Yes, I do still exist and no, I haven’t fallen off the face of the earth. The reason behind my unexplained absence from life as you know it is my job. I have unofficially been designated the weekend overnight guy, which means I work every Friday and Saturday from 10pm to 6am, and then some. This only compounds the fact that I am living in a college town and am not currently going to school making me the most available person on the staff. Therefore, whenever someone needs a cover, I am the man to call, unless, of course, it would mean putting my hours for the week over that pesky 40 hr. mark. Wouldn’t wanna make those cheap bastards pay time and a half for a couple of hours that I’m taking away from my life. But I digress.
I’ve been thinking lately about the phrase, “product of my environment,” and how it’s used. Now, If you really think about it, aren’t we all products of our environments? Isn’t it our environment and how we react to it that makes us who we are? So, when someone says as an excuse to someone else, “I’m just a product of my environment,” Is that person not telling the truth? So why, then, is that phrase looked upon as nothing more than an excuse? Is it not more than just that? Is it not a basic truth of this world? So why is it a phrase that is deviled by authority figures around the world? I think it’s because they realize how true this statement is. They realize that their being is the eventuality of a series of events they have come to accept as their life. They realize that the pride that they get from their position is unwarranted. They realize that in the end they are where they are for the same reason that the people they are looking down their noses at are where they are. They reacted to their environment in a certain way.
Now, it’s 6am, and I’m not exactly sure where I’m going with this, but I do realize this. To simply say that you are a product of your environment and use that as an excuse for all your actions is irresponsible. This thought is a philosophy and to use it so senselessly is a disgrace to the principle it stands for. To understand it, and know how it affects you is to be able to properly relate this to others. But the people who disregard this as an excuse are no better. To have authority is to have responsibility, responsibility to understand those under your authority. To disregard this philosophy as an excuse is to disregard your responsibility. The authority figures in this situation has a responsibility to ask themselves, “Are they right,” Because to some degree, they are. They have a responsibility to ask themselves if they can do anything more to provide a better environment to ensure whatever situation they are in doesn’t happen again. I don’t believe there are many things that can be defined as right or wrong universally. I believe that everyone must figure that out for themselves. I do, however, believe in responsibility. I believe that one universal right decision is living up to responsibility. I think both parties in this situation have a responsibility to better understand the opposing point of view. I think, that in the end, not only are we a product of our environment, but our environment is a product of us. We have a responsibility to this, to each other, and to our environment. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Louder than Words
Greetings fellow Outkasts. I must apologize again this week for once more delaying my Matrix post. I have a good reason for this though, I got a job. Don’t worry, it’s only temporary. I meant to post the next entry in my matrix series earlier this week but I just haven’t found the time. I would post it today, but I have a much more important topic on my mind.
Sixty-one years ago tomorrow the USAAF B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay, dropped a nuclear bomb called Little Boy on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The blast instantly killed an estimated 70-80 thousand people upon impact, about 2,000 were Americans. Casualties believed to have happened as a result of the ensuing radiation bring the estimated death toll of Hiroshima to 140,000. Ninety percent of Hiroshima was either damaged or destroyed.
Three days later the USAAF B-29 Superfortress Bockscar dropped the Fat Boy nuclear bomb on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. 70,000 were killed instantly and another 60,000 were wounded. An additional 10,000 deaths have been attributed to the radiation that followed. Most of the city was spared simply because bad weather prevented the gunner from hitting the intended target. Over 260,000 Japanese survivors are still living in Japan.
One of the more disturbing facts, possibly more so than the death toll itself, is that the United States government not only stands by the decision to drop the bombs, they teach their citizens that it was justified. Supporters of the bombing say it saved the lives of many in the U.S. military and mainland Japan had the U.S. been forced to invade Japan. First of all, the death estimates for an invasion of Japan are purely speculation and cannot be the basis for a solid argument. Secondly, it potentially saved many military lives while the atomic bombings were directed at heavy populated civilian targets. Military personnel voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way while civilians are at the mercy of the militaries. To accept such mass destruction of civilian life as a casualty of war is not only callous but ignorant and detrimental to society as a whole. Supporters of the bombings also point out that other aerial battles have caused more casualties than the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not on such a scale as them. The debut of the atomic bomb on a global scale not only opened up a huge danger for the whole planet, but displayed a whole new disregard for life in general. This point has been made from philosophers such as Albert Camus to the original engineer of the bomb, Albert Einstein. Lastly, as pointed out by such military leaders as General Dwight Eisenhower and General Douglas MacArthur, the dropping of the bombs was unnecessary. Japan was already having talks of surrender; most of the Japanese support for the war was within the ranks of the Japanese military leaders, who could block the passage of surrender or a cease-fire. Many believe that Japan would have surrendered earlier had the U.S. offered that Japanese Emperor Hirohito retain his position, which was a condition of the Japanese surrender anyways. The U.S., after the Hiroshima bombing, encouraged the Japanese to petition their government to surrender and warned of a second bombing, yet did not give adequate time for political resolution, dropping the second bomb three days later. Many also argue that the U.S. did not wait for a Japanese response to the Soviet Union declaring war on them.
I am not asking you, today, to change your opinions about the decision to drop the bomb. I am merely asking you to remember the lives lost in one of the most horrible tragedies this world has seen. What disturbs me most is not the support of the decision, it’s the unquestioned support. It’s the way people ignore the crisis that took place in Japan and support the decision based on government position of the situation. A memorial at the Hiroshima Peace Park reads that, “Rest in Peace, for this mistake will not be repeated.” I now wonder if these words are anything more than foolish optimism. The people who made this statement believed that the world would never have to witness a horror like that because of the impact it made around the world. Now that impact is lost. We no longer recognize this as a mistake, it is merely collateral damage. We refuse to question the wisdom of this action, and by doing so ignore the horrible loss of life that occurred that day 61 years ago. I ask you, today, to not let their memory die, to not let their death be in vain. The dawn of atomic weaponry should’ve opened our eyes to our own wrongdoings; it should’ve shown us how monstrous we can be. Instead it made us more callous and unquestioning. It made us more willing to take lives for our own good. I am asking you, in remembrance of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to join me in a day of silence on the anniversary of their untimely deaths. I ask you to silence yourselves, just like the United States silenced hundreds of thousands of people 61 years ago. Do it to avoid desensitizing yourself to needless slaughter. Do it for the memory of those who lost their lives unnecessarily in hopes that future generations may be spared the same gruesome fate. Do it so that their message is not lost. Do it for the sake of a better humanity.
Sixty-one years ago tomorrow the USAAF B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay, dropped a nuclear bomb called Little Boy on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The blast instantly killed an estimated 70-80 thousand people upon impact, about 2,000 were Americans. Casualties believed to have happened as a result of the ensuing radiation bring the estimated death toll of Hiroshima to 140,000. Ninety percent of Hiroshima was either damaged or destroyed.
Three days later the USAAF B-29 Superfortress Bockscar dropped the Fat Boy nuclear bomb on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. 70,000 were killed instantly and another 60,000 were wounded. An additional 10,000 deaths have been attributed to the radiation that followed. Most of the city was spared simply because bad weather prevented the gunner from hitting the intended target. Over 260,000 Japanese survivors are still living in Japan.
One of the more disturbing facts, possibly more so than the death toll itself, is that the United States government not only stands by the decision to drop the bombs, they teach their citizens that it was justified. Supporters of the bombing say it saved the lives of many in the U.S. military and mainland Japan had the U.S. been forced to invade Japan. First of all, the death estimates for an invasion of Japan are purely speculation and cannot be the basis for a solid argument. Secondly, it potentially saved many military lives while the atomic bombings were directed at heavy populated civilian targets. Military personnel voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way while civilians are at the mercy of the militaries. To accept such mass destruction of civilian life as a casualty of war is not only callous but ignorant and detrimental to society as a whole. Supporters of the bombings also point out that other aerial battles have caused more casualties than the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not on such a scale as them. The debut of the atomic bomb on a global scale not only opened up a huge danger for the whole planet, but displayed a whole new disregard for life in general. This point has been made from philosophers such as Albert Camus to the original engineer of the bomb, Albert Einstein. Lastly, as pointed out by such military leaders as General Dwight Eisenhower and General Douglas MacArthur, the dropping of the bombs was unnecessary. Japan was already having talks of surrender; most of the Japanese support for the war was within the ranks of the Japanese military leaders, who could block the passage of surrender or a cease-fire. Many believe that Japan would have surrendered earlier had the U.S. offered that Japanese Emperor Hirohito retain his position, which was a condition of the Japanese surrender anyways. The U.S., after the Hiroshima bombing, encouraged the Japanese to petition their government to surrender and warned of a second bombing, yet did not give adequate time for political resolution, dropping the second bomb three days later. Many also argue that the U.S. did not wait for a Japanese response to the Soviet Union declaring war on them.
I am not asking you, today, to change your opinions about the decision to drop the bomb. I am merely asking you to remember the lives lost in one of the most horrible tragedies this world has seen. What disturbs me most is not the support of the decision, it’s the unquestioned support. It’s the way people ignore the crisis that took place in Japan and support the decision based on government position of the situation. A memorial at the Hiroshima Peace Park reads that, “Rest in Peace, for this mistake will not be repeated.” I now wonder if these words are anything more than foolish optimism. The people who made this statement believed that the world would never have to witness a horror like that because of the impact it made around the world. Now that impact is lost. We no longer recognize this as a mistake, it is merely collateral damage. We refuse to question the wisdom of this action, and by doing so ignore the horrible loss of life that occurred that day 61 years ago. I ask you, today, to not let their memory die, to not let their death be in vain. The dawn of atomic weaponry should’ve opened our eyes to our own wrongdoings; it should’ve shown us how monstrous we can be. Instead it made us more callous and unquestioning. It made us more willing to take lives for our own good. I am asking you, in remembrance of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to join me in a day of silence on the anniversary of their untimely deaths. I ask you to silence yourselves, just like the United States silenced hundreds of thousands of people 61 years ago. Do it to avoid desensitizing yourself to needless slaughter. Do it for the memory of those who lost their lives unnecessarily in hopes that future generations may be spared the same gruesome fate. Do it so that their message is not lost. Do it for the sake of a better humanity.
Monday, July 17, 2006
The More you Know
Greetings fellow Outkasts. Today I’m going to get straight to the point, right after I tell you to expect my next Matrix post within the month. For the past couple of years I have made it a personal goal to enhance my personal knowledge in a journey of self-fulfillment. During this journey I have taken much time to observe the world around me. In one of my observations I realized that one particular media station ran advertisements that encourage their viewers to educate themselves in order to make “the right” choices in life. So to counteract these “educational” promos and at the risk of being sued I bring you, The More you Know: Marijuana
Fact: The term marijuana actually comes from a Mexican word derived from a Brazilian-Portuguese term for inebriation. American anti-cannabis lobbyists coined the term to support a negative stereotype of association with a growing number of Mexican immigrants.
Fact: American politicians in the mid 20th century enacted a $100 per pound tax on cannabis using the same stamp enforcement as a similar restriction on machine gun sales.
Fact: Henry Anslinger, then-Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, was at the forefront of the movement to criminalize cannabis. He was hoping to use public support of a ban on cannabis to revive a prohibition of alcohol.
Fact: Many of the supporters for the criminalization of cannabis came from organizations who felt threatened by the hemp industry, mainly DuPont, which was suffering from low post war textile sales, and William Randolph Hearst, an American newspaper publisher who had significant interests in the timber industry.
Fact: Hemp is most commonly used to refer to cannabis’ non-drug uses. Hemp products use parts of the cannabis plant that have an insignificant amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabis’ main psychoactive substance. Modern uses for hemp include, but are not limited to:
-Housing constuction
-Food products
-Nutrition
-Clothing
-Paper
-Biofuel
-Plastics
Fact: THC is the main psychoactive substance in cannabis and the main reason behind its recreational use. So far, studies have found that THC is not physically addictive and is less harmful than legal recreational drugs like nicotine and alcohol.
Fact: Cannabis grows wild in many parts of the world, the most common wild species being Cannabis satvia. Wild cannabis commonly contains very little THC.
Fact: The recreational use of Cannabis has been traced as far back as the Neolithic Age, or Stone Age as it is more commonly referred to.
Fact: Cannabis has been used as a spiritual drug for millenia and is still used in the same manner today. Some of the more prominent examples are certain Hindu practitioners and the Rastafari movement.
-The Rastafari movement is a Christian sect that see themselves as standing against the white culture that enslaved their ancestors and removed them from their native Africa. They worship Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia as a god and part of the Holy Trinity. Selassie I was the only African monarch of a fully independent state at the time. Rastafari see the recreational use of cannabis as a way of defying white culture
-Cannabis has been used by sadhus for centuries. In Hinduism, a sadhu is a name for a practitioner of yoga who has given up the first three Hindu goals of life: kama (pleasure), artha (wealth and power), and dharma (duty). Sadhus dedicate themselves to achieving moksha (liberation).
Fact: Cannabis has many medicinal uses which include, but are not limited to:
-Appetite stimulant
-Pain reliever for terminal illnesses such as AIDS and cancer
-Relief for glaucoma and neurological illnesses such as migraines, epilepsy, and bipolar disorder
-Nausea relief for chemotherapy patients
-Reduce arterial blockage
-Treatment for multiple sclerosis
Fact: Although 11 states have declared cannabis legal for medicinal purposes, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that because cannabis is listed as a schedule I drug any possession other than approved medical research is illegal.
Fact: Because of restrictions on cannabis, cultivation techniques have rendered new strains of the plant. These strains are known as sinsemilla, Spanish for without seed. Because of local laws cannabis often must be grown indoors, reducing the chance of pollination. Once pollination occurs THC potency and production drops off. These new techniques allow the dried, seedless female flowers to be grown without exposure to the males.
Fact: Opponents of cannabis legalization argue that these sensemilla strains are more dangerous than previous strains while proponents counter by saying that because less cannabis must be smoked to achieve the same effect the sensemilla is actually safer and less potentially carcinogenic.
Fact: THC is not proven to be carcinogenic or to have any other long lasting detrimental effects. Any studies that say otherwise are marred with accusations of bias against the drug and poor methodology. Many tests are tainted by the presence of other drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. Funding and approval of testing is hard to acquire in most parts of the world due to restrictions.
Fact: Some studies of THC are purely coincidental, the most prominent having to do with a correlation between cannabis use and schizophrenia.
Fact: Conclusive studies on cannabis show that it is less likely to cause emphysema than tobacco and that sustained use does not increase the user’s risk for developing lung cancer.
Fact: Studies show that cannabis is unlikely to cause birth defects.
Fact: Cannabis has a wide range of cognitive, behavioral, and physiological effects that may vary depending on the user, the user’s state of mind, and the dose. These include, but are not limited to:
-Increased paranoia and anxiety, possible due to fear of being caught by law enforcement
-Loss of coordination
-Distorted sense of time
-Impairment of short term memory
-Auditory or visual hallucinations
-Increased awareness of sensation
-Increased mental activity
-Stress reduction
-Mild entheogenesis
-Varying degrees of euphoria
-Initial wakefulness followed by drowsiness
-Gain or loss of inhibitions
-Lowered intraocular pressure
-Dilation of blood vessels resulting in increased blood flow and heart rate and dry, red eyes
-Lower blood pressure while standing, higher when sitting, often resulting in a head rush
-Stimulation of the endocannabinoid system resulting in increased appetite. This effect also lends itself to cannabis’ use as an appetite suppressant
-Temporary dry mouth
-Dilation of alveoli in lungs resulting in deeper respiration and increased coughing
Fact: Research has deemed it impossible to attain a lethal overdose by smoking cannabis. Based on lab rat tests, a 165 lb man would have to ingest all of the THC in 21 one gram cigarettes of high potency cannabis buds at once without losing any THC to smoke. A lethal dose could not be attained through oral ingestion. Only through intravenous administration could enough THC be ingested to attain a lethal OD.
Fact: There has only been one recorded verdict of fatal cannabis overdose. In January 2004 the coroner’s report for one Lee Maisey of Pembrokeshire, Wales listed his cause of death as probable cannabis toxicity. Mr. Maisey reportedly smoked 6 joints a day and had 130 nanograms per milliliter of the THC metabolite THC-COOH in his blood. However, findings by Dr. Rudolf Brenneisen stated that the data of the toxological analysis was “scanty and not conclusive”. Another expert, Dr. Franjo Grotenhermen, stated that, “A concentration of 130 ng/ml THC-COOH in blood is a moderate concentration, which may be observed some hours after the use of one or two joints. Heavy regular use of cannabis easily results in THC-COOH concentrations of above 500 ng/ml.”
That will do it for this week. I hope you were able to educate yourself and learn some valuable information. Remember, the more you know the more dangerous the government thinks you are, so watch your ass.
Fact: The term marijuana actually comes from a Mexican word derived from a Brazilian-Portuguese term for inebriation. American anti-cannabis lobbyists coined the term to support a negative stereotype of association with a growing number of Mexican immigrants.
Fact: American politicians in the mid 20th century enacted a $100 per pound tax on cannabis using the same stamp enforcement as a similar restriction on machine gun sales.
Fact: Henry Anslinger, then-Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, was at the forefront of the movement to criminalize cannabis. He was hoping to use public support of a ban on cannabis to revive a prohibition of alcohol.
Fact: Many of the supporters for the criminalization of cannabis came from organizations who felt threatened by the hemp industry, mainly DuPont, which was suffering from low post war textile sales, and William Randolph Hearst, an American newspaper publisher who had significant interests in the timber industry.
Fact: Hemp is most commonly used to refer to cannabis’ non-drug uses. Hemp products use parts of the cannabis plant that have an insignificant amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabis’ main psychoactive substance. Modern uses for hemp include, but are not limited to:
-Housing constuction
-Food products
-Nutrition
-Clothing
-Paper
-Biofuel
-Plastics
Fact: THC is the main psychoactive substance in cannabis and the main reason behind its recreational use. So far, studies have found that THC is not physically addictive and is less harmful than legal recreational drugs like nicotine and alcohol.
Fact: Cannabis grows wild in many parts of the world, the most common wild species being Cannabis satvia. Wild cannabis commonly contains very little THC.
Fact: The recreational use of Cannabis has been traced as far back as the Neolithic Age, or Stone Age as it is more commonly referred to.
Fact: Cannabis has been used as a spiritual drug for millenia and is still used in the same manner today. Some of the more prominent examples are certain Hindu practitioners and the Rastafari movement.
-The Rastafari movement is a Christian sect that see themselves as standing against the white culture that enslaved their ancestors and removed them from their native Africa. They worship Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia as a god and part of the Holy Trinity. Selassie I was the only African monarch of a fully independent state at the time. Rastafari see the recreational use of cannabis as a way of defying white culture
-Cannabis has been used by sadhus for centuries. In Hinduism, a sadhu is a name for a practitioner of yoga who has given up the first three Hindu goals of life: kama (pleasure), artha (wealth and power), and dharma (duty). Sadhus dedicate themselves to achieving moksha (liberation).
Fact: Cannabis has many medicinal uses which include, but are not limited to:
-Appetite stimulant
-Pain reliever for terminal illnesses such as AIDS and cancer
-Relief for glaucoma and neurological illnesses such as migraines, epilepsy, and bipolar disorder
-Nausea relief for chemotherapy patients
-Reduce arterial blockage
-Treatment for multiple sclerosis
Fact: Although 11 states have declared cannabis legal for medicinal purposes, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that because cannabis is listed as a schedule I drug any possession other than approved medical research is illegal.
Fact: Because of restrictions on cannabis, cultivation techniques have rendered new strains of the plant. These strains are known as sinsemilla, Spanish for without seed. Because of local laws cannabis often must be grown indoors, reducing the chance of pollination. Once pollination occurs THC potency and production drops off. These new techniques allow the dried, seedless female flowers to be grown without exposure to the males.
Fact: Opponents of cannabis legalization argue that these sensemilla strains are more dangerous than previous strains while proponents counter by saying that because less cannabis must be smoked to achieve the same effect the sensemilla is actually safer and less potentially carcinogenic.
Fact: THC is not proven to be carcinogenic or to have any other long lasting detrimental effects. Any studies that say otherwise are marred with accusations of bias against the drug and poor methodology. Many tests are tainted by the presence of other drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. Funding and approval of testing is hard to acquire in most parts of the world due to restrictions.
Fact: Some studies of THC are purely coincidental, the most prominent having to do with a correlation between cannabis use and schizophrenia.
Fact: Conclusive studies on cannabis show that it is less likely to cause emphysema than tobacco and that sustained use does not increase the user’s risk for developing lung cancer.
Fact: Studies show that cannabis is unlikely to cause birth defects.
Fact: Cannabis has a wide range of cognitive, behavioral, and physiological effects that may vary depending on the user, the user’s state of mind, and the dose. These include, but are not limited to:
-Increased paranoia and anxiety, possible due to fear of being caught by law enforcement
-Loss of coordination
-Distorted sense of time
-Impairment of short term memory
-Auditory or visual hallucinations
-Increased awareness of sensation
-Increased mental activity
-Stress reduction
-Mild entheogenesis
-Varying degrees of euphoria
-Initial wakefulness followed by drowsiness
-Gain or loss of inhibitions
-Lowered intraocular pressure
-Dilation of blood vessels resulting in increased blood flow and heart rate and dry, red eyes
-Lower blood pressure while standing, higher when sitting, often resulting in a head rush
-Stimulation of the endocannabinoid system resulting in increased appetite. This effect also lends itself to cannabis’ use as an appetite suppressant
-Temporary dry mouth
-Dilation of alveoli in lungs resulting in deeper respiration and increased coughing
Fact: Research has deemed it impossible to attain a lethal overdose by smoking cannabis. Based on lab rat tests, a 165 lb man would have to ingest all of the THC in 21 one gram cigarettes of high potency cannabis buds at once without losing any THC to smoke. A lethal dose could not be attained through oral ingestion. Only through intravenous administration could enough THC be ingested to attain a lethal OD.
Fact: There has only been one recorded verdict of fatal cannabis overdose. In January 2004 the coroner’s report for one Lee Maisey of Pembrokeshire, Wales listed his cause of death as probable cannabis toxicity. Mr. Maisey reportedly smoked 6 joints a day and had 130 nanograms per milliliter of the THC metabolite THC-COOH in his blood. However, findings by Dr. Rudolf Brenneisen stated that the data of the toxological analysis was “scanty and not conclusive”. Another expert, Dr. Franjo Grotenhermen, stated that, “A concentration of 130 ng/ml THC-COOH in blood is a moderate concentration, which may be observed some hours after the use of one or two joints. Heavy regular use of cannabis easily results in THC-COOH concentrations of above 500 ng/ml.”
That will do it for this week. I hope you were able to educate yourself and learn some valuable information. Remember, the more you know the more dangerous the government thinks you are, so watch your ass.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Hope and Faith
Greetings, loyal readers. Before I get down to business I have a couple of items on my agenda. First of all, I have decided to name my audience. As an avid wrestling fan I have come to realize that all the most charismatic wrestlers have named their following. From Peeps to Testicles, wrestling has experienced a wide diversity of loyal followers, so I thought it only fitting that you, the most loyal audience of all, receive a moniker to call your own. Due to my lack of ideas and the fact that this directly affects you, I am opening up the floor to ideas. My only idea so far is Outkasts. If you would like to voice your support for my choice or offer an idea of your own comment on this post or send me an email at zenrockoukast@hotmail.com. Your input is greatly appreciated. Secondly, I know that many of you are asking for the return of one of my most popular posts on the Matrix trilogy. I would like to assure you that I have not given up on this project. I am currently not residing at my parents’ home, while most of my things still are. I hope to go back home within the next two weeks and retrieve, among other things, my Matrix movies. Rest assured that once I do this I hope to make a Matrix post at least once a month.
One of my close friends recently posted a first class blog on religion and how it relates to the mentally challenged. I strongly recommend checking it out at http://guenthercorp.com/blog.html. The post title is Free Ride to Heaven Part 1, but don’t let that stop you from checking out the rest of his guentherific blog. I would also like to say to him that if every family of a mentally challenged child cared about their child’s salvation as his does, hell would be devoid of the mentally challenged. Inspired and a little enraged by the post, I posted a comment on it. My comment and the reaction got me to thinking about how I come off to people, especially on the subject of religion. I think part of how I come off is due to circumstance. Many people today attribute morality with faith and faith with organized religion. My faith is based on the rejection of organized religion. Therefore, people assume that since I refuse to actively participate in organized religion I have no faith. This leads to people assuming that the statements I make are meant to insult those with faith. In reality, they are meant to encourage people to explore their faith. I disagree with organized religion because I don’t believe it encourages people to explore their faith, which I believe is the only way to God. I also believe that churches stifle the exploration of faith by setting down policy based on their interpretations of the Bible and ignoring any arguments that would challenge said policies. Within my former church there are such policies, some that I agree with and some that I don’t. Yet I refuse to take part in this church partly because of the way they deal with the dissent of these policies, which is not to deal with it at all. I believe that there are a lot of grey areas in the Bible and how we interpret these grey areas shapes our relationship with God. If we rely on a church to interpret these grey areas for us I think we put our relationship with God in jeopardy. That’s not to say that all people who attend a church are in danger of eternal damnation, but I do think a great many may be closer than they think. I know a lot of what I say may seem condescending, but I only comment out of concern. I refuse to accuse anyone of being truly damned for many reasons. The first is that I am not without sin so I cannot in good conscience throw the first stone. The second is that no one knows who is truly damned and saved but God. No matter how far gone they may seem, their relationship with God is a secret to everyone but them and God. I like to assume the best in everyone, and I hope to see everyone on earth in heaven someday. I realize that this probably won’t happen, but only God knows for sure. As for those who feel insulted by my comments I would like to apologize, that was not my intent. I believe that if anyone seeks salvation in Christ they will find it. I realize that just as the number of people I hope to see in heaven may be high, the number of people I think will be there may be low. When choosing an outlook, I prefer hope to despair. I think in this world that is filled with despair, hope and faith are all we have.
One of my close friends recently posted a first class blog on religion and how it relates to the mentally challenged. I strongly recommend checking it out at http://guenthercorp.com/blog.html. The post title is Free Ride to Heaven Part 1, but don’t let that stop you from checking out the rest of his guentherific blog. I would also like to say to him that if every family of a mentally challenged child cared about their child’s salvation as his does, hell would be devoid of the mentally challenged. Inspired and a little enraged by the post, I posted a comment on it. My comment and the reaction got me to thinking about how I come off to people, especially on the subject of religion. I think part of how I come off is due to circumstance. Many people today attribute morality with faith and faith with organized religion. My faith is based on the rejection of organized religion. Therefore, people assume that since I refuse to actively participate in organized religion I have no faith. This leads to people assuming that the statements I make are meant to insult those with faith. In reality, they are meant to encourage people to explore their faith. I disagree with organized religion because I don’t believe it encourages people to explore their faith, which I believe is the only way to God. I also believe that churches stifle the exploration of faith by setting down policy based on their interpretations of the Bible and ignoring any arguments that would challenge said policies. Within my former church there are such policies, some that I agree with and some that I don’t. Yet I refuse to take part in this church partly because of the way they deal with the dissent of these policies, which is not to deal with it at all. I believe that there are a lot of grey areas in the Bible and how we interpret these grey areas shapes our relationship with God. If we rely on a church to interpret these grey areas for us I think we put our relationship with God in jeopardy. That’s not to say that all people who attend a church are in danger of eternal damnation, but I do think a great many may be closer than they think. I know a lot of what I say may seem condescending, but I only comment out of concern. I refuse to accuse anyone of being truly damned for many reasons. The first is that I am not without sin so I cannot in good conscience throw the first stone. The second is that no one knows who is truly damned and saved but God. No matter how far gone they may seem, their relationship with God is a secret to everyone but them and God. I like to assume the best in everyone, and I hope to see everyone on earth in heaven someday. I realize that this probably won’t happen, but only God knows for sure. As for those who feel insulted by my comments I would like to apologize, that was not my intent. I believe that if anyone seeks salvation in Christ they will find it. I realize that just as the number of people I hope to see in heaven may be high, the number of people I think will be there may be low. When choosing an outlook, I prefer hope to despair. I think in this world that is filled with despair, hope and faith are all we have.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Red vs. Blue
I turned 18 in January 2004. Later that year in November I decided not to vote in the national and state elections. I was, at that time, very disenchanted with our government and, in particular, our two party system. That’s not to say that I don’t still have that same sentiment, just at the time I was at the point where I saw no hope in our government at all. I have since educated myself in politics. I hope that by the time the next elections come by I will be educated enough to vote, though I am extremely disappointed in my choices for my state’s next governor. Lately, I have taken a more in-depth interest in the inner workings of our government and the representation of myself and my fellow Americans through a little program known as C-span. I see the same shortcomings that I have been critical of for years. I see the same split with party lines, the fear to deviate from one’s party’s policies. I see the way the majority bullies the minority and disregards the minority’s arguments. I see the refusal to come to a compromise, the way the two parties repeat the same old arguments instead of trying to correct the flaws within their own arguments. I am sickened by it. The Congress of this country is going the direction that the rest of this country is: further and further towards self-gratification.
I still have more hope than I did just a couple short years ago. I had previously taken the stance that politicians were all full of shit and out for themselves. While this statement rings truer than I would like to admit, I have since realized that the situation is not as dismal as I had previously believed. Since watching the daily proceedings of our Congress and hearing the debates of our senators and representatives, I have seen a brighter side of our government. I have heard some very well put together arguments with some very genuine motives behind them. I have seen politicians from both sides cross party lines and stand up for what they believe is right. However, I believe that the essence of the two party system is flawed and corrupted. I previously shied away from associating myself with one party for fear of feeding the monster. Since watching some important arguments I reluctantly have to align myself with the Democrats. I only wonder if I would have the same alignment if the Democrats held the majority the Republicans currently do. One of the biggest problems I have with the two party system is the majority-rules law of the land. It seems to me that Republicans sometimes stand by their same tired arguments just in order to keep their party in its position. When Democrats make convincing arguments their concerns are not addressed but casually dismissed and then completely disregarded when it comes time to vote. This is not the purpose of our Congress, to further your party’s agenda. I also see individual politicians further their own agendas through Congress, such as with economical issues and issues concerning regulation of things such as video game sales. My biggest concern, though, is that if the tables were turned the Democrats would be employing the same strategies. One of the things I believe in most is questioning authority. I believe nothing is accomplished without questioning that which has been established. I find that the Democrats, for the most part, only wish to question on most of the issues that pass through, yet the Republicans condemn them for doing so. The purpose of our Congress is to act in the best interest of the American people. It seems to me that the Democrats are trying to find solutions that benefit all Americans, while Republicans try to pass their agenda-laden bills through with as little resistance as possible. I have lost most of my hope in our government. The last shred of this hope is that Democrats are not just trying to undermine Republicans in an attempt to gain the proverbial high ground.
Either way, there is a problem in this system. Our government has lost sight of the good of the nation. Somewhere along the line that became intertwined with personal agenda. A system where two parties constantly vie for power is no democracy. This power struggle takes the focus away from national good and further towards self-gratification. To quote one of this country’s greatest leaders, “A house divided cannot stand.” How can we expect this country to continue to thrive when its entire government is caught up in a nationwide power struggle? We cannot continue to debate on the grounds of Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal. We have to be able to move forward, to compromise, to be willing to make concessions, to argue not for the good of the self, but for the good of the nation.
I still have more hope than I did just a couple short years ago. I had previously taken the stance that politicians were all full of shit and out for themselves. While this statement rings truer than I would like to admit, I have since realized that the situation is not as dismal as I had previously believed. Since watching the daily proceedings of our Congress and hearing the debates of our senators and representatives, I have seen a brighter side of our government. I have heard some very well put together arguments with some very genuine motives behind them. I have seen politicians from both sides cross party lines and stand up for what they believe is right. However, I believe that the essence of the two party system is flawed and corrupted. I previously shied away from associating myself with one party for fear of feeding the monster. Since watching some important arguments I reluctantly have to align myself with the Democrats. I only wonder if I would have the same alignment if the Democrats held the majority the Republicans currently do. One of the biggest problems I have with the two party system is the majority-rules law of the land. It seems to me that Republicans sometimes stand by their same tired arguments just in order to keep their party in its position. When Democrats make convincing arguments their concerns are not addressed but casually dismissed and then completely disregarded when it comes time to vote. This is not the purpose of our Congress, to further your party’s agenda. I also see individual politicians further their own agendas through Congress, such as with economical issues and issues concerning regulation of things such as video game sales. My biggest concern, though, is that if the tables were turned the Democrats would be employing the same strategies. One of the things I believe in most is questioning authority. I believe nothing is accomplished without questioning that which has been established. I find that the Democrats, for the most part, only wish to question on most of the issues that pass through, yet the Republicans condemn them for doing so. The purpose of our Congress is to act in the best interest of the American people. It seems to me that the Democrats are trying to find solutions that benefit all Americans, while Republicans try to pass their agenda-laden bills through with as little resistance as possible. I have lost most of my hope in our government. The last shred of this hope is that Democrats are not just trying to undermine Republicans in an attempt to gain the proverbial high ground.
Either way, there is a problem in this system. Our government has lost sight of the good of the nation. Somewhere along the line that became intertwined with personal agenda. A system where two parties constantly vie for power is no democracy. This power struggle takes the focus away from national good and further towards self-gratification. To quote one of this country’s greatest leaders, “A house divided cannot stand.” How can we expect this country to continue to thrive when its entire government is caught up in a nationwide power struggle? We cannot continue to debate on the grounds of Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal. We have to be able to move forward, to compromise, to be willing to make concessions, to argue not for the good of the self, but for the good of the nation.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Don't Support Our Troops
That’s right let them support themselves. I know I’m going to become public enemy number 1 for this, but I just don’t care. When soldiers join the service they make a conscious decision, a decision to submit themselves to the authority of the United States government. As soon as they do that, they lose their opinion. Oh sure, they can still speak their minds. But if they disagree with an order, say one to go to war, they can do nothing about it. They no longer make their own decisions; the government makes them for them. So why, tell me, should I listen to people who tell me to support a group of people who are brainlessly carrying out orders to support a government agenda that I am morally opposed to? Because it’s not their choice, you say? Because they’re just following orders you say? Bullshit. They are as much responsible for the war as the people pulling the strings. Without them there wouldn’t be a war. They submitted themselves to government authority in the first place and continue to do so. The people who drove the planes into the buildings on 9/11 were just following orders. Just because you work for an evil employer yet have good intentions, it doesn’t absolve you from your sins. The fact is that the men and women in our armed forces are murderous pawns, just like the people they’re fighting. We are supposedly fighting a war on terror, yet how are we doing it? Through fear and intimidation. Iraq is, at present moment, a military state. The law of the land is the same as it was during the Hussein administration, fear. And our supposedly unbiased American broadcast stations run programs that chastise so-called insurgents and praise U.S. soldiers. Now, just so we get this straight, I do not advocate killing in any form. All I ask for is objectivity. Realize that just as we saw acts of terrorism as an invasion, the population of Iraq sees our occupation as an invasion that threatens their way of life. They are the same as us, save for one thing. They attack out of fear, fear of losing what little they have. We attack to save face. We attack because we are afraid of sending the wrong message if we don’t. We are waging a war because we are afraid of image. What this world needs is a country that sets a better example. This war will not stop the violence, it will only perpetuate it. Furthermore, by taking part in this war, the men and women of our armed services directly associate themselves with all parts of it. By supporting our troops, I would be supporting unnecessary bloodshed. Do not support our troops unconditionally and blindly. Support them by trying to bring them home.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Failure to Communicate
Hola, amigos! Para la última semana he tenido el impulso al blog pero he fallado en venir para arriba con un asunto que enciende suficientemente mi furia. Me preguntaba si mi indignación righteous traería siempre otra vez verdad a alcanza lejos de Cyberspace cuando vi el papel de hoy. El jueves, de mayo el 18, 2006 que el senado de Estados Unidos votó para hacer inglés la primera lengua nacional de los Estados Unidos. Ahora sé lo que usted está pensando, él voy a fijar otro blog liberal-en polarizacio'n negativa. Pienso que es el período culminante que conseguimos más allá de los cliches de llevar puntos de vista liberales y conservadores y conseguido la raíz de la edición actual. Por años América se ha conocido como la tierra de la oportunidad, un pote que derretía para las culturas de todas las clases. Este nuevo acto destruye todos esos ideales. está no más de largo América al lugar para que la gente se exprese libremente. Está no más de largo esto al país con las oportunidades iguales para toda la gente. Qué nos ha fijado aparte de el resto del mundo por siglos ahora es muerto e ido. Ahora estamos enviando un mensaje que si usted no habla inglés, usted no sea agradable aquí. Estamos haciendo más y más una nación de biggotry y del seclusion. Y está no solamente este acto spiteful, él es innecesario. Hay muy pocos opportunites para los ciudadanos de discurso no-ingleses pues es. Ésta no es una cuestión de seguridad nacional pues nuestro presidente omnisciente hizo que usted pensara. Ningún esto es una tentativa racist en la superioridad y totalmente contra no solamente la primera enmienda pero toda para las cuales nuestro país esté parado. ¿Y por qué se permite? Porque los americanos somos perezosos. Oigo tan a menudo la excusa del aprender hablar la lengua o salir. Tenía los habitantes originales de este país sido así que tolerante incluso no tendríamos una América. Nuestro mundo es hoy global y una de las cualidades necesarias de él es un ambiente diverso. Podemos sentar no más de largo detrás olvidadizo a cada uno alrededor de nosotros. Mucha otra gente habla inglés como segunda lengua porque es un neccesity en mundo siempre creciente de hoy. Ahora nos estamos fijando detrás cerrándose apagado a otras culturas. Éste es más que una aplicación la comunicación que es una aplicación la tolerancia, y además una falta de comunicarse en nuestra parte.
Si usted habla esperanza del español I usted toma la época de leer y de gozar de este blog. Si no, le animo a que pase los 15 minutos de esfuerzo de ir a http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr a traducir este blog a inglés. Utilicé ese sitio para la traducción en línea, así que las palabras exactas pueden ser poco apagado, pero el mensaje todavía está allí. Hasta la vez próxima, el cuidado de la toma de ustedes mismos y
Si usted habla esperanza del español I usted toma la época de leer y de gozar de este blog. Si no, le animo a que pase los 15 minutos de esfuerzo de ir a http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr a traducir este blog a inglés. Utilicé ese sitio para la traducción en línea, así que las palabras exactas pueden ser poco apagado, pero el mensaje todavía está allí. Hasta la vez próxima, el cuidado de la toma de ustedes mismos y
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Conservation of Society
Alright, I’m back to the internet community after a long hiatus and filled with more self-righteous political fury than ever. I’d like to start off by apologizing to my loyal fan base for leaving you for so long without a blog entry that pushes every envelope and crosses every line there is. I’ve been very tied up between work, family issues, and taking care of my move to DeKalb this summer. So as to regain my place as most controversial blogger on the web I’m going to start out on my most hated of enemies: conservatives.
There is one sound byte that has bothering me like the itch on that one place on your back that you just can scratch. That sound byte is of our president approving of Donald Rumsfeld despite several retired generals stepping up and voicing a need for Rumsfeld to resign. In his response Bush almost completely disregards the opinions of these generals and makes a statement along the lines of, “I know what’s best for the country and I’m the one who gets to make the decisions.” This embodies part of what I believe is wrong not just with today’s government, but with today’s culture. This is not the kind of statement I expect out of one of this nation’s leaders. He is basically saying he doesn’t care what the people think; he’s going to do whatever he wants. Furthermore, it demonstrates his lack of understanding for the democratic process. He is not THE ONE that gets to MAKE THE DECISIONS for this country. Most sixth-graders could tell you that he is the head of the executive branch of our government, one of three branches designed to have enough authority to prevent the other two from becoming corrupt and abusing their power. The position of president is not an end-all for all issues that face this country. There’s a word in politics for someone with that type of power: dictator. If Bush can’t tell the difference between a dictator and a president maybe it’s time for a change of leadership.
Like I said before, though, this problem extends further than politics. It’s an issue of mindset. Bush is of a conservative mindset. I have observed much of the conservative mindset lately and I have noticed that part of the impetus for this mindset is a resistance to change. Inherent to this resistance is a tendency to react to opinions counteractive to your own with rash and totalitarian comments, i.e., “I get to make the decisions, not you”. These comments often have no rational thought behind them being that they are meant to counteract rational thought and discussion. This is because the conservative usually doesn’t like to even think that they are wrong. They are so afraid of their own fallibility that they try to remain completely ignorant to it to the point of where they try to suppress the opinions of anyone that might make them question it, even if to a small degree. I believe this mindset is unhealthy not only to those whose opinions are being suppressed, but to those suppressing them. I don’t think there is any debate as to the first part. This country was founded on the belief that all people should be able to express themselves and their beliefs without fear of repercussion. An extreme conservative mindset creates an environment which is detrimental to the opinions of people who differ from the established mindset. This environment is the exact opposite of what the government should be trying to create. Our government should be trying to encourage free speech and debate over issues. Instead it’s going in the opposite direction trying to discourage free thinking and speech for fear of losing power. Instead of politicians debating what’s best for our country they lobby for political high ground and try to disguise their agenda with propaganda and political clichés like, “for the good of the people,” and, “to ensure the safety.”
“So what’s the answer?” you ask. Well that’s a good question and I have a good answer. As I see it conservatives are fighting to resist change. They want everything to stay the same. They wish to live in their own little world. I say, let them. Things don’t work that way in the real world. We live in an ever changing world and we are forced every day to adapt. Instead of fighting a never ending war with them to try and move forward, let them do their thing. Instead of letting them hold us back, we should rid ourselves of them and send them into exile in some little corner of the globe. Now I know this sounds very extreme and repressive, but I look at it this way: They refuse to accept others’ opinions. They live to exterminate opinions which differ from theirs. Liberals, on the other hand, work towards an environment which allows all opinions to flourish and coexist. I’m speaking not of political liberals or conservatives, but of anyone who fights for a liberalism or conservatism as an ideal. Liberals wish to discuss issues so as to find a way to reach a mutual understanding where as conservatives wish to impose their way on others in all walks of life. They do so to keep their world just like it is, so why not let them do just that. They just cannot be allowed to do so within a civilized society. Let them create their own totalitarian society wherever they want, just as long as they stop trying to repress those who wish to think for themselves.
There is one sound byte that has bothering me like the itch on that one place on your back that you just can scratch. That sound byte is of our president approving of Donald Rumsfeld despite several retired generals stepping up and voicing a need for Rumsfeld to resign. In his response Bush almost completely disregards the opinions of these generals and makes a statement along the lines of, “I know what’s best for the country and I’m the one who gets to make the decisions.” This embodies part of what I believe is wrong not just with today’s government, but with today’s culture. This is not the kind of statement I expect out of one of this nation’s leaders. He is basically saying he doesn’t care what the people think; he’s going to do whatever he wants. Furthermore, it demonstrates his lack of understanding for the democratic process. He is not THE ONE that gets to MAKE THE DECISIONS for this country. Most sixth-graders could tell you that he is the head of the executive branch of our government, one of three branches designed to have enough authority to prevent the other two from becoming corrupt and abusing their power. The position of president is not an end-all for all issues that face this country. There’s a word in politics for someone with that type of power: dictator. If Bush can’t tell the difference between a dictator and a president maybe it’s time for a change of leadership.
Like I said before, though, this problem extends further than politics. It’s an issue of mindset. Bush is of a conservative mindset. I have observed much of the conservative mindset lately and I have noticed that part of the impetus for this mindset is a resistance to change. Inherent to this resistance is a tendency to react to opinions counteractive to your own with rash and totalitarian comments, i.e., “I get to make the decisions, not you”. These comments often have no rational thought behind them being that they are meant to counteract rational thought and discussion. This is because the conservative usually doesn’t like to even think that they are wrong. They are so afraid of their own fallibility that they try to remain completely ignorant to it to the point of where they try to suppress the opinions of anyone that might make them question it, even if to a small degree. I believe this mindset is unhealthy not only to those whose opinions are being suppressed, but to those suppressing them. I don’t think there is any debate as to the first part. This country was founded on the belief that all people should be able to express themselves and their beliefs without fear of repercussion. An extreme conservative mindset creates an environment which is detrimental to the opinions of people who differ from the established mindset. This environment is the exact opposite of what the government should be trying to create. Our government should be trying to encourage free speech and debate over issues. Instead it’s going in the opposite direction trying to discourage free thinking and speech for fear of losing power. Instead of politicians debating what’s best for our country they lobby for political high ground and try to disguise their agenda with propaganda and political clichés like, “for the good of the people,” and, “to ensure the safety.”
“So what’s the answer?” you ask. Well that’s a good question and I have a good answer. As I see it conservatives are fighting to resist change. They want everything to stay the same. They wish to live in their own little world. I say, let them. Things don’t work that way in the real world. We live in an ever changing world and we are forced every day to adapt. Instead of fighting a never ending war with them to try and move forward, let them do their thing. Instead of letting them hold us back, we should rid ourselves of them and send them into exile in some little corner of the globe. Now I know this sounds very extreme and repressive, but I look at it this way: They refuse to accept others’ opinions. They live to exterminate opinions which differ from theirs. Liberals, on the other hand, work towards an environment which allows all opinions to flourish and coexist. I’m speaking not of political liberals or conservatives, but of anyone who fights for a liberalism or conservatism as an ideal. Liberals wish to discuss issues so as to find a way to reach a mutual understanding where as conservatives wish to impose their way on others in all walks of life. They do so to keep their world just like it is, so why not let them do just that. They just cannot be allowed to do so within a civilized society. Let them create their own totalitarian society wherever they want, just as long as they stop trying to repress those who wish to think for themselves.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Above the Influence
He’s baaaaaaaaack!!! That’s right after a two-week long stint filled with alcohol, nitrous, and vicodin the real Monster of the Midway returns to doing what he does best: telling it like it is. I know many of you were expecting a post game post from me, but there isn’t that much to say about the game except what the fuck? 21-29? In the regular season we only scored more than 20 points in three games and allowed more than 20 in just as many games. But life goes on. This week I wish not to complain about things that are out of my control but to argue about them. During a previous post I made a mention about peer pressure that got me thinking about a topic that was proposed to me for a high school English paper. I decided to address a different topic and ended up screwing up the whole assignment by blowing it off till the last second then doing a half assed job, as is par for the course for me. But my blog reference has brought out a renewed sense of interest in this engaging topic. The assignment was a persuasive essay and the topic in question was whether peer pressure was a good thing or a bad thing. Some of my other classmates decide to debate this topic and came out with arguments for or against peer pressure. The ones that supported peer pressure highlighted points such as how it can be used to influence others in a “good” way. By “good” many meant helping others to avoid the use of drugs and alcohol. The ones who were against peer pressure mentioned how it could be used adversely and focused on mostly the same points of illegal substance use. Looking back I realized one thing, by influencing someone else with peer pressure you are trying to make decisions for them and by doing so taking away their ability to do just that. While the decisions you make for them might be the right ones, you have no way of knowing for sure if they are and furthermore neither do they. There is no set pattern that should be followed for how to live your life. Part of what makes this world so great is the diversity of experiences from person to person. While all experiences lead to the same conclusion, the path there is far from identical. In the same way, while the conclusion might be the same, the path there should be very different from any other. Everyone has different reasons for doing everything and by getting someone to do something through peer pressure you take away the experience of learning what those reasons are. Though your intentions might only be to spare them the pain of the experience, you rob them of the reward at the end and by repeating this pattern take away their reasoning skills. By trapping them in a cycle of conformity you create a dependence on other people’s opinions within them. After repeating this cycle over and over they become unable to make a decision without the approval of a peer. This robs them of everything that makes them an independent individual. They no longer question their motives; they only look to others for approval. With so many people in our society today searching for approval you might wonder, “Where does the peer pressure come from?” There is one simple answer: the majority. We in America live in a society where majority rules. The people who have the greatest amount of supporters are given authority to govern us. Fear has been instilled in us from birth by our parents and a society governed by peer pressure has started to emerge. Because many Americans only make decisions through peer pressure it has become widely accepted that because the government embodies the opinions of the majority, they should be able to dictate our lives. This is the pinnacle of peer pressure and the last step before giving up not only our individuality, but our ability to reason, to think, to be our own person. My favorite new series of commercials is an anti-drug campaign. It implies that by doing drugs you’re giving up your ability to make your own choices. But if you avoid drugs for the simple fact that a commercial told you to, aren’t you doing the same thing? Now I’m not saying that everyone should drink or do drugs, I’m simply saying they should make their own choices based on their experiences. Now I want you to ask yourself, can you make your own choices? Can you be your own person? Are you above the influence of peer pressure?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)