nugnuts

Polls

2008-09-14T16:09:00.002-04:00

Just read this article about the email reactions to Ed Koch's recent endorsement of Obama. I'm linking to it because I found the quote of his referenced in the photo caption interesting: “There is no acceptance of dissent anymore."

I think it'd be fantastic if our political discourse were more open and civil. I'm also 4000% confident that if it were, the polls right now would be nowhere near as close as they currently are.

Primarily

2008-01-08T22:04:00.000-05:00

It's good to see more people are getting out to vote.

For Your Health

2007-07-01T19:04:00.000-04:00

Every American needs to see Sicko, and then do something to cure this nation's disease.

SUPREME!!

2007-03-28T23:20:00.000-04:00

Pseudo-randomly poking around the web during my lunch break today, I stumbled upon this about the Supreme Court's failure during the 2000 election. I wasn't aware that they said right in the decision that it cannot be used as a precedent.

History Lessons

2006-08-23T15:06:00.003-04:00

Saw a show on the History Channel last night called Strange Egypt. My take-away from the program was how little has actually changed for humanity over the centuries. We generally hold some different beliefs, have different social structures, and use some different technologies, but that's really it. Fundamentally, people are still people; we just have some different stuff.

All of that stuff, by the way, we make up. Society is the way it is now because we've made it this way. Things don't have to be the way they are, and in fact, will not be this way forever. We don't follow pharaohs around anymore, for instance.

One significant difference between now and then, however, is we have more history now. We've seen a lot more stuff, and have learned a lot of lessons from it. Well, we should have learned a lot of lessons, but sometimes I question whether people are actually paying attention.

Shouldn't we know more as a people now? Shouldn't we all be a bit more wary about media and governmental propaganda, even if it comes from our sources at home? Why doesn't the general populace seem aware of that yet, and why don't we openly oppose the current administration more? Look at this. This Bush guy is supposed to be working for me, right? This is America and a democratic republic and all that right? Why is he continuing to do nothing good? How can the people of this nation continue to allow all this to be going on? Why hasn't this man been impeached for turning this country into everything it's supposed to stand against? Isn't treason illegal here?

Let's All Go To The Movies

2006-03-16T18:29:00.000-05:00

Saw Why We Fight the other day. I highly recommend checking it out.

Seriously, WTF

2006-02-09T22:26:00.000-05:00

How long are we going to let conservatives lie to us and pretend like nothing is happening? Am I the only one bothered by this?

Terrorism

2006-01-22T19:40:00.001-05:00

So I read an interesting article the other day regarding bin Laden's latest public announcement. This particular article put a spin on the matter that one is not exposed to very frequently, though I have noticed more and more reports seem to favor a similar approach when discussing this particular message. The spin I am referring to takes a look more at potential political motivations or intentions behind the tone, word choice, etc., employed than at how terrorized we should all feel right now and/or when the next building is expected to fall.

Most interesting to me is of course the stark contrast between his words and the words chosen by our US representation. He offers a truce, and McClellan replies in low-brow American bravado "we don't negotiate with terrorists, we put them out of business".

It is clear to me (and I believe it should be clear to everyone at this point) that no side will win this so-called war on terror. No side possibly can win. Both have undeniably already lost. It is obvious that when you're at the point where people are dying, something horrible went wrong somewhere. I read the other day over at Jeffrey Ullman's rant on fundamentalism why he believes the military actions employed by the US (invasion, remote missile attacks, etc.) are in fact distinct from terrorism. If I read correctly, it essentially amounts to the fact that the US relies on more conventional actions, and such more 'classical' forms of warfare are supposed to have additional benefits (posturing, etc.) that so-called terrorism lacks. But it's clear, even to Bush who has repeatedly pointed out the unique nature of the enemy in this particular war, that things are different now; traditional methods cannot be expected to work as if used against a traditional opponent. Conventional military actions cannot be assumed to work conventionally against an unconventional adversary.

It might be time for the administration to reconsider its policies and their affects, maybe take a crack at adapting.

Llama herding

2006-01-22T16:14:00.000-05:00

Mad props to the Aymara Indians. Represent.

bloop

2006-01-15T17:42:00.000-05:00

So here it is. My first blog entry. It pretty much pwns.