We Have Moved

If you're one of the faithful who have checked on this brilliant site hoping to have more wisdom imparted on yourself, we have moved to sillyreason.wordpress.com.

End the Party

I live in Utah. Here, the faithful fans of the Utah Jazz are a step beyond loyal. Watching a game at Salt Lake City's Energy Solutions Arena is loud, fun, and obnoxious if you like basketball.

A Jazz player could easily knock an opposing player to the floor, kick him in the neck and call his mother a bad name, and still boo if the officials called that same Jazz player for a foul. It's not a matter of whether the call was right or wrong-- that's their guy, and that's what they are there to cheer for.

It can be pretty annoying to hear endless booing and cat-calling that is basically unwarranted, but that is what makes Energy Solutions Arena a formidable place for opponents to play. In basketball, it gains the home team a great advantage to have mindless sheep supporting everything they do.

In the political arena, we have similar get togethers. Both parties have huge rallies complete with signs, pins, buttons and fliers. The gathered crowds are overwhelmed with the greatness of their candidate and cheer for them mid-sentence. The mere mention of the opponent brings a plethora of boos. While they are showing support for their candidate, they aren't thinking at these conventions-- they are barely cognitive in doing nothing more than rooting for their team.

So what's wrong with this? The thing that is absolutely wrong is that the Jazz do commit fouls. They do turn the ball over. They do miss shots and they absolutely deserve to lose some of the games that they lose. When we are a nation who doesn't care if the rules of our nation are upheld-- we care that our team wins-- the problems should be apparent.

This is not a new problem, and I'm not the first one to notice that it has extremely negative consequences for the United States. George Washington, our nation's first President and arguably the best yet, once said of political parties:

"They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

"However combination's or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterward the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Clearly, this is a very bad thing. In fact, it's so obvious that it is so bad for America to be so clearly divided that it makes one curious as to why we wouldn't change this gross oversight.

Because that's the way we always do it-- that's why.

In America, we love tradition. We eat in the same booth at restaurants, wear lucky hats; we celebrate our past so much that we love things we've done almost just because of the fact that we did them. And that is why we can't rid ourselves of this process.

We watch late night shows even though we know they are just giant advertisements. We watch SNL even though it hasn't been funny in 15 years. We are sad when TV shows that have been on for years are canceled even if we don't like them-- we love tradition.

Another problem is that we think our "team" is literally perfect. In thinking that our team never makes mistakes, we think we're better than the other team. It is in every conceivable way divisive for America, and makes the name "United" States like a cruel and ironic prank.

It's true whether we like it or not: America is not United.

So stop joining parties. Stop going to rallies. Stop forwarding blatantly partisan emails-- they're probably trash anyway. Start thinking for yourself and voting based on issues. Be an American: not a Democrat or a Republican.

Moving Forward

Last week, I got an email that quoted the book of Revelation. Specifically it mentioned the anti-Christ (ironically, the anti-Christ isn't even mentioned in Revelation) and how Obama could fit the bill.

This week, my favorite email claimed to be from Bill Phillips of Phillips 66 Oil. He was just writing to make sure that we understand that a) there are no big oil companies in America, b) we could get more oil with very little effort, and c) that it's the Democrats deliberate and evil plan that has resulted in high gas prices.

While none of these things are true, there is a sad truth about them. The fact is that millions of Americans get their political information in the form of Internet forward. These forwards have no references, no trackable history and most importantly, no credibility. We don't know who wrote these articles or if any of the claims can be taken seriously.


Yet people continue to forward them. Something in our brain actually considers that Barack Obama might actually be the anti-Christ, and thanks to our hotmail account, we know it now. Our minds seem to justify Winston Churchill when he said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."


If you were a candidate for President, would you want someone headed to the polls with a head full of fear mongering and frivolous email forwards, about to spill onto a ballot with little to no clue as to who the better candidate is? I would certainly hope not.


And so, as we near the election, I would quote America's 35th President, John F. Kennedy, who said, "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." So ask yourself, what is John McCain's policy on Iraq? Senator Obama's policy on immigration? Either candidate's policy on health care? Do we know what our candidates believe on these basic platforms? These are issues that not only affect Americans, but things we need to know in order to rightfully use the freedoms that make us proud to be Americans.


Here's the truth on the last two weeks of internet forwards. No descriptions of the anti-Christ whatsoever are found anywhere in the Bible. Obama doesn't fit the description that was concocted by the email's mystery author anyway.


Exxon Mobil, the largest oil company on the planet, is an American oil company. The Republican party has been in power for the last eight years, and had also had control of congress for six of the last eight years, so it wasn't an evil plot by the Democrats to charge more for gas.


Whenever you find yourself gaining new information from an email forward, do some research. Even a quick Google search can shed some light on the validity or falsehood of what you've just read. Another great place to check is here. It's a website that researches the validity of claims made in the political arena.


Or you could just ask yourself: did you get the $10,000 per person that you forwarded that AOL study on to? Hmmm....

Patriotism

In my weakness, I have been watching cable news. I do this whenever my life is going well and I just want to upset myself with the ridiculousness on TV. The debate on both MSNBC and Fox News was this: are John McCain and/or Barack Obama patriotic enough to be President?

Astonished at the boredom of these networks and the apparent lack of actual news, I watched for a while. After only a few minutes, I had heard enough. It became clear that for many Americans, the word "patriotism" has become skewed into something very different than the actual definition.

The definition is: "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty."

I think that many people have developed a personal definition that is twisted by things that they hear.

I hate to pick on Bill O'Reilly, but he does have the best ratings-- of which he is frequent to remind us-- so he can handle it. He has stated several times that people who criticize America in any way are not patriotic. He believes that America is good enough already, and that anyone who does not support everything done by our country and the way that we do those things is, according to him, a "pinhead" and not a patriot.

I would like to dismantle that thinking. I believe that many people who follow Mr. O'Reilly's line of thinking are actually more nationalistic than patriotic. Nationalism is, in this way: "the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other."

The thought that the way we currently our is great, and therefore in no need of improvement is not only ignorant and wrong; it's dangerous. It was a "superior" race that, less than a lifetime ago, attempted to obliterate the Jewish people from the face of the earth. It was the thought that merely who they were, based on the color of their skin and the nation in which they were born made them in no uncertain terms superior.

Bill O'Reilly and many others have labeled all those who disapprove of any American tradition, or who think that there is anything wrong with America, or who think poorly of the President as America Haters, as I've written about before. According to them, whining, complaining, or criticizing elected representatives is not something that patriotic people do. We should support our President in everything we do because he is our boss.

In reality, the President works for us. We are the ones who are responsible for his paycheck. He is elected by us to do what we think is best for America.

The train of thought that says we have everything perfect right now is the same thought pattern that once said, "If God had intended for men to fly, they would have been born with wings." It is backward. It is outdated. It is ridiculous. If we do not change, we will not only not be the "best" country in the world, but we will fall behind where we are now. Our universities will fill with foreign students with better grades and our drivers will buy foreign cars that out perform our own.

And the notion that we must blindly follow our President like sheep (or in this current administration, lemmings) and support any ridiculous statement or policy is flat our wrong. It is unarguably wrong. Why have freedom if we give our mind and our will over to a fallible and imperfect President? Our President is not a prophet. His words are not inspired. He is imperfect. He makes mistakes.

If you think that an elected official is doing a bad job, and you are patriotic-- meaning that you have love or respect for your country-- and you don't speak out against that person, then you have failed as an American. Someone is either harming your country, its citizens, or making a bad name for it, and for you to say you still support that because it fulfills some thoughtless definition of patriotism is thought process more than fitting for the definition of stupid.

If you are patriotic, you should want what's best for your country. I hope that's not too extreme of a statement.

Happy Independence Day.

Why liberal?

I should have warned people I was going to use a dirty word. On the Internet, on cable news, and in the workplace all across the United States, "liberal" is a bad word.

People will say that it is un-American to be liberal, or that people who are liberal don't have very high standards. Despite the frequency of those ignorant comments, here is what liberal actually means:

-favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

-favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

-of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

I hope that any person, not just in America, but in the world, thinks of themselves as a "liberal" in that way. I hope they would think of themselves as people who want the maximum freedom from oppression, dictatorship and discrimination that they could ever possibly achieve.

Yet this word remains taboo and is thrown about as a meaningless yet heavy label. In the case of this election, people attack Senator Barack Obama and dismiss him as someone who is too liberal. Judging by the recently shown definition, how would one fit that description too well? He wants freedom too much? He really doesn't want a dictatorship? I'm not saying that he is a perfect candidate, I'm merely saying if you're going to suggest that this is one of flaws, you're going to need to keep looking.

The next step people take is calling Senator Obama a socialist. Now that one really packs a punch. After all, it wasn't that long ago when we were at war with the socialists. The Soviet Union was socialist, right?

Socialism is defined as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

So what countries are socialist today? How about Sweden, The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and finally the United States. There is no question about it, America is a socialist country already and you didn't even know it.

How much did you pay for the road in front of your house? The school down the street? The post office just around the corner? The fire department? You use all of these things virtually free of cost because of the socialism that is alive and well in the United States of America.

Social programs shouldn't scare us: we were raised on them. We went to a socialized school. We drive to work on a socialized street every day of our lives. We don't lose control of things when they become socialized; it literally gives power to the people.

So don't be tricked into being afraid of these "scary" words anymore. And when someone tells you that Senator Obama is too liberal, let them know that you're a liberal too. Unless you really do hate freedom and liberties and would like a dictatorship, of course.

Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?

If the question is the average voter, the unfortunate answer is inevitably no. Despite the lessons learned by those foolish enough to watch the TV show, it shouldn't be news that the average voter in any country is uninformed, quickly and easily offended, and really stubborn.

We live in a country where quality and objective news is not popular. Respectable newspapers are almost extinct, and even when reading the few that remain, you have to watch out for who the author is.

Still, newspapers remain almost incalculably more reliable than cable news. Cable news is not actual news of course; it is a business. Its design is not to be a credible and unbiased source of information, but to be a money making entertainment industry. People want opinion, loud arguing and most of all, they want to hear what they already think.

CNN, the "most trusted name in news" promotes racist filth like this and calls it news. It is not news. It is some opinionated bigot who spews his close minded, uninformed opinion to people who enjoy the show and the arguing, and who find it entertaining to have some guy without a fancy education say what they would say.

Fox News is most likely the cheapest of all. There has been documented evidence of Fox's deliberate twist on everything that they report (just try searching for "outfoxed" on youtube) which doesn't really need documenting; just watch the channel and you'll know there is zero reporting going on. It is beyond laughable that they say with straight faces "Fair and Balanced" when talking about their deliberately altered and biased product. It's things like this and this and shockingly even this that prove my point.

The increasingly ridiculous Bill O'Reilly often defends his mockery from credible news sources that he is a joke by saying that he has the best ratings and therefore the best show. The bad news for Mr. O'Reilly is the fact that The Osbournes, Jerry Springer, and MTV's Jackass also have had the best ratings in America. Partly because we love seeing rednecks yell and act stupid and partly because we're no smarter than fifth graders.

My purpose in writing on the subject of laughable media coverage is this: unless we stop looking toward completely fabricated and ridiculous news entertainment as a source for fair, unbiased information, we will continue to be uninformed idiot voters. The kind of voters that earned America four more years of George W. Bush trying to avoid inconveniences like the U.S. Constitution and just get things done. Things like illegal and unjustified wars.

It is very disenchanting to become politically involved and then hear an ignorant comment that was not only spawned from questionable sources, but has been debunked by reputable sources. When I think that Americans who actually believe that Barack Obama is an Arab despite his well documented background it almost shames me that those ignorant embarrassments to America have earned the right to vote just by being born here.

Flipper

Among the myriad of ridiculous name calling in American politics, and one of the most popular labels used this year, flip-flopper is one of the most childish.

What does that even mean? When people use it referring to a politician, it means that they have changed their stance on some issue or another. Some point they had made previously has just been contradicted by a more recent statement, and now they are no longer worthy of our trust.

Or is that really fair? Have you personally ever been presented with information that changed your opinion on a subject? Have you ever learned something that simply made you change your mind? If you haven't, you should donate your brain to science; be sure to let them know that it's in mint condition and it's never been used.

It seems that our minds think that because these people have said one thing and done another, that flip-flopping is on par with hypocrisy, which drives everyone nuts. Still, I think there is a huge difference between, "War is wrong," coupled with "I love war" versus a statement like "I think that we are having no negative impact on the environment" followed by "I do think we are having a negative impact on the environment."

Both statements seem like direct contradictions, but there are drastic differences. The first one begins with a statement that would determine ones actions, followed by actions that contradict the first statement, nicely fulfilling the definition of hypocrisy. The second group of sentences show a person with an opinion, followed by a person who has gained more knowledge on a subject and therefore changed their opinion. There is a clear difference between "flipping" and being a hypocrite.

Currently, Democrats are calling John McCain a flip-flopper for supporting off-shore oil drilling, something he opposed only a matter of weeks ago. Also in the last few weeks, oil reached a record high in price, as did American gasoline. So the situation has changed. Even though his plan won't work and he's really just pandering to what the masses want to hear, it's not because he's a hypocrite.

Senator Obama also has been criticized for declining to use "public funding" for his campaign, after he already told America that he would use it. What you haven't heard, is that there were stipulations when Obama committed to using that system for funding.

Regardless, the situation changed and Obama changed with it. Unless we are supposing that somewhere out there is a perfect person who needs to stand by every statement even when they discover that it was wrong, we should expect our elected officials to change their minds from time to time. If they're too stupid to admit mistakes, they will cause more damage than they will do good.

Shall we Party?

Yesterday I was discussing with a friend about arguments, when he mentioned that he had learned that the lowest form of argument is to insult someone who has just made a point instead of discussing the topic at hand. As soon as he said it, I knew that this was something we all see all the time in politics.

For example, when someone says, "I think abortion is a complicated issue," and the response comes out, "you're just a liberal baby killer!" you can be sure that no issues has been addressed. Or, for another example, if someone says, "I think socialized medicine is un-American," and the reply is "you're just a mindless Republican sheep!" there still hasn't been an actual discussion.

Part of the reason why we attack each other instead of becoming informed and discussing issues is because we have literally and intentionally divided ourselves. What are you? Instead of answering American, we proudly answer democrat or republican. As you can see from the picture at the top of this page(from an actual voter registration card,) we are like new inmates in a prison being told to pick a gang. I actually just recently filled mine out, and I chose other, and wrote in "jedi" so I would be in a less silly group.

Democracy seems to be something we have forgotten about in the war of political parties. Democracy itself is defined by Merriam/Websters as "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." Another definition is "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges."

Haven't we missed that boat? Haven't we created our own arbitrary class distinctions in America? We have. And it's not what democracy should be anymore.

I don't think that we should join, or perhaps even have political parties anymore. The reason being; people hate to lose. Let's say a republican makes a good point and says, "Let's open a program that rewards our service men and women with a paid education." 90% of democrats are going to think that's a swell idea, but they'll still say "Republicans said three months ago they opposed a bill like that! You're just a bunch of Republican flip floppers!" No one in either party wants to lose or admit defeat and they will gladly call names to prove that.

A few days ago, Senator Barack Obama said that we should operate within the United States Constitution and the Geneva Convention and not torture terrorists, Republicans responded with, "This guy's soft on terrorism!" and the Republican party sunk much lower, hinting that if you vote Democrat, your risk of death via terrorism increases. Fear mongering is almost always effective but always without integrity or honesty. In reality, isn't operating within the Constitution something that America should aspire to?

In a discussion with a co-worker yesterday, I was trying to explain this very point. I said that we need to forget what "team" we signed up to play for and vote for what America needs during each election. If the Republicans have a moral upstanding candidate with a campaign that aims to help with what America needs to be helped with, vote for that candidate, and obviously do the same for a Democrat that meets those same requirements.

My heart sank as my co-worker told me after we had discussed all this that he could "just never support them." Why not? Because many Americans choose supporting their team over supporting what's best for their country. And that is what is fundamentally wrong with a two party system-- we are fighting each other and pointlessly name calling when we should be deciding how to improve the country.

If we can't see the simple basic wrongness involved with the prioritizing of party first, country second, then we really have abandoned democracy for arguments sake.

Experience

We hear a lot about experience. There are classics like "College kids can't get a job because they don't have experience, but how do they get experience if they can't get a job?" As many of you know, there are plenty of ways to get experience. But how much is enough?

In the battle for Presidency between Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama, that is a theme that John McCain has hit on again and again. In an April 3rd, 2008 interview with MSNBC, John McCain bridled at comments from Senator Obama about the Iraq war, saying, "I think somebody ought to ask what in the world (Obama’s) talking about, especially since he has no experience or background at all in national security affairs."

In fact Obama does have experience in that field, as you can read about at this really great site.

Some are calling these no-experience attacks a delayed mirror of the attacks made at JFK in 1960 that said he lacked the age and experience to lead the country.

On the subject, Senator Obama has said, "So often in Washington experience means doing what we have been doing over, and over again. Well, to me that's not experience if what you are doing isn't working." He also said, "Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had a lot of experience..."

Several years ago, a phrase that has become unintentional comedy now changed the way people do business. The phrase was "think outside the box." It meant to change the way that we do things because we have plateaued. We need someone different if we don't want more of the same.

Senator McCain, in another of many ridiculous attacks on the Illinois Senator, said that Barack Obama is inept to deal with America's terrorist situation as well, "Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation a September 10th mind-set ... He does not understand the nature of the enemies we face."

Obama said he would not take any lectures from Republicans on that matter, "These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11," the presumed nominee told reporters aboard his campaign plane. "This is the same kind of fear-mongering that got us into Iraq ... and it's exactly that failed foreign policy I want to reverse."

"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks _ for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center _ we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

"And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims..."

Shouldn't we have the experience not to vote for four more years of failure?

And I'm not talking specifically about Senator McCain. America doesn't need any other super-rich white man in his 60's or 70's-- we need someone to help the middle class. We don't need someone who has been in Washington for 35 years and made millions, and while making all that money has lost sight of what it's like to be a poor college student, parent, worker or entrepreneur. To vote the same way, would be to quote Einstein, "insane." ("The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.")

I am not trying to say that Obama has more experience than John McCain. I am not saying that John McCain doesn't have experience, either. What I am saying is that in a choice between "experience" and the moral fortitude required to stop the government from serving the rich and pillaging America's hard working and suffering middle class, we should choose integrity every single time.

Getting Over It

I used to do weekly community service at the town library in beautiful St. Stephen, New Brunswick. My friend and I started a class in which we would teach senior citizens the basics of the internet-- web searching, browsing, and their favorite; email.

The class ran for two hours every Tuesday for 12 weeks. Between my friend and I, we would have two people each for an our at a time. In those 12 weeks, not a single man walked through the door. Only their wives.

"He just doesn't want to." Was always the reason. "He's lived his whole life and never needed to, so why start now?"

Metaphorically speaking, America needs to learn to use a computer.

Last night I glanced at FOX News, something I don't recommend to humans for any reason. The program was the misleading and ultra-biased Hannity's America. The show is hosted by Sean Hannity, who invites guests with opposing views on the show so he can tell them-- loudly-- that they are wrong and that they therefore hate America.

The topic during last nights program that really upset me was a segment called "The Greatest Nation In The World," which is when Sean Hannity tells his 100% American audience how awesome America is and why. Unfortunately, last night he was wrong.

He referred to the American health care system as the best in the world, and slammed the excellent documentary Sicko. He called the film an "anti-American rant", and said that the creator, Michael Moore, was only lying to get in the spotlight.

Here's the truth on the matter. Of the 24 first world nations on earth, only America has no universal health care. America pays more for medication and health care services than any other nation in the world, with HMO's and pharmaceutical companies having profits in the billions of dollars annually, while 47 million Americans don't have access to any health care at all.

Of those that are insured, they are insured under a purely capitalist system, designed by businessmen to make money-- not help sick people.

But here is the base problem. Hundreds of thousands of eligible voters mindlessly watched that program last night. They already thought that universal health care was a bad idea. Isn't that socialism? Like Stalin? I mean, paying taxes that would only help out our fellow Americans in need? How is that right? That's what I thought.

People really just want to hear what they already think. That's the news that they're going to tune into, and FOX is great at providing it, hiding under the ridiculous theme of "fair and balanced". And buying into it is a bad American habit.

Here in Utah, we had over 300 deaths last year on highway I-15. If you've ever driven here you know why-- the majorityof citizens in Utah don't know how to drive on a major highway. This highway was built in preperation for the 2002 winter Olypmics, but people were driving before that and didn't want to change.

Most people don't know how to merge, how to get over when someone else is merging, they don't understand that the left lanes should go faster and that you shouldn't drive ten feet behind someone else who is driving ten feet behind someone else at 85 miles an hour. And over 300 people died last year. Do you know what people here say when poor driving is addressed?

"If you don't like it you can move somewhere else."

Is that the attitude that will make America the greatest nation on earth? That's just the way it is? Instead of acknowledging a major problem that killed hundreds of Americans in a single state in a single year, we cling to our ridiculous tradition and refuse to change. Even if it kills us! We refuse to use email despite its instant speed, free cost and total convenience-- these colors do not run!

The first step that America needs to take is admitting that we have problems. We are not a perfect country. Our soldiers are not always heroes, let alone good people. The ways we used to do things are not always going to be right. Despite our health care being the best in the world according to people who ignore reality like Sean Hannity, America is actually behind 44 other nations in life expectancy, and we live less than one year longer than poverty stricken communist Cuba.

If you think America and all of its citzens are perfect already, I recommend that you vote for John McCain, who will tell you that for his whole 3rd term. I would also recommend Terry Goodkind's Wizards First Rule, another fantasy you might enjoy.

What Right?

The United States Supreme Court says the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, suspected of plotting the despicable attacks of September 11, 2001, still have rights.

John McCain says that the ruling "is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

He went on, "We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called … habeas corpus suits against the government... And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases."

Of these "enemy combatants, he said, “These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have,” he said. “Now, my friends, there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people.”

Senator Obama disagreed, stating that the ruling "ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice while also protecting our core values.”

“The Court’s decision is a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain,” he said. “This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.”

What a breath of fresh air. Instead of the mentality that only people born in America (and presumed innocent) have rights, Senator Obama speaks about protecting our core values. Part of the reason that we left Britain and came to this land was so we could have the right to a fair trial. Guilty people have this right, and so should those at Guantanamo Bay until they are proven guilty.

Others feel forcefully different. After this same story was published by FOX News, a reader commented with this statement:

"Of course Obama thinks it was a good decision. He like all leftist marxists hates the military and this country and everything they stand for. He would’nt know a “core value” if it bit him. This is a very dangerous time for us. If he is elected, fundamental constitutional rights and freedoms will be lost. These people are prisoners of war. They are not petty thieves or car jackers. They are not citizens. They do not have Miranda rights. This is an attempt by the judciary to take powers away from the executive branch. The liberal wing of the Supreme Court struck a blow at the Constitution today. This has nothing to do with law, this has to do with getting back at George Bush, who by the way is not running. We must have a president who appoints constructionist judges to the courts. We will be the authors of our own demise if Obama wins."

This person has a right. They apparently believe that right is based upon where they are born, and that it is not a truth they find to be "self evident" for everyone.

Ironically, this person says that the election of Senator Obama will lead to the loss of American freedoms and constitutional rights. There could not be a more poorly thought out statement on the issue. President Bush has done more to unravel justice in this nation with his unconstitutional war, unconstitutional spying on American citizens, unconstitutional arrests and unconstitutional torture than any terrorist has during his presidency. And the baseless and thoughtless accusation that the United States Supreme Court ruled this way just to get "back at George Bush," is simply not true. Perhaps the Bush faithful need to learn the same lesson that the President needs: not everything is about you!

The first statement made effectively shows how misguided those who still believe in our current really are: that Senator Obama hates our military and our country and everything that they stand for. For proof that believing that a President is incompetent does not make you hate the country of that President, click here. Or use common sense.

The fact of the matter is that Charles Manson had rights during his court cases. Warren Jeffs has rights today. As Americans, we find this truth to be self evident, that we all have basic human-- not American-- rights to fairness and justice, as opposed to the hasty action and thoughtless violence proposed by George Bush and John McCain.

When Senator Obama says we need to stick to our core values, he literally means the constitution. It looks like the constitution actually had a victory.

America Haters

There has been an overwhelming amount of evidence recently that America's States are anything but united recently. Red states, blue states, left wing extremists, right wing nut-jobs; these are all names we've heard, and also probably used when describing certain people in America.

One term, popularized by pundits like like FOX's Bill O'Reilly, intended for those who speak negatively about the current President and his administration is the label "America Haters." These people believe that our elected officials are not doing a good job. They don't respect George Bush. They think he is incompetent, dishonest and immoral.

Seemingly randomly, let me tell you about the Chicago Bulls. The Chicago Bulls had one of the great dynasties in sports history. They had hall of fame leaders like 9 time NBA Champion Phil Jackson, and arguably the greatest player of all time, Michael Jordan helping them achieve greatness. In 8 years, the Bulls won six championships; twice they won three years in a row.

Jordan won five scoring titles, six finals MVP's, and a defensive player of the year award, just to name a few of his numerous accolades. His teammates, while not the most talented in the league, rallied behind him, and Jordan led the Bulls to be the greatest year after year.

It has been ten years since Jordan left Chicago, and the Bulls stink. Despite years of high draft picks and calculated trades, the Bulls failed to even make the playoffs in an extremely weak Eastern Conference this year.

The Bulls current General Manager, John Paxson, is terrible. Some of their players like Ben Gordon, Luol Deng and Kirk Heinrich are overrated and overpaid. Tyrus Thomas has a bad attitude and was a bad pick for Chicago. The Ben Wallace signing was awful for a team that already played defense but couldn't score. The recent trade with Cleveland didn't help them and added to the teams financial struggles.

Does it sound like I am a Bulls hater? I just criticized their leaders, ideas and methods. In actuality, they had a great dynasty and I hope that they do well in the future, but for now they are led by a terrible GM. They have had coaches who were ineffective and tried methods that didn't work after they had already failed with this same team. They have made poor choices and are in need of some serious work, and yet I don't hate the Chicago Bulls.

These people falsely labeled "America Haters" don't hate America. Senator Barrack Obama isn't a terrorist-- think how ridiculous a statement that would be. And no one should retaliate to such silly statements by calling the misinformed name callers America Haters because they hate Obama, who is an American. That wouldn't make any sense either.

So the next time you hear anyone, either from the right or the left say that someone is an "America Hater," because they don't like how things are going right now, take time to explain to that person that they are experiencing some confusion.

Acknowledgement Missing

I really enjoy the show Prison Break. Sure the last season was just awful, but the addiction was still there from the first two terrific seasons. It used incredible suspense, action and government corruption. None of those things shock anyone anymore, though. We've been hearing about those things our whole lives.

One thing on the show that I thought was interesting was that when news hit the media that actually hurt the President, influential members of the administration used their influence to make sure that the news covered something else. Once they control the media, they're basically no longer accountable for what they do.

Interestingly enough, in the past few days, right in the midst of Scott McClellan's "shocking" book release, the United States Senate Intelligence Committee had a release of their own: a 200-page "Phase II" report on how the Bush administration used-- and abused-- pre-war intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Wait a minute! We would have heard about that, right? I mean, if we had proof through the government lied about going to the war we all wish we weren't in, that would be in the news, right? Here's what the report found:

Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Plus more here.

OK, so the government lied. They told us they had evidence when they didn't. We went to a war not only illegally and unconstitutionally, but led by dishonest and deliberately misleading men and women. They played off of the emotions of scarred Americans who had just seen insane terrorists crash planes loaded with innocent people into buildings full of innocent people. Of course America wanted blood, and this adminstration lied to get the blood that they wanted.

Now just think of yourself as a journalist. If a story like this breaks, are you rushing the white house and stabbing a microphone at anyone without the common sense to be hiding from you, or are you online choosing McCain and Obama's potential VP? Of course, we know which one has seen more press from every major news source in the country.

It appears like we've all seen a little bit of Prison Break.

Right and Wrong Change

Change. We all want it. In the hotly contested race for the office of President, both candidates seem intent on convincing us that they will change the way things are for Americans. We clearly don't want anymore of the Bush administrations ailing policies. So which candidate will actually offer a positive change?

In a June 6 interview with Newsweek, Republican Presidential nominee John McCain said, "Well, I think it's an important part of this campaign to point out that everybody wants change, but there is a right change and a wrong change. I believe that what Senator Obama is advocating is a return to the failed policies of the '60s and '70s—bigger government, higher taxes—and certainly not the same view on national-security challenges. So, I thought it was important to point out that there is a right change and a wrong change."

First of all, there is a supreme arrogance in using the phrase "right and wrong." You can use it when discussing math problems. In the world of religion, that term also comes into play quite often; what is true, what is right and wrong, etc...

What John McCain is saying actually sounds familiar to all of us. Think back to when you were a teenager and your parents told you to stop questioning them. They know what they're doing, they don't want you to worry your little brain about it. Just stop whining and do what you're told. This is what John McCain is saying. I know better because I am older. Younger people cannot have the experience that I have.

Ironically, Senator McCain mentioned that Barrack Obama has endorsed "failed policies." This statement is ironic because it is also moronic. Senator McCain voted 95% of the time exactly the same as George W. Bush. These are failed policies. John McCain is endorsing failed policies right now, and for him to not understand that continuing on the same path isn't change. It's equally as ridculous as Rosie O'Donnell attacking Eva Longoria for being a fatty.

John McCain wants to be America's dad. Sure, he's out of touch, thinks we dress funny, thinks our music has no rhythm and is in many other ways out of contact with present day America, but he's older, so he would like to tell us what to do. Maybe if we vote for him we'll get a better allowance?