Sunday, January 16, 2011

A sneak-leak

Ever since the release of over 250,000 diplomatic cables from the U.N., everyone has been debating about what should happen to Wikileaks, a freedom-of-information-act website that posts documents revealing things about countries that were not meant to be seen by the regular man's eye, and it's founder Julian Assange, a hacker/internet political activist who created the website to condemn nations for being secretive and untruthful to it's people, and hopes that his website will drive governments to be more open about what they reveal to their people. Yes, there is a huge debate, should Assange go to jail for releasing confidential information, should Wikileaks be taken off the web forever. But come on people, the real debate should be if Julian Assange's hair is a super light blond, or if it's white and chic.
People are saying that Wikileaks is espionage and Julian Assange is committing it. But here is the Merriam-Webster definition of that word--espionage: "the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information of about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or competing company."
So, this only proves that American people are too afraid of 'dem people who are gonna interfere with the way they are gonna live their lives and win the war. Had Julian Assange been going to U.N. meetings and wearing a ten-gallon hat with a video camera inside and handing the recorded tapes of rival countries to the government he was working for and that government then put the ten-gallon hat tapes out into the world, that would be espionage.
However, Julian Assange has never posted something on his website that was meant to benefit one country over another, in fact, there has been things posted on Wikileaks about Australia, Julian Assange's native country, so much so that Wikileaks was banned from Australia.
The only thing that Julian Assange has ever put on Wikileaks has been in the interest of keeping governments truthful and honest and nothing else. Never in the history of Wikileaks has Julian Assange said "Country A is perfect but every other country is bad". So, as I have just proved to you, the words Wikileaks and espionage should not be in the same sentence unless the words "is in no way" are between them.
So why are people running around saying that Wikileaks is the worst thing since flag burning and that Julian Assange is the Devil with a deceiving haircut? Because the governments all around the world are trying so hard to make the good guy be the bad guy so that the bad guy can be the good guy. Governments do not want to be made in to the bad guy, because all of a sudden, people get mad and, woops-a-daisy there's a Tunisia.
Post questions and comments as comments

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Roe, Roe, Roe your boat

One of the most controversial subjects today that some say is murder and others say is feminism.
Yes, you have guessed it, this post is about abortion rights (woo hoo!)
See, the issue of abortion rights was already dealt with by the Supreme Court of the United States in the famed case of "Roe v. Wade." where the decision was that abortion was, in fact, constitutional and that no state should pass a law against it.
So, if the Supreme Court, the nine people in the entire country whose entire job is to decide whether things are constitutional or not decided that abortion was permitted under the ninth amendment (The ninth amendment gives rights to citizens based on stuff that isn't already in the constitution.) then why is there still a debate?
Well, you see, there are those people who run around saying that it's murder to stop the heart of a not fully developed piece of tissue and, well, for some reason people listen to them.
Because of these people, 47% of all Americans (if you trust, it was the only site that I could find that gave me useful information) are "pro-life".
Obviously, something has happened since 1995-ish (complicated) when 56% of all Americans found themselves to be pro-choice and 33% of all Americans found themselves to be pro-life. But the fact that something happened is not the puzzle, the puzzle is why?
I have my theories, but what statistic is there to prove my theory?
According to, the percent of people who think that abortion is legal in any circumstances has been above (or tied with) the percent of people who think that abortion is illegal in any circumstances since 1975, so why is the amount of people who consider themselves pro-choice dropped dramatically since 1995? The answer lies in the final statistic: those who think that abortion is legal in only some circumstances.
The percentage of those who think that abortion should be legal in only some circumstances has been above both of those statistics since the very beginning of the poll.
So we have, obviously seen a huge switch from people who believe that abortion should be legal sometimes from considering themselves pro-choice to considering themselves pro-life, but why?
Maybe "pro-life" is a more endearing title, maybe people just like to think of themselves who would choose life over death, maybe those people think that it would be more socially accepted to choose life over death. Or maybe they think that they would choose life most of the time, just sometimes they're for abortion.
I believe that abortion should be legal all of the time for the same reason that the supreme court did. The ninth amendment does guarantee that even though something is not specifically create any law, but it says that there are more human rights than listed in the constitution. Privacy can, and I believe is one, of these rights. Privacy to do what you want when it's your life is what the argument for abortion is.
Post questions and comments as comments

Friday, November 26, 2010

Large-Scale Grounding

If you are someone who likes the constitution, and if you are someone reading this blog who I don't know of or even do know of, I hope you do, than you know, or should, that the 8th amendment to the United States constitution (put in place by our founding fathers) forbids the United States to use "cruel or unusual punishment."
And this can apply to many situations in the United States today, but the two that come to mind are the horrible situation at Guantanamo Bay and something that is in place in most states in the United States and not some land that no one is able to go to unless they are our mortal enemies because the place that we are going is located in the country of our mortal enemies, and those two mortal enemies have absolutely no relation to each other which tells you something about the U.S., really, more than anything else.
Something that occurs in the United States and that is in place in most states (and that's a true understatement, by most, I don't mean 26, I mean 35. This doesn't seem like a lot, but with almost 20% more states disobeying the piece of paper that they were all based upon, it's pretty huge.) Yes, if you know what I'm talking about, than you can just skip over the next couple sentences. However, if you don't know what I'm talking about, then keep on reading. Maybe this will jog your memory on things that I don't like, I got the statistic of the 35 states that have the death penalty from an Amnesty International website. Yes, if you guessed it then you know me and if you didn't I don't know how you didn't. I'm talking about Capital Punishment!!!!!!!!!! Or, for stupidity purposes capital punishment is also known as the Death Penalty.
Yes, the death penalty is in place in 70% of all US states, the state that the man currently posting this is from not being one of them, he is proud to say. Yes, this resident of Wisconsin is delighted that even though he is not of legal age to vote on things like the death penalty, he is delighted to say that his state voted against this unconstitutional preposition. However, because of his state's voting, all of their good work may now be completely void. But that is another story for another day.
So why is this bill in place in 35 states even though the bill of rights clearly states that this bill can not occur in the united states?
Well, they say that criminals who are put on death row are given the chance to make a will and say goodbye to all of their loved ones.
I say to this argument may be true, but it is still unconstitutional. Even though the criminals are given more freedoms than their victims may have gotten at the time of their deaths, killing is still, in any situation, cruel (and I think that the victim would agree) and if it is used as a punishment, it is a cruel punishment. A cruel or unusual punishment.
Another argument for the death penalty is that we can now accurately tell who is guilty of what using DNA evidence.
I then would ask those people a question. Why is it, then, that all studies show that those who are of color or of lower class are put on death row and executed?
That's all I can say for now, I hope that all 35 states realize the points brought up in this article.
Post questions and comments as comments

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Alice in Blunderland

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party. That's all I really have to say to describe these people, don't I? The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party. You would really think that this name should belong to starving people working all day to put one meal on their families table, those people have been "Taxed Enough Already".
So who are these people? Well, you would think that most of them would be Republicans, and your right. But only 49% of the TEA partiers actually are. Which is why there has been a recent Los Angeles Times headline saying "41% of TEA Party Members are Democrats, Independents." (actually, this is now invalid as I did start this post a while ago. Now about 49% of TEA partiers are Republicans and 51% are Democrats or Independents, so I'll use the more updated statistic, so I have inconsistent data because the headline is outdated.)
You probably had the same reaction when you read this as I did.
51% of the people marching on Washington talking about how they have been taxed enough are the good or partly good guys.
But then, read behind the headlines: the 51% is actually 43% Independents and only 8% Democrats (still, those have got to be some conservative democrats to support the TEA party). So that 41% is a very loose statistic, being that one of the parts grouped is more than 5 times the size of the other part.
Also, let's break down these "TEA Party Members": 40% are over the age of 55, 79% are white, 61% are men and 44% are "born again" Christians.
So the future America will be run by old, white christian guys (as if it weren't already.)
But then you realize that oh, okay it's bad to discriminate and say that all TEA partiers are the things listed above, because you then turn on to see that there are a few people who are members of this party who claim to be witches, and then claim not to be and vice-presidential candidates who still didn't know, by the time that they were announced as the vice-presidential candidate why there was a North and South Korea or that Africa was a continent.
Oh, okay so the future of America is a Palin-O'Donnell presidency with Marco "pelo" Rubio (who isn't really a TEA partier, I just wanted to make that Spanish reference) as the Secretary of State and Dick Cheney with a stunning return to politics and is immediately made Speaker of the House.
Not to mention the statistic that is far over-looked. See, if I were a reporter for something like the New York Times, I would put up a shocking statistic: "Most TEA partiers racist, unintelligent."
And okay, maybe I'm being insensitive to TEA partiers because hey, you still have that 21% who aren't white.
But frankly, I don't know why they wouldn't quit after going to their first rally when they have signs portraying President Barack Obama as things like a monkey and an African witch doctor (well, I guess there's a witch on both sides now) and they put the Swastika inside the letter "O" for Obamacare.
Not to mention that one guy who wrote a fake letter as a slave to Abraham Lincoln talking about how he wasn't crazy about the whole "emancipation" thing and talked about how it would have to make slaves...
Think for themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's tragic, it's horrible!!!
Your making the slaves actually think for themselves and have a mind of their own.
Thank god that this man was heroic, courageous and tolerant enough to bring this to our attention that slaves were all stupid and needed to be told what to do and when to do it.
Thank god that he knew every single thing about what it was like to be a slave and how the slaves felt all of the time being a white (I know this for a fact) man who is from present day.
It's almost like he could read slaves minds.........
Post questions and comments as comments

Saturday, September 11, 2010

9 years, we remember

Nine years ago today, there was an attack from Muslim Extremists on the World Trade Center in New York, NY. It was a day that shocked the world and started two wars, each killing tens-of-thousands of people. But what shocks me most about this day (and that may just be because I wasn't old enough to remember the attack, so when I hear about it I am not as appalled as I should be or would be if I remembered it) is the fact that even today, a day that happened because of religious intolerance, is the fact that Florida preacher Terry Jones marked today as "International Burn-a-Quar'an Day." Now I know that the plan has been aborted by the preacher but his reasoning for ending it was almost as bad as the reasoning for beginning it in the first place: "God told me to stop".
Let me evaluate the situation: He got the world upset about this whole thing, got himself to be on every single news network in the nation as well as everywhere else (hey, International Burn-A-Quar'an day raises international tension), got the general for the entire operation in Afghanistan, the Secretary of State, and even the President of the united states to make statements denouncing this international holiday and for what?: "God told me to stop."
He declares a holiday that will not only cost American lives in Afghanistan and make the United states image look like the worst country in the world but is also just plain racist and only elevates the stereotype "All Muslims are Terrorists" in this country for what?: "God told me to stop."
He creates an unconstitutional holiday, one that would not be covered under free speech. The first amendment only takes you so far, you can say whatever you want with only a few limitations such as hate speech. Hate speech is something that was restricted from the U.S. constitution, it is when you say something that is demeaning to a person. Such as race, gender sexual orientation or religion. Now International Burn-A-Quar'an day is hate speech, it discriminates against all one-and-a-half-billion Muslims because 19 attacked the World Trade Center nine years ago today for what?: "God told me to stop."
Post questions and comments as comments

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Cry over spilled oil

B.P. otherwise known as British Petroleum, formerly known as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company under the rule of great Iranian President Mohammad Mossadegh has been taking a lot of heat lately because, well the pelicans kind of say it all. If you haven't heard of this, which I know you have Jacob (I wish I had more than one person who read my blog on a regular basis) than let me explain:
Basically, ever since the US okay'd offshore drilling many oil companies with any location in America have been drilling for oil on coastal lines across the good ol' US of A. But every once in a while, there is a malfunction and, in this case, the pipe doesn't turn off and it spews oil uncontrollably.
And this particular drilling plant was in the Gulf of Mexico which, as you may know, was famous for it's deep blue waters and white sand, now the sand and the water share the same color: a dark brown.
So whose fault is it?
Is it the fault of British Petroleum who shouldn't have gone out into the Gulf Coast in the first place or is it the fault of the people in Washington who approved offshore drilling in the first place?
Let's examine both arguments, shall we?
Let us start with the reasoning behind that it's BP's fault:
According to the British government, BP should have had a better drill plant and it is in no way the fault of the British Government.
I can see that, sort of.
You can say that offshore drilling is good because it lowers gas prices by making more oil available, and that oil only spills when the oil company makes a bad plant and for that reason, whenever a spill happens it is the fault of the oil company.
Then again, you could say that it is completely the fault of the government because, in a way it's kind of like when you feed a cat something that's unhealthy for them they are gonna eat it, and if that cat is not careful they could throw up all over your house.
Now my opinion:
I blame the entire oil spill on Sarah Palin who said on June 4 that the spill was "The fault of extreme environmentalists who protested drilling on land." This, she claimed, forced the companies to drill offshore and then this spill happened.
Let me name the things wrong with that statement:
1. She completely ignores the fact that "extreme environmentalists" also protested offshore drilling, so it wasn't exactly like these devil-like world savers only protested drilling on land and completely ignored offshore drilling.
2. She is for offshore drilling. She is ignoring that she advocated for offshore drilling and placing the blame on environmentalists who protested against offshore drilling because when something that a Republican endorses and a Democrat doesn't and it fails, which happens about 99.9% of the time, the Republicans try to hide that they supported it at one time and cover it up with lies, and when this oil spill is over, I'm sure that Sarah Palin will have a statement saying that we should not give up hope on offshore drilling, in fact, I think that she saw the picture of the pelicans above and said "Well, at least gas prices were lowered."
Post questions and comments as comments

Monday, May 17, 2010

Racism from A-Z

For two posts (including this one) now, I have been condemning racists, first people and now a state. Well, not an entire state, just a state congress, Governor and 70 percent of this certain state. I think that all of you 4, sorta, followers know what I'm talking about:
Yes, this Southwestern state, the Grand Canyon state with a population of almost 6 million people, 300,000 or so of which are illegal immigrants.
And this 5% of the population is causing a national stir, you may have heard about this protesting going on all across America, who knows, maybe it was even in your town! (who am I kidding. The only people who have ever read this blog have not only been in one state, not even in one city. In one side of one city in one state in one country. Good ol' west side of Madison, Wisconsin, USA) But anyways, this new immigration bill states that any police officer can ask any person who they suspect of being an illegal immigrant for documentation of their legal status in the country. If they do not happen to have their papers with them, they could be arrested and perhaps even deported no matter if they are or are not an illegal immigrant just because they did not have their papers with them.
This is called "Racism"
There are many excuses to justify this law, one of which being that about 60 percent of the cocaine that enters into this country through Arizona, and another being that Arizona has the 6th most approximated illegal immigrant population in America.
But it's the ladder argument, however is what I use to say that it is, in fact, a racist law.
What I say is yes, Arizona has the 6th most approximated illegal immigration of any state in America. But then, factor this in, Arizona also has the second largest Mexican foreign born population in the United States, 5 times the amount of the Asian foreign born population and 6 times the amount of the European foreign born population, almost 2/3 of the foreign born population was born in Mexico. Why would you target anyone accept the vast majority?
Post questions and comments as comments