| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Explosive and the City 2 | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
This is brilliant and made me laugh
Tea Party... Good or Bad?
I'll start by disclosing I certainly have no affiliation with the "Tea Party" (whatever that really means anyway). I have never attended one or donated to any tea -related cause. However, I do consider myself a "libertarian" in the strictest sense of the word. I believe in libertarian policies. I am not a member of the libertarian party. Similarly, I believe in Democracy but am not a member of the Democratic Party.
Things I love about the Tea Party Movement:
-People becoming educated and taking and active role in government
-People publicly voicing their displeasure with the government in a peaceful and non-violent way
-Government realizing that it is ultimately responsible to the people and does not have the right to do whatever it pleases
-Pushing the smaller-government movement
Things I hate about the Tea Party Movement:
-Possible "Hate" or Racism
-For-Profit Affiliation
-Lack of any true leadership
Other thoughts:
- I fell that overall the Tea Partiers get a bad wrap and are continually slammed by the media. As far as I know (and could find on the internet) there has not been a single outbreak of violence at any Tea Party event. Further, I find the cries of racism to be largely false and a lot of hype over nothing. Lastly, i have a big problem with people saying that the Tea Party movement is responsible for "hate." Thats really idiotic.
I thought this was a nice video concerning tea party racism: By the way, calling a movement racist is in and of itself a racist action. If I were to dismiss a group that just happened to be comprised mostly of Black people by saying "well thats just those angry African Americans again wanting their (insert whatever applies)," that would be inherently racist. Attack ideas and principles, don't bait with racism.
Lastly, concerning "hate."
Where was the media with its outrage when protesters were holding signs advocating the assassination of Bush and people burning effigies? Further, "hate messages" are never delegated strictly to one side of any issue.
Let me know your thoughts.
Things I love about the Tea Party Movement:
-People becoming educated and taking and active role in government
-People publicly voicing their displeasure with the government in a peaceful and non-violent way
-Government realizing that it is ultimately responsible to the people and does not have the right to do whatever it pleases
-Pushing the smaller-government movement
Things I hate about the Tea Party Movement:
-Possible "Hate" or Racism
-For-Profit Affiliation
-Lack of any true leadership
Other thoughts:
- I fell that overall the Tea Partiers get a bad wrap and are continually slammed by the media. As far as I know (and could find on the internet) there has not been a single outbreak of violence at any Tea Party event. Further, I find the cries of racism to be largely false and a lot of hype over nothing. Lastly, i have a big problem with people saying that the Tea Party movement is responsible for "hate." Thats really idiotic.
I thought this was a nice video concerning tea party racism: By the way, calling a movement racist is in and of itself a racist action. If I were to dismiss a group that just happened to be comprised mostly of Black people by saying "well thats just those angry African Americans again wanting their (insert whatever applies)," that would be inherently racist. Attack ideas and principles, don't bait with racism.
Lastly, concerning "hate."
Where was the media with its outrage when protesters were holding signs advocating the assassination of Bush and people burning effigies? Further, "hate messages" are never delegated strictly to one side of any issue.
Let me know your thoughts.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Arizona's Illegal Immigrant Law
I've heard just about all I can take about this law. Since most people in this world are half-to-fully retarded and like to read headlines and have gut reactions without thinking/researching it's important to establish what this law is and what it is not.
This law does not create some illegal-alien hunting crew going door to door busting down doors and extracting immigrants for immediate execution. This law does not allow cops to randomly ask any Hispanic-looking person for proof of citizenship. Upon lack of proof officers are not allowed to pull out their firearm and pistol-whip immigrants. Now onto what this law DOES do.
If committing or being suspected of committing a crime (put under arrest or detention), proof of citizenship must be given. Thats right. If you get in a bar fight or get a speeding ticket an officer may ask you for proof of ID and citizenship. I know right now your asking yourself but wait Ben isn't that just like when any ordinary person gets pulled over and they ask for your Driver's license and insurance? Why yes.... yes it is. Know why? Because driving without a license is illegal. So is being in a country illegally. Pretty much every other country in the entire world has laws similar to this that they enforce. Don't believe me? Go to Mexico and get arrested. See if they ask you for your passport/visa/etc. Or go to France and get arrested. Or Spain. Or England. Or basically any other country. Seriously. If you look/act/don't speak the native language, police will ask for ID.
There's three groups of people when it comes to this issue:
1-Conservative douche-bag xenophobic racists that hate Hispanics. Think "they took our jobs" uttered in a redneck drawl. (45%)
2-Limp-wristed, moronic, I-feel-rather-than-think liberal dumb-asses who like to "fight the cause" and immediately outcry some violations of "human rights." (50%) [PS.. Rights are granted under the US Constitution to citizens of the US. Keyword... CITIZENS. Does this mean we shouldn't respect basic human rights to all human beings? Absolutely not. But does it mean illegal immigrants are allowed to vote or get drivers licenses or have a trial by jury? Nope.]
3-People who actually logically think about issues (5%). This group is severely under-represented.
This law does not create some illegal-alien hunting crew going door to door busting down doors and extracting immigrants for immediate execution. This law does not allow cops to randomly ask any Hispanic-looking person for proof of citizenship. Upon lack of proof officers are not allowed to pull out their firearm and pistol-whip immigrants. Now onto what this law DOES do.
If committing or being suspected of committing a crime (put under arrest or detention), proof of citizenship must be given. Thats right. If you get in a bar fight or get a speeding ticket an officer may ask you for proof of ID and citizenship. I know right now your asking yourself but wait Ben isn't that just like when any ordinary person gets pulled over and they ask for your Driver's license and insurance? Why yes.... yes it is. Know why? Because driving without a license is illegal. So is being in a country illegally. Pretty much every other country in the entire world has laws similar to this that they enforce. Don't believe me? Go to Mexico and get arrested. See if they ask you for your passport/visa/etc. Or go to France and get arrested. Or Spain. Or England. Or basically any other country. Seriously. If you look/act/don't speak the native language, police will ask for ID.
There's three groups of people when it comes to this issue:
1-Conservative douche-bag xenophobic racists that hate Hispanics. Think "they took our jobs" uttered in a redneck drawl. (45%)
2-Limp-wristed, moronic, I-feel-rather-than-think liberal dumb-asses who like to "fight the cause" and immediately outcry some violations of "human rights." (50%) [PS.. Rights are granted under the US Constitution to citizens of the US. Keyword... CITIZENS. Does this mean we shouldn't respect basic human rights to all human beings? Absolutely not. But does it mean illegal immigrants are allowed to vote or get drivers licenses or have a trial by jury? Nope.]
3-People who actually logically think about issues (5%). This group is severely under-represented.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Logically Speaking.. You Can't Support Gay Marriage and Not Support Polygamy
A while ago I heard an interesting conversation happening in a group of people that I walked up to. It was a lady voicing her displeasure about the "Christian right" and how they oppose (and thereby prevent) gay marriage and how they shouldn't force their beliefs on others that don't believe the same things they do.
After listening to what she said I replied "I am for the legalization of gay marriage" (which I am) "but that means I'm also for the legalization of polygamy." She did not agree with me.
I asked her to explain why she supported gay marriage.
Her: "No one can tell anyone else who they can love or not love."
Me: "I agree with that. Now if you extend that logic to polygamy and if you are willing to say the government can't tell a man he can't love another man, why can the government tell a man he cannot love two women, or a woman and also a man, or any other combination?"
Her: "Well I guess, but polygamy, that sometimes involves children"
Me: "Well, obviously, it would be bound by normal laws - only consenting adults. Some gay relationships involve children (sexual predators, priests, etc), which is just as horrible. But that isn't an argument against allowing two consulting men to enter into marriage.
Her: "Ok, well I don't know. It's just polygamy is... just taboo. I think it's wrong."
Me: "Ok well that's your opinion. Many cultures around the world think it's right. And you're saying you oppose it because it's taboo and you think it's wrong. That's EXACTLY what you were complaining about the people in this country doing when it comes to gay marriage. You have to see the hypocrisy in that."
Her: "... "
So if you believe that a person can love any other person (consenting adult), you must also support polygamy.
I can only see two counter arguments:
1) Taking issue with it being more than one person - If that logic holds, people should not be allowed to get divorce, or two remarry
2) The counterargument to the above is that it's ok as long as they are not at the same time (consecutive instead of concurrent) If you abide by this logic and these actions (legalization) are enforceable by law, by making gay marriage legal, you must at the same time criminalize cheating in any relationship, since this is what the person is doing (two people concurrently)
For the Record:
I support both of these simply out of my political philosophy, which could be pretty much summed up as "Live and Let Live." I could care less what you do, as long as you don't infringe on my or other's rights. That being said, I believe it is a state issue and the federal government should have no role in it. I believe in State's Rights. I know, I know.. that went out of fashion about 150 years ago.
Am I going to go out and protest/campaign to have gay marriage or polygamy legalized? No.
Why? Because I am neither gay nor a polygamist. And I simply don't care enough about either issue.
But hey if you care about it either way, please put some thought into it. Don't say " I'm against gay marriage because God says it's wrong." Likewise don't say "Well I have a gay friend and he's nice and I think it should be allowed." Newsflash: I like money and so do my firends. That doesn't we should pass a law that gives us free money.
"Ground your argument in thought and logic-no matter what side you're on"
After listening to what she said I replied "I am for the legalization of gay marriage" (which I am) "but that means I'm also for the legalization of polygamy." She did not agree with me.
I asked her to explain why she supported gay marriage.
Her: "No one can tell anyone else who they can love or not love."
Me: "I agree with that. Now if you extend that logic to polygamy and if you are willing to say the government can't tell a man he can't love another man, why can the government tell a man he cannot love two women, or a woman and also a man, or any other combination?"
Her: "Well I guess, but polygamy, that sometimes involves children"
Me: "Well, obviously, it would be bound by normal laws - only consenting adults. Some gay relationships involve children (sexual predators, priests, etc), which is just as horrible. But that isn't an argument against allowing two consulting men to enter into marriage.
Her: "Ok, well I don't know. It's just polygamy is... just taboo. I think it's wrong."
Me: "Ok well that's your opinion. Many cultures around the world think it's right. And you're saying you oppose it because it's taboo and you think it's wrong. That's EXACTLY what you were complaining about the people in this country doing when it comes to gay marriage. You have to see the hypocrisy in that."
Her: "... "
So if you believe that a person can love any other person (consenting adult), you must also support polygamy.
I can only see two counter arguments:
1) Taking issue with it being more than one person - If that logic holds, people should not be allowed to get divorce, or two remarry
2) The counterargument to the above is that it's ok as long as they are not at the same time (consecutive instead of concurrent) If you abide by this logic and these actions (legalization) are enforceable by law, by making gay marriage legal, you must at the same time criminalize cheating in any relationship, since this is what the person is doing (two people concurrently)
For the Record:
I support both of these simply out of my political philosophy, which could be pretty much summed up as "Live and Let Live." I could care less what you do, as long as you don't infringe on my or other's rights. That being said, I believe it is a state issue and the federal government should have no role in it. I believe in State's Rights. I know, I know.. that went out of fashion about 150 years ago.
Am I going to go out and protest/campaign to have gay marriage or polygamy legalized? No.
Why? Because I am neither gay nor a polygamist. And I simply don't care enough about either issue.
But hey if you care about it either way, please put some thought into it. Don't say " I'm against gay marriage because God says it's wrong." Likewise don't say "Well I have a gay friend and he's nice and I think it should be allowed." Newsflash: I like money and so do my firends. That doesn't we should pass a law that gives us free money.
"Ground your argument in thought and logic-no matter what side you're on"
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Force Android 2.1 Update
Credit to Fabolous and Getaphixx @ droidforums.net
http://www.droidforums.net/forum/droid-general-discussions/33766-how-force-motorola-droid-2-1-ota-update-ese81.html
Just did it and can verify it works
http://www.droidforums.net/forum/droid-general-discussions/33766-how-force-motorola-droid-2-1-ota-update-ese81.html
Just did it and can verify it works
Friday, March 26, 2010
The War on Drugs - Locking Up America.
Warning: I am KIND OF a fan of a move Obama has made.
The "War on Drugs" was a terrible, terrible idea. Every President since Nixon establsihed it in 1969 has continued and endorsed this war.
Obama is currently shifting Drug polciy toward s a more self-described "harm prevention" policy. An example of this is his plan to introduce "needle exchanges"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/16/drug-policy-obama-needle-exchange
Further, his new appointment of Gil Kerlikowske makes me happy. Here is a quote from the article on his work in Seattle :
"Kerlikowske has built a reputation in Seattle for pursuing drug policies based on harm reduction. The state has an established needle exchange programme, has legalised marijuana for medicinal purposes and has made marijuana among the lowest priorities for law enforcement."
If you don't know anything about the War on Drugs or its effects, I highly recommend Wikipedia. It's actually a pretty solid resource for this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
Basically the War on Drugs is why we are the most imprisoned country in the world. That's right. The US, the supposed last bastion of freedom, has the highest percentage of its population locked up. Also, it causes great harm overseas. For reference, look up Nicaragua, Columbia and Mexico.
I honestly cannot think of a single good reason that marijuana should not be legalized. If anyone can, please comment.
As for the "harder" drugs, I think that they should still be controlled. however I think the enforcment of these policies and the resulting punishments need to be examined. Over 50% of individuals in US prisons are non-violent drug offenders. Someone explain to me how this helps any of them or society as a whole.
The "War on Drugs" was a terrible, terrible idea. Every President since Nixon establsihed it in 1969 has continued and endorsed this war.
Obama is currently shifting Drug polciy toward s a more self-described "harm prevention" policy. An example of this is his plan to introduce "needle exchanges"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/16/drug-policy-obama-needle-exchange
Further, his new appointment of Gil Kerlikowske makes me happy. Here is a quote from the article on his work in Seattle :
"Kerlikowske has built a reputation in Seattle for pursuing drug policies based on harm reduction. The state has an established needle exchange programme, has legalised marijuana for medicinal purposes and has made marijuana among the lowest priorities for law enforcement."
If you don't know anything about the War on Drugs or its effects, I highly recommend Wikipedia. It's actually a pretty solid resource for this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
Basically the War on Drugs is why we are the most imprisoned country in the world. That's right. The US, the supposed last bastion of freedom, has the highest percentage of its population locked up. Also, it causes great harm overseas. For reference, look up Nicaragua, Columbia and Mexico.
I honestly cannot think of a single good reason that marijuana should not be legalized. If anyone can, please comment.
As for the "harder" drugs, I think that they should still be controlled. however I think the enforcment of these policies and the resulting punishments need to be examined. Over 50% of individuals in US prisons are non-violent drug offenders. Someone explain to me how this helps any of them or society as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
