Randomness

Yes, I have no clear focus in writing this. I'm just running through a list of things I feel I need to get off my chest.

I think I'm going to start keeping a bucket next to me when I surf political issues on the net. I don't want to beat a dead horse, and I wanted to stay away from politics, but I happened upon a Facebook group supporting McCain/Palin that has forced me to go there once more. Some of the things people come up with are enough to make my head explode. The thing that I just cannot understand are all the blatant contradictions. Here is one of my favorite quotes that I found in the aforementioned group,

"And to top it off...the worst thing her opponents came up with is to criticize her child's personal life choices (referring to her daughter's impending birth)?...hurray. Finally a candidate who is ethical!P.S. the future of America is NOT young people, because in 80 years, those people won't be here...The future is who you put your faith in...and I don't put my faith anywhere but in Christ! In the end it doesn't really matter who is voted in, because God's will WILL be done. I personally vote for those who hold themselves accountable for their actions to my God."

My head is imploding. You're going to dismiss attacks about having an unwed teenage daughter, then turn around and say Palin is ethical and holds herself accountable to god? The fact that you want this whole country to run on your beliefs is bad enough, but you aren't even clear about what your beliefs really are. On top of that, here's a quote from the group's description,

"being contrary is a waste of your time and a waste of the time of the rest of the people on this group."

Fantastic representation of Republican policy, you really are following the great example set by that party. One last political note, there is a book out there entitled What's the Matter with Kansas. It deals with the changing political climate within the Republican party and how a new movement has shifted the focus away from policy and towards ethical concerns. I highly recommend it, especially in light of some of the tactics of Republicans so far in this election.

Speaking of Republican tactics, I've been watching a few McCain interviews, mainly focused on the economy, and I keep hearing one phrase pop up, "Obama wants to raise taxes." Yes, let's all get into a frenzy and make a bumrush for the right, Obama wants to make average Americans pay MORE money in a time of economic instability, or so John McCain would have you believe. His message certainly implies this, but it is far from the truth. In case you didn't already know, we here in America, as in just about every other industrialized capitalist nation, have a progressive tax system. What that means is that the income tax scale is progressive, that it scales up. The more money you make, the more money you pay. Now I know some people reading this might be having an outburst, "but that's not fair, everyone should pay an equal amount!" Good news, there's a political party that agrees with you. They're called Libertarians, many Republicans agree with their philosophies, and they're also a horde of morons. Yes, it sounds nice to have everyone paying an equal tax, but what happens when someone dies and leaves their money to someone? You have the beginnings of an aristocracy, the type of government our forefathers were so dissatisfied with that they rebelled and created a country of their own. People inherit wealth, and with that wealth power. They become politically and socially active in order to safeguard their holdings, and they get richer and richer, then they die and their children start out with that much more of an advantage. Economists as early as the seventeenth century had predicted that a similar system, even though it existed only in theory, would eventually and inevitably become the norm, and why? More important than individual wealth is economic stability. If government exists to safeguard the needs of the elite, then they need something more than a promise of equality to keep the country running in an orderly manner. That's why Libertarians are the lowest of the low when it comes to politics.

Anyways, Obama's proposed tax increases would put a greater burden on the wealthy, who put the least amount of money back into the economy. Economic crisis aside, the wealth gap in this country was growing to extremes. A Republican White House would undoubtedly not only refuse to make any progress in trying to lessen the gap between the wealthy and the poor, but would have fought to repeal reforms made to safeguard the middle and lower classes. Recent Republican strategy has been dedicated to repealing things like the estate tax, which tries to curb inherited wealth, the largest culprit of the economic gap, and New Deal programs meant to safeguard workers. Republicans are even going after social security. In a time when we could be facing the biggest social security crisis ever in the coming years, Republicans want to privatize it. We all know how well that worked out with health care. Bottom line, social security was created to help senior citizens maintain a minimum quality of living they couldn't afford without government help, privatizing it runs against the very core of the institution itself.

I also saw McCain and his party's stance on the bail out issue. Everyone rallying behind McCain because of tax cuts should take a closer look at each candidates' stances. McCain wishes to cut taxes for high-income Americans, while Obama promises to make tax cuts for struggling middle class Americans. Which seems like a better idea to you? Should we give MORE money to the people who are already well off and mostly unaffected by the current crisis, or should we give more money to the people who are hit the hardest by it?

The Bush administration is also OPPOSING demands that CEO bailouts be removed from the $700 billion proposal. It isn't a huge surprise that the same administration with corporate ties to Enron, Haliburton, and the lucrative Bush family oil business is trying to take of CEOs, the question is will we stand for it? It seems that congress is finally in a position to oppose President Bush, and that they're doing just that in taking a hard line against taxpayer money going to help CEOs who pull down salaries unimaginable by any working individual's standards. So will we stand for it as a nation? Will we vote for someone who supports big business, who supports giving the already wealthy tax breaks, or will we vote for someone who has been entrenched in the plight of working individuals for all of his natural born life?


Off politics and on to some lighter issues. Football season is here and you know what that means: commercials. I can find almost nothing worth watching on broadcast television, so I typically have the unusual fortune of not being bombarded by corporate advertising every 10 minutes or so. That all ends this week, as I'll being seeing ads for crap I either would never buy or can't afford at every timeout, end of quarter, touchdown, field goal, injury, and then some. So far I haven't seen too much out of the ordinary, but there have been a couple ads I just don't understand. One is a series of ads with random crap going on that is apparently trying to get people to travel to Vegas. You may think I'm kidding, but I'm not. Random crap, go to Vegas, cut. I have no idea why that would give anyone the sudden urge to travel. If anything, it seems like it would make people want to stay home. The second is an ad featuring Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates. I have seen it a few times trying to figure it out, and I'm still not sure if they're trying to sell shoes or operating systems. No product placement whatsoever.

Whatever, what really matters is the football. First off, I still hate Brett Favre. He is unquestionably the most overrated athlete alive today. I almost hope Aaron Thomas takes the Pack to the NFC Championship just to further hammer home this point to Favre's brainwashed masses. Favre won his season opener against the Jets, but had a very average game. He completed two touchdown passes, one of which was a lob he threw while on the way to the ground. Most people look at this and say, "who else could have completed a pass like this?" I'll tell you who, any quarterback with a good arm and a good receiver that didn't care about throwing an interception that could come back and cost him the game. That ball could have easily been picked off by a defender, only the receiver saved it from turning into a possible Dolphins rally. In fact, Miami QB Chad Pennington had a much more consistent day than Favre. He was much more accurate and, had it not been for the game ending interception, would have had an unquestionably superior day to Favre's. Favre is heralded as the best quarterback of his time, he's not. He's a decent QB who has broken some records mostly due to the fact that he has remained healthy throughout his career, and due to the fact that he has had some truly talented receivers that have been able to minimize his mistakes. Favre is nowhere near the level of Troy Aikman or Joe Montana.


Well, this blog has sat in my drafts for longer than I intended. It's now week 3, and I still hate Favre. The Jets lost two games straight, and Favre got hammered in the loss to the Chargers. All is right in the universe, well, except for the Bears. What happened? After coming out strong against the Colts, we gave up two should-win games in the fourth quarter against possible NFC playoff contenders. The Panthers was just a tough loss, but the Bucs game was heartbreaking. After seeing the whole team perform well in the first three quarters, dropped passes, an interception, and poor pass coverage let the Bucs even the score. Worse yet, in overtime, with the Bucs pinned down inside their own 10 on third down, we draw a 15 yard unnecessary roughness call which, frankly, was bullshit. Tampa's tackle, Jeremy Trueblood, pinned Bears' end Adawale Ogunleye down and began throwing punches at him after the play was blown dead. Charles Tillman joined the scuffle, trying to help his teammate, and was whistled for roughness. Had it not been for the call, Tampa would have had to punt at their own 10 and the Bears almost certainly would have scored in sudden death. Instead, they get a first and five past their own 20. It's just a crappy end to what was otherwise a close and exciting game. I think Bears defensive tackle Tommie Harris had the best comment on the situation when he said, "[Trueblood] is dirty. He wants you to know that. Since he’s not that talented and not that good, he wants you to know that ‘I’m the dirtiest player."

Indeed, you woudn't expect behavior like that from most players in the NFL. You also wouldn't expect the Tampa sideline to be so animated after seeing such dirty tactics, but that apparently doesn't concern Jon Gruden, who ran screaming onto the field after the win as if his team had just clinched a playoff berth. Congratulations, jackass, you just told your entire team that playing dirty is fine as long as you get a win. I at least hope he also told NFL refs that his team plays dirty and they have to watch him more carefully.

Lastly, back to week one news, Tom Brady is out for the season. It's a shame, too, because he really is the definition of an elite QB. I keep saying that if he can stay healthy he could be the greatest QB in the NFL in a long time, and I especially want to see him stay healthy so he can shatter all those Favre records. This isn't irrational dislike, I just know Favre's not as good as everybody else thinks and I want everyone else to see that.

Alright, I'm done for now. I'm building towards a subject that I'm pretty passionate about, and when I get the chance I will unleash my righteous fury on those who dare challenge me. Until then, peace.

Sarah Palin Makes Me Sick

Seriously, sick to my stomach. I'll get into that in a second, but I'll go through some other quick things first. I've stated before how this blog is at times a chronicling of the evolution of my views, and that rings true now more than ever. It's been a while since my last post, I've got a new look to my page, and I'm no longer using bible quotes. You already know that I had severed any official ties to organized religion, but I'm now fully out of the Christian faith. I have been trying, for a long time, to find my place in that faith and only recently realized that there is no place for someone like me there. Although I do find the general message behind a lot of the bible to be both good and inspiring and the basis for my personal beliefs, I found that the actual writing and rhetoric do not properly convey what I feel to be true. Jean Baudrillard, in his book Simulacra and Simulation, writes about how in modern society often the iconography, which he calls simulacra, becomes more important than that which it represents. This is how I feel about Christianity. I feel that the underlying values that it represents-tolerance, patience, respect, community, responsibility-are lost in the manner in which they are presented. I also feel that limiting myself to one definition of spirituality does more harm than good. I don't necessarily disagree with the bible, but I do think that we, in a global society, owe it to ourselves to look at life and spirituality through more than just one perspective. I don't see any benefit to associating myself and my personal beliefs and self-image to one dogmatic order. I also have, for a good deal of my life, studied the bible. My latest attempt to do so in a more open-minded manner than before was a final attempt to connect with a spirituality to which I have never felt a bond with. In the end, I realized that the bible had nothing more profound to offer me than that which I had already learned. I searched its pages for some profound revelation, some higher knowledge, some spiritual experience, and found nothing. I am still a big believer in spirituality, in forces and phenomena that are beyond our understanding, and in the principles of Karma. I just don't believe that any one order can encompass the varying views on spirituality found throughout the world, and I don't believe that I can find my spirituality in Christianity. I now consider myself to be an Agnostic.

On to politics. This will be an area which I will be exploring in greater detail. Whereas my previous views on the subject were largely apathetic, I have since matured in my understanding of process and seek to understand the matter rather than dismiss it is as pointless. SO back to my original statement, Sarah Palin makes me sick. Frankly, I have no idea why McCain chose her as a running mate, although I did see a hilarious segment on the Daily Show with Samantha Bee that offers some insight. Honestly, there are so many places I could start, I just can't figure out where to. Maybe I'll start out with her idea of education reform. It's no secret that both McCain and Palin are anti-abortion, and that Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter (I'll be using the terms ant and pro abortion as they represent a value-free definition, as opposed to the loaded pro-life and pro-choice). What you may not know, and what has largely gone uncovered in the national media, is that Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only programs as opposed to sex education. I'm going leaving the tilt-free zone now, after all we know that it is actually anything but. I don't see this as anything but creating less choices and opportunities for women. You don't want women to have access to education about safe sex, you don't want women to be able to have abortions, so what do you want, Sarah Palin? Do you want a spike in teen pregnancies? Do you want young women to be press ganged into raising a child because you would neither educate them about sex nor provide them with an alternative to an unwanted pregnancy? Do you want women to keep gaining opportunities in today's economy, or would you rather sentence them to grudgingly accept the role of a homemaker when they didn't choose it, or worse yet, have to fend for themselves as single mothers whose baby daddies walked out on them? I'm sure Sarah Palin would hold single mothers up as role models and use their struggle to help her campaign, but when she gets into office would she try to prevent situations like that from occurring? No, in fact she'd try to cut women off from resources that help prevent situations like that from occurring. Sarah Palin may be trying to pass herself off as a role model for women, but in actuality she is doing nothing to help their cause.

Speaking of her daughter, Palin is attacking the press for covering the pregnancy, trying to paint it as if the "evil liberal media" is out to harass her family. Of course, we all know the media has never covered situations in any other political family. When the Bush daughters had their alcohol scandals, no media outlet ever covered it. Oh, and let's not forget Bill Clinton's impeachment. Yes, the entire nation turning his personal life into an investigation and trial is completely different than the media taking notice of a pregnant 17-year-old. Maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if Palin supported sex education. After all, most research done on abstinence-only programs reveal that the teen pregnancy rate is likely to be at least equal, if not higher than in areas with sex education programs.

This also brings up another interesting point. I always hear Republicans using strong Libertarian rhetoric. The government has no right to do this or that to you, the government should give you more freedom. That's all fine and well, but when it comes down to value positions they take the complete opposite stance. The government should support abstinence-only programs, even though they essentially limit the resources available to young people and cater exclusively to a certain belief style. The government should outlaw abortion and same-sex marriage, even though they provide people with more freedom, more options, and the right to the same opportunities as every other American family. But don't touch guns, no that's government going too far. Please, keep violent weapons in your house, with your children, but whatever you do don't educate them about sex so that they don't end up making a mistake that could ruin their lives. Please, carry a weapon so that you can feel safer, even if it may mean an accidental shooting, but for god's sake do not let homosexuals enjoy the same support as any other American family would. Sarah Palin is against sex education, but is for holding youth gun education classes. Yes, let's not educate children about creating life, after all that's dirty. Instead, let's teach them about ending it. That's a much better alternative.

For too long the Republican party has tried to paint these issues as integral. This country was founded because people wanted to be free of those who would tell them how to live their lives, but has it not become exactly that? Is it fair to base laws on Christian values? Is it fair to expect other people to live by those values, even if they don't necessarily share them? As it stands, those who see abortion as a viable option may use that resource, those who don't may have their baby. You have freedom for both parties, so why change it? Outlawing abortion is no more right than outlawing pregnancy. I'm sure conservatives would not like it if doctors refused to deliver babies and would abort them instead. Republicans preach freedom and choice, so why do they support a lack of choice when it comes to abortion? What if gay marriage were legal? It would provide homosexuals with the resources that every other American couple has, to tax benefits and the right to legally share their lives the same way any other couple does. As it stands, homosexuals don't have those rights. What gives conservatives a right to declare them any less deserving of equal treatment under the law? The law is supposed to be devoid of prejudice, so why do our laws support it? What would happen if gay marriage was legalized? It would mean more freedom for homosexuals. What is the matter with that? Sarah Palin has even said, "individual freedom and independence is extremely important to me and that's why I'm a Republican." Sarah Palin, though, has supported an amendment to deny homosexual couples the right to state health benefits. Individual freedom for whom? Your select few? The chosen people? America is a land of freedom for all, if Sarah Palin is really for individual freedom then why does she always put her own beliefs first?

Another thing about Sarah Palin that makes me sick is her support of big business. Did you know that as mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin cut property taxes while increasing sales taxes? What this means is more money from out of town business, but it also means that businesses are paying less taxes and that average citizens are paying more. It means that poor areas, which pay less in property taxes, are now shouldering an equal tax burden to their well-to-do counterparts. There had been talk in the primaries of a so-called fair tax, in which the IRS would be replaced by a national sales tax. Frankly, this idea is massively outdated. Most economists agree that a flat tax is not only detrimental to the balance of a society, but is economically infeasible. Flat taxes lead to greater class stratification. Those with acquired wealth pay the same taxes as those with little acquired wealth, therefore the latter, no matter how hard they work, cannot ever feasibly catch up to the former. The rich get richer, they stay richer, and it becomes increasingly difficult, if not outright impossible, for anyone to move from the lower or middle class to the upper class. Basic principles of reproduction state that since the middle and lower classes are much larger than the elite, they will continue to grow while their economic status decreases. This is the end of a meritocracy and the beginning of an aristocracy. Apparently, according to Sarah Palin, that is what will stimulate the economy, increasing the tax burden on the lower and middle classes while alleviating that of the rich.

I could go on about Sarah Palin. Let's talk about her stance on the environment. Sarah Palin doesn't believe that man has had an adverse effect on the environment. Well, just this week an ice shelf larger in area than Manhattan broke off from northern Canada, and scientists attribute it to the increase in global warming in the recent century. They also say that this trend may be irreversible because whereas ocean temperatures in the past had been low enough to replace these ice formations, now they are too high to do so. If you haven't already, go out and rent An Inconvenient Truth. Look at projections of how much of the world would be underwater should just one of the world's largest ice formations melt. Now is not the time to be dragging our feet, not when we might already be too late to reverse the damage we have done.

Let's talk about more of her environmental stances. Sarah Palin objected to Alaskan polar bears being put on the endangered species list. She sued over it because she claims not enough research has been done, but what she won't tell you is that if polar bears are put on this list it will halt oil development in Alaska. Palin also authorized the hunting of Alaskan wolves from helicopters despite warnings from wildlife experts that it was a bad idea. Then there's her stance on the protection of beluga whales, which she opposes in favor of developing oil.

Let's talk about Palin's energy stance. Palin would like to drill for oil in wildlife preserves. Many experts in the field of energy agree, drilling is not a long-term answer. It's even worse when you consider that it would come at the cost of a precious natural habitat. There have been many proposals in recent years that call for more alternative energy sources, and Barack Obama has promised to be running on completely environmentally-safe energy sources within 10 years, but Sarah Palin would rather lay waste to the natural environment and deplete what little fossil fuels we have left before exploring these options.

Last, but by no means least, I would like to address Palin's experience. I never have thought that Barrack Obama was not qualified to run this country. Obama is young, but he served as a state legislator for 7 years and has been serving as a U.S. senator for the past 3. Obama is well-versed in the daily goings-on and procedures in Washington, even if he is fairly new.

I would never have questioned Palin's experience, except for a couple of reasons. The Republican side has held nothing back when accusing Obama of inexperience, yet this standard does apparently not apply to them. Furthermore, Palin has shown her inexperience in the way she deals with government in Alaska. From pushing her tax agenda through, to supporting conservative value causes no matter what, to firing whatever officials speak up against her, Palin has dealt with Alaska's politics with all the tact of a drunk at a bar on Labor Day. Upon hearing of her selection, she openly admitted to knowing nothing about the responsibilities the job entailed. Yet when the media begins to question her experience, she lashes out and calls them, "elitist." Pay no mind to the fact that her camp continually launched the same accusation at Obama, people who criticise her experience are elitist. There's a subtle pattern forming in her political beliefs, that of a double standard. Sarah Palin is right and anyone who opposes her is wrong, period. That's the way it works. I haven't been the biggest fan of the Democratic line of another 4 years of Bush, but Palin certainly seems to reflect Bush's ideology. If you thought Cheney was a stubborn old coot only concerned with protecting the status quo, then look out for Palin.