Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Obama's Speech at the DNC. Hell, politics in general.

So, I'm a bit late to the party ranting about this, I realize. Unfortunately, I have a life, and a job, and all that good stuff.

Anyways. I don't know if it's just me, but does anybody else notice (Well, I'm actually pretty sure that all of you do. I'm just in the mood to rant about this right now) that politicians, in their speeches, in their commercials, in everything that they try to use to get them selves elected/relected, they spend about 45% of the time appealing to emotion (Obama with his "I WANT YOU FIRED UP AGAIN!" Seriously, the dude was sounding like fucking Hitler a few times in there. I expected him to start pounding the podium and raising his hands and stuff. ), another 45% of the time bashing their opponents (Okay, maybe it's only really Obama who does this. Most politicians spend about 90% of the time bashing their opponents. It's just the good orators like Obama and Hitler [Oh shit I'm gonna get so bashed for comparing Obama to Hitler. ] who can actually spend the 45% getting everybody riled up. Hell, I'll even admit I felt myself getting riled up listening to Obama's speech. Good thing my brain was there to remind me he's just spouting bullshit, like every mainstream politician out there.), and spend only about 5% of their time talking about what they want to do if given the power of election to help their town/district/county/state/country? And, of course, as we all know, they usually only do about 0% of what they talk about doing.

It seems that most politicians are reactionary. Not in the political sense of the term, but in the... I don't know what sense of the term. Basically, politicians only ever react to what's happening in the political world. For example, Obama went and did this speech because Democratic voter enthusiasm has been dropping lately. He could have gone and done a speech like this sooner, but he was just doing this because he saw that in November he'll potentially lose all of his power over the Senate/HOR.

It's the same with all politicians. They'll just sit back in their big comfy chairs in their big (Only sometimes Oval) offices waiting for something to happen that needs their attention. Actually, they'll wait until whatever it is that happened hits the news. If it doesn't hit the news, then the chances of it affecting their relection or the election of their friends or fellow party members is next to nil. But if it does hit the news, that's when they decide to jump on it, and, depending on the situation, either milk it for as many votes for themselves as possible during the next election, or use it as as big of a club as humanly possible to bash their opponents over the head with and knock votes out of them.

It seems that politicians just are too damned lazy to go out and try to work on things without having the threat of not getting relected dangled over their heads. As long as they are in a comfortable position where they can just sit lazily around waiting for the next election, who needs to worry about serving the people, as they were elected to do so?

Of course, you have to understand, I don't think I'd do any better of a job. I don't trust anybody to be granted the power to rule over others and tell them what to do. That's why I'm a minarchist. I vote Libertarian, meself. Government that rules the least rules the best, etc. etc.

I mean, think about it. Wouldn't it be better to actually vote in a politician who says that he's not going to do anything (Well, besides make sure that a lot of other people don't do much, either.) , because he believes that's best for politicians to do, rather than voting in a bunch of jackasses who claim a million and one things during their election campaigns, and can only ever end up doing the one thing?  Not to mention they take the tax money that they say is going to go to the million things and give themselves nice little salaries and yachts and build new shiny government offices when schools are falling apart and poverty and unemployment levels are rising and blagh.

I mean, as I said, I'm a minarchist, so I believe that 99% of what is currently in government hands should be privatized, like schools and all that stuff. But for fuck's sake. Until it GETS privatized, I'd like to see the government at least do a somewhat fucking decent job with it. But no. It's all cronyism and corruption and all that jazz.

Power corrupts, my friends. I will admit that even I, put into a position of power, would end up using it for my own gain rather than serving the people. Hell, Jesus and Ghandi and Mother Theresa probably all would too. So decentralize the power. Give all the power to the people. That way we decentralize the corruption, too. Dilute it to such a nominal amount that you don't even notice it. Couldn't even see it with a microscope. Rather than the way we can see the corruption in Washington D.C. all the way from space right now.

Friday, October 8, 2010


Let me say two things before I begin this rant.

1. I was bullied as a child, albeit in a (mostly) non-violent way. So don't say I don't know what these kids are going through.

2. I am not condoning bullying. Bullying is bad.

Anyways, let me begin.

Recently, I've noticed that the news is giving a lot of coverage to bullying, because of what I'm guessing to be gay-bashing in a university setting leading to some suicides.

From what I understand, states, cities, school districts, even the federal government are all looking into "anti-bullying measures".

Fuck that shit.

Unless the bullying escalates to actual physical violence against a student, the kids need to deal with it themselves. I am so fucking sick and tired of the way that this parental generation is raising their kids, with babying the shit out of them and making sure they never get hurt, emotionally or physically, in any way, shape, or form.

Do you idiots realize what you're doing to your kids? You can't be there to protect them forever. Eventually, you're going to die, or they're going to go out to college or the real world or whatever, and all of your protection is going to be for all the worse.

When you baby your child, you keep them from learning valuable lessons. For example, if you take care of bullys for your child all the time, and coddle them and tell them that daddy or mommy will take care of everything, then your child will never learn to stand up for themselves. When they go out into the world, and get a job, and their boss takes advantage of them in some way or another, they'll simply sit there and let themselves be "bullied" since you're not there to protect them.

If you keep your child from going out and having social experiences because you think other kids are a bad influence on your pure, innocent little baby, what do you think is going to happen to them when they get out into the social world, away from your sheltering? They're not going to know how to interact with people, and this is going to cause a torrent of problems for them, from keeping a job to just getting along in life.

If you try to do everything for them, from buying them a car to setting them up in college to finding them a job even, how do you expect them to learn any of those skills for themselves and be able to do those things when you aren't around? You can't raise your children forever, people. You have to let them go at some point. And you best damn well have let them learn how to fly like the momma bird you're fucking supposed to be being by that point.

Anyways, I've tangented and all that good stuff. Basically, let kids be kids, learn what they need to learn so they can be independent adults who can stand on their own two feet.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Capitalism =/= Corporatism

Something that annoys me a lot is the inability of people to distinguish between capitalism and corporatism.

I am a die-hard capitalist. I believe in the free market, individual intiatives, and personal responsibility. I believe that entrepreneurs are the people who keep society moving in a forward direction.

I am not a corporatist, nor shall I ever be. I do not believe that wealth should be concentrated in the hands of a few, elite individuals who control every aspect of society, from the politics to the economy to the culture. You know, sort of like communism.

That's right. Corporatism is closer to communism than it is to capitalism. Think about it. You have, as I said, a few elite individuals at the top, who have complete control over everything. Not exactly what we are at right now in the western world, but give it a decade or two, barring a severe, global natural disaster. These people have control over everything in society. They control the prices of everything in the stores. They control how much money we get to spend on these things. They control what commercials appear on the television that tell us what to buy with that money. They control what shows and music and books and culture we are allowed to consume, which consequently controls how we think, basically performing a subtle version of mind control. They control what we are allowed to see on the internet. They control what goes into our food and our drinks. They control exactly what we put into our bodies. They even control where we go. It's communism trying to say it's capitalism.

Thankfully, as I said, we aren't actually anywhere near this point yet. The TRUE free market still exists. People are still allowed to make their own economic choices, free of any coercion by any force (Mostly), and they actually have a choice of what to buy.

That's what capitalism is. Capitalism is the ability for people to make free and fair economic choices, where someone is successful in their business not because of how big they are, but because of how smart, savvy, innovative, and all that other stuff they are. It's where government doesn't give billions of dollars to companies just to give to their CEOs simply because of the fact that they are "too big to fail". It's where the government does not stick it's hand into the free market, swirling and distorting the pool with filth and corruption. Capitalism is a truly free market, where anybody, not just entrenched elites, can make it in the economic world. A true American Dream, per se. Not just the false one we seem to be getting fed right now.

Personally, I believe small businesses should run the world. But, you know, that's just like, my opinion, man.

(P.S. I'm not saying communism is evil. I am not one to call any ideology evil. I may call it misguided or naive, but I will never call it "evil" or "bad". Everyone has their viewpoints, and I'm not one to judge any of them.)

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Let's try this again, shall we?

(So, I totally already forgot the password to my old blog, so this is 2.0. About five hours later. I know, right?)

Well, I've never really done any of this blogging stuff before, but I finally figured I'll give it a shot after all my friends kept pestering me to do one.

I'm uhh, still not exactly sure what this will be about mostly, but I figured since I like to rant and muse about stuff a lot, I could post a lot of my rants and musings.

For example: Why is it that just because a substance works as a psychoactive, people feel the need to outlaw it? Like, all of these research chemicals, which may or may not be perfectly safe, which simulate the effects of, say, ecstasy, without actually having the same chemical composition of ecstasy. Just because it changes somebody's state of consciousness, the govmint says it's bad and needs to be outlawed.

Looks like we should outlaw yoga classes and meditation classes and Buddhist temples then too, huh, govmint?

As far as I'm concerned, unless somebody is addicted to a consciousness changing substance, or that consciousness changing substance has a high probability (Above .1%) of killing you when you take enough to change your consciousness, people should be allowed to use it as they wish.

Hell, even then, they shouldn't be illegal no matter what. If somebody gets addicted to heroin or meth, that's their problem. If they weren't responsible enough to stay not addicted, it's not the government's job to intervene. Personal responsibility all the way.

I actually think the main reason might be because, when people take consciousness changing substances, it allows them to get a better, more wide view of the world, rather than the narrow one they had before. This leads to extremists and other hardcore members of any ideology realizing that, if people take consciousness changing substances, they might realize that extremists are full of shit, and stop listening to them. So it's basically an attempt by the govmint and politicians to keep us under their ideological thumb.

Well, enough of that. So, here's my blog, people.