So much for that
My plan to drink and post every thursday has totally gone out the window. I guess I'm not responsible enough to get drunk at least once a week. At least on a particual day.
If only we could
After watching this movie, I got to think about everything that president Bush has done to win over enough support to invade Iraq. He lied about the intelligence we had on Iraq. He manipulated our feelings of anger and injustice and used our need for revenge to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but repeated mentioned Iraq's ties to terrorists. Now, getting a country to go to war is pretty easy. You convicee people they're being attacked or in danger of being attacked, press the need to attack while we still can and call any dissenters unpatriotic. Sound familiar? Yeah, that's exactly what the Bush administration did. They lied and manipulated the facts in order to conduct their war that's killed thousands of people and turned the world's opinion agaisnt us. I know that it would be futile, but I believe an attempt to impeach the president should be made by our members of congress and the senate. In order to protect the position of the president of the United States against the indiscretions of one man we must impeach Bush. If we don't do something, the position could be tarnished long after Bush's second term is up. I know he didn't cheat on his wife or anything, but misleading an entire country, lieing to Congress about the status of Iraq's WMD, and lieing to the United Nations has to count for something.
Why We Fight
I recently rented the movie, Why We Fight. It's the Grand Jury Prize winner from the 2005 Sundace Film Festival. The movies starts off with the farewell address of Dwight Eisenhower. In it he warned against the newly developing military-industrial complex. You see, we felt it nessecary to create a standing army after WWII and it was therefor nessecary to develop a military industry. The movie tries to explain why America has gone to war focusing on the current war with Iraq. The most interesting point was the comparison to the wolrd opinion of America just after 9/11 and just before our invasion of Iraq. We went from having the entire world behind us, including the middle east, to being the most hated country in the world. The largest, world wide protests in history were staged before the invasion of Iraq. The movie goes on to pose the question, "Why did we invade Iraq?" It goes back to the 1950's when the prime minister of Iran was upset that the British were basically ripping them off. He wanted more for their oil. The British ask us to do something, so we send the CIA over there to overthrow their government. Since we specialize in establishing oppresive regimes, we establish one there that is eventually overthrown and replaced by the religous, strongly anti-American government they have now. Fearful of this government, we support another oppressive regime in their neighbor, Iraq. I don't want to give the entire movie away. I recommend watching the movie it will make you think twice about why we went to war.
Sex Offenders
I guess this would be another group of people we could put in my "camps". The state of Georgia tried to pass a law that would make it illegal for a registered sex offender to live withing 1,000 feet of a school or a bus stop and since buses stop in front of every house nowadays it would make it impossible for sex offenders to live in any urban or suburban area. I have mixed feelings over our country's treatment of sex offenders. As a parent, I see the need to keep sex offenders away from children and to inform parents of any possible sex offenders that live in the area, but now that some sex offenders have been killed by people who found where they lived from information provided by local police agencies that was posted on the internet don't we have an obligation to protect these poeple from other so called "predators"? I have a problem with the expression "predators". I think sex offender expresses what these people are quite nicely without giving them a title for the purposes of expressing the connotation that goes with the meaning sex offender. Our society is becoming a society of predators that hunts sex offenders. You dont' see the addresses of convicted murderers posted on the internet. You don't see any white collar criminals posted on the internet and that's the information I want to know. If I'm applying for a job, I should be able to easily find any information on the company, provided by the police, to see if anyone has pulled an Enron. I want to know if my future 401k will be in the hands of a bunch of crooks- wouldn't you? If I'm moving into a neighborhood, I want to know if my neighbors have killed anyone. If I have a really nice car, why can't I find out if any of my neighbors have stolen a car? I'm not comparing the damages that can be done by these crimes to sex offender crimes. The loss of a car is trivial compared to what could happen to my children. I wanted to compare the rights of all people involved including the criminals.
Gay Marriage
I don't know why they even let gay people walk the streets. I say lets round all of them up into, what I'd call, "concentration camps". Now, the purpose of these camps would be to "re-educate" the gay popualtion so they could become heterosexual and lead normal lives.
I don't see the big deal on letting gay people marry. What right do I have to say whether or not two intelligent, concenting individuals have the right to marry? Where does my opinion fit in this equation of their basic human rights? If we give them SEPERATE BUT EQUAL marriage rights, what come next- making them sit in the back of the bus? I know that marriage is not defined as a Civil Right, but isn't the same argument that we've heard before? I thought that by now our country would be past bullshit like this but once again I'm dissappointed by the vast amount of bigotry in the general population and hiding your bigotry behind your religous values doesn't make it right. Lets see some more love and less hate people.
Senate stomps on the poor
Here's a huge suprise, the Republican controlled senate squashed an attempt to raise the federal minimum wage. The vote came down to mostly party lines on a vote to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85. Wow, imagine what that could do. I whole .70 cents more per hour. If you're working forty hours a week, that's almost twenty extra bucks in your pocket per week after taxes. It's nice to see someone looking out for the little guys, trying to get them an extra twenty bucks a week. I'm sure the arguement against it was it would lead more unemployment because businesses wouldn't be able to afford it. I was reading today that there's no evidence to suggest that raising the minimum wage leads to job loses based on increases in minimum wages on the state level. So, there's no evidence to support the idea that higher minimum wages will lead to unemployment, but yet the Republicans won't believe it. You know why? These are the same people that believe in the trickle down effect. They believe that if they give a millionaire a couple thousand extra dollars it will benefit me when they buy another boat, or another house. Who the fuck are they kidding and who's buying this bullshit? Why the hell would anyone intelligent person believe this crap? Maybe this is why they keep cutting funding to our public schools, so people will believe any bullshit that comes out of their mouths. Lets go back to the current minimum wage- $5.15 an hour. Who can live on this? I couldn't afford to live in my car by myself on this wage, but maybe I'm not trying hard enough or mabye someone in Missouri can.
Unapologetic Liberal
Every time I read about an "unapologetic liberal" I get irritated. What does a liberal have to apologize for? Is it assumed that as a liberal you need to apologize to everyone for your political views? I never read about an unapologetic conservative and these are the people who should be apologizing. "I'm sorry I lowered taxes for the rich and took away funding for your school- if it makes you feel any better we can put you on the waiting list for the private school my kids go to that you can't afford." If people use it in the context that an unapologetic liberal is a hardlined, single minded person with strong political views then why do I not hear about an unapologetic GOP? In this line of reasoning the answer that an unapologetic mindframe is out of sorts for liberals and the norm for conservatives does not stand up. Regardless of your political views there are going to be diehard fanatics. Have you ever met someone that voted for Ralph Nader (Green Party)? It's in these people's nature to be confrontational about their political views and being unapologetic is not what seperates them from most Democrats. Green Party members are simply more liberal than Democrats. This "unapologetic" tag must go. Liberals should be allowed to be liberals just like conservatives are allowed to be conservatives.
Spencers
My family and I were in the Holyoke Mall not too long ago and we decided to stop into Spencers. The chain has been around for as long as I can remember and I've never been suprised by what I've come across including the "adult" section. All I remember ever seeing in this section was a couple of sex board games or some sort of edible underwear or body lotion, but when we went in this weekend the adult section was plastered with items and pictures that were completely inappropriate for the general public to have access to. Here's a short list of what I noticed: a giant penis, I'm not sure what it was suppose to be used for, a couple of different finger vibrators, and other various pictures of practically naked people. My wife and I were completely taken back- this was nothing like the Spencers we grew up with. Yes, they always had adult items, but they were never this blatant or abundant. When we were kids we could go in and look at the practical joke items or the figures and not be subjected to a grossly over advertised sex section. I don't know when the store began to change or maybe I just didn't realize a gradual change over the years until recently. I'm not suggesting that Spencers change their store but I rather upset that I'll have to worry about that store any time my kids are in the mall.
So much for quitting
Well, I'm back on the wagon- or is it fallen off the wagon? Anyways, I'm gaming again. At least I have an expert rating and get to play some of the best people in the world now and then, but that's little consolation. I was hoping to spend more time doing something constuctive, becoming a better person, learning another language- I don't know. I guess I could have a worse hobby. I still go to work, clean up the house, do all the necessary chores and take care of the kids. I'm not wasting any money on it and I'm not vegetating in front of the tv and it's not like I don't read too. Becuase of this game I decided to read a couple of military strategy books that have helped a lot in not only my gaming but in real life. I recomend studying the Art of War or any modern interpetation- it will help you focus on how to find a solution to any problem rather than focusing on the problem itself.
Liberal Media
This is one of my favorite right wing progaganda spins- the media is liberally biased. They base this fact off of the voting records of reporters. Now, this theory that if reporters vote for liberal canidates than the media is biased is somewhat flawed. It assumes that reporters chose all of their stories and it completely omits the influences editors, publishers and owners have on the final media output. But what if these people are included in the poll of voting preferences for the media? Then you still have the influence of advertisers who account for 70% of the revenue for the various media mediums. If you believe that the people responsible for 70% of revenue has no affect on the media you're deluding yourself. If you also believe that people like GE would advertise in any liberal newspaper or during a liberal tv show you're also deluding yourself. The buying power of conservative advertisers and the interests of the conglomerates that own most of the USA's media outlets produce a conservatively bias media.
Reagan and Bush
I can't believe the crap that comes out of Michael Reagan's mouth. What I find more appauling is the fact that people listen to and agree with him. The only person less knowlegdeable is our president-Bush. I have slightly less disdain for Michael becuase he was adopted. Both grew up in white, privledged ready to connect their prodigy with the correct network of people that would gaurentee success regardless of any dui's or coke binges. I wonder if I had grown up in either household where would I be right now? If my daddy's last name was all I needed in life to succeed would I be just as pigheaded as either man?
Online businesses
I googled online business just to see what's out there. I settled on the amazon site and read their offer. This is how it works, you pay them $20 a month, they set you up with a site, the product, free shipping and your site is added to their catalog of sites and your site will show up on searches conducted by the major online search engines. Sounds pretty good, right? The second site I looked at was for online pharmacies. The company was Consumers Discount Rx.Com Inc. and their site even contained a link to the Colorado's Secretary of State site so you can see that they're an accreditted business. The deal is the same and they promise you 50% of your sales and a money back guarentee! Sounds too good to be true? Well, it is. Let me ask a question, if they are setting you up with a free website and the product why do they need you? Look at it from their point of view. They want to start an online business. They pay money for a server, high speed bandwidth, templates, products, etc. and can start selling to people themselves. Now, if instead of selling the product, they CHARGE people to sell it for them and pay them a small % of the sales they can make a lot more money. These companies are charging you to be a commisioned sales person, nothing more.
Gamers
Do you know someone that plays online video games? Do these people spend countless hours in front of their computers seemingly wasting their lives away? Do you want to know why? I'm a recovering gamer, 20min without a game, on my honor. I've quit tonight, but I've quit before. I'm hoping it sticks this time and that this blog will help- kind of like the patch. There's a couple reasons why gamers become addicted.
First there's the phsyiological reasons. Recent research suggests that gaming can affect the reward center of your brain just like drugs for some poeple. I don't have the desire to find this information or post it right now but I probably will in the future. In this case the person can become phsyically addicted to video games just like he/she could on drugs. But, in my opinion this will rarely happen. Its my belief that the main reason people become addicted on video games is something psychologists call an in group/out group bias. This is the psychological trick that the government uses to "brainwash" army recruits, people use to start cults, or ruthless governmets use to train torturers.
Here's a basic rundown of how you go about establishing an in group/ out group biais.The first step is to screen any applicants for the group for the correct political beliefs and social economic standing. Next you want isolate the recruits from the general population. This allows you to have greater influence on them then you normally would. You also want the recruits to see people who work with the system getting rewarded and to create a "jargon" dialect that will hinder communication with people who are not in the group.
As you may have noticed, the screeing process is somewhat eliminated. I say somewhat becuase it is actually completeled voluntarily by each individual gamer. For reasons of their own, they begin the gaming process. When gamers spend, two or three or eight or sixteen hours at a time playing their games, are they not isolating themselves for the rest of the world? And when I say "rest of the world", who is not omitted? The answer would be other games, and only other games. Now, again this is not a complete isolation from other people but I would argue that short term episodes of isolation can be just as affective over a long period of time. Gamers do see other games who become extrememly good at the game become rewarded with praise and fame. Yes, there is fame in the gaming world. A player can become famous for his/her skill much like an actor can become famous for his/her exposure on the big screen. This is acomplished by two ways. First, in most games, the game can be recorded and watched later. Then one of the players can post a good game on a popular gaming website and thousands of other gamers can download and watch that game in a matter of days. Thousands doesn't sound like a lot of people when I'm talking of a world wide population, but keep in mind that might be 50%-90% of the world wide gaming population for any particular game. A second way is by obtaing a high rating. The most popualar rating system is very similar to the chess rating system. Each player starts off with 1600 points. With each win or loss, a player can gain or lose points. The amount gained or loss depends on the difference in ratings between the two players. The bigger the difference the more points gained or lost. The gaming world is rich with it's own jargon- as well as the internet itself. A few examples from the internet would be lol, wtf, etc. wich is used in the gaming world as well as jargon such as noobie (a new person to online gaming), rushing, etc.
So, what does this all accomplish? It moves the gamer to identify with the gaming "in group" more and more. Don't believe me? Find a sports fan, any sport will do and find out what their favorite team is. Odds are they will hate or dislike someone who favors a different team for no other reason than that he/she does not like the second team. Why is that? Is either person somehow affiliated with either team? Do they know someone who plays on either team? Do they own the team? Do they get ANYTING tangible from their team either winning or losing? The answer to these questions in most cases is no. But they identify with their team, and with nobody elses by, you guessed it, in group/out group bias.
I hope this may have helped explain to someone why someone they know might be addicted to online gaming.
Me too I guess
I've never quite grasped why people have their own blogs. I really just don't get it. I understand the whole, promote your own band thing or rant off your political views or nitpick at the latest celebrity scandal or latest fashion but I don't understand why people like me take the time to blog. I wish I had an answer so I would know why I'm doing this. This isn't an attempt to sound clever either- I'm not bright, or creative enough for anything like that and it's not like I have anything interesting to say either. Eight years ago I had some great ideas and some wonderful knowledge of the world all of which I was dieing to share with anyone who would listen. Now I'm married, have two kids and don't know anything outside of "no, don't do that" and video games, but I'll save the video games for a later post.
The second question I have is who is going to read this? I would find this self centered, self serving and quite boring if I was reading this. The writing has no style and nothing so far would catch my attention. It just goes on with now flavor, but I've already said that.
I have one good idea. I'm going to make every Thursday night a drink and blog night. I'm going to get shitfaced and post somethig that might actually be worth reading. I'm not going to bother spell checking or to proof read anyting becuase I'm lazy but it might still be a good read. I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this but that doesn't mean I can't still do it. I encourage everyone who has an anonymous blog to drink and post at least once a week. Well, if you can answer my question please feel free.
