The recent Hollywood tail of self-indulgent self-loathing comes not from Paris or Brittany, but Owen Wilson, the talented, nasal-challenged actor who has done some truly remarkable work in his quick rise to superstardom. He's rich, gets to have sex with practically any beautiful woman he pleases, and everyone likes him. So really, what else is there for him to accomplish? He might as well kill himself, and make room for someone else.
THAT SPOILED BASTARD! F**K HIM.
If he can't figure out all the superficiality of Los Angeles, and can't think of others instead of himself (for example, using his millions for charity or business investment to help someone else achieve their dream), then I could care less about his depression and drug use. The entire US is depressed and addicted to drugs - look in the mirror, be honest, and admit it. But no, we lie to ourselves as easily as we lie to others, trying to pimp ourselves and others in every aspect of our culture.
We've become pathetic, godless hedonists, and maybe that's what society should be focusing on. The propaganda machine wants us to believe that that is what Muslim fanatics hate about us. It's not the truth - the truth is, they hate US Imperialism and hegemony, as we've continued to influence oil-producing countries since WWII. Instead, the media says that these so-called 'terrorists' hate our way of life. Well guess what, I'm not too crazy about unfettered consumerism and empty materialism either. Owen Wilson has enough of a conscience to realize the emptiness of fame and our cheap, pointless existence. Seeking help through church, filled with hypocrites who don't have a clue, who are seeking their own fiefdoms of power was no absolution. With the understanding that the world (as seen through the lens of media) is one big Wal-Mart, Owen wanted out, as many of us do. Instead of using his fame and capital to help the world help itself, he tried to create the tawdry Hollywood tear-jerker ending. Poor Owen! Let us share his pain. We can heal you!
I say, let him on his way. If he hasn't the guts to fight for a better world, to appreciate the gifts God gave him and use them for “the light side of the Force”, cultivating meaningful relationships (instead of Hollywood glam, whores and false friendship), then Owen Wilson Should Kill Himself. It'll make a great movie.
BTW - if you don't appreciate irony and see the sub-text of what I'm saying, then you should probably kill yourself too. But praise Allah first.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Will Petraeus Betray Us?
Prediction: When General David Petraeus speaks to Congress about the highly-touted "September Report," we will hear business as usual in Iraq - that some progress is being made, but there are continuing "terrorist threats" and if we leave, there will be an all-out Civil War and regional instability. Yawn.
To betray can be defined as being "unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling," and I don't really think General Petraeus is going to consciously be doing that. I don't know the man, but I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and I choose to believe that the US Army has men of character leading it. However, the same can NOT be said of the whitewashing Whitehouse. Our Executive Branch is currently staffed by men of no character. Every policy decision they make seems counter-intuitive. The lying about so many of their actions would be laughable, if it were not so depressing. Their tactics, while politically crafty, go against logic, history, and even sanity. They are the real betrayers.
Perhaps we'll experience a social epiphany, where people in the know will start putting the interests of the majority in their consciousness, and will realize that ideals without action are nothing more than imagination. Wouldn't it be something if General Petraeus stood up to political pressure and spoke truth to his real boss - the American People? Unfortunately, as I learned after 20 years in corporations, the truth will set you free (from employment). The leadership doesn't want truth, they want power, and power is achieved through profit. These same principles guide our government at the executive level. It's this elitist mentality that plagues America in the 21st century.
If the public knew all of the facts, we might be shocked at how morally corrupt the Bush administration truly is. I don't know why I think that is the case, but nonetheless, I do. And I'm no prophet, but I have studied history, and I can read people. Regardless of what General Petraeus reports, we will hear the same old rhetoric. Bush has hijacked our country, and won't be held accountable. At least in corporate America, a board of directors can out a corrupt or poorly performing CEO, but in our country, impeachment is our only option, and Congress doesn't have the stomach for it. They call that "gutless." I call it a betrayal.
To betray can be defined as being "unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling," and I don't really think General Petraeus is going to consciously be doing that. I don't know the man, but I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and I choose to believe that the US Army has men of character leading it. However, the same can NOT be said of the whitewashing Whitehouse. Our Executive Branch is currently staffed by men of no character. Every policy decision they make seems counter-intuitive. The lying about so many of their actions would be laughable, if it were not so depressing. Their tactics, while politically crafty, go against logic, history, and even sanity. They are the real betrayers.
Perhaps we'll experience a social epiphany, where people in the know will start putting the interests of the majority in their consciousness, and will realize that ideals without action are nothing more than imagination. Wouldn't it be something if General Petraeus stood up to political pressure and spoke truth to his real boss - the American People? Unfortunately, as I learned after 20 years in corporations, the truth will set you free (from employment). The leadership doesn't want truth, they want power, and power is achieved through profit. These same principles guide our government at the executive level. It's this elitist mentality that plagues America in the 21st century.
If the public knew all of the facts, we might be shocked at how morally corrupt the Bush administration truly is. I don't know why I think that is the case, but nonetheless, I do. And I'm no prophet, but I have studied history, and I can read people. Regardless of what General Petraeus reports, we will hear the same old rhetoric. Bush has hijacked our country, and won't be held accountable. At least in corporate America, a board of directors can out a corrupt or poorly performing CEO, but in our country, impeachment is our only option, and Congress doesn't have the stomach for it. They call that "gutless." I call it a betrayal.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Obama / Clinton - The Ideal Ticket?
The Democratic Presidential candidates are selling themselves as the 2008 race heats up, and the media has us convinved that Hillary Clinton is the front-runner, with Barack Obama a close second, and then a bunch of other guys, from the more "conventional" types like John "pretty boy" Edwards, the older Dodd and Biden, to the fringes of Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, and the token Hispanic Bill Richardson. The propaganda machine seems to want Hillary to get the nomination, so Karl Rove's strategy of playing off her "high negatives" will allow further Republican rule from "America's Mayor" Rudy G, or the hunky bimbo Mitt Romney. Oh vey!
As I listen to the positions of each candidate, I can't help but be further pulled in by Barack. I was understandably disappointed with "The Audacity of Hope," because Hope is not Audacious - it's Desperate - and he was on the fence on every position. But now as he matures, Obama is the one candidate that makes sense to put our nation back on course after the destructive Bush run of corruption. But can he win, a mulatto (mixed-race) president? And I mean no disrespect - mulattos are some of the most beautiful-looking people on the planet, and you can read my blog to get my position on race. For me, race is irrelevant, and any American who makes an opinion about a person because of their skin, shame on you! But because of his ethnicity, Obama will be a tough sell to the voting America (so African Americans - get registered!)
Hillary poses other challenges, but her political savvy is first-rate. My wife and I actually got to meet her, and she's actually a lot more likable in person than how she comes across on TV. She has a sharp mind, and she seems to be able to handle the Republican mud machine well - BUT, I think her desire for power may overshadow her true concern for the public, and raises the specter of her 'electability' in the general election.
The Democratic Party is trying to data mine people's opinions, in order to come up with a winning party ticket. So much will depend on what George Bush does in the next year, and the white-washed Whitehouse results he presents. If Hillary gets the nod, who will 'shore up her weaknesses?" John "pretty boy" Edwards to get the poor south? Obama to get the Black vote? Dennis Kucinich for the folksy intellectual demographic? Ah, the American presidential race - let the games begin!
I'd like everyone to consider the following ticket: Obama/Clinton. Obama brings a fresh perspective, with the opportunity to get America united bringing JFK-like idealism and enthusiasm. Hillary as VP would bring her own brilliance (and you still get Bill on the side, like those tasty curly fries). Vision and Experience by a Black and a Female! Is America ready? If Hillary would concede her ego to the best interest of the country, and agree to be VP (which somehow I don't see happening), what a ticket that would be! It would certainly get my vote, and I would hope that it would get most Americans to see the possibility of healing the wounds inflicted by Bush's reign of foolishness. Now if only this idea could get traction in the press, polls, and the Democratic party. If only....if only...a New America....with real truth, real justice...if only.
As I listen to the positions of each candidate, I can't help but be further pulled in by Barack. I was understandably disappointed with "The Audacity of Hope," because Hope is not Audacious - it's Desperate - and he was on the fence on every position. But now as he matures, Obama is the one candidate that makes sense to put our nation back on course after the destructive Bush run of corruption. But can he win, a mulatto (mixed-race) president? And I mean no disrespect - mulattos are some of the most beautiful-looking people on the planet, and you can read my blog to get my position on race. For me, race is irrelevant, and any American who makes an opinion about a person because of their skin, shame on you! But because of his ethnicity, Obama will be a tough sell to the voting America (so African Americans - get registered!)
Hillary poses other challenges, but her political savvy is first-rate. My wife and I actually got to meet her, and she's actually a lot more likable in person than how she comes across on TV. She has a sharp mind, and she seems to be able to handle the Republican mud machine well - BUT, I think her desire for power may overshadow her true concern for the public, and raises the specter of her 'electability' in the general election.
The Democratic Party is trying to data mine people's opinions, in order to come up with a winning party ticket. So much will depend on what George Bush does in the next year, and the white-washed Whitehouse results he presents. If Hillary gets the nod, who will 'shore up her weaknesses?" John "pretty boy" Edwards to get the poor south? Obama to get the Black vote? Dennis Kucinich for the folksy intellectual demographic? Ah, the American presidential race - let the games begin!
I'd like everyone to consider the following ticket: Obama/Clinton. Obama brings a fresh perspective, with the opportunity to get America united bringing JFK-like idealism and enthusiasm. Hillary as VP would bring her own brilliance (and you still get Bill on the side, like those tasty curly fries). Vision and Experience by a Black and a Female! Is America ready? If Hillary would concede her ego to the best interest of the country, and agree to be VP (which somehow I don't see happening), what a ticket that would be! It would certainly get my vote, and I would hope that it would get most Americans to see the possibility of healing the wounds inflicted by Bush's reign of foolishness. Now if only this idea could get traction in the press, polls, and the Democratic party. If only....if only...a New America....with real truth, real justice...if only.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Are you a Socialist?
People often debate whether we are a capitalist society, or something else. When the issue of national health care comes up, people cry "socialist!" America is generally capitalistic, but why do we fear socialism? We have a number of socialistic aspects to our society, for example the DMV, which is a state-owned system. The FCC supposedly regulates private broadcast corporations, and the utility companies are also regulated by the Fed. So why do we fear national health? Sometimes, a nation should nationalize part of its infrastructure for the betterment of its citizenry, and health care may be one such industry.
A Capitalist believes in an economic system controlled by individuals, and a Socialist believes in a government-controlled economic system. The words “capitalist” or “socialist” are nothing more than symbols that represent certain values - and values one embraces must be lived, and occasionally fought for, (and that fight is not in Iraq, it's here at home). The fight is inside all of us.
America is an inclusive nation that in its ideal represents personal freedom, but those freedoms are being necessarily challenged. We don't deserve the freedom to kill one another, nor do we deserve the freedom to steal. But do we deserve the right to make the world in our image? Before we tackle that mission, shouldn't we get it right here first? In order to do that, we need a separation of business and state, and we need to look at ourselves in the mirror and seek self-improvement. A Global economy without compassion will create a planet without purpose, a species without a conscience.
Plato believed that power and wealth should be separate. He thought if you wanted wealth, you could chase money, and if you wanted power, you could be a Senator, but you couldn't be both because he believed that these two aspects of a society when combined led to too much corruption and immorality. We've seen this play out again and again throughout our history, from the decadence of Rome to our current social ills. The apathy of a wealthy state is predictable, as we let someone else try to solve (or hide) our social problems, but the fact is, folks - it’s up to US.
We need a new vision for ourselves, for our nation, for our species and our planet. Perhaps a new word can be created to describe an American economic system that is worth promoting globally. We don’t need to be capitalist, socialist, nor communist, fascist, or any other “ist”. If we live the values of the meanings of the words, we could become a “globally compassionate socio-capitalistic inclusivity,” or ‘Glocom-socapinclusist.’ How about if we just become decent Human Beings?
A Capitalist believes in an economic system controlled by individuals, and a Socialist believes in a government-controlled economic system. The words “capitalist” or “socialist” are nothing more than symbols that represent certain values - and values one embraces must be lived, and occasionally fought for, (and that fight is not in Iraq, it's here at home). The fight is inside all of us.
America is an inclusive nation that in its ideal represents personal freedom, but those freedoms are being necessarily challenged. We don't deserve the freedom to kill one another, nor do we deserve the freedom to steal. But do we deserve the right to make the world in our image? Before we tackle that mission, shouldn't we get it right here first? In order to do that, we need a separation of business and state, and we need to look at ourselves in the mirror and seek self-improvement. A Global economy without compassion will create a planet without purpose, a species without a conscience.
Plato believed that power and wealth should be separate. He thought if you wanted wealth, you could chase money, and if you wanted power, you could be a Senator, but you couldn't be both because he believed that these two aspects of a society when combined led to too much corruption and immorality. We've seen this play out again and again throughout our history, from the decadence of Rome to our current social ills. The apathy of a wealthy state is predictable, as we let someone else try to solve (or hide) our social problems, but the fact is, folks - it’s up to US.
We need a new vision for ourselves, for our nation, for our species and our planet. Perhaps a new word can be created to describe an American economic system that is worth promoting globally. We don’t need to be capitalist, socialist, nor communist, fascist, or any other “ist”. If we live the values of the meanings of the words, we could become a “globally compassionate socio-capitalistic inclusivity,” or ‘Glocom-socapinclusist.’ How about if we just become decent Human Beings?
America - Democracy or Republic?
When you think of America, what images come to mind? Do you think of the original founding fathers fighting the British, or killing the native Americans? Do you think of winning World War II, or losing Vietnam? Do you believe that you should keep all the money you make, or should you share it with others? When you vote, what side of the political fence do you think you fall on, and why?
In the political media, a lot of words are thrown around that seem to be mis-understood. Some say America is a Democracy, others call it a Republic. Do you know the difference? Look these words up. There is very little difference, and the difference is the Electoral College:
Democracy - "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."
Republic - "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."
Our government is supposed to be a reflection of who we are as individuals, where the majority's values are expressed through our nation. When you look at the Bush administration, you are looking at the (supposed) majority of American values, but given the flaw of the Electoral College, they may not represent the majority view. But do they actually reflect what Americans are becoming? Are we megalomaniacal, holier than thou, imperialistic, selfish, lying, petty hypocritical cheats? How did we let this happen?
All Americans can vote now, but the founding fathers set it up where only land owners could vote because they believed if you had a stake in the land, you would have a vested interest in the nation's success. If we updated our Constitution to allow the right of all to vote, we can update it to remove the flawed Electoral College. After all, don't you want your vote to count?
In the political media, a lot of words are thrown around that seem to be mis-understood. Some say America is a Democracy, others call it a Republic. Do you know the difference? Look these words up. There is very little difference, and the difference is the Electoral College:
Democracy - "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."
Republic - "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."
Our government is supposed to be a reflection of who we are as individuals, where the majority's values are expressed through our nation. When you look at the Bush administration, you are looking at the (supposed) majority of American values, but given the flaw of the Electoral College, they may not represent the majority view. But do they actually reflect what Americans are becoming? Are we megalomaniacal, holier than thou, imperialistic, selfish, lying, petty hypocritical cheats? How did we let this happen?
All Americans can vote now, but the founding fathers set it up where only land owners could vote because they believed if you had a stake in the land, you would have a vested interest in the nation's success. If we updated our Constitution to allow the right of all to vote, we can update it to remove the flawed Electoral College. After all, don't you want your vote to count?
Monday, August 20, 2007
Fighting Political Divisiveness
Americans,
How do we proceed as a nation united against terrorism, in favor of promoting our ideals of "truth, justice, and the American Way," unless we lead by example? When we bicker like children (as many politicians do, sinking to name-calling), we expose the weakness of a democracy - that a schism exists in our personal views on many issues. But is that premise true? Is this schism a weakness, or is it a democracy's greatest strength?
In America, we have an implicit "agree to disagree" policy, and it largely works. We have a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious society, and in 98% of the people (this statistic is a pure guess), we all get along pretty darn well. Shouldn't we be focusing on this as a positive?
In fact, that is what is missing in the political discussions presented through the mainstream media - the positive view. But kudos to the recent Dem's debate (ABC News Aug. 19, 2007), where they tried to stay on a positive theme and keep from 'dissing' each other, even though George Stephanopoulos tried to get them to argue amongst themselves. Can the Republicans keep their civility when the general election campaigns begin?
Let us stand proud of our strengths, and work together to solve the complex problems before us by applying the best thinking - regardless of who posits the idea. Let us show the world that America has the best system by empowering our freedoms instead of taking them away (as the Bush adminsitration and NeoCon Republicans continue to do).
The only way we can win abroad is to win at home. We seem to be winning here, because to date, we have had very few suicide-type actions here. The current Republican agenda is to use tactics that divide us (and to prove the point, let me quote two Nazis so you can see how the Republicans have embraced that ideaology):
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering
Read your history as "those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." - anonymous
The issues schism between our two parties is based on the divide between the rich and the poor, the egotist and the selfless, the isolationist and the imperialist. We're going to get into a debate between good and evil (which depends on how you define "Good" and "Evil"). These traits have a subjective quality that may be debated on the extremes. But staying within the sane, centrist, and accepted definitions, we can agree that while the actions of terrorists are 'Evil," how we fight it requires a serious debate, with the best research, data, and logic we can get, with potentially no 'good' solution. This cannot be limited to one party's choice. The only way America can address these challenges is to find the common ground, and put political divisiveness behind us.
When we get side-tracked by other issues, we fall into the tactic of "divide and conquer" that politicians use to win elections. But it's no longer about which party wins, it's about what kind of person we give the power of the world's greatest economy and military force to. At present, the Democrats have a few good people (Obama, Hillary, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Edwards), and the Republicans do as well (Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee). The problem is that the Republican party has become too obsessed with power, so I encourage Republicans to recognize the failure of their party to remain true to their good principles. By losing in '08, perhaps the Republicans will get a reality check, and toss out the garbage that has polluted their party. America will survive, and Americans will win. We HAVE to keep the political power in check, and the only way we can do that is to fight political divisiveness and find the best people, ethics, and tactics.
How do we proceed as a nation united against terrorism, in favor of promoting our ideals of "truth, justice, and the American Way," unless we lead by example? When we bicker like children (as many politicians do, sinking to name-calling), we expose the weakness of a democracy - that a schism exists in our personal views on many issues. But is that premise true? Is this schism a weakness, or is it a democracy's greatest strength?
In America, we have an implicit "agree to disagree" policy, and it largely works. We have a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious society, and in 98% of the people (this statistic is a pure guess), we all get along pretty darn well. Shouldn't we be focusing on this as a positive?
In fact, that is what is missing in the political discussions presented through the mainstream media - the positive view. But kudos to the recent Dem's debate (ABC News Aug. 19, 2007), where they tried to stay on a positive theme and keep from 'dissing' each other, even though George Stephanopoulos tried to get them to argue amongst themselves. Can the Republicans keep their civility when the general election campaigns begin?
Let us stand proud of our strengths, and work together to solve the complex problems before us by applying the best thinking - regardless of who posits the idea. Let us show the world that America has the best system by empowering our freedoms instead of taking them away (as the Bush adminsitration and NeoCon Republicans continue to do).
The only way we can win abroad is to win at home. We seem to be winning here, because to date, we have had very few suicide-type actions here. The current Republican agenda is to use tactics that divide us (and to prove the point, let me quote two Nazis so you can see how the Republicans have embraced that ideaology):
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering
Read your history as "those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." - anonymous
The issues schism between our two parties is based on the divide between the rich and the poor, the egotist and the selfless, the isolationist and the imperialist. We're going to get into a debate between good and evil (which depends on how you define "Good" and "Evil"). These traits have a subjective quality that may be debated on the extremes. But staying within the sane, centrist, and accepted definitions, we can agree that while the actions of terrorists are 'Evil," how we fight it requires a serious debate, with the best research, data, and logic we can get, with potentially no 'good' solution. This cannot be limited to one party's choice. The only way America can address these challenges is to find the common ground, and put political divisiveness behind us.
When we get side-tracked by other issues, we fall into the tactic of "divide and conquer" that politicians use to win elections. But it's no longer about which party wins, it's about what kind of person we give the power of the world's greatest economy and military force to. At present, the Democrats have a few good people (Obama, Hillary, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Edwards), and the Republicans do as well (Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee). The problem is that the Republican party has become too obsessed with power, so I encourage Republicans to recognize the failure of their party to remain true to their good principles. By losing in '08, perhaps the Republicans will get a reality check, and toss out the garbage that has polluted their party. America will survive, and Americans will win. We HAVE to keep the political power in check, and the only way we can do that is to fight political divisiveness and find the best people, ethics, and tactics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
