Politics
New Posts On Dave and Alex's Happy Fun-Time Blog
11/13/08 08:50 PM Filed in: Indiscriminate
Since I have yet to
take the time to route the Dave and Alex’s Happy
Fun-Time Blog RSS feed into this blog, I’ll just have
to include links to my most recent posts on the blog.
Here you go.
Things I’ve Seen, Pt. 3
Things I’ve Seen, Pt. 4
Things I’ve Heard, Pt. 2
Read up. I strongly suggest Things I’ve Heard, Pt. 2, which relates to recent ridiculous comments on the election. Gotta love ‘em!
Things I’ve Seen, Pt. 3
Things I’ve Seen, Pt. 4
Things I’ve Heard, Pt. 2
Read up. I strongly suggest Things I’ve Heard, Pt. 2, which relates to recent ridiculous comments on the election. Gotta love ‘em!
|
The 2008 Election Is Over ... Finally
11/05/08 07:55 AM Filed in: Indiscriminate
It looks like
we will finally have a new President come
January, and quite a bit of change to come with
that!
I'm baffled by how many people seem to have fallen victim to the silly catch phrase "Yes We Can!" or Obama's claim to "bring change to our nation." Listen, any President will bring change. Claim something significant. And "Yes We Can!" just sounds like a slogan off of Bob the Builder.
But enough bashing of our new President-to-be. That's actually not what I wanted to talk about anyway, I just had to get it out.
Hopefully for the last several months you've been praying that God's will would be done, not that John McCain would be our next President. (I'm looking at you, Conservative Republican-Voting Christians!) That's probably not the right way to go aabout it, and anyway, I believe that God's will has been done.
One thing I'm pretty excited about now that the election is finally past is that your cheesy Facebook statuses will go away. Seriously ... Let me just give you a few examples to prove my point without using any names. (The names that are used below are only because I know the people wouldn't care and because they were one of the few being positive about the election.)
Jane Doe is scared for his country.
Seeing as how we're the most powerful country in the world, this may be a good feeling to have. And change is always a scary thing, for the good or bad. Though, as V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people." In general, however, I don't think you need to be scared of Obama. He's going to do what's best for our country. That's what we elected him to do.
Jane Doe is thinking America is retarded. The only difference between Obama and Osama is B.S.
This sounds like something I would have heard as a joke back in Junior High. But I think she actually may believe it. Anyway, this is ridiculously racist, since about the only thing that's similar between the two of them is that they have darker skin. Please don't try to bring up any bogus remarks about Obama's ties with terrorist organizations now.
Also, prior to the heat of the election, Microsoft Word auto-corrected "Obama" to "Osama" because it didn't know the word, but this has been fixed since then. True story.
John Doe is praying that his country is not really this ignorant.
Probably not. We're not all complete idiots, we know what we voted for.
John Doe congradulates Al-Qaeda.
Honestly, Brad, what school do you go to? You can't even spell congratulate ...
John Doe knows this country needs a lot of prayer now.
I hope that you pray for our country all the time and would have been praying for our country just as much had McCain won. Everything always need all the prayer we can give it.
Jane Doe is here comes socialism.
By the way, Facebook finally removed the obligatory "is", so you could change it to "Jane Doe says" and it would sound even better. Anyway, last time I checked we're still a Democracy and always will be.
John Doe is very scared for the fate of the free world.
Still free. That's why we elected a new President, because we can and we have the right to.
John Doe likes babies. Go McCain!
I like babies as well! They're cute and wiggly and they go "coo" a lot. But, wait, aren't we talking about an election here? As in, who's going to lead our country? Sorry if this sounds harsh, but this isn't a single-issue election, and those who vote based upon a single issue bother me. We voted for the person who could best lead our country in every situation.
John Doe is begining to question peoples christianity who are voting for obama...you fools are unbelievable.
Your status is unbelievable. Last time I checked, God doesn't vote. He doesn't even believe in democracy.
John Doe hopes that by this time tomorrow we can ALL unite under the leadership of whoever wins, whether it's McCain or Obama.
Finally, a mature status! Thanks, Dan, you rock. That's the kind of attitude we need.
John Doe is still proud to be an American, because, last time he checked, he was still free.
Nice, Keenan! You certainly are, and that's the kind of attitude we need here.
Jane Doe is ENGAGED!!!!
Apparently not everyone was thinking about the election last night. Congratulations to my good friends Mr. and Mrs. (to be) David Benson :)! Honestly, any guy who writes "Will You Marry Me?" in flaming napalm on the ground has MY vote. And apparently hers, since she said yes :).
OK, there are countless statuses that bothered me because they were so closed-minded or inconsiderate of other people or God's sovereignty. Or did everyone suddenly forget that we live under the rule of an all-powerful God?
What bothered me most last night was how quickly McCain withdrew from the race. I mean, obviously he was going to lose ... That was predictable around 9:00pm. But it just seemed weak to bow out so quickly. On the flip side, what was it with hundreds of thousands of his supports booing him when he announced his support for our next President, Barack Obama? That's support, huh? I think it's silly he pulled out so soon, but I at least support his decision.
Anyway, you all should have voted for Cox/Laird ’08 last night. But seriously, hopefully people's statuses will soon go back to pointless banter about their upcoming tests, how some girl is annoying them, or the horrible food at Chuck's. Things that don't matter, and things that don't sarcasticly point fingers of blame at fellow believers.
By the way. I voted for John McCain. And I support Barack Obama.
I'm baffled by how many people seem to have fallen victim to the silly catch phrase "Yes We Can!" or Obama's claim to "bring change to our nation." Listen, any President will bring change. Claim something significant. And "Yes We Can!" just sounds like a slogan off of Bob the Builder.
But enough bashing of our new President-to-be. That's actually not what I wanted to talk about anyway, I just had to get it out.
Hopefully for the last several months you've been praying that God's will would be done, not that John McCain would be our next President. (I'm looking at you, Conservative Republican-Voting Christians!) That's probably not the right way to go aabout it, and anyway, I believe that God's will has been done.
One thing I'm pretty excited about now that the election is finally past is that your cheesy Facebook statuses will go away. Seriously ... Let me just give you a few examples to prove my point without using any names. (The names that are used below are only because I know the people wouldn't care and because they were one of the few being positive about the election.)
Jane Doe is scared for his country.
Seeing as how we're the most powerful country in the world, this may be a good feeling to have. And change is always a scary thing, for the good or bad. Though, as V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people." In general, however, I don't think you need to be scared of Obama. He's going to do what's best for our country. That's what we elected him to do.
Jane Doe is thinking America is retarded. The only difference between Obama and Osama is B.S.
This sounds like something I would have heard as a joke back in Junior High. But I think she actually may believe it. Anyway, this is ridiculously racist, since about the only thing that's similar between the two of them is that they have darker skin. Please don't try to bring up any bogus remarks about Obama's ties with terrorist organizations now.
Also, prior to the heat of the election, Microsoft Word auto-corrected "Obama" to "Osama" because it didn't know the word, but this has been fixed since then. True story.
John Doe is praying that his country is not really this ignorant.
Probably not. We're not all complete idiots, we know what we voted for.
John Doe congradulates Al-Qaeda.
Honestly, Brad, what school do you go to? You can't even spell congratulate ...
John Doe knows this country needs a lot of prayer now.
I hope that you pray for our country all the time and would have been praying for our country just as much had McCain won. Everything always need all the prayer we can give it.
Jane Doe is here comes socialism.
By the way, Facebook finally removed the obligatory "is", so you could change it to "Jane Doe says" and it would sound even better. Anyway, last time I checked we're still a Democracy and always will be.
John Doe is very scared for the fate of the free world.
Still free. That's why we elected a new President, because we can and we have the right to.
John Doe likes babies. Go McCain!
I like babies as well! They're cute and wiggly and they go "coo" a lot. But, wait, aren't we talking about an election here? As in, who's going to lead our country? Sorry if this sounds harsh, but this isn't a single-issue election, and those who vote based upon a single issue bother me. We voted for the person who could best lead our country in every situation.
John Doe is begining to question peoples christianity who are voting for obama...you fools are unbelievable.
Your status is unbelievable. Last time I checked, God doesn't vote. He doesn't even believe in democracy.
John Doe hopes that by this time tomorrow we can ALL unite under the leadership of whoever wins, whether it's McCain or Obama.
Finally, a mature status! Thanks, Dan, you rock. That's the kind of attitude we need.
John Doe is still proud to be an American, because, last time he checked, he was still free.
Nice, Keenan! You certainly are, and that's the kind of attitude we need here.
Jane Doe is ENGAGED!!!!
Apparently not everyone was thinking about the election last night. Congratulations to my good friends Mr. and Mrs. (to be) David Benson :)! Honestly, any guy who writes "Will You Marry Me?" in flaming napalm on the ground has MY vote. And apparently hers, since she said yes :).
OK, there are countless statuses that bothered me because they were so closed-minded or inconsiderate of other people or God's sovereignty. Or did everyone suddenly forget that we live under the rule of an all-powerful God?
What bothered me most last night was how quickly McCain withdrew from the race. I mean, obviously he was going to lose ... That was predictable around 9:00pm. But it just seemed weak to bow out so quickly. On the flip side, what was it with hundreds of thousands of his supports booing him when he announced his support for our next President, Barack Obama? That's support, huh? I think it's silly he pulled out so soon, but I at least support his decision.
Anyway, you all should have voted for Cox/Laird ’08 last night. But seriously, hopefully people's statuses will soon go back to pointless banter about their upcoming tests, how some girl is annoying them, or the horrible food at Chuck's. Things that don't matter, and things that don't sarcasticly point fingers of blame at fellow believers.
By the way. I voted for John McCain. And I support Barack Obama.
Politicians and Elections
10/22/08 10:33 PM Filed in: Indiscriminate
The days of honest
politics are far behind us, unfortunately. Which is
frustrating. Seems you can’t just find out what a
candidate actually
stands for these days,
all you can find out is how horribly terrible of a
candidate the other candidate is. And, trust me, he’s horrible. The
things he did as a teen ...
So, what’s the deal with politicians literally just making up crap about their opponent? Well, according to a fairly unreliable source (Mom, don’t read that article), the first election who’s advertising campaign was built solely on tearing the opponent down was in 1800, in the election between Jefferson and Adams. Believe it or not, people actually debated about prevalent issues of society before the 1800 election. Crazy to think about, I know.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s rather fed up with misleading (and flat out lying) campaign ads. Look, I know you think my generation is stupid, and, quite honestly, my generation and the up-and-coming generation are probably the stupidest America has yet to see, but ... Give us a little credit. One campaign ad comes on, discrediting the candidates opponent, saying things about them that sound absolutely horrible ... How could you vote for such a person?! But wait, there’s more. The very next commercial you see is an ad for the opposing candidate, first addressing all the “lies” of the previous ad, and then telling you the real story ... Turns out the candidate you thought was so good was actually caught up in a dishonest canal scheme back in his prime. And you thought that only happened in Oscar Wilde plays.
So, who am I supposed to believe? You both flat out contradict each other. You both accuse the other of horrendous acts that I clearly wouldn’t support. But, according to the other one, these accusations are just completely made up. Apparently both parties are just making up crap about the other candidate ... Or so the other candidate claims. It’s a vicious circle.
Every once in a while a candidate may actually claim he stands for some political viewpoint. Ironically, this claim may change, depending on how the public reacts to their opponents claims, or what’s popular. But the vast majority of their campaign money is spent simply tearing the other candidate down.
Oh, also, when they finally do get around to telling you views/strategies, they won’t make any sense. Not because you’re too stupid to understand them, but because they’re actually too outlandish for anyone, President or not, to accomplish. Fact: The President doesn’t even have enough power to do 90% of what his campaign ads claim. (The percentage isn’t really a fact, but the rest of the statement is.)
I would like to see a 1796 election again, where candidates actually talked about pressing issues in society, told us what they stood for, and told us what they were planning (like, for real, not some ridiculous statement that sounds good but is impossible to perform) to do about current events that needed attention. Honestly, why is it Fox even has to hold the “Fact Check” (or whatever it’s called) after each debate to see which “facts” one candidate said about another that wasn’t actually true. Or, why the moderator at the Vice Presidential Debate even had to ask the question, “What have your candidates campaign ads promised the American public that they can’t actually deliver?” Honestly, what annoys me the most is that the next leader of our country, the man whom we should all revere, can’t even adequately or properly explain his own viewpoints, let alone accurately portray his opponents. Worse, he flat out lies about his opponent. And we want him running our country?
The annoying thing is, an honest election will never happen. Because we’re on a roll, in a vicious cycle, that probably can’t be broken without some law being passed. Something about slander or libel being illegal, I don’t know. So, I guess we’re doomed to never actually have an honest election again. And if a candidate even tried, there’s no way his opponent would honor that ... They would just rip him apart like the innocent pup he would be.
So, what’s the deal with politicians literally just making up crap about their opponent? Well, according to a fairly unreliable source (Mom, don’t read that article), the first election who’s advertising campaign was built solely on tearing the opponent down was in 1800, in the election between Jefferson and Adams. Believe it or not, people actually debated about prevalent issues of society before the 1800 election. Crazy to think about, I know.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s rather fed up with misleading (and flat out lying) campaign ads. Look, I know you think my generation is stupid, and, quite honestly, my generation and the up-and-coming generation are probably the stupidest America has yet to see, but ... Give us a little credit. One campaign ad comes on, discrediting the candidates opponent, saying things about them that sound absolutely horrible ... How could you vote for such a person?! But wait, there’s more. The very next commercial you see is an ad for the opposing candidate, first addressing all the “lies” of the previous ad, and then telling you the real story ... Turns out the candidate you thought was so good was actually caught up in a dishonest canal scheme back in his prime. And you thought that only happened in Oscar Wilde plays.
So, who am I supposed to believe? You both flat out contradict each other. You both accuse the other of horrendous acts that I clearly wouldn’t support. But, according to the other one, these accusations are just completely made up. Apparently both parties are just making up crap about the other candidate ... Or so the other candidate claims. It’s a vicious circle.
Every once in a while a candidate may actually claim he stands for some political viewpoint. Ironically, this claim may change, depending on how the public reacts to their opponents claims, or what’s popular. But the vast majority of their campaign money is spent simply tearing the other candidate down.
Oh, also, when they finally do get around to telling you views/strategies, they won’t make any sense. Not because you’re too stupid to understand them, but because they’re actually too outlandish for anyone, President or not, to accomplish. Fact: The President doesn’t even have enough power to do 90% of what his campaign ads claim. (The percentage isn’t really a fact, but the rest of the statement is.)
I would like to see a 1796 election again, where candidates actually talked about pressing issues in society, told us what they stood for, and told us what they were planning (like, for real, not some ridiculous statement that sounds good but is impossible to perform) to do about current events that needed attention. Honestly, why is it Fox even has to hold the “Fact Check” (or whatever it’s called) after each debate to see which “facts” one candidate said about another that wasn’t actually true. Or, why the moderator at the Vice Presidential Debate even had to ask the question, “What have your candidates campaign ads promised the American public that they can’t actually deliver?” Honestly, what annoys me the most is that the next leader of our country, the man whom we should all revere, can’t even adequately or properly explain his own viewpoints, let alone accurately portray his opponents. Worse, he flat out lies about his opponent. And we want him running our country?
The annoying thing is, an honest election will never happen. Because we’re on a roll, in a vicious cycle, that probably can’t be broken without some law being passed. Something about slander or libel being illegal, I don’t know. So, I guess we’re doomed to never actually have an honest election again. And if a candidate even tried, there’s no way his opponent would honor that ... They would just rip him apart like the innocent pup he would be.
What the Media Refuses to Admit About Gas Prices
05/26/08 06:08 PM Filed in: Media | Indiscriminate
Ah, summer. A time for
good and bad things to start happening again, like
they do every year. A time for flowers and trees to
start blooming, for grass to start growing, and farms
to be planted. A time when new music starts to be
released, both good
and
absolutely
horrible (has music lost all intelligence
... and clarity?) music. The time of the year when
far too many girls realize they can again dress
like skanks and still remain warm (could you
possible wear any less threads?). People start
camping and fishing, the smell of freshly mowed
grass is wherever you go, the gnats and bugs
become killer, you can finally feel good about
eating ice cream, multiple summer blockbusters are
opening every weekend (especially in June), and
the price of gas continues to relentless soar.
The media does a fantastic job of blaming the Bush administration; everyone wants to make sure the next president is going to do something about the outrageous treatment of our friends in the Middle East so they'll lower the price of oil. Obviously, if the war was over gas prices would go down, since we're fighting in oil-sensative zones, right? And let's not forget those "don't buy gas" days we all keep getting Facebook invitations to.
Sorry. That's not going to work. And unless our next president can get our economy fixed up, canceling a war won't fix the gas prices either. This is because the war isn't actually going on in oil-sensative zones anymore, despite what the media continues to say. I know we all became paranoid about gas prices and terrorism in 2001 and have associated gas prices with terrorism from that point on, but, for the most part, they're unrelated these days.
In 2002, the US dollar was equivalent to the Euro, one for one. In 2008, one USD will buy you 0.63 Euros. For a fancy graph, check out this Wall Street Journal article which will explain this all better than I ever could. Foreign oil prices are up a bit, but the majority of the fault lies with our decaying economy and especially the dollar.
So, while people complain (and the media continues to do it it's job: Misinforming the public) about the Bush administration doing an awful job, and the war in the Middle East driving our gas prices higher and higher, you now know the real reason for our high gas prices. And, next time you're filling up your tank and subsequently emptying your bank account, just think how fortunate you are. After all, unless you live in California, the vast majority of other countries still pays far more for one gallon of gas than you do. Europe pays over 8 dollars (5 Euros) for a gallon of gas, and they aren't even panicking over there.
News Flash: Boycotting gas prices? Participating in those "Don't Buy Gas" days? That's only going to drive the price of gasoline higher. If a successful boycott were actually carried out (most successfully on a single distributor), the result would be less competition for the remaining companies, thus driving the price UP not DOWN because they would have less reason to price competitively. More than likely, however, a successful boycott is near impossible since one day of sales won't hurt a gasoline retailer; the customers will simply buy it all back the next day. We all have to get to work, right? (As a side note, I have yet to find a Facebook group that actually spells boycott correctly. There are two t's. My generation is going down the pitiful ...)
You want gas prices to go back down? Cut up your credit cards and purchase things up front, like you actually have money for them, not on credit.
The media does a fantastic job of blaming the Bush administration; everyone wants to make sure the next president is going to do something about the outrageous treatment of our friends in the Middle East so they'll lower the price of oil. Obviously, if the war was over gas prices would go down, since we're fighting in oil-sensative zones, right? And let's not forget those "don't buy gas" days we all keep getting Facebook invitations to.
Sorry. That's not going to work. And unless our next president can get our economy fixed up, canceling a war won't fix the gas prices either. This is because the war isn't actually going on in oil-sensative zones anymore, despite what the media continues to say. I know we all became paranoid about gas prices and terrorism in 2001 and have associated gas prices with terrorism from that point on, but, for the most part, they're unrelated these days.
In 2002, the US dollar was equivalent to the Euro, one for one. In 2008, one USD will buy you 0.63 Euros. For a fancy graph, check out this Wall Street Journal article which will explain this all better than I ever could. Foreign oil prices are up a bit, but the majority of the fault lies with our decaying economy and especially the dollar.
So, while people complain (and the media continues to do it it's job: Misinforming the public) about the Bush administration doing an awful job, and the war in the Middle East driving our gas prices higher and higher, you now know the real reason for our high gas prices. And, next time you're filling up your tank and subsequently emptying your bank account, just think how fortunate you are. After all, unless you live in California, the vast majority of other countries still pays far more for one gallon of gas than you do. Europe pays over 8 dollars (5 Euros) for a gallon of gas, and they aren't even panicking over there.
News Flash: Boycotting gas prices? Participating in those "Don't Buy Gas" days? That's only going to drive the price of gasoline higher. If a successful boycott were actually carried out (most successfully on a single distributor), the result would be less competition for the remaining companies, thus driving the price UP not DOWN because they would have less reason to price competitively. More than likely, however, a successful boycott is near impossible since one day of sales won't hurt a gasoline retailer; the customers will simply buy it all back the next day. We all have to get to work, right? (As a side note, I have yet to find a Facebook group that actually spells boycott correctly. There are two t's. My generation is going down the pitiful ...)
You want gas prices to go back down? Cut up your credit cards and purchase things up front, like you actually have money for them, not on credit.
Vote for Me
04/09/08 11:09 AM Filed in: Indiscriminate
Nah, I'm not running
for any political office here at Cedarville. However,
I am currently attempting to get more votes than
Barack Obama and John McCain (I'm not even worried
about Hillary) on a poll, so you should go vote for
me! It'll take two seconds.
Just click here and cast your vote on the right! That's all there is to it :).
Just click here and cast your vote on the right! That's all there is to it :).
Does My Implied Right to Privacy Cover Mental Privacy?
03/26/08 04:07 PM Filed in: Technology
| Indiscriminate
The Constitution
doesn't explicitly give Americans a "Right to
Privacy." However, The Courts have upheld the fact
that the right is implied by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th,
and 9th amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The beautiful thing about privacy being an implicit right, not an explicit right, is that it essentially means you have the right so long as the Judge ruling your case likes you. Let's face it, if he doesn't like you, or disagrees with your case, he's going to say your situation isn't covered by your Right to Privacy Insurance. So the question at hand is, "How much does our Right to Privacy cover?"
Ever seen Minority Report? That movie isn't too far off in some aspects. Let's look at targeted advertising, for example. Engineers have found a way to broadcast hypersonic sound, meaning the audio is broadcast in a focused beam; it can only be heard by the individual standing directly in its path.
A&E has started using hypersonic sound in some places to advertise one of their shows about the paranormal. Interesting, eh? The A&E audio is on a repeat with a female voice whispering, "Who's there?"
While this is a fascinating concept, you have to wonder if the fifth amendment protect you from self-incrimination by your own mind?
We'll be having some interesting Civil Liberties cases in the near future; Paul Root Wolpe of the nonprofit Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics proposes an interesting question with his statement, "If the skull is not an absolute domain of privacy, there are not privacy domains left."
The beautiful thing about privacy being an implicit right, not an explicit right, is that it essentially means you have the right so long as the Judge ruling your case likes you. Let's face it, if he doesn't like you, or disagrees with your case, he's going to say your situation isn't covered by your Right to Privacy Insurance. So the question at hand is, "How much does our Right to Privacy cover?"
Ever seen Minority Report? That movie isn't too far off in some aspects. Let's look at targeted advertising, for example. Engineers have found a way to broadcast hypersonic sound, meaning the audio is broadcast in a focused beam; it can only be heard by the individual standing directly in its path.
A&E has started using hypersonic sound in some places to advertise one of their shows about the paranormal. Interesting, eh? The A&E audio is on a repeat with a female voice whispering, "Who's there?"
While this is a fascinating concept, you have to wonder if the fifth amendment protect you from self-incrimination by your own mind?
We'll be having some interesting Civil Liberties cases in the near future; Paul Root Wolpe of the nonprofit Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics proposes an interesting question with his statement, "If the skull is not an absolute domain of privacy, there are not privacy domains left."