My World

Thoughts on "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus" Video

2012-01-13T17:19:00.000-08:00

This video has gone viral within just a few days. At least fifty of my Facebook friends uploaded it and two people even messaged me this video, as if my position would somehow be altered by an arbitrary poem.

First, I think this video is great for opening up conversation, but it starts off important theological, existential, and philosophical conversations on the wrong foot due to numerous contradictions, logical fallacies, and elementary insults.

Second, the primary premise exemplifies the erroneous notion that, for some unknown reason, Christianity is not a religion. This is simply untrue by any logical definition of “religion”. Religion is made up of a set of beliefs, usually supernatural, about our universe, along with some sort of moral code (sin), and a set of agreed upon practices or rituals. To be a Christian and claim to not be religious is a contradiction. It’s doublespeak at its finest and reminiscent of almost all cutthroat despotisms. If he loves Christianity, then he does not "hate religion, he just hates other religions or versions of Christianity. Even if one feels that Christianity is too special for religious status that does not provide the right or logic to alter its true nature, a religion, or disassociate yourself from it. It’s similar to someone saying they love Taco Bell so much but it’s not fast food, because they hate fast food. Or someone saying their favorite activities are playing and watching basketball, but they hate all sports. If we can go around changing and manipulating definitions in this Orwellian manner then all language is more than suspect, it’s useless.

Essentially, if you worship a deity, believe in a strict moral code, go to church, and adhere to the core tenants of the world’s most popular religion, you are a religious person. If one wants to propose that religion is a man-made concept but Christianity is void of religious status because it was created by a divine being then one should begin by providing evidence for that being’s existence. As Sagan points out, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. And this poet makes many declarative and nonsensical statements but offers no logic or evidence to present his case. The logical constituents do not add up and cannot exist within one another. Every question provided is easily considered a fallacy of presupposition. All options presented are false dichotomies.

Third, he uses the same premises that all Christians use. God exists, the Bible is his word, Jesus died for him, and what not. He presents these overtly religious notions as truisms. As atheists, we reject them for many reasons. He does not provide a rationale and certainly no evidence for the basis of any of his views. It sounds like another fundamentalist telling us the same redundant account. Is this only neat because he rhymes and uses odd hand motion?

One statement baffled me. He said Jesus died on the cross and took what we all deserve. No one deserves to suffer the punishment that Jesus allegedly underwent.

Fourth, if he told me Jesus came to abolish religion I’d probably look at him funny and tell him to leave me alone. Well, that’s after I mention that little tidbit in the Bible where Jesus, who made numerous religious and supernatural claims and was a religious person, tells Peter to basically start a religion. Again, that’s only if we’re assuming Jesus existed. Now, if one wants to claim that Christianity went haywire after the early Christians, then that’s a much different premise and can certainly be argued. I’ve made that argument myself many times as Christianity is now merged with usury, imperialism, war, capitalism, etc. I think he’s right and obvious to point out that Christianity does not mean Republican, but who thinks it does anyway? He criticizes religion for the amount of wars but fails to realize that this brand of fanaticism was the prime force behind those religious conflicts.

Fifth, his mention of any good that religion has done is conspicuously absent. Religious figures and liberation theologians stood on the side of the oppressed in Latin America and Europe in the 20^th century and even died for them in massive numbers, they helped in anti-war movements, they were pivotal in the Civil Rights Movement, etc. Even the late Christopher Hitchens, one of religion’s biggest critics, thought it noteworthy to mention the good that religion achieved in his book “Good is not Great” before he began critiquing. To “hate” religion, insult all religions, not recognize anything good it produced, and yet claim to be an incredibly religious person seems counterintuitive. Not only is it ignorant, it is rude. He labels all religious people with the same brush and refers to them as “they”, when thousands of different religions exist. Could you imagine telling a Hindu, Jew, Muslim, or Taoist that you “hate” their religion? That would be insensitive, ignorant, and offensive. However, this guy is essentially doing just that. He disrespects and hates every religion in the world, except his own, all the while he doesn’t include his religion in that category. And he “literally” resents it, as opposed to resenting it figuratively.

Next, the “no religion but I’m a Christian” highlights the fact that Christianity is slowly dying in our society. Polls continuously indicate that people are leaving the churches in massive groves. When ideologies, political or religious, start to fade away the remaining demagogues do everything possible to reverse the trends. When a product ceases to appeal, it must be rebranded and sold in a different light. Claiming that Christianity is not a religion is simply a marketing scheme to drive people that are disgusted with religion, but desire something to cling to, back into the pews worshipping and paying tithes. It is intentionally defined with ambiguity to appeal to a larger base. It provides them with their own individualistic form of Christianity, titled “non-denominational”. However, nothing could be further from the truth, the denomination simply becomes their own. They become their own denomination of Christianity to worship and live the best way that can appeal to their individualistic lifestyles. They may even feel justified in making videos and putting advertisements at the bottom to accumulate profits on a video that is allegedly created to spread an important message. That would seem to go against the anti-competitive message of Jesus. But, maybe he needs more in life, because he does boast about in weakness.

Lastly, I think this poem is vague on purpose, and the numerous interpretations prove that. Many statements like his can be interpretated in a plethora of ways, just like much of what is written in the Quran or the Bible. Overall, I think he should aim to articulate his views better and make sure that he aims for substance, clarity, and logic over aesthetics.

The most ironic moment of his “poem” is when he states, “Now I ain’t judging.” Really? What else would you call it?

Aerial Footage of Both Louisiana Spillway Openings

2011-05-14T14:55:00.000-07:00

Due to the unusual height of the Mississippi River, the Army Corps decided that it is best to open up both spillways in order to divert water away from the Mississippi. This is will help keep water levels down and also help relieve pressure on our levees, which no one knows how strong they really are. The Bonnet Carre opened on . Here is an aerial view of it. You can see the fresh water mixing with the salt water.

The Morganza opened on May 14th. Unfortunately, circa 25,000 people live in the area where the Morganza will flood. It's sad to see anyone lose their homes. However, around 2 million people live by the Mississippi further south. If those millions would flood, the economic, environmental, psychological, and physical toll would be tremendous... maybe more than Katrina? Here is aerial footage of that spillway opening-

All this is very interesting and touches on many issues, even a philosophical one. Should a certain minority have to suffer based on probability? If so, do St. Bernardians and others have a right to complain about the levees our government blew up in 1927 in order to "save" New Orleans? Although I did hear that blowing up those levees weren't necessary to prevent flooding. However, also interesting thoughts!

From Child Nationalist to Adult Antifa: Reflections of the two post 9/11 nationalistic waves through contrary lenses.

2011-05-07T07:50:00.000-07:00

Before we begin, it is imperative to state that I’m happy to see bin Laden go. There is no doubt that the world is safer without people like him, just like the world is safer without Saddam Hussein. I must state this considering that for some reason, perhaps due to repercussions of Western propaganda, many people assume that if you are not a fan of American foreign policy, you must support murderous tyrants and dissidents.

We are seeing an extensive rise in hyper-nationalism following the death of Osama bin Laden. I predicted people to be happy, but I did not anticipate that amount of jubilance that followed. Perhaps I am simply naïve? The last time the US saw such a steep rise in nationalism was after the horrible 9/11 attacks, where we saw flags being flown everywhere and anyone that did not follow Bush’s imperialist agenda was considered anti-American or a terrorist, quite literally. It seems I am viewing this phenomenon through different lenses then before. I was only thirteen when the first wave of 21^st century nationalism occurred, but I was all on board and continued to be a massive supporter of Bush until I was a senior in high school, around the age of 17. There is little doubt in mind that I would’ve joined the military if I was just coming out of college or probably would have went to college to pursue a military career if the events occurred right before college.

I can remember that September day in 8^th grade. The lady that took me to school explained to me that two planes hit the World Trade Center Towers in New York City. I was taken aback. First off, I thought the only World Trade Center was in New Orleans? And who would be so cruel?

After watching those images of dying innocent people, I later learned that terrorists from the Middle East committed the atrocity. Those images are forever pierced in my memory. I was outraged. I’ve always planned to join the military because I come from a military family, especially on my mother’s side, but this only reinforced my preconceived plans. My family’s military history since we emigrated from Sicily is extensive and can be traced back to my great uncle being gassed in the trenches during World War I, the first major conflict since my great-grandfather entered through Ellis Island. He was one of the only survivors from that specific event, and our local newspaper gave him much recognition. My grandfather, his son, watched men load "Little Boy" on Enola Gay. He also found a samurai sword off the coast of Iwo Jima that our family had until Hurricane Katrina. From the age of three, I collected toy soldiers from every American conflict and would recreate my favorite battles. My uncle was a Major and navigator in the Air Force, which allowed me to personally meet Bill Clinton and tour Air Force One at the New Orleans Naval Air Station while I was in 4^th grade. My Godfather is a Lieutenant in the Navy that served in Iraq and my cousin is a Marine doing his third duty in Afghanistan. When I was a freshman in high school, not even a year after the terrorist attack, I joined the Air Force Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program (JROTC). I’ve always desired to be a pilot and with the encouragement of my parents and grandmother, I knew I should start early if I wanted to be an officer in the Air Force. I even visited the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs with my family while on vacation. JROTC consisted of people who shared my mentality, those who were too nerdy for PE, and/or too untalented for music.

I remember when the United States invaded Iraq and launched the “shock and awe” campaign. We watched it from a TV in our JROTC classroom at Andrew Jackson Fundamental Magnet High School, a school named after one of our most genocidal presidents. Every time a bomb dropped and/or we heard a massive explosion, we cheered loudly.

I never once considered the people down there experiencing the extremely frightening destruction. I just cheered and smiled like an idiot, to say the least. While we were 14 year old teenagers living in middle-class America, I’m sure there were 14 year old teenagers in Iraq getting their heads blown off. Imagine all the innocent children that died during the invasion and subsequent occupation. Yet, I was so brainwashed by Fox News propaganda, which I watched almost daily, and right-wing talk show hosts, like Michael Savage, who I listened to on the way to soccer practice, that other viewpoints were not even discussed, much less considered. I thought everyone supported the war except for some crazy wacko “liberals” that just hated America. I really, truly thought this. I remember debating a Palestinian girl who did not support the war and thinking of her as “anti-American” and a terrorist sympathizer. I remember watching a few clips of bin Laden with that ROTC class and acting like animals, which was terrifyingly reminiscent of “two-minutes hate.” I really cheered, along with the ROTC trainers and my classmates, as our country dropped bombs on innocent people. I remember feeling the happiness that nationalism gave me, much like the happiness I felt as a religious person. I remember watching commercials like these and feeling a great sense of pride.

(took me a while to dig this one up)

I can remember when Fox News covered the war after school one day and watching it with my grandmother, Concetta, who was a wonderful, strong, intelligent, and relatively conservative Italian lady. I have never argued or disrespected my grandmother throughout my whole life. However, as the news blared, she criticized the invasion and talked negatively of the war. I knew it was my duty to speak out for my state so I told her, “Grandma, you don’t understand, we have to attack them before the enemy attacks us.” Those were my exact words in 2003. She disagreed, looked at me with pity, and told me war should only be the “absolute last resort.” She died less than two years later so I did not have the opportunity to tell her that she was right. As I reflect, I am ashamed for acting like the Parsons’ child in 1984 by turning against family to protect the ambitions of the state (an exaggeration of course but parallels due exist).

Yet, for some reason, I questioned this hyper-nationalism and eventually quit JROTC after one year. But I’m not even sure if my questioning had much to do with it, but more so the fact that I found out that I could not be a pilot since I am colorblind. I’m also sure my desire to be in P.E. and play basketball and soccer had a lot to do with it as well. Nonetheless, I stayed very conservative and considered Bush a hero.

Studying Katrina got me to question the integrity of Bush and our government in general and eventually led to my resentment of the Republican Party. Around the same time, I began to realize that the wars were not such a great idea, especially since no WMDs were found. Some time after that, around 2006 and 2007, I began to study the history of American invasions and the Iraq War in depth, and after learning who profits and the unmasked truth behind the war, I became fervently opposed to the American invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the attacks on Yemen and Pakistan, which receive such minor attention. It turned out that every time I studied a situation or notion that I held dear, my worldview was shattered. For instance, Jessica Lynch’s story was a lie and Pat Tillman did not die in a firefight in 2004 but instead was suspiciously killed by his own at close range.

These invasions masquerade as battles for American freedom and defense. However, nothing could be further from the truth. For the most part, the occupations exist for many unethical reasons but primarily three. First, it exists to ensure that the US can directly exploit resources of third world countries, primarily oil, as Greenspan stated, but also opium and other less talked about resources. It exists to ensure that the US can create a strong permanent foothold in the Middle East, which is evident in the massive “embassy” that is bigger than The Vatican being built in Baghdad right now. Third, it exists for the reason that most wars throughout history exist, and that is for profit. A quick study of the weapons industrial speaks for itself.

Since 2001, the people who stole our freedoms are not those in the Middle East, but those right here in our own country. They are the politicians, the CEOs, the bankers, the insurance industry, and the likes. We lost them when Bush, followed by Obama, signed and extended the Patriot Act. We lost them when CEOs fired millions in order to turn a profit. We lost them when Wall Street stole our tax dollars under the erroneous guise of fixing the economy. We lose them every time a person is denied coverage because they have pre-existing conditions, or are just too damn poor, which is a crime punishable by death if you get sick. If soldiers are protecting the freedoms of average everyday Americans, they are not just fighting the wrong people, but working for the wrong people. And these people don’t give a damn if soldiers come home in a flag-draped coffin but only care about when next million will come.

Now, at age 22, eight years after I cheered with the nationalistic public school military program when I saw bombs being dropped, I am a completely different person. My sense of patriotism is no longer my childhood naivety that adores whatever my government says, but consists of questioning almost everything a government, or anyone/institution with a great deal of authority, has to say, especially when they claim to be acting in an altruistic manner when the reality is strikingly different. I am no longer a fascist.

Now, as the second wave of 21^st century American nationalism emerges, how will I respond? My Facebook newsfeed reeks of nationalist jargon praising our leaders, the war effort, the soldiers, and the likes. The ultra fascist are desperately trying to make it look like this was a direct product of Bush-era policies. One of my Facebook friends said, “Thank you Gitmo!,” a clear reference that he, and many others, are trying to justify torture, or “enhanced interrogations,” with the kill and make every desperate attempt to tie this in with Bush, even though Bush repeatedly stated that bin Laden was "not a major concern" after 9/11 and abolished the CIA team set up to kill Osama in 2005. The Taliban even offered to turn bin Laden in October of 2011 but Bush ignored the offer.. This is probably because without bin Laden, what figurehead could he scare the populace with and continue this war? If the war stops, the profits from it ceases and the population becomes less scared. In terms of continuous war, Orwell warned:

The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.

What kind of person would I be if I remained silent during such times? To quote Elie Wiesel for the umpteenth time:

I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

I read Elie Wiesel’s “Night” in 10^th grade, and it sparked my interest in the Holocaust and introduced me to more works about genocide, which is almost (depending on definition) what is occurring in the Middle East. The invasions and subsequent occupations have caused the deaths of at least 600,000 people, the overwhelming majority of them innocent, in Iraq alone, excluding our targets in Afghanistan, Somalia, Palestine, Pakistan, and as of late, Libya. What kind of person would I be if I did not speak out against the massive slaughter of innocent people for the pure sake of profits? What type of society celebrates the death of one mass murderer that killed a few thousand people but elects and praises other mass murderers that kill(ed) hundreds of thousands? We often condemn the “terrorists” for being barbaric, but what exactly does barbarism or terrorism entail if our society celebrates or ignores illegal wars and occupations and the war criminals that commit them? Bush and Obama are surely more responsible for more innocent deaths than Osama bin Laden.

Now it is our moral obligation to speak out against atrocities committed with our tax dollars, whether they are from my friends or people I do not even know. Speaking out is a necessity when I see a Facebook status supporting war or overtly spewing anti-Islamic defamations following the death of an ex-CIA guerrilla operative. To remain silent is an insult to those that have died from my tax dollars. We all have a moral responsibility to support and defend those who are facing the full brunt of Western neocolonial tyranny, even at the expense of our social lives.

While standing up for the oppressed, I’ve been called numerous names. People have personally attacked me and/or deleted me or my comments. I’ve been called a “joke,” said I wasn’t “raised to know better,” a “douche,” a “big butt,” “strange,” “liberal,” etc. One person told me that “one thing i can assure you of is that there is no words that can express the amount of fuck that i do give about you or your opinion.” One person said that we should have “nuked” them because it would’ve been cheaper. When one person made a status insinuating that all Muslims are terrorists or are directly related to terrorists, I tried to assure them that most Muslims are peace-loving people. The person who stated otherwise told me that he “would like you to pack up your stuff, because i invite you to go live in one of these third world countries with the 1.4 billion Muslims that you say aren't "terrorists'" and see how long you make it out there.” Of course, I’m the crazy for saying that 1.4 billion Muslims aren’t terrorists. On that same thread another person gave me an interesting choice, "This country was built on racism, if you don't like it, you got 2 options. Blow your brains out, or get the Fuck out of this country." Of course, that's a silly false dichotomy, surely I have a few more options, right? Nonetheless, one of my favorites come from this hot-headed Texan after I tried to say that torture isn't a good idea:

My goodness you Libs just can't swallow the crow you deserve. Where in hell do you get your news? I am so sick and tired of your Anti-American bullshit. Why do you have to question everything and give no benefit of the doubt to your own country. I have no idea who you are, nor do I wish to, but I damn near hate you about as much as you hate your own country. Are you familiar with Leon Panetta? That would be the PRESENT CIA Director. And I fucking quote, "CIA Director Leon Panetta stomped on the White House’s political script when he told Tuesday night’s broadcast of NBC Nightly News that the waterboarding of jihadi detainees contributed information that led to the location and killing of Osama bin Laden. How's that taste?

This guy's post just demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of everything I am, but it is typical. Apparently, if you do not like torture, you are anti-American.

So no, in conclusion, as this new wave emerges, albeit not as major as the first one of this century, I will participate in it but oppose it. I am a different person then my young nationalistic past. Nationalism is dangerous and gave our rulers unprecedented amounts of power. I will not “thank” the troops for doing the bidding of Western corporations. I will not wave some colorful cloths that represent opposite of what they are supposed to. I will not support politicians who do not want these occupations to end immediately. And I will certainly not be silent when peers support these wars and occupations. Silence murders. We must all speak up.

The Necessity of Worldview Revampment

2011-03-31T19:02:00.000-07:00

Nothing is perfect, especially our worldviews. It is necessary to keep our minds open to expansion on multiple levels. Every belief and opinion we have can and should be improved. Gaining new knowledge and learning more will constantly revamp our worldview. This practice should be inevitable, and should always remain a priority in our lives.

I’ve been told numerous times throughout college that you don’t "think" as much after you graduate. However, I find this to be furthest from the truth. I find myself reading books and news articles even more now. With the internet, I can have discussions with endless amounts of people about any topic I am interested in. I feel that sentiment might’ve been true decades ago, but with the internet and e-libraries there is absolutely no excuse to discontinue, or even slow down, our necessary expansion of learning.

In order to reach a higher standard and better ourselves and society, revamping our worldview with an open-mind is essential. We should never get too comfortable with any one particular mindset, and always be open to change if new evidence or a logical argument is presented. Even if we feel that we are experts in all fields, we should look for more reasons to believe like we do.

With this mentality, I hope I can look back at myself and think that I was naïve and ignorant. I hope I can read my blog and pity myself for not knowing what I will know. When I think back to when I was a mere teenager that is the mentality that I possess. I hope it continues. I hope to never stop altering because there is so much left to learn, and the more I learn, the more I realize just how much more I need to know.

Austerity Lies and Class War

2011-03-10T12:04:00.000-08:00

The reasons used to justified austerity policies are lies

Anyone who supports the recent rise of austerity measures being pushed throughout the nation should read this article (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/06/109649/why-employee-pensions-arent-bankrupting.html). According to the actual facts, pension contributions, on average, amount to 2.9%-3.8% of state/local spending.

Pension contributions from state and local employers aren't blowing up budgets. They amount to just 2.9 percent of state spending, on average, according to the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College puts the figure a bit higher at 3.8 percent.

In fact, not only are they not a burden, but they are underfunded,

Nor are state and local government pension funds broke. They're underfunded, in large measure because — like the investments held in 401(k) plans by American private-sector employees — they sunk along with the entire stock market during the Great Recession of 2007-2009. And like 401(k) plans, the investments made by public-sector pension plans are increasingly on firmer footing as the rising tide on Wall Street lifts all boats.

Hold corporations accountable for taxes, cut the military budget, end the imperial hegemons, quit emptying the treasury to corporate loons, end the War on Drugs, and abolish the tax cuts on the extremely wealthy are the best methods to fixing budget crisis’s on all intranational levels. It’s not even economics 101, it is common sense. America is not broke, it is just that most of the wealth is in the hands of a very few, and the rest of the wealth is being transferred into the hands of that same few.

This is class war. While the majority of our society is getting seduced by materialism, entertainment, and other distractions, we are losing our rights on myriad levels. Chris Hedges claims in this article (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/27-1) that we are in Huxley’s world but making our way into Orwell’s Oceania. By the way things are going, he is sadly right.

But, people are now fighting back and the term “general strike” is now back in our conversation. I wrote back in November that if the elite continues to take away rights, people will inevitably fight back. To quote myself:

If the American elite thrive in their agenda to move capital from the lower classes back to elites, they will subsequently destroy their only buffer, the middle class…

In essence, if the right takes away the luxuries that makes the middle class be the middle class, it will destroy that buffer. This move would perhaps be temporarily rewarding because it would allocate more wealth to the tiny upper class. But, it will quickly prove fatal as the middle class is what allows those in power to stay in power. When people realize that they have been wrongfully dispossessed and the propaganda no longer works, havoc will ensue. People would have no choice but to recognize the enemy, which will be easy to notice. It will be then that a revolution of the masses will occur in order to gain back what was taken. The massive strikes in the late 19th and early 20th century will resurface. The protests that blacks underwent in the 60’s or the anti-war protestors of 70’s underwent will repeat except it will transcend race and include all oppressed peoples. There is no way an extremely small number of people can control hundreds of millions. That can only happen if we voluntarily let them do so. To quote Ghandi about the English occupation of India, ‘Because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate.’ Some worry about having economic and work luxuries being stripped from them, but it is the elite that should worry most if they succeed in doing just that.

Havoc is ensuing as protesters occupy the Wisconsin capital. Propaganda is losing flavor as facts and statistics go viral on the internet. The protests are resurfacing. The apathy of the 80’s, 90’s, and 00’s are dying out. A new generation with new tools is emerging. With Wikileaks, Big Brother is being watched. It is our time.

International Victims of “Budget Crisis” Solutions and “Defense” Spending

2011-02-26T14:00:00.000-08:00

We are told time and time again by both seemingly identical political parties that we must revamp our out of control spending to cut the deficit and ensure fiscal responsibility, a claim that no sane person would deny. The American people desire a surplus, and the last president to slightly create one was Clinton, which was soon eradicated once Bush II got in office. Unfortunately, the way the local, state, and federal governments are carrying out this task is atrocious and an attack on not just Americans, but the international community as well.

Our government seeks to continue and even enhance spending to the military industrial complex (MIC), those who create our weapons and employ the mercenaries for hire, a horrific endeavor that Eisenhower warned us about in his 1961 farewell address, which is only resurfacing as the MIC’s crimes become more apparent. We spend trillions on the so-called “War on Terror,” a war that seeks to enrich the lives of a very few elites while causing the death of thousands of Americans and the deaths of over a million Middle Easterners, at least 1.2 million Iraqis (according to a 2007 ORB count). Wars that only benefit few elites are a dime a dozen throughout history. As historian Hans Koning noted about the Spanish Empire:

“For all the gold and silver stolen and shipped to Spain did not make the Spanish people richer. It gave their kings an edge in the balance of power for a time, a chance to hire more mercenary soldiers for their wars. They ended up losing those wars anyway, and all that was left was a deadly inflation, a starving population, the rich richer, the poor poorer, and a ruined peasant class.”

What familiar circumstances. Our war has left the American economy in shambles, expanded the gap between the rich and poor, created more threats, destroyed the already dwindling remnants of American “prestige” worldwide, and left tens of millions of Iraqis, Afghans, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Palestinians, etc in refugee status. Iran now hosts the largest refugee camp in the world, containing over a million Afghans that fled for obvious reasons.

Our “defense” spending, or so it is erroneously dubbed, is simply out of control. The US spends more money on defense than all the countries in the world combined. Not only does our government pour trillions into defense, but results are often wasteful and unethical while increasing the fragile stability, if any, that the world has or hopes to have. Not only is the defense spending unjustified by the aforementioned points, but US victory is simply unobtainable, and for good reason. The longer the war continues, as we saw in Vietnam, the more profits the war criminals receive. However, there contains a backlash, the resistance movements tend to only cultivate. This notion may be virtually unimportant and perhaps beneficial to those that wage war because as Orwell famously said, “…war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.” US forces are even completely pulling out of Pech valley, a strategic and crucial area with well-established insurgent groups that US forces tried to control since 2001. Of course, military leaders like to claim they are not really abandoning the valley, but instead suggest it is only a “realignment.”

Continuous or not, wars structured like this current one only intensifies rebel groups. In Indochina, the Khmer Rouge recruited heavily by showing people what the American bombing, launched by Nixon without Congress approval, was doing to their country. It killed tens of thousands, around 150,000 by some estimates, left over 2 million homeless and desperate, and left an already frail infrastructure in ruins. The oppression was the best source of recruitment for Pol Pot and his cronies. To quote a former Khmer Rouge member, Chhit Do:

“Every time after there had been bombing, they would take the people to see the craters, to see how big and deep the craters were, to see how the earth had been gouged out and scorched… Terrified and half-crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told… That was what made it so easy for the Khmer Rouge to win the people over… It was because of their dissatisfaction with the bombing that they kept on cooperating with the Khmer Rouge, joining up with the Khmer Rouge, sending their children off to go with them.”

We see a similar occurrence in Iraq and Afghanistan, primarily Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda did not exist in Iraq in 2002, but soon after the invasion Al-Qaeda members flooded into Iraq and recruitment escalated. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is stronger than in 2003, and directly working with Hamid Karzai, the Western puppet placed in power. Recruitment is easy in such an uneducated land where only circa 11% of the population even knows about 9/11.

The fact that radical Islamic elements are increasing is not conspiracy theory or anti-American pessimism. It is straight from the US records itself, brought to us by Wikileaks. Of course, our government was very frustrated at the notion that the War was actually having a reserve outcome than expected, and even more frustrated that the American public had access to the evidence to suggest so. Besides the ultra-nationalistic and reactionary populace of America, no one still supports the war. Now that Obama escalated it, partisan Republicans are now seeing it as an evil. The theocratic fascist Mike Huckabee is the latest conservative to come out against the war. Either way, it does not really matter to most Western “democratic” governments whether the population is opposed to something or not. For instance, around 98% of Spain’s population disapproved of the war yet then Prime Minister Jose Aznar Lopez went with the 2%.

Obama cleverly reduced the amount of “combat” troops, but escalated drone attacks globally and doubled the amount of private contractors in Iraq. He did not help end the war by any means, he merely privatized it. The expensive and ruthless private contractors, such as Blackwater (XE) and Halliburton, have even been heavily criticized by American puppets, such as current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. After a 2007 massacre on Iraqi civilians by Blackwater that outraged all of Iraq, al-Maliki asked the US government to abolish contracts with the murderous organization and withdraw them from Iraq. Considering Blackwater is still in Iraq, one can probably easily guess Bush’s response to such an outrageous and egotistical request. Protests, which are downplayed in the American mainstream media, are currently occurring in Iraq, just like elsewhere in the Mid East and North Africa, as its citizens are sick of the corruption and the occupation.

The way the American government decides to wastefully spend money in regards to defense historically created, and contemporarily creates, millions upon millions of victims. But the victimization does not stop abroad; it is certainly felt at home. Ending the war in Afghanistan would save taxpayers $1.7 billion this year alone. Federally, the Republican Congress, along with most center-right Democrats, are proposing measures that seek to eliminate benefits on a massive scale. They want to cut education, social security, Medicaid, Medicare, and the likes. They also want to cut vital education programs like PBS and humanitarian organizations like Americorps, which is designed to close the vast education gap. (As a special education teacher, PBS is great for my students.) Our Congress wants to cut such important measures, but has no problem with spending money for Nascar advertisement. A week or so ago, Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum, proposed a bill that would end the Army’s ability to advertise on Nascar, an effort which would save millions. Of course, Congress voted against her measure because advertising on a car that goes in circles is far more important than PBS. Furthermore, McCollum even received death threats for her proposal.

Across the states governors are cutting important programs and curtailing benefits as well. In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker has launched an essential war on the unions that did not support his campaign by increasing healthcare costs and abolishing collective bargaining, but the citizens are fighting back. This has led to grassroots massive labor protests that dwarf anything we’ve seen in 21st century America, especially the astroturf “tea parties.” Fortunately, the unions that did support him, primarily the police and firefighter unions, are actually joining forces with the protesting unions, instead of Walker. The alleged reason for this onslaught is to cut spending and help close the budget gap. But to put things in perspective, Wisconsin’s budget crisis could be cured by bringing home just 151 Afghanistan soldiers since every soldier sent to Afghanistan cost circa $1 million per year.

All in all, the proposed educational cuts are deeply disturbing. Inner city schools are struggling to manage and survive. One prime example in New Orleans is McDonough 35, an inner city school infested with bats. What kind of society do we live in where fixing priorities such as these are put on the backburner? Many proponents of the education cuts claim that teachers are overpaid and simply have too many benefits (healthcare, summer and holidays off, etc). However, people that say such jargon always fail to put things into perspective. Let’s pay teachers a babysitting salary instead.

How much would you pay someone to babysit your child? How about $6 an hour? Seems low, but stay with me. Many teachers work from 8:00 to 3:00 pm. But let’s not count a planning period, lunch, duty, and all the time spent with lesson planning and grading, so let’s say they work 6 ½ hours a day. That equals to $39 a day per child. However, the average teacher has around 25 students. So, $39 x 25 = $975 per day. Yet, teachers work 180 days a year. So, $975 x 180 = $175,500 per year. On average, teachers barely get anywhere from $40,000 to $50,000, depending on tenure. Essentially, on average, teachers get paid less than babysitters, plus they have the daunting task of educating our youth. Even though teachers barely get paid anything for the amount of work they put forward, the government is trying to make matters worse for them while spending on other harmful ventures, primarily the MIC.

While average citizens are paying out the pocket in taxes, loans, bills, and just trying to stay afloat, our government is allowing major corporations to go tax free. Nearly two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes whatsoever, while other corporations, like Goldman Sachs, who received around $10 billion in taxpayer money, only paid around 1%. Although US tax rate is 35%, 115 companies on the S&P 500 pay less than 20% in taxes. Even some corporations that manage to pay to 35% tax rate receive billions in government “credit” than pay in taxes, like AIG and Citigroup. For most middle class Americans, our tax rate is 25%, meaning we paid more in taxes than many huge corporations. Many corporations barely pay any taxes and get government contracts that cost us billions. For instance, Boeing, a corporation that pays less than 5% in taxes, just received a $35 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers. The status quo is criminal and deadly. But in order to save money, Obama cuts the Pell Grant, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

I’m just a 22 year old grad student, teacher, and soccer coach living in the suburbs of one of the poorest American cities. I do not have all the answers but I can say the obvious: military spending and Wall Street and corporate favoritism are primarily causing devastation on the international community socially, politically, economically, and environmentally. Despite this truism, our corporate media seeks to constantly distract us with partisan rhetoric and always seeks to scare us against terrorists and “illegal” immigrants, who are trying to escape the harsh consequences of Clinton’s neoliberal NAFTA agenda, such as in Mexico, or avoid Washington-supported despots, such as in Colombia and Haiti. They conjure up the “us vs. them” mentality to distract us from the real societal threats. As long as we allow ourselves to be misguided and fear-mongered, they will continue to take our rights away. A third party rising to address the real issues of our country is long overdue because the Democratic and Republican Parties are mere subsidiaries of corporate America and serve only the elite, not the people. And as long as I’ve been alive, the only people who took my rights away were not Mexicans and Muslims, but my own democratically elected government. We must alter our direction or we will crumble from within, like all empires before the American one. Let’s implement real “change.” Remember, 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

Hope you enjoyed. Please let me know if you have any advice or see any corrections, whether grammatical or factual.

Eradicate the middle class = class revolution.

2010-11-01T22:20:00.000-07:00

We live in dire times where the brawny Establishment is attempting to eradicate all the luxuries that the lower classes have fought to obtain. We constantly see the American right going more to the right with the American left following suit, which inevitably changes societal views of what is considered the “center” or “moderate.” To talk of privatizing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and/or completely abolishing programs such as these is becoming more commonplace. People talk of eliminating government regulations on private businesses; like no overtime laws, no environmental conditions in the workplace, no more minimum wage, etc. The Tea Party and/or other right-wingers who are frustrated with the way this country is heading have sadly bought into these notions perpetuated by the elite hook, line, and sinker.

These American Libertarian viewpoints are extremely dangerous to the progression of society. For one, the further to right the American political pendulum swings the more frequent these issues are being raised. These viewpoints masquerade as if they will actually provide more freedom to the lower classes. The American mainstream left, or what is left of it from years of brutal subjugation from the government and corporate powerhouses, simply invokes moderation or remains silent instead of combating these claims. It strikes me odd to be moderate in such times.

If such measures are passed then the middle class would wither away and the divide between the rich and the poor would grow even wider. Judging by the course of history, it is safe to say that if those that are trying to destroy our freedoms succeed then the people who suffer from it will not go quietly. The Establishment can spew all the propaganda in the world to convince the lower classes that they are benefiting from having everything privatized but that lie can only work for so long until the masses realize the truth. We see examples of this progression right now. We are constantly told that we have the best health care in the world. Obviously, we do not. We are told that the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the attacks on Pakistan are justified for a number of reasons. Obviously, the majority of Americans now know otherwise.

If the American elite thrive in their agenda to move capital from the lower classes back to elites, they will subsequently destroy their only buffer, the middle class. The enormous middle class was created in the 20th century due to the demands of workers and the oppressed (not to mention advances in technology as well) in order to stifle discontent and avoid violent rebellion. This rise in living standards created complacency among the populace. People were free to have leisure time to spend how they please. They could play and watch sports, they could dance, they could read and watch TV, etc. Nowadays, many do not even worry themselves about political matters because they feel that they need not do so or they are busy enjoying the freedoms that others won for them.

In essence, if the right takes away the luxuries that makes the middle class be the middle class, it will destroy that buffer. This move would perhaps be temporarily rewarding because it would allocate more wealth to the tiny upper class. But, it will quickly prove fatal as the middle class is what allows those in power to stay in power. When people realize that they have been wrongfully dispossessed and the propaganda no longer works, havoc will ensue. People would have no choice but to recognize the enemy, which will be easy to notice. It will be then that a revolution of the masses will occur in order to gain back what was taken. The massive strikes in the late 19th and early 20th century will resurface. The protests that blacks underwent in the 60’s or the anti-war protestors of 70’s underwent will repeat except it will transcend race and include all oppressed peoples. There is no way an extremely small number of people can control hundreds of millions. That can only happen if we voluntarily let them do so. To quote Ghandi about the English occupation of India, "Because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate." Some worry about having economic and work luxuries being stripped from them, but it is the elite that should worry most if they succeed in doing just that.

Inside a typical public school during Columbus Day

2010-10-11T17:44:00.000-07:00

Many American schools celebrate the genocidal Columbus for his journals. Today, I was offered a glimpse of what most public schools in the nation do on Columbus Day. The reason I say “most” is due to the notion that the current school I work with is on a national program, and the teacher told me the worksheets they receive come from a corporation that dishes them out to thousands of American schools. I currently work as an aid to a deaf girl in a first grade classroom. It is quite interesting and I overall enjoy it, but it can be a little frustration at times.

Today brought back many memories I had as a youth attending public schools. I recalled learning about Columbus every Columbus Day by hearing the same cliché myths, drawing pictures, and what not. It wasn't until college when I was coerced to read primary sources in my upper level history classes that I discovered just how insane and deadly of a man he actually was. I was very disillusioned and from then on, I've been interested in studying this American genocide. The teacher started off her lecture with, “He started off from Spain… and he wanted to go to Asia… but he went that way (pointing to North America) and found America!” From the beginning, I knew this was going to be somewhat off. After her lecture, I talked to the teacher about the real crimes of Columbus and also let her in on the fact that Columbus did not actually set foot in what is now known as America. She had absolutely no clue and was horrified. She even discussed it with the other teachers during lunchtime. Nonetheless, coloring Columbus pictures is one of the activities the students participated in. Here, thanks to my phone, you can see exactly what pictures they are coloring-

... Which eventually made this apparent resemblance 3 ships crossing wavy water.

They also did worksheets on Columbus... Here are two here-

(Not sure how to turn pictures around on Blogger, if you can help, let me know).

It was somewhat disturbing. I especially like the one where he is smiling like some creeper. But on a brighter note, I think my words got to the teacher. At the end of the day, she played this clip- http://www.brainpop.com/socialstudies/famoushistoricalfigures/christophercolumbus/. Fair enough :).

It is quite sad that America celebrates this man. It is pure genocide denial in the saddest and most offensive form imaginable. It is indoctrination. I posted a status on my FB to address this issue, "Who cares about Christopher Columbus Day? It should be a day of mourning, not celebration. If that genocidal maniac discovered the Americas, then Pocahontas discovered Europe." Unfortunately, I got this quick response:

You can't change it so why get all uptight. Hell most people don't even know when columbus day is. Im not trying to start anything chris lol but i've noticed you have a lot of opinions, which is not a bad thing, but don't you think there are more important things going on instead of what one man did a long time ago. Just let it go man just let it go.

To which I responded:

Woah, your sensitive self might want to delete me again because your comment has sparked some inevitable emotion. There is nothing funny about this. It’s downright sick. As someone with Choctaw heritage in me and someone who actually has a brain, I don’t see why I, or anyone, shouldn’t be upset that we live in a society that celebrates mass murderers. I also don’t see why there is a need to laugh out loud about this.

//You can't change it//

Yes, I can change it. And every year I will post statuses about Columbus Day and have discussions with others (like the Native American I talked with today) to help raise awareness that despite the propaganda spewed by the nationalists, Columbus is actually a horrible person. He kind of reminds me of Hitler, except the genocide against the Native Americans resulted in about millions of more deaths than the Holocaust.

If you honestly believe Christopher Columbus Day cannot be changed then you are just… odd.

//so why get all uptight.//

See above.

//Hell most people don't even know when columbus day is.//

That might be true for Texas, but a lot of people down here and other areas where Italian-Americans exist it isn’t true. The children already started coloring pictures of Columbus as early as yesterday in public schools down here. I know, I work in one. Also, if there was a Hitler Day, and a lot of people forgot when it was, does that make Hitler Day any less insane? I doubt you'd say, "Hell most people don't even know when hitler day is."

// i've noticed you have a lot of opinions, which is not a bad thing//

So… your point being?

//but don't you think there are more important things going on instead of what one man did a long time ago.//

Yeah, maybe I should post a status about how I need to rotate my tires like you did instead of addressing how it’s actually mean to celebrate the man who kicked off the world’s longest and most brutal genocide. First off, my Facebook is not used to just spout needless everyday tidbits like millions do. It’s to actually discuss things that matter. And this matters to me, and to millions of people throughout the world. Second, you post statuses about Jesus, which supposedly happened 1,400 years prior to this so it’d be like me telling you to just let it go man, he died a long time ago. Third, it doesn’t matter how long ago something happen, I will still study it and discuss it, especially if it drastically changed the course of history. Should I forget about the Armenian genocide next? And then the Jewish one? And then the Cambodian and Rwandan genocide? Fourth, I will certainly discuss it if the victims of the said actions are still being victimized by people like yourself and others who celebrate this day or remain neutral. Like Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel once said, “I swore to never be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides, neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim, silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Fifth, I’m discussing Columbus Day, which happens every year, not just some arbitrary meaningless event that happened in the past.

Address the issue, and don’t be an ass and just claim it happened a long time ago and to “let it go” because that’s truly the asshole thing to do.

He reconciled after that.

I'd like to end this blog with a quote from Robert Jensen, an author and teacher of media law, ethics, and politics at the University of Texas, in regards to Thanksgiving:

Imagine that Germany won World War II and that a Nazi regime endured for some decades, eventually giving way to a more liberal state with a softer version of German-supremacist ideology. Imagine that a century later Germans celebrated a holiday offering a whitewashed version of German/Jewish history that ignored that holocaust and the deep anti-Semitism of the culture. Imagine that the holiday provided a welcomed time for families and friends to gather and enjoy food and conversation. Imagine that businesses, schools and government offices closed on this day.

What would we say about such a holiday? Would we not question the distortions woven into such a celebration? Would we not demand a more accurate historical account? Would we not, in fact, denounce such a holiday as grotesque?

I found that thoughtful quote reading an article about Columbus day here- http://socialistworker.org/2009/10/15/celebration-of-mass-murder.

Well, I suppose I should leave on a more happy note. Here is Conquistadora the Explorer demonstrating how fun it can be to decimate Native cultures-

I will not participate in genocide denial

2010-09-15T12:19:00.000-07:00

I do three little part-time jobs throughout the week to survive while I attend graduate school at UNO. It might sound like a lot, but it’s not. I coach soccer in the city twice a week with two games on the weekend, which I thoroughly enjoy. I deliver at Café Roma in Chalmette when my brother is not working and I am not coaching. And my least favorite, I substitute for the school board when they need me.

Yesterday, I was asked to substitute for a fifth grade class at a local elementary school, which was my middle school before Katrina. I took the offer, even though I am not a fan of fifth graders. They are often cocky because they are the “big people” on campus, and it is their first time experiencing such social power. They are also aware of the notion that subs allegedly carry less power and are usually a lot more clueless to the norms of that particular classroom. Nonetheless, I showed up ready to teach 5th graders. At first, as predicted, many were rowdy and misbehaved. After a couple of yells and pretending to be a tough guy, they quieted down.

We went over a few subjects and then science came around. I had to read a few chapters on the greenhouse effect. The book mentioned something along the lines that human activities may be causing shifts in the environment. I can only imagine the outrage the book would have caused by anti-environmentalists, which are many in the South, if it would’ve said that human activities ARE already causing shifts in the environment, an easily provable claim. Surprisingly, after asking a few questions and picking their brains the kids learned the concept that energy comes from the sun but hardly leaves quite quickly.

Next was to teach about the Iroquois Native Americans, the last lesson of the day. The book described some of the Iroquois culture, the member tribes, and the political hierarchy of pre-colonial times and early colonial times. As I turned the page, I noticed the text jumped straight into a section called “The Iroquois Nation Today.” The section discussed the Great Council that still exist and some of their current employments, which consist of building skyscrapers, according to the text. It shocked me that the book, at least from what I read, did not even mention the conquest of the indigenous people much less the seemingly never-ending brutal subjection they experienced.

I felt moved to mention something of this nature, but I knew that anything that does not flow with the set American narrative is considered controversial. However, as someone with Native American blood (barely) and someone with a grave conscious, I felt that I needed to speak out and educate these children. I told the class that I have Native American blood in me and they were surprised, and then came the question I thought would not come. A girl asked, “What happened to all the Indians? I never see them.”

“Good question. Anyone know why Native American culture and their population are not as prevalent today as they were back then?” I asked.

I got a few responses. One kid told me because the animals ate them. Another said “they got old and died.” I told them I’m sure that happened in both cases, but that other factors primarily caused their demise. No one knew. Not one child knew that Europeans slaughtered Native Americans or substantially altered their way of life.

I discussed what many Americans often forget about or simply ignore. I told the class that many European settlers waged war with Native Americans because of land issues, resources, and/or feelings of superiority, which resulted in a lot of Native American deaths. I also told them about the diseases the Europeans carried over that the natives were not immune to and that even some immigrants spread them on purpose. I mentioned that they were displaced of their lands and way of life, which led to a decline. I would have told them that these oppressive acts amounted to what we now call “genocide,” but they never heard that word before.

It may surprise people to know that America engages in genocidal denial on a massive scale. But I for one will not participate in genocide denial for the sake of the victims, the oppressors, those who are learning, and simply for the sake of education and truth. We should not sugarcoat historical misfortunes, especially if our society committed and benefited from them. We would be appalled if a German history class had a section that discussed the history of the Jews and skipped to a section that said “Jews Today” without mentioning their decline or frequent hardships. We should feel the same way. It’s sad that American history classes are more concerned with nationalism and pride over truth. History consists of many struggles that we should not ignore. I will not ignore them, especially when they amount to genocide.

Society’s double standard on atheism

2010-09-12T21:50:00.000-07:00

It seems that when people find out about my atheism they are quick to try and blame my atheism on external factors. I hear the same cliché questions. “What happened in your life to make you an atheist?” “Your parents were probably very strict on you about religious matters and you’re just rebelling?” “Did Katrina make you an atheist?” Similar questions always pinch a nerve me. When I find out someone is Christian, nasty torture devices hanging around their necks or cheesy bracelets containing religious statements (WWJD) usually give that away before they start speaking, I never ask the questions I am so often asked. (By the way, religious people often wear religious symbols to let them know their beliefs but if an atheist would do something similar they would be scolded significantly. If you don’t believe that just wear a t-shirt that says “atheist” on it.) I never ask, “What happened to you to make you a Christian?” “Your parents were strict atheists so you are rebelling?” “Did (enter horrific event) make you a Christian?” If I would ask such absurd questions, I would immediately be labeled arrogant, insensitive, or just not tolerant… and rightly so. Asking such questions means that one is trying to assert that purely external factors played into one’s ideology, which subliminally tells the person their views have not derived from internal investigation, autodidacticism, and/or scholarship.

But, the reason I would seem so intolerant for asking these questions while a religious person would not seem so intolerant touches on a much broader issue in American society. Due to redundant conditioning perpetuated by countless churches, the mainstream media, the government, and the general narrative in America, atheists are often seen as arrogant and intolerant. Realistically, there is much evidence to counter this claim and even evidence to state the exact opposite, but facts are so often drowned out by this narrative. Atheists don’t believe that people are going to be eternally tortured for not believing in what they do. In my humble opinion, one of the most arrogant and grossest of human beliefs is to assume that those who are different are going to suffer for eternity when they die. However, we atheists are supposed to be overly tolerant to those that hold these views. Even though we feel that the god that many of these religious people worship does not exist, the one that would allegedly punish us for being so different and evil, we must call that despotic deity such commendable terms or we are deemed insensitive.

In essence, according to social conventions within conversations, not only are atheists not allowed to get irritated at such questions, we are not allowed to ask them back. And we must overly respect the beliefs of the religious person. If we do not adhere to these de-facto conversational rules, no matter how wretched they are, we are insensitive, intolerant, and/or arrogant. The double standard is quite sad. Like so many trivial and unnecessary problems within society, education is the key to fix these implications.

Getting enemies by standing up for what is right

2010-08-24T19:12:00.000-07:00

“You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.” -Winston Churchill

This quote is peculiar. Churchill was a great war president, but not really a philosopher. However, I can’t help but agree with this statement. I noticed growing up that I didn’t take a stand for much and never made a lot of enemies. I defended Catholicism a few times to the very few Protestants I knew. I defended Chalmette a few times while I played soccer in the rich areas of the city. However, I did not take a stand for much.

My life, like hundreds of thousands of others, turned around after Hurricane Katrina. Our family became one of America’s oppressed overnight. As I educated myself on the nature of events surrounded Katrina, I garnered a differing outlook as I studied other issues. I realized that the Katrina narrative often told by the media and society was so wrong. The only way to abolish that disturbing narrative was education. This led me to question the narrative of everything that was taught to me. I remember questioning what I thought about the War on Terrorism, The American Dream, and the likes.

Studying these issues, while being a history buff, made me realize that the voices of the oppressed were and still are so rarely heard. I was constantly told from various sources that the American occupations were purely defensive and necessary for the security of our country. Of course, it’s obvious that the war is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to steal the resources of weaker countries for corporate interests with our tax dollars and nothing to do with our security or the benefit of the American people.

The American Dream told me that in America is a land of opportunity and you can be whatever you want. If you fail, it’s essentially your fault, nothing to do with external factors or the system in and of itself. Naturally, as I noticed minorities tending to not succeed as well as whites, I came to believe that they did not work as hard, nor did they desire to better themselves as much as whites. It took me a few years to overcome that racist mindset.

This happened numerous times. In the process, I started defending people from these ignorant narratives. I started defending blacks from racists that I ran into. I started defending Muslims, atheists, homosexuals, pacifists, communists, and others that aren’t very welcomed in our society. While doing so, I have gained numerous people who do not really like me for my outspoken views. But that’s alright; abolitionists were hated in the 1850’s. I cannot stay silent as needless inequality and oppression exists in this world. Elie Wiesel once said, “I swore to never be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides, neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim, silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” No one should be silent.

Short story for NWF factsheet

2010-07-16T09:30:00.001-07:00

I was asked by a lady that works for the NWF that I interned for last summer to write my Katrina story and incorporate the importance of wetlands restoration. It is supposed to be in a fact sheet. I am always happy to help with a noble cause, especially a cause of my own, so I took up the task. However, I was later told that it was preferred that I write my story and talk about the wetlands in one page. Anyone that has been through Katrina can testify to the assertion that writing a one page story about the ordeal will never do justice, but I tried. Considering the limited space, they edited my story to one page. But here's the whole and unedited version.

Here’s what I wrote-

I can remember as a kid playing ball in the various parks located throughout my home parish, St. Bernard. I can remember going to schools, churches, fishing trips, and doing all sorts of activities throughout my life in my community. On one August day, everything I had ever known was obliterated. The home I grew up in was barely standing with nothing salvageable. All photographs of me as a child or with my family washed away. All of my trophies, books, and materialistic possessions were gone. The car I spent my life savings on a year prior floated down the street. My elementary school, middle school, and high school were gone. Every single building I had ever stepped in throughout this parish was either not there or uninhabitable. We were forced to move to East Texas. We did not know anyone and had to find new jobs and enroll in new schools. Perhaps the most challenging aspect is the notion that we could not turn to our community. They were facing the same problems that we were facing and they were spread out across America, from New York to California.

I can recall vividly the September day that I first went back to assess the damages of our Chalmette home with my family. My whole community, even my neighborhood, was desolately unrecognizable. I could not believe that this really happened to me. As a 17 year old teenager living in suburbia America just south of New Orleans, I barely recognized the forces that destroyed my home and community. I was so preoccupied with soccer, TV, friends, parties, family, my senior year in high school, and whatever absorbs the time of many teenagers. It was not until Katrina that I was coerced to look at life through the eyes of the needy that I started to pay attention. Our family was so often on the giving end of the spectrum, but after that we were on the receiving. I wanted to know why our lives were ruined. Of course I knew a hurricane came, but there was a reoccurring theme I redundantly heard in every Hurricane Katrina conversation. I heard how both the MRGO (Mississippi River Gulf Outlet) and the levee failures because of the Army Corps of Engineers caused the damage and flooding. I quickly discovered the veracity of these claims as I started my research to figure out the causes of the massive flooding and what we can do to prevent another travesty from happening to our community.

My studies continued as I went through college. I realized that the flooding surrounding Katrina was not just some isolated and unpreventable incident. It was part of a bigger picture that brewed for decades. Southeast Louisiana is plagued with numerous and expansive man-made canals, like the MRGO, for the purpose of carrying resources, primarily oil, in a quicker manner. This manipulation of nature, which has historically been disapproved of by Louisiana citizens, caused and continues to perpetuate massive erosion of the wetlands. Furthermore, we have also been facing the early troubles of climate change. As the Earth warms and the sea levels rise, our wetlands are decimated at a faster and faster pace. Any conversation with a fisherman from St. Bernard Parish will make one realize just how much wetlands we have lost in two generations.

Wetlands protection is imperative for us. A mere 2.7 miles of wetlands can reduce storm surge by one foot. As someone who had over 12 feet of water in my house, every mile makes a difference. The wetlands are a beautiful, fragile, and rich ecosystem with various forms of life. But they are more than just a bunch of strange animals and aesthetics; they are our natural weapon against storms, which are becoming more intense as the Gulf of Mexico increases in temperature. This is not some environmental crusade; our livelihood is on the line. We are losing the battle to restore the wetlands because we are losing a football field of wetlands every 15 minutes (pre-oil spill statistic). The contemporary BP oil spill exacerbates wetlands deterioration. We are rapidly losing a treasured and unique piece of America, an America that is my home. We need everyone to do their part in helping out with coastal restoration.

The myriad repercussions of the flooding associated the Hurricane Katrina, caused in part by wetlands loss, continues to be seen daily. We are just one of two families that currently live in our neighborhood, which is covered with empty lots. My elementary and middle school is knocked down and they turned my high school into an elementary school. My mother still frequents the doctor because of the damage the formaldehyde from the FEMA trailers did to her eye. We wake up each day with the knowledge that we need to win this losing battle. Having healthy wetlands is not a desire for us, it is a must.

They liked it and are going to use it.

The ethics of using FEMA trailers to house cleanup workers

2010-07-01T15:56:00.000-07:00

My friend posted an article discussing the use of FEMA trailers in the Gulf again. I commented explaining my disgust. He asked me to write a piece about it for the "Leftists of the South" blog. The blog can be reached here- http://southernleftists.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/the-ethics-of-using-fema-trailers-to-house-cleanup-workers/

This is what I wrote-

It seems as though thousands of situations are in complete disarray around the Gulf Coast area. We have witnessed corporations hit rock bottom by overtly destroying the environment, murdering workers, killing and burning animals alive, like sea turtles, and unleashing a massive propaganda ploy to distract those from the truth. All these malevolent acts are done for one notion, the notion of profit, at any expense.

As a Gulf Coast resident my entire life, except my time being displaced from Katrina and attending college elsewhere, these troubles are personal to me. Our livelihood is at stake. Today, I read something that sent shivers down my spine. According to the New York Times, FEMA trailers are now being used to house cleanup workers. Ron Mason is the owner of a disaster contracting firm, Alpha 1, and has sold dozens of trailers. According to Mason, “These are perfectly good trailers… look, you know that new car smell? Well, that’s formaldehyde, too. The stuff is in everything. It’s not a big deal.”(1)

Notice he does not use any science or statistics to back up his nonchalant claims. To call him ignorant is an understatement. New car smell? Mason has obviously never lived in FEMA trailer, and I would love to see what sort of car he drives. A new car smells rather nice and refreshing. However, as I recollect my thoughts, I do not remember smelling anything nice in a FEMA trailer. Nine months after Katrina, when we were finally granted our trailers, I can remember going into my mother’s trailer in Meraux, Louisiana, for the first time. My eyes immediately began to water and a pungent smell radiated around the small trailer. At first, I thought it was me. But after a few days, every single person that walked in complained, and every person I knew that was living in a trailer experienced the same symptoms, some even worse. One of my friends told me that they experienced nosebleeds.

We knew something was wrong. I remember sitting in a FEMA trailer wondering where we could go. Our house was gone and everyone we knew was also living in a FEMA trailer. I remember the hopelessness and despair as we inhaled the unknown toxins. Slowly but surely rumors leaked around St. Bernard Parish that the trailers were invested with formaldehyde, which causes eye irritation, odd odors, and nosebleeds. Studies later came out supporting that notion. However, it wasn’t until the majority of trailers were gone that we realized just how dangerous they were.

According to a 2008 study conducted by the The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the average level of formaldehyde of the over 500 trailers was 77 ppb, with some trailers measuring over 500 ppb.(2) To put this in perspective, the EPA allows no more than 16 ppb formaldehyde in any building constructed for the agency and average homes usually consists of 10-20 ppb formaldehyde.(3) However, the CDC study is not without its faults as well, as it admits in the study, “Because formaldehyde levels tend to be higher in newly constructed trailers and during warmer weather, levels measured in this study are likely to underrepresent long-term exposures; many of these trailers are approximately 2 years old, and the study was conducted during the winter.” As the EPA and other studies suggest, formaldehyde concentrations are significantly higher after a building is built and extensively worse in the summer.

Formaldehyde, as any toxin will, can cause serious problems, notably to the mucus membrane and the eyes. Any agency purchasing these toxic hotbeds is literally poisoning those that inhabit them. A quick Google search can demonstrate the deadly nature of these trailers. They are not ignorant of the detrimental effects. If any agency were giving its workers chemically filled harmful drinking water, the world would be outraged. The cleanup workers will be going through enough environmental hazards enough as it is, they should not have to go home to continue to breathe more toxins.

This is a classic example of those in power making others suffer for the benefit of profit. This chronologically redundant pattern has cost the lives of millions throughout history and continues to cause unnecessary death. As of now, my mother still frequents the eye doctor for numerous eye drops and remedies to get her eyes back to normal from the trailer days. Prior to those days, she never had eye problems. This is a big problem. I hope for the best to all those living in the trailer.

1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/us/01trailers.html?_r=2&hp

2) http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/trailerstudy/pdfs/FEMAFinalReport.pdf

3) http://www.naturalnews.com/023202_formaldehyde_health_homes.html

Conversation with Theist

2010-06-24T19:34:00.000-07:00

May 24 at 11:04am

Hey Chris, I know you said you were having surgery, I hope all went well and that you make a full recovery. In case you are still looking for some things to watch while your laid up I thought this might interest you.. it's an old debate from the 70s, back when I was younger than you are now... but the arguments are still the same.

Hope you enjoy! http://www.thebible1.net/video/warrenflewdebate/

The Warren-Flew Debate On The Existence Of God

www.thebible1.net

Thomas Bratton Warren (b. August 1, 1920, Carrizo Springs, TX - d. August 8, 2000, Seagoville, TX) was an accomplished preacher, teacher, debater and author in the church of Christ. He graduated from Abilene Christian College (B.S.) with majors in mathematics, Bible and art. ...

Share

Chris Dier May 24 at 12:08pm

Thank you. The recovery is going great. I will be back in school tomorrow. I will check out this video... thanks for providing me with something to do as I sit in bed haha

Chris Dier May 24 at 4:56pm

I started watching the video but straight from the premise I noticed that the debate was not relevant to me. I do not acknowledge the affirmative or positive atheism. I am a negative atheist. I do not claim to know that "I know" God does not exist... I just claim to believe that one does not exist. None of those arguments are against negative atheism if they debate Flew's premise.

May 25 at 2:39pm

I see, may I ask then what type of an argument might persuade you to change your mind?

You may not remember, but I remember sitting and eating pizza with you and your family, and the priest, who was a friend of your family (sorry, I can't remember his name), not long before hurricane Katrina. I guess it was about that time you were beginning to question your belief in God, I don't know, perhaps it started sooner than that, but I remember how frustrated I was with the position being taken by this Catholic priest that day, because his position was not one which defended the Bible... a book, by the way, which he supposedly believes in.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not attacking your family friend, you and your family mean a lot to Crystal and I, and we will always cherish the memories of you and Eric and the other boys growing up together and playing ball at the playground and in school.

I remember that I wanted to get the chance to talk with you about these things back then, unfortunately, though, hurricane Katrina came along and the last five years have come and gone like a whirlwind. Life is pretty fast, and I suppose you and Eric will really start to feel that now that school is coming to an end, and I'm thankful for that, because college has been expensive... ;-)

Anyway, my question for you is: what type of an argument, might there be which could possible persuade you to change your mind?

Respectfully,

.....

Chris Dier May 25 at 3:37pm

Why does my mind need changing? And to what? I presume you think it needs to be changed away from atheism? The only thing that would get my mind to believe in anything supernatural would be empirical evidence, nothing more or nothing less.

I do remember that convo vaguely... that was back in my agnostic theist days. However, much has changed since those days.

May 27 at 1:32pm

Why? That's a good question, Chris, and the answer is because I truly care. Let me quote a scripture that I know you have heard ad nauseam:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handy work.

Now before you get too excited I don’t want you to think, well here we go again, someone quotes a verse of scripture and suddenly they think I’m gonna change my mind... I assure you, that’s not my point. I mention this in-order to point out what is implicitly implied by this passage. either this statement is false, and there is, therefore, no design in nature, or, it is true, and the heavens really do declare the glory of God and show forth his handy work.

In your answer, Chris, you said that you wanted too see empirical evidence for the existence of God, however, just like the electrical current which is running through your room and feeding your computer, I can not offer you empirical evidence... And irregardless of what many Christian fundamentalist try to tell you, they can not give you empirical evidence either. Yes, I know what they claim about being able to work miracles, but that's a lie, they do not understand their bible, and yes, I can back that statement up! The miracles in the bible were never for the purpose of proving the existence of God, their purpose was always for the confirmation of his word. Once that was established, their purpose ended, again, this can be proven with scripture. So while I can not offer you empirical evidence, I can, however, offer you something which is just as strong, and just as convincing, and that is, implicit evidence.

You see, the fact is, you will never see the electricity that’s running to and feeding your computer, but you know it’s there, and of course, you and I never saw the wind that devastated our homes, but we both understand the effects Katrina had on our lives... in-fact, we still see those effects to this very hour!

So, the question here is: is there implicit evidence for the existence of God, and, Chris, I believe there truly is... so much so, that I find it very difficult to know where to start.

But first, I have two questions:

1) Where did the universe come from... where did all the matter in the universe come from?

2) Where did life come from?

Respectfully,

Chris Dier May 29 at 1:15pm

Before we continue, I’m under the impression that you have preconceived notions of being correct and are messaging me with the sole purpose to change my mind. It does not seem that you want to learn about atheism or about my beliefs, but simply to change them to better meet your standards. You asked, “what type of an argument might persuade you to change your mind?” but said nothing about being willing to change your own mind.

That Bible quote means as much to me as a Quran quote would to you. It’s almost pointless to quote the Bible to an atheist and expect him to take it serious. However, you gave two options-

“either this statement is false, and there is, therefore, no design in nature, or, it is true, and the heavens really do declare the glory of God and show forth his handy work.”

I see dozens of different interpretations. We do find design in nature, but it is a natural design. Even if we would find supernatural design or that the supernatural does somehow exist, that would still prove nothing about your god or “the heavens.” That Bible quote is false because its fundamental premise, the existence of the supernatural (particularly God), is not even defined or proven but automatically accepted as true. Any conclusions drawn from that flawed premise are irrelevant and illogical (it’s literally a logical fallacy)… which is a dilemma with the whole Bible, not just that passage.

(By the way, before I even consider anything one considers to be empirically proven, I need some logical consistencies with everything Christians associated with their supernatural claims that one is asserting to exist).

The rest of your message is also flawed because it is under the erroneous assertion that empirical proof involves sight only. However, empiricism involves all sensory perceptions, not just one. You may not see electrical currents, but you can certainly physically feel it… anyone who has ever been electrocuted can easily testify. You may not see wind, but just like electricity, you can physically feel it. Touch is one of our senses, which falls under the banner of empirical proof, contrary to what you may believe. You may very well say you feel that God exists, but I could just as easily say that I feel that God does not exist. In both cases, no evidence is provided because it is not a real physical feeling. Now, if you believe that a supernatural deity is poking and touching you in a physical sense then that’s just… odd…

Even though I think you are mistaken in terms of touch not being empirical proof, I do agree with one thing you said, “I can not offer you empirical evidence.” As a strict monist, that is my standard for believing that something exists. I do not accept implicit evidence because it is essentially made up. I’m not quite sure the appropriate thing to do is to tell me you have this “implicit evidence” and not share it until I answer your two irrelevant questions. But I understand why you asked them. You did so in order for me to respond and you sit around and try to poke holes with real –empirical- science using religious views, pseudoscience, and creationist misinformation in order to distract where the burden of proof really exists in the original discussion. I went to a Baptist school, the whole “well, where did we come from argument?” and the likes that are presented after the evidence cannot be properly provided are all too typical.

Best regards,

Chris Dier

Why do Texans still try to defend Bush?

2010-06-19T07:15:00.000-07:00

Bush was arguably one of the worse presidents in our history. There is almost no doubt about that. He was awful. However, a friend from Texas posted this status-

Fact: hay soaks up oil like a sponge.
Fact: Obama would rather play the blame game.
Congrats America, you've elected an idiot.

Now, if anyone is upset about Obama's reaction to the oil spill it would certainly be me. But, these particular statuses are somewhat cute. They are arch-capitalists believing the same old lies spilled by the elitist puppets (Rush, Bill O', Hannity, Beck, Savage, and the likes). They buy whatever is thrown to them hook, line, and sinker.

I commented on the status exposing the hay myth. But I noticed a few points stating that the oil spill was Obama's fault and Katrina was not Bush's fault because it was a "natural disaster." I cringe every time I hear that word. I hope Katrina does not go down in the history books as one big myth. I told the people that Katrina was not a natural disaster and Bush was actually at fault for a lot of the erroneous mishandlings of Katrina. And then some guy just wouldn’t have any of it. The following conversation ensued-

(Names are blocked out)

Now, I left out a lot, like Bush appointing people without proper credentials to FEMA, like Brown, and what not, but the premise still stands. Of course the blame falls on local officials as well, but to overtly lie to support a tyrant in times where information is easily accessible is just scary. These people are trained to not look up facts, but only repeat the lies that they have heard that have been discredited by those who originally spewed them, the Washington Post. I just can't, for the life of me, imagine defending Obama as a good guy who cares about the people and making right decisions, much less his more evil predecessor.

Update: The girl deleted her status. The self-censorship is revolting.

BP Public Relations Campaign of BS Continues

2010-06-16T20:11:00.000-07:00

This is just getting pathetic and comical… hence this article posted by the Onion about the amount of bullshit spewing from BP Headquarters-

As the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico entered its eighth week Wednesday, fears continued to grow that the massive flow of bullshit still gushing from the headquarters of oil giant BP could prove catastrophic if nothing is done to contain it.

The toxic bullshit, which began to spew from the mouths of BP executives shortly after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in April, has completely devastated the Gulf region, delaying cleanup efforts, affecting thousands of jobs, and endangering the lives of all nearby wildlife.

"Everything we can see at the moment suggests that the overall environmental impact of this will be very, very modest," said BP CEO Tony Hayward, letting loose a colossal stream of undiluted bullshit. "The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean, and the volume of oil we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total volume of water."

Go here (http://www.theonion.com/articles/massive-flow-of-bullshit-continues-to-gush-from-bp,17564/?ref=d) to read the full article. Although humorous, this parody news source is valid in their premise.

My frustration reached an all time high when my good friend notified me about a job he got with BP in cleaning up the oil spill. I thought that it was superb that he desires to clean the oil and help our beaches and wetlands. However, he told me that he has been working there a while, and has been on “stand by” the whole time. According to him, he sits under an air conditioned tent with a phone waiting to be contacted with numerous other employees. This made me sick. BP has the resources, yet they are failing to utilize them.

I thought perhaps this was an isolated incident. This weekend, I went to Movie Time in Chalmette to rent Avatar for my family. The lady behind me was reiterating the story that my friend told me. She is employed by BP, yet receives no calls. I told her about my friend. Another lady claims that they will hire locals, but they do not want them out there seeing the mess first hand. Not sure how authentic that theory is, but it is interesting.

Today, I went to Youtube, and this appeared on my homepage-

I almost yelled in agony. I wonder how much that huge ad cost BP. Perhaps chunk change for them, but I bet it could pay off my college loans one hundredfold or provide the funds needed to help clean up this mess and save our wetlands.

I was reading the New York Times a few days ago. It seems that BP is making an “escrow account” to repay claims. There should be no account; all profits should go to repay claims. However, making an escrow account might not be enough considering they are being wishy-washy about it.

Come to find out, BP’s call center is nothing but a fraud. But are we surprised by now? Check out this excerpt from thinkprogress.org-

To demonstrate that it’s responsibly taking care of the oil spill and listening to public complaints, BP has touted the fact that it has set up call centers to handle the response. However, one of the operators at the BP Call Center in West Houston has revealed that she and the other 100 employees are just PR props; BP isn’t actually doing anything with the thousands of calls it receives:

“We take all your information and then we have nothing to give them, nothing to give them,” said Janice.

Janice said calls about the oil disaster are non-stop and that operators are just warm bodies on the other end of the phone.

“We’re a diversion to stop them from really getting to the corporate office, to the big people,” said Janice. … Because the operators believe the calls never get past them, some don’t even bother taking notes.

To add insult to injury, BP does not want reporters asking BP workers questions on public beaches.

Interfering with their rest? BP has lost all its marbles. They literally think we are the most ignorant people that have ever permeated this planet. They are engaging in a massive onslaught to allow and perpetuate the destruction of our way of life and they do not mind. Their image and profits are more important. I cannot imagine being that brainwashed by corporate greed to commit such atrocities, and then worry about my image instead of trying to repair the damages. Although I may not have much, or have anything compared to those assholes at BP, I feel freer than they will ever be because an obsession with materialism, especially at the expense of millions of others less fortunate, is what really enslaves minds. BP profiteers might have yachts, huge houses, and all the wealth one could ask for, but they are not free.

Well, on a lighter note, at least we can just get a nice laugh out of some parody videos being produced. This one is great.

Southeast Louisiana Pride

2010-06-10T20:30:00.000-07:00

Two nights ago, I met with a St. Bernardian intellectual conservationist of Islenos descent at Flora’s coffee shop to rant and discuss local problems, and how we are doing our part to change and inform others. I witnessed some extravagant things as I walked the neighborhood before the meet-up. I witnessed a guy sell another guy a bag of cocaine. I saw numerous odd bikes, scooters, and environmentally friendly cars. I saw people smoking marijuana in the middle of the street without a care in the world. No one was clean shaven and everyone seemed unique in a different light. I greatly admired the old and beautiful French and Spanish architecture. This is a unique American area that resembled Europe more than America. The neighborhoods around here are the absolute embodiment of all things different.

I ordered some cheap and tasty Ethiopian coffee (that would put Starbuck’s to shame) and we sat outside next to some guys playing chess with excessively worn-out wooden pieces. As I drank that coffee, discussed the environment and politics, overheard the conversations of the avant-gardes and hippies, listened to the pleasant strum of the canorous guitars, and generally absorbed my satisfying surroundings, I began to realize just how great it is to be from this area. Southeast Louisiana is truly amazing in so many ways.

Tonight, I had that prideful feeling times ten. My father invited me to a local Chalmette bar a few minutes from my house for biker night to eat some free crawfish and hang out. Although the Louisiana bike scene is not my thing, I decided to take up his invitation. I showed up in my foreign car and was by far the youngest one and not wearing a leather jacket did not help. I stuck out like a Sumo wrestler in an Olympic swimming competition. As I walked past the lines of Harley Davidson’s I immediately garnered suspicious and not-so-welcoming stares from scruffy men who were concerned I might only be coming for the crawfish. After my dad approached me, I felt welcome. My dad reaffirmed the notion that the regulars were weary of my arrival.

I ordered a Samuel Adams and followed my dad to the crawfish. We filled our trays and headed outside to sit in the Louisiana sun. I looked around and noticed that these guys were actually very friendly, joyful, and just glad to be living. I ate the crawfish and sucked the heads at a pace that would get me laughed at by the local elders but praise from foreign Texans. I listened to the radio blare the iconic “Born on the Bayou” into our eardrums.

The people mostly spoke in that special "downaroad" dialect that developed from the blending of different cultures and from immurement to the mainstream world. I hope globalization will not eradicate it much more. I eavesdropped on conversations to hear stories of the olden days of St. Bernard, about areas that are wiped off the map for good, and about times that will never reoccur again.

It was at that time, when my taste buds were enjoying the crawfish and American ale, my eyes were fixed on the happy scruffy Chalmations enjoying the simplicities of life, my ears were listening to that song, and while taking pleasure in the heat of the sun, I realized how prideful I am to be from Southeast Louisiana. I realized that despite the hardships caused by governments and corporations that continue to exploit our fine resources for profit, this area is worth living in and dying for. Because we St. Bernardians were here before oil was discovered, we were here before the canals were dredged in our backyards, we were here before the world turned our back on us until they could no longer, and we should not leave because external and powerful forces are causing the oppression we face. To run in the midst of oppression is not standing up for principles humanity should hold dear, and it is something I will not do.

I ate that crawfish like it was my last time to eat crawfish… literally. And the reason being is that I do not know when I will be able to eat crawfish fresh from our waters again. We really have no idea what the spill will do to our wetlands and our seafood. So, I ate until my hands were pruned, until my lips were burned numb, and until my stomach could not digest anymore. I am already feeling the effects of my indulgences as I write.

I have heard people complain that St. Bernard Parish or Louisiana is boring and have heard them say negative things about it. But those people all have something in common. They all live the suburbia lifestyle of nice houses, overpriced clothes, huge SUVS, and the likes. They have been disconnected from what makes this place so great. They may enjoy the food and Mardi Gras, but they lost the vital connection that our ancestors maintained with the land. To those people obsessed with pop-culture, watching American idol is more important than going to the Islenos festival or learning about our history. Worrying about the new Iphone coming out or what Nike shoe is presently in style is more important than appreciating the fragile wetlands for what they are worth. To them, being different is not ideal, but being like those that enter their television screens is what reality should be about. That disconnect has created apathy and continues to put us in jeopardy as we continually fail to mobilize to hinder the oppression and exploitation that we experience on a daily basis. I will not be like them. I will do what I can to fight for my homeland.

Because no matter where I go, St. Bernard Parish will always be my home.

BP Public Relations Campaign

2010-06-09T09:29:00.000-07:00

I am not going to write a massive piece demonstrating how much BP has screwed us over in numberless ways. I feel like everyone, especially those in the New Orleans area, already maintain a grand idea on how the cutthroat corporation holds the smoking gun (that’s not to say that the blame falls on Obama, Halliburton, and others as well). However, BP’s PR is making me sick.

In order to have their image uncontaminated some, BP has launched a PR campaign. BP’s Public Relations testifies for their arrogance and real motives. BP is doing this in order to continue to receive massive profits while our coast suffers terrifically. This overtly demonstrates that BP is not interested in cleaning up their mess but only concerned about their profits. Instead of using their billions in profits, they are more interested in allocating people to admire them in the midst of this. This is the rock bottom of humanity.

If BP really desired some sort of legitimate admiration, cleaning up the oil spill would observably be the best way to get it. However, instead of launching a swift and quick response to garner support, the corporation feels the general public is so ignorant that they will fall for their propaganda. They underestimated us.

Let’s take a look at some of BP’s sad attempts to brainwash the masses. First, BP purchased a sponsored link on Google, the world’s largest search engine. If you merely type the word “oil” in Google, the first link to pop up, before the news and Wikipedia, is a BP link explaining how they are helping. Take a look-

Next, I hardly watch TV, but just watching twenty minutes or so a day, it is inevitable that this repulsive and pathetic commercial will emerge on your screen-

Tony Howard also said he wants his “life back.” Well, Mr. Howard, instead of talking about your million dollar CEO life, I believe you should discuss how the thousands fishermen and those who depend on our seafood industry want their lives back, how the pelicans and sea turtles desire their life back, how the wetlands, our cherished natural barriers, deserve it’s life back.

All this reminds me of when BP hired temporary workers to work where Obama spoke down in Louisiana. Just how temporary were those “temporary “workers? They left as soon as Obama and the media left.

And for the stake in the heart, BP removed their sign on a gas station in the New Orleans area. Maybe people would not remember what it was or maybe they would fool the tourists?

Its official, BP cares nothing to fix the spill and thinks that we are all ignoramuses down here.

“Louisiana isn’t the only place that has shrimp.” –BP rep Randy Prescott

I'm accused of conjuring up a mass demon!

2010-05-25T17:04:00.000-07:00

I have been told some silly things, but apparently this time I tried to conjure up some “mass demon.”

One of my friends at my Baptist school put up this FB status, “Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see. (Hebrews 11:1).” Meh, whatever… fundamentalists putting up Bible quotes as statuses are a dime a dozen. I hardly ever respond to them. However, one of her friends said something along the lines, “Great status. Even though I cannot see God, I have evidence all around me that He is real.” I thought this particular claim was interesting. I inquired, “Ashley, what do you constitute as evidence?” It was a serious question. If this person is claiming that they have some sort of evidence for a supernatural deity, particularly her version of God, she should share and want to share. But first, I wanted to know what exactly she constituted as evidence.

I was on FB chat at the time and got a message from the girl that posted the status saying that she deleted my comment because Ashley is emotional and that I am too good at debate and would make her look stupid. This frustrated me. I told her that she should not stop free speech because someone might be emotional or because she feels I am “too good of a debater.” I called her close minded for not letting me ask my simple and overtly uncontroversial question. All Ashley had to do was tell me what she constituted as evidence. If she said anything empirical, then I would’ve asked her to demonstrate the evidence. If she said anything otherwise, I would have asked her to explain why she considers that evidence.

I decided to FB message Ashley and the following lack of intelligent conversation ensued-

Chris Dier May 24 at 10:09pm
Since Vy keeps silencing me... I have to message you to ask my question.
What do you constitute as evidence?

Ashley May 24 at 10:32pm Report
testimony. all I need to say. you believe it or you don't. makes no difference to me and there is no way you can change my mind otherwise. I don't entertain foolish arguements and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have plenty of testimony and evidence to what I believe and it is not just a coincedence as what I presume you will try to argue. I believe the word and what it says is real. My prayers are with you.

Chris Dier May 24 at 10:33pm
I'm not quite sure what any of that has to do with my question. Again, what do you constitute as evidence?

Ashley May 24 at 10:43pm Report
I do not entertain people with their theories to prove the word wrong. You can go harass someone else. She is obviously silencing you for a reason, I can all ready tell that you have been troubled for quite a while and have no direction because you have nothing to believe in, Just by your questioning wanting to stir up some mess demon. So at that, i am not here for you to provoke, I stand firm in what I believe that God's work IS the evidence of what I believe in and things I hope for and have faith that GOD alone is the only way for me to explain why things happen and work out for me. But that is for me and I can't speak for you. Maybe its the chicken nugget happy meal for you. Who knows. Have a good night.

Chris Dier May 24 at 10:45pm
I'm not quite sure what any of that has to do with my question. Again, what do you constitute as evidence?

After that, she blocked me. I find this rather her garrulous ramblings simultaneously amusing and egregiously sad. This girl is extremely arrogant and for no reason. Also, her defensive nature was a little extreme as well. I was in no way attacking or mocking her but she found it appropriate to wallow in self-pity and victimization.

Recap on some funny claims combined with intellectual decoction on those same claims-

“testimony. all I need to say” …Really? Emotional stories are all she needed to say? Then why did she ramble on after?

“there is no way you can change my mind otherwise”… this is the ultimate closed-minded statement. And she immediately assumed I was out to change her mind.

“I don't entertain foolish arguements” … What argument did I present that she was not entertaining? And if I had this mentality I wouldn’t be entertaining this girl.

“I have plenty of testimony and evidence” … I ask her what she constitutes as evidence and she claims she has plenty of evidence. I was not even asking for the evidence, just what she considered evidence.

“it is not just a coincedence as what I presume you will try to argue” … making presumptions based off of absolutely nothing = look like an idiot.

“I believe the word and what it says is real” … No crap. Now, how is this relevant?

“My prayers are with you.” ...What does this even mean? Basically, “I won’t tell you what I constitute as evidence but just got mad, emotional, frustrated while telling you I have evidence and that I will pray to something about you that I have evidence in but won’t tell you the evidence.”

“I do not entertain people with their theories to prove the word wrong”… What theory did I present?

“You can go harass someone else” … asking someone a simple question = harassment! You know, I am too prideful to pull the victim card out whenever I get scared. However, it seems that pulling the victim card out is a definitive tool to avoid scrutiny among the fundamentalist. And no Christian has the right to complain about harassment in America when Christians are the most harassing people in the states. I have never walked down the street and been handed a work of Bertrand Russell by an atheist. But dozens of times I have been handed a Bible, a pamphlet, or a track by Christians. I have never heard an atheist yell on a street corner about the flames of hell or about how homosexuality is an abomination. An atheist has never knocked on my door, but I can recall at least 5 times where Christians have knocked on my door. I digress…

“She is obviously silencing you for a reason, I can all ready tell that you have been troubled for quite a while and have no direction because you have nothing to believe in” … Little does this girl know that the reason is because of her emotional state and my good debate skills! And it’s ironic that she believes I am troubled based off of a simple inquiry and that I am an atheist. Those old, outdated, and false atheistic canards and stereotypes are still perpetuating the minds of our youth in the 21st century.

“Just by your questioning wanting to stir up some mess demon” LOL.

“I stand firm in what I believe” Ignoring your question = standing firm!

“God's work IS the evidence” … Argh! What does she constitute as evidence!?

“hope for and have faith that GOD alone is the only way for me to explain why things happen and work out for me”… So she has evidence, hope, and faith? That’s like a triple whammy. This juxtaposition is one huge double standard. If someone has faith in something, which constitutes believe void of empirical evidence, how can they also have evidence in that same thing as well?

“Maybe its the chicken nugget happy meal for you.” … I’m a vegetarian!

Anyways, I absolutely objurgate this sort of immature behavior. People should not shy away from such questions. These types of fundamentalists are like turtles… very slow and constantly hiding in their shells when anything external is occurring that may be threatening, or just different, to their lives and beliefs. They live in a sort of bastion of irrationality and are trained to fight off any criticisms or conflicting ideas until they can absolutely no longer do so in order to not be completely vapid in a changing world. Her responses are the quintessential example for the lack of proper evolutionary trend that irrational ideas should adhere to; that is that irrationality should succumb when presented with rational alternatives. But no, they choose to put hide their heads in old shells and believe that their traditionalist ideals are still effulgent, or try to make those same ideas somehow juvenescent and appealing for the next generation.

Bottom line, she and the rest of theists have no evidence, and they know they have no evidence to back up their beliefs, but they are too prideful to admit such blasphemy. Her rambling may seem to her that she is making sense and is responding fittingly. However, the only thing it asserted was that she really could not answer the question but could only dance around the inevitable truth.

Dualism vs. Monism "debate" in my Psychology of Consciousness Class

2010-05-22T21:36:00.000-07:00

I am enrolled in a summer class titled “Psychology of Consciousness.” It’s more of a parapsychology class where we discuss many odd and made up notions such as the “matrix” and “the Kingdom Consciousness.” Words like God or “The Master” are heavily entwined with whatever we are learning. I know that I am at a Baptist university but the only other classes that have been this overtly religious are my actual religion classes. And I have to take this class in order to get a double minor.

Well, we recently had a debate over monism and dualism. The professor divided the class up between monists and dualists. Oddly enough, the monists were not that outnumbered. Our group consisted of the four atheists in the class (by far the most atheists I have ever had in a class), some Christian monists (oxymoron?), some confused Christians who didn’t know what the terms meant, and those we just did not care to know anything about it.

The debate that ensued went pretty well in terms of politeness and being courteous. However, we did not hear hardly any good points from the dualists. Everything they said could be summed up in one overarching argument: our world is so complex and unexplainable that there has to exist another being that created us. After that point they had no problem with substituted the unknown with their deity (i.e. God). Now, the obvious logical fallacies in that logic are evident in myriad forms. And me, and a fellow atheist, debated much of the claims made by the dualists.

Overall, the debate ended up nowhere as predicted. I figured the debate was over and done with but one frustrated anonymous person sent the professor her version of Christian monism and the professor forwarded it to the class-

Although, as you were probably aware, the discussion today between the "monists" and "dualists" irritated me, it eventually provoked much thought, and encouraged me to make the idea my own if you catch my drift. As such, I thought I would share it with you. Much of what we heard from the Monist group was from either the atheists or agnostics, so I developed a new (and not very profound) moniker for my opinion- "Christian Monist" meaning that I believe that all human consciousness is in fact found in the finite measurable material processes in the physical brain and body (monist), but I also believe that this in and of itself is proof of a higher power (God) that is otherwise outside our experience and comprehension. The extraordinary complexity of this construct that we call the brain is evidence to me that God created it, and he created it to function in absolutely incredible ways that are as of yet beyond our comprehension! He created the mystical and metaphysical as functions of the physical for reasons I cannot even understand!”

I actually had no clue anyone was irritated… but from the way this person sounded, I can guess who it wrote it. Does this person really believe she developed this philosophy? I asked that question the following day to the class but got no response. The next day, another student wrote something to the professor, which he forwarded to everyone again-

“I've been thinking some more since our class talk concerning monism vs. dualism and I think I may have come up with a working theory that takes aspects from both views. I figured while it was running through my head I might as well just email it to you, both for your benefit and to record and organize my thoughts. The theory goes like this:

Taking from the monistic point of view, I'm considering the fact that our minds and consciousness are indeed a simple product from the brain. After all, it was God who created us and everything (as I believe), so why discredit his creative prowess? Perhaps our thoughts and awareness right now really are a result of all the billions of neurons firing off in our brains. We can all agree that its ridiculously complex, and I still doubt that science will ever be able to completely decipher it. We're dealing with the creation called "life." But again, I see no reason why God couldn't create something so infinitely complicated.

Here's the twist. When our bodies die, our mind dies with it. However, we awaken to a "Greater Consciousness." This "Greater Consciousness" transcends our earthly bodies and minds that are polluted with sin and selfishness in the form of our "soul" that goes on to the afterlife. Just like we wake from dreams, which we often consider to be "real" at the time, we suddenly wake up and see the "bigger" picture - realizing the state we had been in was, in a sense, surreal. We are far more conscious and aware at this point.

Therefore, this theory still supports the dualistic view of their being two separate entities, but it no longer considers what we call our mind or consciousness now to be that other entity. Instead there is the "Greater Consciousness," which is essentially what this theory is based on. So it's basically like monism (brain and mind are one), with an extra attachment that makes it look like dualism again.

Now for some extra attachments and explanations for the theory.

Through what we call mystical or spiritual experiences, we can actually tap into this "Greater Consciousness." It is through this "Greater Consciousness" that we experience "God" (or some other spiritual entity). People who have clinically died only to come back to life have briefly inhabited this "Greater Consciousness" for a moment before returning to their earthly consciousness. This concept would explain why people have difficulty explaining these spiritual phenomena that they've experienced; they return to their "lesser," earthly minds that are not fully capable of putting to words what had just happened in their "Greater Consciousness." Do not some report that the experience was more "real" than now?

Other concepts that support this theory are:

- Aging. At a very young age, our minds are not capable of complex cognitive thinking. As we grow older, our brains develop and our consciousness matures. We often look back on decisions we made when were younger and naive saying, "What was I thinking back then?" This supports our minds being a part of our brains. If our consciousness was separate from our brains, why would they parallel each other's growing so closely?

- Mental Defects. This is something that's had my gears turning a lot over the past few days. Are mentally retarded individuals as "conscious" as we are? Surely they are, but in what way? Do they have the same consciousness, only with a defected brain that warps the intent of their consciousness into social awkwardness? That seems far fetched. Instead, I'd like to think their consciousness is truly affected by these physical mental "defects" but their "Greater Consciousness" is not. The same applies for people who suffer from brain damage such as Phineas Gage. Although our earthly hardware is physical and vulnerable, our "Greater Consciousness" and soul are impenetrable from other physical forces.

So there's my "Greater Consciousness" theory. At first I didn't necessarily believe this as much as I was just throwing it on the board for thought, but the more I've explained it the more it makes sense to me now. I obviously included some of my personal spiritual beliefs (concerning God and the afterlife) into the equation for my own sense-making, but I'm sure they could be substituted or left out for anyone who doesn't share the same faith.

After reading this, I decided to join the game… So I sent the professor this email-

Hello Dr. Benefield,
I am enjoying your class. The debate about monism vs. dualism was very insightful. It was surprising that we all managed to agree on a lot of points. I wrote a rebuttal to those that have written to you. You can do with them as you choose, but I'd like for those to see my rebuttal. If you send it to everyone, I don't mind, but I don't want those people believing that I am calling them out in front of the class or anything. I apologize for the length. Here they are:

To the Christian monist,

It seems I should shed some light on this discussion as well. I’m somewhat confused at what the anonymous Christian monist (whom I will call X for convenience) was suggesting. X begins by expressing her monist beliefs “that all human consciousness is in fact found in the finite measurable material processes in the physical brain and body.” I certainly agree with this claim. However, X finishes that sentence with “but I also believe that this in and of itself is proof of a higher power (God) that is otherwise outside our experience and comprehension.”

“all human consciousness is in fact found in the finite measurable material processes in the physical brain and body” = “is proof of a higher power (God) that is otherwise outside our experience and comprehension.”

Essentially, what this person is claiming is that human consciousness is physical material: ergo; God exists. There is no correlation here. It is just as plausible to insert “Unie” or “Guaidfa” in place of the word “God” and the logic would be the same. I could say, “Our heart is so complex, so that is evident that Unie exists.” This can also be done because the term “God” is not even defined, much less proved. This seems to be an appeal to a preconceived notion combined with novel thoughts on the inescapable reality of monism.

It seems that the Christian monist exists in a never-ending contradiction. For one, does this person disbelieve in the soul? Does this person believe that what X describes as God is just as physical as us? Does our consciousness end when our brain ends? If the Christian monist believes that we have supernatural souls, that God is an entity that is not part of our physical world, and if our consciousness does transcend death (how would one get to heaven if it could not?), then this person is, in fact, a strict dualist. If X wants to maintain the monistic thought that all those entities are part of the physical world, then X needs to define what she considers the physical world, because it would certainly differ from how science, psychology, and every other study defines the physical world.

X goes on to say that God is beyond our “experience and comprehension.” If this being is beyond our experience, how can we say that it is part of our monistic realm? If we cannot experience this deity by physically seeing, hearing, feeling, touching, or smelling… it must be a part of a differing world that transcends our senses. If one believes this, then that person is a dualist. If one believes the being can be experienced physically in an empirical sense, evidence should be brought forth.

//The extraordinary complexity of this construct that we call the brain is evidence to me that God created it//

In other words, the brain is complex; ergo, God created it. This logic runs into the same dilemma as the aforementioned one. Define God first. Demonstrate the correlation? Once X finds that, X needs to find the causation because correlation does not imply causation. And then the evidence follows. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If this is a monist claim, then correlations and evidence can be provided.

This line of thought also introduces a new dilemma, the argument from complexity. Just because something is complex in no way suggests that something even more complex created it. This logic is contradictory. If something complex needs a creator, then the creator has to obviously be more complex than the creation. Therefore, in order for that logic to flow correctly, the even more complex creator needs an even more complex creator. If a complex creator does not need an even more complex creator then the claim that something that is complex needs a creator is void and meaningless. Attributing something more complex to explain some already complex is called irreducible complexity.

If you want to say that these are faith based claims, then that is alright but that does not change the logic of the thoughts. If these are faith based claims about the supernatural, they are not monistic.

To Ryan,

I enjoyed reading Ryan’s intriguing thoughts. However, it seems Ryan’s claim for dualism has a faulty premise. He asserts that when our brain dies, we somehow awaken to some sort of a “Greater Consciousness.” How does this conscious transcend death and exist without the brain? We know, with empirical certainty, that the brain and conscious are interrelated. To claim that they are separate entities, which would very well be the case if one asserts that consciousness can exist without the brain, is a claim that needs to defined, logically consistent, and provided with evidence. The term “Greater Consciousness” is not defined, but only suggested that it is possible to tap into. Any other claim about this GC is incoherent to me because it is not defined, especially the notion that someone
experience this GC.

I am perhaps perplexed about this theory. Later, Ryan asserts “If our consciousness was separate from our brains, why would they parallel each other's growing so closely?” A question often asked by monists. In this regard, it seems Ryan either believes in two separate consciousnesses (a physical one and a GC) or that our consciousness has two different levels (1-physical and 2-GC). If he believes in the former, he must describe and provide evidence for that that second conscious. If the latter, the rule still applies for the second level, and how did GC merge from consciousness. And if it did, then that concludes that GC emerged from something that is necessary to exist with the brain yet the GC itself does not need a brain to exist. If evidence and logical consistency is not provided, then those claims hold as much water as do a Scientologist’s claims about thetans in our bodies. If one were to describe these consciousnesses, they would have to do so in a different manner than describing physical consciousness because giving physical attributes to the non-physical is a contradiction. If something non-physical has a physical attribute then it is actually physical, not non-physical. The GC must be non-physical because it exists without the brain, yet the only attributes we allegedly know about it, those conscious properties, are derived from the brain… as asserted by Ryan himself.

This makes no sense to me. I would like further elaboration.

email me at- chrisdier3@gmail.com for any questions, answers,
rebuttals, or whatever.

Thank you for your time,
Chris

Now, I am no philosopher by any means but this is what I believe and this is my take on the issue. Instead of forwarding my email, the professor printed off 30 copies and passed them around in class the next day, which I did not mind at all. Although it was weird to know everyone was reading my work right in front of me. He then expected a nice healthy debate. The “Christian Monist” stayed quiet and Ryan essentially admitted to making up the “Greater Consciousness.” He said he could not define it or prove it and it was a totally faith-based claim. I then asked this question, “Isn’t that the same as saying that magical blue elves control our consciousness when we die?” I got a couple of chuckles, but then I explained to him that just because a claim is based on faith does not mean it holds water. I could say that my elf claim is based on pure faith and no empirical evidence, but would we discuss it, much less study it, in class?

Just as the conversation was beginning to wind down, a non-traditional student then told a story about his near-death experience, which was filled with holes, contradictory statements, and logical fallacies. Now, we discussed NDEs in class and I raised the issue that astronauts have NDEs as well but apparently that means nothing and NDEs are still considered supernatural phenomena by the professor and the majority of class. One of the monists asked that person if he was taking any sort of drugs at the time and ironically he admitted to being on all sorts of drugs. You would think that his claim would automatically be invalid? Oh no, on the contrary, another student claimed that taking drugs for spiritual trips only heighted their reality. Another token atheist asked him if he would have seen different jargon if he were raised in a different culture. He objected. It was at that moment I pulled up dozens of NDEs from Hindus on my laptop to show him that people from other cultures experience NDEs as well and see totally different mess. Fortunately in an academic sense and unfortunately in a comical sense, the professor ended the debate.

There you have it… a little insight of what is going on inside of one of classes at my fundamentalist university. As much as I enjoy many perks about ETBU, it’s very frustrating attending there at times, especially when discussions such as these take place. For the most part, religious matters are not discussed much in my history and political science classes, which constitute much of my time. Well, I only have one summer class left and I am done. I am very ready to go to a secular graduate university.

In other relevant matter, believe that video is first-rate for shedding light on the many flaws associated with dualism-

The real cause of the oil spill and what the corporatists have to say

2010-05-07T11:35:00.000-07:00

The real cause of the oil spill was an explosion caused by oil industries attempting to regulate themselves in a sort of lassiez-faire capitalist manner. Here is an excerpt from the NY Times explaining it well-

Federal regulators warned offshore rig operators more than a decade ago that they needed to install backup systems to control the giant undersea valves known as blowout preventers, used to cut off the flow of oil from a well in an emergency.

The warnings were repeated in 2004 and 2009. Yet the Minerals Management Service, the Interior Department agency charged both with regulating the oil industry and with collecting royalties from it, never took steps to comprehensively address the issue, relying instead on industry assurances that they were on top of the problem, a review of documents shows.

In the intervening years, numerous blowout preventers and their control systems have failed, though none as catastrophically as those on the well the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig was preparing when it blew up on April 20 — an accident that has left tens of thousands of gallons of oil a day spewing into the Gulf of Mexico.

Agency records show that from 2001 to 2007, there were 1,443 serious drilling accidents in offshore operations, leading to 41 deaths, 302 injuries and 356 oil spills. Yet the federal agency continues to allow the oil industry largely to police itself, saying that the best technical experts work for industry, not for the government.

Critics say that, then and now, the minerals service has been crippled by this dependence on industry and by a climate of regulatory indulgence.

“Everything that’s done by the oil industry is done for profit,” said Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, who demanded this week that the Interior Department investigate these backup safety systems. “Throw in the fact that regulators have taken a lax attitude toward overseeing their operations, and you have a recipe for catastrophe.”

Surprise, surprise! Can you imagine an oil well not following governmental regulations to insure safety because it might hinder profits while the paid off regulators allow it to happen? This is sick, and demonstrates big oil's overt ownership of our government and generally the American people. Any politician with morals and a desire to help the people will never get funding from these goons.

You would think an explosion of this manner would automatically convince people that the time to switch to alternative and safer energy methods is now or that those corporate goons will finally change their mind. But of course, I am being idealistic in that manner. Let's look at what these pathetic oil industry ignoramuses had to say.

Palin, the whole “drill baby, drill!” drone tweeted, “Gulf: learn from Alaska's lesson w/foreign oil co's: don't naively trust- VERIFY. Livelihood affected by spill?Don't sign away remedy rights.” Ah, let's not blame offshore drilling but be xenophobic and blame "foreigners!" Right, because the Americans had nothing to do with building the American oil rig. Oh, and American oil rigs never have ANY problems. How can she be so stupid? However, she is half right, we shouldn't trust foreign or domestic oil companies. This statement is mild in comparison to others

Rick Perry, the corporatist governor of the state where I attend school, blamed it on a supernatural entity. According to Perry, “From time to time there are going to be things that occur that are acts of God that cannot be prevented.” This is a frustrating yet sad statement. How can someone honestly believe that a God is up there meddling in the affairs of offshore drilling?! I can see the fundamentalists try to connect the Biblical dots in Katrina, yet I'm at a total loss here. Yet, he is governor of the second most populated state in America! If we lived in a rational world, anyone who said something like that would be impeached, much less reelected. His continual fan base testifies the mass idiocy of Texas.

Rush Limbaugh claimed,

“Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they're sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they're sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I'm just noting the timing here.”

Oh my! Now I understand where this “take up for big oil, blame the environmentalist wackos” attitude is coming from. I'm not sure I understand the American disdain for environmentalists. It only seems rational that people who actually want to take care of the environment be respected. Again, we do not live in a rational society and we have irrational thoughts thrown at us from all different spheres.

Michael Brown claimed that “This is exactly what they want, because now he can pander to the environmentalists and say, 'I'm gonna shut it down because it's too dangerous. This president has never supported big oil, he's never supported offshore drilling, and now he has an excuse to shut it back down.” Obama is game for offshore drilling but yet he has never supported offshore drilling? Due to Katrina, Brown lost all creditability to discuss engineering disasters.

Joe Lieberman claimed that “accidents happen” and that this is “very rare in drilling.” What has he been paying attention to? Also, even if this happened once every twenty years it still should be stopped. Our wetlands could be ruined because of it. And of course the Louisiana Democratic senator is not going to step up to the plate and challenge the oil elites. I mean, that is the source of her paycheck.

Why is our country run by these people?

I agree with Glenn Beck

2010-05-05T11:59:00.000-07:00

I finally agree wholeheartedly with Glenn Beck For starters, as a strict antifa, I absolutely disdain Glenn Back. I think he is a complete rude theocratic fascist ignoramus who lacks subtlety and class. He is a perpetrator of the whole conservative vs. liberal partisan battle that is designed to distract America from the real oppressors. He is a corporatist and an obvious fake crier. He has become my enemy for myriad reasons.

First, he absolutely hates New Orleans and does not think it should be rebuilt one iota. Here is an excerpt from a piece I wrote on August 29, 2009 titled “An analysis of four years since America’s biggest engineering disaster”-

We also hear from college drop out alcoholic Glenn Beck, who averages 6.5 million listeners a week, who says the most evil of evils about New Orleans. Such statements like,

“I find it hard to feel sorry for New Orleans.” “We should just walk away from that city. Why are we there?” “I’m not sure if we should bother rebuilding it.” “Why are we spending all this money in New Orleans? We shouldn’t spend a single dime of tax-payer money.” “How much do I think should be spent on New Orleans? Zero. Nothing. Not a dime.” “The Big Easy is a lost cause.”

Ironically, spending trillions on rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan is a must but rebuilding an American city that contains the number one port in the U.S., among many other economically savvy features, is a burden. The hypocrisy is surreal.

Second, he claimed that the rise of atheism is the cause of a Chicago gang fight which ended in a murder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMwZ76QB7uk). As an atheist already living in an intolerant environment, this sort of rhetoric will only perpetuate this Middle Age mindset.

Third, he likes the astroturf Tea Party movement created by corporate America to convince the lower classes to fight for their undeserved privileges.

However, as much as I HATE Beck, I actually agree with him when he is talking to people more fascist orientated than him (surprisingly). Beck believes that Faisal Shahzad, the guy who is in custody for allegedly attending to bomb up the innocent in Times Square, deserves his Miranda rights. You would think this would be a non-issue, considering he IS an American citizen. (I heard Shahzad saw my blog about radical Islamism and got upset?) However, the guy on Fox believes he should be stripped of his citizenry so we don't have to give him his MR. And he uses pure fear tactics to do so. This attitude is barbaric, but sadly typical.

What would rights mean if they could just be removed from us when we are accused of a terrorist act? If we have so much evidence to insure that this guy is guilty, why be scared to give him a trial? Also, we could use the argument that a suspect could hold information anytime, would that justify it? What if I get arrested for smoking marijuana? Should the police trash my citizenship in order to get information about who sold it or who is growing it? Because technically that could now be considered “narco-terrorism.” Where do we draw the line?

Also, why are we so scared of terrorism? In 2005, over 42,000 people died in car wrecks in America. How many died of terrorism that year? In other words, we should feel way more afraid of getting in a vehicle than we should of these assholes.

Regardless, good job Beck on debating, although sympathetically, people more ignorant and fascist than yourself. I still hate you.

Damn Oil Spill!

2010-05-02T12:13:00.000-07:00

On March 31st, the Obama Administration released statements supporting offshore oil drilling. I was simply devastated at this sad choice of going backwards in time and energy progression. We simply can not live off of oil for too much longer for many reasons (environment, depletion, war, etc). The answer is simple, our government needs to stop catering to big oil and invest heavily to harvest the natural energy that is being provided on a daily basis. However, our government only thinks of the here and now and pleasing those already in power. Because as any realistic political scientist knows, the government's duty is to protect the interests of the privileged at the hands of who and whatever. And this is what has happened, AGAIN.

A debate ensued on Facebook after I posted that link. I made the following claim in the debate,

Justin took many words out of my mouth. I don’t think anyone can really call “green” people ridiculous for caring about the environment, which in turn cares about people in general as well. Despite the obvious and myriad negative effects on global climate change that offshore drilling exacerbates, it also is horrible for the wetland restoration… something so dear to the rebuilding and safety of my parish, and Southeast Louisiana in general. Also, this isn’t a fix, not even a temporary one, especially since we won’t see a drop of oil until at least 2018. I don’t even think this will release us from our dependence to OPEC. The answer is so simple and obvious; we need to invest like other countries do in alternative energy to increase our energy independence and combat global warming.

In regards to job creation, a few hundred jobs, even a few thousand, aren’t worth the mass risk that offshore drilling supposes. Offshore drilling off the coast of Louisiana is extremely risky considering hurricane threats. It would be different if it were a safe procedure, but in the past decade alone millions of gallons of oil have been split into our world waters.

Plus, job creation could certainly be achieved if the government would invest heavily in safe and environmentally friendly alternatives to providing energy (Obama’s alleged plan from the git-go). Obama is a typical corporatist favoring industries like Koch (who donated over 25 million to groups opposed to climate change) and other oil-based private firms.

Justin, //more cleanly powered vehicles, but it isn't cheap enough for mass deployment yet//

What about the EV1? Although oil industries and the US government subsequently destroyed it, wasn’t it a far safer and environmentally friendly car that was mass produced?

My fact was wrong. Koch actually donated over 73 million to groups opposed to climate change science. Regardless, my post one month ago was proven right last week. A BP oil rig in the Gulf is spewing over 200,000 gallons of oil a day and I bet that is a gross underestimate. And yesterday, that oil hit my parish. I am deeply saddened but for this blog, I will not focus on the enormous negative effects this will have on the environment, as most people already know. Instead, I will focus on some deeply disturbing responses I have heard in regards to the problems associated with the incident.

A few people I am really close with believe that this spill is the result of "environmental wackos" that are trying to prove a point to Obama. One of them is "sure" of it. I asked the logic on this. According to one theory, Greenpeace could have got in their little boats and sailed to the oil rig. There, they posed cleverly and nonchalantly as fishermen with explosives in their tackle boxes. Then they blew up the oil rig! I am not making this up, I promise.

I tried to combat these claims with logic. I said that it is extremely unlikely that environmentalists will destroy one of the most fragile ecosystems in the world to prove a point to Obama. If they were to do something counterproductive like blow up an oil rig, why not do it at a place that is no where near the decaying wetlands? Also, wouldn't it have been very obvious to the workers that a boat came up to the rig and blew up? They have survivors on the rig, yet not one of them mentioned a boat or thought it was suspicious? Also, did the research workers find any boat debris in the water? All of these points were dismissed and the theory was continually raised by the notion that the environmentalist wackos were really smart in their suicide attack on an oil rig. I am staunch believer that 9/11 was not an inside job, but that conspiracy theory holds more water than this one.

This attitude truly demonstrates the Big Brother style of thought that oil industry has over regular people. Instead of thinking that offshore drilling is an extremely dangerous job, like history redundantly proves, they speculate that environmentalists are all of a sudden behind it despite the lack of logic and the obvious counterproductively associated with that thought. Instead of pointing fingers at the true man-slaughters we are convinced that little leftists environmentalists are the perpetrators. Could it possibly be something wrong with the drilling procedures like it is looking out to have been the problem?(1) Despite the evidence we are still told by engineers and scientists that this is a safe and even necessary procedure. We still hear in political speeches "Drill Baby, Drill!" followed by a thunderous applause. When will America learn? Better yet, when will Southeast Louisiana learn? When will Southeast Louisiana unite and stand up against this oppression that we experience on a daily basis? Why do we continue to let corporations get away with drilling by our shores and hardly giving us any revenue or creating numerous canals right in our backyards? Why do we continue to let the local, state, and federal governments cater to these greedy multinational corporations who have literally no regard for human life? Well, we flooded and now OUR environment and wetlands are being destroyed overtly on an unprecedented scale thanks to the greedy corporations running amok while the governments let them.

And the Obama Administration still does not plan to stop offshore drilling. This is a prime example that no matter how much corporations run all over the "little guy," the government will still cater to them. Dozens of recent articles have a title similar to this "Obama puts offshore drilling on hold until cause of spill is found."(2) How sick. He is visiting New Orleans today so I hope he can see firsthand the dangers of offshore drilling. However, he already sold out his principles long ago to get where he is, so I can guarantee he will continue to abandon common decency to maintain his position of power and authority that the U.S. government resonates in favor of the corporate elite and military industrial complex.

One may call me a cynic, but I call me a realist.

As sad as this story is, Jay Leno managed to bring some humor to the situation that made me chuckle. According to Leno, "This talk now that this oil slick could be bigger than that huge disaster they had in Alaska. Really? Bigger than Sarah Palin? That is unbelievable."

1) http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/bp-chief-says-failed-equipment-caused-explosion-spill/story-e6frf7ko-1225861362825

2) http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/apr/30/obama-offshore-drilling-Gulf-oil-spill/

Screw Radical Islam

2010-04-26T15:43:00.000-07:00

I am fed up with radical Muslims. I cannot stand them, or anything about them. Their religion is flawed and their ideologies are backwards. They belong in the Dark Ages, not in the 21st century. I am tired of hearing about women being stoned to death or buried alive because they did scream loud enough when they were raped or because they thought another boy was “cute”. I am tired of hearing about preteen girls bleeding to death from their vagina because they were married to an old man against their will. I am tired of people being legally murdered for believing different. Overall, I am tired of anything that has to do with the barbaric and insidious Sharia Law.

If anyone tried to establish any sort of laws on those extremes, I would fight to my death to stop them. Anyone who desires to do anything of that nature is my enemy, plain and simple. Unfortunately, it is what these radical Muslim assholes desire. And in doing so, they have made themselves my enemies, and anyone else that desires the remaining freedoms Bush and Obama are taking away. They are on the offensive.

The Quran is barbaric, we know that. But so is the Bible. Fortunately, contemporary Christians do not seek to establish laws based on Leviticus or Deuteronomy. They have moved past those laws centuries ago. It is time for all Muslims to do the same. Christians get offended easily, but they RARELY resort to violence. And if they do, you can guarantee millions of Christians coming out in mass protest, as they have done time and time ago. Moderate Christians and some fundamentalists came out and condemned Pat Robertson for merely saying Haiti deserved the Earthquake. Moderate and almost all fundamentalist Christians continually protest and detest the actions of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, whose actions are mild in comparison to September 11th, or mild compared to one family living in Iran.

However, if you even draw the picture of Muhammad, you are likely to get killed by a Muslim extremist, as what happened to Theo Von Gogh in 2004. They are even getting upset about South Park now, who did not even depict Muhammad in a bear custom, but depicted a big black rectangle over him with the word “censored” over it. And in episode 201, they even bleeped out his name. Yet, not even that is enough! How much censorship do those asses want? And shame on Comedy Central for censoring that much and appeasing to the imbeciles. If it were up to me, I’d show Muhammad, and make him look just as stupid, if not more stupid, than they do Jesus.

South Park constantly makes fun of Christians. Yet, what Christian ever gave South Park a death threat or warned the creators they could end up dead? Instead, millions of Christians watch South Park, and laugh their asses off. Or, if they get offended, they change the channel. That’s because the TV comes with buttons that all who are trained to be sensitive should learn- the volume button and the channel button. If TV is just too overwhelming that everything is offensive (I don’t know? Because they show women’s ankles?), then there is another button that they should learn- the OFF button.

From personal experience, Christians do not care if you draw Jesus. In fact, I dressed like Jesus for Halloween to make fun of the American perception of a white, straight long-haired, blue-eyed, and hippy looking Jesus. I did not get one death threat. Sure, I offended a few, which I knew would happened, but I didn’t/don’t care. It was Christians who helped me pick and put on the costume, it was Christians who drove me to the party, it was Christians who I went with to get alcohol for the party, it was Christians who greeted me with open arms at the party, it was Christians who laughed their asses off when they saw me, etc. However, if I were to even draw Muhammad in a country with Sharia Law, much less dress like him, I would get the death sentence. They can have their violence and oppression; I’ll take my freedom any day. Here is me dressed like Jesus-

When South Park made fun of atheists, I loved it and laughed hard. The LAST thing that came to my mind was violence. In fact, it did not even come to my mind because I am not like a radical Jihadist. If they think that us infidels (atheists, Christians, Jews, etc.) will burn in Hell forever, then why torment us in the finite lives we have on Earth? Why not let Allah himself dish out those barbaric punishments?

Insane Muslims, if you want to play the “offended” and “we are the victims” game, then I will play along as well. Here you go radical Muslims, here is your prophet. Go ahead; send me your death threats. Go ahead, come kill me. Go ahead, cry like the insecure babies you really are. All the crime you commit just exacerbates everything you oppose. You all think you are the only ones that enjoy being martyrs for some cause; however, I would LOVE to be a martyr for free speech, which is more precious than your warped worldviews combined. Theo von Gogh is my hero.

This is not intolerance, this is art and free speech, and I absolutely love it.

Nothing sums up my views about these asshats than Thunderf00t’s (one of my favorite Youtubers) vlog.

My favorite quote in that video-

“You cannot shoot words. You cannot behead an idea. And you cannot intimidate concepts. And if you try, the fulfillment of your worse threats, will serve as nothing but an icon written in the blood of the free, that you have no place in the first world.”

(Youtube keeps censoring this video, so if this one cannot play, please let me know. If it can, and you have the ability to mirror it, then do so.)

Earth Day is Pointless

2010-04-23T00:12:00.001-07:00

Why do people feel it is alright to dedicate one day to the Earth? The Earth is our collective home. We should treat the Earth well everyday. It’s impractical and overtly hypocritical to take care of the Earth for one day, and then butcher it 364 other days. Unless you live on another planet, everyday is Earth Day.

The Earth is so beautiful, delicate, and simply astonishing. Let’s not give it one day, let’s give it our lives. We owe to Earth, and we owe it to generations to come.

I am colorblind and yet our home is still so stunning to me. I wonder what it is like being able to see and comprehend all the colors that a normal person sees. If the Earth is that beautiful to me with my inability to distinguish common colors, how is it not ten times more beautiful to the person with the ability to see and distinguish all colors?

"Home" is by far my favorite documentary. I recommend this to everyone. I think if you watch it with an open mind, it will make even the most cynical and apathetic person think twice. -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

How the Khmer Rouge Benefited from American Anti-Communist Polices in Southeast Asia

2010-04-20T14:45:00.000-07:00

The following is a paper I am writing for my Genocide and Holocaust class. I thought it could be interesting to some people and three of my classmates asked to see it so I decided to just make it public. I decided to pick a particular genocide and see how our country handled it. After I read a chapter on Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge from Samantha Power’s “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide,” I became extremely frustrated and interested at the role America played in Southeast Asia during the rise and fall of the Khmer Rouge. Power’s book is not only important, but necessary for anyone studying American foreign relations or post World War II genocides, especially both.

All of the information is heavily sourced so let me know if you want me to cite anything. Also, if you see any errors or think I left anything major out feel free to hit me up. Since I did not put as near as much effort in this paper as I would’ve liked, I’m open to all sorts of corrections and suggestions. But hurry up, it’s due tomorrow evening.

Enjoy.

How the Khmer Rouge Benefited from American Anti-Communist Polices in Southeast Asia

By Chris Dier

The Khmer are a major ethnic group in Southeast Asia, particularly in Cambodia. “Rouge” translates to red in French, a significant language in Cambodia because the country was a part of French Indochina for almost a hundred years. The “Khmer Rouge” is the name of the followers of the Communist Party of Kampuchea, the totalitarian party that ruled Cambodia in the late 1970’s. The Khmer Rouge turned out to be one of the most genocidal and enigmatic regimes in history. In order to understand the Khmer Rouge’s deadly rise to power, one must understand American anti-communist policies in Cambodia, and how the Khmer Rouge used them to their advantage to garner power.

Cambodia is a country with a history of colonization. In 1953, under the reign of the charismatic Prince Norodom Sihanouk, Cambodia gained independence from France. As the French left Vietnam as well in the 1950’s, the country became a fighting ground between northern Communists and the Saigon government. This conflict was significant because it introduced the United States into the Indochina region. In order to prevent the Communist takeover of Vietnam, America implemented harsh tactics in Southeast Asia that would forever change the face of the area.

It was during this conflict, and the Cold War, that Sihanouk took a position of neutrality. A neutral position proved detrimental to American initiatives in Southeast Asia considering Cambodia’s close border to Vietnam and America’s desire for allies nearby Vietnam. In 1955, the United States sent Secretary of State John Dulles and his brother CIA director Allen Dulles to Cambodia to persuade Sihanouk to join the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). Sihanouk chose to remain neutral and denied the invitation on the grounds that SEATO was “an aggressive military alliance directed against neighbors whose ideology I did not share but with whom Cambodia had no quarrel.”

In 1956, the neutral Sihanouk began to criticize SEATO, causing the United States to convince Thailand and South Vietnam, both allied with the U.S., to close their borders with Cambodia. The embargo severely hurt Cambodia’s economy, made it intricate for its citizens to live normal lives, and caused many Cambodians to lose most pro-American sentiment the country may have contained. This also caused Sihanouk to eradicate his position of neutrality and turn to the Communist bloc for aid. He praised China for delivering aid with no strings attached. These actions infuriated the United States, who claimed that Cambodia stood in the way of their plans in Indochina. By 1957, a National Security Council (NSC) paper recognized that “the United States has been unable to influence Cambodia in the direction of a stable government and non-involvement in the communist bloc.” A year later, Saigon and American forces entered Cambodia and set up new boundary marks, which further instilled anti-Western sentiment in Cambodia.

Relationships between U.S. and Cambodia continued to worsen and intensified in 1964 as America bombed Cambodia in pursuit of the Vietcong. Sihanouk then announced “in case of any new violation of Cambodian territory by US ground, air, or naval forces, Cambodia will immediately sever diplomatic relations with the United States.” The Cambodian government soon followed on their word as the American bombing continued. In 1969, President Nixon became president and expanded the Vietnam War to Cambodia. The Nixon Administration believed that the Communists from both countries were tied together. The same year he became president he ordered American B-52’s to begin bombing Cambodia. The procedure was named “Operation Breakfast” and kept top secret from the public in order to avoid more protests. Operation Breakfast, only the beginning of the bombing campaigns, was followed by Operation Lunch, Snack, Dinner, Dessert and Supper. These carpet bombing operations collectively became known as “Menu,” and resulted in 3,875 sorties.

The bombings left the Cambodian countryside in ruins and rendered Sihanouk hopeless. In 1970, the Nixon Administration and the CIA seized the perfect opportunity to oust Sihanouk and instate an extremely pro-American politician, Lon Nol, as president of Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge, an up-and-coming political machine, quickly joined the fight against the new government. The American bombings continued and were left uncriticized by the new Cambodian government. The raids resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, with 50,000 being the most conservative estimate and 150,000 being the most severe estimate. The Cambodian economy took a heavy toll as well. By 1973, inflation reached 275 percent and much of the country’s infrastructure lay in ruins.

The actions by the inner circles of the American government enraged the average Cambodian and anti-American attitudes became the norm. Economic desperation and mass anti-Americanism after the bombings provided the Khmer Rouge with the ideal opportunity to deliver persuasive rhetoric to recruit followers. They promised economic prosperity and the defeat of the Americans and the puppet government. After every U.S. bombing the Khmer Rouge ranks increased dramatically. Chhit Do, a former Khmer Rouge leader, described the Khmer Rouge’s recruitment approach following a U.S. bombing:

Every time after there had been bombing, they would take the people to see the craters, to see how big and deep the craters were, to see how the earth had been gouged out and scorched… Terrified and half-crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told… That was what made it so easy for the Khmer Rouge to win the people over… It was because of their dissatisfaction with the bombing that they kept on cooperating with the Khmer Rouge, joining up with the Khmer Rouge, sending their children off to go with them.

In 1973, the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam. However, the bombings of Cambodia increased. With knowledge of the Khmer Rouge’s rapid rise to power, the Nixon administration continued to bomb Cambodia in an effort to halt their advance. As demonstrated previously, these measures were counterproductive and only led to a fragile populace turning to the Khmer Rouge as a means of support. A few months later, under heavy pressure from Congress, the Nixon Administration ended the bombing. The bombings left more than two million Cambodians homeless and desperate for solutions. The war and bombing against Cambodia proved fatal and disappointed much of the American public. In 1973, Emory Swank, the American Ambassador to Cambodia, called it “Indochina’s most useless war.” The Khmer Rouge, now convincing the Cambodian people that they have defeated the Americans, claimed to have the solutions Cambodia needed.

Once the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge’s merciless leader, marched into Phnom Penh in April of 1975 and had full control of Cambodia, they unleashed a series of mass killings against anyone who opposed or disagreed with their agenda. The immediate harsh tactics by the Khmer Rouge proved more deadly than both the tactics implemented by the American and Saigon forces for years. The political genocide did not go unnoticed by American politicians. Henry Kissinger confirmed at Congress that the Khmer Rouge would “try to eliminate all potential opponents.” President Gerald Ford claimed to have evidence from Cambodian radio transmissions that innocent Cambodians were being killed. The American government, with assuring certainty and empirical evidence, knew that the Khmer Rouge was murdering its citizens at a rapid and unprecedented rate that paralleled Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. However, due to the faulty American policy in Southeast Asia, the American public had learned to ignore what was thought to be mere anti-Communist misinformation spewed by the government.

The American government condemned the Khmer Rouge for years after it got into power. The American public still remained uninterested and dissuaded. With essentially no foreign nation intervening in the affairs of Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot began his dream of communizing Cambodia. He started by forcing people to evacuate Phnom Penh, with a population of over two million, and other major Cambodian cities to begin his radical shift to an agrarian Communist utopia. He murdered anyone whom he believed to be westernized. Under that banner, his regime killed anyone with a foreign education, besides his group that studied in Paris, and anyone that not believe in his particular version of Communism. He also believed religion was a force that distracted people from the Communist agenda and killed Buddhist monks or people expressing religious sentiment. His agrarian style of Communism failed the Cambodia people miserably and resulted in numerous famines and mass starvations.

Overall, the Khmer Rouge murdered around 1.4 million to 2.2 million people either through mass killings to systematic starvation. The United States Department of State funded Yale Cambodian Genocide Project puts the figure closely to around 1.7 million, which was 21% of the entire population. While the numbers vary by the hundreds of thousands, all reliable sources claim that no less than one million were murdered as a result of the Khmer Rouge’s callous genocidal methods. It was the most brutal genocide since Hitler during World War II.

The American public remained largely unconcerned about Cambodia once American forces returned home. The American media did not focus on the matter due to the disinterest of the average America combined with the harsh notion that Cambodia closed its country to outside foreigners. Only three stories a year centered on the human rights situation in Cambodia. The television media seemed indifferent as well. Throughout the Khmer Rouge’s ruthless control of Cambodia, all the major networks combined devoted less than sixty minutes to Cambodia. With no pictures, videos, interviews, etc. the American media could not grab the public’s attention.

Some Americans, primarily leftists, were jubilant or sympathetic to see a Communist takeover of Cambodia after America left Southeast Asia. Many of these people believed that the Khmer Rouge rule could not possibly be worse than the Lon Nol or the Americans. Noam Chomsky, a popular American leftist and professor, dismissed most accounts about Cambodian human rights abuses. Chomsky claimed reporters were at fault for their third and fourth hand sourcing.

On average, in regards to public and media response, American citizens did not trust the U.S. government and the evidence it provided, particularly about Cambodia. The distrust can be sourced to the notion that the American government lied about Vietnam and did not handle it the way the American public desired. The U.S.’s lack of credibility benefited the Khmer Rouge greatly in continuing to achieve their objectives without hardly any international scrutiny.

In 1978, the Khmer Rouge disintegrated relations with their neighboring Vietnamese state due to border friction. Pot declared pre-emptive war on Vietnam under the guise of national security. This war destroyed any Western conception that the Vietnamese Communists and the Cambodian Communists were similar. The Khmer Rouge had another enemy within its own borders, the Kampuchean United Front for National Salvation, an organization that contained many dissatisfied Cambodians along with disgruntled former Khmer Rouge soldiers and sympathizers. The Vietnamese won the short war and marched into Phnom Penh early 1979 and largely dismantled the Khmer Rouge, which still operated by the Thai border.

Vietnam was one of America’s prime enemies. In an ironic twist, the American government supported the Khmer Rouge during Cambodian-Vietnamese War and continued to support the Khmer Rouge after its subsequent defeat. The U.S., with clear knowledge that Cambodia had committed genocide, defended the Khmer Rouge’s right to maintain a United Nations seat, and supported their military efforts against the main Cambodian government and its Vietnamese collaborators. In 1980, Ray Cline, former Deputy Director of the CIA, visited a Khmer Rouge enclave in Cambodia as a senior foreign policy adviser to President-elect Ronald Reagan. The propagandist Khmer Rouge press spoke highly of his visit. The Reagan Administration, because of their disdain for the Vietnamese government, would support the Khmer Rouge until their total disbandment in the 1980’s.

The American government’s anti-Communist actions in Southeast Asia helped the Khmer Rouge garner power and maintain power in numerous ways. Throughout the early 1970’s, the Khmer Rouge gained support by using America as an enemy and scapegoat because of their bombing of Cambodia to find Communist insurgents. Once the Khmer Rouge obtained power, the American government was largely disinterested in the region because of the failed and unforgiving policies of the American government. The American government’s anti-Communist policies and disdain for the Vietnamese government even helped the Khmer Rouge after their defeat. In conclusion, American anti-Communist policies in the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s played right into Khmer Rouge’s favor and helped them achieve power, maintain power, and hold on to power after their defeat.

Bill O'Reilly's most ironic statement in recorded history

2010-04-17T17:16:00.000-07:00

I watched The O’Reilly Factor to see Bill squirm out of his lies that have recently been exposed about him claiming that no one on Fox News said you would get jail time if you did not buy health insurance while dozens of Fox News employees overtly said just that and I found something intriguing. Now, the point is not whether he flat out lied because any one with an IQ above 50 could vouch that he did, but to point out a huge ironic statement he made in the process of covering his lie. Bill stated,
"The importance of this is that you, the everyday American, are now being lied to on a regular basis by people working for huge corporations and nothing is being done about it"

Biblical Interpretation?

2010-04-13T21:31:00.000-07:00

My friend’s FB status read “For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.” This means that redistribution is the same as murder.

I thought this was odd, so I decided to strongly challenge this claim. I have known this guy for over 7 years and have been friends with him through high school. The following conversation ensued.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chris Dier
First, there isn't even a connection made to murder and redistribution.

Second, this is a classic example of supporting one part of the Bible but ignoring other parts due to contemporary convenient political views.

"Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Matthew 19:21

And again, "When Jesus heard this, he said to him, You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Luke 18:22

Why haven't you sold everything and gave to the poor? The Bible says so, right there. It's clear as day. In fact, how can one even try to interpret that a different way?

Those quotes are a whole lot less vague than the one you used to justify greed.

A sad reality is that the Bible has a lot of egalitarian points... and that drives the modern nationalistic conservative Christian nuts.
Yesterday at 11:49pm •

Guy's mother-
Is this guy calling you greedy? You who has volunteered your time since the age of 14 to help the community? You who now still volunteers at least 15 hours a week to help St. Bernard Parish!? You who insisted on coming back to a devastated parish because the parish needed help? You who gave up a very high-paying job to help the residents of St. Bernard Parish!!!!??? Wouldn't that be the equivalent of selling everything to give to the poor? I don't see how you can help anybody by giving away everything you own, and I certainly do know that this guy misinterpretecd the scripture. Of course, what Jesus meant was that if material possessions have a hold on you, like they did concerning the man in this scripture, then give that up to follow Jesus. But, of course, we know you don't have that problem considering what you have already given up to follow Jesus. I think going to Haiti five times in the past on missions trips like you did is what Jesus was talking about. I think going on missions trips to Mexico five times like you did is what Jesus was talking about. I think going to Capetown and Johannesburg, South Africa on missions trips like you did is what Jesus was talking about. I think going to Xai-Xai, Mozambique on a missions trip like you did is what Jesus was talking about. I think joining the military to serve your country, even joining during war time, is what Jesus was talking about. I think calling up the military to tell them that you want to be the first on the list to go into Haiti, like you did right after the earthquake, is what Jesus was talking about. Of course, selling everything you own and giving it to the poor would leave you looking for a place to live and looking for clothes, etc. But being a responsible person, WORKING to support yourself (there's that word again), and then volunteering and reaching out to those in need is really what Jesus was talking about. I remember when you were 14 years old. You WORKED (there's that word again) to buy a drum set. After having it only about a year, you went all the way to Haiti to donate it to the orphanage in Grand Goave. I was very proud of you, Son. No, you're not greedy. I didn't raise a greedy son. But I do remember the words of John Smith, one of the pioneers of this nation, who said, "If you don't work, you don't eat." We need to get back to that which made this nation great. You don't have contemporary, convenient political views. You have virtues, ethics, and convictions. That's the reality, and it's not sad, and you're not nuts!
7 hours ago

Chris Dier
//Is this guy calling you greedy?//

I said, “the one you used to justify greed.” Reading comprehension ftw.

//Wouldn't that be the equivalent of selling everything to give to the poor?//

No, that’s just doing some very nice things.

//I don't see how you can help anybody by giving away everything you own, and I certainly do know that this guy misinterpretecd the scripture.//

Take it up with Jesus and the Bible, not me. I agree that selling everything would only be temporarily beneficial to the poor. But the Bible tells us other things. And how am I misinterpreting the scripture? It says what is says, clear as day.

//Of course, what Jesus meant was that if material possessions have a hold on you, like they did concerning the man in this scripture, then give that up to follow Jesus.//

Does it say only give up material possessions that only “have a hold on you?” No, it says “sell everything you have.”

//But, of course, we know you don't have that problem//

Anyone who does not do what Jesus is directly telling them to do has a problem with Jesus’ commands.

//considering what you have already given up to follow Jesus.//

If it’s not everything, then it’s not doing what Jesus says. All you’re telling me is he traveled a lot on “mission” trips (which is very ethnocentric) and didn’t sell everything he had.

//I think joining the military to serve your country, even joining during war time, is what Jesus was talking about.//

Really? The “turn the other cheek” pacifist hippy guy who spoke against non-violence was talking about people joining the military to fight unjust and imperialistic wars on a nation that did not attack us or even possess the weapons capable of attacking us? I must’ve missed something in my readings of the Gospel.

//Of course, selling everything you own and giving it to the poor would leave you looking for a place to live and looking for clothes, etc. But being a responsible person, WORKING to support yourself (there's that word again), and then volunteering and reaching out to those in need is really what Jesus was talking about.//

Let’s see, I provide quotes from the Bible that directly say what Jesus was talking about, and you just say what you think he “really” is talking about. All this sounds good, but Jesus said “sell everything.” I’m proud of ****'s credentials too. And I never called him greedy. However, it’s extremely ironic that people quote the Bible to advocate against the “redistribution of wealth” but ignore the parts of the Bible that heavily support it.

John Smith was a colonialist Indian-hater who waged war against Native Americans and stole their land in search of gold and profit. I wouldn’t be so proud of quoting him. In fact, I’d be embarrassed. Are you going to quote the genocidal Christopher Columbus next? Also, your notion that everyone should work and what not is totally irrelevant considering no one is arguing against that. It’s like me saying, “No, the sky is blue, not red!” when no one claimed it was red in the first place. And what exactly made this nation great, or better than it was before?

And I didn’t call him nuts. I said, “A sad reality is that the Bible has a lot of egalitarian points... and that drives the modern nationalistic conservative Christian nuts.” More reading comprehension ftw.
6 hours ago •

Guy
Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but i am also entitled to mine. I simply made a statement which I believe with all me heart. I didn't direct it toward you or ask how you felt about it. Anyone is welcome to state their opinions and argue their point, but i don't appreciate you trying to discredit my knowledge of the bible, insulting me by placing me in categories that i do not belong, falsly judging my motive for joining the military, being so incredibly disrespectful to my mom, and mocking my God.

Jesus was not a "pacifist hippie guy." He did say turn the other cheek but he also turned over the tables of the money changers in front of the temple. Jesus told one particular person to sell everything and give to the poor, but he also said the poor will be with you always. He didn't contradict himself, but he spoke truths to people according to the seasons they were going through. I dont condone living one scripture while ignoring the next, nor do i practice it, but the scripture isn't left up to interpretation, but instead revelation.

You speak of what you do not know. Im not going to defend my statement to you, because the truth needs no defense, and because I know there is no chance of you changing your veiw because of this arguement alone. I know that you will want the last word and im going to give it to you, but know that the only sad part of reality is how far from the truth we have strayed.
51 minutes ago

Chris Dier
You didn’t respond to a lot of what I said. Anyways, I’m aware we’re entitled to our opinion. //i don't appreciate you trying to discredit my knowledge of the bible, insulting me by placing me in categories that i do not belong, falsly judging my motive for joining the military, being so incredibly disrespectful to my mom, and mocking my God.//

Can you provide any examples of me doing this? Because I don’t appreciate you making baseless accusations about me. Just because I’m putting your religious views under the necessary scope of scrutiny does not give you the right to pull the victim card.

Just because Jesus made a mess at the temple does not negate his pacifist beliefs. You say “He did say turn the other cheek” as if it is almost a moot point that can be completely negated because he flipped over some tables. So, anyone that flips over a piece of furniture is no longer a pacifist and thus supports imperialistic wars that result in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? Crap, I flipped over my chair a few days ago. Therefore, I support war and am no longer a pacifist.

// Jesus told one particular person to sell everything and give to the poor// is not negated by saying //but he also said the poor will be with you always//. And the whole Jesus told “one” person is silly considering in your Bible quote Jesus is not even quoted but instead a “master” telling ONE servant something is quoted (in a parable). By the way, that master was mad at his servant for the way the servant handled the money the master entrusted to him while away. The servant hid the money (like I would’ve done) in a safe spot and returned it to the master when the master returned. This act was so insidious that the master, the one you quote, put the servant in jail “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” I guess that’s justified for not investing borrowed money?

//I dont condone living one scripture while ignoring the next, nor do i practice it, but the scripture isn't left up to interpretation, but instead revelation//

From what you have provided on FB you do ignore certain parts of the Bible. You claim that the Bible somehow equates the redistribution of wealth to murder all while ignoring (or maybe forgetting) the numerous times the Bible advocates the redistribution of wealth. The Bible even argues against rich people getting into heaven- “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” Matthew 19:24. In order to not become rich you must redistribute wealth in some sense.

I know for a fact that you don’t live up to the Old Testament in a literal sense. And the NT claims, “And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out. It's better to enter the Kingdom of God with only one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell” (Mark 9:47). I’m sure your eyes have caused you to sin since no one is perfect yet I can put my life on the line that you have both eyes. Also, a “revelation” is just a sexed up term for interpretation. The Bible is so vague that it is left up to interpretation, which is why Christians from all over the world disagree with each other on just about anything and the majority of them use the Bible as a means of supporting their views.

“You speak of what you do not know.” This is more arrogant than anything I have said to you. Not only is this not true, but it is also a sad appeal to the ad hominem fallacy, which is a desperate resort.

//You speak of what you do not know. Im not going to defend my statement to you, because the truth needs no defense, and because I know there is no chance of you changing your veiw because of this arguement alone.//

This is also incredibly pompous and arrogant. Why am I not worthy enough to hear your defense? Because you think you won’t change my mind? And the whole “truth needs no defense” is a prime example of the Petitio Principii, or circular reasoning, logical fallacy. This sort of logic is faulty because simply believing that your conclusion is true in the premises does not constitute as evidence for the conclusion. Ergo, making that thought process a logical fallacy.

//I know that you will want the last word and im going to give it to you//

I can care less about the last word. I want to challenge your faith, and evidently you’re not up for the challenge.

// but know that the only sad part of reality is how far from the truth we have strayed.//

I don’t include myself in that *we*

Guy's Mother

Well, Chris, we are up to the challenge. We could argue circles around you. Any Christian would know how far off you are from the truth. But all of that is irrelevant. The Bible says that the scriptures are spiritually discerned. You have to be born again to understand what the Bible says. That's why nothing you say makes any sense. Jesus loves you. He died on the cross for you, for your sins. We are all born in sin. And we all need a Saviour. And His name is Jesus. Accept Him into your heart. Repent of your sins. And He will bring you into all Truth.
11 minutes ago

Chris Dier
//we are up to the challenge.//

Then why didn't you respond to anything I have said? I responded to what you have said, why don't I deserve the same respect? Also, reiterating sheep-like religious jargon instead of engaging in rational discussion does not demonstrate that you are up to any challenge besides the challenge of being able to repeat what you heard.

//We could argue circles around you.//

Again, evidently not. You did not combat any points I made. How can you argue circles around someone if you just ignore them? Also, the only thing circular you all came close to is circular reasoning... which ironically is demonstrated in the rest of your post.

Check this out-

Any Muslim would know how far off you are from the truth. But all of that is irrelevant. The Koran says that the scriptures are spiritually discerned. You have to make a Hijj to understand what the Koran says. That's why nothing you say makes any sense. Muhammad loves you. He conquered many lands for you, for your sins. We are all born in sin. And we all need a Saviour. And His name is Muhammad. Accept Him into your heart. Repent of your sins. And He will bring you into all Truth.

If this quote is irrelevant to you then imagine how I feel about your quote to me. All you have do to do is switch up names and the logic is the same (circular reasoning). Like I told **, "This sort of logic is faulty because simply believing that your conclusion is true in the premises does not constitute as evidence for the conclusion. Ergo, making that thought process a logical fallacy." Everything you said is assumed true, but not argued for it. And in America "savior" is spelled without the u.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The guy deleted me right away. Why do people feel that these conversations, even if they get “heated,” automatically mean people should not be friends? It should also be noted that his father is a pastor at one of the biggest churches in my parish (in case people dismiss this as a few silly Christians who don't know their faith). These people have influences over hundreds.

Anyways, of course I was taking quotes completely out of context but he certainly was not. Also, I should have probably quoted the numerous times Jesus tells people to sell their possessions to get into heaven. However, I don’t think it would’ve made one difference. I am truly bemused as to how Christians utilize the Bible like a Cici’s buffet line, picking out stuff and completely disregarding the others. And if I call them out on it, most of them get highly upset and frustrated. It just goes to show that the Bible can be interpreted so many dissimilar ways, first and foremost to suit the desires of the individual, or even society, interpreting it. This is why we have Christians on different sides of so many issues yet all using the Bible to validate their view (death penalty, abortion, divorce, evolution, gay rights, war, etc). People taking what they desire out of the Bible and leaving the “challenging” commandments remind me of this humorous and well made video-

As silly as this video seems- apparently 21st century Christians can interpret the Bible more accurately than those in the past, and even Jesus himself. This is just the attitude my friend (ex-friend now?) exhibited in the discussion. He, along with millions of Christians, narcissistically believes they can create a worldview based primarily on convenient modern-day interpretation of an old vague book. He believed that my Bible quotes were not literal and for a really silly reason (Jesus was only talking to one person?) yet lives by others verbatim.

I really desire consistency with people who believe in that book and want to live by it accordingly. But that desire will never be achieved, as the book itself is awfully inconsistent.

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” Isaac Asimov

Conversation with Orwellian Professor

2010-04-07T19:43:00.001-07:00

I had a conversation with a professor at my university a few days. At first, I laughed and brushed it off but the more I pondered it, the more disturbing it became. This is as close as I can remember the conversation going-

(If I stop in midsentence it is because he interrupted me)

Professor- “We need to talk about your ‘boy.’”

Me- “Who is my ‘boy?’”

Prof- “Mr. Obama.”

Me- “I don’t like him, so he’s not my ‘boy.’”

Prof- “What do you think about the health care reform bill?”

Me- “Well, it has some positives and negatives. What part are you talking about? I wrote about it on my Facebook if you’d like-”

Prof- “Positives? If it’s so positive then why do all the doctors hate it?”

Me- “Not all doctors hate it. Actually-”

Prof- “Let’s take a drive right now and go to the Marshall hospital and ask the doctors what they think about it then.”

Me- “That’s a very small percentile of all the doctors in the U.S. In fact, the American Medical Association, which represents 240,000 people, came out in support of the bill.”

Prof- “I don’t believe that at all.”

Me- “Ok, let’s go look it up. It’s a fact.”

Prof- “You listen to facts too much Chris. Don’t listen to facts.”

He was being serious, very serious. At that point, I left to go to class laughing rather hard, which got him irritated. I could not believe I was told that. Although this professor was not a political science professor or anything of that nature, it’s so odd that someone with a PhD would attempt to discredit the reality of facts. As funny as this conversation ended, it actually scares me now. What is more Orwellian than a society seemingly convincing a college professor that facts are irrelevant or somehow bad? The professor told me before that he gets his political information from Fox News. How could that corporate media be so manipulative in an age where information is so readily available?
In reality, this conversation is very upsetting. I wish I could say that this is an isolated incident but it is not, even at the university level. Of course this is atypical of professors, or at least I hope, but the fact that someone with such an advanced education can say things like that is beyond shocking, it’s overtly asinine.

This isn’t the first time this semester I heard outrageous statements from professors. Another professor told me global warming is a fraud made up by scientists. I asked where she heard this from, and I got this answer, “I heard a scientist himself say it on Hannity’s America.” As I tried to discuss with her on the science of it, she continually repeated that same assertion and said the science was “equally divided” on the issue.

Oddly enough, these professors were from the exact same department.
On the bright side, this conversation got my hopes in obtaining a PhD after I get my master’s degree. I mean, come on, it can’t be THAT hard?

"All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome." -George Orwell

THE DRUG TRADE AROUND THE MEXICO AND UNITED STATES BORDER

2010-04-04T21:53:00.000-07:00

These are some rough draft excerpts from my Social Problems (2010) and Comparative Economics of Political Systems (2009) papers that I did about the Mexican/US drug war and the "War on Drugs." All of this information is sourced heavily... let me know if you want the sources for a certain fact or story.

The United States is plagued with social problems. A social problem is defined as an issue that affects all members, or most members, of a society. One prominent cause for social problems is the illicit drug trade between Mexico and the U.S. This issue is a significant issue because the problems are drastic and detrimental to Mexican and American government stability and citizen.

In the past few years, the drug trade between the United States and Mexico has increased as a drastic social problem and affected millions in both countries, mostly around the borders. The drug trade endangers the life of innocent civilians who are being terrorized, harassed, recruited and even murdered by vicious drug cartels. This trade also provides millions, perhaps billions, of dollars in profits to the most brutal of drug lords who have an atrocious philosophy of profit over people. The drugs being smuggled into the United States from Mexico are unregulated, dangerous, and harmful to those who purchase and utilize them. Citizens of the United States are also playing a dangerous role in the trade by their high demand for illegal substances and their willingness to smuggle weapons to Mexico. United States citizens are smuggling assault rifles to Mexico to allow the Mexican cartels to combat the Mexican government and keep the flow of drugs going. The ruthless drug trade must be put to a stop with revolutionary thinking, privatization, cooperation and determination from both the United States and Mexico.

The drug trade between the United States and Mexico began when enforcement efforts within South Florida and the Caribbean intensified during the 1980s and early 1990s. This caused the Colombian drug cartels to develop innovative methods to smuggle drugs, mainly cocaine, into the United States. Due to the lack of limitability on cocaine, the United States demand for it grew immensely, consequently creating higher profits to those willing to break the law and meet the demand. In an effort to meet the demand of cocaine in the U.S., the Columbian cartels formed alliances with Mexican drug unions to smuggle cocaine across the U.S. border. Mexican cartels already had experience because they were currently smuggling marijuana and heroin successfully into the U.S.

The Mexican government has taken drastic measures to combat the illegal drug industry. The Mexican Drug War officially began on December 1, 2006 when Mexican President Felipe Calderon assumed office and proclaimed war on drug traffickers and cartels with Operation Baja California. The President deployed over 6,000 officers and soldiers, 21 airplanes, 9 helicopters, 28 ships, vehicles and drug-sniffing dogs. In April 2007 Mexican authorities apprehended drug lord Victor Magno Escobar, the first huge victory for the Mexican government. In May Jorge Altriste, head of operations for Mexico’s elite police force in Tijuana, was murdered by drug cartels. Two days later a battle in Cananea, Sorona, killed 15 gang members, five police, and two innocent civilians. On December 29, the entire police force of Playas de Rosarito, Baja California, was disarmed from their weapons after the government thought they were cooperating with the drug cartels. In 2007, an overall 2,477 people were murdered because of the Mexican War on Drugs.

2008 proved to be twice as deadly. In January Mexican forces detained the drug lord Alfredo Beltran Leyva, leader of the Sinaloa cartel. In May, the tides turned drastically with retaliations from the drug cartels. Edgar Eusebio Millan Gomez, Mexico’s National Police Chief, was shot nine times in Mexico City. A day later, on May 9th, Esteban Robles Espinosa, the commander of Mexico’s investigate police force, was also shot and murdered in Mexico City. On May 17, members of the Sinaloa Cartel attacked the town of Villa Ahumada, and killed the police chief, two officers, and three innocent civilians while kidnapping ten other people. On May 28th, seven federal agents were murdered in Culiacan. On June 26, Mexican police commander Igor Labastida was shot dead in Mexico City.

The second half of 2008 proved disastrous as well. In August, Mexican police found three headless bodies killed by drug cartels in Tijuana. On September 15th, grenades from drug cartels killed eight civilians and injured more than 100 in Michoacán. In October 22nd, police captured the Mexican cartel boss Jesus Zambada of the Sinaloa cartel. On October 26th, the Mexican army captured drug lord Eduardo Arellano Felix in Tijuana. On December 8th, ten drug traffickers and one police officer are murdered in a shootout in Ciudad Juarez. On December 21st, eight soldiers and a police commander were kidnapped and decapitated in Guerrero. Overall, 5,630 deaths were caused in Mexico due to the Mexican War on Drugs.

The year 2009 proved just as fatal as statistics continue to role in. So far an estimated almost 2,000 people have been brutally murdered as a result of the Mexican War on Drugs in 2009. As of 2010, the violence is still raging. Although the Mexican Government has taken drastic measures to suppress the rise and progression of drug cartels, the drug cartels have taken equally drastic, if not more drastic, measures to remain successful and profitable. Unfortunately, the procedures that have been taken to achieve victory from both ends are resulting in widespread kidnapping, torture, and inhumane death.

The United States is also greatly being affected, not the extent that Mexico is, by the drug trade. The U.S. government has come up with its own ways to fight the drug trade. On September 17, 2008, the U.S. launched Operation Solare, in which over 200 people across Mexico, Guatemala, Italy, and the U.S. are arrested for being members or working with Mexican drug cartels. On February 15th, 2009, the U.S. Coast Guard confiscated over seven tons of cocaine in the Pacific Ocean. Also in February the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, launched the successful Operation Xcellerator, which resulted in the arrests of over 700 Americans working with drug cartels in California, Minnesota, and Maryland. Besides the drug arrests, 60 million dollars was confiscated, 12,000 kilograms of cocaine, 16,000 lbs of marijuana, 1,200 lbs of methamphetamine, 8 kilograms of heroin, 1.3 million ecstasy pills, 149 aircrafts, 3 ships, and 169 weapons were obtained. On March 12th, the U.S. considered using the National Guard to patrol the border in case of any violence that might spew into American territories while also releasing information that Mexican drug cartels are operating in over 200 American cities and towns.

The attempts made by both countries to disrupt drug trade has confirmed to be unsuccessful and only made a small dent in stopping drug cartels. Attempting to secure the borders has only made the cartels develop more innovative ways to cross them. Increasing the military in areas where the cartels operate have only brought death and chaos to the area and effected many innocent civilians. The Mexican and American “War on Drugs” are hurting the economies by clogging up prisons, hurting tourism, and forcing citizens to live in fear. Governments of both countries should look to a new revolutionary way to resolve the disaster. I believe that in order to stop the illegal drug trafficking, establish some law and order within the drug business and solve the crisis, both governments should legalize and regulate drugs.

Drug legalization, rather than drug prohibition, would help reduce the drug violence around the border and minimize this social problem. Many drugs, legal or illegal, can be extremely dangerous to one’s body. People can also do harm to themselves and families by abusing drugs. However, more harm is done to individuals, families, and society when drugs are made illegal due to the black market. When governments criminalize high-demand products, they only put the product underground and establish black markets. This limited availability for the product has created major profits for the providers that avoid the state set consequences. The black market is what makes the trade successful, allows drug cartels to continue their business without regard for the law, and drives disputes into the streets rather than in the legal system.

The contemporary black market has led to the creation of highly organized de facto governments, with set territories and hired soldiers, and de facto corporations, with sophisticated bureaucratic management and hired employees, centered on drug trade. However, these de facto regimes become violent due to their inability to settle disputes in the legal manner. According to Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard,

“Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead. Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it’s permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question... This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico’s recent history illustrates this dramatically.”

Legalizing drugs would abolish the black market where violence is thriving. During the prohibition of the 20s, alcohol was made illegal in the United States and crime rose dramatically. When alcohol was illegal, 1920-1933, homicide rates were the highest. When alcohol was legalized in 1933, homicide rates dropped quickly. The homicide rate did not rise like it did during the prohibition era until 1969 when President Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs, primarily to distract attention from the Vietnam War, and created harsher policies for drug traffickers and drug users. Since 1969, crime rates reached, or almost reached, 10 homicides per 100,000, a high number not seen since the prohibition era. Ending prohibition would not be something new, drugs were legal in the United States before 1914 and the U.S. had fewer addicts per capita than the rest of the world and maintained low crime rates. Legalizing drugs will put the drug trade in a safer environment where companies could settle their disputes in civilized court systems instead of ruthless violence. Legalization would also abolish profits that can be made from it. For instance, the selling price of 100 dollars worth of cocaine in the black market is really only worth one dollar.

Ending the Drug War will not only abolish the black market and make the drug trade safer, but it would provide more individual autonomy to anyone who desires to do what one wants with their body. The government, Mexican and American, should not interfere with anyone when it comes to a person making their choice about what one puts in their body, especially if it involves consent. If the government has the ability to tell us what substance we should put in our body then can anyone even consider themselves truly free in the sense of making our decisions and living our own lives in the best way fit?

Not only would legalizing drugs abolish the black market and provide more individual autonomy, but it will also stimulate the economy. Legalization would open up a new market that can create prosperous jobs and businesses. With strict government regulation, those similar to food, alcohol, tobacco, health care, and automobiles, thousands of jobs can be created in businesses that would sell drugs safer than the black market would. This would provide more taxes to the government because businesses, unlike the drug cartels in the black market, are coerced to pay taxes. The Mexican and American governments would save money by not spending tens of billions of dollars of tax payer’s money to fight a War on Drugs. The governments would also save money by not paying for the hundreds of thousands of drug users annually arrested to stay in prison for victimless actions that involve consent.

Legalizing illicit drugs are not only good for the aforementioned points, but also beneficial from a scientific stance. Many scientists are advocating for the legalization of drugs, or at least advocating governments to classify and criminalize drugs according to their classification. The Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal, classified all drugs, legal and illegal, solely by the harm they cause. The study, “Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse,” found that cocaine, barbiturates, and methadone were the top three most harmful drugs. However, alcohol ranked fifth, far higher than dozens of illegal drugs. Tobacco also ranked in the top ten, surpassing ecstasy, LSD, and marijuana. From a scientific standpoint, drugs should be criminalized based on their harm. If alcohol is ranked fifth and legal, then according to the renowned study, dozens of less harmful drugs should also be legal.

Legalizing drugs would not solve all the problems. However, it would solve more problems than the ones being created that are associated with hazardous unregulated black markets. The drug trade would be brought into the private sector where governments can regulate and monitor. It would inevitably keep innocent Mexican civilians in a safer environment. Legalizing drugs is the most plausible answer to solving the social problems around the drug trade that the American and Mexican border are facing.

A lesson from the Iroquois and colonialist questions

2010-02-21T10:13:00.001-08:00

In typical American history classes we often overlook the cultures of Native Americans. It seems our perception of them is mostly presented to us by mainstream media outlets (movies, pictures, etc.). Unfortunately, my university does not offer a class on Native Americans. In order to try to understand some Native American cultures, I had to do my own research. I feel this is my duty, especially since a small percentage of roots can be traced back to Choctaw.

Now, in order to be fair, I must say that the purpose of this piece is not to glorify the Native Americans or make them seem morally superior to whites. There is no doubt that atrocities were committed on both sides. Rather, it is to discuss the culture of the Iroquois, which comprised the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca nations, and perhaps see what we can learn from them before the American government methodically committed genocide against the Natives and ruined their culture forever. I also want to ask some inquiries in regards to the method our ancestors used in achieving our contemporary style of life.

I stumbled briefly over the Iroquois in some high school history classes and one American history class in college, which consisted of perhaps a sentence or two mentioning them each time, primarily to show their involvement with whites. I again came across the Iroquois once more in reading Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States,” which is becoming one of my favorite history books. In that book, Zinn quoted a French Jesuit, who studied the Iroquois in the 1650s: “No poorhouses are needed among them, because they are neither mendicants nor paupers... Their kindness, humanity and courtesy not only makes them liberal with what they have, but causes them to possess hardly anything except in common.”

Furthermore, he discusses how they lived in some detail. According to Zinn, “Women were important and respected in Iroquois society. Families were matrilineal. That is, the family line went down through the female members, whose husbands joined the family, while sons who married then joined their wives' families…” Women also went to the clan meetings and had say in military matters (they provided the food and some war materials). According to Gary B. Nash, “Thus power was shared between the sexes and the European idea of male dominancy and female subordination in all things was conspicuously absent in Iroquois society.”

Children were also raised differently than in the European society. They were taught cultural heritage and solidarity. According to Zinn, they “were also taught to be independent, not to submit to overbearing authority. They were taught equality in status and the sharing of possessions.” In Europe, the concept of questioning was blasphemous. Adults did not beat their children and children were taught self-care and independence.

Nash claims,

“No laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, or courts or jails-the apparatus of authority in European societies-were to be found in the northeast woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet boundaries of acceptable behavior were firmly set. Though priding themselves on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right and wrong... He who stole another's food or acted invalourously in war was "shamed" by his people and ostracized from their company until he had atoned for his actions and demonstrated to their satisfaction that he had morally purified himself.”

Let's contrast this lifestyle to the whites. How were the whites really living in 17th century America? We know the blacks lived in horrific conditions then, but what about the whites? It's no surprise that white women were oppressed greatly and did not have hardly any rights. And contrary to popular belief, whites in general were simply miserable and starved frequently. According to Governor Berkeley, governor of Virginia, “How miserable that man is that Governes a People where six parts of seaven at least are Poore Endebted Discontented and Armed.” In 1676, six out of seven Virginians were poor. Some even deserted the colonies to live with the Indians, a treacherous act worthy of death. One immigrant wrote back to England, “Whoever is well off in Europe better remain there. Here is misery and distress, same as everywhere, and for certain persons and conditions incomparably more than in Europe.”

This is not atypical. When an empire flourished in the colonial era, the overwhelming citizenry did not reap the benefits. Imperialism harms many, but benefits a few. The average Spaniard did not profit from the horrific massacres committed by Columbus, Cortes, and Pizarro against the Indians of Latin America. In the book "Columbus: His Enterprise", Hans Koning stated,

“For all the gold and silver stolen and shipped to Spain did not make the Spanish people richer. It gave their kings an edge in the balance of power for a time, a chance to hire more mercenary soldiers for their wars. They ended up losing those wars anyway, and all that was left was a deadly inflation, a starving population, the rich richer, the poor poorer, and a ruined peasant class.”

An elitist society developed quickly in America of property owners who monopolized industries and profiteered greatly. In many cases, the elite society owned the more profitable land on the eastern seaboard and sent poor whites, if they ever could acquire land rights, westward to act as a buffer between the Native Americans. Poor whites and slaves relentlessly joined together to organize rebellions to tackle the tyrannical establishment. All of the revolutions were mercilessly put down and the elite continued to create strong divides between poor whites and blacks while garnering more power. By 1770, 1 percent of property owners owned 44 percent of the wealth. Surely a different picture than the one presented to us by our Orwellian history. This has not changed much actually. As of 2007, 1 percent of Americans owned 42 percent of the wealth and 80 percent of Americans owned a mere 7 percent of the wealth (1). This gap is actually widening.

The Iroquois amaze me. They lived in an egalitarian society and shared land and possessions commonly, with greed being rare. Property rights were nonexistent. The Earth belonged to everyone. They cared for each other and women had equal rights, at least far more rights than in European societies. They maintained civil and social order while allocating resources appropriately without the bureaucracy and coercion of a government or corporation. Yet, Europeans constantly referred to them as “savages” and “barbarians.” They were “heathens” with the devil inside of them. They had to be converted to Christianity and conform to the English way of life. Who were the real savages?

Unfortunately, the vestiges of colonization still remain in America. The average lifespan on an Indian reservation is circa 45. Native Americans, Hispanics and blacks still make way less and do not live as long as whites. These vestiges also exist throughout the world. Billions of people cannot get the resources necessary to survive. They live in poverty and millions starve or die from easily treated diseases.

Was all this worthwhile to create a rich oppressive elite and a comfortable middle class? I do not think so. I believe our elements of comfort could have been achieved by other means. How can we even make a judgment if we are not exposed to the mass amount of losses due to the efforts of colonization as we are exposed to the benefits? We, as middle class America and the privileged minority of the West, might find this acceptable and perhaps a necessary way to achieve wealth. But what about the unprivileged majority?

Zinn proposes some vital questions in this excerpt of the abovementioned book, and I will leave you with them:

“But is it acceptable to the poor of Asia, Africa, Latin America, or to the prisoners in Soviet labor camps, or the blacks in urban ghettos, or the Indians on reservations-to the victims of that progress which benefits a privileged minority in the world? Was it acceptable (or just inescapable?) to the miners and railroaders of America, the factory hands, the men and women who died by the hundreds of thousands from accidents or sickness, where they worked or where they lived-casualties of progress? And even the privileged minority-must it not reconsider, with that practicality which even privilege cannot abolish, the value of its privileges, when they become threatened by the anger of the sacrificed, whether in organized rebellion, unorganized riot, or simply those brutal individual acts of desperation labeled crimes by law and the state?

If there are necessary sacrifices to be made for human progress, is it not essential to hold to the principle that those to be sacrificed must make the decision themselves? We can all decide to give up something of ours, but do we have the right to throw into the pyre the children of others, or even our own children, for a progress which is not nearly as clear or present as sickness or health, life or death?”

Can one imagine what life would have been like if the Iroquois would have been allowed to flourish without European interference? There is no doubt many material progresses would have been slower, but the cost would probably have been more appropriate. Should we take some lessons from the way the Iroquois lived or dismiss that lifestyle as savagery or simply too “utopian?” I’m with the former rather than the latter.

1) http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2307/Top_1_Percent_Control_42_Percent_of_Financial_Wealth_in_the_U.S._-_How_Average_Americans_are_Lured_into_Debt_Servitude_by_Promises_of_Mega_Wealth..html

The distortion of beauty for profit

2010-02-20T18:26:00.000-08:00

I cannot help but grind my teeth when beauty advertisements plague the TV, internet, and interstate highways. It seems no matter where we turn an avalanche of propaganda is being thrown at us from all angles, telling us what is beautiful and what is not. The primary focus: women.

Although men are targets of beauty, the amount seems to pale in comparison to women. I will focus on women in my spill. They are more emotional and more concerned with aesthetics and finding a right mate, which makes them easy targets. I do not know of many women who go without makeup, without shaving their legs, without doing their hair, etc. And the ones that do not partake in these tedious activities are shunned by society. If women want a job, they better put on makeup.

From birth, it seems we are borrowing the concept of beauty from our corporate culture instead of reaching into our humanistic conscience and creating the concept ourselves. I continually ask girls why they wear makeup. I usually get the same robotic-like responses, “because it makes me look better” or “I am ugly without it.” I get irritated at these responses. I do not get annoyed at the girl because it is not particularly the girl’s fault. I get annoyed at the beauty industry.

It seems that the beauty industry has created, and continues to create, what constitutes as beauty in our society. Our society buys into this propaganda. And the result: women waking up everyday spending hours fixing hair and putting on makeup; women getting boob jobs and facelifts; men believing that women in those advertisements are the proper beauty (only to create more pressure on females); and a 35 billion dollar industry made possible from the insecurity of women.

The advertisement game is clever and common. They provide a picture of you followed by what you could/should be. How does one get to that ideal place? Well, buying a product is the only way. And our gullible society buys into it. They tell women they are not good enough, and need physical improvement to have a better life. We literally see women constantly getting treated differently or discriminated against, whether it be not getting hired or just merely not getting the respect they deserve, for not measuring up to the ideal self perpetuated on TV.

Cosmetics have become all too common in our society. And we allowed it. We allowed the beauty industry to give us the idea of physical perfection, instead of creating it ourselves. We hardly see a natural girl anymore. They have different color hair, polish over the nails (if the nails are even real), shaved legs and arms, a face covered in makeup, artificial tans, lips covered in lipstick, etc. How have we let something so natural and beautiful become so tainted and phony?

I have long since quit supporting the beauty industry for these reasons. They have successfully denigrated women by telling them they are unattractive and systematically created a society to go along with it. Women already make less than men on average and have a harder time finding work and making ends meat due to sexism. Why should I partake in a culture that only makes it harder for them? Any industry that makes a profit on telling people they are not good enough will not be an industry I will support. They do not tell me what measures as beauty. I have defined it for myself and my definition is far greater than the ones they provided me.

I also quit supporting the cosmetic industry for the unethical practices they engage in. (What do we expect? Any industry making billions off of the insecurity of women probably do not work at high levels of morality). Contemporary makeup is filled with harmful chemicals and toxins ranging from formaldehyde to mercury (1). The cosmetic industry allows using animals to test products. Millions of animals are harmed and killed a year because of this. This is also ineffective, test results can not be extrapolated from a rabbit to a human because all animals react differently. Due to the ineffectiveness and the sensitivity of this issue, some companies leave this practice out. Unfortunately, many do not (2). Also, whether we care about animals or not, many cosmetic ingredients come from animals (3). Why would anyone want to wear the hormones or fat of animals on their face?

What is the point of it all anyway? Just so a girl can get looked at by a guy? (If a guy gives attention based on the substance on your face, would that guy be worth while anyway?) So women can climb the corporate ladder to get a higher salary? So women can feel worthwhile or better about themselves? So women can get a better chance of getting laid? I believe all of the aforementioned points compose some of the vast reasons why women wear makeup, and I believe it truly is a shame.

Is all this really worth it? I do not think it is. In fact, I think it is counterproductive to achieving a more beneficial and tolerant society. I hope as humanity progresses they start to look at inward beauty. Unfortunately, the beauty industry will do everything to obliterate that mature concept. Millions suffer because of the cosmetic perception of beauty, and a few make billions in profit.

1) http://www.townsendletter.com/FebMar2006/envirohealth0206.htm

2) http://www.idausa.org/facts/costesting.html

3) http://www.vegfamily.com/lists/animal-ingredients.htm

Welcome

2010-02-20T16:59:00.001-08:00

I have been told that I needed to blog all my thoughts, ideas, solutions, and rants in one place where the world can view them. I am taking that advice. Enjoy.