Monday, January 31, 2005

Iraqi Elections 

I was right. They were wrong. That is all.

(0) comments

Saturday, January 29, 2005

Belated New Year's Resolution 

When I still went to Longwood, people feared to debate me. They feared to bring up certain topics with me. I would argue about pretty much anything for hours, and even if I knew I was wrong, I'd continue the arguement, until the other side conceded to me just to shut me up. I put certain Russian fanatics to shame.

After 9/11, I strove for unity with everyone. I held back opinions, for fear I might offend people. I would try to see the merit in what everyone said.

Once I developed these blogs, I might occasionally put up a topic in anger, in hopes of offending people, but I think it was pretty obvious to people they did not reflect my true opinions.

Lately, I've been feeling that I've been hurting both myself and ohers by not sharing my true opinions anymore.

Here is my belated New Years Resolution:

From now on, I will tell you exactly what I think. There will be no more holding back to spare your feelings about your side of view. Consversely, I will no longer write blogs in anger in hopes of elliciting angry feelings.

Everything I write and debate will be based on true feelings. Blogs written in pure anger will be deleted within 48 hours of posting. However, I will share my true feelings and will be unapologetic for them.

I don't know how I strayed from this philosophy of argumentativeness in the first place. Maybe it was because a certain worthless midget, who has hopefully died of cancer by now, decided he would suspend our friendship because I constantly challenged all his beliefs. He decided to ban me from his life. At the time it hurt. Now I realize he can fuck himself. If he hasn't died a painful cancerous death. If he has, God rest his soul.

After 9/11 I thought excessive political debate was inappropriate. However, judging from the actions and speech I've seen and heard since 9/11, I think I am totally over that.

If someone brings up a topic, whether political or not, that I have a strong belief about, I will let you know. I will no longer hold it in. For example, Arabs are ENTIRELY at fault for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Ted Kennedy is a treasonous bastard, and if you supported the war beforehand and now oppose it, you should be exiled to France or Canada (people who opposed the war beforehand at least have consistency on their side). Any newscaster or reporter who airs anything that our enemies can use as propoganda need to be kicked out of Iraq, and perhaps out of the United States as well, and this goes double for Michael Moore. FDR would have had these people interned, Abraham Lincoln would have had them shot, and rightly so.

I used to sort of enjoy sitting and listening to other points of view, and mentally cataloging why they were wrong. Now, after 3 years, I realize that understanding why they were wrong was worthless if I kept it to myself. Pure intellectual masturbation.

Opinions, in general, cannot evolve or improve without debate. Avoiding debate equates to cowardice. When people successfully debate, hopefully both can agree to a point somewhere in the middle; a moderated position. When we debate, we learn.

By keeping my opinions to myself, not only was I depriving people of the wisdom of my point of view (not to sound overly arrogant), I am depriving myself of the wisdom of others. If, perchance, I mistanly debate with someone devoid of wisdom, such as the aforementioned cancerous midget, then it is my loss more than the loss of the other. Such a loss is one I am willing to make at this point.

Politically, I think it is time I go back to my roots. I am gonna party like its 1999. Be forewarned.

(0) comments

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Never Again? 

The world marks the 60th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschewitz .

They claimed they'd never let such an atrocity happen again. They lied.

In Rwanda, it was the Hutus killing Tutsis. In Yugoslavia, it was Serbs killing Muslims. In Iraq, Sunnis murdered Kurds and Shiites. As I type right now, Sudanese Arabs are hacking up the native Blacks with machetes. What does the world do to stop it?

Absolutely nothing. Those who advocate ending genocide are called war-mongers.

The UN no longer respects Human Rights, only the Sovereign Rights of nation-states. If a leader only kills his own minorities (or in the case of Iraq, their own majority), then it is none of the world's business.

The slogan "Never Again" is a lie designed to make us feel good. It won't stop, because the murderers own oil. Or the murderers will accuse the West of racism as soon as they try to intervene (which is like Kryptonite to the Western World). Or because we just don't care, because we ARE racist, and don't believe that Africans or Arabs can ever rise above killing each other off.

Until we decide, as a world community, that genocide is not acceptable, Auschewitz will be eternal. The actual camp will remain in Poland, but the Spirit invades the nations of Africa, Asia, and most especially the Middle East.

Remember this when people defend or justify Saddam, Mugabe, Che, the Soviet Bloc, or the Palestinians. The spirit of Auschewitz lives.

(0) comments

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

The Bombmaker 

In a great victory in the Iraq campaign, Iraqi forces have captured Abu Omar al-Kurdi, al-Qaeda's top bombmaker in Iraq, supposedly responsible for 75% of the bombings in that country (statistic admittedly probably pulled out of someone's ass).

Now, what should we do with this guy now that we have him? The answer is obvious. Torture him until we have all the information he has.

I'm not talking any wussy, gratuitous Abu Ghraib abuse, which was neither productive, nor particularly torturous. I mean torture that will actually save lives, and end the war sooner.
I don't think this murderer should get a second of REM sleep until we catch al-Zarqawi, for example. He should be fed, but not necessarily anything we would classify as food. I think the food from Owens Dining Hall would suffice. His water should be tainted with vomitous flavor.

Those who abuse human rights forfeit their own. This man has information that may save hundreds of lives, both by helping us catch the murderers, and also by hastening the end of the war. Should we be squeamish about making one undeniably evil man bleed so that our soldiers, innocent Iraqis, and even the misguided ranks of the enemy may be saved? I think not.
By the way, I know this should have been an obligatory Roe v. Wade commentary, since it's the anniversary. Quite frankly, if you haven't made up your mind on this topic, I seriously doubt I'll add anything constructive to the debate. So, let us assume I made a funny jibe at the evils of judicial activism, and kindly wait until Darwinism kills off those who kill their young.

(0) comments

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Flashback: Was the War About WMDs? 

About a week ago, the United States decided to concede there are no stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Plutonium, Uranium, and some leftover chemical and biological warheads from the Iranian War, sure, but no stockpiles. And no plan to immediately rearm themselves.

Of course, as Kerry foolishly decided to highlight right at the end of his candidacy, there WERE massive stockpiles of regular arms and municians, meaning that he was ready for conventional invasion at any time.

But thats irrelevent. Bush based the ENTIRE invasion on the premise that Saddam had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction, by which we mean nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. But wait... has anyone recently looked at any of the primary documents? Has anyone looked at the archived speeches? Well, I did.

If you read Bush's speech to the United Nations, you will notice that his WMD contentions were not how he lead off his speech. Instead, he leads off with Human Rights abuses. No one with any credibility denies that Saddam is innocent of genocide. One thing we have had absolutely no problem uncovering was his numerous mass graves around the country of Iraq, particularly in the Kurdish north.

Next, Bush spoke of Saddam refusal to return POWs from his invasion of Kuwait. And yet, none of the Human Rights Organization protests seemed to phase Saddam in the slightest.

After this, Bush moves on to Saddam's ties to terrorism. Our current nemesis, al-Zarqawi, proves that this was a valid accusation, and after 9/11, definitely justification for the United States to go to war with Iraq.

Only after all this does the President even mention Weapons of Mass Destruction. All the reasons previously innumerated were proven true. Yet, despite the intelligence gathered by the CIA, the United Nations, and practically every other country in the world, Saddam somehow managed to destroy the WMDs without anyone ever noticing, else smuggled them outside his country. We know he had them at some point: the Kurdish mass graves are evidence of that. Since UN Resolutions demanded that Saddam destroy his weaponry with UN observers documenting the procedure, he signed his own death warrant when he destroyed them in anonymity.

The WMD claim was grabbed by the media because it was, by far, the most melodramatic claim. Genocide is so commonplace in the current world that no one gives a damn. Of course, the idea that the WMD claim was singled out to spur the world to action is rather innane. The world did not give a damn when Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Iran achieved Nuclear Status. Why would they care if Saddam did?

The only solution at this point, I believe, is to just accept the fact that every backwater nation in the world is going to have nuclear weapons, and just build up domestic defenses against it. The world has spoken, and it says that all nations have the right to be able to spur on World War III, and no one has the right to try to prevent it.

(0) comments

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Why Americans Remain so Fat 

There is one epidemic in American Culture that I do not believe, we as a society, should have to put up with any longer. This is the most vile thing we tolerate in this culture. I speak, of course, of the excessive nudity of fat old men in gym locker rooms.

Now, as far as I can tell, these old farts believe that the gym is the one place society allows them to hang around naked. They seem to relish the idea that they can sit naked on a bench, and that no one will call them on this weirdness.

I don't think they even actually go into the actual gym and exercise. I know I never see them there. Which is fine with me, because their gigantic rolls of fat are often the only thing obscuring their shame.

Worst of all is the sauna. There is a sign SPECIFICALLY saying "For Health Reasons, Everyone In The Sauna MUST Have Cover." Apparantly, in disgusting-slobese, this translates to "Please Sit Your Sweaty, Unwiped Ass Directly On The Bench." Needless to say, I don't often use the sauna.

Now, you might think that I should simply look away. If only it were that simple. The locker room in my gym has all its walls covered with mirrors. Therefore, in just about any direction, I can see infinite naked old men. Am I homophobic? Not really, because I firmly believe that no gay men would allow themselves to become as disgusting as these dregs. And besides, heaven knows these locker rooms would turn them off men forever.

(0) comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?