Want a more representative democracy?

If we are to have a truly representative democracy, then at least two changes must be made to our current system. There are many other important changes, but I'll only focus on two.

The first change is to have all our federal primary elections on the same date nation-wide. I took a peek at how the Democratic presidential candidates are doing, and in the few news articles I found, I noticed a stupid, although expected, pattern: During the Columbus Day holiday, Hillary Clinton was in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Some time shortly before that, she was in Ames, Iowa. And on the sixth of November, she was in Amana Colonies, Iowa. Barack Obama was in Muscatine, Iowa around the Thanksgiving Day holiday. And recently, if photo captions are any indication, Hillary was campaigning in New Hampshire.

They are all campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. Not New York, not Oklahoma, not California, not Arizona, not my home state of Oregon. Iowa has its caucus the third of January, and New Hampshire has its primary election on the eighth. With only occasional exceptions, these two events alone pretty much decide the presidential candidate for each party, so the candidates are trying to grab whatever votes they can from Iowa and New Hampshire residents.

I doubt any of the candidates have stepped foot in Oregon to campaign. No, the votes of Iowans and New Hampshirites are more important. In the meantime, we Oregonians will just have to wait to have our say in May. May! After every other state but Montana and South Dakota has already had its say. By then it won't matter what Oregonians think. Voters in Oregon will either go along with whoever is the clear winner in the rest of the nation or defiantly vote for who they truly want (I will be doing the latter) and see nothing come of it.

I find this unacceptable and disgusting. I don't want some shmuck in Iowa to decide effectively for me who the Democrat I'll be voting for in the fall will be. I see no benefit of having a couple states decide the candidates for each party effectively for everyone else. The only argument I could imagine for the current system is that Iowan and New Hampshirite voters as a whole are representative of the entire nation's voters, but that obviously can't be true. In fact, while Clinton supposedly has an easy lead in the rest of the nation, as of early October she was struggling for a lead in Iowa. Furthermore, only a fairly small number of Iowans turn out for the caucus. A small sample of citizens of only one state can't represent the entire population of the US. There's no way.

The second key change to our so-called representative deomcracy is how we elect our president. Currently, in almost all states, we really just vote for electors for the electoral college who will pledge their vote for whoever gains the plurality of votes in the state they come from. The goal is to get at least 270 electoral votes in the college. The natural impulse in this situation is to campaign in states that either have the most electoral votes or appear to be ambivalent. This means both presidential candidates will try to woo California, New York, and Texas to get their many electoral votes, as well as work hard for the lead in the small handful of swing states, especially the more populated ones which consequently have many electoral votes. They both may at least set foot in all the states, but it's clear which voters will get most of the attention.

I have a better idea. Abolish the electoral college. Let's decide our president through direct democracy. Whoever gets the plurality of the popular vote is the winner. After all, the presidential candidates are asking for the votes of Americans, not of Californians or Ohioans or Oregonians. If they want to win, they will have to work for votes from all corners of the country.

Doesn't this sound much more representative? Everyone will get to voice their opinion at the same time, without being unduly influenced by the opinions of others, and the candidates for president will work hard to appeal to everyone. I think it's a major improvement. More ought to be done, of course, but this alone would be a great start.

— Athelwulf

Oh the joy of rabbit ears

Sometimes I just cannot stand rabbit ears. You know, those metal contraptions that cost anywhere from five to twelve dollars (or more for the fancy ones), and allegedly provide you with television reception that amounts to anything from your local evangelical TV station (I.e. suffering through endless TBN “good guy” televangelists fundraising.) , to - count them - four and a half channels, as is my case.

Most of the times all they amount to is your daily dose of physical exercise. Stand up, adjust, sit down, repeat as necessary. Not to mention that not always will you get even decent reception; storms, high winds, and even smoke from forest fires can impede it. The joys of rabbit ears.

On another note, I don’t know how many of you are aware of the transition in 2009 to digital television, which means pretty much the end of rabbit ears. Although I heard (via hearsay) that there will be some electronic box that convert the signal from analog to digital. Whether our lovely government, well known promise keepers of old, will actually help those folks with acquiring the boxes, remains to be seen.

Even with my late night rant on rabbit ears, I admit that I get nostalgic sometimes. I remember being a little one watching television, and on top of our television stood our set of rabbit ears. (That is, until we got cable mid-nineties.)

Night all.

~Elindelwolf

Words on party loyalty

Thoughtless and uncritical nationalism, especially that practiced by the modern Republican Party, is one of the stupidest ideas I can think of, but party loyalty is certainly up there too. Just as you shouldn't invest much loyalty into your leader, who can turn on you or abuse his or her powers much too easily, neither should you invest much loyalty into a political party. You should stay true to your values, not the party that happens to share those values for the time being.

Political parties are like shoes and loaves of bread, in that while one may be much better suited for hammering a nail, you shouldn't rely on it so much that you forget to dream of one day buying a hammer instead.

It may be argued that party loyalty ensures that a party is successful, and in a way that's true. But political parties, almost invariably, are flawed tools for accomplishing what is right, just as a shoe is a flawed tool for hammering a nail. There's nothing entirely wrong with using a shoe if you don't have a hammer, and neither is it entirely wrong that rational people use the Democratic Party to get the government to do what is right. But while you're at it, don't stay loyal to your shoe: Aspire for a hammer!

I am a registered Democrat because the Democratic Party is the people's shoe and the Republican Party is the people's loaf of bread (a moldy one these days). But the Democratic Party is a shoe, not a hammer. I'm not afraid of breaking away from my fellow Democrats if the party is no longer a good option. If this conservative, Southern, pro-slavery party easily turned into a pro-peace, pro-rights party, it can just as easily turn sour again, just as the anti-slavery party did.

I say all of this in response to this article published on the site for the Wichita Eagle.

The [Kansas] state Republican Party is forming a loyalty committee so that it can punish officers who endorse or contribute to Democrats.

So the party that confuses the executive branch of the government with the very country itself now demands loyalty from its public officials? I wonder how Republicans would react if the Democratic Party pulled this kind of shit.

"Dissension" of the Republican Party "has allowed Democrats to peel away disaffected moderates", so the Kansas Republican Party is "attempting to strengthen the party's state organization and the loyalty committee is a way to promote unity". But I think — hope — it will accomplish just the opposite.

Bob Beatty, a Washburn University political scientist, suggested the loyalty committee could prove a "public relations disaster."

"Ironically, it smacks most of the Communist Party," Beatty said Monday. "That's the kind of public irony that most parties try to avoid -- the party of freedom telling people they have no freedom."

A comparison between the Republican Party and the communist parties of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and other countries, is surprisingly apt. Isn't it commonly thought that communists, just like war-mongering Republicans, demand loyalty to the nation's leader? Isn't it true that communist parties demand loyalty, just like the the Kansas Republican Party seems to want of its government officials? Would the Democratic Party not be criticized as a bunch of communists if it were to do this too?

Kobach said state GOP organizations in at least 15 other states have some method for stripping party leaders of their offices for disloyalty. For example, in Arkansas the state committee appoints three-member committees to investigate complaints if someone fails to perform party duties or is "working against the interests" of the GOP.

So other state Republican Parties are doing the same thing. And I wouldn't be too surprised if Democrats are doing it too. But let's not all jump off the bridge.

But the concept of a loyalty committee still makes some Republicans nervous, even if they agree party officers should not endorse or contribute to Democrats.

"It gives me pause for thought anytime someone requires a loyalty oath of anyone from any organization," said Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh. "I'm somewhat uncomfortable with a group sitting in judgment of other members."

I'd like to see more people like Thornburgh. I would love it if Republicans regained their conscience.

Andy Wollen, president of the Kansas Traditional Republican Majority, a moderate group, mused about the GOP creating a "grand high inquisitor."

"When you hear the term loyalty committee, what runs through your mind?" he said. "Joseph McCarthy. George Orwell."

Josef Stalin and the Communist Party of China too, I'm sure.

This is all for now. Expect an in-depth blog entry about how Republicans are like communists in the future.

— Athelwulf

I am me.

Inspired by a fellow blogger and their article, I decided to write one of my own, and propmtly began writing the following, enjoy.

***

I am me, what party I am matters little because I feel that all parties in-the-end are corrupt and power hungry, pointless; the only reason I am registered with a party is so that I can vote.

I am of no religion, but I do believe in a supreme being.

I don’t believe that we should be the world police as I believe that we should we should take care of ourselves (U.S.) first. The world police gig has only hurt us globally, more so than it has helped.

I believe that true tolerance is a rarity, and what is often called tolerance is merely convenient ignorance. When faced with a chance to show tolerance, most fail.

I believe in:

“Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.” ~Ben Franklin


I believe that the people know best. The government is just an extension, albeit a corrupted and seemingly chaotic one. It should be a government by the people, for the people, not lobbyists or special interest. It’s time we take our government back.

I believe the government owes its people a safety net, welfare, to help them in times of crises. I believe it should be used as an aid, and benchmarks established to get the individual(s) back on their feet so as they do not require the aid.

I believe in hard work and that opportunity should be grasped, but not at the expense of others or nature. I advocate moral corporate practices that emphasize growth, but not greed and corruption.

I support our troops, and am proud of those in my family who have served; I pray that ALL troops come home safely. I believe in treating them better, and giving them what they need to assimilate back into non-combat/civilian life. We owe it to them.

I believe that peace is the answer; I choose peace over war, and I do not agree with the war in Iraq; we have only made things worse for the most part. However, I do admit that there have been good things, and that there has been success, but the level of success is not equal or surpassing (in my opinion) the level of disarray.

I believe that terror, in any form, by any entity (government sanctioned/carried out, independent group, or such.), is wrong. However, realistically, the war on terror will never end. Terrorism is like the Hydra of mythology, when you cut off one head, another head replaces it; as long as there are multiple ideologies, and as long as hate is an existing/sufferable emotion, terror will exist.

I believe that we should grant amnesty for all illegal immigrants in the US. It is unrealistic to deport all of them. We should close our borders until such time as we are able to successfully handle its security, etc… Our immigration laws should be tough. My ancestors came to the US legally, so can they, and so should they.

I believe in a right for a woman (and man) to choose; I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I believe that the father should have say as well, unless it is in the case of rape, incest, or if the mothers health is in jeopardy; above all, I advocate alternatives such as adoption, condoms, abstinence, etc…

I believe that schools should be given a minimum amount of funding; just enough to run smoothly. An increase in funding should only be given if the schools meet satisfactory goals. Student achievement should be factored into whether they get funding or not.

I believe that law abiding citizens have the right to own a weapon/gun. However, as the law goes, if they commit a serious crime, they forfeit the right. I believe that better education and training is the key.

I believe in the funding of research into artificial stem cells, but not funding of the research with normal stem cells.

I believe in the equality for every individual including gays, lesbians, and transgender people. Marriage is a right,

I believe in being eco-friendly, and eco-smart; growth, progress, and advancement with keeping in mind our influence on the environment/the future; being mindful of the consequences of our actions.

I believe we owe it to our older generations to help them with retirement, especially those who have little or no retirement. Lest they end up like my mother who had saved up, but then lost everything to corruption.

I believe that the death penalty is wrong, and that it should be abolished. The notion of taking a life for having taken a life is wrong; we lower ourselves to the criminals standard, barbaric individuals. I believe in:

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

I believe that torture is a form of terrorism, and is wrong. I do not believe that the US government has condoned it, but I do believe that they should make it a hell of a lot harder for certain individuals to torture.

I believe in health care for all, or at least a better system than what we have available.

I believe that politics has lost its way; that our forefathers roll in their graves as I write this. I believe in questioning our government, in being critical of it, even if that means being against the masses. I believe in the question:

How/What will those in the future, our descendants, think of us? Great leaders, thinkers, motivators? The hurtling train of progress for our nation, for humanity?

I believe that the majority of us will be viewed as lumps; repetitive, politically-naïve, and who elect leaders who show themselves as one-trick ponies; and expect a difference.

We let ourselves be blinded by ideologies, hatred, and a myriad of other things; we are nothing more than pawns in a game. As a line in the movie Man of the Year states: “Madam…its been a mockery long before I got here.”

I believe in a government by the people, and for the people - not lobbyists or special interest groups.

I believe in competence over cronyism.

I believe in a direct-vote democracy.

I believe in what I believe in, and though I may not agree with our current president, I respect him, and even admire some of his qualities.

I love America,
I love my state,
I love my town,
I love my family and friends,
I would hate to see our country go to hell.

Act up, think; do something constructive, and save ourselves from ourselves.

Clarifying the abortion debate

I recently talked to a guy who goes to my college. He was talking about the "pro-abortion crowd". I explained to him the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion", but I'm not sure I got through to him.

To be pro-choice is to believe that pregnant women should be allowed to choose to abort a pregnancy without penalty if she so wishes. "Pro-abortion", a relatively common term among conservatives and other folk who are against abortion, as well as among pro-choicers who don't know better, does not mean the same thing. The term implies the belief not only that abortion should be legal, but also that it's a good thing and women should choose abortion. I don't know of one person who believes such a thing. Quite the contrary, most pro-choice people I know don't even like abortion; remember Bill Clinton's advice that abortions ought to be legal, safe, and rare.

The term "pro-abortion" is either a sly trick from the anti-abortion crowd who wishes to cloud up the debate over abortion to their advantage, or simply a result of the cloudy thinking of neoconservatives in general. I couldn't tell you which. Either way, it doesn't take into account what pro-choicers truly believe, and anyone who wishes to talk about the issue in a clear, truthful, and sensible manner should refer to the pro-choice side of the issue by its proper term.

Notice that I used the term "anti-abortion" in the last paragraph. Many people who are against abortion label themselves as "pro-life", and others accept the language. This is also either a sly trick or a result of cloudy thinking.

People who call themselves "pro-life" usually aren't. Most in the "pro-life" crowd are also in favor of capital punishment, tend to hold beliefs antithetical to social and economic justice, are against quality pre- and post-natal health care in principle, and approve of the occupation of Iraq which is killing both Iraqis and Americans every day. You cannot be pro-life when you approve of things which result in poor health, injustice, despair, and death. The proper term for these people is "anti-abortion", not "pro-life".

There are a few people who can properly call themselves pro-life, however. These people believe in the consistent life ethic. They are against abortion for most of the same reasons anti-abortion people are, and they are against euthanasia. They also happen to be against capital punishment and any warfare which results in death (and nowadays, when doesn't it result in death?). They think of life as a seamless garment. I might argue with them on a few things, but I really respect sane and consistent ethics such as theirs. People who are pro-life deserve a lot more respect than the anti-abortion crowd, for sure.

I guess to that guy at my college, I was arguing that there's a difference between the belief that people should be allowed to choose to kill without penalty and the belief that people ought to kill. Honestly, there is a difference, but certainly not one that redeems the former belief, and indeed, I would agree that the difference seems quite frivolous from this angle. However, it's an important distinction for the anti-abortion and pro-life crowds to keep in mind in the abortion debate, the debate of whether or not talk of murder is even appropriate to begin with.

Because he was being told a distinction that was frivolous to him was actually very important, he probably assumed I was telling him that the difference is redemptive. Of course, it's not. He probably also assumed that to acknowledge the difference meant he would agree that abortion is not murder. It doesn't mean that at all. Although the difference between the hypothetical right to choose to kill and the hypothetical assertion that killing ought to be done seems horribly frivolous, there is a difference — and you don't have to give up the belief that abortion is murder in order to accept that.

— Athelwulf

Did you know?

Did you know, that from 1908 to 1931, there was a girl who, many said, "laughed with her eyes."

An excerpt from a local newspaper states:

"According to a police communiqué, a twenty-three-year-old student fired a pistol aimed at her heart in a room of her apartment in the Bogenhausen district. The unfortunate young woman, Angela Raubel….lived on the same floor of an apartment house on Princzregentenplatz, with her uncle. Friday afternoon the owners of the apartment heard a cry, but it did not occur to them that it came from their tenant’s room. When there was no sign of life from this room in the course of the evening, the door was forced open. Angela Raubel was found lying face down on the floor, dead. Near her on the sofa was a small caliber Walter pistol. The motives for this action are not yet clear.” ~ Munchner Neueste Nachrichten (1931)

Her uncle loved her dearly, and undeniably. He sheletered her, albeit almost despot like, and made sure she had everything she needed or wanted - because he loved her.

Accounts of the uncle after the death of his half niece have said that it (her death) affected him so much, he often talked about committing suicide. He secluded himself totally, moved from the apartment, and was extremely close to quitting his career in politics, and ending what he called, "his mission."

This single event, catapulted the uncled into, many thought, a new direction. Over time, he grew distant and cold. Eventually her rose higher and higher in the party he belonged to, ultimately being the supreme leader of it, changing history, and millions of lives.

You know who the uncle was?

It was none other, than Adolf Heidler, also known as Adolf Hitler.

Mr. President

House Resolution 2207, it’s purpose was: “[to make) …supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.” Source

Essentially, it would provide financial assistance to agricultural and other areas that need emergency assistance (financially), including education/libraries.

Fifteen (rural) Oregon counties have relied on federal funding to compensate them for the last six years because of the lack of income in taxes (think: rural); Firefighting, j$ails, schools, libraries will all be, or have already, closed unless something changes soon.

These counties are rural, with vast amounts of forest and lack enough money from property taxes to pay for local services. They used to get their funding from the sales of timber on federal lands, then that nearly stopped because of environmental concern, not human concern.

The president, when he vetoed it, stated: “…the funding is not offset and does not meet any reasonable definition of emergency.”

It doesn’t meet any definition of emergency?

Pardon my language, but WTF!?

Let me state this again: Schools, Jails, Libraries, etc…Closing. Not an emergency?

I admit, there is blame to be placed on the counties for possible/probable fiscal mismanagement, but, that does not mean that the government should leave these counties high and dry.

Mr. President, you are an idiot.

Rates going postal

Want to send a letter?

It had better not be too bulky, or else you could get charged more.

From CNN.com:

The postal rate increase that kicks in Monday is shaping up to be a big headache for many businesses.

Many companies say they are confused and frustrated as they try to adjust to the new rules, and some say mailings could be severely curtailed due to higher postage costs.

The new regulations mean larger envelopes and packages will automatically cost more than smaller mail. Currently, postage is determined by weight, unless it's an especially large or odd-shaped package that warrants special handling.

Will we see price hikes in the future?

Perhaps, but while I was discussing this with a friend, he offered a few possible alternatives to what he called 'terminal overpricing.'

--> A network of volunteer men and women who transport the letters, and/or packages via bicycles or other means. (Example: Pony Express)

--> Utilize FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc... for your needs.

--> Instead of writing letters, write emails.

Also, here is an interesting table showing US postal rates and increases.

This, along with gas prices going up just might make more than a few folks go postal.

Peace, ~Elindelwolf

Rant: Our Congress Sucks

Dear Readers,

I'm sitting here, in Indianapolis, visiting a fellow blogger (neverendingcalamity), and listening to CSPAN and our dear ol' U.S Senate.

You know what i see?

I see six (6) individuals inside the senate, no more.

Why is it that we hear all sorts of (so called) good news about our elected leaders on the news, but yet they fall short.

Is it money? The power? The benefits?

Who knows...

I really believe that the (nearly) empty senate epitomizes our elected leaders: Full of promise when they're campaigning, but all fluff and little or no work when it comes down to the problems our nation has. Frankly, the almost zombie like attention on Iraq disgusts me.

What about:

Social security, Education, Lack of funding to cities/counties, Money for libraries being short (can we say: possible birth of an ignorant society?), national debt, human rights (Sudan, China, etc...), Health Care, Katrina/New Orleans, unemployment, the continuing erosion of the middle class?

Ring a bell?

Guess not.

How about mismanagement? Incompetance? Cronism? Libraries closing?

Like horses with blinders on, our politicians have one thing in sight it seems, reelection.

"If we cannot trust our elected leaders to take care of our interests, and preserve our nation, then we must do it." ~Unknown

~Elindelwolf

Letter from Greg Walden, annotated

I finally got a response to the letter I wrote to Greg Walden in January after a local protest against the troop escalation in Iraq. I basically told him that he should support a withdrawal date instead of a troop escalation. It's quite timely that he would respond to me right now, while Congress is talking about withdrawal.

Below, chunk by chunk, I have typed out the letter, verbatim, and my annotations:

Dear Patrick:

First, let me apologize for my late response and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on the Iraq War with me. Every week I receive hundreds of letters, faxes, e-mails, and calls, and while sometimes I can't respond to them immediately, I want you to know that I value your comments and those of other Oregonians.

This much is understandable. Members of Congress are busy people.

Like most Americans, I look forward to the day when our brave men and women in uniform can return home.

Well, you say you do...

However, that return cannot occur without regard for the situation on the ground in Iraq or the needs of our commanders in the field. It is clear, however, that the Iraqis must be held accountable to do their part to secure their country and help stem the violence. We cannot do for them what they are unwilling to do for themselves.

We can't secure the country for the Iraqis unless they want to do it for themselves, you say. So why are we there in the first place? Are we shooting them until they feel compelled to sing Kumbaya?

It is also important to encourage more regional diplomatic efforts to help stop the flow of insurgents, weapons and explosive devices which fuel much of the violence in Iraq.

Where was this diplomacy before the insurgents, weapons, and explosive devices, and before the violence? Where was this diplomacy before we occupied Iraq? If you really cared about diplomacy, you would've spoken up earlier, when the time was prime for diplomacy.

Recently, Congress considered legislation that would provide the support and equipment that our troops need to continue their efforts. Both the House and Senate bills also contained language which set arbitrary withdrawal dates.

It's so terribly easy to say these withdrawal dates are "arbitrary." But one must wonder if you really believe that.

While our goal should be to finish the job so the troops can come home, I could not support setting an arbitrary date that ignores whatever the realities on the ground may be at the time.

Well gee, those "realities on the ground" wouldn't be so if we didn't go into Iraq in the first place.

I would note that even major newspapers, including the USA Today and the Washington Post, have strongly editorialized against the language. The Oregonian also dismissed the mandatory, but arbitrary, troop-withdrawal deadline, calling it "a great favor to the insurgents, terrorists and political opponents in Iraq to announce precisely when American troops would leave."

Your party's favorite rhetoric: We'd be aiding the terrorists if we withdrew.

Sadly for you, Iraq and the terrorists that attacked us in 2001 had nothing to do with each other. And if they do now, it's only because the president, you, and the rest of the Republican members of the Congresses in session since 2001 have been giving the Iraqis a reason to sympathize with the terrorists' cause, have effectively been giving the terrorists a support base in Iraq.

Sadly, sir, it is your party, not the Democratic Party, that is doing a favor for the miscellaneous terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

The Washington Post editorial board stated the "House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates."

Funny. I was under the impression that the experts of the Iraq Study Group recommended a phased withdrawal. That silly bipartisan study group! Right?

Also, I thought the media was liberal. However could that damn liberal media have let conservative editorials slip by their grimy hands?

It would be nice if you gave me more information, such as in which issues these papers published these remarks, and whether they came from letters to the editors or from the editors themselves like you said about the Washington Post. That makes a huge difference. But maybe you didn't think I wanted to be overwhelmed with such irrelevant details. Or something.

While we work to help the Iraq [sic] government separate the fighting factions in Iraq and resolve other domestic political issues, America must listen more carefully to what the leaders of the Arab world are telling us will work.

Yes, we must. Why are we not doing that already?

We've never needed thoughtful and effective diplomacy more than now, [...]

Is that why our government never bothered to even try diplomacy before?

[...] and I will continue to advocate for that.

You advocated for diplomacy in the first place?

Meanwhile, I hear your concerns and appreciate you taking the time to share them with me. Thank you again for contacting me.

No problem.

It's an honor to represent you in the U.S. Congress.

The feeling is not mutual.

Best regards,
[signature]
GREG WALDEN
Member of Congress

I will write a response letter soon, which will cover the points I made above. Until then.

— Athelwulf

Did you know?

Did you know?

Yes, the Virginia Tech tragedy was/is undeniably tragic, however, did you know that it was not, as some news agencies may tell you, the worst school tragedy/massacre in U.S. history?

Indeed, on May 18th, 1927, a Mr. Andrew Kehoe carried out the deadliest school tragedy in U.S. history.

…killed his wife and then set his farm buildings on fire. As fire fighters arrived at the farm, an explosion devastated the north wing of the school building, killing many of the people inside. Kehoe used a detonator to ignite dynamite and hundreds of pounds of pyrotol which he had secretly planted inside the school over the course of many months. As rescuers started gathering at the school, Kehoe drove up, stopped, and detonated a bomb inside his shrapnel-filled vehicle, killing himself and the school superintendent, and killing and injuring several others.

Why did Mr. Kehoe do this?

It is believed that he committed this act because he blamed a tax levy for his family’s financial misfortune, when it could have been caused by:

~His wife, Nellie Kehoe’s numerous hospital visits due to tuberculosis.

~His lack of aptitude in farming, which his neighbors attest to:

"He never farmed it as other farmers do and he tried to do everything with his tractor. He was in the height of his glory when fixing machinery or tinkering. He was always trying new methods in his work, for instance, hitching two mowers behind his tractor. This method at different times did not work and he would just leave the hay standing. He also put four sections of drag and two rollers at once behind his tractor. He spent so much time tinkering that he didn't prosper."

~In the end, forty-five people (mostly children) died because of this man’s act.

~Now you know the facts.

Peace, ~Elindelwolf

Virginia Tech tragedy: We are all Hokies

As many now know, a lone gunman, now identified as, Cho Seung-Hui, went on a rampage on the Virginia Tech campus, in Blacksburg, Virginia. He shot and killed 32 people, and injuring many others; as one student stated:

“He just stepped within five feet of the door and just started firing."

I offer my thoughts and prayers to all of the friends and family of those lost, injured, and those who attend the school as well as to the family and friends of the shooter, as they will indeed have a long and rocky road ahead; Also, while what he did was very, very wrong, I send him my prayers. According to what i have read from various sources (News, and other), this student was deeply troubled, and was in need of serious psychiatric help. I hope, and pray that he's found some peace.

Secondly, while I do not own a firearm of any type, I was raised around them; I was trained in how to handle them, use them, and as well as being educated concerning them. I hope that all realize that this incident does not mean that every individual that owns a firearm will be going on a shooting rampage; that firearms, in the right hands, are not bad.

Finally, I hope and pray that this incident encourages each and every one of you to spend more time with your family and friends, for each second could be your last; I hope that each of you reach out and help those around you; your neighbor, paper boy, teacher, or friends, times like these emphasize the need for more people to help others.

Our thoughts and prayers are with you all.

Peace, ~Elindelwolf

Rest in peace, Kurt

American literary idol Kurt Vonnegut, best known for such classic novels as "Slaughterhouse-Five" and "Cat's Cradle," died on Tuesday night in Manhattan at age 84, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.
(Source: Reuters.)

I noticed this article by chance while looking at articles on Reuters just as it was posted. I gasped when I saw it. I couldn't believe it.

Kurt Vonnegut was a great writer, and a very smart man. I only read one book of his, The Sirens of Titan, but I just loved it. I whole-heartedly think he was one of the greats. I've also looked at quotes of his, and I really appreciate and value his view of people, government, and the universe.

With most other famous people, I briefly acknowledge their death, and almost immediately move on. I think this man's death will linger with me for a bit. It really hit me. Plain and simple. I feel a genuine loss. The world has lost a smart man and a great mind. We still have his works, thankfully, but it just won't be the same without him.

I'm not sure what to say, except: Rest in peace, Kurt. We'll miss you.

I'm an anti-anti-intellectualist

Anti-intellectualism is very pervasive in American politics, much more so than I had previously thought.

I recently checked out from the library The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, a journalist who specializes in the relation of science and politics. In this book, Mooney tells the history of the Republican ideologues' attempt to win support for their ideologies by distorting science and misrepresenting facts — substituting sound science with junk science — and then accusing other people of doing this, usually liberals and Democrats. While political groups on the left have distorted science for their own causes before, and while it is healthy to suspect that most politicians distort the facts to some minor extent, the left is almost never as guilty as the right.

This flagrant disregard for science is extremely worrying to me as a man who greatly values the scientific method for its ability to refine our understanding of the universe. The fact that they're succeeding is terrifying to me as a man who values knowledge, intelligence, and critical thinking.

The fronts in the war on science are manifold: There are those who want to confuse the public on whether or not cigarettes and second-hand smoke are harmful, even though many, many habitual smokers die of cancer in the respiratory system. There are many who wish to disparage environmentalism, the movement to literally save the world, by claiming that environmentalists are overreacting over trivial things, even though the facts show they're anything but trivial. And there are many who, for ideological reasons, wish to convince people that evolution has little or no supporting evidence, even though it has mountains of it.

I wish it were more obvious to people that anti-intellectualism is irrational to its core. Think about the common claims made by these people: Universities, well-respected institutions of learning, are propagating left-wing ideology; scientists, largely impartial in their quest for knowledge, are a bunch of liberals with an agenda to brainwash the public; intellectuals, who exercise their mind and think critically, are prone to ideologue.

It all rests on the ideas that smart people are stupid, ignorant people are smart, and that people who aren't experts, are experts. The scientists who have dispassionately discovered and studied the facts don't know what they're talking about, while the common taxi driver or barber with only a high-school diploma — if even that — is perfectly qualified to say exactly what's fact and what's speculation. A person with a Ph.D. makes too many mistakes to count, but the average Joe off the street is practically infallible.

I hope that you, the reader, see how irrational this way of thinking is. And I wish it were more obvious to more people. But sadly, it's not. And this is very troubling.

It's one thing to promote a policy when the facts indicate the policy is unwise. It's another thing entirely to deliberately win support for your side by distorting the facts. It is intellectually dishonest and morally deplorable to do this.

As far as science is concerned, there is no shame in acknowledging our negative impact on the environment but declaring we should do nothing for economic reasons; this much is for economists and politicians to debate. It is very shameful to magnify uncertainty, and to declare that the facts are wrong and that any impact we have is negligible, in order to make your side look better.

Science is not politics. Facts and evidence are not matters of opinion. Scientific consensus does not indicate a political agenda. Scientists may make mistakes — they are human — but the scientific method is a remarkably effective safeguard against the spread of mistaken knowledge among the scientific community. There is room for honest criticism in the scientific community, but no room for Lysenkoism.

I do realize there are people who have simply been misinformed and are not aware of what the facts really are. One cannot blame them; when science is politicized, it often confuses people. It does annoy me to see people confuse fact with speculation and conclude that evolution is "only a theory", or that global warming is "junk science". And I'm sure it annoys many other people too. But we should try to recognize who's deliberately distorting science and who's been victimized by such.

I seriously hope that, in the end, science and intellect will triumph, and that no politician will ever again represent scientific facts as political conjecture.

Further reading:

Wikipedia: Evidence of evolution.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy.

Wikipedia: Causes of global warming.

Wikipedia: External links concerning global warming.

Rest in peace, miserable failure

Source.

Up until late last month, you could search for "miserable failure" on Google and turn up the White House's official page on Bush as the first result. This is thanks to a practice called Google bombing.

But now the bomb's a dud.

The New York Times reported on the 29th of last month:

Now a favored online tactic to mock the president — altering the Google search engine so the words “miserable failure” lead to President Bush’s home page at the White House — has been neutralized.

Google announced on Thursday on its official blog that “by improving our analysis of the link structure of the Web” such mischief would instead “typically return commentary, discussions, and articles” about the tactic itself.

Indeed, a search on Saturday of “miserable failure” on Google leads to a now-outdated BBC News article from 2003 about the “miserable failure” search, rather than the previous first result, President Bush’s portal at whitehouse.gov/president.

Well, it was fun while it lasted, I suppose.

But one thing I don't understand is what Matt Cutts, the head of Google's Webspam team, said about the matter:

Over time, we’ve seen more people assume that they are Google’s opinion, or that Google has hand-coded the results for these Google-bombed queries. That’s not true, and it seemed like it was worth trying to correct that misperception.

What? Why would people think such a thing? That makes as much sense as claiming that the media has an overt liberal bias. But then, a lot of people seem to believe it does, so who knows.

Another thing I don't understand is this:

Despite the changes by Google, some other Google bombs are still operative. A search for “French military victories” still produces a first result that says, “Your search — French military victories — did not match any documents.” Click there and your find a mockup of a Google search page asking the question “Did you mean: French military defeats.”

So not only did they accommodate themselves for people who don't take the time to think things through, but they also were inconsistent in neutralizing Google bombs?

George Johnston, the organizer of the "miserable failure" bomb, said that he:

considered Google’s decision politically motivated, even if was not done by hand, and noted that the company had agreed to censor results in China. “I believe them that they tweaked the algorithm, but it is such weasel words,” he said. “The fact that some Google bombs still work makes me think they have a blacklist essentially of ways of tweaking results.”

He hasn’t given up the fight, he said, and remains unhappy with Google’s tweak. “They say they fixed it. I think they broke it,” he said.

I can see his point of view. However, I think I'll personally be able to live without this particular Google bomb. Google's efforts may have been at best annoyingly haphazard, but right now there are more important things to worry about.

New Jersey gays can now civil unionate

As of today, New Jersey is the third US state to permit same-sex civil unions with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. All civil unions and marriages between homosexual couples obtained in other states or nations are now eligible for recognition as civil unions, and civil union licenses are granted to them automatically. New Jersey state Senator Loretta Weinberg, a prime sponsor of the law, calls this a "big, giant step forward".

I call it a punch in the face.

Wanna know why?

It reinforces some negative ideas concerning same-sex couples and marriage. It reinforces the idea that gay people are somehow different from straight people, that the love between two men or two women is somehow different, that the union between them is somehow undeserving of being called a marriage. They have the same rights and responsibilities, but it's not called a marriage; it's called a civil union. They can't get married, but they can get civil unioned-- united, unionized, whatever the fuck the word might be.

It's precisely the sort of injustice we did away with for blacks and other minorities about forty years ago, which we called "separate but equal". We did away with it because we had realized — but have since forgotten, apparently — that separate is not equal.

Imagine a woman wants to go to a university and earn a diploma, but they refuse her one after she goes through all the required coursework and earns the necessary marks. The reason? Diplomas are for men. Why? Because traditionally, only men are educated.

Understandably, women would fight to have their education recognized as being the same as men's.

Now imagine that a man and a woman both go to a university and enroll in the same course program. They take the same courses, they get the same grades, and in the end the man receives a diploma for his hard work, while the woman receives a certificate, which is now equivalent to a diploma and which women can now receive. Both the diploma and the certificate mean the same thing and have the same benefits, but the woman cannot receive a diploma because it's only for men. Instead she's given a certificate.

Why? If they both mean the same thing, then why does the woman only deserve a certificate? What's so different about her? What's so inferior about her? Why should you have a penis and testicles to get a diploma? What about the fact that she has breasts and a vagina makes her unworthy of a diploma?

If both civil unions and marriages mean the same thing, why do gays only get to civil unionate, unionize, unionify? Why should the fact that both people in the couple have a penis, or both have a vagina, have any bearing on whether or not they receive a marriage license, on whether or not they are worthy of one?

Some supporters of same-sex civil unions mean well. They see it as one step closer to marital equality. They're happy that New Jersey homosexuals can now have their love recognized by the government in some way. And I can see and understand their train of thought.

But I wonder if they realize what this implies to the American people. To them, seeing gay couples being told they can have all the benefits of marriage but can't have their union called a marriage reinforces the widespread meme that gay people are inferior to straight people. Of course, because it's so subtle, the American people don't realize this, nor do they realize that this is effectively a step backwards, not forwards.

I wonder if same-sex civil union supporters realize what this means to the people who don't support marital equality. To them, simply having the same rights and responsibilities that straight couples enjoy should be good enough for gays. To them, if gays keep asking for the ability to marry, then they're being ungrateful pricks. Just like they would consider the women who continue to push for diplomas for both sexes a bunch of ungrateful broads.

I wonder if same-sex civil union supporters realize this is a punch in the faces of homosexuals everywhere, plain and simple.

— Athelwulf

The ongoing erosion of the freedom of speech

Now, I am not homophobic; I have a few friends, several of them very close and dear to me, who are gay or lesbian, and I get along with them just fine. I am writing about this bit, because the freedom of opinion (freedom as a whole) is very near to my heart. I am a strong advocate to it. (Hence, this and my personal blog.)

***

My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. ~Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.

It seems that NBA star Tim Hardaway , is wrong in his opinion.

He said (In response to a question concerning 'what if' there was a fellow player who was gay),

"First of all, I wouldn't want him on my team...And second of all, if he was on my team, I would, you know, really distance myself from him because, uh, I don't think that is right. I don't think he should be in the locker room while we are in the locker room."

Now, don't get me wrong, I disagree with Mr. Hardaway's comments.

However, are we to live in a society where we (the people of this society) cannot stand/tolerate opinions that are not "politically correct," and differ from mainstream opinion?

Okay, So he doesn't like gays, so what? It's his opinion, and he has the right to express it. (See: 1st Amendment, Bill of Rights. )

These same people who bash mr. Hardaway for being intolerant, are themselves being intolerant - of mr. Hardaway's opinion/belief.

I can bet you that there are hundreds of thousands of people in the United States of America, who share his sentiments, albeit most are forced into silence by our societal/national set of "right and wrong."

For years, we as a society have drifted further and further into the grasps of the monster called Political Correctness.

What next, we rid our nation of the freedom of thought, and shackle ourselves to a collective mind? Will we bind ourselves to what is inoffensive?(Said with absolute sarcasm, albeit being serious.) Is there no room for dissention?

Wait, lets not stop there, why not


Again I state the following: Are we to live in a PC "police state," held together by fear of being labelled as hateful, intolerant, etc...?

"To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive. " ~Rober Louis Stevenson

Personally, I say no, and while I respect all opinions, as Voltaire said:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Time and tide will tell whether we drift towards true, strong freedom of opinion/expression, or an egg shell.

MLK, Jr. and the right

There are people who are attempting to lay claim to the King legacy, saying it's an integral thread in the neoconservative fabric.

Dr. King must be rolling over in his grave.

David Neiwert, a freelance writer in Seattle, wrote on his blog an interesting entry concerning the right-as-in-wing wing's attempt to claim Dr. King as one of their own, and how it's just utter bullshit. These neocons are taking a good man and his good legacy and defacing them by trying to glue them to their own radical ideology in order to make it look better than it really is. It's a prime example of the sort of dirty tricks these revisionist historians will use.

This is a necessary trick if you want people to buy your faulty goods: Make it seem much better than it actually is. Salespeople do this expertly. To get you to buy their shit, they will either supplement their efforts with such Orwellian language as "previously owned", or just outright lie to you, or both. It's necessary to bend, revise, rewrite, or ignore reality to be neoconservative and have no qualms about it, which is one reason I dislike it so.

Dr. King was not among the people of faith who made enemies out of love and companionship; rather, he was among the people of faith who loved their fellow human beings. These people took the good aspects of their respective religions to heart in their quest to make sure that liberty, equality, and justice reigned. These people weren't stone-hearted (re)visionaries. They didn't portray people who were different from them as friends of the Devil and bedevil their pursuit of happiness. Rather, they embraced and accepted them as the human beings they were.

Sorry neocons, but Dr. King was a member of the Religious Left, not the Right.

— Athelwulf

Rosie vs. Donald

Child 1: I don't like what you did, and you're fat!
Child 2: You're ugly!
Child 1: Am not!
Child 2: Are too! And you stink! (Giggles in enjoyment)
Child 1: I'm telling the teacher!
Child 3 (to Child 1): You're mean!

***

I'm sure that by now you dear readers have been subject to the seemingly relentless debacle known as the Rosie-Donald war, care of our very own much loved mainstream media. Like rabid dogs foaming at the mouth, they attacked the scuffle of egos, and lit the kindling that became the wildfire.

Some believe it all started with Rosie O'Donnell's now infamous criticism of the news conference that Donald Trump gave concerning estranged Miss USA, Tara Conner, and his decision that she would keep her title; O'Donnell called it "a publicity stunt."

Then came the storm — the volleys of bitter words back and forth.

Now they have forced dear ol' Barbara Walters into having to choose sides. Notwithstanding the immature actions by both individuals, Walters has joined O'Donnell's side, and called Trump a "poor, pathetic man." Will there be a Walters-Trump debacle now? (God I hope not.)

Do any others wish to choose sides?

Is it just me, or has the entire feud become pointless? The continuous ego inflation by one, followed by the needle from the other.

I find both to be at fault: Both have fanned the flames with insults, have let their egos take control, didn't know when to shut up, and seemingly were enjoying it all. Seriously, in my opinion, if these two individuals had any ounce of maturity, they would have ceased, and there would have been a good chance that this farce would have ended before it even started.

O'Donnell, Trump, please, for the sake of sanity and the American people as a whole, would you please stop and take a second to do one tiny, miniscule thing that just might (hopefully) solve this fiasco?

Grow up, you two.

Have a good day.

Peace, ~Elindelwolf