Well, Obama is now our president. (Yes I know it hasn't been official yet) Honestly, this is a relief.
This may seem counter-intuitive to some of the views espoused on this site, but there are a few reasons I am glad this happened. Namely, the environment is far and away the key issue of my views, and of this blog.
When looking at this election through the lens of the environment, the choice is painfully obvious. Republicans chant the so-foolish "drill baby drill" as if the small increase years later will do anything to alleviate our environmental concerns. The democrats are far better then republicans for the environment, plain and simple. Democrats favor regulation, endangered species act, environmental protection etc. Look at Bush, who on his waning time as president still assaults the endangered species act.
Further, the next most important issue our society faces is science. This includes space exploration, stem cell research, renewable technology, etc. Republicans do not favor this, there is basically no easier way to say this. Constantly, and regrettably, successfully, Republicans have convinced the populace that stem cell research is some sort of evil. How can we progress in technology when we are told they are evil and not given funding? Genetic engineering? Not a chance. These technologies offer so much for society, yet are black sheep.
Nothing is perfect. It is regrettable we have a pro-abortion position with democrats, likewise, a weak on crime stance. These things aren't good; but I will trade those things for the environment and genetic engineering any day.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Vice President Debate
Well, this debate just concluded. It was a lot better then the first pres debate. It wasn't too heated, they were both rather controlled in their words. Palin did better then i suspected at first, i thought for sure she would freeze/break down. Biden was rather controlled and polite, never directly attacking her once.
Notably, he had a firm grasp of facts and numbers, often countering with specifics. Palin only danced around the questions, never really answering anything.
Notably, he had a firm grasp of facts and numbers, often countering with specifics. Palin only danced around the questions, never really answering anything.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Musings on libertarianism
I recently had a conversation with my ever-liberal friend and former teacher that revolved around many concepts, one today which I will speak about is libertarianism.
He started with the I was part of 'mountain libertarianism' a brand he says runs deep in the area around me. I wondered, was this true? Without immediately responding with something smart, I thought about it for a while, and am still unsure. Ask my friends, and they will (probably only half-jokingly!) say 'fascist'.
I don't know though, I'll put my thoughts down here and see what sorts of comments it might generate. First, I do belive that people should be given chances to prove themselves, or maybe I should rephrase that. People are more or less innocent, until the blow the chance society has given them. More like until the betray society.
But regardless, as you may know, I have very little sympathy for criminals. Making them fight on desert prison planets for entertainment is not only funny to me, but actually if it were possible, would seem like a good idea. But that being said, am I libertarian because I am ok with people going on their own, until they screw up? I'm unsure pure Libt. doctrine, but when an individual screws up, do you keep giving them chances?
I don't know. I just know, when you screw up, based on the serverity of your crime or mistake, approraite intervention should be taken. Prison time should only be used to scare the weakest of our ilk. Labor, or forced (yes FORCED) rehabilition should be ok. Anyone read Clockwork Orange? That was a good idea, it was susposed to be a warning novel, but did a poor job. Kind of like how Brave New World actually was a pretty good idea too. But, I digress. After all, like they said in Startrek, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"...or the one.
I also surpport a lot government action in the face of a lot of things. That is one failing of libt. in my mind, is indivduals running around cannot solve a lot of collective problems. How are roads going to upkept unless we have tolls booths every side street? Want to see proof of libt. influnence cuasing what will be a big problem in the future? Take a look at our energy grid. No one owns in (read government doesn't own it) thus no one has the incentive to pay for upkeep. What happens as it decays in the massive blackouts we have seen the last few years.
Realistically, a collective is so much better then a 'collection of individuals'. Ever try pushing a car single handedly? Hard to impossible based on the slope. But only a few people working together (often not by 'choice', but forced by circumstance) it is do-able.
So maybe what I prefer is a collective we are all part of, and in general will leave you alone (you can have your guns, whatever) but when you are called by society, you are there. When you blow soceity's blessings, you pay the price.
Can pure libertarians win a soccer game? Everyone acting in their own selfish desires, without a larger, overaching autrihorty? Probably not. But what about the team, where they are bound by a higher force together. When it is immaterial for you to being doing anything you are free to flirt with the girls on the side lines, but when you are called to press that attack, clear the ball, pass etc, you had better be on point. Punishment works, as does reward. Ice cream or push ups, it doesn't much matter. Soon these 'motivators' won't even be neccessary, for you don't want to fail, not for yourself, but you don't want to fail for you team. That's how soceity should be run.
He started with the I was part of 'mountain libertarianism' a brand he says runs deep in the area around me. I wondered, was this true? Without immediately responding with something smart, I thought about it for a while, and am still unsure. Ask my friends, and they will (probably only half-jokingly!) say 'fascist'.
I don't know though, I'll put my thoughts down here and see what sorts of comments it might generate. First, I do belive that people should be given chances to prove themselves, or maybe I should rephrase that. People are more or less innocent, until the blow the chance society has given them. More like until the betray society.
But regardless, as you may know, I have very little sympathy for criminals. Making them fight on desert prison planets for entertainment is not only funny to me, but actually if it were possible, would seem like a good idea. But that being said, am I libertarian because I am ok with people going on their own, until they screw up? I'm unsure pure Libt. doctrine, but when an individual screws up, do you keep giving them chances?
I don't know. I just know, when you screw up, based on the serverity of your crime or mistake, approraite intervention should be taken. Prison time should only be used to scare the weakest of our ilk. Labor, or forced (yes FORCED) rehabilition should be ok. Anyone read Clockwork Orange? That was a good idea, it was susposed to be a warning novel, but did a poor job. Kind of like how Brave New World actually was a pretty good idea too. But, I digress. After all, like they said in Startrek, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"...or the one.
I also surpport a lot government action in the face of a lot of things. That is one failing of libt. in my mind, is indivduals running around cannot solve a lot of collective problems. How are roads going to upkept unless we have tolls booths every side street? Want to see proof of libt. influnence cuasing what will be a big problem in the future? Take a look at our energy grid. No one owns in (read government doesn't own it) thus no one has the incentive to pay for upkeep. What happens as it decays in the massive blackouts we have seen the last few years.
Realistically, a collective is so much better then a 'collection of individuals'. Ever try pushing a car single handedly? Hard to impossible based on the slope. But only a few people working together (often not by 'choice', but forced by circumstance) it is do-able.
So maybe what I prefer is a collective we are all part of, and in general will leave you alone (you can have your guns, whatever) but when you are called by society, you are there. When you blow soceity's blessings, you pay the price.
Can pure libertarians win a soccer game? Everyone acting in their own selfish desires, without a larger, overaching autrihorty? Probably not. But what about the team, where they are bound by a higher force together. When it is immaterial for you to being doing anything you are free to flirt with the girls on the side lines, but when you are called to press that attack, clear the ball, pass etc, you had better be on point. Punishment works, as does reward. Ice cream or push ups, it doesn't much matter. Soon these 'motivators' won't even be neccessary, for you don't want to fail, not for yourself, but you don't want to fail for you team. That's how soceity should be run.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Sarah Palin Sucks
Let's be honest here, she is kind of a joke of a candidate, nothing more then a cheap political gimmick to try to claim wayward and disgruntled Hillary voters. Sarah Palin likes guns, woo, here at the Ecotopia, we know that weapons are foolish to ever be abadoned, so she gets a point for this. But just about every other posistion she has is so bad and rediculous (except her tough on crime stances) that this could possibly be one of the worst VP candiadates ever.
Well, to start things off, here is some info regarding how Palin thinks that the iraq war is a task from god.
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/3/4/palin_iraq_war_a_task_that_is_from_god/
****
Well, to start things off, here is some info regarding how Palin thinks that the iraq war is a task from god.
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/3/4/palin_iraq_war_a_task_that_is_from_god/
****
(This is from a website i found, here is the link, I believe my links here are inactive, so just go to the site I got this from to read up on any of them: http://www.who-sucks.com/people/13-reasons-why-sarah-palin-sucks)
Here are 16 reasons:
- A poor record: Her only political experience has been a few years as mayor of a small town in Alaska and less than two years as governor of that state. Her record wasn’t so great: the small town she left behind is now in financial ruin.
- She has no experience with national level politics. At the time of this posting, many of her views on national policy issues were unknown simply because she is so inexperienced that she hasn’t even made public statements about them. Presidential history scholars believe she may be “the most inexperienced person on a major party ticket in modern history.”
- She has no foreign policy experience. None.
- Iraq War? Our country is in the midst of a war, and Palin’s son is going to fight in that war. However, Salon.com reports that she hasn’t even given much thought to the Iraq War, and has no clear opinions about it. Great.
- She is a creationist, and she wants “creation science” to be taught in public schools.
- She doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. Maybe that’s why she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
- Not only does she think the government should be telling people who they can and cannot marry, she also thinks that same sex couples should be denied benefits given to straight couples.
- Palin has been accused of abusing her power as Alaska governor to try to get her ex-brother-in-law fired as a state trooper. An investigation is underway.
- She has messed up views on wildlife protection. Environmentalists are appalled by her support of a $150-per-wolf bounty program. She’s also supported the use of government money to educate people about how great it is to shoot bears and wolves, and she doesn’t want the polar bear to make it onto the endangered species list.
- One nation, under stupidity: When defending the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, Palin said, “If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.” Reality check: The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, long after the founding fathers died. The phrase “one nation under God” was added in 1954….
- Anti-birth control nutcase- Not only does Palin oppose abortion in all cases, she also opposes the use of birth control in all cases. That includes married couples that want to use condoms or the pill!
- Politicizing non-political jobs: When she was mayor of small town in Alaska, Palin abused her authority by firing city employees that did not fully support her reelection campaign.
- She can’t even manage her own family - rumors have given way to an admission from Palin that her teenage daughter is pregnant, and will be having a shotgun marriage to the guy that knocked her up. That’s what abstinence-only education gets you.
- Ninja editing: Her Wikipedia entry needed to be cleaned up before the public announcement that she was McCain’s VP pick.
- She has no clue about the role of the Vice President.
- It is quite clear she was chosen just because of her gender (most Republicans have never even heard of her), and she’s being used as a trick by the McCain campaign to gain some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Sarah Palin offers money to kill wolves
Palin is offering 150$ per wolf killed (bring in the legs for proof!) is this the VP anyone really wants?
In case you do not know, Alaska has a very cruel aerial 'hunting' program where hunters are flown in low flying planes, chasing down wolves. They follow the wolves for very long times, often till exhaustion, shoot, killing, or maiming them in the process.
It doesn't take a large intelligence to know that wovles are critical to an ecosystem, but you just may have to be told. So many hunters WRONGLY assume dead wovles= more prey.
Well sorry to break it to you elmer, but wolves are actually critical to mainting prey populations. Without wolves (which by the nature only kill the slowest, weakest animals, thereby leaving the better one) prey populations breed so fast, they often destory the plant ecosystem, and kill themselves.
A famous example is an island by new york (the niagra river in fact) that is isolated from the main land, the last predator was removed from there. Within years, the deer population swelled so large that all the food was gone, and all the deer starved, the population hovering right at the brink of extinction (far lower then the predator-level population)
Anyway, enough ecology. Palin is basicly offering money (all libertains agaisnt government spending/waste should take note!) to support the ill-founded hunting lobby. Not only is it hugely immoral to shoot dogs from the plane ((what a cowardly act)) to pay people to do this is atrocious. Consider careful if you like the ecosystem, if you like your dog, or if you like your government wheter palin is a good choice; if she is this stupid just in her own state, what if she got the whole nation?
http://www.care2.com/news/member/338686546/863062
http://www.thebeckoning.com/wolves/response.html
In case you do not know, Alaska has a very cruel aerial 'hunting' program where hunters are flown in low flying planes, chasing down wolves. They follow the wolves for very long times, often till exhaustion, shoot, killing, or maiming them in the process.
It doesn't take a large intelligence to know that wovles are critical to an ecosystem, but you just may have to be told. So many hunters WRONGLY assume dead wovles= more prey.
Well sorry to break it to you elmer, but wolves are actually critical to mainting prey populations. Without wolves (which by the nature only kill the slowest, weakest animals, thereby leaving the better one) prey populations breed so fast, they often destory the plant ecosystem, and kill themselves.
A famous example is an island by new york (the niagra river in fact) that is isolated from the main land, the last predator was removed from there. Within years, the deer population swelled so large that all the food was gone, and all the deer starved, the population hovering right at the brink of extinction (far lower then the predator-level population)
Anyway, enough ecology. Palin is basicly offering money (all libertains agaisnt government spending/waste should take note!) to support the ill-founded hunting lobby. Not only is it hugely immoral to shoot dogs from the plane ((what a cowardly act)) to pay people to do this is atrocious. Consider careful if you like the ecosystem, if you like your dog, or if you like your government wheter palin is a good choice; if she is this stupid just in her own state, what if she got the whole nation?
http://www.care2.com/news/member/338686546/863062
http://www.thebeckoning.com/wolves/response.html
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Birth Rights
Today, I am taking issue with the often-assumed 'right' to have kids. I'll go into detail for any of the issues if requested, but here is a quick summary as to why we should have very limited rights when it comes to having kids.
1: Over population.
Ahh, this one is most likely the bane of modern society, yet no one ever talks about it. It will doom us, we simply lack the backbone to talk about this. C'est la vie eh? Too many people are having too many kids, the Earth and its ecosystems simply cannot handle it. I'm of the opinion we already past our carrying capacity (with a high lag time). Look at animals/plants. Amphibians are down to 2% TWO PERCENT of their populations only years ago. This is not natural, humans are the cause. When joe has 10 kids, and all ten of them have 10 more, he just raised his problem 100 times, and he was probably worthless anyway.
2. Mental 'Illness'
Why on Earth should someone who is 'mentally ill' be able to have children? Let me state up front that I believe first that a large percentage of these cases are fakes anyway. But sifting that useless rabble to the side, we are left with the people who have brains wired differently, unbalanced chemicals etc. This next line will be considered cold,crash, 'racist' (most people have no idea when they use this word) :
Why do we even tolerate these people, and esp. give them the 'right' to have kids? If you gun someone down, and are 'insane' Fine. *BOOM* -dead, 'next criminal will you please take the stand?'
What kind of defense is being 'insane'? It should not be one, and if you are convicted of it, you should just be eliminated, much to society's benefit. For Earth's sake, do not let them have more kids!
1: Over population.
Ahh, this one is most likely the bane of modern society, yet no one ever talks about it. It will doom us, we simply lack the backbone to talk about this. C'est la vie eh? Too many people are having too many kids, the Earth and its ecosystems simply cannot handle it. I'm of the opinion we already past our carrying capacity (with a high lag time). Look at animals/plants. Amphibians are down to 2% TWO PERCENT of their populations only years ago. This is not natural, humans are the cause. When joe has 10 kids, and all ten of them have 10 more, he just raised his problem 100 times, and he was probably worthless anyway.
2. Mental 'Illness'
Why on Earth should someone who is 'mentally ill' be able to have children? Let me state up front that I believe first that a large percentage of these cases are fakes anyway. But sifting that useless rabble to the side, we are left with the people who have brains wired differently, unbalanced chemicals etc. This next line will be considered cold,crash, 'racist' (most people have no idea when they use this word) :
Why do we even tolerate these people, and esp. give them the 'right' to have kids? If you gun someone down, and are 'insane' Fine. *BOOM* -dead, 'next criminal will you please take the stand?'
What kind of defense is being 'insane'? It should not be one, and if you are convicted of it, you should just be eliminated, much to society's benefit. For Earth's sake, do not let them have more kids!
Sunday, August 10, 2008
"Death Race" criminals should provide entertainment if nothing else
I saw the previews for Death Race, and I have not seen the movie yet, but this post will be based on its assumptions the movie makes.
The movie starts with criminals being given a chance to redeem themselves by participating in a race, a race that people apparently kill each other at.
This begs the question, why do we only use criminals for nothing, except using tax money? They are given food, air conditioning, exercise all for nothing. Normal people work for these things, why should criminals be spared?
So, if you are opposed to 'manual labor' for criminals, first ask yourself why, then secondly, ask yourself why don't we get something useful out of them? Namely: entertainment.
Consider the merits if we did have a 'death race' in effect today. Criminals would be killing each other, which has obvious benefits. Secondly, it would be one of the highest rated shows on tv. Imagine nascar, now imagine it with guns, fast cars, explosions, etc. I hate nascar, but with guns and explosions, it would suddenly be a lot sicker. Plus we have the nice human element of redemption. These wayward souls are just trying to redeem themselves, if you are Christian, isn't that what jesus would want you to do?
The movie starts with criminals being given a chance to redeem themselves by participating in a race, a race that people apparently kill each other at.
This begs the question, why do we only use criminals for nothing, except using tax money? They are given food, air conditioning, exercise all for nothing. Normal people work for these things, why should criminals be spared?
So, if you are opposed to 'manual labor' for criminals, first ask yourself why, then secondly, ask yourself why don't we get something useful out of them? Namely: entertainment.
Consider the merits if we did have a 'death race' in effect today. Criminals would be killing each other, which has obvious benefits. Secondly, it would be one of the highest rated shows on tv. Imagine nascar, now imagine it with guns, fast cars, explosions, etc. I hate nascar, but with guns and explosions, it would suddenly be a lot sicker. Plus we have the nice human element of redemption. These wayward souls are just trying to redeem themselves, if you are Christian, isn't that what jesus would want you to do?
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The kind of 'change' McCain can believe in
Well, the post today is going to focus on McCain, and his 'flip-flopping' (yes i hate that term, but an appropriate irony)
First, here are the links if you want to actually check my facts:
Anyway, McCain used to be opposed to off-shore drilling. He used to be environmental. He voted to stop off shore drilling. He said it was best to leave it in the state's hands. This was all back in the 90's.
http://www.ncdp.org/content/john-mccain-cheerleading-off-shore-drilling
Corruption of course rears it head. Flash forward to election year. The oil companies have drastically increased their funding to a sympathetic cause.
http://mccainsource.com/corruption?id=0014
Long story short, McCain has switched his priority from what he (probably) believed to now what the oil companies want him to believe.
First, here are the links if you want to actually check my facts:
Anyway, McCain used to be opposed to off-shore drilling. He used to be environmental. He voted to stop off shore drilling. He said it was best to leave it in the state's hands. This was all back in the 90's.
http://www.ncdp.org/content/john-mccain-cheerleading-off-shore-drilling
Corruption of course rears it head. Flash forward to election year. The oil companies have drastically increased their funding to a sympathetic cause.
http://mccainsource.com/corruption?id=0014
Long story short, McCain has switched his priority from what he (probably) believed to now what the oil companies want him to believe.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Federal Deficit, ahh the joys of Replubican presidents...
Here is the image I am going to talk briefly about:
http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008125.html
It basically is a graph that was printed tues/mon about the Federal Deficit. Let me explain the trends:
http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008125.html
It basically is a graph that was printed tues/mon about the Federal Deficit. Let me explain the trends:
Bush senior: A steady, slightly increasing federal deficit.
Bush: A constant decline from the first year. This graph only goes to 2004, in 2005, i believe it actually went 'up' but by 2008, we are at a record federal deficit.
I have a simple question, why do people still believe and praise republicans for ‘small government’ and ‘fiscal responsibility’. It is clear that has not happened. The government grew huge under Bush. In fact the deficit grew under him as well. Why is it that people will continue to praise these ideals, yet still vote republican when the fact’s are contrary to what you want?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Dead Firefighter
So i just heard a news story that is rather sad. A man had call fire fighters saying there was a fire at his house. When they showed up, he started shooting at them. He ended up killing a 22-year old man who just finished paramedic school etc.
Not only is this sad, but likely, the murder will get put in jail for about 10 years or so, at the will be it. How pitiful. Not only did this man kill, he killed a useful member of society. As i've stated before, jail does nothing, esp. the longer sentences.
Look, if you are going to ambush public servants, you simply shouldn't get a second chance, you blew it big. Just save the time and kill this man. So him no mercy like he showed the firefighters.
Not only is this sad, but likely, the murder will get put in jail for about 10 years or so, at the will be it. How pitiful. Not only did this man kill, he killed a useful member of society. As i've stated before, jail does nothing, esp. the longer sentences.
Look, if you are going to ambush public servants, you simply shouldn't get a second chance, you blew it big. Just save the time and kill this man. So him no mercy like he showed the firefighters.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Political Correctness and 'equality' - a bane of progress
As I sit here, a news report comes on saying that Doug Bruce, a local politician, 'is in trouble again.' Now, he is a fiscal conservative which is something I cannot agree with, but I can still respect that it is his opinion, and that fact he speaks what he actually believes. For this he is constantly lambasted. All the other politicos 'tow the line', tow the line, thats what everyone seems to be doing huh?
Why have we gotten to this part in society where we cannot say anything 'politically incorrect'? Why? Put some serious thought into this. If something was so foolish, wouldn't it fail on it own merit?
For example: "All white people cannot think" Such a statement is not considered for long, because it clearly lacks any logical bearing.
Now consider "All black people cannot think", suddenly we pause in fear, woah, did he just say that? Why do we not value this statement for its obvious logical failings, and discard it? Instead, we cringe painfully around that this statement is politically incorrect 'you cant be saying that stuff'.
What the truthfully does it limit, in some cases drastically, how much an issue can actually be talked about. For example, it is wrong to hate someone for their race, for their sexual orientation, all of which NOTHING can be said without being labeled as politically incorrect. But here are some cases where this PC can actually be inhibiting progress.
We have this extremely dangerous mindset perpetuated upon us that we need to accept everyone as they are, be understanding, be compassionate etc. This is simply foolish, and dangerous.
'Oh, he isn't that smart, that's just the way he is'
'Oh, he is mean, he must of had bad parents, thats just the way he ended up'
'Oh, well, he actually thinks the earth in the center of the universe, we can't do anything to him because that is his religion'' You can come up with these ad nauseum.
I don't ever want to be misunderstood, so I will state my point clearly: Viewing everyone as equal, socially, has no bearing in reality, and makes us a lot worse off.
Here are some things that realistically should be ok, but again, its 'woah, he is kind of extreme' forget the bias you have been instilled with and think about these things logically.
Hating people for the intelligence (their lack thereof): Why should we not discriminate based on intelligence? Do we not essentially do this already when it comes to jobs? Do we let imbeciles work on nuclear submarines? Do they work at particle accelerators? The answer is clearly no. Yet why do we give them the other benefits of society, when the don't deserve them. Why should someone who has no idea that the earth actually rotates around the sun (btw, it is something ridiculous that over 40% of Americans don't know this) be given the opportunity to drive a deadly missile at over 60mph every day?
'Oh, but why would someone's lack of knowledge stop them from driving?"
Hahah, i have also heard the argument 'well someone needs to clean the toilets, make your burger etc'
Why should 'rights' be given to you just because you have hit a certain age? I know I would much rather have a 17 year old who actually knows what is going on voting, driving etc, then some idiot with an IQ of sub 90 who happens to hit the magic age of 21. Is it that extreme to require intelligence tests to pass and claim some 'rights'? Oh, and please, spare me the argument that we already have to pass 'tests' to drive. Does anyone know what immigrants have to go through to become a citizen? That is something we ourselves should be forced to do. Rights are not given, they should be earned.
People that have nothing to contribute to the race, yet out-breed those that are actually useful: Ahh, a favorite of mine. I'm sure we have all seen that trailer-trash, beer swilling pig who probably beats his wife, an IQ easily under 90, yet has in tow about 6 kids, all seemingly under the age of 7. I'll state this one bluntly: He is a waste of resources, a waste of everything, and now he has compounded his societal toll by a 6 to 1 (3 to 1 if you include the likely useless wife).
All these kids will learn the value of nascar, how to 'treat' women, that school is for losers, that the earth is only a couple thousand of years old... I could continue this little insulting diatribe on them, but the sad reality is that in about 16-20 years they will then further compound their problem even further.
Why have we gotten to this part in society where we cannot say anything 'politically incorrect'? Why? Put some serious thought into this. If something was so foolish, wouldn't it fail on it own merit?
For example: "All white people cannot think" Such a statement is not considered for long, because it clearly lacks any logical bearing.
Now consider "All black people cannot think", suddenly we pause in fear, woah, did he just say that? Why do we not value this statement for its obvious logical failings, and discard it? Instead, we cringe painfully around that this statement is politically incorrect 'you cant be saying that stuff'.
What the truthfully does it limit, in some cases drastically, how much an issue can actually be talked about. For example, it is wrong to hate someone for their race, for their sexual orientation, all of which NOTHING can be said without being labeled as politically incorrect. But here are some cases where this PC can actually be inhibiting progress.
We have this extremely dangerous mindset perpetuated upon us that we need to accept everyone as they are, be understanding, be compassionate etc. This is simply foolish, and dangerous.
'Oh, he isn't that smart, that's just the way he is'
'Oh, he is mean, he must of had bad parents, thats just the way he ended up'
'Oh, well, he actually thinks the earth in the center of the universe, we can't do anything to him because that is his religion'' You can come up with these ad nauseum.
I don't ever want to be misunderstood, so I will state my point clearly: Viewing everyone as equal, socially, has no bearing in reality, and makes us a lot worse off.
Here are some things that realistically should be ok, but again, its 'woah, he is kind of extreme' forget the bias you have been instilled with and think about these things logically.
Hating people for the intelligence (their lack thereof): Why should we not discriminate based on intelligence? Do we not essentially do this already when it comes to jobs? Do we let imbeciles work on nuclear submarines? Do they work at particle accelerators? The answer is clearly no. Yet why do we give them the other benefits of society, when the don't deserve them. Why should someone who has no idea that the earth actually rotates around the sun (btw, it is something ridiculous that over 40% of Americans don't know this) be given the opportunity to drive a deadly missile at over 60mph every day?
'Oh, but why would someone's lack of knowledge stop them from driving?"
Hahah, i have also heard the argument 'well someone needs to clean the toilets, make your burger etc'
Why should 'rights' be given to you just because you have hit a certain age? I know I would much rather have a 17 year old who actually knows what is going on voting, driving etc, then some idiot with an IQ of sub 90 who happens to hit the magic age of 21. Is it that extreme to require intelligence tests to pass and claim some 'rights'? Oh, and please, spare me the argument that we already have to pass 'tests' to drive. Does anyone know what immigrants have to go through to become a citizen? That is something we ourselves should be forced to do. Rights are not given, they should be earned.
People that have nothing to contribute to the race, yet out-breed those that are actually useful: Ahh, a favorite of mine. I'm sure we have all seen that trailer-trash, beer swilling pig who probably beats his wife, an IQ easily under 90, yet has in tow about 6 kids, all seemingly under the age of 7. I'll state this one bluntly: He is a waste of resources, a waste of everything, and now he has compounded his societal toll by a 6 to 1 (3 to 1 if you include the likely useless wife).
All these kids will learn the value of nascar, how to 'treat' women, that school is for losers, that the earth is only a couple thousand of years old... I could continue this little insulting diatribe on them, but the sad reality is that in about 16-20 years they will then further compound their problem even further.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Point Source Pollution
I am posting today to bring some to your attention regarding environmental law. It has to do with pollution and 'point sources'.
Within Environmental Law, (as many parts of the government) corruption runs high. Individuals and companies are regulated by the EPA regarding pollution using the term 'point source pollution'. The EPA and gov. are rather diligent in not letting corporations get away with arguments about it not being a 'point'.
However, not all is well in paradise. There is something called 'non point source' pollution.
It is here that the obvious corruption and sell outs are going on. NPS can be things like oil dripping from your car, gas leaking from your lawn mower etc. Truthfully though, these are all far and away drops in the bucket compared to the biggest NPS polluter: agriculture.
It does not matter if you can see the stream of fertilizer out the barn down to the river, it doesn't matter if all of the farms pollution goes through a single ditch, NONE of it is considered 'point' source. What does this mean? I mean it is not regulated. Yes, you read that right, the biggest polluter of our waterways in not the coal companies (they are rather low in comparison), it is the mega-corporate farms with their surplus nitrogen and other 'desirable' chemicals dumping into our water.
Ecotopia lesson: Everyone is treated the same. You pollute you pay the price. No group gets special treatment, and you will not find a cute little loophole of of your crimes.
Within Environmental Law, (as many parts of the government) corruption runs high. Individuals and companies are regulated by the EPA regarding pollution using the term 'point source pollution'. The EPA and gov. are rather diligent in not letting corporations get away with arguments about it not being a 'point'.
However, not all is well in paradise. There is something called 'non point source' pollution.
It is here that the obvious corruption and sell outs are going on. NPS can be things like oil dripping from your car, gas leaking from your lawn mower etc. Truthfully though, these are all far and away drops in the bucket compared to the biggest NPS polluter: agriculture.
It does not matter if you can see the stream of fertilizer out the barn down to the river, it doesn't matter if all of the farms pollution goes through a single ditch, NONE of it is considered 'point' source. What does this mean? I mean it is not regulated. Yes, you read that right, the biggest polluter of our waterways in not the coal companies (they are rather low in comparison), it is the mega-corporate farms with their surplus nitrogen and other 'desirable' chemicals dumping into our water.
Ecotopia lesson: Everyone is treated the same. You pollute you pay the price. No group gets special treatment, and you will not find a cute little loophole of of your crimes.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Is good will enough? Why can't we all 'win'?
As promised in the title, here is a funny video. This clearly shows the benefits of kicking...everyone in Europe and Russia seem to know how!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCa0j1vIQ4g
(This is a video of a fight on a Russian talk show, plenty of kicks and mayhem follow)
Anyway, the topic today is the discussion on good will and personal sacrifice. This topic has the potential to grow very big, and touches upon a LOT of different topics. But for a simple intro, I am talking about the good souls out there who sacrifice for the rest of us. I hope anyone reading has done at least a little 'sacrifice' maybe it was picking up that trash on a hike (and carrying it all the way back to throw away) to actually walking or biking somewhere when driving would have been easier.
The problem is the non-sacrificers. I hate to be the pessimist, but for every time I ride my bike, i am passed by about a 60% ratio of SUVs for the duration of my trip. The longer I ride the more SUVs I see, as if some great cosmic irony is trying to tell me it is pointless. For every piece of trash I pick up, there are XXX (Fill in the blank: selfish? Idiotic? Unaware? How can I tell why they are so useless....) I out there pitching just as many sonic and 7-11 big gulps out the window of their hummers.
What do we do with these people? When a single person can easily undo the good will of many?
This is a theme I will hammer in again and again. The reason we have this huge problem of this rampart selfishness is because that is how our society rears us. We are taught that the ultimate glory is to triumph over our fallen and defeated adversaries. We regard others as nothing more 'wary' allies, or everyone else who is expendable in our conquest for the top. Take just about everything, we are ALWAYS trying to defeat everyone, with the rare exception of a few close 'friends'. Take back in school, did you ever think "wow, I sure hope everyone passes this test! That would be so cool!" No, its more like "I sure hope everyone fails, and I pass, that way my grade will get curved to an 'A' "
With this dominate mindset, why would it be rational at all for you to sacrifice for everyone else. If you have never heard of the "tragedy of the commons", look it up, this is exactly what I mean. We are taught that our own personal advancement is correct, at the expense of everyone else.
It is that far fantasy, or that hard to believe that we could change the way we see the world, that our own personal sacrifice will be met with other sacrifices that benefit us? Do we silt our own families throat for our own benefit? No. So why cant we do the same for our community, state, nation, or even the world?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCa0j1vIQ4g
(This is a video of a fight on a Russian talk show, plenty of kicks and mayhem follow)
Anyway, the topic today is the discussion on good will and personal sacrifice. This topic has the potential to grow very big, and touches upon a LOT of different topics. But for a simple intro, I am talking about the good souls out there who sacrifice for the rest of us. I hope anyone reading has done at least a little 'sacrifice' maybe it was picking up that trash on a hike (and carrying it all the way back to throw away) to actually walking or biking somewhere when driving would have been easier.
The problem is the non-sacrificers. I hate to be the pessimist, but for every time I ride my bike, i am passed by about a 60% ratio of SUVs for the duration of my trip. The longer I ride the more SUVs I see, as if some great cosmic irony is trying to tell me it is pointless. For every piece of trash I pick up, there are XXX (Fill in the blank: selfish? Idiotic? Unaware? How can I tell why they are so useless....) I out there pitching just as many sonic and 7-11 big gulps out the window of their hummers.
What do we do with these people? When a single person can easily undo the good will of many?
This is a theme I will hammer in again and again. The reason we have this huge problem of this rampart selfishness is because that is how our society rears us. We are taught that the ultimate glory is to triumph over our fallen and defeated adversaries. We regard others as nothing more 'wary' allies, or everyone else who is expendable in our conquest for the top. Take just about everything, we are ALWAYS trying to defeat everyone, with the rare exception of a few close 'friends'. Take back in school, did you ever think "wow, I sure hope everyone passes this test! That would be so cool!" No, its more like "I sure hope everyone fails, and I pass, that way my grade will get curved to an 'A' "
With this dominate mindset, why would it be rational at all for you to sacrifice for everyone else. If you have never heard of the "tragedy of the commons", look it up, this is exactly what I mean. We are taught that our own personal advancement is correct, at the expense of everyone else.
It is that far fantasy, or that hard to believe that we could change the way we see the world, that our own personal sacrifice will be met with other sacrifices that benefit us? Do we silt our own families throat for our own benefit? No. So why cant we do the same for our community, state, nation, or even the world?
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Home Sweet Home: The Earth
Ok guys, time for a discussion about the environment.
First, let me start with a very important point, technology is important, I truly believe a good form of ecology is a seamless integration with technology. It really has to be. As quaint and homely as some environmentalists might think it would be to live in tiny little villages growing our corn, it is simply unrealistic. Even if we did get to this state, what would we do? Stay there in stasis for generations? Give up on science? What about any country that does not go the way of 'village-izing', won't they be at a large advantage over these countries?
During my travels around Colorado I have seen two very inspiring sights as we drove past them: a solar farm, and even more majestic, mighty wind mills. I had never seen them in real life before except the cap of a wind mill at a Washington D.C. museum (which was HUGE). I was filled with a sense of pride that as humans we were (slowly) climbing out of the dark age of the dark fuel. ((On a side note, I do not have faith that we are actually moving fast enough, but that is for another time))
Despite mass media claims to the contary, there is tons of wind power available. Look on google or wikipedia, here is another link to check it:
' Worldwide, it's been demonstrated the there is enough wind power to power the entire earth's population'- http://www.energyjustice.net/solutions/wind/
In America alone, the 4 windiest states, funded, could produce enough power to power the entire nation. It is so laughable in its pitiful nature that everyone is like 'yay go wind!' until woah, the windmill is going on your beach. Shut up, seriously. You have multi million dollar homes, and are complaining? If we are going to survive this, we are ALL going to have to make some SACRIFICES.
A lot of people don't realize there is something called Eminent Domain, the government or state can come in, buy your land, and put roads there. I am unsure of if the government can do this with renewable energies, regardless, I support the government doing this. I mean off shore, or in desolate land is preferable, but if it is going 'in your backyard' just deal with it. They will produce renewable, clean energy for their lifetime. How is drilling for oil going to save us from anything?
A lot of people decry environmentalists for 'not defending America's energy independence'. I also do not support drilling in our country as a way to 'gain energy independence'. It is kind of like having a back up bank account, is there any way we gain financial independence by withdrawing our money to pay bills? No, you can gain independence by investing. It is exactly the same with renewable energies. Instead of wasting millions on digging oil wells, put in solar and wind mills.
By the way, installing these has an added benefit on having high-end jobs created. There will be engineers, technicians, etc. needed to maintain our renewable system. Is there any problem with more high tech jobs created instead of more people working at mcdonalds?
Hey, for all the militant environmentalists out there, here is another benefit of putting in vast renewable energy systems: when the governments that do not go environmental run out of oil, they will be at a severe disadvantage. We have a continuing, and never ending energy supply while they relied on the aptly named 'fossil' fuels.
So in conclusion, renewable energies are a source of high techonology, give us energy security, and our better for our planet.
(Everybody wins, except the rich people and thier ocean view!)
First, let me start with a very important point, technology is important, I truly believe a good form of ecology is a seamless integration with technology. It really has to be. As quaint and homely as some environmentalists might think it would be to live in tiny little villages growing our corn, it is simply unrealistic. Even if we did get to this state, what would we do? Stay there in stasis for generations? Give up on science? What about any country that does not go the way of 'village-izing', won't they be at a large advantage over these countries?
During my travels around Colorado I have seen two very inspiring sights as we drove past them: a solar farm, and even more majestic, mighty wind mills. I had never seen them in real life before except the cap of a wind mill at a Washington D.C. museum (which was HUGE). I was filled with a sense of pride that as humans we were (slowly) climbing out of the dark age of the dark fuel. ((On a side note, I do not have faith that we are actually moving fast enough, but that is for another time))
Despite mass media claims to the contary, there is tons of wind power available. Look on google or wikipedia, here is another link to check it:
' Worldwide, it's been demonstrated the there is enough wind power to power the entire earth's population'- http://www.energyjustice.net/solutions/wind/
In America alone, the 4 windiest states, funded, could produce enough power to power the entire nation. It is so laughable in its pitiful nature that everyone is like 'yay go wind!' until woah, the windmill is going on your beach. Shut up, seriously. You have multi million dollar homes, and are complaining? If we are going to survive this, we are ALL going to have to make some SACRIFICES.
A lot of people don't realize there is something called Eminent Domain, the government or state can come in, buy your land, and put roads there. I am unsure of if the government can do this with renewable energies, regardless, I support the government doing this. I mean off shore, or in desolate land is preferable, but if it is going 'in your backyard' just deal with it. They will produce renewable, clean energy for their lifetime. How is drilling for oil going to save us from anything?
A lot of people decry environmentalists for 'not defending America's energy independence'. I also do not support drilling in our country as a way to 'gain energy independence'. It is kind of like having a back up bank account, is there any way we gain financial independence by withdrawing our money to pay bills? No, you can gain independence by investing. It is exactly the same with renewable energies. Instead of wasting millions on digging oil wells, put in solar and wind mills.
By the way, installing these has an added benefit on having high-end jobs created. There will be engineers, technicians, etc. needed to maintain our renewable system. Is there any problem with more high tech jobs created instead of more people working at mcdonalds?
Hey, for all the militant environmentalists out there, here is another benefit of putting in vast renewable energy systems: when the governments that do not go environmental run out of oil, they will be at a severe disadvantage. We have a continuing, and never ending energy supply while they relied on the aptly named 'fossil' fuels.
So in conclusion, renewable energies are a source of high techonology, give us energy security, and our better for our planet.
(Everybody wins, except the rich people and thier ocean view!)
Friday, July 4, 2008
4th of july, Scared!?
Happy 4th guys. I have a lot of things to talk about... but ahh I don't know what. I'll start with today at the 4th of july festival, it was fairly packed, but just a lot of old people and babies. Some my age, but not that many. I asked some guy running for DA what exactly he did
'prosecute people'
'ok well i got a hard question for you. Why do we keep people alive in jail for life? Wouldn't it be better for society if we just killed them?"
You could tell he was taken aback by it
'we do seek the death penalty in some cases' what a politician answer...
'Well, i mean it would save a lot of resources if we just killed them you know?"
he paused...'i know where you are coming from, the supreme court has made it harder to seek the death penalty.'''
Well that was that.
Anyway, today we shot off some fireworks (highly illegal!) but why is it that on America's birthday we are scared of the police and scared of shooting off fireworks. I felt like we were in some 3rd world country, worried our neighbors would be turning us in any second.
My god, what is our problem that we are so scared of cops? I totally blame the police force mind you, not the people for being scared. They are more concerned with giving speeding tickets. Seriously, how often do you see a cop and think 'fewww... i sure feel safe' its more likely 'man, i sure hope he isnt coming for me.' I understand in the past police were highly respected, and given there are still a lot of good cops, but what has happened to cause such a drastic change as this?
In the Ecotopia, police would be highly respected, you'd be glad anytime you see them, not worried if they are going to be ticketing you for riding your bike on the side walk, parking to long, speeding etc. Think about how military people are generally viewed today, you are glad to see them, you aren't paranoid. Police would be honored for their generally thankless job they do, but their public focus would be on much more heinous crimes. We would see, or at least know what they are stopping. Anyway, something to think about.
'prosecute people'
'ok well i got a hard question for you. Why do we keep people alive in jail for life? Wouldn't it be better for society if we just killed them?"
You could tell he was taken aback by it
'we do seek the death penalty in some cases' what a politician answer...
'Well, i mean it would save a lot of resources if we just killed them you know?"
he paused...'i know where you are coming from, the supreme court has made it harder to seek the death penalty.'''
Well that was that.
Anyway, today we shot off some fireworks (highly illegal!) but why is it that on America's birthday we are scared of the police and scared of shooting off fireworks. I felt like we were in some 3rd world country, worried our neighbors would be turning us in any second.
My god, what is our problem that we are so scared of cops? I totally blame the police force mind you, not the people for being scared. They are more concerned with giving speeding tickets. Seriously, how often do you see a cop and think 'fewww... i sure feel safe' its more likely 'man, i sure hope he isnt coming for me.' I understand in the past police were highly respected, and given there are still a lot of good cops, but what has happened to cause such a drastic change as this?
In the Ecotopia, police would be highly respected, you'd be glad anytime you see them, not worried if they are going to be ticketing you for riding your bike on the side walk, parking to long, speeding etc. Think about how military people are generally viewed today, you are glad to see them, you aren't paranoid. Police would be honored for their generally thankless job they do, but their public focus would be on much more heinous crimes. We would see, or at least know what they are stopping. Anyway, something to think about.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Of Crime and Punishment
Today, I'm going to talk about the prison system, in particular how flawed it currently is, and how self-reinforcing it is, much to what the true purpose of prison ought to be. I want this blog to be a source of points for reflection on your own ideas, again, consider the points and let me know what you think.
First, let me state some basics, prison is a PUNISHMENT, it is a punishment for violating society's rules and laws. If you do not want to accept society's benefits, and likewise pay its costs (in terms of following the laws, paying taxes, etc.) you are free to go elsewhere (generally) or to go live in the woods. However, by staying around, you implicitly give your consent that you will follow the laws. (Let me quickly throw in another problem is how low-level drug charges are generally flooding the prisons, that is not the crimes I am referring to)
When you break society's contract, why should your punishment not be reflected in this? When you screw up, you should pay the price. How is having a bed, meals, exercise, even TV and books some form of punishment? There are people with worse jobs out there then a prison 'sentence'. Further, by collecting all the individuals together, it does nothing productive, it easily gives these people connections and new ideas upon getting out. Seriously, ask yourself this, can it POSSIBLY be good that criminals and deviants are held together in one tight locale? Why on Earth would you want these people associating together and in such close proximity to each other?
In terms of solutions, I'll leave that for another discussion, some ideas that are definitely better, are solitary confinement, or rehabilitation with dogs (there is a lot of evidence that allowing prisoners to 'show' love speeds their return to society.)
Here is link which contains tons of info on the dog-prisoner rehab programs and ideas: http://www.dogplay.com/Activities/Therapy/program.html
When someone has committed a vile or evil (its not coincidence they are spelled using the same letters) crime, often they are given some laughable multi-lifetime sentence 'behind bars' or straight up death penalty. Now even if they are given the death penalty, we are talking years before any 'death' occurs. Now, WHY do we do this? Regardless if we actually should be giving this much punishment to someone (we can talk about that later) why do we as a society WASTE resources on a small component that has decided it does not support society and would rather hurt it? What I am talking about is criminals slow and impede society, so it is a double-negative that upon being apprehended we waste further money and resources on them. For no preceptiable good! How could ever coming out of a +20 year sentence make someone better for society?
Consider this, would it be better for society if we just eliminated everyone with these large sentences? (Forget for the moment about any humane arguments relating to this) What do we gain as a society? Well, we gain all the resources that would of been waster keeping this individual in a useless state.
One final point of reflection for my readers: in particular I am curious how shooting them in the head could be considered less humane. It is not less humane to drag them to a chair, STRAP them down, then stab them with lethal drugs? This process inevitably takes far longer then setting up a gun, and the consequent trigger pull.
This is a large subject, so I'll return to it again a couple of times. I still need to discuss that prisoners should be subject to manual or state labor, hahaha, until next time...
First, let me state some basics, prison is a PUNISHMENT, it is a punishment for violating society's rules and laws. If you do not want to accept society's benefits, and likewise pay its costs (in terms of following the laws, paying taxes, etc.) you are free to go elsewhere (generally) or to go live in the woods. However, by staying around, you implicitly give your consent that you will follow the laws. (Let me quickly throw in another problem is how low-level drug charges are generally flooding the prisons, that is not the crimes I am referring to)
When you break society's contract, why should your punishment not be reflected in this? When you screw up, you should pay the price. How is having a bed, meals, exercise, even TV and books some form of punishment? There are people with worse jobs out there then a prison 'sentence'. Further, by collecting all the individuals together, it does nothing productive, it easily gives these people connections and new ideas upon getting out. Seriously, ask yourself this, can it POSSIBLY be good that criminals and deviants are held together in one tight locale? Why on Earth would you want these people associating together and in such close proximity to each other?
In terms of solutions, I'll leave that for another discussion, some ideas that are definitely better, are solitary confinement, or rehabilitation with dogs (there is a lot of evidence that allowing prisoners to 'show' love speeds their return to society.)
Here is link which contains tons of info on the dog-prisoner rehab programs and ideas: http://www.dogplay.com/Activities/Therapy/program.html
When someone has committed a vile or evil (its not coincidence they are spelled using the same letters) crime, often they are given some laughable multi-lifetime sentence 'behind bars' or straight up death penalty. Now even if they are given the death penalty, we are talking years before any 'death' occurs. Now, WHY do we do this? Regardless if we actually should be giving this much punishment to someone (we can talk about that later) why do we as a society WASTE resources on a small component that has decided it does not support society and would rather hurt it? What I am talking about is criminals slow and impede society, so it is a double-negative that upon being apprehended we waste further money and resources on them. For no preceptiable good! How could ever coming out of a +20 year sentence make someone better for society?
Consider this, would it be better for society if we just eliminated everyone with these large sentences? (Forget for the moment about any humane arguments relating to this) What do we gain as a society? Well, we gain all the resources that would of been waster keeping this individual in a useless state.
One final point of reflection for my readers: in particular I am curious how shooting them in the head could be considered less humane. It is not less humane to drag them to a chair, STRAP them down, then stab them with lethal drugs? This process inevitably takes far longer then setting up a gun, and the consequent trigger pull.
This is a large subject, so I'll return to it again a couple of times. I still need to discuss that prisoners should be subject to manual or state labor, hahaha, until next time...
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
So it begins
Well, here is the start of what I think could be an interesting little experiment. I'll lay out a quick foundation of what I want this blog to become. Occasionally I will have some interesting events that have happened to me (I do a lot of fire fighting and rock rescue, cliff jumping etc.,and generally lead an interesting life), but i also think its stupid to just 'journal' online and hop the masses will actually care enough to want to read it.
However, the main point of this is throughout my life, my view of the world has gradually shift (not from 'democratic' and 'republican' both of these are so wrong it is laughable) from one 'extreme' of idealogical belief to another, not necessarily that far from the beginning, but enough that my friends find it surprising. Anyway, so i will either have different points of stuff i truly believe, and reasons for it, or just entertaining stories and links to cool vids/stories/ games etc.
I totally encourage comments, I'll probably just get a lot of flame mail, but if anyone actually resonates with what i'm going to talk about, I'd definitely want to hear.
Anyway, on to a QUICK summary of things I will eventually get into detail about. Let me also state up front, I am not a bleeding heart liberal, I love guns, I think we should kill people much faster in jail, I am also for military action against countries, especially those not environmentally friendly. It would be dream if one day our world was unified under a collective banner, all supporting environmental causes.
Basically, our current world is in such a DISASTROUS situation that unless we quickly change things, the end of our current society is guarantee. I am talking about things like over population, a highly dysgenic trend our society has taken on, a total apathy towards just about everything. Particularly, our environment, something we totally depend on so much is routinely neglected all in the pursuit of a rather laughable idea of ‘money’.
I also hate the liberal/hippy idea that technology and genetic engineering is bad, (actually both sides hate the genetic engineering…) unfortunately, we must dump this archaic belief, and fully embrace a solid science that could help us so much.
Well, I think that is enough for an intro, if you are down for hearing about genetic engineering, why stupid people are the bane of the earth and should probably be exterminated, why environmentalism (well a form of it) must be embraced wholeheartedly, why I believe larger governments and higher taxes are a good thing, and in general some rather ‘extremist’ points of view, stick around, it should be interesting.
If you are easily offended, and can’t think outside of your own small world view, just save us both time and don’t bother flaming me, but if you have some good points, I’d be happy to discuss. Anyway, until next time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
