Stay Away Rupert!

For the past couple of months I have been asking myself the same question over and over again in a very whiny voice: why can't Rupert Murdoch leave the Wall Street Journal alone? The answer is simple: Rupert Murdoch is a wolverine. He is a gluttonous animal who is gobbling up whatever he can in order to temporarily satisfy his giant media empire appetite. His all-encompassing News Corporation seems to have expanded so far, my blog has now fallen under its umbrella. With that said, if I am dead by the time you read this, you now know why. Viva la Revolution!

On Thursday morning about 200 Wall Street Journal reporters refused to show up for work. "Good for them," I thought, "I'd do the same thing if I was in their position." But then I got worried. If Murdoch comes in, and everyone from the Journal leaves in protest, who is left to write the paper? I began to panic at the thought of Murdoch selecting new writers to fill the newly vacant positions at the Journal. Sean Hannity as an op-ed writer? The most respected broadsheet in the world would immediately become another tabloid.

Being a Libertarian, I'm obviously not against Capitalism and business. But there are reasons why I wouldn't want McDonalds to take over A&S Bagels: some things are good the way they are.

Murdoch reminds me of Wal-Mart. All of Rupert Murdoch's papers and news channels make the news simple and easy. You don't get what you'd call "information overload" in the New York Post, and I don't think I even need to explain Fox News. But people don't shop at Wal-Mart because it's a classy place. It's quick, easy, and inexpensive. I love Wal-Mart as a company, but I've never shopped in one. (That probably has something to do with the fact that I live in New York and Wal-Mart's are nowhere to be found, but ignore that point for now.) The Journal is a classy place, and I and many other readers do not want to see that change.

I'm crossing my fingers, but it looks like Murdoch is going to win this one. It saddens me, because I hate the New York Post and Murdoch's unethical influence on it. Then again, maybe I don't have too much to worry about. Maybe Murdoch will allow the Journal to print whatever it wants.

Or the Journal could turn into Fox News on paper.

I blog, you decide....(sob...)

George W. Bush is Dying a Slow Death

"Bush facing GOP Mutiny." "Blow to Bush as immigration bill crashes down." "Laura packs her things and takes Barney to her mother's." These are the headlines we're reading: it seems that any Republican who hasn't already distanced themselves from Gee Dubya is quickly doing so. This is a scary thing for Bush and it only adds to the slew of bad timing (and bad times) his administration has experienced over the past 7 years.

Whether it's the Hurricane Katrina mess, the Valerie Plame affair, Alberto Gonzalez, those ever elusive WMDs, the Iraq War, or not finding Osama Bin Laden: love it or hate it, the Bush Administration does not look like it will be a historical success. However, even through all the muck, mess, and hard times, Bush had the support of his base (they'd be that 29% who actually still approve of him). But now that he has certainly chosen the wrong side of the immigration debate we may very well see his most loyal of followers put down their big "Bush is #1" foam fingers and call it a night. The President just isn't worth fighting for anymore. And this is very, very bad for Dubya. Because just as he's getting over the GOP quickly taking steps away from him, a big monster is slowly approaching: impeachment.

Most of the Democrats have repeatedly said that they are not interested in impeaching President Bush, but most of them said this shortly after winning the Mid-terms in 2006, which was before Alberto Gonzalez and a myriad of other material almost made for Bill Maher and Jon Stewart's TV shows. Impeachment could possibly happen: Democrats, if they're smart (we'll leave that one hanging in the air), will realize that if they're ever going to impeach Bush now is the time. Now that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid fooled Bush into angering the base and losing his support, there's no one left to protect him. And there are quite a few Congressmen who would be interested in impeachment.

Just two months ago Dennis Kucinich introduced impeachment articles on Dick Cheney. This is, of course, one of the dumbest things ever done in Congress (it has been added to a seemingly endless list of House floor stupidity). Cheney cannot be impeached. Any impeachment trial is done under the jurisdiction of the President of the Senate. Who is the President of the Senate? Why that'd be Dick Cheney, Vice-President of the United States. It's pointless to impeach Dick Cheney, as he'd preside over his own impeachment trial. The only time the Vice-President does not preside over impeachment trials is when the President is impeached, as he'd obviously have a conflict of interest, which is maybe a good reason why the Founders originally had the Presidential runner-up become the Vice-President now that I think about it...

What would impeachment do? It could possibly be the final nail in the coffin that holds the undead body of the GOP. Impeachment could be a giant leap towards a Democratic victory in 2008. But all this impeachment talk is balls with no brass; I'm just having fun. Maybe Dubya will get impeached, maybe he won't. I am just happy the immigration bill talk is finished.

Have a good weekend everybody.


Update: Obama says he won't impeach Bush, says, "I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction."

Nader Gets Ready to Drive Everybody Crazy

Ralph Nader is hinting that he will again seek that wily Presidential win that has eluded him all these years. Seriously, what's not to like about this news? This only adds to what could be the most interesting and exciting Presidential race in years. Let's look at all the factors:

1. Black man and woman running.
Hey, France hasn't even elected a female to the head office yet. If Hillary wins in '08, we've beat them to the punch and that'll really sting. Barack and Hillary running is at the same time progressive and long overdue, but either way it's exciting. If things keep going the way they are in the Democratic party, look for Oprah to run in 2012.

2. Richest man in the universe may run as an Independent.
I personally like Mike Bloomberg; I've spent most of my years in the city under his mayorship and it has been a delight. I do hate his smoking ban, but him entering the race will be interesting. Who will vote for him? Democrats? Republicans? Rabbits? Who knows?!? That's what makes it exciting.

3. Fred Thompson
Will make the debates more interesting simply because he may whip out a gun and shoot Mitt Romney at any given moment. He may be the "real" conservative on the stage, (which means not conservative at all) but he will not help the Republicans win in 2008. It will be interesting to see how the party reacts to him after he officially announces his candicacy.

4. Al Gore
Hot off the news that he won a New Hampshire poll, Al Gore is taking further steps in his grand scheme to take over the world. When you're this popular, how can you not run? Also, that would up the tally to two movie stars running for President. Change the Constitution! Let Arnold run!


These are all great reasons to pay attention to the presidential race, but what will Nader's decision to run do to the election?

The Democratic party strongly dislikes Nader; they hold him responsible for Gore's defeat in 2000, and even though he obviously leans left on most issues, he is a strong critic of the big party that represents people with his views. His ideas certainly are liked and held by many of those who vote Democrat, but he is never going to help the Democrats win. In fact, Michael Moore and Bill Maher got down on their knees and begged Nader not to run in 2004. So what does Nader bring to the election?

When Nader enters a presidential race he does the same thing Ron Paul is doing: bringing important issues to the limelight which forces other candidates to talk about them. Politicians have a tendency to become zombies, especially when they run for President. When Ron Paul mentions blowback or things like Libertarianism, people hear about it and are interested, which forces the other candidates to address it. It's nice when Nader and Paul are in the race because we don't hear the same drivel about Social Security, Abortion, and Healthcare, which neither party has made any progressive statements about in the past 20 years. Nader expands the scope of presidential political talk and that is a good thing.

Plus, I don't want a Democrat to win in 2008.

*Here is a video of Nader's presidential buzz.

Amazing artwork done by Dave Seeley.

64-35 - Immigration Bill Revisited Pt 2 Episode Dos Reloaded

I really don't want to talk about the Immigration Bill; I know most of the American people aren't paying attention, and probably with good reason.
What was evidenced by the media firestorm that engulfed the bill a few weeks ago was that any talk of amnesy creates headlines, but that doesn't change the fact that this bill is like many others.

Michelle Malkin and others on the right have taken to calling it the "Shamnesty Bill" and have vigorously attacked it. But it's odd to see people so up in arms against a bill that's being worked on like any other: a bill often gets proposed, gets amended, gets put on the backburner, gets amended some more, the Senate takes a tea break, the House goes on vacation, and then after the bill looks only like a shadow of its original form, maybe gets put into law. So why the fuss? They could drop in an amendment that removes the "shamnesty" part of the bill (which they kind of did, and Malkin responded with a loud, "Oh...right....now what?") or forces all Mexicans to leave their beer in Mexico. We really have no idea what this bill could look like or if it'll even pass. So the fuss about the bill "returning from the dead" is really a fuss about nothing until they actually start discussing the bill for real, which will happen tomorrow. And I've never seen people make such a hooplah about something they've never read nor understand; the bill is thousands of pages long. Heck, an amendment was just put forth and that alone is 373 pages! Don't tell me people hate this bill simply because Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin told them to...

So as of right now, the bill itself is not interesting; it's dead news until the Congress begins to talk about it. What is the most interesting part of the whole debacle? Presdient Bush's eagerness to sign not just this bill, but any bill that has to do with immigration, specifically one that favors the immigrants. Why is he pushing this legislation so hard? This is what makes George W. Bush smarter than most people think: the President is hoping that when more hispanics enter this country (which they undoubtedly will, with or without the passing of this bill) that they will remember which political party helped them do so; they will remember that a Republican president pushed for their arrival. Of course, this hasn't made him very popular with the base of the Republican party, but the base of the Republican party sucks anyway.



The real news is that Paris Hilton actually looked like a sweet little girl when she came out of jail.
























I would definitley tell my sons to COURT THAT!

Helping the Military In Iraq

The U.S. Military says it has met its recruitment quotas so far this year, even if they have had to bend the rules a few times or lower recruitment standards in order to do so. This isn't a big deal, and it's happened in the past. But there is one area where recruitment is not only low, it's almost non-existent: Arabic speaking recruits.

It's no secret the military is short on translators, specifically ones that speak Arabic. There are stories of soldiers driving a Hummer through a small town and then they randomly run into a field of land mines. Why do they "randomly" run into a field of land mines? Well, because no one riding in the Hummer spoke Arabic, and therefore couldn't read the signs put up by the locals warning those driving on the road that there were land mines ahead. Because of the language difference communication with the Iraqi locals obviously remains a problem for the military. It has even been reported that as few as six Arabic-speaking Americans work in the U.S. embassy in Iraq.

And it's not just the military, The F.B.I. is short of translators as well. But the F.B.I. will probably be able to find those who speak Arabic much more quickly than the military. Why is that? Because the F.B.I. aren't stuck with, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Reports have indicated that there have been as many as 11,000 personnel asked to leave the military as a result of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." What is sad, and slightly silly, is that many of those (322 to be exact) were foreign language experts who spoke Arabic. The military needs those who speak Arabic, yet they're sent away because of sexual preference? It just seems very silly and the American people agree. The overwhelming majority of the American public believes gay should be allowed to serve openly in the military. What is even more fascinating is that the troops also overwhelmingly say they're okay with gays serving along side them.

It seems that most of the troops realize that if someone's sexual preference is really something that bothers you while you're at war, maybe you should rethink why you joined the military in the first place.

I usually try to stay firmly in the middle of whatever topic I'm discussing, but I think this one is pretty simple. The troops are okay with it, the people are okay with it, Canada, Britain, the Netherlands, and a host of other nations allow gays to openly serve in the military - why not give it a shot?

U.S. Army Has a Bomb That Makes You Gay

Yes, you read that right. Well, the U.S. Military was working on a bomb that made enemy soldiers gay. The idea would be that the enemy soldiers would go gay, crave the buttsex, and end up having sex with each other instead of fighting a war. Even though this sounds like it was thought up by Pat Robertson, the Military was actually toying with the idea.


Of course, they gave up research some time ago, mostly because the whole idea was flat out crazy, but there have been recent concerns that one was detonated in Iran. Look at these photos and decide for yourself:




Mahmoud gets it on with Hugo Chavez after being exposed to gay bomb.




Ayatollah Khamenei waves a rainbow flag.





Statue erected in Tehran Square.





The new Iranian sport "running naked through water" has become increasingly popular since the detonation of the homo-bomb.






Iranians that look very much like Americans, but are definitley Iranians, dance in the street.






The new design of the Iranian flag.




Did the bomb work? YOU DECIDE.

Americans: Our Country Sucks Right Now

The verdict is in: America needs sweeping changes. Americans disapprove of the current President, Congress, and the direction of the country.





You'd think that the American people's disapproval of Bush's handling of just about everything would cause them to hate on Republicans, but as evidenced by the climbing disapproval rates of the Democratic Congress, (some polls have the approval rating of Congress at only 28%) we don't like Democrats now either.

What does that mean? It means that some serious change is going to have to happen, and that's tough when you have about 19 lackluster people running for President. The only candidate offering serious change is Ron Paul, and that could be why his message is resonating with so many people.

The American people and their attitude is slowly changing and it'll probably change even more over the course of the year. The American people are getting smarter and they're getting fed up: fed up with the political process, the way politicians act like zombies, and the way the media lets them do it. (I remember watching this video of Jon Stewart on Crossfire and hoping and praying his message would maybe change something. All it really did was get Crossfire off the air.)

It will be less interesting to see who is elected by the parties in the primaries, then it will be to see who the American public elects as the next President. There is the feeling that this election is very important: it is the precursor as to which direction this country will take. What is scary about that: the Democrats seem to be the ones who are offering more change, whereas the Republicans are merely offering "four more years."

This will be an interesting 4th of July.

Barack Hates Bloggers!

This is too much! This past Wednesday a young blogger named Jerid wrote about how he attempted to attend one of Barack Obama's "Fath, Action, Change" events in New Hampshire, so he could bask in some Obamaness. When Jerid got there, he politely introduced himself as a blogger and was subsequently denied access to the event. Why? The reason cited was: "no press allowed." Since when did your average, run of the mill blogger get lumped in with "the press?" Seriously, do my or Jerid's almost completely irrelevent opinions have anything to do with what the normal world identifies as the press? No way! (Or at least I hope not.)

I get the feeling from his blog that Jerid was pretty upset about it, but if it was me...personally, I'd be bragging to every person I saw that I was unable to attend an event because it was "non-press only." The conversation would probably go like this:

"Yeah, I tried to get into Rocky's event last night, but I missed the memo that it wasn't for the press, so I decided to leave. Not like I care, I probably wasn't going to blog about it anyway; I got a tip on Hillary Clinton wanting to censor talk radio like Russia is."

"Dave, who is Rocky and what are you talking about?"

"Rocky? Oh yeah, that's what Barack Obama's really close friends call him. Haha, how he got the name is a really funny, you see this one time when Barack was....eh...actually, nevermind. You had to be there."

"That's stupid. And you got that "tip" from The Drudge Report."

Hilarious!

Five o'clock Bell

Today, the top story on the Drudge Report is that Democrats in Congress are discussing, or kind of sort of playing with the idea of legislating talk radio. Senator James Inhofe was discussing this on a radio show (irony?) and continued to say it was "common chatter" amongst Democrats in Congress.

The Center for American Progress did a study on talk radio in America and came to the conclusion that 91% of all talk radio leans conservative. (In case you're wondering whether or not the study is "fair and balanced," the name of it is: "The Political Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.") Even Trent Lott said that "Talk radio is running America, and we have to deal with that problem," after discussing the immigration bill. The reason he said that is because conservative talk show hosts Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levine destroyed the immigration bill. Now, some of the things they said about the bill weren't true, but at the same time they pointed out that the bill was particularly awful in some areas. And that's the job of the press. The press should not let the government get away with anything, that's particularly why I like Bill Maher and Bill O'Reilly so much. They both sit on opposite sides of the spectrum, but they show politicians no mercy.

A few years ago, the liberal left tried to start its own talk radio station: Air America. Needless to say, it tanked, mostly due to hiring comedians instead of people who actually knew what they were talking about (Rachel Maddow is an exception.) The market of talk radio clearly chooses conservatives. I don't particularly like Mark Levine, I think Sean Hannity is a swell guy even though I often disagree with him, and I can't stand Rush Limbaugh, but I listen to all of them. Why? Because they're fun to listen to. Yes, they're entertaining, but I take everything they say with a grain of salt. When you talk about legislating talk radio you are telling Americans they are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and at the same time you stifle the freedom of the press.

Hannity, Limbaugh, Levine, Michael Savage, and hell, even Alex Jones all have a right to voice their opinion on the medium of their choice especially if the market has chosen them.

*Now let's see if Hannity and the rest can call out the bullshit: Inhofe says he overheard that conversation three years ago. Regardless, the point still stands: do not regulate the media.

Global Warming/Cooling or Why I Love Polar Bears

Late yesterday Matt Drudge posted an article related to global warming. Drudge has sort of made global warming his own personal obsession. He is a global warming skeptic, as are many people. And there are a great number of reasons to be skeptical.

Whenever I hear someone say they're worried about global warming my first reaction is always, "Are you serious?" Now I have no idea whether or not the earth is actually going to set itself on fire, but I am always shocked that people assume that if Mother Nature is planning to spontaneously combust, that we have some say in it. The facts have been in for quite some time: Mother Nature is a bitch and she doesn't care what you think about it.

After I ask the person whether or not they're serious in regard to their fear of global warming, I usually take a stroll down this line of thinking: Firstly, it is completely plausible that global warming is real, damaging, and caused by humans. I'm not a scientist so I can't really take a good look at the evidence and come to a definite conclusion. But as a normal person: a hot, young, free, sexy, sober American, I really can't buy into global warming. The logic just doesn't seem to make sense. The earth has been getting warmer and cooler for thousands of years; the article Drudge posted makes it very clear, and there are countless articles just like it. But aside from the fact that this global warming talk may be hysteria, there are other, simpler reasons to be skeptical.

1. If they get you on global warming, they've got you on everything.

You can justify doing anything, as long as you relate it to global warming. For example: sheep wool causes global warming, so we cannot use wool in our clothes anymore. Now that isn't true, but we already see governments meeting, trying to decide how they're going to force their own people to buy electric cars. They had better be pretty damn sure about global warming before they force me to buy a hybrid.

2. Being concerned about the environment is the only way to get to heaven.

People are always encouraged by the government to be concerned about the environment. Millions of Americans recycle. Why? Well they assume that it helps the environment, but after you add up all the gas used by the trucks that go around collecting recyclables, the gases emitted by the trucks, the processing of the recyclables at a factory, and all the energy it takes to complete the process, it probably doesn't help the environment at all. So why do people do it? Because it makes them feel like they're a good citizen; helping the earth. Maybe that's what all this global warming hysteria is all about.

Listen, I'm all for helping out the environment and being a responsible citizen, but global warming is taking it a little too far. The average person has read the TIME magazine articles, they've seen the documentaries and they're still not convinced. I personally don't know what I'd do if I knew I was responsible for the flooding of Florida and subsequently the death of Mickey Mouse, but we're going to need to see something testable, something real, in order to be truly convinced. Show me a picture of a scientist sun-bathing in Antarctica or a Russian in shorts. Until then, the average person has every right to be skeptical. The sooner they remove the extremists from the argument and allow skeptics into the debate instead of merely saying, "Global warming is here and you're all going to kill Mickey Mouse if you don't stop smoking and lighting fireworks by next Tuesday," maybe some people would take the global warming advocates more seriously.

All the hysteria turns people off. Allow the debate to be civil, and maybe we can save this planet after all.

Campaign Songs and Why I Should Pick Them

Yesterday Hillary announced that her campaign song would be the very American, "You and I," by Celine Dion, as if the world didn't already have enough issues with the Canadian singing queen of cheesiness. Not to mention, the song is written by Aldo Nova, who also has written a song or two for Clay Aiken. Come on Hillary! You've got Bill on your side. Couldn't you have him jump in the studio to play the sax on an old Miles Davis record or something? I know, my post is causing you to see the error of your ways. But never fear, I have a new campaign song picked out for you, and for the rest of the candidates as well:



Hillary Clinton's New Campaign Song:

"Cat Scratch Fever" by Ted Nugent


Perfect choice. The song is catchy and it alludes to a real disease that is sometimes contracted by infants after being scrated by a feline. Think about it Hillary. You could be that cat, killing babies before they have a chance to grow up and vote Republican.



John Edward's New Campaign Song:

"I Feel Pretty" by West Side Story or Robert De Niro


People rag on John for his expensive haircuts and nice suits, but he has to represent for the metrosexuals all over the USA. That's a lot of pressure, so go ahead and look good John. You've had to sue a lot of big corporations to get where you are, so enjoy it.


Barack Obama's New Campaign Song

"Respect" by Notorious B.I.G.


Did you seriously think we could give the only black man running anything but a rap jam as his campaign song? This song sums up what Barack needs. He needs the respect of the American people and of his candidates. And if he doesn't, Biggie will come back from the dead and "pop a cap in yo ass."


Mitt Romney's New Campaign Song

"I Wanna Sex You Up" by Color Me Badd


Come on. That chin? That hair. In another life, Mitt could have been a porn star. He's lucky I didn't just give him the soundtrack to a Ron Jeremy movie.


Rudy Giuliani's New Campaign Song

"Mambo Italiano" by Rosemary Clooney (or any track from the album Mob Hits)


"Hi, this is John Gotti Jr. and I endorse Rudy Giuliani for President."




*Monday is really supposed to be the day when I post silly things. Sorry about that.

Barack: The Rookie

This week Barack Obama apologized for circulating a memo that criticized Hillary Clinton for having financial ties to India. Barack called it "his dumb mistake."

It is wise of Mr. Obama to apologize, but it is not the first time he's had to apologize for a mistake made, and surely it will not be the last.

But these mistakes are hurtles that Senator Obama will constantly have to jump. He has all the charisma that a presidential candidate should have and more, and fortunately for him, it is overshadowing his young age (45) and inexperience regarding national politics.

But all of this rounds up why he is probably the most interesting and exciting Democratic candidate. I spoke to a friend tonight, who've I've always thought of as conservative, and asked them who they're voting for. To my surprise, my friend, and many others gathered, was leaning towards Senator Obama. And not one of my friends knew of the small mistakes he makes when playing politics. All they see is a fairly young man who is confident and charismatic. It is easy to give you support to someone if they look the part. But who are my friends supporting?

Senator Obama is often spoken of as a moderate Democrat. So moderate, in fact, that some worry as to whether or not the Democratic base will lend him their support (which could explain while Hillary is currently leading the polls). But Obama is less moderate than some would take him for.

Dennis Kucinich is a lower-tier Democratic Presidential candidate. He is mostly lower-tier because he is wildly and alarmingly liberal; walking a fine line between Socialist and nutty Democrat. It makes you wonder what is in the water in the Ohio (where Kucinich is from) and how Karl Marx managed to slip his magical elixir in it unnoticed.

To sum up some of Kucinich's political views:

• Supports universal health care (eek.)


• Wants to prevent the privatization of social security (God forbid people are allowed to do what they want with their own money)


• End the war on drugs (Not bad, but my Mom and Dad will officially not vote for this guy.)


• Legalize same-sex marriage (My Mom and Dad officially think this guy is nuts, and your parents probably do too.)


• Strengthen gun control


• And by "strengthen," Congressman Kucinich really means BAN ALL HANDGUNS, suckas.

But why am I talking about Dennis Kucinich in a post that was supposed to be about Barack Obama? Well, besides the fact that I am amazed at how much Dennis Kucinich looks like Pinnochio, there is this:






Obama



Kucinich



Maybe John Edwards was right when he criticized Barack for not speaking up enough in regard to how he casts his votes in the Senate.

Please do note vote for someone just because they sound good. I know we've had to put up with almost 8 years of Bushisms, but that is no excuse. If you agree with Barack's views, then fine vote for him, you have my full support. But don't vote for someone based solely on charisma. RYAN SEACREST FOR PRESIDENT!

Check out the voting records of Kucinch and Obama at Ontheisses.org.

Update: Obama's voting record has displayed some change so he is no longer exactly in line with Kucinich, but still remains farther to the left than most suspect. His voting record can be viewed here.

The Danger of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

I usually lump any 9/11 Conspiracy theorist I meet into one of three categories:


1. Young and impressionable
2. Old and crazy
3. Below average intelligence.

(Some are not limited solely to one category.)

A good example of number 1 would be a teenager in high school who has seen Loose Change and was actually convinced by it. No real harm done; they'll probably grow out of it. The last two are the groups of people are the real meat of what this post will address. A good example of number 2 would be James Fetzer, 9/11 truth "scholar" and proof that being a crazy nut with a Phd still means you're insane, you just have more letters in your name. Members of group 3 include Jason Bermas, the guy who does all of the "research" for the Loose Change trio, and of course, Rosie O'Donnell.

But while I do judge anyone who proclaims to be a 9/11 truther, I usually think of them as harmless and silly. Almost everyone will admit that conspiracy theories can be fun from time to time, so the 9/11 truthers are simply people who are having a little too much fun, right? Well, if by "fun," you mean the kind of fun Charles Manson has, then yes: they are having too much fun.

This is a video of a Muslim public speaker named Dr. Zakir Naik. He often debates and speaks on comparitive religion. In this clip, he addresses a question regarding Osama Bin Laden and the bastard's relation to the religion of Islam. I realize the video is long, but I'm just posting it for reference. The real important part of it is from 1:44 to 2:24 and from 4:10 to 5:40, if you want the Cliff Notes version.



In the video, Dr. Naik refuses to say that Osama Bin Laden is good or bad. He simply states, "I don't know him personally." He then says:


"Imagine if you go to the USA, you go on the Internet, USA, American citizens themselves have a hundred other hypotheses for who is the person who is responsible for eleventh September, do you know that? You go on the Internet you find Americans, I'm not quoting non-American sources, American journalists, American historians; they have given that this thing could not have been done by Bin Laden."


This is one of the many reasons the 9/11 truth virus is a truly harmful disease. The idea that we attacked ourselves is idiotic and false. What is amazing is that we came up with it, and the enemy is using that against us. The radical Muslim leaders are telling their children that we blew up the bulidings and blamed them, and even "moderates" like Dr. Naik is buying it. (Note that Dr. Naik never says he believes that the U.S. attacked itself, yet his indifference is still unnerving.)

I'm not suggesting we silence the conspiracy theorists. I'm simply begging them to grow up and realize that because of their stupid beliefs, other radical Islamic countries are teaching their children that America murders its own people, and citing it as a reason why the war against the US is justified.

I should also say that Dr. Naik is not a representative of moderate Islam. He appears to be because in some places he denounces violence in the name of Islam. That is a good thing, but his neutrality over Osama Bin Laden is a horrible and sad thing.

Durka Durka, Muhammed Jihad.





Note: The Saudi clerics in Mecca have denounced Osama Bin Laden. He has been called a disbeliever and been rejected as a Muslim. Most Muslims consider him evil and do not recognize him as a Muslim.

Teaching Republicans About Their Party

John Hawkins of Right Wing News, wrote an interesting article over at Townhall.com on why "Conservatives" do not like Ron Paul. Now I am all for Conservatives hating on Ron Paul. People can hate on whoever they want, so long as they do it with good reason.

I will not and cannot respond to the whole article,(I am currently enjoying chocolate cake with my Pops) but another great blogger, Retro Republican, has already done so better than I could ever attempt to. But I will respond to the first point in Hawins's article, mostly because I hear it a lot and it sure is silly:

#1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: I have nothing against libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the Republican Party. But, conservatives have even less interest in seeing a libertarian as the GOP's standard bearer than seeing a moderate as our party's nominee. In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues.

I could go on to say that Ron Paul's "brand" of conservatism is the conservatism of our Founding Fathers, and indeed, so is libertarianism, but all I really need to do is give this section of an interview with a certain governor in 1975, conducted by Reason Magazine:

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?
RONALD REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. (Emphasis mine)

This post is less about my man-crush on Ron Paul and more about my hatred of poor arguments.

Enjoy the rest of your Father's Day.

EU Superstate!

The conspiracy nuts just fell off their chairs. A European Union constitution is being pushed forth in Europe and to some people it looks like steps towards making the European Union a superstate. The Daily Express had this to say:

The Prime Minister has welcomed controversial plans to bring back the troubled EU constitution by the back door - totally bypassing the need for public referendums on sweeping new powers for Brussels.

Don't ask me why Brussels would get new power. I always thought they made chocolate. But according to the Daily Express article, Brussels would represent the rest of the EU at the United Nations and they'd even be able to change national laws. Freakish. So who is to represent the EU as its ambassador/Jedi Knight?

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."

The push for this new constitution is one of the last things Tony Blair will be doing before he leaves his job as Prime Minister to Gordon Brown. Nicolas Sarkozy, the current French President, is giving his support for Tony Blair to become the President of the European Union. It has been stated that the President would have very few formal powers, but then again, a few years ago the U.S. President had less power than he does now.

An EU superstate may not be a bad idea, as long as you call it a Suuuuuuuperstate. But if all the nations of the European Union joined together, they'd have an economy almost as powerful as the United States, they'd be able to handle internal conflicts relatively quickly, and currency, trade, and travel would be a lot easier to manage.

An EU superstate is a bad idea because:

1. The difference in income between some countries. The Per Capita incomes amongst separate countries sometimes differ from $9,000 to $29,000.

2. The language differences, obviously. English would probably take precedent over other languages, and that would anger some Frenchies, Italians, Spaniards, etc. who all think their language is the best. (In my view, they should think of language the same way some people think about cars: as long as it gets you to where you're going, then it's fine).

3. This is the most important reason: nobody wants it.

But you know, to each his own. Oh and the Illuminati can't be stopped and all that other mothajazz and soon we'll have a one-world government. And Michael J. Fox will be the president.

Continue to enjoy your weekend, folks.

Oh and Happy Father's Day.

Changing the Game

Yesterday I made a brief mention of Howard Dean's grassroots campaign and how it almost won him the Democratic nomination (and then I posted a video of Dave Chappelle doing Dean's rebel yell). Well, the guy who ran Dean's campaign, Joe Trippi, has written a book: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The book is about how politics is changing because of the internet, and any smart candidate will utilize this to their advantage (if they can).

In his book (and in this article) Trippi asserts that as people use the Internet more and more, the worse it is for politicians. Well, politicians who suck, that is.

You see a LONG while back it wasn't what you looked like that really mattered, it was how you sounded on the radio. Then we moved into how you looked on TV, which really wasn't too tough; make-up can do remarkable things, but it was all another learning curve politicians had to master. The next curve is tough: the Internet forces politicians to be on the defensive 24/7. I mentioned yesterday that a random person could take a cell phone video of Mitt Romney sacrificing a baby to Brigham Young. Well, aside from the absurdity of that particular situation, that could very well happen. A supporter or anti-supporter could get a quick video of a candidate quickly flashing a middle finger or taking a shot of Jack Daniels, and within hours it could be uploaded onto the Internet. This changes the politics game entirely; politicians, like I've said before, are being forced to stop being polite, and must start getting real.

These days a politician must really watch what he says. If a politician cites a document or makes a statement, the people at home can get on the web and double check everything he says. What instantly comes to mind is Rudy's rejection of Ron Paul's reference of Blowback at the Republican debates. The research and the hard facts have proven Rudy to be wrong. Rudy hasn't really taken any heat for it (yet) but can every politician survive a speaking debacle or a construed fact? The American people, thanks to the Internet, are slowly moving in the direction of not being stupid anymore. The sun is setting on the days where a politician can get by on charisma and likability. In the post-dawn of the Internet age, the people will expect their leaders to be intelligent and resourceful.

Not all that bad a of a future, if Trippi is correct. Who doesn't want an intelligent and real leader, as opposed to a politician who can rehearse and recycle answers to questions?

Have a great weekend everybody.

Comic provided by xkcd.com

Equating the Yankees and the Presidential Race

I am a Yankees fan. I have been one for as long as I can remember, and I can remember watching quite a few games with my Dad clad in Transformers pajamas, so it's safe to say I've been a fan for quite some time. After the big World Series win in 1996 (which is the win that means the most to my generation) it's been pretty easy to be a Yankees fan. We haven't won a World Series in seven years, but we've always played well and we've been enjoyable to watch. (I realize I'm using "we" as if I'm on the Yankees myself. It probably has some deep Freudian explanation, but I'm just going to say it shows how much I like the team.)

But this year has been something different. Up until two nights ago the Yankees had more losses than wins, which is not something Yankee fans are especially used to. It's no secret, the Yankees were not playing well this season, but after winning their 8th game straight last night, it finally looks like things are heating up.

This week I was reading the blogs on ESPN.com and spent some time watching reruns of Sports Center. All of the commentators and bloggers make an attempt to weigh in on one question: Can the Yankees win the Wild Card? (The Wild Card is a way for a team to make it into the playoffs without winning their division). You see, in the eyes of the sports "experts," the Yankees have no chance of coming in first place in their division; it's already been decided. The Yankees will have to settle for the Wild Card. Here's why that's stupid: there are still 99 games of baseball left to play. Winning the division is certainly not out of reach for the Yankees. The Boston Red Sox (currently in first) could have all of their pitchers die in a plane accident, or they could easily suck for the rest of the season. It's silly to make declarative statements regarding a team's future at this point in the season.

The same rule sort of applies to the Presidential election, except the game is played differently. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani are likely to get lots of coverage from now until August. But to say that someone like Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback is completely out of the race is ludicrous. Howard Dean came into the Presidential race a virtual unknown in 2003, and by using the Internet and a strong grassroots movement (a la Ron Paul) ultimately rose high in the polls towards the end. Howard Dean may have won the Democratic nomination if not for the media completely raping him after his now infamous "rebel yell."

But why is no candidate out of the race yet, even though it looks to be one of the big three (or Fred Thompson, but let's hope not)? In a CNN poll done in New Hampshire it asked potential voters a variety of questions. It reflected the same results that most national polls do: Rudy was in first, McCain was in second, Romney in third, Fred Thompson in fourth, and everyone else hovering between 1-3%. What was different about this poll was an extra answer to the "Who are you voting for?" question: "I have no idea who I'm voting for." Not surprisingly, most people selected this answer. Only 6% of those polled had "definitely decided" who they were voting for.

No one really should know who they're voting for at this point, mostly because we haven't really seen enough of the candidates. According to polls, most people learned about Ron Paul in the past 2 months, which means the average American isn't really following the political process as of yet. The same CNN poll done in New Hampshire also showed that most people hadn't watched the debates. Anything can happen in the next few months. A grainy cell phone video of Mitt Romney sacrificing a baby to Brigham Young may surface on the Internet, or an old mobster's corpse could be found in Howard Beach and a "Vote for Rudy" button might be on his suit. Or the media could choose something as simple as an awkward scream to deem you unfit for presidency.

So don't worry about who you're going to vote for now, just like Yankee fans shouldn't really worry about the Yankees making the playoffs. And the silly prediction game goes both ways: just because the Yanks are streaking at 8 games doesn't mean they're immediately destined to win the World Series. They could lose every game for the rest of the season. Let's just be patient and worry about the results when they get here. (But that doesn't make the prediction game any less fun).

My, How the Media Has Changed

Some of you may have heard of Huynh Cong Ut, better known as Nick Ut. He is a pulitzer-prize winning photographer, made famous by his iconic photograph of Phan Ti Kim Phuc. In the photo above Nick captured ol' Phannie as she ran away from North Vietnam, her naked body singed by napalm. This photo was seen around the world and shocked all who saw it. Today, a different photo taken by Nick is being seen around the world.



I don't want to rag on Nick, as he's proven that he is a great photographer. And I don't want to complain about the media. It is rather pointless to complain about Paris Hilton getting so much attention and then go BLOG about it; I'd be contradicting myself as I wrote this. But I'm not complaining. I understand why Paris Hilton is such big news, and I realize the media has changed since the Vietnam War, I just want to know why.

We look back upon the ancient Greek religion as wonderful stories of mythological gods, but if you saw anyone trying to start a church that worshipped Zeus, you'd think they were a little bit wacky or a Scientologist. Well, the Greek gods still exist today, but they're in a different form. An American form. We've come to worship celebrities and their world as a sort of Greek God-esque mythological culture. We make shrines to these gods in the form of fan-based websites; the Internet is their temple. Paris could be Venus in ancient Greece. Even though there are plenty of people out there who say they hate her, they are still clicking on the links, the pictures, and the blogs that talk about her. Is this the natural progression of our culture?

Last week I wrote a blog about Christopher Hitchens's book God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. In the blog I made the point that we as humans are naturally inclined to find something to worship. Maybe because the celebrities are flesh, blood, and readily available, they are easy targets. But maybe our culture will change. Maybe one day people will be more shocked by what President Bush is doing as opposed to what Lindsay Lohan is or isn't wearing.

But like I said, I'm not complaining. This is the way things are and I accept it. The media is supposed to report what it sees and what it sees is a culture obsessed with quasi-mythological beings. I would just like to point out that I am not one prone to worship mythological creatures, and I know I'm not alone. There will always be a group that is not interested in celebrities and their happenings and I'm comfortable with that.



I just hope our group gets bigger as time goes on.








Why oh why, has the media changed?

Do Not Mess with the Internet

PajamasMedia, a web-blogging site, ran a Presidential poll a few weeks back. Ron Paul won the poll by large numbers, but PajamasMedia pulled the poll stating that Ron Paul supporters "spammed" the poll and voted for Dr. Paul many times over and over again.

Well, they recently fixed their poll, saying that is is now "spam-proof." Another Presidential poll was held, and Ron Paul won again. So what did PajamasMedia do next? Admit that maybe most people on the internet (and trust me, probably nowhere else) like Ron Paul? No, they pulled Ron Paul's name from the poll. Sheisty. But did Dr. Paul's supporters flood the site with emails and complaints? No, actually his campaign has asked people not to vote in any more PajamasMedia polls. Way to go.

PajamasMedia's site visits are down, whilst Ron Paul's site visits are up. This shows you one thing: DO NOT MESS WITH THE INTERNET. IT IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Reason Magazine Article on the subject.

Cure for the Mondays: Funny Politics-isms for Your Enjoyment

George W. Bush (Still your President)

Appoints Pro-Lifer and anti-abortion activist to an FDA committee on reproductive drugs.

Oops! W. David Hager, whom Bush appointed to the committee, has written several books critical of abortion including "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." Kind of similar to that Harriet Miers foul-up, except Hager got the job. But Bush isn't nearly as bad as Al Gore! (?)

Al Gore (Tree/Bear-hugger)

Tennessee 12,000 square foot mansion uses more energy than NASA, Hollywood, New York City on New Years Eve, and a Hummer combined.

This is probably one of the most famous and most loved of all paradoxes. What makes it better: George W. Bush's Texas Ranch consumed less energy! Oh the irony.

Mitt Romney (Life-size Ken doll who likes clam chowder)

1. He loves hunting! Whoops! Sike! He doesn't. He's only been twice.

"I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." Romney later revealed he had only been hunting twice: once when he was 15 and once again in 2006. Ouch. WHAT A FLIP-FLOPPER!

2. Introduced Ann Coulter as "a moderate."

This was right before the now infamous speech where she called John Edwards a faggott. Maybe Mitt was making a joke? Who knows? Probably Barbie.

Ann Coulter (Still single)

Called John Edwards a "faggott," meanwhile, she is a cross dressing man!

What? You don't believe Ann Coulter sports crotch luggage? Well, she is six feet tall, has an adam's apple, and loves war. I'm just saying, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck....

Rush Limbaugh (Least cited person for college papers ever)


Mocks Michael J. Fox by rocking back and forth (un)controllably, accuses him of "faking" the symptoms of his disease and not taking his medication, solely for political gain, while being fat and addicted to prescribtion drugs.

The irony? Michael J. Fox's symptoms were a result of OVERmedication. The rocking back and forth is a side effect of the medication meant to control the twitching. Another irony? Rush Limbaugh is probably over medicated as well.

Joe Biden (Sometimes talks like Rush Limbaugh)


"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking." - Joe Biden

?????????????

Hillary Clinton (Two L's is unneccessary)

"I'm a little experienced in staying the course, and sticking with people who stick with me." --Sen. Hillary Clinton

Her husband Bill "stuck" Monica Lewinksy.



"Good thing we've still got politics -- finest form of free entertainment ever invented." --the late Molly Ivins

Fred Who?

Newt Gingrich has explained very plainly how the Republicans could lose in 2008:


"If the Republicans run a stand-pat presidential candidate who ends up being on defense for all of September and October and who is seen by the country as representing four more years, the fact is that Republicans are not going to win."


So it was good that the candidates at the debate harped on Bush; the American public are already reluctant to elect a Republican once again, and they certainly don't want George Bush Jr. Jr.


In fact in an ABC news poll, when asked who won the debate Ron Paul (not surprisingly) came ahead in first, but then the second most voted upon response was "It doesn't matter who won. I wouldn't put America in another Republicans hands. That is a huge hurtle to jump, especially when 1, 956 chose that statement as their option, instead of voting for Mitt Romney, who came in third with 956 votes. But then again it is not a scientific poll and probably tells us nothing.

But who has stood by George W. Bush? Well, Fred Thompson has. It could be because we haven't heard much from him, but Reason Magazine called Fred Thompson "George W. Bush with more bass in his voice." A lot of people are waiting for Fred to join the debate, but even though the last actor the Republicans had run for President did pretty well, it looks like the American public are looking for something different than a George W. Bush stem cell clone.




Thompson




Bush


Not much of a difference, is there? (Provided by ontheissues.org)



Whatevs. This video of Fred is still amazing.


Have a good weekend everybody.

D-Day and an Argument Against Gun Control

Yesterday marked the 63rd anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy. It is pretty amazing that we took the beach, especially when you watch such films as Saving Private Ryan, and it is shown (in a frightingly realistic manner) how horrific and difficult that day was.

I was thinking about Normandy yesterday, and was reading some World War II history and I stumbled across an article that talked about how most East Asian military officials do not think that (today) we would win a war against China. They talked about numerous things, such as America's regard for life vs. China's disregard for life, how China is crazy, etc. True, it's hard to fight a war against a nation with no regard for ethics. This is part of the reason (as strange as it sounds) that the Soviets beat the Germans. Coupled with the harsh Russian winter, the Red Army didn't have to worry about things such as minefields slowing them down. Soviet Marshall Georgi Zhucov said,"If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The Russians used to just plow through minefields with their men, after all, the quickest way to clear a minefield is to walk through it. Sick and crazy.

But all of this discussion was in regards to a U.S. led land war with China. True, it'd be hard to fight an enormous Chinese army on their own turf, and the U.S. hasn't had a history of success when it comes to land wars in Asia. But what was not discussed was what would happen if China, or any country for that matter, tried to invade the U.S. This is simply because it's a non-factor. A finished debate. No one can win a land war on U.S. soil, and there's one very specific reason.

While I was trolling through other World War 2 history I came across a famous quote by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Japanese Navy: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." This is one of the -not talked about enough- reasons why it is a good idea to uphold the citizen's rights to own firearms. There was a lot of pro-gun control talk after the Virginia Tech shootings, but would gun control really have stopped that insane person (I'm not going to use his name, which is exactly what he would've wanted) from doing what he did? Probably not. In fact gun control could have made the situation worse. What if he, in order to meet his desire for a high body count, resorted to building bombs if the guns weren't readily available? I also find it strange that these mass killings always take place in supposed "gun-free" zones, (schools, post offices) yet the solution is to take away the law-abiding citizen's constitutional right to defend themselves? The American freedom to own a gun is what keeps many nations from invading us. Who wants to fight what would immediately become a 300 million person army?

If China chose to invade us you'd have people from all over the country lined up on Santa Monica beach ready to fire. People would bring their Civil War canons, Revolutionary War replicas, tomahawks, super soakers, or any other weapon they owned. It would be like Normandy Part 2, except the Chinese wouldn't even make it onto the beach.

"ALRIGHT BOYS, LET EM' HAVE IT!"

*note

Even if the Chinese chose to attack San Francisco, the people there would still be ready to attack with water balloons and hair spray.

"ALRIGHT BOYS, LET EM' HAVE IT! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

The Republican Debate Crapfest

I should have titled this post "How to Make Sure No One Will Vote for a Republican in 2008," but that's not nearly as funny or descriptive as "crapfest," and a crapfest it was. It was easily the most boring of the debates so far, mostly because the Iraq war and McCain's immigration bill dominated the subject matter.

Americans are sick of Iraq. We simply don't want to hear about it anymore. The large majority of the country wants us out of Iraq and to wash our hands clean and be done with it. The more the Republicans talk about Iraq the more they distance themselves from the American people. Of course the candidates are asked questions, and maybe CNN had an agenda. Maybe CNN is )secretly( liberal and wants Americans to vote for a Democrat. Who knows, but Iraq was talked about a lot and it was not good.

I understand in the primaries both side have to cater to their base, and this is why this time may not be so great for Republicans. In fact the less people watch these debates, the better. No matter what Republicans think, the American public will not vote for a President who supports the Iraq war. The peace candidate always wins. Maybe Republicans will be smart and elect the anti-war Ron Paul (who, for the third time, finished miles ahead of all other candidates in internet polls) because he is the only one who stands a chance against a horde of Democrats who are promising to pull troops out of a war.

The dominance of McCain's immigration bill didn't help either; most of the American people have no idea what the bill says or what it will do. Everyone on the stage aside from McCain trashed the bill even though, as I've pointed out before, most Americans think that we should let the illegal immigrants already in the country remain here.

Overall I just don't think the Republicans understand what the American people want in this election and that makes me sad, because a Democratic president with a Democratic Congress terrifies me. So I am asking the Republicans to please win this election, and to stop being polite, and start getting real.

The Democratic Debate Lovefest

As I checked all of the blogs yesterday morning, I saw many references and reports on the Democratic debate in New Hampshire this past Sunday. What I did not see is an explanation as to why this debate was the biggest LOVEFEST since Woodstock. There were compliments flying everywhere. Heck, Hillary Clinton called Joe Biden her FRIEND. Aren't these guys supposed to be competing against each other?

John Edwards dished out the most compliments, complimenting Barack Obama on some elements of his health care plan, while politely disagreeing with him. All in all, my count could be off, and I could be counting some things as compliments that really weren't, but in total the Democratic Presidential candidates threw in compliments 29 times. Unreal. They can have civilized dialogue and politely disagree. Is this the way politics should be? I keep thinking back to the heated exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul at the Republican debate in South Carolina. How many times did Republican candidates throw in non-required compliments? TWICE. Seriously, what is in the water in New Hampshire?

Now the Demcratic debate wasn't without its mildly heated moments. Barrack Obama slapped John Edwards on the hand when Edwards criticized Obama's lack of vocalization about his vote against Iraq War funding, saying that Democrats need to "lead, not just legislate." Obama retorted that Obama was against the war from the beginning, so Edwards was "4 years late on leadership." ZING! And Mike Gravel muttered some things, but those were the moments where I got up to get an almond joy.

So are the Democrats nicer than the Republicans? Or are they just full of crap? Well, I think the Republicans are a little bit more unnerved than the Democrats are, which is why Edwards, Obama, Clinton, and Biden all seem so comfortable up on stage. I guess you could say that the Republicans are on their period; they know they have a tough road ahead of them if they plan on winning the Presidency and they know the competition is fierce. Or maybe they'll just drink that cool New Hampshire water and love up on each other.

God is Not Great

Christopher Hitchens has to be one of my favorite writers currently alive today. In all likelihood he probably is my favorite writer, but I will not be that specific right now so I can refrain from hurting any one's feelings. With that said, I will also say I have not read his book God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, but this post is not actually in response to his book, so my neglecting to read the book doesn't matter in the slightest.

Hitchens is a self-described "anti-theist (read: atheist). Hitchens is unwavering in his disbelief in a supreme being and openly professes to dislike anyone who does. This disappoints me, because I am a theist and I would prefer it if Mr. Hitchens liked me, instead of thinking me a misguided simpleton. But it seems my hopes to one day call Mr. Hitchens my closest friend are all for not.

Hitchens asserts in his book (which is basically a few hundred pages of what for many years has been his mantra: religion is evil) that religion tends to lead people to commit violent acts and often harms people when it intends to do good.

Many people who admire or think like Hitchens often cite the crusades or the Salem witch hunts as evidence that religion is evil at its core. The most obvious (and best) retort to this is atheistic Communist governments of the 20th Century, which killed nearly 200 million people. If I may speak for Hitchens, he would most certainly say that the Communist governments often treated the state as a god or something to "believe" in; they were religious in their formation. What Hitchens and many others fail to realize, is that this is the natural state of affairs after religion is abolished from a society: the size of the state greatly increases and becomes "God."

Man, in his nature, seems to be inscribed with a desire to believe in something. When a specific something is not available, anything becomes preferable. In the cases of the Communist countries, the state becomes the anything, and I believe the same would happen in a completely secular society. Is it mere coincidence that the secularization of Europe coincides with its continually poor economic performance and low birth rate? America is one of the few countries in the West where the migration rate is annually increasing as well as the birth rate. When religion is disposed of, moral apathy settles in and the people begin to look for a purpose in life, (which is something we all do and believe exists, regardless of our faith or lack thereof) and often find it in themselves or amoral pleasures. Hitchens must see this; it is not religion or even Communism that is at fault, it is human beings and our nature, which is something that the Holy Books told us from the get-go. Yes, the Crusades were awful, and are probably the biggest stain on Christianity's stain-filled history. But it was really human beings who were at fault; violent acts were committed in a violent time and Christianity was used as a means to justify said acts. Horrible, sad, and none of it should be forgotten.

I'd love to ask Hitchens where the idea of God came from, since no effect (earth, humans, life) can be greater than its cause (an all-powerful, supernatural being). Causes also never appear after their effect, so where did the idea of God come from? My answer would simply be that God exists, but Hitchens and many others would dispute that.

I do believe Hitchens is right about some things. Many times I do abhor religion; I do believe it is the bureaucracy between man and God, but I do see its necessity in society. I applaud the ACLU for its defense of Christian's rights on College Campuses, as well as their stern focus on keeping the religious iconography out of government; the greater the "separation between church and state," the better off religion is. It is because of this famous clause mentioned briefly in letters from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, that we have such a religious country. I believe that is a good thing, but that does not mean the religiosity of our country doesn't bother me at times. It bothers me that my religion has an obsession with the "abomination" of homosexuality, when it is mentioned a mere 6 times in the entire Bible, yet the church largely ignores the rising divorce rate within the church and the immoral practices of some of its most famous preachers.

I am with Hitchens in his criticism of Mother Theresa, who I believe was a cruel woman who does not and should not represent Christianity in any way, yet I will not speculate on her admittance to paradise. Hitchens, most importantly, believes America to be a great beacon of hope to other nations as the West slowly gives way to the encroachment of the Middle East. What Hitchens fails to address however, is how the secularization of Europe has allowed this, and what a paradox that is.

I am sure God is Not Great is a wonderful and intriguing read, but I will not be reading it; I know enough about Hitchens to know what it says, yet I eagerly await his next book.