n a v i g a t i o n

- blog

- f.a.q.

- politics

- follow me

b l o g s

- The Daily Dalia

- The Ryan Thomas Collection

- Shiney Trash

- Life Hacker

- Kotaku

t w i t t e r

If you put lipstick on a website, it's still a website. HAHA. Anyway, recently Obama made a comment about putting lip stick on a pig. After he made his joke the McCain people said it was highly offensive of him and they demanded an apology for insulting Palin. To my great pleasure, Obama came out and said exactly what I said and refused to make an apology. Way to go Obama, glad to see he did not cave.

Then to my greater amusement, thanks to the power of YouTube we can see McCain making the EXACT SAME REFERENCE about Clinton. Double standards, sounds like a Republican trait.

And just because, McCain is a dirty liar!

Labels: McCain, Obama, Palin, politics, YouTube

  ¶ 11:11 AM -  0 Comments - Links to this post

Seven years ago Osama bin Laden decided to attack America. We have since been able to end the Talibans reign in Afghanistan but we STILL have not found the main culprit behind the horrific crimes. This may change soon...

The New York Times is reporting that George Bush is not only increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan but also he is attacking Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Pakistan without Pakistan's permission. This is a bold move that I respect for many reasons. One, Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the invasion but they are now and killing the terrorists in Iraq is only curing the symptoms, not the disease. Also Capturing/killing Osama Bin Laden will be the best bet at finally respecting those who died in 9/11 by ending Al Qaeda's reign of terror.

I feel like 9/11 has been exploited by so many people for personal and political gain, the worst of course is Guiliani (I know I spelled his name wrong but I dislike him so much it's not even worth correcting) and exploiting a tragic event is disrespectful to those who died. So, after 7 years of using 9/11 as a means to gain power, as an excuse to arbitrarily invade countries, as an excuse to deny civil rights, as a reason to hate an entire religion, and so on and so on, let's end this drama and bring those responsible to justice and give closure to the family and friends of those who died. .


Does anyone else find it suspicious that Bush is finally acting serious in Afghanistan? It's been over six years since the Taliban has been overthrown yet he waits until now to actually make a legitimate attempt to find bin Laden. I wonder why?

Labels: Afghanistan, Bush, Iraq, politics, racism, religion, violence

  ¶ 10:26 AM -  2 Comments - Links to this post

Now that the RNC is over it is time for a brief overview of what I heard in the speeches. What I heard were a lot of words. Words do not automatically have meaning they need be constructed in a means which have meaning.

So when they speak of change, what do they mean. With eight years of Bush with the support of six years of a Republican congress, the things they supposedly want to change are mostly at the fault of their Republican party. True democrats have had control for two years but it is difficult for them to accomplish much with vetoes and filibusters.

"The Party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan" this is also a bunch of words. According to Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize winner and expert in Lincoln says the Republican party now adays is unrecognizable to the party he was with. Roosevelt, well, the famous Roosevelt of course was FDR who was a Democrat (who lead us in WW2 but Democrats don't know how to fight) and also lead us out of a depression. The lesser one, Teddy Roosevelt, was a Republican but actually left the party to join the Progressive party.  Even Reagan, yes he is a famous Republican but almost 30 years ago. I do not think it counts for change when you go 30 years in the past. McCain should not just say words he should say things.

The words that did have meaning I did not much like. They both spoke of Iraq and defense and the terrorist attacks. When fear is used as a tactic of gaining votes you should really be scared. When people are scared they are more willing to give up their rights and when you give up your rights the government only gets that much stronger. By the way, they are called terrorists, not killerists. The point of their attacks is not killing people, the point of the attacks is to kill people so the people who are still alive are afraid. Yes, every death caused by a terrorist attack is tragic, but think about 9/11 and think about what has happened to our country since. *cough* USA Patriot Act *cough*

There is also strong anti-patriotic rhetoric in these speeches. For some reason they think they are more patriotic than Democrats. This is not true, they are equally as patriotic, they just have differing views on how to best run the country. Calling people unpatriotic, as silly as it sounds, is a powerful means of social control, take this quote for example: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." That is a famous quote said by Hermann Goering, Hitler's right hand man. Just for the hell of it, my other favorite quote of his is: “Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy.” Kids, stay in school!


There is more I can say, but I will stop here. All I want is for McCain/Palin, and to a lesser extent Obama/Biden to stop saying words and start saying things.

Labels: Biden, McCain, Obama, Palin, politics

  ¶ 9:30 AM -  0 Comments - Links to this post

It has been a long time since I have been able to post but I am back to write about some of the new political developments that have happened since me leaving, mostly, the announcements of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

Obama's choice in Biden I believe is a relatively safe bet and strengthens his ticket because of the many years of experience he has, especially in international affairs. Maybe not the BEST choice, but a good one.

But of course this post is going to be about why Palin is a TERRIBLE choice. In her acceptance speech she mentioned how her and McCain will get the 18M female votes that were cast for Clinton, simply because Palin is also a woman. If I were a woman I would be seriously offended by this statement. Although there may  been some, most women were not fans of Clinton solely because of her sex but because of what she believed in and what she fought for; being a woman may have helped, but certainly was not the sole reason for her popularity with women over Obama. Palin opposes Clinton on issues of health care, reproduction rights, sex education, gay rights, worker rights, etc etc. Thus, to suggest 18Mil people will vote for her even though she differs in every idea, absolutely ridiculous.

Next, her lack of experience also makes her a bad choice. Besides her one year of governing the "nations largest state" (someone did say that), her experience is with the city council and mayor of a city of 7,000. To put that in perspective, my University which is 1000 square acres has 21,000 people, thus my chancellor has a harder job than her. With McCain' s oldness there is a chance he could die in office leaving a inexperienced person to lead the nation. I am not saying she can't do it, I am just saying, if you accuse Obama for being to inexperienced to lead then what makes Palin acceptable? (Apparently her own staff does not know - YouTube)

And to end, I think it is important to talk about her 17 year old daughter being pregnant, only because it shows how Republican beliefs of sex education, or lack their of, is a failed policy. If you don't want to get an abortion, fine, but abstinence only education does not reflect  reality because, regardless of what you teach, kids are going to have sex and if they are not taught how to have sex safely becoming pregnant is lucky consequence, she could have just as easily gotten AIDS or any other STD. Now two 17 year olds are going to be parents and getting married. Levi, the 17 year old proud dad, say about himself "I'm a fuckin' redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes," and he likes "to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some shit and just fuckin' chillin'," and do not fuck with him because "Ya fuck with me I'll kick [your] ass." (Via Fresh Intelligence). He sounds very mature and I am sure he will make a great dad :/

Labels: Biden, McCain, Obama, Palin, politics, religion

  ¶ 10:00 AM -  1 Comments - Links to this post

I have recently came across the PEW News IQ test, it is a test of 12 questions based around people in current events that have some importance in our lives, like stuff about Paris Hilton. I got 11of the 12 right, the national average is 6 out of 12. See how well you can do! Don't cheat!

http://pewresearch.org/newsiq/

Labels: politics

  ¶ 9:01 AM -  2 Comments - Links to this post

Yesterday I donated blood, a pint of that good ol' red stuff to help save some lives. One thing that has always bugged me about donating blood is the pre-screening questions that are in place to disqualify people from donating because their blood is unhealthy to be recieved, or potentially unhealthy to be recieved.

Although it makes sense that you would not want to take blood from a person who has West Nile Virus, the fact that sexually active gay men cannot donate is completely asinine. Not only are gay men not allowed to donate but women who have had sex with a man who had sex with a man are not allowed to donate. The only reason they prevent this class of people from donating is because the high risk of AIDS. They test all blood for AIDS anyway! Why can't the dude just say yes I am gay but I do not have AIDS, simple enough! They asked me, a straight guy, if I had AIDS, I said no, and they took my word for it, apparently gay men are liars? I think it is time the federal government stops supporting myths like AIDS is a gay man's disease, and start focusing on reality.

Normally I would simply avoid the offending organization, sort of like the boycott on the San Diego Manchester Hyatt, but not giving blood means that some poor sap who needs it wont get it, that does not really feel like justice. So that is why I continue to donate, but there has got to be something that we can do to let the government know that their policies are antiquated and myth based!

Labels: law, lgtbq, politics

  ¶ 2:41 PM -  3 Comments - Links to this post

As I say in my FAQ section of the webpage, I currently do not identify as a Democrat. I am liberal and I do usually vote Democrat and I will be voting for Obama. With a recent congressional vote it has become LEGAL for government agencies to wiretap phone calls without a warrant. President Bush has been a long time supporter of this bill because it empowers the government to help fight terrorism. This new law helps strengthen our efforts against Al Qaeda because we can monitor their communications, and as Missouri Senator Christopher Bond puts it, you should not be afraid of this law "unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial."

Fuck that. I more of a believer of: "Those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Our right to privacy has been a cornerstone of our constituion and of democracy. I do not mean United States Democracy, I mean democracy, as in that thing we are trying spread across the world, whether they want it or not. From the looks of it, the United States does not want democracy just as much as Iran or Iraq do not. Actually, that is not a fair claim because, "We the People" want democracy, we love democracy, too bad democracy makes things balls hard for ruling the world. By the way, the quotation from above was not some random thing I found, it was first spoken by Benjamin Franklin, ya know that guy who is on the $100 bill because he was like our founding father who helped create America. Way to go Bush for completely trashing his dream.

But in all fairness, I cannot solely blame Bush. I actually should not blame him at all since he has no legislative powers, especially since we have a House and Senate being run by Democrats. That's right folks, Democrats gave Bush this power of warantless wiretapping on a silver platter. That is mest up. It came with much disappointment when I saw Obama was one of the cowards who voted yes.

Not only did Obama and most other Democrats agree to this new law but they also agreed to something called RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY. Basically, Bush, with the help of Verizon and AT&T, had been wiretapping people's phone calls for years now with out any law to give them this power. So, what they were doing was illegal. With retroactive immunity this law basically says "Whatever" to any wrong doings. Imagine giving retroactive immunity to a serial murderer, that would be nuts to say hey, you killed some people, but whatever dude, we're cool.

The bigger picture here is that, retroactive immunity is legitimizing Bush's crimes against our very own constitution and the Democrats are doing it for him! I do not have Al Qaeda on my speed dial but as Ben said, I do not think the trade off is worth it, and if you do, well then you do not deserve the protections that a legitimate government would normally provide.

Now, our only hope is the ACLU who have already filed a lawsuit. I have always loved them :)

Sources:
New York Times
American Civil Liberties Union

Labels: Bush, law, Obama, politics

  ¶ 12:52 PM -  2 Comments - Links to this post

During a 4th of July Speech at the former home of our very own Thomas Jefferson (of course he is famous for writing the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776, well, that is when the sent it at least), President George Bush gave a speech in which he quoted Thomas Jefferson about the greatness of democracy. The quote is as follows:

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be -- to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all -- the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.

That was Bush's version of the quote, the actual quote reads:

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.

Jefferson here is clearly criticizing religion here, and he was a known opponent to religion. Personally I am not a religious person yet I do accept people's religious beliefs, most of them that is, but I do agree with Jefferson. Religion has played a critical role in history in mainting the oppressive political regimes.

Actually, religion is still used as an excuse to oppress. The clearest example is Iran or Saudia Arabia which forces women to wear veils and criminalizes women for being raped. This trend is not unique to the Middle East, the US still uses religious as an oppressive means, this is why we still are denying full and equal rights to those whom identify as women and/or queer.

Is it a surprise that Bush edited the Jefferson's quotation? No. Should he have edited the quotation? Of course not. Removing this line changed the entire significance of Jefferson's quotation and helps further define Bush as a Christian leader, not a leader.

Source: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/07/bush_edits_out_jeffersons_reli.php

Labels: Bush, history, lgtbq, politics, religion

  ¶ 11:08 PM -  0 Comments - Links to this post

Obama has been called an elitest by Clinton and McCain. The following website is a Google Maps tour of all of McCains homes. Currently he owns a Condo in Arlington, CA, two condos in Pheonix, AZ, a house in Pheonix, AZ a ranch in Scottsdale, AZ a condo in La Jolla, CA, and a condo in Coronado, CA.

I am not sure of Obama's housing situation but I am sure he is pretty well taken care of. Calling Obama an elitest is kind of a joke though since all presidents are. I think this site can at least prove the McCain is.

Check it out: http://www.mccainvminnesota.com/cribs.html

Labels: McCain, Obama, politics

  ¶ 10:54 PM -  1 Comments - Links to this post

Just recently the United States Supreme Court found a Washington DC law which banned the ownership of handguns, to be unconstitutional. The courts 5-4 decision claims that the right to own a gun is protected under the second amendment, even if the ownership of the gun is unrelated to being in a militia.

I am pretty upset by this ruling, the right to own guns came because our founding fathers felt it necessary to protect the state from the British attacks from Canada during our infancy. Now that we have the worlds strongest military we really do not have that fear. I think it is time for the United States to move forward and realize that we do not need guns.

As the Cliche goes "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" but what guns do is kill people easily and efficiently and as guns get smaller, quieter, and more powerful, they will kill people even more easily.

And what do we really need guns for? Don't say hunting, people can hunt with bow and arrows just fine :)

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7474924.stm

Labels: law, politics, violence, weapons

  ¶ 11:28 AM -  1 Comments - Links to this post

In the news now is the possibility that Verizon Wireless will be buying Alltel for $27Bil. This means there are two wireless giants, Verizon and AT&T with some lessers such as T-Mobile, (the "T" stands for terrible), Sprint (because you gotta get out of their contracts as fast as possible) and Virgin (that's just to easy). My point is, if you want reliable service you basically are forced to go with Verizon or AT&T. Personally I would never do business with AT&T so I am a Verizon customer, but there is something seriously wrong with the trend of phone companies consolidating. Cingular (Bell) buys AT&T wireless, then AT&T buys Bell (along with Cingular) Verizon buys Alltel, Sprint buys Nextel, where is the compitition?

It is a simple fact, when there are more companies offering products than they compete for customers by both increasing the quality of a product while offering it for less. It is great, that is why we have anti-monoply laws, the same laws that broke AT&T up years ago, and broke Bell up years ago, but it is the same laws that have since faded away due to certain political groups being into office that have allowed the re-emergance of telephony giants, so much so now that there is really only two contenders, and this is not good.

It is not good for phones, but the growing trend in media is also bad. Regardless of what paper you read or what tv channle you watch, you are really only seeing one of maybe four or five companies, and once independent papers like Wall Street Journal are even being eaten by evil corporations, and it is a trend that should stop. That is why blogs are so cool, because they are not owned by group, just cool individuals or small groups :)

Labels: internet, politics, technology

  ¶ 7:33 PM -  2 Comments - Links to this post

After a long, long campaign where a certain woman kept telling herself "I think I can, I think I can" (Now known as the The Little Presidential Candidate that Couldn't) Obama has finally finished his amazing, come from behind victory, to win the Democratic nomination. After jokes about being assassinated, crazy pastors, and all that crap about Florida and Michigan, we have our new JFK/RFK, a beacon of hope that will bring America to the greatness it once was, otherwise known as our anti-Reagan (I hate that guy). I mean, how can you not trust a guy with a smile like that, aaaah so cute.

Bush and his older twin brother, McCain represent an old ideology, they are figurative representations of the status quo, a status quo that is misguided and broken. We currently have laws that value the life of a wealthy person while ignoring the needs of the poor. They care little about the lives of the soldiers in Iraq and little about the lives of Iraqi citizens, Myanmar citizens, Darfur citizens, etc etc. Their callous nature hurts us because it reifies the Military Industrial Complex, the Prison Industrial Complex, big oil, and defense contractors while ignoring inner city needs, schools and federal grant programs designed to help the poor escape their conditions. Afterall, if we had no poor people, who would fight in Iraq?

Obama stands for change and I believe in him. Also, unlike Bush, he probably cares about black people (see video):

Labels: Obama, politics

  ¶ 7:08 PM -  2 Comments - Links to this post

Today Obama gained the majority of the pledged delegates which means he is going to be the next Democrat running for office!!!?! Wait, what, he isn't? Oh yeah other powerful Democrats also get to vote so technically Clinton still has a chance.

Currently I am not a member of the Democratic Party although I will almost vote for their candidates. If Clinton pulls off some miracle and ends up clinching the nomination there is something seriously wrong with the parties methodology of choosing a nominee. The experts are maybe supposed to vote, using their knowledge, on who is the stronger candidate, ie, the person who has a better chance of winning. I highly doubt every superdelegates out there is voting on this basis and I know there are some backroom shady deals going on with BOTH Clinton and Obama and this does not believe in a system of governing that prides itself on fairness and openness.

If Clinton wins the nomination I will not be voting for her (nor McCain). Although I do like Obama over Clinton I would be more than willing to vote for Clinton if it was her that gained the most pleged delegates. For now I must have faith that the system, as weird and potentially terrible it is, actually works.

Labels: politics

  ¶ 12:40 AM -  1 Comments - Links to this post

I love technology and love the internet and I realized that I have yet to post anything relating to it so here I go:

It has recently be reported that CBS purchased Cnet for $1,800,000,000, and no I did not add extra zeros in there. Cnet was a cool site seven years ago. Now they are just another company who does reviews on technology products like phones and computers and they became just a corporate company who was clearly biased in their reviews and now with CBS running things it will probably get worse.

Now, that is just why I think Cnet sucks, now why I think it is a bad move on CBS's part. The future of the internet is not content like this, where someone submits a review of a product, the future of the internet is connectivity and socialization because socialization is so much easier over the internet! Digg.com is a great example of a website that would be a better purchase than Cnet. Not only does Digg do news which is similar to CBS but it has a dedicated and growing fan base and this is because of the social features that are involved. People add each other as friends to see what each other likes in the news realm which makes it a bit more fun. People can comment on stories and this creates a strong community. Cnet may have some features like this but they are weak, they are also history because they are going to be left in the dust.

CBS should have followed in the feet of Rupert Murdoch (I cannot believe I just said that). He purchased myspace.com and in doing so is gambling on the future of the internet and in my opinion made the right choice, they just bought a crappy website (myspace sucks, by the way). CBS could have forked over some money for Facebook (worth a lot more than $1.8B and rightfully so), or payed less for a Digg.com and been able to actually make an intelligent purchase. Some other smart purchases are Google's buy of Blogger, (because blogging is the future too!) and youtube.com because all these sites rely on the community, almost grassroots like, work of the power internet users!

For CBS's sake, I hope this pays off well for them. I like CBS, they have some good shows, but frankly $1.8 Bil is a price tag that is giving a dying company (Cnet) more credit than it is worth.

Labels: internet, politics, technology

  ¶ 2:33 PM -  0 Comments - Links to this post

Everyone knows by now that the gays can marry in California so I am not really going to go into it. I also will not go into detail about my beliefs of gay marriage because I plan on having that as one of my opening things in my politics section, but here is a brief overview.

Many people say gay marriage as a two sided debate. There are conservatives who argue against it and their are LGTBQ activists that argue for it. I am going to present a third alternative that Queer Theorists argue which is basically the complete deconstruction and reconstruction of marriage is necessary for it to be truly equal. Marriage is a heteronormative institution; heteronormativity is the idea of the "perfect" citizen which will have these characteristics: whiteness, straight, married, able bodied, young, etc etc. Thus, by its very nature, marriage is sexist, homophobic, racist, ageist, ableist, and so on. When gay couples get married they take on all of the negative characteristics of the heteronormative institution. Some argue that, by entering it gays can change it from the inside out but I believe this to be untrue because rates of domestic violence between gay and straight couples are equal, and domestic violence is a serious symptom of the heteronormative institution of marriage and domestic violence (and all sexual assault) would not exist in a world that rejects patriarchy and heteronormativity.

Bottom line, it is great that gays can get married but I don't know if I see it is an extremely important aspect of the quest for true gay rights.

Labels: lgtbq, marriage, oppression, patriarchy, politics

  ¶ 6:31 PM -  6 Comments - Links to this post