that limits torture by the US government?

My advice would be to let this one go and completely get behind anything that goes against something that is a violation of everything that the majority of America stands for. Torture is wrong Dubya, no if's, and's, or but's, so bite the bullet and sing along, 'cause we all know that in the end if you want to torture you'll probably do it.

Tribunals Get Their Day In Court

2005-11-07T12:12:00.000-08:00

Over the last few years the Bush Administration have had their troubles with Guantanamo Bay and their military tribunals. Now the US Supreme Court will finally take up the case of whether these military tribunals against Al Qaeda suspects are legal.

A federal judge ruled last fall that Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen could not be tried by a military tribunal without violating the 1949 Geneva Convention. Unfortunately in July a federal appeals court panel, which included now Chief Justice John Roberts, voted that the president could legally go through with the tribunals despite the implications of the Geneva Convention.

The real question is whether or not these military tribunals are necessary, and why is the Bush Administration so adamant about using them? What's so wrong with using a civil federal court for these matters. The very fact that 500 law professors urged the Supreme Court to take this case should be sign enough that there is something seriously wrong with the way the government is handling the situation.

I just wish that the Supreme Court would rule unanimously against these tribunals so that the administration gets a punch in the face for it's policy regarding detainees. Chief Justice John Roberts has recused himself for this case, which means there is possibility of a 4-4 vote on this issue. This should be an interesting case to follow and could determine the future policy of how we handle POWs and other detainees.

Republicans != Conservatives

2005-11-07T00:20:00.000-08:00

When I was growing up and studying political science I always equated Republicans to being conservatives. Although I generally fall into the liberal spectrum of politics I find that conservatism is a great ideology in many respects. I have always believed in fiscal responsibility, especially when it comes to the government. Unfortunately nowadays if you try to attach Republicans to conservatism you lose that responsibility completely. You can blame Democrats all you want of past and present, but with Republicans controlling both the legislative and executive branches of government America has tumbled towards financial ruin.

Congress would like you to believe that they are trimming the budget in this upcoming fiscal year, but sadly it's really all for show. America spends $2.5 trillion a year and Congress has promised to cut spending by $35-50 billion over the next five years. And what's worse is that the gross nation debit is estimated to be more than $8 trillion. Just in fiscal 2005 there was a $319 billion budget deficit.

Now it is understandable with events over the past several years, along with recent events that there would be some debt and deficits going on. The problem is that there has been no conservation or responsibility when it comes to dealing with the nations finances over the last few years. My concept when it comes to money is that if you need to pay for something find a way to do it. What the government is doing currently is equivalent to charging your monthly bills to a credit card, and then not paying the credit card bill in hopes that the bank will just forget about those charges and let you live your merry little life. Unfortunately this is the real world and those tactics do not work in a capitalist society.

So how are we going to pay for our money woes? Simple answer is raise taxes, cut spending. I have never been for raising taxes unless they are necessary. The idea is fiscal responsibility. Okay so we need to pay for a war. Well if the war is so important then we need to find a way to pay for it. If the war on terror was detrimental to society then I think people would be willing to pay taxes to defeat the great evil. Unfortunately the majority of Americans don't believe in the war and they definitely don't want to spend their hard earned cash on it. This leaves quite a pickle for the government to deal with. So what are we supposed to do? Congress thinks making tax cuts permanent will some how help us deal with these problems.

Eventually though all of these financial problems will come back and bite us in the ass. Depending how far the problem goes there could be far reaching economical lapses. Another recession or depression is becoming less and less unlikely for our children and/or grandchildren. It's time for America to bite the bullet and stop sidestepping this issue. America needs a solution and I don't see much leadership from the top on this issue.