The Nebulous Dissembler

The Philosophy of Liberty

2008-04-06T17:41:00.002-05:00

In the coming weeks, I will write a series of notes concerning a few ideas or policies that are, in my opinion, ruining America. Some are more important than others, but all of them carry some sort of weight in my mind.

To preface this series, I would like to show a video that summarizes my core beliefs concerning the philosophy of politics.

The video is entitled "The Philosophy of Liberty," and it was made by the International Society for Individual Liberty. It's relatively short, and shouldn't take up too much time to view. The video derives its logic from a series of axioms which seem indisputable. If anyone would like to challenge one of the axioms given, please do so, and we can debate the issue.

PS: The music is a bit cheesy, but I'm sure you'll be fine.

So without further ado, here it is.

True Tranquility

2008-02-28T16:23:00.002-06:00

Before read, I would like to preface this blog post with this: I have never, ever shared personal information on the internet in this fashion and probably will not for a very long time after today, but for some reason, on today of all days, I have had some sort of insight on life as a whole and I decided to share it.

In the past few months a person has, to be bluntly honest, completely intimidated me. I don't mean intimidated in some crude physical sense, but on an intellectual and emotional level. Most who know me would say that I am at the very least an extremely confident person and at worst, proud. I wouldn't disagree with either evaluation presently. Because of this confidence, when I meet a person who is superior to me in a field I care about, I immediately have a fiercely competitive outlook towards that person. Usually, the person in question is not even aware of my attitude. In the past, I saw this as a way to have a step up on the "competition" (whatever that was), but after I met this one person, this inner competition began to falter. It took several months-- just about an hour ago actually--but it ultimately failed.

What led to this failure was not this person's intellectual triumph or some dramatic achievement, but simply their outlook on life. A simple statement, really. I heard through a friend that the person I have talked about gave a bit of advice to my friend. He said, "Don't become like Jean-Marc and attempt to let acquisition of knowledge be your life goal." Initially, when my friend told me this, I blew it off and thought of the comment as presumptuous and pretentious. But for some strange reason, this comment lingered inside me; it creeped up on me at least weekly and even though I shrugged it off, the advice continued to trouble me. This afternoon the house of cards finally came crashing down.

I have thought for a while now, that all I needed to live happily was a continuing education--a never-ending, ceaseless education about anything and everything that interested me, but today when I was driving home, I realized that this thought process would never sustain me. Why? There is so much to know of the world that no matter how much I learn, more can always be known. There is always something else to know. No matter what. I like the idea of this, but I realized that it will not sustain me. It is not something I can cling to in times of worry or stress. So I asked myself, what can give me true, lasting tranquility? What can provide some sort of inextinguishable flame of placidity--of peace?

The first idea that came to my mind was simple: nothing. Nothing lasts forever, and everything always fades away. No material object in this world will last forever. No relationship will last forever. No ideas will last forever. So the next step in thought for me was this: to attain true peace one must be able to realize that nothing will last a lifetime. One must be willing to let things go. One must be able to continue on, no matter what circumstances may surround them, no matter what person, idea, or feeling leaves them.

I am definitely not saying to treasure nothing. I am not saying to place no value in anything. What I am saying is that no one should let any one object, idea, or person become a remedy for any problem. Why? Because at some point, somewhere down the long, winding road of life, that thing will leave or cease to exist. Then what will one use to endure hardship? This path only leads to addiction. Addiction to anything at all.

My main message--my main discovery--is this: realize that everything, everything is temporary. All things will end. All things will fade away. Your house, your job, your friends, your relationships, your car, your books, your philosophies, your heroes, even your very life. And while this thought maybe jarring and depressing initially, it provides for a way of thinking in which one can be able to survive any hardship.

My advice is simply, be.

Live your life without needing an addiction to live happily; understand the temporal nature of the universe in which we live.

And maybe, just maybe, we can all gain piece of mind. I sure hope I can.

The Beautiful Expanse of Nature

2008-02-25T22:39:00.004-06:00

Though sometimes I may feel underwhelmed with nature and sometimes even life in general, there are times when I contemplate everything around me in pure awe. The perfection of a solitary lead hanging suspended from a tree-lined with veins, slowly exhaling oxygen. The perfect instinct of animals. The complete placidity of an ocean breeze coupled with the smell of salt and sand. The lush livelihood of forests given sparse room by the ever-expanding concrete jungle.

The puzzling characteristic of nature as a whole is some humans' ability to create something completely in tune with it, and others who seem only capable (some even bent on) destroying it. For evidence of this phenomenon, compare Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" to the deafening, intrusive bombast of jackhammers, concrete pavers, and bull-dozers.

Which comforts you?

Which aids in finally falling asleep after hours of endless tossing and turning?

Which complements the world we live in, and which can only defy it?

Jean-Marc's Oscars!

2008-02-24T09:51:00.006-06:00

Well since the Oscars are on tonight AND I haven't posted anything in forever, I thought I would give my opinion on who should win in each major Oscar category. Feel free to give your opinion!

Best Picture

Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

This year's nominees for best picture are probably the best I have ever seen, and each of them could have probably won in separate years, but alas, only one can win. My pick for Best Picture is... drumroll... No Country for Old Men. This is one of the best movies I have EVER seen in just about every category imaginable. The screenplay (adapted from Cormac McCarthy's novel of the same name) is amazing, the acting is even better, especially in Javier Bardem's case, and the cinematography is unsurpassed. EVERYONE should see this movie.

Best Director

Paul Thomas Anderson - There Will Be Blood
Joel and Ethan Coen - No Country for Old Men
Tony Gilroy - Michael Clayton
Jason Reitman - Juno
Julian Schnabel - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Though No Country is the better film, for sheer directing, I give this to Paul Thomas Anderson for There Will Be Blood.

Best Actor

George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones - In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises

While the other nominees are very deserving, this award has absolutely no competition compared to Daniel Day-Lewis of There Will Be Blood. The only word to describe his performance would be virtuoso; he wasn't playing Daniel Plainview in a movie, he was Daniel Plainview. From simple mannerisms to his now-infamous bizarre line, "I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!!!!!" this performance was probably the absolute best I have ever seen by an actor.

Best Actress

Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie - Away from Her
Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose (La mòme)
Laura Linney - The Savages
Ellen Page - Juno

My pick for Best Actress is the relatively unknown Marion Cotillard from La Vie en Rose. My comment for her performance is similar to what I said about Daniel Day-Lewis; Cotillard transformed herself from a beautiful young actress to the considerably uglier, older, and more vulgar French singer Èdith Piaf.

Best Supporting Actor

Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton

This is another no-brainer award: Javier Bardem from No Country for Old Men. Anyone who has seen this movie can attest to the sinister aura surrounding his character, the serial-killer Anton Chigurh. His very appearance on screen can induce chills almost immediately, and he is probably one of the most terrifying, yet simultaneously deep villains to step onto the silver screen.

Best Supporting Actress

Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There
Ruby Dee - American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan - Atonement
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton

While this award is definitely not a "no-brainer"-everyone but Ruby Dee is deserving-I think Saoirse Ronan deserves the award the most.

Dear Diary: A Novel's Testimony in the Information Age

2008-02-06T22:54:00.000-06:00

Lying in my small two by three inch shelf in Southwater Christian School
is almost torture. I sit in this space, every day, untouched except for
the careful, calculating hands of the handler. While this small gesture of
welcome may suffice for the moments, I yearn for someone, just someone, to
crack open my cover and take a look at me—even just a passing glance. Yet
I, The Old Man and the Sea, live out my days ignored and sometimes met
with an apathetic gaze.

Besides the constant reorganization by the handler, whom I suspect to have

some sort of serious compulsion for meticulous worship of the Dewey
Decimal system, I’m usually only glanced at by passing learners on their way to
the flashing screen which seem so addictively entertaining even from afar.
The learners barely even notice that lying just ten feet behind the
flashing screens are thousands of my brothers, sisters, and cousins
waiting to be cracked open for some bit of information, but in the silence
only disturbed by the steady drone of the flashing screens, my kin and I
are forgotten.

Just ten years ago, barely the blink of an eye for my species, we were
used almost round-the-clock—always needed by some learner looking for the
ever more obscure subjects assigned by certain teachers, who will remain
unnamed, yet these days assumingly have passed with singers only referred to by their first names and acid-washed jeans.
Now, the only objects which receive any attention from learners whatsoever are the continuously flashing screens
and the tired old romance novels showing a strapping man’s bare nipple on
the cover, read by the handler only when her compulsion is satiated by
complete structure in her environment.

Currently, as the days pass on, my family and friends are being
continuously converted into the whirring screens—a somehow backward way of
streamlining reminiscent of the “intellectual” articles found in certain
magazines published by pipe-smoking men in evening jackets surrounded scantily clad women.
So, as my family dies out, I silently wish that just
one more glasses-clad learner will enter into the handler’s room desiring
one of my kind, rather than the ubiquitous droning screens.

And, I lie untouched in my two by three inch shelf.

The Cosmic Beauty of Mortality

2008-02-02T23:49:00.000-06:00

To quote Richard Dawkins, "We're going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones." While some may find this thought morbid, I find it rather liberating; the idea that the precious bit of life one has must be taken advantage of. To not be a colossal waste, everything must be done to the fullest and best of one's ability.

Most, including myself, have thought "Man, I wish I could just live forever," but when one really ponders this alternative to reality, the prospect of finding true joy seems hollow at best. An immortal life lends to relegating everything to "tomorrow"-nothing ever being truly meaningful based on fully on the fact that it could happen again. Never truly appreciating life because it would never end.

So if given the hypothetical choice between the temporary or eternal, I would choose that which ends. While this choice lends itself to some form of loss, it at least renders some sort of appreciation to every day experiences.

Yet in all actuality, this hypothetical proposition is obviously preposterous. In reality, this is life, and no one gets out alive. And while this may seem tragic, remember that this enables one to truly enjoy every waking moment of this short cosmic fraction of time called life.

The Opulence of Consciousness and its Origin

2008-01-30T22:30:00.000-06:00

ooking over a few of the "musings" that I've written and even pondering the capability of "looking over" in the first place, I have become absolutely enraptured by the idea of consciousness. The ability not only to listen to music, but to "enjoy" it, recognize it, and even classify it in some cases seems miraculous in itself. What seems to be even more enrapturing is the proposition that all of these thoughts, enjoyments, and recognitions occur in a fist-sized object in the middle of my head; some may say that this idea is impossible and that the brain is only a mode of transportation for some ethereally centered locus of the mind, but that seems a bit too mystical for my taste. This idea, while initially may sound as the only rational prospect for prospect, is oddly reminiscent of the old cartoon "Casper". How could something by definition "non-material" interact with the brain, a material object? Obviously, for an object to have the ability to interact with the material world, it too must be a material object. Past the philosophical disputes I have with dualism, I also think that the very idea of resigning to mystery as, on an intellectual level, almost lazy. Instead of attempting to dissect and quantify what our experiences may be, the idea of dualism basically resigns itself to the ethereal. If the idea of materialism in the field of consciousness is true, then in my opinion, the field of philosophy of mind and neuroscientists alike have so much more mystery to unravel in the process. Think of attempting to quantify the ability to see an image, interpret it, then feeling something corresponding to personal taste of the environment. Man, think of quantifying "personal taste"! Mindblowing, huh?

10 Best Guitarists

2008-01-28T21:34:00.000-06:00

I thought I would continue the countdown progress per Derek's advice; so here is my opinion of the best 20 guitarists ever.

1. Jimi Hendrix- Jimi Hendrix Experience (Notable guitar work: Voodoo Child (Slight Return),
Are You Experienced, May This Be Love)

2. Eric Clapton- Cream, Derek and the Dominos, Solo (Notable guitar work: Layla, Bell-Bottom Blues, Strange Brew)

3. Jimmy Page- Led Zeppelin (Notable guitar work: Stairway to Heaven, Immigrant Song, The Ocean, EVERYTHING of Led Zeppelin)

4. David Gilmour- Pink Floyd (Notable guitar work: Comfortably Numb, Echoes, Shine on You Crazy Diamond, Dogs, and Money)

5. Robert Johnson- Solo (Notable guitar work: Stones in My Passway, Ramblin on My Mind, Me and the Devil Blues)

6. B.B. King- Solo

7. Tom Morello- Rage Against the Machine, Audioslave

8. Johnny Greenwood- Radiohead (Notable guitar work: Paranoid Android, Electioneering, The Bends)

9. George Harrison- The Beatles, Solo (Notable guitar work: While My Guitar Gently Weeps, She Said She Said, And Your Bird Can Sing)

10. Trey Anastasio- Phish (Notable guitar work: You Enjoy Myself)

The 20 Greatest Albums Ever

2008-01-26T09:53:00.000-06:00

This post is a bit of a change of pace, but if you know me, you know that I love music passionately. So for this post I'm giving my list of the Top 20 Greatest Albums of All Time; these are my favorites, but comments are welcome and discussion is encouraged.

1. Revolver- The Beatles

2. Dark Side of the Moon- Pink Floyd

3. Ok Computer- Radiohead

4. Are You Experienced?- Jimi Hendrix Experience

5 (tie). Magical Mystery Tour- The Beatles

5 (tie). Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band- The Beatles

7. Nevermind- Nirvana

8. Meddle- Pink Floyd

9. Beggars Banquet- Rolling Stones

10. Kind of Blue- Miles Davis

11. II- Led Zeppelin

12. Abbey Road- The Beatles

13. Animals Pink Floyd

14. Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots- The Flaming Lips

15. Parachutes- Coldplay

16. Pet Sounds- The Beach Boys

17. What's Goin On- Marvin Gaye

18. Kid A- Radiohead

19. Songs in the Key of Life- Stevie Wonder

20. The Yes Album- Yes

The Rise of Socialism and its Ramifications

2008-01-18T13:47:00.001-06:00

Here's something I wrote for my English class, and I thought that it would be pertinent to current events.

Since Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, those who advocate an equal distribution of wealth suggest either a complete redistribution of wealth, or a less obvious version of governmental sponsored theft—the creation of “social services”. History shows in many examples, especially the late USSR, that a complete redistribution of wealth fails on every level possible. In response to this, those speaking in the name of “the public welfare,” or something along those lines, attempt to socialize certain fields such as healthcare or retirement savings in a form of “Communism Light”—known as Socialism. While these programs may sound appealing when presented in the form of “free healthcare” or “social security”, when looked at analytically, they doom themselves to fail due to lack of competition amongst unmotivated producers.
Currently, ten percent of the US population owns seventy-one percent of the wealth, and even further, the top one percent owns thirty-eight percent of all wealth. Obviously, this glaring problem demands some sort of attention, and even though a knee-jerk reaction may result in taxing the rich and giving the money levied to the poor, this reaction is completely unwarranted and nothing more than government-sponsored theft. What else could one label taking money from another by force? The real solution for providing an equal distribution of wealth lies in reducing taxes across the socio-economic spectrum and completely eliminating the federal income tax. This change might seem too drastic, but when one views the actual statistics, one will notice that if the United States eliminates the federal income tax, the federal government (Concord Coalition 2) will receive an equal income to about the year 2000 (US Treasury 3). Obviously, an income from this year should suffice for today’s standards, and even though those who represent the public would have to rethink a large number of programs and even certain foreign policy tactics, this number seems manageable if this government would finally embrace a quality that seems so lost upon them—frugality.

Abolishing the income tax may force the federal government to show frugality every now and then and, the money finally given back to the public who earned it would reap huge societal benefits, especially for the working middle class and upper-lower classes. Obviously, the abolishment of the income tax results in the “rich getting richer,” but to someone making two million dollars yearly, an extra million more obviously increases their income tremendously. But to someone with an income at this level, the person’s quality of life remains relatively static. On the other hand, an extra hundred dollars earned bi-monthly to a single mother of two seems like a godsend—almost enough to pay for daycare or an extra trip to the grocery store. Also, from a macroeconomic standpoint, the economy would probably see untold largesse. According to the law of supply and demand (Adam Smith 4), when the purchasing power, or amount of available capital, of a group or individual becomes larger, then that group or individual desires to purchase more capital or luxury items. Thus, demand increases. Once consumer demand increases, producers increase their supply of goods and services, and when supply increases, prices fall. When prices fall, consumers have more purchasing power or capital than they had originally, and the cycle begins again. Also, with supply and demand increasing rapidly, the need for more jobs presents itself, especially lower-level factory and “blue collar” jobs based on the need for more production. With an increase in the job market, those who may hurt from the loss of certain nanny state programs could easily find the jobs they need. While some may say that forcefully removing people from government support may represent immoral behavior, this action actually benefits those in need, to quote Lao Tzu, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” Welfare reform actually benefits the unemployed because it liberates them from the bonds of sustenance from a source that will never propel them to the location of their dreams. Therefore, if Congress repeals the federal income tax, the US economy should see a sizable drop in prices and considerable market or all goods and services covering the economic spectrum.

A trillion dollar decrease in government income obviously requires an extensive downsizing of the federal government. While most (about half) of cuts in spending to make up for the loss could come from downscaling the military from that of an empire to a non-interventionist (NOT isolationist), defense-based military, the other half would obviously involve the slow attrition of social programs such as social security, welfare, and also the elimination of wasteful government bureaucracy.

One could easily phase out social security by keeping those who have already paid a large sum to the government for their retirement package, but also giving the option (and at some point, requirement) of opting out of the program to those just entering the job market. With inflation at its current rate, and the ever-decreasing amount of funding the program, within decades the government will be unable to provide the necessary amount of funding to keep the program afloat, and rather than wind-fall taxing corporations and small businesses to death, one should just throw aside the program in general. Past that, the government only gives about fifteen hundred dollars monthly to the most qualified candidate for social security, and while that amount may suffice some, to an elderly person with medical bills and astronomically priced medication, this amount equals almost nothing, and if the government did not take the money out of this person’s pay check for the last forty years, maybe they would have more of it in a private retirement account to spend on what they actually need.

Next, to even out the income lost, the government should eliminate the Department of Homeland Security, a useless piece of bureaucracy already covered by the FBI, CIA, and NSA; that elimination of useless spending would reduce the cost of this year’s budget by forty-four point nine billion (yes, with a “b”) dollars (Department of Homeland Security 5). The next to wasteful cabinet level department that the government should downsize lies in the Department of Education. Jimmy Carter made the Department of Education in 1979 and since then, the US position in math and science has fallen dramatically, and not only that, the federal government possesses no constitutional authority whatsoever to mandate or control any school at any level. In this past, the federal government delegated this power to state and local governments, rightfully so. Removing the DOE from the budget saves at least fifty-six billion dollars. The list of departments such as these could meander on and on, but one should understand the level of wastefulness an organization could possess if it enjoyed an almost unlimited supply of money.

All facts aside, this issue comes down blatantly to a moral one. As stated earlier, what else could one call the seizing of goods or currency by force but theft? Pure, outright theft. Government support of this barefaced theft remains irrelevant, and may even suffice as an indictment on those who represent the American public. Any nonsense regarding “greatest good for greatest number of people” obviously comes from someone inept in the field of individual, inalienable rights and regards the Constitution as liberal Christians regard the Bible: “It’s just a metaphor!”

Common Experience

2008-01-13T00:08:00.001-06:00

Recently, I heard a Rabbi declare that the connection between all human beings, the idea that brings us all together-everything that binds us, everything that facilitates mutual understanding- lies with God. While this statement may suffice for some, I reject it outright at complete face value. The object-the idea- that binds humanity is a much less tangible proposition: our common, shared human experience. Gazing upward at the stars in raw, utter fascination, the rush of new love, the intricate mix of pure adoration and complete protection with a child. These transcendent, numinous experiences bind all human beings together; these experiences are the ever elusive "common ground" to be found by competing groups. I would even argue that "God" or religion is quite the opposite of a unifier. What true conflicts can be spoken of that are fought between those who share the same religious belief?

The Jewel of Youth

2008-01-10T17:57:00.001-06:00

Here's another short little quasi-journal entry entitled "The Jewel of Youth."

Something exists within children that seems numinous to say the least--some level of innocence, obviously. That observation is beyond cliche, but what seems to remain unobserved pertaining to this ethereal innocence is the imagination and wonderment concerning the world around them. A level of some near divine curiosity towards their surroundings. All of us are aware of this underlying, ever-present innocence, at least subconsciously; this awareness becomes evident through most sane adults' repulsion and revulsion towards acts of violence towards children. This curiosity, this wonderment, this joy concerning their (children) environment seems so elusive to adults that attempts for new-found youth have been recorded since at the very least, the legendary fountain of youth. Those who have already matured into adulthood crave this youth again-the ubiquitous optimism. This craving is evident through our entire culture with just about anything labeled "anti-aging" sells off of the shelves faster than it can be put up. We crave this optimism so dearly that somewhere deep in the subconscious the thought might exist of, "If I can change look younger, then maybe, I'll feel younger." What this craving really represents is the steadfast wish for the loss of a bitter cynicism. Hopefully, one could find this optimism again, without the Freudian undertones of trying to look younger coinciding, but maybe that is just the shred of idealism slowly slipping away from me into my ever-declining state into adulthood.

Explaining the Absence

2008-01-09T21:58:00.000-06:00

I haven't posted anything in about a month, and I thought I would give a bit of an explanation (because I'm sure you've been at the edge of your seat waiting for the next post from some random blog of a 17 year old =D). Despite the huge amount of political action lately, few, if any news headlines have really remained prominent in my mind. This usually occurs because most of the time, my commentary would only serve some supplementary, forgone conclusion i.e., "Hillary wins New Hampshire!" or something along those lines. During my absence from political commentary, for no real reason or compulsion, I began writing just plainly my thoughts on random events that stuck out in my mind. I decided that I would post these essays on my blog.

Reception would be wonderful (read: tell me if you care or not) =D.

"Death's Clarity."

Humans have a curious (and also very cruel) nature to them when faced with the death of someone close to us. We realize the positive side of this loved one-acts of sacrificial love-and other general good and decent qualities which typify the human experience. What remains curious about this strange coping mechanism lies in its lateness, in other words, we don't notice the redeeming qualities of a loved one until they leave us. This very feeling happened to me just a year ago. A friend, who probably should have been closer, died, and before his horrifically untimely death I never recognized his random acts of kindness and genial demeanor towards everyone. I only noticed certain characteristics that grated on my nerves.

Situations such as these seem to weave the very fabric of tragedy.

Nation For Sale

2007-12-18T21:48:00.001-06:00

As another scandal surfaces from a corporation who became a government office by way of auction, one must wonder, how much of America will George Bush and co. sell to the highest bidder? How much of our nation is for sale and to what extent? Then again, we are a free country, and as any good capitalist knows, you get what you pay for.

Most in this country (including myself until about 15 minutes prior to now) have no idea that yet another scandal has arisen from a government “contractor” in Iraq, but this time the mercenaries remain, relatively at least, innocent. This time the real motive for US presence in the country lies under a bit of scrutiny, Halliburton and its former construction subsidiary KBR.

During her stint in Iraq as an independent contractor, a woman named Jamie Lee Jones was brutally gang-raped, drugged, and imprisoned for 24 hours without food or water by unknown assailants, presumably co-workers, in the American-controlled “green zone.” To this day, the Justice Department has made no progress in her case and the cases of many other women involved, and the DOJ and the Department of the Defense both refuse to comment on any other of these cases.

Currently, Congress has formally began an inquiry of these cases, and as of today, the Department of Justice has refused to send any representatives to Congress to answer questions regarding the process and nature of their investigations. Why the inactivity and lack of cooperation? KBR remains the number one contractor for construction of any large government project such as the rebuilding (for lack of a better word) of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, the $200 million US embassy in Afghanistan, $28 million POW camps in Iraq, soldiers barracks in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also the no-bid process of “securing” Iraq’s oil.

This type of refusal of cooperation by government organizations to protect the interests of corporations and special interest groups typifies the entire current political environment of our country. This administration continues to defy any action that exemplifies any characteristics of a free society, and they instead attempt to promote some sort of quasi-laissez-faire capitalist delusion on a country where everything but exportation of goods remains neglected. Yet, these men also either refuse or remain indifferent to understand that the main premise of productive capitalism lies on the idea of competition, no-bid contracts and exclusivity undermine everything this on which this nation was built. The control of government by exclusive corporations or entities is NOT the idea of capitalism, but in its stead, fascism.

And as the sale of America continues, the average consumer remains willfully ignorant and indifferent to their countries actions—more interested in the 50% off Christmas… excuse me… “Holiday” sale at Wal-Mart.

The Latest Theocrat

2007-12-17T11:37:00.000-06:00

Mike Huckabee’s latest ascent to popularity seems to doom America all over again to the kind of theocratic nonsense barely scratched on by the current administration. The scariest aspect to this recent rise to stardom of the good-ole-boy Baptist minister from Arkansas lies in just that: he continues to get more and more popular as the campaign trail progresses. But what does this latest representative of the collective bully pulpit of American fundamentalism actually believe?

Since Jerry Falwell founded The Moral Majority in 1979, catapulting Ronald Reagan into the international spotlight, American religious fundamentalism has remained dominant in the political scene, especially during the Presidential elections. Though, until recently, the Republican candidates usually manipulated the Religious Right with appalling false piety and inane blithering of repealing Roe v. Wade, but once whoever this candidate may be, George 41 and Ronald Reagan come to mind, is elected, he quickly forsakes this façade of holiness for actual, (sometimes) reputable policy. While this election season seems congruous to the past, with candidates even on the Democratic side intoning the divine at every possible chance, Huckabee seems, scarily, to actually believe his stated dogma, and he even looks as if he may act on his beliefs. This potentially theocratic behavior surfaced when he suggested in 1993 that AIDS patients should be isolated from normal society, and that AIDS research funding should stem from “Hollywood celebrities like Madonna” instead of the government. One should understand that by 1992, the fact that AIDS could not be transmitted by any casual contact was relatively common knowledge and should have been known to a Senatorial candidate. Though he does not share this view currently, he refused to recant or renounce the words when inquired of it. Along with this, Huckabee also stated in his 1992 interview that “"homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk." Can the US seriously have a publicly homophobic man running the country? Along with these fundamentalist views, Huckabee expresses support for the Creationist movement and in 2004 he said, “I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism." Along with this Huckabee also stated "I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally." Is this sort of fundamentalism truly desired by the Republican Party after the amount of damage wrought by religious fundamentalism?

Along with ignorance in foreign policy that harkens back to George W Bush, and a complete lack of comment on important issues like immigration, Mike Huckabee completely exemplifies exactly type of candidate that the Republican Party does NOT need. So, before your vote goes to Huckabee in a primary, evaluate what he truly believes, not the façade presented during the election process.

Islamofascism on the Rise

2007-12-16T18:31:00.000-06:00

Currently, controversy entraps the global community in so many areas that its thorns reach into almost every area of society. Probably the most important of these issues—the most dangerous and volatile and capricious of all—seems to pass by the public, completely ignored under the veil of the entrapment of political correctness. This danger lies in the current rise and popularization of true, Salafist interpretation of the Qu’ran.
Every day, a new terrorist attack occurs somewhere in the world, usually in Iraq or Afghanistan, but what news anchors seem to always leave out is the fact that almost every act of terrorism perpetrated on the new, secular nations of the world stems from Islamic “fundamentalism.” While some news programs or (usually) internet blogs may mention this “fundamentalism”, few really understand that while some religions may have a fundamentalist sect in their wide array of denominations, Islam does not. Islam and its adherent only rely on the Qu’ran for their source of morality and religion. No other dogmas. Obviously, the typical Muslim believes the Qu’ran to be the ultimate, final word of God (Allah). Then how could one confuse or reinterpret a Sura like that of Sura 9, part of which states, “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low;” what amount of confusion could one possibly attain from Sura 9:5, “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush?” Obviously, most Muslims will not become terrorists, and most probably live normal, decent lives, but how can one label Islam as a “beautiful religion of peace” (quoting George W. Bush), when these type of instructions exist? Where would one assume Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and Mohammed Atta derive their message of murdering those who refuse to submit before Allah?
One of the largest problems about this issue lies in the fact that most of those who live in the Western world could never dream that the Qu’ran could contain such passages, and these same people believe the media, blinded by postmodern, dualistic, political correctness that has pervaded every aspect of life as of late.

One should remain hard-pressed to put forth a rational answer for this dangerous abandonment of reality so loved by those who currently run the world.

At this very moment, those who take this Islamofascist belief seriously overrun previously enlightened, secular countries such as the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom. Just two years ago, a Dutch citizen of Moroccan descent and extreme Islamic faith shot, stabbed, and nearly decapitated a Dutch film maker by the name of Theo van Gogh, who had recently co-produced a 10 minute movie which spoke of Islam’s horrific treatment of women, in plain daylight on an open street. The vicious murderer attached a note with a knife plunged in the chest of his victim of a death list of over 50 men and women who had criticized Islam in the past. Most, if not all, of these people still maintain 24 hour surveillance to this very day.

If the intellectual populace of the Western world remains dormant long enough, this threat will overrun them very quickly, and in just a few years, honor killings of this kind should be common everywhere.

If, the Western world remains dormant.