Well... Shit.

I really do think this country is no longer for the people.

While some of our elected officials may be for the people, the majority are not. I think the ones more for the people are the ones elected on municipal levels, county levels, and moreover, state levels. US Senators, and Representatives, and hell, even the President aren't for the people. Some of them may be, and I'm sure there is a few that really are for the people that elected them, but the rest are not. They're more concerned with their political agendas and the party loyalties most of them have.

It's sad really, that we all have been complacent to this. We sit back and complain when the politician's views don't mirror our own. We sure as hell don't protest or petition which is our right. At least, we don't protest at the levels we should. For instance, the former administration had the shittiest approval ratings since approval ratings were taken. What did people do? They sat back and disapproved. The amount of people that wanted Bush out of office probably wasn't much, but if they all decided to get together in DC right on the National Mall and protest, I'm sure it would have struck a certain chord with the people they'd have been protesting against.

God damn, we've become lazy when it comes to our government. Keywords: our government. Our government should be doing what the people want, not what they want. While this country may not be a pure democracy (it's a representative democracy), who do the people representing us think they represent? You say you elect a politician because you agree with them on the issues. Yeah, fuck that, few people really do it that way. You elect them because they're a Democrat or a Republican or whatever party you happen to support. Yeah, that's right is it not?

What Senators and Representatives need to do is go to their respective districts, find a big ass meeting hall, and listen. Fuckin' listen to the people and what they want to see happen. But with that happen? You can bet it never will. These politicians are in it for themselves, and their political party.

Hey guys! Guess what?!

So, here it is:

You know the fear of Socialism that is in close kinship with the Cold War fear of Communism? Yeah, you know that, you're smart people (well...). People in this country should realize that this country is as much Socialist as it is Capitalist.

All the public institutions. Public works, public parks, city/county/state/country infrastructure, fire, police, public schools, Social Security... In other words, anything funded by public tax money. Socialism. Simple as that. All this stuff we rely on on a daily basis. And no one complains. They only complain when there is talk of government takeovers of institutions we see as private entities (banks, as per today's current argument. But of course, there is the Federal Reserve, a national bank that supplies this country's money). Not that I don't complain myself, I just say that they should have let the banking system fail. This is supposed to be a capitalist nation after all. Even with all these public institutions. As a capitalist nation, the banks would have failed, and other banks would have grown to fill in the blanks.

In other words, The government of the United States of America is a Socialist government. The business world of the United States of America is Capitalist; the only Capitalist thing in this nation.

I've got an idea...

Y'all have no doubt heard about the bonuses paid to AIG execs, and possible bonuses paid through other companies that have received bailout funds. Billions of dollars of money all these people don't need at all. They failed their business, so they don't deserve a bonus. They haven't fixed their business, so they don't deserve a bonus. Instead of passing a bill that taxes it at ninety percent, pass a bill that makes them invest the bonus money in the arts. Turn these companies into the modern equivalent of the Medici family.

Don't make them invest in programs, because programs don't always directly put the money to good use. Make these execs use the money to commission artists, sculptors, architects, musicians, actors, and people from the whole realm of the arts to make stuff. Billions of dollars to people who want to get paid, making things to better our communities and lives.

It sounds like a good idea to me. And it makes more sense than a tax to me.

Cheney is an ass.

No one needs to say more.

I've always held most of the blame against Cheney anyways. I don't need to hear his King interview to see that he's the one I should blame for a lot of the stupidities of the last administration. I don't care if he's a Republican, that matters little.

People said Cheney and Bush protected our country. They didn't protect our country. You can't protect against an enemy you can't directly fight (a lesson from the Vietcong, and all other guerrilla forces throughout history). Also one can't protect against an enemy driven by ideological and religious means (which are both outside of our country, and within it). This country doesn't need the security that Cheney proposes, because ultimately, it's counterproductive and ends up creating more enemies from both outside the country, and inside of it. These people he consents to torture will not give up the information that we want because they see what they do as an honor, and look upon us with hatred. It's sad, really, that we have these kinds of enemies. Hell, that anyone has these kind of enemies.

Also, I think Cheney belongs in jail, or simply tortured with the same things he wants other people to be tortured with. A lot of people say, "Well on what charges can we charge him on?" How about perjury? That's a crime. Perjury to the American people. His former employers. Also, crimes against humanity, how about that one? I bet if you investigate the Bush administration as a whole, you'll find that there's a paper somewhere out there that has Cheney signature approving the torture methods used. Ooo, war crimes is another. He talked Bush into pushing for the invasion of a sovereign nation. And a couple hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed for no real reason. I mean, the reason still remains that Saddam Hussein was in charge of a dangerous nation. Yeah, dangerous to who? I think only dangerous to the Iraqi people. It's not our job to do either, get rid of tyrannical despots. There's a leader complacent to genocide in the Sudan, but that's right, the West doesn't really care all that much what happens in Africa. We like to 'express concern' and 'exert pressure' on those people, not invade. That's only reserved for the Middle East, and countries who had little to do with the reason why we're over there now.

Hell, Pakistan is the most dangerous of the countries over there now in terms of tolerance. They allowed the Taliban too much freedom (counter-intuitive). Now, I'm all for letting the Taliban be assholes, because it's not our job to impose our views on them. It seems that our country is so right, that is has to go to war to prove it. Woodrow Wilson would be ashamed. He said something like our country is so right that we have no need to fight to prove it so. At this point, our country is half-right, and we still have no reason to fight to prove it so.

Just a thought...

Don't you think we're too easy on our criminals?

I'm not talking about the 'weekend criminals' that commit their crimes, serve their sentence, and don't (necessarily) commit more crimes when they finish their sentence. I'm talking about the hardcore re-offenders. The criminals that get out a parole and start right back up in their life of crime. The escapees, the gang bangers who feel as if they have a special loyalty to their gang, serial rapists (sex offenders), chronic criminals basically. The people that are in and out of jail.

These people really don't deserve to be anywhere but dead. They're a cancerous growth in a civilized society. The whole 'three strikes' deal shouldn't end with a life sentence, but with a death sentence. What's the point of a criminal that repeatedly commits crimes to waste our tax dollars in prison, and most likely commit crimes while within prison? Just shoot them a couple times in the head and dump them into an unmarked grave. Problem solved. They do not need to be alive. Rehabilitation only works on the people that show genuine remorse, and work in prison programs that do something good.

I've always believed that rapists should be killed (not turned into a eunuch, they always find other ways to rape). They rarely are rehabilitated, and if they're dead, that can't re-offend. Shoot them a couple times in the head and dump them in an unmarked grave. Problem solved.

Murderers that continue to murder in prison should be killed as well. They're doing somewhat of a service, whacking criminals already in prison. But they usually don't whack the right criminals, so shoot them in the head a couple times and dump them in an unmarked grave. Problem solved.

Criminals that keep going in and out of the system, death. They do nothing but muck the system up and waste valuable time and tax money. Shot them a couple times in the head and dump them in an unmarked grave. Problem solved.

Convicts with draconian sentences, you know, those sentences that consist of several life terms and three death sentences? And those criminals that have solitary for life sentences? Yeah, if they aren't working in prison creating something useful for society, but committing more crimes, death. Shoot them a couple times in the head and dump them in an unmarked grave. Problem solved.

People with death sentences. Get the fucking thing over with. If they're sentenced to death, don't let them sit on death row for ten or twenty years. Don't try and abolish the death penalty, what the fuck are you thinking? It's the best thing going for dealing with criminals. Kill them the same day as their sentencing, really, just shoot them in the head a couple times and dump them in an unmarked grave. Problem solved.

And you might think this is a little cruel... No. It is not, it's efficient. Also, if these people are innocent, I'm pretty sure an innocent man never stops fighting his sentencing, unless they're lazy and what not. I will gladly allow people to fight their sentences because they know that they're innocent. It helps get the police on the ball and capture the right guy. Which they need to get better at doing, seeing as one innocent man sent to jail is one too many.

Also, you know the Bernard Madoff type? Yeah, those kind of criminals, rich bastards who swindle, they deserve life in an eight by ten cell with a toilet, table, and bed. That's what a rich criminal who does what Madoff and other like him did deserve.

Anyways, you want an idea that'll stop crime levels real quick? Look to the Spanish Inquisition. Reinstate the brilliant torture devices they used, and crime levels will drop real quick. Because I believe that all criminals deserve punishment for being complete assholes. The US Constitution protects against cruel and unusual punishments (probably because of the Spanish Inquisition), but if you make these punishments usual, and use the ones that fit the crime, then they won't be cruel. And in turn, crime levels will drop, because the Spanish came up with some mean shit during their Inquisition. If that mean shit were to be used to punish criminals these days, criminals would see that crime really doesn't pay, because if you get caught, there's a nice torture device on the other end of the system. Crime will drop, because people do not want to be tortured.

But that might just make criminals better at committing their special crimes. So the death penalty is the best we have going. If they get caught, and get convicted decisively, they get killed. No more criminal committing his special crime. Problem solved. I think Stalin would have liked this. After all, he said, “Death solves all problems - no man, no problem.”

Death is not cruel, death is not unusual, death is something everyone has to face at one time or another.

You wanna know what a buzzkill is? Just after I posted this up, Gov. Bill Richardson signed a bill that repealed New Mexico's death penalty. Fucking hell...

I should tell you my education goals.

Just so you know them.

First off I intend to attain an Associate of Arts at Highline Community College. Get all the redundant stuff done (same education, better price). The emphases (notice the plural) will be in Architecture (mainly drafting and the study of), and Music (general studies). That'll take about three or four more years to pull that off depending on the amount of classes I take each quarter. From there I would like to go to the University of Washington's College of Architecture and Urban Planning to gain a Bachelor in Architecture. And from there I intend on going for a Master of Architecture (and all three designations). That there is about seven years of schooling on its own. But wait! There's more! I intend from there to gain a Doctor of Architecture from the same school. One Doctorate down (yes, one).

When I complete that tract of schooling around my thirties (yes, I'll be old). I intend on going to Central Washington University (or Western) to gain a Bachelor of Music (probably in Theory or Education). There's another couple years of study on my record. Again, there's more. I would like to get a Master of Music as well. Another few years of study. Preferably at Central. From there I'll find a school that fits (probably the UW) and offers (you guessed it) the other Doctorate, but this time in Music. This will be around my late thirties, early forties, depending.

I'll be old and educated in my chosen fields of study. The latter degrees paid for by the work of the former (because everyone wants to get paid). This is my educational goals for the next twenty years. Long time you say? Fuck yeah, but it's what I'm going to do.

A Government of Dumbshits

As you know, at least as I hope you know, the US government's Congress is full of a bunch of dumbshit partisans. I've said it before, I say it again. Yes, there may be the people with a little bit of smarts here and there, but that doesn't cut it. I want them to have to pass an I.Q. test before they're able to run, it would help a lot.

Anyways, the Democrats have rolled out a little 'party of no' deal, which I think is as dumb as they are. They're just complaining that the Republicans aren't hopping onto their train. On some things I would like them to get in with, but that'll never happen. Not so long as they make up their mind before they hear the issue. That's America's partisan politics after all. Happens on both sides. I don't think it will ever change, I'd like it to, but it won't.

You know, with all this Democrat-backed spending on the shit economy, there's Republicans and retards complaining from every angle. Especially on the idea that the Democrats are the 'big government' party. Let me tell you, this government is fucking huge even without the Democrats. Hell, I don't mind a big government, what I don't like is that we have an ineffective government. Big government, yeah, whatever, as long as it's an effective government that gets good shit done, I don't complain. But (I've said this before many times) this government doesn't get a lot of good stuff done because of the partisan politics that goes on. Work on the common ground, please.

We need two parties, or three, that like to talk, like to work together to get things done. Like to play nice. Because ours don't, and they never will as long as the politicians remain the same politicians from the same political parties. We need to get some (no not Independent) people in there that are liberal on some things, and conservative on others (I hate to use those terms, really, they're thrown around too much). If you do one thing liberally, it gets done liberally. If you need to get some things done over here, but you aren't liberal on them, you get them done conservatively. Sounds good doesn't it? But not even Independents are like this, they tend to lean more than straddle, so we can throw them out the sixth story window with the rest of them.

A lot of Americans like to say that they're liberal on some things, and conservative on others, which is fine and dandy, because I say the same about myself, but they don't do anything but discuss this stuff within their circle of politics. They don't run for office, because if they do, they get defeated by partisan politics (or end up like Lieberman, who leans Democrat, so fuck him). These people need to form a major party, they need to organize and stop saying that they're Independents. They need a name that strikes fear into Republicans and Democrats alike, strike the fear that makes those two parties realize they aren't the only two in contention for the Presidency. They need a base of people that strikes fear into the RNC and DNC. They need to bring out the big motherfucking guns.

If this party does form, it can start to take away from the dominance of the Democrats and Republicans. Because I have an equal hatred for both. They're both arrogant, stupid, and hell, the Democrats have even forced the Republican National Convention to put a black man as their head. And also thrust out the dumb fuck Bobby Jindal. That's when you know a party has fallen far, when they have to try an imitate the other party substituting their own ideals in. Either way, I think it's stupid.

Back to the party of Conservativeness/Liberalness. This party could get things done, because most people that say they're conservative on some issues and liberal on others actually agree on those issues. Of course, there will be the people that see things other ways, but they can just fuck off, this party is about agreeing on how to get things done, not internal bickering, or bickering with other parties. This party is about getting things done where everyone agrees on how to do them. Conservative on gun control, alright, gun control is dealt with in the general conservative way (i.e. the lack there of control). Abortion, alrighty then, you guys are liberal on that? Good, keep politics and religion out of it and bar any legislation proposing against it (at least, that's the way I see it). You just got two rather controversial things out of the way, one more so than the other, but at least they're out of the way (for now, hopefully forever).

This party, whatever may it be called, is the party that gets things done they way everyone within it agrees to. This party could grow to oust Democrats and Republicans once and for all from the forefront and turn them into just another set of parties in this party-filled nation. I 'd like to see it happen.

Who wants to help?

Here's one more thing:

No cussing week

The connection between intelligence and use of profanity. Yes, dumb people use profanity, but some of the smartest people I've ever met use profanity 'like a sailor.' This connection has always been invalid to me.

Also, I think (though I could be wrong) that this kid is asking people to voluntarily inhibit their right to free speech. This desensitizes people to when people are really trying to inhibit their rights.

Either way, I'm all for the kid's goals of unity and awareness, but this is one of the last things on my list in the way of unity and working together, down below setting my own house on fire.

Also, the word 'cuss' is really, really irritating to me.

Current Events of Sorts

$900 million to Gaza

Well, a lot of the comments in the CNN political ticker (which I have some stuff to say about) are against this with the argument that "we need to help ourselves before these people." To them I just say piss off, they need it more than we do. When you live in squalor for fifty years without all the trademark American amenities then you get to say we need it more than they do. Go to Gaza and see how they get on, then you'll see why.

Gates calls Pakistan 'Most Worrisome'

Funny thing is, a lot of people took this one to mean that he actually thought Pakistan itself is most worrisome. It made me laugh. He's calling the Taliban in Pakistan and the freedoms (lolwut?) Pakistan is giving to them. Also, a lot of people said we must go in and do the job right. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Invade a sovereign country again? What is it Iraq: The Sequel? And invade a nuclear country at that, no, just no. Though if we did, we'd have the full support of India. They don't like Pakistan much either. Well, really at all. They are rivals after all. They'd be happy to drop a few nukes here and there, and so would Pakistan right back. But MAD (mutually assured destruction, it's a Cold War thing (and the only reason I believe there was never an actual war between us and the Soviet Union (which I'll talk about in awhile))). Anyways, we just need to adopt guerrilla warfare. Turn it to conventional war. Don't leave it to them (the 'enemy'). That will never happen though. But yeah, conventional warfare does not work against unconventional warfare (Gaza v. Israel is a model of that).

__________________________________

Those are really the only ones that caught my eye. Anyways, I'm going to talk about the Soviet Union v. the US in this one.

I believe that we were working to avoid war together. In other words (if you haven't read or seen The Sum of All Fears then this will make little sense to you), the US intelligence services (and high up advisers and what not) and the same for the Soviet Union were working together as much as against each other. I think that they were trying to keep, even when things got heated, everything below the boiling point. And they did a good job of it until the Soviet machine collapsed under its own weight.

I just think we were as much friends as enemies. Just wish we didn't lose their alliance after WWII.