Revolution

While much of the public has been voting for the last couple of months, tomorrow is the long recognized voting day. The day that the decision is made as to whether or not the incumbent will stay, or the challenger will be victorious in many different races, with the race for president being the biggest. Unfortunately, no matter who takes the office this time around, nothing will change.

Most of you who will go out and vote tomorrow, or who have voted already, have chosen either in thought or in fact one of the two widely publicized candidates that everyone knows about. This is your right as guaranteed by the Constitution, just as it is my right to choose to vote for someone I believe might actually make a difference, as opposed to members of the two parties who are more interested in maintaining the status quo than they are about actually serving the people as they were meant to. Sadly, while those who choose to aid in the continution of this nations downfall will only be blasted based on the fact that they voted for those "damn republicans" or "damn democrats", I will be condemned for the death of the republic for upholding my own set of ideals, and choosing not to simply vote for the lesser of two evils and whoever is most likely to win.

I choose to take a step off the beaten path. I choose not to vote for either evil, but for a chance at helping this nation survive. Do I expect my candidate to win? Sadly, no. Because my candidate of choice had neither the backing of major corporations, nor the backing of the government as is the case with the two major candidates. He stood no chance against the massive media coverage the other parties could bring to bear. I choose to take a stand against a system that has become stagnant and corrupt regardless of the criticism I may receive as a result.

Will I look at those who chose the mainstream candidates with disdain or hatred because they failed to see things my way? No. I will accept the disdain they seek to pile on my shoulders with pride and the strength that comes from knowing I did not shame myself by choosing a leader simply for their chances of being elected or because all that matters is getting the incumbent out of the white house. I chose a leader who would have actually made the changes necessary to save our nation and bring it back to the greatness it knew at its founding.

I will also seek to share my views, my knowledge with those open enough to look for answers outside of the two party prison we have been brainwashed into believing is the only option we have available to us. I will teach, without derision, condescension, or anger. I will be patient, understanding, and willing to allow others to do what they deem best, because they are free to do so. I will answer anger with reason, mockery with pride, and force with silent resistance.

Berate me for standing up as a solitary voice in the sea of madness that is our political system, and I will simply pity you for your inability to look past fear and ignorance to see the path that must be taken to ensure our survival as a nation.

We need a revolution. Not of guns and blood, but of ideas and realizations. We need to wake up to the knowledge that to continue down this path is to set a match to our beloved constitution and watch as our freedoms become nothing more than ashes blown about on the winds of history.

I, for one, will not let that happen.

The Logic Behind My Vote

About a month and a half from now, millions of people will be lining up to cast their vote for the next President of the United States. Many will vote Republican, and many will vote Democrat. I will be voting for neither of them. That isn't to say that I won't be voting at all. It simply means that I will be voting for someone else completely. I will be voting for the Libertarian candidate for President, and this is why.

Over the last few years, I've begun to pay more attention to the ideas and policies being pushed for by the two reigning parties. What I've heard has convinced me that neither one takes their oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States of America" seriously. They both have ideas of how to run the country which directly contradict the Constitution and the spirit with which it was concieved. I will admit that the Constitution was designed to be able to grow with the times, but only so long as that growth remained within the framework established by its creators. In essence, as long as the Constitution grows in a way which ensures the continuation of freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility for all citizens, the country would remain healthy. But those principles are not what the Republicans and Democrats have in mind.

The Democrats are all about freedom where personal ideals are concerned. What they aren't all about is the idea that what a person earns from whatever job they may have belongs solely to the earner. They seem to be convinced that if a person earns above a certain amount, that they must be required by law to share a portion of that income with those who, for whatever reason, are making significantly less. As if it's the responsibility of those who have actually done well financially to support those who haven't, even if those who haven't aren't even trying to do so. I firmly believe that if you want to do well in this life, it's your responsibility to take the steps necessary to make it happen. It is not the responsibility of those who have worked hard for the majority of their life in order to provide themselves with a good life to fund the lives of those who can't or won't. I appreciate that there are some who are having a hard time through no fault of their own, and some limited assistance is welcome. But when all you do is reinforce the idea that a person need only ask the government, and thus the taxpayer, for support and not have to support yourself, you are only harming society as a whole. And when the government forces those who have worked so hard to be successful to foot the bill for that unlimited support, you encourage the idea that there's no point in even trying to be successful, since the government will simply take that success and give it to those who haven't earned it.

That is why I refuse to support and vote for the Democrats.

The Republicans are just as bad, though in a completely different vein. Where the Democrats seek to control what we as people can do with our money, and how successful we can be, the Republicans seek to control how we live our personal lives. They base their decisions, their legislation on religious ideals which are not necessarily shared by all citizens. They want to bring back "traditional American values", which to them means living life per the Christian bible. Now, I know I'm not Christian, and neither are many of my friends. I also know that there are many more people throughout this nation who are not Christian, and who follow a wide variety of faiths, philosophies, and spiritual paths. So how does it make sense that the Government be allowed to dictate how people live their lives based on only one point of view. This nation was founded on the basis of tolerance, and allowing its citizens to choose how they live, so long as it doesn't harm the livelihood of others. That does not mean harming the "sensibilities" of others. If that were the case, the first amendment would have been written about something else entirely. Instead, it promises that all citizens had the write to say, believe and practice what they wanted, not what the government sanctions. Yet look at some of the legislations that have been brought up lately. Laws forbidding citizens from have state sanctioned marriages because they offend religious sensibilities. Laws attempting to forbid a woman from having certain medical procedures based on religious precepts that, per these religious conservatives own texts, are no longer valid.

All I ask is that whatever government may be in power, you allow me to live my life in the manner I choose, and to make the decisions I feel are right for me and mine so long as I am willing to live with the consequences of those decisions. But as I've already shown, that is not what either of the two reigning parties are interested in. Their only interest is in molding this nation to fit their concept of proper society. On the one hand, you have a group which would allow personal freedoms as long as they can dictate everyone's financial decisions. On the other, you have those that would allow you to do what you want with your money, only as long as you live your personal life according to the strictures of their personal beliefs. Neither of these are acceptable to me, and I will not simply fall prey to the "lesser of two evils" voting practice. In my eyes, neither is a lesser evil than the other. So I refuse to support either.

All of this is why, come voting day, I will be casting my vote for the libertarian candidate. And for any who would like more information on the party and its candidate, I highly recommend going to www.lp.org and doing a little reading.

Call of the Wild

When I was a kid, I had the good fortune to live right smack dab in the middle of western Washington. To the west, you had the Pacific Ocean, the Olympic Mountains, and the Puget Sound. To the east, you had the Cascade Mountains. In between were thousands of acres of forests, lakes, and rivers. And no matter where you went, you could always see Mt. Rainier rising far above the clouds. I can honestly say I was blessed to live in a place where natural beauty was so abundant. For the last few years before my parents moved us to Alabama, I was even lucky enough to live in a gated community high in the foothills of the Cascades, where the primary rules of the community was to interfere with nature as little as possible. It surrounded three beautiful lakes with miles of trails that I would walk or ride whenever the mood hit me.

Since then, I've gotten farther and farther from that place, both physically, and in my heart. I've moved all around the country, either as a result of my time in the Navy, or simply because it was where the gods felt I was needed at the time. This is the first place I've lived since I left Washington that I've felt like I was close to nature, nestled at the foot of the Cumberland Mountains as we are. Yet lately, I've felt as if I need to get closer. I can see the mountains rising up only a few blocks from here. I pass over Big Creek every time I drive to town, or watch it wind beside the road as I head out to the in-laws' place. But it just isn't enough.

The last few months I've wanted more and more to be in those mountains. To feel them rising up beneath me as I make my way along some trail or another, trees rising up on all sides to shade me on the way. I've looked up a number of places to go hiking in the area, and even found a trailhead only a minute or two away from here. Ideally, I would pack up a tent and supplies for a couple of days, and just walk. Camp on the trail overnight, and keep going. Sadly, I have neither the time, nor the proper equipment for a hike like that. So at the very least, I want to grab a day pack and see how far I can go. Maybe it will only be a couple of miles. Maybe I'll make the entire La Follette/Jacksboro/Careyville leg of the Cumberland Trail (it's about 11 miles long) in a day.

All I know is that I can feel the mountains, the trees, the rivers and creeks calling out to me. I need to be out there amongst them. And I will be. Soon.

Possible Futures

What you are about to read is an excerpt from a work of fiction written by David Weber. The reason I've chosen to write it here is because I can see some eerily similar trends within our own nation. As such, I thought I might present it as one of many possible futures for this nation, couched in terms of a futuristic, space faring society. In it, he describes the progress of a major Star Nation which progresses from a  Constitutional Republic, to what was essentially an expansionist dictatorship. All credit for what follows belongs to David Weber.

"The People's Republic of Haven

Although the Haven System lies 667 light-years from old Earth, 155 light-years further distant than Manticore, the first shuttle landed on its habitable planet (also called Haven) on 1309 pd (post-diaspora), over a century before Manticore was settled. This was possible because of the fashion in which the introduction of the Warshawski Sail had revolutionized the logistics of colonization. Haven's day is 24.56 standard hours in length, divided into 13 months: 9 of 32 days each and 4 of 31 days each. The short months are the 3rd, 5th, 10th, and 12th. Every 4 years, the 3rd month s 32 days long.

Haven lay in a particularly attractive region, with an unusually high proportion of F, G, and K class stars, and the original expedition was estremely well financed as a joint venture by no fewer than eleven corporations based on member planets of the Solarian League.Moreover, the planet of Haven proved well named, for terrestrial life forms adapted to its envrionment with a minimum of difficulty and its climate was very nearly idyllic. With a powerful PR organization to tout its attractiveness, it exercised a magnetic effect on would-be colonists of the League and, with the availability of the new hypership technology grew at incredible speed. By 1430 pd, the Republic of Haven already boasted a planetary population of almosta billion and was beginning to mount colony expeditions of its own in what became known (despite the fact that six other systems in the region had been colonized before or almost simultaneously with Haven) as the Haven Quadrant.

By 1475, the Haven economy and government had proven themselves extremely efficient and effective. Politically, Haven was a representative democracy with a strong and politically active middle class, and its economic policy enshrined the principles of liberal capitalism with minimal government interference. Couple with the "jump start" provided by the colony's highly favorable initial circumstances, the combination of market efficiency and flexible government created a planetary standard of living at least as high as that of most Solarian League member worlds, and it became the envy and the pattern for every other world in the quadrant.

For the next two centuries, Haven continued to fulfill its promise, rising to a system population of almost seven billion and becoming a sort of interstellar Athens. The Haven Quadrant, although composed of independant worlds and star systems, rivaled the Solarian League for economic power, and it remained a vibrant and expansive entity, unlike the essentially satisfied and content League. Although the quadrant contained no wormhole junctions, it had access to the Manticore Junction (and, later, to the Erewhon Junction) and thence to the League, and there was every reason to believe that its expansion and prosperity would continue.

It did not. Precise identification of a specific event which caused the change within the quadrant is impossible, but in general terms it might be called over-achievemnet. The quadrant-and, in particular, Haven-had done too well. Its wealth was incalculable, and it began to seem unfair that that wealth was not more evenly distributed. In particular, capitalism, as always, had produced stratified classes, ranging from the extremely wealthy to the marginal and even sub-marginal, and if the members of Haven's "sub-marginal" class were immeasurably better off than, say the pre-Anderman citizens of New Berlin, they were not well off compared to their own affluent fellow citizens.

The Republic thus began to experiment , cautiously at first, with assistance and welfare programs to increase the opportunities of its less advantaged citizens. Unfortunately, what began as an experiment gradually became something else. Transfer payments became increasingly importantfor the maintenance of the industrial poor, requiring greater levies on the productive elements of society. Marginal industrial operations were shored up by protective tariffs, government loans, and outright grants to encourage full employment, which both undercut the overall efficiency  and productivity of the industrial base, and encouraged inflation. Inflation further worsened the condition of the poor, requiring still higher transfer payments-payments which were soon adjusted for inflation on a mandated basis-and, as the network of assistance proliferated, it came to be seen as a fundamental "right" of those receiving the aid. By 1860 pd, Haven had issued its famous "Economic Bill of Rights", declaring that all of its citizens had an "unalienable right" to a relative standard of living to be defined (and adjusted as inflation required) by statute by the legislature.

In the process, the government had initiated an unending spiral of inflation, higher transfer payments, and increasing deficit spending. Moreover, it had (quite unintentionally, at least at first) undermined the fundamental strength of its own democracy. The middle class, the traditional backbone of the Republic, was under increasing pressure both from above and below, caught in the squeeze between an increasingly less productive economy and ever larger levies against its earnings to support the welfare system. Whereas the middle class had once seen the upper class as (at worst) essentially friendly rivals or (at best) allies in their joint prosperity, they came to see the wealthy, like the poor, as enemies, fighting over a dwindling prosperity. Worse, the middle class's traditional aspiration to upward mobility had become an increasingly remote dream, and it was much eaier to focus resentment on those who had more than the middle class than on those who had less-a tendancy which became ever more pronounced as "enlightened" commentators and academics secured dominant positions in the media and educational system.

Perhaps worst of all, was the emergence of the "Dolist" blocs. The Dolists (so called because they were "on the dole," receiving government assistance in greater or lesser degree) were still franchised voters and, quite logically, supported the candidates who offered them the most. It was a case of self-interest, and the Dolists' self-interest interlocked with that of increasingly careerist politicians. A new class of machine politicians. the "Dolist Managers" emerged, playing the role of king-makers by delivering huge blocks of votes to chosen candidates. Incumbent politicians soon realized that their continued incumbency was virtually assured with the managers' backing-and that the converse was also true. A politician targeted by the People's Quorum" (the official term for the alliance of Dolist managers) was doomed, and as the leaders of the Quorum became aware of their power, they selected specific politicians to punish as an example to all politicos of the power the Qwuorum represented.

Finally, as if to complete the system-wide outbreak of mass insanity, most of those who recognized that something was wrong embraced a "conspiracy theory" which assumed that their problems must result from someone's hostile machinations-probably those of the domestic "monied classes" or foreign industries who "dumped" their cheap, shoddy products on the Haven economy. Almost worse, there was an entrenched element of "this wouldn't be happening to us if we weren't somehow at fault" in the vast majority of mid 18th cnetury Havenite political and societal analysis and rhetoric, and this masochistic tendency only became more pronounced as the century wound to a close.

By 1750 pd, the Republic-no longer "The Republic of Haven," but now "The People's Republic of Haven"-had become the captive of a coalition of professional politicians (indeed, politicians who had never had and were not qualified for any other career) and the Quorum, aided and abetted by a morally and intellectually bankrupt academic community and a mass media philosophically at home with the Quorum's objectives and cowed (where necessary) by threats of blacklisting. The the Quorum could succeed in blacklisting journalists had been demonstrated in 1746 pd, in the case of Adele Wasserman, one of the last moderate journalists. Her moderation, which was actually a bit left of center by mid 17th century standards, was labeled "conservative" or, more frequently, "reactionary" by her 18th century contemporaries. She herselfwas called "an enemy of the common man," "a slave of the monied powers," and (most cutting slur then available on Haven) "a fiscal elitist," and her employer, one of the last independant news services, was pressured into terminating her contract (for "socially insensitive and inappropriate demagoguery") by means of an economic boycott, strikes, and governmental pressure. Her firing, followed by her subsequent relocation to the Kingdom of Manticore and a succesful career as a leading theorist of the Centrist Party, was the writing on the wall for any who had eyes. Unless something quite extraordinary intervened, the current Havenit system was doomed.

The problem was one which had arisen as long ago as Old Earth's Roman Empire: when power depends on "bread and circuses," those in power are compelled to provide ever greater largess if they wish to remain in power.In effect, the politicos required a bottomless and ever-filled public trough to pay off the Dolists and provide the graft and corruption to support the lives to which they themselves had become accustomed, and after almost two centuries of increasingly serious self-inflicted wounds, not even the once-robust Havenite economy could support the burden.It became apparent to the political managers that the entire edifice was in trouble: tax revenues had not matced expenditures in over 143 T-years; R&D was faltering as an increasingly politicized (and hence ineffectual) educational system purveyed the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo of collectivist economic theory rather than sound scientific training; and the decreasing numbers of truly capable industrial and technical managers produced by the system were incrfeasingly lured to other star systems whose economies allowed them to use their talents and enjoy the benefits thereof. The "Technical Conservation Act" of 1778, which revoked emigration visas for all research and production engineers by nationalizing their expertise "as a resource of the Republic," was intended to put a stop to that, but it could not reverse the fatal trends.

Real economic growth had stopped-indeed, the economy was contracting-but ever higher Basic Living Stipend payments were politically inescapable, and the stagflation which had resulted was becoming a self-sustaining reaction. In 1771pd, a highly classified economic report to the House of Legislatorspredicted that by the year 1870 the entire economy wouldcollapse in a disaster which would make Old Earth's Great Depression and the Economic Winter of 252 pd look like mild recessions. The Chiefs of Staff, apprised of the degree of collapse to be anticipated, warned that it would precipitate pitched warfare in the streetsas Haven's citizens fought for food for their families, for Haven had long since attained a population which could not feed itself without imports, and imports could not be paid for with a negative balance of trade."


The excerpt you have just read comes from a collection of stories entitled More than Honor. The story itself is called The Univers of Honor Harrington, and was written by David Weber as a work of science fiction.

For those of you who managed to read the entirety of the post, I hope you were able to see why I chose to write all this. The similarities between the path the Republic of Haven followed to its downfall, and the one our politicians are now sending us on are eerily similar. I can only hope that it's not too late to turn ourselves around, lest we become known as "The People's Republic of America".

Welfare Reforms

With this being an election year, a lot of topics are being brought up by the politicians in an attempt to buy, er, gain votes in their favor. One such topic is welfare reform. While a lot of people couldn't care less, or even hope it never is, reformed, I believe that it is a good first step towards healing the economy and getting this nation back on track. However, it's going to take a lot more than just rhetoric and half measures to make it work. To that end, I've come up with a few ideas. Just a warning, if you happen to be on some form of welfare assistance and you're reading this, you most likely will not like me by the end of this.

First off, (and forgive me if there's already something like this in effect) I believe that there need to be some strict limits on what people can spend their welfare money on. Necessities only. Basic food items, staples, meals, a severely limited selection of snacks and treats, and clothing items, with a strict limit on how much can be spent on clothing to prevent those on welfare from purchasing high dollar items. No major electronics, no video game consoles, no plasma screen tv's, nothing that isn't absolutely necessary to help a person or a family survive. Now obviously, to do that, you would have to be able to track every expense made on the account. Go ahead. Set up a program so that a computer tracks every transaction made on a welfare account, flagging any purchases made on items that are not supposed to be purchased using welfare funds. And then, once a transaction is flagged, lock up the account until an investigator can call the authorized cardholder to find out what's going on.

I'm sure some of you would call that an invasion of privacy and a violation of some freedom or another. But I'll put it to you this way: the men and women who are living on welfare are essentially being given money by the taxpayers without ever being expected to pay it back. This money is to help them get back on their feet, and survive tough financial times, not to provide people who simply choose not to work with a means to buy themselves a bunch of cool new toys. So if it means that these folks have to give up the right to buy what they want without having someone look over their shoulders and tell them they can't buy something, so be it. They want government to be mommy and daddy, and give them an allowance, they damn well better expect to be treated like that's the way things are. But I digress.

Yet another idea I have is to create welfare specific stores. Essentially, they would be stores  that only those on welfare could shop at, that would provide all the items approved for purchase with program funds, and nothing more. They would provide locally grown and made food items so as to help the economy as well as keep the cost lower. They would also provide locally made, off-brand clothing, again to support local business and keep costs down.They could even offer to hire some of the men and women who are on welfare, in order to help them acquire job skills they can use to get a better job elsewhere. It wouldn't be glamorous, but it would be a start.

My final idea is perhaps the most drastic of them all. It would be a means to help prevent fraud, as well as to better track the expenditures of those on the program. Simply put, all those who enroll in the welfare system and receive an account would be required to provide a full set of fingerprints at the time of enrollment. The enrollee's thumbprint would then be electronically linked to their card. Any time an enrollee would purchase an item with that card, they would be required to provide a thumb scan to verify they are who they say they are, and not someone who may have bought the card off of someone who wanted cash to circumvent the limitations of the card. The biometric readers would automatically be installed at the above mentioned welfare stores, and any other store chain which wished to participate in the welfare program would be provided those same readers, at the company's expense.

Is anyone out there screaming "how dare you" yet? I realize that these ideas seem a bit draconian, but the welfare system is a serious problem. There are people on it who don't necessary need it, and even those who do need it abuse it by purchasing items that it wasn't meant to be used for. Worse still is the fact that so many who do enroll in welfare see no reason to leave it. They live comfortable lives on the taxpayers' dime, and are perfectly happy to go on doing so until they die. Something must be done, and if that something is to make the lives of those on the program so uncomfortable that they feel forced to get a job, then it's worth it.

One little thing before I go. I realize a system like this could easily be abused by those in power. They could look at it and say "well if we've already got these folk being monitored, why not everyone else?". To them I say, it's because those of us not on the system are the ones who actually work for a living, and provide our own income. We are responsible for our own lives, and don't need the government to dictate what we can and cannot buy. But for those who think the welfare system is and should be the ticket to an easy life, they need to be made aware that they are sorely mistaken, and that abuse of a system meant to help those truly in need will not be tolerated.

Do I expect anyone in government will ever do anything like this? No. They're too worried about losing office to care about losing the nation.

Promises Promises

We're more than half way through election year folks, and as usual, the candidates are just chock full of rhetoric and promises. Promises to improve the nation by fixing this, that, or the other thing. Just today, I received a flyer promoting one of our state's candidates for congress, a list of things so and so plans on fixing should they be elected. And as usual, I have a couple of points to bring up.

The first, and lesser of the two is this: do they really plan on fixing their selection of problems all by their lonesome. After all, the flyers, commercials, skywriting ads, et cetera, never say these people plan to help do all the things they have listed. They always act as though it will be them, and them alone who will be the one to take care of everything. As though they are some kind of congressional chosen one, without whom the government could never get anything done. I'm sure these candidates know they won't get anything done by themselves, so why pretend that way for the voters? Do they think that's the only way to get votes? Don't get me wrong. Confidence is a great thing. But this is more along the lines of hubris than simple confidence. And that kind of thing just makes them sound arrogant to me. But as I said, this is a minor point beside what I want to address next.

As I said earlier, with election year in full swing, the promises are out in force. And while it's great to know what your candidate wants to do if they get elected to office, I think it'd be even better if they'd explain just how they intend to go about doing it. After all, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can promise to fix something. That doesn't necessarily mean they have a single clue bout how to get it done. Or worse yet, they know how they want to go about doing it, but their idea would only make things worse. Here's an exaggerated example.

Let's just say that one of the major issues of the year was population control. Every candidate says they have the answer to curbing overpopulation. They all have sound scientific theories to back their ideas. But one of them, one pressed for an actual plan, says he would simply pick random people, line them up, and shoot them. And then he would have everyone forcibly sterilized until the government says otherwise. Would it fix the problem? Perhaps. But would it be a good idea to try? As much as I wouldn't mind seeing some of the morons out there killed or their ability to pollute the genepool removed, I don't think it would be. In fact, I'm pretty sure it would be the end of the campaign for anyone who endorsed that idea. But back to my point.

I don't have any problem with politicians making promises to fix this or change that, just as long as they come out at some point and at least tell me how they plan on doing it. You wouldn't want someone working on your car only to find out they haven't the first clue how to fix whatever problems there are. They'd be just as likely to gut the entire vehicle as they would be to fix anything. The same is true of politicians. I don't want someone to end up in office on the strength of promises they have no idea how to make good on, or whose ideas for keeping those problems would only make things worse.

All I ask is that, as a person who would seek office in any portion of our government, when you make a promise to do or fix something, you include with those promises the means by which you intend to fulfill those promises. After all, how you plan to do something is at least as important, if not more so, than the fact that you plan to do it at all.

The Constitution and the Declaration: A Comparison

Over the last few years, I've heard many people talking about just how important the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution are as founding, and even governing documents. The fact is that they are both extremely important. Without the Declaration, this nation would never even have been formed. And without the Constitution, we wouldn't have lasted as long as we have. Their importance is a no brainer. What I want to address is what makes them both separately important, and some misconceptions as I see them.

The Declaration of Independance:

Without a doubt, this is perhaps the most important document in the history of our nation. Had our founding fathers not had the courage to write and sign the declaration, we would probably still be a British protectorate. However, it is not a governing document. Boiled down to its simplest level, the Declaration is a letter. A highly formalized letter, but a letter nonetheless. It was written to inform King George III that the citizens of the American colonies were no longer happy being kept under the rule of the British government. It told the king, in no uncertain terms, that they were tired of being treated as though they were second class citizens, and that they felt they had a duty to throw off the yoke of what was, to them, a despotism.

One specific thing I'd like to address about the declaration, since so many people site it as the reason we should be a "Christian Nation" are the references to the christian god and creator. For those who do not remember, most monarchs of the time believed that their power to reign was granted to them directly by God. Hence the bishop is always the one placing the crown on the head of the new monarch. They believed themselves to be anointed by God as the rightful ruler of their land. This was certainly true in Britain. I believe this to be the primary reason why the christian god was mentioned in the declaration.

You see, if a monarch believes themself to be the chosen of God, then the claims of a mere mortal as to their fitness to rule can be seen as nothing. So when the founders wrote the Declaration, they included wording which directly challenged the king's "divine right " to rule. By stating that all men were endowed with certain inalienable human rights by their creator, the founders were, in essence, telling the king that he was going against the will of the very god which had placed him on the throne. In this way, they not only declared that they believed him a despot, but that even God must see him as wrong. This is the reason I believe the framers of the declaration included those passages.

Before anyone goes off the deep end and accuses me of calling the forefathers non-christian, I didn't say that. This is simply my analasys of the reasons for certain wordings. I wasn't there, so I could very well be wrong. But it does seem to make sense to me.

Shall we move on?

The Constitution:

This is the document that actully gave our new nation the framework for its government. It took the lessons learned at the hands of the British monarchy and put them to use to form a representative republic. It established the guidelines for taxation, elections, etc. It is our primary governing document, and all other laws passed by the government were to be held to its standards. It even went so far as to guarantee certain specific rights in order to ensure the people retained their liberty under the new government. The one thing it did not do, and for good reason, was to name a state religion. The founders knew they did not want the church interfering in the business of the state, and did not want its people to suffer at the hands of what would have been, in essence, a theocracy. As such, there is almost no mention of religion in the Constitution. The only places it is mentioned is to specifically prohibit the use of a test of faith for those taking an office within the government. That's not to say the Constitution wants us all to give up our faiths and be atheists. It simply made sure that the church was not a part of the workings of government.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who believe that, because of the mention of a god in the declaration, that this nation is supposed to be a christian one. But that just isn't the case. Let's go over my main points one more time.

The Declaration is a letter of declaration written to the King of England and his government at the time. Without it, this nation would never have been formed. But however pretty the words, however formal it may be, it is still, in simplest terms, a letter. It is not a governning document.

The Constitution on the other hand is the governing document for this nation. It is the basis by which all other laws should be measured. It gives us our freedoms and protects us from tyranny and despotism. While the United States would never have existed without the Declaration, it never would have survived without the Constitution.

This Should Not Be Happening

Ladies and gentlemen, today is a sad day for this once great nation. Today, the United States Supreme Court will hand down its ruling on an issue that should never even have made it to the floor of Congress. Today, they will decide whether or not the bill popularly known as Obamacare will stand, or to strike it down as having violated the Constitution in any number of ways. Here's the thing though... it should never have made it to the point of being voted on. The fact that it was ramrodded through Congress, and was voted on before anyone knew or understood what was in it means that it was not held up to the standards of the Constitution, and the system of checks and balances put in place by the founding fathers was unable to stop a blatantly unconstitutional law from being passed.

Today, the last line of defense for the Constitution is being put to the test. I should be able to say with absolute certainty that this law will be struck down with no dissenters. I should be able to say that because each and every one of the justices of the supreme court swore an oath to defend the constitution, and as such, should see this law for the threat to freedom it truly is. Of course, if that vow had ever meant anything to anyone, this bill would never have gotten this far. But, as with congress, and even the presidency, personal agendas and politics are more important than our governing document. Which means that, while these justices should be able to simply say "hell no" to Obamacare and strike it down as being unconsitutional with a unanimous vote, instead we will have a split decision. That decision will be split along party lines. Essentially, they do what the person who appointed them tells them to do.

I'm sure there are a couple justices who actually want to uphold the constitution and preserve the freedoms for which our forefathers fought over two centuries ago. But I am painfully aware that there are sitting justices who were given their positions not because of their dedication to the constitution and liberty for all, but because they promised they'd toe the party line should anything like this every come up. Just look at the case of the Arizona illegal immigration law. What should have been a simple case of preserving the freedoms and sovreignty of the states, and even the nation as a whole, was shot down, even as the president signed into law by executive order, amnesty for some 800,000 illegal immigrants.  That was not a decision made to protect the constitution and this nation. It was a decision made to further the political agenda of a specific group of people.

By now, whatever I may think, the decision has surely been presented. While I hope the justices of the Supreme Court have used common sense and good judgement, I know that they will do what they will do, regardless of what I want. I only hope, for the sake of the United States as a whole, and the people in general, that the decision they do make isn't the one that begins the march from freedom and liberty to tyranny and despotism.

Same Sex Marriage and the Constitution

Lately there has been a lot of commotion from people about whether or not same sex couples should be allowed to be "married". So far as I'm concerned, that's perfectly alright. You find someone you love that much, you should be able to bind yourself to them in that manner. Unfortunately, if the latest trends in legislation are any hint, I seem to be in the minority. With so many states either outright banning same sex "marriage", or adding new definitions to their constitutions to effectively make those marriages impossible, it almost sounds like the majority of the populace is dead set against it. But not the US Constitution.

I've been doing a lot of thinking on this subject, and while what follows may be only a legal argument put forward by an amateur constitutionalist, I think it makes sense.

In short, the state has no right to prohibit or otherwise hinder the rights of any citizen, no matter the sexual orientation, to be married under the religious freedom portion of the first amendment of the constitution. I can already hear some of you asking yourselves what the hell does any of this have to do with the freedom of religious expression. Give me a moment and I'll explain.

You see, there are only two reasons that I can think of for a person to discriminate against same sex couples. The first is a simple, personal dislike of homosexuality because it isn't "normal", or "right" biologically speaking. Okay, I get that. But it doesn't mean they have any less reason to be married than an interracial couple. The second reason, and the one that I think applies the most in this case, is a dislike based on religious principles. Essentially, because a person's faith/religious texts state that homosexuality is wrong, it must be so. It is for this second reason that I believe the first amendment applies.

My contention is that many of the lawmakers, if not all, who have been pushing to prevent same sex marriage belong to a faith which believes homosexuality is wrong because it is what their god or gods have told them. In this case, the legislators who have been pushing so hard to pass these discriminatory laws, have been doing so because it's what their faith tells them to do. By doing this, they are, in essence trying to force the laws of a small group of faiths on people who obviously do not share those beliefs. This, in effect, means that they are preventing the free expression of faith by those not of their faith.

I do realize that many faiths say nothing about gay marriage specifically, and that many same sex couples belong to a religion that, for the most part, does not allow same sex couplings, much less marriages. But by living a life that sees, very obviously, no harm in same sex relationships, they have essentially shown themselves to have different beliefs. So for a group of people to tell them they cannot have a state recognized marriage is essentially the same as the state suppressing the religious freedom of a specific group of individuals, subjugating it to the will of another religion. This is in direct violation of the first amendment's clause on freedom of religious expression.

I am not saying that faiths which have a strict "no gays allowed" policy must be forced to perform same sex marriage. It's against their faith, and as such, they have the right to say no under the first amendment. What I am saying is that the state has no right to prohibit or otherwise restrict a citizen's right to a state recognized marriage based on the sexual orientation of those citizens. Especially when the primary justification for such blatant discrimination is religious.

Enough is Enough!

Last night I didn't get off work until one in the morning. Why is this important? Because I was able to listen to my favorite radio talk show and hear about perhaps one of the most disturbing things to come out of big government in recent memory. For those of you who may not know what I'm talking about yet, here's the gist of it:

It seems New York's Mayor Bloomberg has decided the city needs to ban the sale of any sugary beverage over 16 ounces in order to combat obesity.

Yes, I'm a fan of soda in most of it's forms. It isn't the fact that there will be a reduced availability of soda for me to consume should I ever find a reason to visit New York that bothers me however. It's the fact that the government has decided they have the right to determine what and how and how much you and I can eat. It's one thing for them to waste money on studies to tell us what we should eat to be healthy. It's something else entirely for them to actually step in and tell us we can only eat or drink what they approve. The sad part is that so many people think this is okay.

I will admit, I can see where they're coming from on some points. When we as citizens are forced to foot the bill for someone else's medical issues resulting from obesity, that sucks. But shouldn't we find a way to fix the health care system instead, so that those people are held responsible for their decisions, rather than force everyone to give up their freedom to choose how we live our lives? That, to me, makes much more sense.

Honestly folks, I only see this getting worse. As people fail to stand up to intrusive, authoritarian legislation like this, the establishment will begin regulating us right down to the clothes we wear, our precise diet, and perhaps even the time we spend with our families.

A good example of one way this could go is the movie Demolition Man. Any of you who have seen it will know what I'm talking about. To paraphrase a line spoken by the character Lanina Huxley, anything that is bad for you is illegal. A better way to put it though would be that anything the government thinks is bad for you, is illegal. Do we really want this? Do we really want someone else stepping in to tell us that everything we do is wrong, and if we don't stop, we'll be fined, arrested, etc.?

If someone, not the government but a private entity, wants to spend its money to help determine ways to lead a healthy life, I have no problem with that. A private entity can't force me to change my life if I don't want to. But the government has no right to intrude in the lives of its citizens this way. 

People need to see that this is only the first step on the path to giving up every freedom we have. Unless we stand firm and tell the government enough is enough, it won't be long until, through our silence, we grant them the power to force their will on us. We will no longer be free men and women, but slaves to a system we tacitly allowed to come into being because we couldn't be bothered to say "enough".

Tech Talk

For those of you who can't live without my little rants (you may want to seek professional help for that) I apologize. The last couple of weeks I have been preoccupied with Mass Effect 3. But now that I have a moment, I thought I'd get away from politics and religion to discuss some interesting upcoming technologies.

As a geek, and before my laptop took a dive, I would check out Sci-Fi's (I refuse to call it SyFy) Dvice blog. While most of the time the stories were essentially "ain't this shit cool" yet entirely useless, on occasion I would find stories on things that might actually be useful as well as cool. Here are two such items that are both potentially useful, and would compliment each other perfectly

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/03/shock-wave-engi.php

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/04/protean-electri.php

The first is an article about a shock wave driven turbine engine that can run on any combustible, and is about 3.5 times more efficient than current internal combustion engines. While the design isn't all that good for variable speed work, it would make the perfect prime mover for a generator.

The second is about a new concept in electric drive motors for vehicles... mounting them directly to the wheel. The assembly would include brakes, transmission, drive line, etc, all in one tidy little package mounted to each wheel hub. This would open up massive amounts of space in the engine compartment for battery storage as well as, perhaps, the shock-wave generator to keep it charged.

While I don't know if these two groups have ever discussed the idea, I think their projects compliment each other so perfectly it would be insane not to combine them. Especially in light of the fact that current generation hybrids just don't seem to be doing the trick.

In my opinion, the biggest problem auto manufacturers have with making truly effective hybrids and electrics is that they're too busy trying to build them as they would an I.C.E. engine, with the central drive engine or motor (or both) being linked to the wheels by an expansive and highly inefficient series of linkages and gears. If they would simply look at the problem from a different perspective, they might come up with something that is a true quantum leap forward in alternative power plants for vehicles. In this case, a hybrid in which all the gas powered engine does is keep the battery, which is much larger thanks to the drive motors being relocated to the wheels, charged.

Does this make sense to anyone else? Or am I just being a dreamer here?

A Slippery Slope Indeed

Each day, on my way to work, I'll listen to one of two things. I'll either listen to what I've got on the jump drive, or I'll tune in to talk radio to hear what's going on in the political world. Usually I end up listening to Rush as he comes on at that time. And I do agree with much of what he says... until he reminds me why I'm so worried about the direction this country is headed in. Yesterday, that reminder came in the form of him practically crowing over the vote in North Carolina. I'm sure most of you who will read this are familiar with what happened, so I won't go into detail. Suffice it to say, I was not happy when I heard about this.

The reason I don't like this isn't simply that I'm for gay marriage (I am). The reason I don't like this is because it points to a disturbing trend in the way this nation is being governed. From where I stand, it looks very much as though the conservatives of this nation, whose influence is most definitely in ascendancy, would very much like to see the United States become a theocracy. All you have to do is look at some pf the policies they support to see this isn't far off the mark.

Two of the biggest conservative policies I can think of at this point are the pro-life and anti-gay marriage policies. These policies very obviously strip American citizens of specific rights that, in the case of marriage, is a right all other citizens enjoy. If there were some empirical evidence to prove that allowing these things was detrimental to our society, I may be inclined to agree. But there is none. One would think that in today's society that would be enough to stop these agendas in their tracks. But because they are based in the faith of so many people, that just isn't the case. And that's what makes me wary.

You see, in the case of gay marriage and abortion, these people are using the bible to justify passing legislation to strip specific groups of their liberties. Now, while I personally will never ask a woman to have an abortion, I will also never force a woman to relinquish control of her life or body by making it illegal to even seek out or provide the treatment. As for gay marriage, every other man and woman in this country is allowed to be "married" why not those who share a love with someone of the same gender? There is no legitimate reason. Only a handful of lines in an ancient text seems to make it unacceptable to so many.

What I'm trying to get at is that this nation was founded on a basis of escaping persecution and the ability to live life according to one's own plans. The church was deliberately left out of our governing document specifically to prevent religious interference. The Constitution specifically makes no mention of any god or religious edifice, except to say that no one shall be required to go through a test of faith to hold office. And yet we see examples of religious interference on a daily basis. States passing laws making same sex marriages impossible. Statues of the ten commandments sitting outside courthouses. Public schools painting christian themed murals on their walls.

I will be the first to say that what you do on your own time and in your own home is your business, and I have no say in it. But the government and all its arms must remain impartial to guarantee that all citizens receive the same rights. To allow a single religious philosophy to so dominate the functions of government is to create a tyranny of religious oppression that cannot be allowed. I realize that it is nearly impossible to separate a person from their faith. But when that person is responsible for helping guide the direction of this nation, that person must be able to take a step back, distance themselves from their own beliefs, and remember that this is not a nation of one faith, one belief. It is a melting pot of thousands, if not millions of individual faiths and beliefs, many of them different from, or even at odds with, each other. To govern by the values of a single faith is to persecute all others who do not share that faith.

We are a nation of all peoples, and all faiths. We were created based on freedom and individual responsibility for all citizens. If we continue down the path we are currently following, we will end up in a society where the only free individuals are those who follow the tenets of a single faith. We will become the new Catholic Spain. We will be the seat of a new inquisition, a new holy crusade. May whatever gods you pray to help us should that ever come to pass.

Stand Up!

There are a couple of things that tie into this subject, so please bear with me. Ostensibly, this is a political post about who the two major ruling (yes, I said ruling, not governing) parties seek to control who we vote for. But this is also a post about the power of choice, and about how terribly important it is to not allow others to make your choices for you.

As you were growing up, your parents most likely did the vast majority of the decision making for you. But as adults we take on the responsibility of making our own decisions. At least, most of us do. The problem is that, in certain situations, there will be those who will attempt to get you to let them make your decisions for you. Oh, they won't simply come out and tell you that's what they're doing. They'll be tricky about it. They'll present you with an argument or statement that makes it seem only to easy to go along with them, without getting all the facts for yourself. This is what the politicians have been doing for generations.

Politicians only tell you what they want you to know, and they do it in such a way as to minimize your desire to question them. To seek out information and confirmation on your own is anathema to their plans. They want you to blindly accept what they give you so that they can maintain the status quo. And believe when I tell you that, so long as the Democrats and Republicans hold power, it will always be status quo.

"So what?" you say. "It isn't like we have any other choices". That, my friend is where you are wrong. In most schools, they teach about the political party system at least briefly. They may have even taught you that there are more than the two major parties. Many more. But this is where those two major parties start to be tricky. You see, they don't want you to pay any attention to those other parties. So the first thing they do is pretend they don't exist. They never mention them no matter what they may do or how much they may grow. And then they do something I consider to be reprehensible... they convince the public that to vote for anyone but them is a waste of a vote, or worse, is the same as voting for whoever the bad guy is at the time.

This last is what angers me the most, because it isn't just the politicians that do it. I have had family tell me specifically that to vote for the libertarian candidate, as I am going to, will be a waste of a vote, and that my first concern should be to vote for a person who can defeat Obama in November. I have a couple of points for that person and anyone else who would try this tactic on me.

First, how dare you try to force me into making a choice I don't believe in like that. I will make my own, informed decision, and it will based on who I firmly believe is the best choice for this nation, not on the threat that any choice but yours is a waste, or a vote for the opposition. You make your choice, I make mine. It's that simple.

Second, I realize that the odds of my chosen candidate winning are not high. But they are even lower if I do not have the courage of my convictions and vote for them regardless of what public opinion says. The more people realize this and begin voting their principles and not simply for the candidate they feel has the best chance of winning, the more likely someone who is truly worth a damn will end up in charge.

And before you start calling me things like unpatriotic or even traitor for "throwing my vote away" or "dooming the nation" by "allowing" the tyrants to remain in power, I want you to consider something. Did the founding fathers create this nation so that people could simply vote for the guy most likely to win, and in the end maintain a broken system? Or did they create a system which they felt allowed the people, by making their own, informed decisions, to keep the government in check, and even change it completely should those currently in power lose sight of what makes this nation great? You have only to look at the Declaration of Independence to find the answer.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

How can we possibly say that we agree with those words unless we truly stand firm, and have the courage of our convictions. Don't simply make the choice for who governs based on who is "most likely to win" or whoever is the lesser of two evils. Educate yourself. Rely on yourself to find the choice that you can say you truly believe in. And if there's non-one you believe in, do something about it. We are not a great nation because we allow others to make our decisions. We are great because we take action where others would sit idly by and allow the tyrants to take our freedoms and destroy our liberties.

Stand Up!

What I Believe

Over the weekend, I participated in an event that got me thinking about who and what I am. For those of you who read on a regular basis, you know my policy on revealing specifics, so lets just say that those who were there will know what I'm talking about. As for the thinking, it was essentially about my spirituality.

I normally don't discuss my beliefs openly as I'm rather fiercely protective of my faith. I don't like drawing unwanted attention from those who might see my faith as an affront to their own, and  might decide they want to harass me or those close to me because of it. On the other side of this however, I'm starting to realize that by hiding myself from the world, I've also prevented myself from expressing myself in the manner I should be. Granted, this does not mean I'm going to go up to any random Tom, Dick, or Harry on the street and tell proceed to explain my faith to them. I have slightly better sense than that. But since the majority of you who read my blog are those who are family, or who I come close to considering family, I feel safe in sharing my beliefs here. So, in an effort to shed some light on myself, here are my beliefs.

Deities:
I personally believe that there are a whole host of gods and goddesses out there. Not simply those of the old pantheons, but native gods, as well as those of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims. That isn't to say that they coexist peacefully of course. After all, when you have one god telling his people that no others exist, it's bound to create tension. I know and am friends with people who follow a wide variety of these deities, and have no problem with it whatsoever.

My deities, however, seem to be none of the above. When I speak to them, they always appear the same way. I will be kneeling on a stone floor in what appears to be an ancient stone hall. On a raised dais, and arranged in a semi-circle before me stand the gods and goddesses whom I serve. They have no faces, and don't speak, but I know they hear me. I don't know their names, so don't ask. I only know that they are my gods, and that they have set my purpose.

Purpose:
I don't know my purpose specifically. Then again, who does? What I do know is that my gods created me with a purpose, and I believe it to be one of guidance and protection. For whom? The gods don't tell me. They only guide me to where I need to be and trust that the gifts they've given me will help me to fulfill my purpose.

Afterlife:
My spirit, my purpose is eternal. When I die, my gods will either pass my spirit on to another form to continue with the tasks they have given me, or they will keep me with them because I am not specifically needed just then. I know that, eventually the time will come when I will no longer be needed in this world, and they will allow me an eternal rest. Only they know when this will be. Until then, I am ever their servant.

Balance:
This is something that is of particular importance to me. Perhaps this was instilled in me by my gods to help me perform my duties. Perhaps it was this trait which caused them to choose me for this purpose. Either way, balance is important to me. When I hear someone speaking out against sometjing, or someone else, I can't simply rush to judgement. I have to hear the other side first. Even when I make a decision for myself, I have to look at all sides. It can be infuriating sometimes because, in some cases both sides are valid, and so choosing one is not as simple as having a good choice and a bad choice. But that is on a small scale.

On the larger scale, I believe that the model of balance shown by two cups hanging evenly is far too simple to the point of being invalid. When I think of balance on the larger scale (no pun intended) I see a scale with uncounted arms radiating out froma central point, each with uncounted arms of their own. The arms are of varying length and size, as are the cups of varying size and depth. If something happens to one of those cups, it affects all others to varying degrees.

Spirits, etc.: I do believe in spirits, the fae, elements, and all the other innumerable beings out there. As the bumper sticker on my truck used to read, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

There you have it. My beliefs in a nutshell. Hopefully it will help thse of you who care to understand me a bit better. Should you have questions, you know how to reach me. Comments are welcome. Closed minded flames will be deleted.

Your Attention Please

My wife is a beautiful, intelligent, sexy, wonderful woman and I'm blessed to have her in my life. And for all of you who have cast aspersions on her for who or what she is, or for expressing her thoughts and ideas how she chooses,I have one thing to say... take a long walk off a short pier you intolerant asses. You're lucky she even makes an attempt to have you in her life, much less to allow you to be privy to the inner workings of that life. Be grateful, or be gone.

That is all.

Knowledge: The Ultimate Weapon

Never in the history of man has information been so freely available. All any person has to do is type in a handful of letters and they're presented with hundreds of possible topics of interest. Anything from the  day's news to the life and times of Ghengis Khan. All this and more is no more than a click or a touch away.

With all this information so close at hand, a person might think that humanity would become smarter, more informed. Yet it seems as though, at least here in the U.S., as though people have become less so. Instead of seeking to enrich themselves with useful knowledge, they spend all their time looking up the latest Hollywood scandal or embarrassing video clip. Sad to say, I think the various politicians like it that way.

Think about it. A public that is more concerned with what the stars are wearing or who's sleeping with who obviously isn't interested in what's really going on in Washington. And if, by some freak of chance, the people do look up from their tabloids and take a look around at the state of things, the politicians simply dangle some sort of scandal in front of them in order to distract them once more.

Case in point. Look at the timing of the Trayvon Martin uprising. The actual shooting occurred about a month before the major news outlets and civil rights groups started making noise about it. Why wait so long? Sure, it could have simply taken that long for the media to get a hold of it, but perhaps it was something else. Perhaps it was because,at the same time as the story was getting national attention, the Supreme Court as starting to hear arguments in the case against Obamacare. Certainly seems like a case of "don't look over there, this is far more interesting.

What, you ask, does all of this have to do with knowledge being the ultimate weapon? Simple.The politicians know that if the people in general were to ever actually begin comprehending what they're doing while we watch youtube and argue over Team Jacob versus Team Edward, they would lose everything. So they use their knowledge of how to manipulate the mob to keep themselves in power. Even if some enlightened soul were to stand out of the crowd and actually point out what was really going on, the rest would be so jaded, they wouldn't care to look up.

There's also the case of all the new laws the government has been trying to pass to censor or control the internet. If there was ever one thing that threatened their control on the flow of information to the people, it's the 'net. Anyone can say or post anything, and once it's out there, it's near impossible to be rid of it. Even the things the government doesn't want you to see are already out there. Oh, they're hidden away in nooks and crannies you can't find with a simple google search, but they're out there.

And then there are people like me, and perhaps even you. People who actually do want to know what's going on around them, and aren't afraid to speak out when they think something isn't right. People who look through the net for what those who want to control the flow of information don't want the public to know. Or even just people who question what they've been told by the mainstream, and who bring that questioning attitude into the open so that others can think about it.

Knowledge truly is the greatest power in existence. It can save lives, and it can topple governments. Knowledge can bring a race of beings to the brink of transcendence, or banish them to an eternal dark age. Is it right, therefore, to entrust this power solely to a handful of men and women who will do nothing more with it than try to dictate to the rest of us how we will live our lives? I say it is not. I say it is up to each of us to ensure that our knowledge is not based solely on what is fed to us by those who think themselves in power.

Whodunit? Who Cares? It's RACIAL! (or is it?)

The last few weeks there's been a lot of talk about this Trayvon (not sure of the spelling, and not going to look it up) Martin killing. Why? Yes, it was tragic that a seventeen year old boy was shot to death, but can't that be said in all such cases? The kid was black you say? I still don't understand the uproar. His killer was white? Now, I could have sworn he was hispanic.

Here's how I look at it folks. For quite a while, blacks have worked to receive equal rights under the Constitution (which I think they always had, but that's a story for another blog). Yet lately, it seems as though they believe they should be given special treatment under that same body of laws. No person, regardless of skin color, should receive special treatment under the law. Now, if it was a racially based hate crime, the distinction should be made. But that's for the police investigation to determine, not a bunch of racist, self-proclaimed preachers who are more interested in widening the racial divide than preaching the true message of their faith.

In all honesty, I think these asses that can't seem to get past the color of their own skin need to shut the fuck up, let the cops do their job, and let the evidence speak for itself.

By the way... what about all the other black boys and girls that get shot and killed every day? Why don't they get this kind of coverage?

Maybe it's because they weren't killed a month before one of the most politically charged Supreme court hearings of our time. Something to think about.

And We're Back

For those of you who pay attention, I haven't been around the last few months. This is because back in December, my laptop hard drive took a serious dive. So serious in fact that I have been incommunicado ever since.

Obviously that has changed. Today, while in town with my wife I broke down and did something I didn't think I ever would... I bought a tablet. No, not an ipad. I will never be so desperate for technology as to purchase an apple product. If you really want to know why, I'll write it in another post, because it will take too much time here.

 At any rate, I do have a tablet, and it's actually rather interesting. Typing isn't as bad as I thought it would be, though it's still slower than before. I plan on getting a separate keyboard to take care of that at some point. Otherwise, it looks I'm back in business. Give me another few days and I'll start posting my usual, fascinating stories.