Congress

America doesn't overly approve of the job Congress is doing in Washington. Currently their approval rating is 17.3% - while Bush's approval rating is 30%. And regardless of their approval ratings or productivity, they still get a paycheck. Something is wrong here, don't you think?

Well, I've proposed an idea that might help congress become more productive. What we ought to do is is pay them minimum wage until they work on a plan to reduce the deficit. Cut off all lobbyist money from these assholes. Make them do their job and fire them all if necessary.

I think that might put fire under their asses. Let them feel how it's like to work for minimum wage. Show them what it's like to really work for someone, and don't let them forget that they work for us.

If that's too radical for ya, then how about this:

Currently,

Congressmen & Senators earn $165,200
Majority & Minority Leaders earn $180,100
Speaker of the House earns $208,100

In my opinion, that is more than what they're worth. I'd cut all their salaries in half, thus:

Congressmen & Senators would earn $82,600
Majority & Minority Leaders would earn $90,050
Speaker of the House would earn $104,050

Maybe that will motivate them a little bit and remind them that they work for the citizens of the USA.

And once they balance the budget and help kill the deficit, I still wouldn't let them off easy. I'd make their approval rating determine their salary. Fuck 'em. I think that would encourage them to work together and get things done, wouldn't you say?

Media Coverage on Election '08

If you have been paying attention this election season, then you know it's been a wild ride. And if you haven't, you must be living in a cave if you don't know what is going on, because the election coverage is EVERYWHERE. The media coverage is a little ridiculous. Does anyone care how many houses John McCain owns? Or what car he drives? Are they really interested in this stuff? You don't see the media covering the issues, though. Where does Barack Obama or John McCain stand on such and such an issue? Ask anyone and see what the response is. Chances are they don't know. I think the media should focus on the issues and ignore this celebrity gossip crap. If they are going to cover the campaigns, then they need to do it right and inform the citizens so that they can make an educated decision come November. Now, I know people should do their own research, but how many people actually do it? Not many. They rely on what the media has to say. And one only has to look at the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 elections to understand this.

Conservatives and Abortion

This is a topic that I've wanted to write about for a long time. Abortion is considered a risque subject. I'm not going to beat around the bush. I am going to come right out and say it: Yes, I am pro-abortion, pro-choice and however else you want to describe it. I favor killing the unborn. But before you stop reading because you think I am a disgusting, murderer, please read on and listen to what I have to say.

Now the opponents to abortion consider themselves pro-life. Pro-life, to me, is a meaningless term. You want to know why? Because pro-lifers are the same people that support the death penalty. Kind of contradictory, don't you think? I think that if these people were really pro-life, they wouldn't allow anyone to die. The only ones they seem to care about though, are the unborn. But what about the humans that are already born? What about them? These pro-lifers don't seem to care about them, do they? Look at all the starving children we have in the country. They're homeless and hungry, but nobody cares about them. Nobody wants to sign a law that would make it illegal for them to go hungry. But they do want a law banning abortion. To me, abortion is a way of cleaning up a mess before it becomes a bigger mess; a way to stop the pain before it gets worse. Because life is a lot of pain, don't you agree? I think of abortion as a way out for the little fella who doesn't know what he's getting into. Even though it isn't his fault, I still think it's best if he isn't brought into a world where he is not wanted.

Now who is to say that the child will be better off alive? The mother doesn't want it, she can barely take care of herself, let alone a child. Is she capable of taking care of the child? Most likely not. In some cases, the mother will go berserk and leave the child in a dumpster somewhere, or try flushing it down the toilet. Pretty disgusting, eh? I agree. I think both of those things are worse than abortion. I say kill the child before it faces the real suffering, before he faces any real pain at all. Now I bet someone is thinking “there is always adoption.” You're right. There is. BUT how is that a solution? Can you guarantee the child will be better off in a foster home? Will he be fed and taken care of the way he deserves to be? What happens when the child finds out he is adopted? Won't that bother him? Knowing that he wasn't wanted? I bet you he will face some psychological problems in result of an adoption.

Now back to these pro-lifers. The pro-lifers want a bigger mess, and don't want to feed all the hungry and homeless children in this country. Why not? You'd think that if they were pro-life, they would care about all life, wouldn't you say so? All they seem to care about is the un-born. Now as the late, great George Carlin stated so well: If you're pre-born, you're fine but if you're pre-school, you're fucked. What does this mean? It means that once the child is born, the pro-life conservatives do not want to know who he is. They don't want to provide welfare, food-stamps, housing, education, nothing. They don't want to hear about him until he reaches military age: 18. Then they think he is just fine, just what they were looking for. They want to ship him overseas to fight meaningless wars (that these ignorant asshole conservatives think we can win), where he will die just to protect their cowardly asses and their valuables. Does that sound like pro-life to you? I think what they should be saying is: we are pro-life, we decide who lives or dies.

Another thing about these conservatives that I have a problem with, is that they claim they want to keep government off your back. However, they feel it is alright for them to worry about what goes on in a woman's uterus. They want to make abortion illegal and they want to prosecute the doctors that perform these illegal abortions. Now, what about the mishandled abortions? There are a lot of those. They aren't performed correctly, and the mother and/or child end up dying. And this happens why? Because they do not have the tools at their disposal to do the job right. They are hiding out in back alleys or doing it in the mother's bedroom. This needs to be done in a hospital room, legally. If they are pro-life, you'd think they'd care about the mother and the child, right? So why not make the abortions legal so they can be performed in a hospital under sanitary conditions so they can at least save the mother's life. Why save the mother's life? Well she's not ready for a child yet, but someday she might be. She will be able to produce a healthy child with the means to take care of him. And she won't have to worry about applying for welfare or food stamps, either. Because everybody knows, conservatives don't approve of those things.

I want to delve into another subject for a moment before I close: homophobia. Why are these conservative assholes against gays? Who has less abortions than a homosexual? Aren't homosexuals almost guaranteed never to have an abortion? Don't you think conservatives and gays would make natural allies? But not only are they against homosexuals, they also won't let them get married or adopt children. Why won't they let them adopt children? Now tell me, if they are anti-abortion: what are we going to do with all these children that we save? They're in need of good, loving homes because the mother can't take care of the child. Conservatives sure as hell won't provide welfare or food stamps or housing. And they won't let the homosexuals adopt kids. There are many homosexual couples that would love to adopt children and could provide a good, loving home for them. But they can't even get married or adopt children legally. So what are we suppose to do with all of these newborn children if the government doesn't want to take care of them? The mother can't take care of the child. She never wanted him to begin with and she couldn't abort him because the government said it was against the law. I think if killing someone is against the law, then allowing someone to starve to death should be too.

If these asshole conservatives want to be pro-life, then they should also be pro-provider of whatever means necessary to take care of that life. Support welfare, housing, food stamps, you name it. If they are pro-life, then they should fucking live up to what the term says. We should also not be fighting wars overseas, because naturally, people die in war and pro-life people should not allow others to die. And they also should build more prisons to hold all of these criminals, because again, they are pro-life, so we can't kill these criminals. That would be contradictory to what pro-life means. Am I right about this?

And to be brutally honest, don't we have enough fucking people on this Earth as it is? Don't you think we'd be better off with a lighter load? So let's end the bullshit and make abortions legal. I think you'll save a lot of lives in the long run, and it would eliminate a lot of suffering before it starts.

PS: I am aware of Roe V. Wade, but that doesn't prevent these conservatives from wanting to overturn it and take away the woman's right to choose. They also want to make all contraceptives illegal. This post was written with these things in mind.

Thought of the Day

Why is it that the middle class is referred to the middle class, but the rich aren't referred to as the "high class," and the poor as the "low class?"

I know no one wants to be referred to as the low class, that I can understand. But, the high class being referred to as the high class, is that too good for them? Could it be possible that the low class have more class than the high class? Now what about the middle class? Why are they getting all the attention? Maybe they are the ones with more class than anyone else.

I dunno, you try to figure this shit out and then get back to me.

The Right Age for Drinking

The Right Age for Drinking
It isn't 18, whatever some college officials think.
Sunday, August 24, 2008; Page B06

COLLEGE OFFICIALS who have signed on to the provocative proposition that the legal drinking age of 21 isn't working say that they just want to start a debate. Perhaps when they get done with that, they can move on to whether Earth really orbits the sun. Any suggestion that the current drinking age hasn't saved lives runs counter to the facts.

More than 100 presidents and chancellors from such top universities as Duke and Johns Hopkins say it's time to rethink the drinking age, contending it has caused "a culture of dangerous, clandestine 'binge-drinking.' " The statement does not specifically advocate reducing the drinking age, but many who signed it say they thought legal drinking should begin at 18.

Health and safety experts have reacted with dismay, because raising the drinking age has saved many lives. In 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed 49 studies published in scientific journals and concluded that alcohol-related traffic crashes involving young people increased 10 percent when the drinking age was lowered in the 1970s and decreased 16 percent when the drinking age was raised. The retreat from a lower drinking age translates into some 900 lives saved each year among 16- to 20-year-olds. Those who would argue that other factors, such as safer cars, are responsible should take a good look at numbers posted by Mothers Against Drunk Driving showing alcohol-related traffic fatalities among 16- to 20-year-olds decreasing 60 percent between 1982 and 2006 while non-alcohol-related fatalities increased 34 percent.
ad_icon

The college presidents are right about binge drinking. Each year, some 1,700 college students die from causes related to alcohol use; there is also the toll of injuries and sexual assaults fueled by alcohol. But where is the logic of solving the underage drinking problem by lowering the age even more? Henry Wechsler, the Harvard expert whose studies of binge drinking popularized the phrase, put it best, comparing lowering the drinking age to "pouring gasoline to put the fire out."

Work by experts such as Mr. Wechsler, as well as the experience of college officials committed to solutions, shows that strong steps to enforce the law and change the culture can produce results. Instead of talking about lowering the drinking age (and thereby shifting the problem to high schools), colleges should be working to develop better enforcement methods, expand education and counseling, and end pricing practices that make alcohol more accessible and attractive. Then, too, college officials can stop winking at fraternity bashes that, whether they are willing to admit it or not, add to the allure of going off to college.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082301748.html

Do these people not see the problem? The problem is that we are restricting the kid's access to alcohol. The kids do not know how to handle alcohol. Period. And then when they do get a hold of alcohol, they drink it like they'll never have another chance of drinking it again. What needs to happen, is parents need to teach their children how to drink at a very young age. Make the alcohol available to them, that way they aren't sneaking around behind their backs and taking the booze and doing stupid things. There needs to be a trust system between the parent and child.

In other countries, the parents give their child a glass of wine with each dinner. They do not have a alcohol problem like the US does. Hmmm, I wonder why? Because they know how to handle their alcohol. They have been taught. The alcohol is available to them so they are not over drinking. It's there. They can have it whenever they want, that way they're not sneaking around behind their parent's backs and doing dumb things.

I know this isn't going to change in this country, but I feel that if a person is old enough to serve his or her country, then he or she is fucking old enough to buy themselves an alcoholic beverage. The legal age for drinking and gambling should be 18. Otherwise, they mine as well make the legal age 21. Because in my opinion, they're not adults unless they can do everything that adults can do legally.

Viewing porn at the library?

I just had to post my thoughts on this article I read: http://www.freedomvaluesrights.com/?p=160#comment-9.

Apparently these people who want "Freedom" feel they have to moderate people's opinions on their blog. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think? I guess they want the freedom to decide what freedoms people should or shouldn't have. I personally think, people should be able to say and do whatever the fuck they want. But that's just me.

Well this is the comment I posted. It is awaiting moderation. If they approve it, this is what you'll see listed under the comment section:

I think kids need a sense of reality. Their innocence will not be taken if they see some porn. Porn is not necessarily a bad thing. Perverted? Hardly. It’s human nature. That’s all it is. It’s another form of entertainment. I do not agree that people should be viewing such stuff in public places, but they shouldn’t be prosecuted for viewing it, either.

People need to lighten up and get a life. Seriously.

Georgia Vs. Russia/Foreign Policy

I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of hearing about Russia and Georgia. I am also not too pleased about our members in government, President Bush, McCain and Obama namely, who think they have the right to tell Russia what to do. Have we learned nothing from 9/11? I mean, the reason people don't like us, is because we think we're the world police. We can not mind our own business overseas, and this is what gets us into trouble. You know what I say? Fuck the rest of the world. Let them do what they want, as long as they're not bothering us, we shouldn't be interfering. I know some will call me an isolationist for that comment, but it really is non-interventionism. There's a difference. If Russia wants to bomb the shit out of Georgia, then let them. Nobody else would come to our defense if the same thing was happening to us.

To my government: LEAVE RUSSIA ALONE. Let the Russians do what they want to do. We have no business interfering with them. You know, if this was the policy we held, I am sure we'd be well-liked around the world. But as it stands, the other countries hate us. Gee, I wonder why?

America's Official Language?

I don't know about you, but I am tired of pressing 1 or 2 for English. Why are we catering to these immigrants? If they want to live here, they need to learn the language, or they need to get the fuck out. If I were President, I'd try to make it so that if they want to be an American citizen, they'd have to learn the language. If they do not learn English – the Official Language of this country, then they need to go back to their homeland. Case closed. My ancestors had to learn English, so why the fuck shouldn't these assholes? Also, I am tired of reading food labels and manuals, and stuff with other languages on it. These are American products. The only language that should be on there is ENGLISH. We are an English speaking nation. If the President speaks the language, then that is the official language of the country. Case fucking closed!

And I am appalled that the assholes in our useless congress have yet to pass a bill signifying English as America's official language. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton being two of the members of congress that voted against it. What they did was anti-American. This country seems to care more about these illegal immigrants than they do about their own citizens. These immigrants have more fucking rights than us. I am tired of it. I say we close the border. If you're out of the country, stay the fuck out, and if you're here and legal, you stay here, but if you're not, you're thrown the fuck out. One way to stop this illegal immigration is to shoot these illegal fucks on sight. I bet you this would slow down the crossing of the border. In fact, I'm sure these fucks would be running the other way.

Taxes and Church

I'm getting tired of these churches who think they should have a say on how things are run in the government. Have they forgotten about the separation of church and state? I think everyone has. Politics and religion seem to go hand in hand these days, and it's really sad. I think that if these asshole churches want to have their say in government, they need to fucking pay taxes just like everybody else. What makes anyone think they should be exempt? What is anyone's reasoning behind it? All businesses pay taxes, so why shouldn't they? Just think of all the real estate the churches take up in this country. And all the revenue the government could bring in with taxes against the church. We could probably kill the deficit with that money alone. There's talk in Washington about raising people's taxes. This isn't the way to go about things in a faltering economy. What they need to do, is tax these fucking churches. If the churches want to cause trouble, then they need to pay like everybody else.

Beep, Beep, Beep!!

You know what I'm getting tired of? Things that beep. Everything beeps today. The microwave. You use the keypad on the microwave and with each number you touch it makes a beep. Why? What the fuck is the purpose of this? I find it annoying. And if that isn't enough beeps for ya, don't worry, the microwave will beep about twenty times when your food is done.

Happy beeping.

I don't understand...

Why is it that these politicians feel they have to endorse a candidate after they've already won the nomination for their party? I don't understand this. Is it to sway the people? To convince members of the party (possibly both parties, and/or undecided voters) to get on board and support their candidate? Aren't the people capable of thinking for themselves? I think this is the problem in America. Joe Schmo feels that since every other high profile politician has endorsed the Democratic/Republican candidate, then he too, must endorse him, by voting for that candidate. It's a crock of shit in my opinion. Endorsements shouldn't be allowed. Let the American citizens decide for themselves on who to vote for. This is how we got George Bush for christ sake.

Thought Of the Day

Do you ever notice that, when you do something, you expect a certain result? But the opposite happens instead? For example, say you leave the house and you bring your umbrella with you because you expect it to rain. It doesn't. The next day, you leave the house, forget the umbrella, and what happens? You guessed it. It rains. Why is that? Why does the opposite action always happen? Well, maybe not always, but I'd say ninety percent of the time, this is true. I haven't a clue as to the answer, but as I always say, when something like this happens, “that's the way it goes” or "par for the course." I am sure some of you are thinking "you can't predict the future" but that's nonsense. Usually when I am expecting a particular result, I always say to myself "If I do this, then I bet this will happen instead." And I'm always right.

Windows Vs. Linux Rant

What is it with the software on Windows? All of these programs want a piece of the action when Windows boots up. Why? What is the purpose of having all of these useless programs running at startup? MSN Messenger, AIM, Yahoo Messenger, QuickTime, RealPlayer, Java, iTunes, etc. All of this shit wants to run when Windows boots up. Why do they think I want this shit running when I start the computer? Is it too hard to ask these software programmers to disable this “run at startup” bullshit? Because really, it isn't necessary. If I want to run these programs, I will run them when I want to. There is no need for them to be running as soon as the computer boots up. This only increases the amount of time it takes for me to use my system.

Oh, and by the way, why does everything require a reboot? Isn't it about time Microsoft fixed this bullshit by now? Any setting you change, every program you install, requires a reboot as soon as it is finished installing. Plug in new hardware? Oh no! Windows has a heart attack. “You must restart the computer to use your new hardware!” I mean, what the fuck, I spend more time rebooting the goddamn PC than actually using it.

Also, what is so hard about renaming a file when you're using it? Ever try doing that? I have. And Windows hollered at me. “You can't rename the file while it's in use!!” Well, why the fuck can't I? It also won't let me move any files while I'm using them. Can't this operating system spit and chew gum at the same time? Apparently not. And this is the best Microsoft can come up with? I am not impressed. Though, my good friend, Linux, can and will move and rename files WHILE I AM USING THEM! Linux will also delete a file while I am using it and allow me to view deleted files in the trash. Beat that Microsoft.

Another thing that bothers me about Windows: not being able to scroll an inactive window. Ever tried doing that? Sure you have. Let's say I have MSN messenger in the foreground and Firefox in the background. And while I am talking to my friend on MSN, I want to scroll the web page opened in Firefox. I can't do it. Windows won't let me. I have to actually minimize Firefox, or bring up the IM window before I can type to my friend. I can't read and scroll the web page AND talk to my friend at the same time. Verdict: Windows can't spit and chew gum at the same time.

And another thing, why the fuck does Windows have to configure updates BEFORE and AFTER a reboot? This shit should be taken care of just before the reboot, that way when the computer reboots it's all ready for me to continue with my work. Instead, I have to waste more of my valuable time waiting for Windows to jerk itself off. Linux, however, knows how to do things. It configures the updates right before the computer actually reboots. That way, once the computer is up and running again, I can continue on with my work right away. However, If I refuse to reboot the computer when Windows asks me to, it will haunt me with a pop-up every five minutes until I do.