Prolonged Absence

Because school isn’t getting any easier.

No Beer and No TV…

Come October, devil-inspired wine coolers will be moved from grocery stores to state-ran liquor stores, where they will be taxed consistently with state pricing: wine and liquor at 61% mark-up over cost plus taxes, beer at 75% plus taxes. But it’s a sin, and should be taxed as such.

The move is intended to convince the Mormon population that alcohol doesn’t exist. Or maybe it’s to prevent underage kids from driving drunk. Personally I can only hold one or two sips from a wine cooler before I am completely shit-faced. And that’s not even mentioning how popular wine coolers are among the 16-20 year old male population. It’s their crack.

At what point in time did this nation become totally subservient to children? Must every new law passed be based upon how good it will be for the children? We have all been thinking of the children for much too long now. Why are so many of our laws based upon a person’s first few years of life when they will eventually be exposed to the world? They may be the future, but I’m the present.

Take swearing for instance. I’m an adult, and I’m just as aware as any junior high kid that people use words that are termed “expletives.” Why should any special interest group be able to deem if a word is dirty and block it from TV and radio?

It doesn’t take a village to raise a child - it takes a parent. I don’t have any children, and I shouldn’t be punished as such. If I want to relax on my front porch drinking beer and listening to someone on the radio say “fuck,” I shouldn’t be arrested for public drunkenness and obscenity. I shouldn’t have to adopt your moral code in every day-to-day interaction so little Johnny thinks the world is sweet and wholesome. If you feel the need to shelter your children from the world then lock them in your basement - don’t make me jump through hoops to get a beer.

So hiding beer and marking it up to God-awful prices may prevent underage drunk driving. And it may convince people that nobody drinks. Or it might create a culture of secrecy with every kid trying to find out why it’s so hidden from public view. And once these over-sheltered kids are exposed to this gateway drug, it’s not long before they’ll be overdosing on heroine.

On Deification & Free Speech

People tend to look back at past civilizations and laugh at attributes that set them apart from us. Emperors in Rome, for instance, adopted themselves into Imperator lineages posthumously and were later deified after they died, which meant that nobody could speak badly of them once they passed away. How silly.

With the passing of Charlton Heston, headlines alluding to the fact that you can now have his gun due to his cold dead hands were met with criticism. Apparently, once a person dies, all the issues that you disagreed with them on should just be forgotten, and only kind words spoken about them. If you believe in gun control the time isn’t now, nor ever, to voice any criticism towards the former NRA president.

Deifying the dead is an absurd tradition that I, for one, will not take part in. In the name of free speech, yet fearing divine retribution, I will leave any mockery regarding removing the gun from his hand before rigor mortis sets in to someone else.

More high tech than a segway?

When he’s not shuffling the shuffle or falling off of Segways, Bush is listening to Alan Jackson or those counter-culture revolutionaries The Beatles on his iPod with them ear things on. He admits that it’s pretty high-tech stuff, but he can always push that little advance button if something he doesn’t like comes on. Like the news.

Pentagon to Close Anti-Quaker Unit

Robert Gates plans to close, or possibly reallocate, the Counterintelligence Field Activity Office, created by Donald Rumsfeld to spy on antiwar protesters. The move has brought criticism from civil liberties groups, who claim the the Pentagon is simply sending operations to other, less-scrutinized agencies.

The clandestine office, whose size and budget are both classified, was used to spy on antiwar protests at churches, schools, and Quaker meeting halls. Quakers have a long history of undermining the government. Believing rather erroneously that all people are equal, they campaigned for women, black, mentally ill, and prisoner rights. I sleep sounder at night knowing our government is keeping tabs on those terrorists.

Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, referred to the office as a “Rumsfeld-era relic that triggered major concern about domestic intelligence gathering by the Pentagon against Americans.” Reyes refers to Rumsfeld as though he were in office decades ago, not up until 2006. I hope that name sticks, though. Rumsfeld-era. It’s like McCarthyism. Rumsfeldyism.

Many accused Rumsfeld and friends of trying to build an intelligence empire of their own, due to their suspicion of the CIA. James R. Clapper, Senior Intelligence Official at the Pentagon, recommended the office be placed under the authority of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The closing of the Pentagon’s Intelligence Unit would severely decrease the number of intelligence agencies in the United States. Now we only have the CIA, DoD, Air Force, Military Intelligence, FBI, NSA, Dept. of Homeland Security, and others - a total of 16 intelligence agencies heading numerous enforcement agencies that protect us from terrorists with box cutters and, most importantly, ourselves.

Who are those 19%?

A New York Times/CBS News Poll released today shows that 81% of the country believes America is on the wrong track, and Bush’s abysmally-low 34% approval rating suggests that this issue is bipartisan. The percentage of people upset with the condition of the U.S. is higher than it has been for 20 years, which has seen 12 years of Bush’s Senior and Junior and 8 years of Clinton.

The biggest concern for respondents was the economy, amidst news of a 5.1% unemployment, more layoffs last month than in the last five years, and a failing dollar. The current administration has no legitimate plans for helping the economy, with Bush appearing carefree and laughing off reports of gas at $4 a gallon. McCain would take a Hooveresque approach, doing nothing to spur a failing economy.

But how much change will a Democratic administration bring? The newly-Democratic Congress’ approval rating is at an all-time low, worse than the Republican presidency. Their initial support for Iraq has waned in an attempt to garner more of the vote in the upcoming election. They have become Republican-lite.

Neither party has been able to show that they can bring about the change that the people want. The current political duopoly has been successful in eliminating competition, and as such find little need to offer vastly different stances on political issues. Third-party suppression and ballot access laws ensure that the next president will be more of the same - and that people will be upset with the state of the country.

People want real change, but are blocked by both politicians and their own laziness. Why read a newspaper when pop stars are beamed directly into your homes at your beck and call? Why risk being depressed about the world when you can laugh at the latest crazy thing a celebrity has done? Why become educated on issues when there exists other people who can do it for you? Mass media should be added to religion as an opiate of the people.

81% of you want change. But it’s not something that politicians are going to offer. It’s not something that is going to happen if you do nothing. Unless you’re among the contented 19% of the population, it is your responsibility to implement the change you want to see.

Recessions Aid Weight Loss

Sandra Aamodt and Sam Wang wrote a New York Times op-ed piece showing how a recession is good for people wanting to lose weight. Huh. Being poor helps people stay skinny.

Debate = Dangerous?

Why is there so much contention within the Democratic Party? The democrats, who were unable to produce a noteworthy candidate to usurp Bush and gain control during an unpopular war, now have two frontrunners who are winning scores of votes between themselves, but the party is becoming wary that neither candidate will concede defeat. Which makes me ask one question: “why should they?”

When did people begin believing that debate is bad? Rather than cause contention within the party, it offers the American people a greater choice in who the next president will be. Both parties have established a two-party monopoly within the country, but, fortunately for us, the Democrats have not been able to do this within their own party. That means both candidates will have to present better ideas on an array of issues to set themself apart from from the opposition.

Neither candidate can ultimately be a “spoiler” for the democrats, because both candidates are running inside the party. Unlike a third-party candidate, which is exemplary of the most radical disenfranchisement with either party, votes during primaries are being channeled to one candidate or the other. If the Democrats lose this election, they will only have themselves to blame.

So let’s drop the neo-conservative rhetoric of being either ‘with us or against us.’ Two candidates in the race can only help, not hurt, the Democratic Party. Debate is not harmful - it’s what cultivates and shapes ideas. And that’s something that until recently this country was seriously lacking.