I just had the shittiest two days in recent memory.
So, I'm taking an English course at Parkland. That, I though, was no big deal. Of course, I was incorrect. I was dropped from the class because I attempted to take this course twice before, and the college has a clause that warns the students and advisors when numerous attempts are made at the same class. Now, I am good at languages. Great, in fact. The reason I dropped the same course twice before was because my previous instructors were fruit-cakes. Literally. The last time I took this course, the English instructor spent the first five weeks refreshing the class on how to gather research materials. I understand if he wanted to refresh the class for one week; or, maybe even two weeks. But five weeks? Traipsing to the library to be told something I already know was annoying.
It started like this: I log on to the college site on Sunday so I can actually get information on how to do my first homework assignment, and I could not. The course that was supposed to be under the "course" heading on my student web page was empty. So, I still did the homework assignment from memory. On Monday, I go to class, and my (current) English instructor tells me to "read my student email." Oh great. I know something is wrong. So, I read my email, and, lo-and-behold, I had an email from some-higher-up that told me I was dropped from this course. I spent all day Monday and Tuesday getting myself re-inserted back into my summer course. I was not pleased.
I am still failing to see the logic in dropping someone, unwillingly, from a class, if they attempted that same class previously. Why is three the magic number? Why not four, or two? It is illogical to make a student run through additional bureaucratic loops just to make sure they "know that this is their last chance" to complete the class. Why would the school add to its already huge paperwork load to ensure I know this fact? I am dumbfounded.
However, that was not the worst thing that could have happened to me. While I am dancing like a fool to get myself re-inserted back into that course, I decided to act like I was still enrolled. So, I was doing my homework last night that was due today. It was near midnight, and I just saved my nearly-completed rough draft. Literally five seconds after that event, the hard drive in Kevin’s laptop shit the bed. I spent several hours listening to a recorded interview, and transporting the important elements into a typed memo document. Suddenly, it was gone. It was so weird...and infuriating. I saved the document, and then there was this weird rapid clicking noise, followed by a "zip-zip-zip" noise. Did I forget to mention I was infuriated?
I emailed my instructor the situation as it was happening. She told me to bring what I had. Of course, I only had what I saved to Google Documents, which wasn’t much. I slammed out as much as I could in the first hour of class. The second hour was the peer-review session. Since I only had two completed paragraphs (of a whole document that was chewed up and spit out by the laptop) I was a bit embarrassed for myself.
I’m better now. The project that was destroyed by the laptop is not due until Thursday. That gives me to "recover" what I lost, by memory, and have a completed document by then.
*sigh*
Technology sucks.
About Me -- Confusion abounds
- monolith941
- Urbana, Illinois, United States
- Thirty-one-year-old gay guy blogging for blog's sake.
2008-06-24
2008-06-21
The Future: Running on empty
Humanity is screwed. I'll elaborate.
For the past fifty years, it has been predicted that the resources that enable first-world countries to maintain their lifestyles are running out. Primarily, fossil fuels are disappearing. Fast. When these resources run out, people will panic. They will overreact. They will lash out at the forces that be, and fight to maintain the lifestyle they feel they are entitled to.
Of course, this knowledge is not new. It has rested in the subconsciousness of humanity for some time. The reason there is panic NOW is because this knowledge has been brought into the conscious; Humanity now knows that we rested on our laurels for too long, and the transition from waste to conservation is going to be painful. Maybe more than painful; excruciating perhaps? I think so.
Right now there is a resource war in the Middle East. The Iraqi war is a farce of epic proportions. The Americans, and the World, were lied to. This is no war to “spread freedom,” as certain politicians, and hawks, put it. Every country that has some resemblance to a democracy has fought for those ideals on its own. There was no greater power that swooped in from the rafters to bolster the fledgling democracies of those countries. If Iraq wanted a democracy, it would have started that transition on its own. This is no war to disarm a dangerous person. The leader of Iraq was dangerous – to his own people, but not to his neighbors. This is no war stabilize that region of the world. The Middle East was more stable before the war than it is now. This war is nothing more than to secure America’s access to the dwindling resource that is oil.
Of course, this “war on terror” has cost this country more than we could ever imagine. It has cost us our friendship with our allies; it has cost us lives in the form of military personnel and in the form of collateral damage of the Iraqi people; it has – and will – cost is an unbelievable amount of money. Those facts don’t matter. We just needed that oil so we can drive our gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles, to the mall to go on shopping sprees, with reckless abandon.
Ok, so what does this mean for us now, and what does this mean for us in the future? Since we are in a five-year war over oil now, will similar wars will emerge as time goes by? When oil runs out in the Middle East, will the USA cook-up an other reason to invade another sovereign country? Will we invade Venezuela next? Will we invade Iran? Will Americans care? Probably not. I’ll elaborate some more.
During the past five years, this country has been in a resource war. During this time, Americans sacrificed absolutely nothing. We didn’t spend less. We didn’t drive less. We didn’t eat less. We didn’t conserving anything. I guess when there is no draft, people aren’t going to think of the repercussions of their actions in the grand scheme of the world. If there was a draft, then there would be real outrage over this war. There would be outrage because there would be the chance of everyone’s child fighting in a fruitless war. Besides, the only people who should enlist should only be poor people. If people were forced to sacrifice their children in this war, the war would have ended almost as soon as it started. We wouldn’t be in Iraq right now. Forcing the public to think about a war through the use of a draft would force people to consider what the war is really about. Since only poor people enlist in the armed forces, everyone else won’t think of these things. Why would a middle-class person think about a war if their child was not actually fighting in it? Out of sight, out of mind.
The only time the people decided it would be a good idea to drive less was only very recently, and that was because gas simply is too expensive for the bottom 80% of people to afford. Now there is panic. Now people are actually thinking about how they consume natural resources. Spending on public transportation is up all across this country by a surprising amount. That is a good thing. Will people do more? Will people relocate to homes that are closer to urban centers? Will people insist on traveling less? Overall, will people consume less? I don’t think so.
Here is the real crux of this resource situation: People will fight for what they believe they are entitled to. Right now, people are driving less. Unfortunately, that is not enough to allay the stress of dwindling oil. For there to be real change, people are going to have to change their lifestyles drastically. Americans were completely content to let poor people fight in a quagmire just so they could continue to consume fossil fuels without recourse. There was no change in lifestyle until recently. So, that says to me that people still don’t care about the world around them. They only care about themselves and their wallets. That way of thinking will destroy this world. Why? That way of thinking is what caused this war for oil, and it will cause other resource wars as well.
If Americans can continue to live they way they have lived for five years while a war is going on, what will happen with other resources become more difficult to find? Wars will spring up all over the globe. The wars will be over metals, arable land, and clean water. The future does not look bright. The future is a wasteland of wars and disfigured bodies and scorched landscapes and broken regimes and death and destruction.
I think I will start stocking up on non-perishables today.
⊕
For the past fifty years, it has been predicted that the resources that enable first-world countries to maintain their lifestyles are running out. Primarily, fossil fuels are disappearing. Fast. When these resources run out, people will panic. They will overreact. They will lash out at the forces that be, and fight to maintain the lifestyle they feel they are entitled to.
Of course, this knowledge is not new. It has rested in the subconsciousness of humanity for some time. The reason there is panic NOW is because this knowledge has been brought into the conscious; Humanity now knows that we rested on our laurels for too long, and the transition from waste to conservation is going to be painful. Maybe more than painful; excruciating perhaps? I think so.
Right now there is a resource war in the Middle East. The Iraqi war is a farce of epic proportions. The Americans, and the World, were lied to. This is no war to “spread freedom,” as certain politicians, and hawks, put it. Every country that has some resemblance to a democracy has fought for those ideals on its own. There was no greater power that swooped in from the rafters to bolster the fledgling democracies of those countries. If Iraq wanted a democracy, it would have started that transition on its own. This is no war to disarm a dangerous person. The leader of Iraq was dangerous – to his own people, but not to his neighbors. This is no war stabilize that region of the world. The Middle East was more stable before the war than it is now. This war is nothing more than to secure America’s access to the dwindling resource that is oil.
Of course, this “war on terror” has cost this country more than we could ever imagine. It has cost us our friendship with our allies; it has cost us lives in the form of military personnel and in the form of collateral damage of the Iraqi people; it has – and will – cost is an unbelievable amount of money. Those facts don’t matter. We just needed that oil so we can drive our gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles, to the mall to go on shopping sprees, with reckless abandon.
Ok, so what does this mean for us now, and what does this mean for us in the future? Since we are in a five-year war over oil now, will similar wars will emerge as time goes by? When oil runs out in the Middle East, will the USA cook-up an other reason to invade another sovereign country? Will we invade Venezuela next? Will we invade Iran? Will Americans care? Probably not. I’ll elaborate some more.
During the past five years, this country has been in a resource war. During this time, Americans sacrificed absolutely nothing. We didn’t spend less. We didn’t drive less. We didn’t eat less. We didn’t conserving anything. I guess when there is no draft, people aren’t going to think of the repercussions of their actions in the grand scheme of the world. If there was a draft, then there would be real outrage over this war. There would be outrage because there would be the chance of everyone’s child fighting in a fruitless war. Besides, the only people who should enlist should only be poor people. If people were forced to sacrifice their children in this war, the war would have ended almost as soon as it started. We wouldn’t be in Iraq right now. Forcing the public to think about a war through the use of a draft would force people to consider what the war is really about. Since only poor people enlist in the armed forces, everyone else won’t think of these things. Why would a middle-class person think about a war if their child was not actually fighting in it? Out of sight, out of mind.
The only time the people decided it would be a good idea to drive less was only very recently, and that was because gas simply is too expensive for the bottom 80% of people to afford. Now there is panic. Now people are actually thinking about how they consume natural resources. Spending on public transportation is up all across this country by a surprising amount. That is a good thing. Will people do more? Will people relocate to homes that are closer to urban centers? Will people insist on traveling less? Overall, will people consume less? I don’t think so.
Here is the real crux of this resource situation: People will fight for what they believe they are entitled to. Right now, people are driving less. Unfortunately, that is not enough to allay the stress of dwindling oil. For there to be real change, people are going to have to change their lifestyles drastically. Americans were completely content to let poor people fight in a quagmire just so they could continue to consume fossil fuels without recourse. There was no change in lifestyle until recently. So, that says to me that people still don’t care about the world around them. They only care about themselves and their wallets. That way of thinking will destroy this world. Why? That way of thinking is what caused this war for oil, and it will cause other resource wars as well.
If Americans can continue to live they way they have lived for five years while a war is going on, what will happen with other resources become more difficult to find? Wars will spring up all over the globe. The wars will be over metals, arable land, and clean water. The future does not look bright. The future is a wasteland of wars and disfigured bodies and scorched landscapes and broken regimes and death and destruction.
I think I will start stocking up on non-perishables today.
⊕
2008-06-11
Why not now?
You know, Democrats can be as wily and evasive as Republicans. It does not matter the reasons. All that matters is that it is wrong. That is shameful.
I am upset over the fact that this country was hijacked by zealots who felt the need to invade a foreign country just to steal its oil. All the while, war profiteers are racking in literal mountains of money while the rest of the country goes down the financial toilet.
In 2006, the Democrats retook the house and senate, on Capitol Hill. Of course, they did that because the Republicans ran amok with this country, and Americans finally got sick and tired of their shenanigans. What happened after that? Nothing.
When the Democrats did retake Capitol Hill, the very first thing the house majority leader stated was that impeachment of King George VLIII was "Off the table." I would like to point out that more than fifty percent of the American people want him, and his cabinet, impeached. It needs to happen.
I guess there is resentment in the fact that Bill Clinton nearly got kicked out of office for having sex with another woman. He did lie under oath. He was caught. Bush VLIII was caught in so many lies that people lost count. Of course, Clinton's lie did not result in the death of 4000+ young boys and girls in an illegal war. It only resulted in the destruction of a designer dress. Bush's lies are destroying lives right now.
Bush's lies are causing economical strife around the world. Bush's lies have caused the collateral damage of nearly 150,000 Iraqi people. Bush's lies have enabled this country to slide back into a monarchy. Bush's lies have passed laws that illegally detains people and tortures them in foreign lands.
Isn't the point of "impeachment" to indict someone for "high crimes and misdemeanors" in high office? Isn't that was Bush did? Why is there only one person who is actually starting the process? Why did the democrats shelve that idea as soon as they came into power during the last election?
I am pissed at the Democrats for not wanting to impeach President Asshole. They are too afraid to lose a future election they might (probably) win. If the Democrats didn't have the wind-fall they had in 2006, there would be no reason for them to not go forward with the impeachment. They know they would drive republican voters to the polls now, and they don't want to lose. Treachery, indeed.
You know, I feel it is just as wrong to not impeach one person who has committed atrocities across the globe just because you want to win an election, as it is to impeach an other person for trivialities. It is wrong to not impeach a current president because you feel your party may lose an upcoming election. Where is the justice?
Where is the justice for the maimed war veterans? Where is the justice for the detainees who are being tortured? Where is the justice for all the displaced Iraqis? Their justice won't appear if George Bush is not impeached.
You know, George Bush needs to be impeached. The process would send a message to other would-be wanna-be kings that this republic is not your personal playground. "Common" people outrank elected officials. I really wish Americans would realize that simple fact. During this process, the justice that people so rightfully are asking for would be delivered. The perpetrators who do commit these acts of arrogance would go to prison...or at least resign in disgrace. That is what needs to happen. Today. Now. It just needs to happen.
⊕
I am upset over the fact that this country was hijacked by zealots who felt the need to invade a foreign country just to steal its oil. All the while, war profiteers are racking in literal mountains of money while the rest of the country goes down the financial toilet.
In 2006, the Democrats retook the house and senate, on Capitol Hill. Of course, they did that because the Republicans ran amok with this country, and Americans finally got sick and tired of their shenanigans. What happened after that? Nothing.
When the Democrats did retake Capitol Hill, the very first thing the house majority leader stated was that impeachment of King George VLIII was "Off the table." I would like to point out that more than fifty percent of the American people want him, and his cabinet, impeached. It needs to happen.
I guess there is resentment in the fact that Bill Clinton nearly got kicked out of office for having sex with another woman. He did lie under oath. He was caught. Bush VLIII was caught in so many lies that people lost count. Of course, Clinton's lie did not result in the death of 4000+ young boys and girls in an illegal war. It only resulted in the destruction of a designer dress. Bush's lies are destroying lives right now.
Bush's lies are causing economical strife around the world. Bush's lies have caused the collateral damage of nearly 150,000 Iraqi people. Bush's lies have enabled this country to slide back into a monarchy. Bush's lies have passed laws that illegally detains people and tortures them in foreign lands.
Isn't the point of "impeachment" to indict someone for "high crimes and misdemeanors" in high office? Isn't that was Bush did? Why is there only one person who is actually starting the process? Why did the democrats shelve that idea as soon as they came into power during the last election?
I am pissed at the Democrats for not wanting to impeach President Asshole. They are too afraid to lose a future election they might (probably) win. If the Democrats didn't have the wind-fall they had in 2006, there would be no reason for them to not go forward with the impeachment. They know they would drive republican voters to the polls now, and they don't want to lose. Treachery, indeed.
You know, I feel it is just as wrong to not impeach one person who has committed atrocities across the globe just because you want to win an election, as it is to impeach an other person for trivialities. It is wrong to not impeach a current president because you feel your party may lose an upcoming election. Where is the justice?
Where is the justice for the maimed war veterans? Where is the justice for the detainees who are being tortured? Where is the justice for all the displaced Iraqis? Their justice won't appear if George Bush is not impeached.
You know, George Bush needs to be impeached. The process would send a message to other would-be wanna-be kings that this republic is not your personal playground. "Common" people outrank elected officials. I really wish Americans would realize that simple fact. During this process, the justice that people so rightfully are asking for would be delivered. The perpetrators who do commit these acts of arrogance would go to prison...or at least resign in disgrace. That is what needs to happen. Today. Now. It just needs to happen.
⊕
2008-06-08
A change?
The political landscape sure is interesting, this time around. I never, in two-hundred years, would have though that an African-American man could be a legitimate nominee for high office. Then again, I never thought that a woman could become a nominee, as well. The campaigns between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama actually fills me with a glimmer of hope. It says to me that maybe, just maybe, the people in this country aren't as stupid and ignorant as I usually believe they are. Maybe...
Anyway, I remember having a conversation with a black woman, her name was Kelly, in northern Maine, about this racist country. This conversation occurred sometime in 1998 or 1999, I think. I told her I believed that this country would never, under any circumstances, nominate, or vote for, a black man for president. I told her it would take two-hundred years for America to get over its racism. I also told her that America would have a white woman as president first, and then have a black man as president after. She told me I was too cynical.
Of course, I was talking from the gay point of view. I always believed that minorities -- including sexual minorities -- can see how things really are, from the outside in. Maybe Kelly was right. I thought I was right back then with my assumptions.
Cut to today: Maybe I am wrong! After a sixteen month long campaign from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, maybe Americans really have grown up, just a little bit, to actually nominate not one, but two minorities for high office. Is this possible? Is it comprehendible? To me, it is barely comprehendible. I still cannot believe that a black man is the democratic nominee. Now all he has to do is win a presidential election. Therein lies the problem.
Ok, the democratic party has nominated a minority to be president. He just has to actually win the general election. The democrats may have put aside their racism, but can the rest of America do the same? I think back to that conversation I had with Kelly from ten years ago, and I wonder if we can get over ourselves and just vote regardless of color.
You can be sure of one thing: The republicans will be as underhanded as ever to ensure they retain the oval office. You can be sure they will use America's inherent racism to ensure that people don't vote for a black man -- or at all. If those tactics don't work, they could just steal this election, like they did the last two. Why fight fair when you can just take what is not yours? Barack Obama won't win the general election. The republicans will steal this election, like they did the last two.
⊕
Anyway, I remember having a conversation with a black woman, her name was Kelly, in northern Maine, about this racist country. This conversation occurred sometime in 1998 or 1999, I think. I told her I believed that this country would never, under any circumstances, nominate, or vote for, a black man for president. I told her it would take two-hundred years for America to get over its racism. I also told her that America would have a white woman as president first, and then have a black man as president after. She told me I was too cynical.
Of course, I was talking from the gay point of view. I always believed that minorities -- including sexual minorities -- can see how things really are, from the outside in. Maybe Kelly was right. I thought I was right back then with my assumptions.
Cut to today: Maybe I am wrong! After a sixteen month long campaign from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, maybe Americans really have grown up, just a little bit, to actually nominate not one, but two minorities for high office. Is this possible? Is it comprehendible? To me, it is barely comprehendible. I still cannot believe that a black man is the democratic nominee. Now all he has to do is win a presidential election. Therein lies the problem.
Ok, the democratic party has nominated a minority to be president. He just has to actually win the general election. The democrats may have put aside their racism, but can the rest of America do the same? I think back to that conversation I had with Kelly from ten years ago, and I wonder if we can get over ourselves and just vote regardless of color.
You can be sure of one thing: The republicans will be as underhanded as ever to ensure they retain the oval office. You can be sure they will use America's inherent racism to ensure that people don't vote for a black man -- or at all. If those tactics don't work, they could just steal this election, like they did the last two. Why fight fair when you can just take what is not yours? Barack Obama won't win the general election. The republicans will steal this election, like they did the last two.
⊕
2008-06-07
The homeless excuses.
No. This is not an entry about why homeless people are homeless. This is not an entry about people "getting what they deserve," et cetera. It seems odd to me that almost everyone wants to punish homeless for being homeless, and punish poor people for being poor. People are homeless (and poor) for a multitude of reasons. It is unfortunate that the richest country in the world has people who cannot afford a place to live. Maybe socialism would benefit the homeless. I don't think Americans would miss democracy, as long as they could still shop and eat non-stop, and watch trashy reality TV.
This is an entry about the rather amusing tactics homeless people use to shake-down passers-by into giving them money.
Yesterday, I was leaving Aroma Café in my car, and this man started to wave me down as I was driving. Now, before I got in my car, I saw him walking up Neil Street. For a second, I had that "Soul Glow" jingle from the movie Coming to America in my head. This guy had eccentric long hair, and his style was just..."off." So anyway, I am driving, he waves me down, and so I stop and roll down my window. He starts asking me about directions to get onto I-74 from Neil Street. Originally, I thought he was verifying directions. Then he started tacked on something like, "I just need $40 to get to Danville."
Shit! It looked like I walked right into that one.
So he continues his script of needing to get to a church in Danville, and he just needed the bus fare. Hmm...he needs money for a bus to Danville, so how did he end up in Champaign? Was he hitching rides across Illinois? Did his auto break down? These questions will never be answered. I gave him $4 in dollar coins because that was all I could grab quickly. After I gave him the money, he said something like, "I'll pray for you, in Jesus' name." We shook hands, and I drove off.
Ok, everyone needs help once in a while. Everyone. Due to this, I never understood the frustration from people I knew who would berate me for giving money to homeless people. More times than not, they would say something akin to, "They are just going to use that money for drugs." So fucking what? If we applied that line of logic to peoples' legitimate paychecks, would it be unreasonable for a boss to dictate how a subordinate spent their money? Of course it would! How out of line would it be for a boss to tell their subordinate to only spend money on this, this, and that, but not on those over there? People can spend their hard-earned cash on whatever they want -- including drugs and booze -- and a supervisor cannot stop that person. (The law can, but only if that person gets caught.) If I give money to some homeless person, it is not my business to ensure they don't spend it on booze or drugs. I would hope they wouldn't spend it on booze and drugs. If a homeless person is begging for money, I would hope they would spend it on food before drugs. They probably do.
I would like to point out that the reason people are begging for money is because they have no money to spend. This equation is so simple. Maybe that is why it is beyond most people's comprehension. Then again, people don't think about what they don't see. When people do see the homeless, they usually walk in the opposite direction. Out of sight, out of mind, money still in the wallet.
On the flip side of this phenomenon is the fact that homeless feel the need to have some grandiose reason to beg for money. "I need money to go to church in another town" or "I need to buy my medicine." I've heard the latter before from a renoun homeless woman in downtown Champaign. Look, I understand you are homeless, and you are probably hungry. You don't need to lie to me to get money. It would be refreshing to me if a homeless person said to me, "I am hungry so could you please spare some change?" Hell yes. For that, you'll get more than change.
But anyway...I really hope that people give more homeless people money. They need it.
This is an entry about the rather amusing tactics homeless people use to shake-down passers-by into giving them money.
Yesterday, I was leaving Aroma Café in my car, and this man started to wave me down as I was driving. Now, before I got in my car, I saw him walking up Neil Street. For a second, I had that "Soul Glow" jingle from the movie Coming to America in my head. This guy had eccentric long hair, and his style was just..."off." So anyway, I am driving, he waves me down, and so I stop and roll down my window. He starts asking me about directions to get onto I-74 from Neil Street. Originally, I thought he was verifying directions. Then he started tacked on something like, "I just need $40 to get to Danville."
Shit! It looked like I walked right into that one.
So he continues his script of needing to get to a church in Danville, and he just needed the bus fare. Hmm...he needs money for a bus to Danville, so how did he end up in Champaign? Was he hitching rides across Illinois? Did his auto break down? These questions will never be answered. I gave him $4 in dollar coins because that was all I could grab quickly. After I gave him the money, he said something like, "I'll pray for you, in Jesus' name." We shook hands, and I drove off.
Ok, everyone needs help once in a while. Everyone. Due to this, I never understood the frustration from people I knew who would berate me for giving money to homeless people. More times than not, they would say something akin to, "They are just going to use that money for drugs." So fucking what? If we applied that line of logic to peoples' legitimate paychecks, would it be unreasonable for a boss to dictate how a subordinate spent their money? Of course it would! How out of line would it be for a boss to tell their subordinate to only spend money on this, this, and that, but not on those over there? People can spend their hard-earned cash on whatever they want -- including drugs and booze -- and a supervisor cannot stop that person. (The law can, but only if that person gets caught.) If I give money to some homeless person, it is not my business to ensure they don't spend it on booze or drugs. I would hope they wouldn't spend it on booze and drugs. If a homeless person is begging for money, I would hope they would spend it on food before drugs. They probably do.
I would like to point out that the reason people are begging for money is because they have no money to spend. This equation is so simple. Maybe that is why it is beyond most people's comprehension. Then again, people don't think about what they don't see. When people do see the homeless, they usually walk in the opposite direction. Out of sight, out of mind, money still in the wallet.
On the flip side of this phenomenon is the fact that homeless feel the need to have some grandiose reason to beg for money. "I need money to go to church in another town" or "I need to buy my medicine." I've heard the latter before from a renoun homeless woman in downtown Champaign. Look, I understand you are homeless, and you are probably hungry. You don't need to lie to me to get money. It would be refreshing to me if a homeless person said to me, "I am hungry so could you please spare some change?" Hell yes. For that, you'll get more than change.
But anyway...I really hope that people give more homeless people money. They need it.
2008-06-02
Just don't think about it.
I've been a aggravated at this country of mine, the good-'ole USofA. There is so much wrong with it I honestly wonder if we can ever get back on track; back to doing "good things" instead of being sheepish and complacent. My angst started when I was still in the Marine Corps, and it has only increased since then.
I remember being 24 years old living in Camp LeJeune, NC, and getting in disagreements with my comrades about the political state, then. I was one of the few people who would actually have the balls to say that I would vote for John Kerry. Naturally, I got verbally bashed. It seemed to me the arguments for my willingness to vote for Kerry was nothing more than rote memorization and regurgitation. All the arguments were the same: John Kerry is not for the troops; John Kerry wants to down-size the armed forces; and other arguments along those lines. I was told that George Bush was for the military, was against the terrorists, and would help out the troops.
These reasons for Bush and against Kerry simply do not make any sense! Now, I don’t understand how anyone could be “against” the military if they have lived the life as a commissioned officer, like Kerry did. I also don’t understand how anyone could be “for terrorists” and “for terrorism,” as was implied by saying that Bush is “against” those forces. So...that argument is just political posturing to make Kerry look unpatriotic. I also don’t understand how Bush could “for the troops,” and therefore “help us out,” if he never served a day in a war zone.
Of course Bush is not “for the troops” in any way. I later found out, near the end of my enlistment, that in the year 2004 the Bush administration was tasked with cutting governmental costs. The only thing Bush could cut was veteran’s benefits. Yes, the patriot Bush is going to send American boys and girls (because, really, that is what they are, if those individuals are not above the age of 21) into an incredibly dangerous war zone, and then later “pull the rug” from under the very people who get injured when they come back to the USA. That act alone does not tell me that Bush is “for the troops.” He is for sending us into a war zone to steal a natural resource that belongs to someone else. He is into allowing ancient art and historical documents to burn into ashes – as Iraqi people riot in the streets – as long as the Ministry of Oil is left intact and unscathed. He is for allowing people to enter a fire-fight wearing only the minimal amount of armor to protect their lives. Hell, we still don’t have armored vehicles that can withstand improvised explosive devices.
I also found it incredible that the Republican Party painted John Kerry as unpatriotic, while it put Bush on a pedestal as the only person who could protect this country from the un-Christian dark people. Kerry is a Purple-Heart decorated Vietnam War veteran, while Bush used his power and influence to get out from going to a war zone. Also, our Vice President Dick Cheney got five deferments so he wouldn’t fight in Vietnam. I guess I could glean from that fact that five other people went in his place since those slots had to get filled. I wonder if those five fillers-in made it out alive uninjured and mentally stable.
Cut to today: We know these things now. So why would I bring something up from four years ago? I do it because of what has happened since then. America has been fighting in a war that has (and will) cost this country more than we could ever comprehend, but people still don’t get it. I get so pissed at the fact that, during this war, the American people were asked to sacrifice absolutely nothing. Ziltch. Nada. Zero. American people can do anything and everything, as long as they don’t have to sacrifice anything that would compromise their consumerist lifestyles. They can shop and drive, and shop and drive some more, all the while young kids are fighting and dying and getting brutally injured in a war-zone.
Due to that fact, I feel pangs of anger, resentment, and embarrassment. It dawned on me that I went to a war zone so the American people could shop without restraint. I went to a war zone so people could have cheap gas to drive their gas-guzzling fuel-inefficient American cars.
That is only part of the problem. The war is still going on right now, as I type these words. Right now, boys and girls are being maimed in the name of “freedom and democracy” to people who simply don’t want those things right now. About six months ago, the question came up as to whether a life was “wasted” in this war if someone was killed. Of course, the sheep flag-wavers said, “No, No! They are fighting for democracy!” and all that bullshit. Others said, “Yeah...maybe. Since the reasons of the war changed so often, maybe there is no reason to be there, and therefore the lives lost are wasted. But I’m still a Patriot!” They always have to add that last part in, just incase they are in the proximity of some jingoistic right-wing nut-case who will accuse them of being godless liberals who hate America.
You know what? Those people who do die in Iraq are wasted. Those lives are wasted because the battles we fought, and fight, are for the wrong reason. Young people who enlist know the consequences of that act: They know they may be sent into a dangerous war zone. The only thing they (and I) ask is that the battle be legitimate. The only thing I ask of the people who order me into a battle is that the battle is for something. All those 4000 lives that have been lost in Iraq were wasted because they are in a losing battle against an unstoppable, and unseeable enemy, because we are the invaders. We invaded Iraq for its oil. Nothing else.
Maybe, instead of oil, we should fight to spread democracy and freedom – but only if they Iraqis wanted it, but were denied. Or maybe, we should have never invaded Iraq in the first place, and stayed in Afghanistan. I am sure the 4000+ deaths that have occurred would be more legitimate, since we are trying to get the mastermind of the terrorist attacks. I would think that just about everyone would rather die trying to find that asshole Osama bin Laden, then dying needlessly as war profiteers get unfathomably rich as they fleece the federal government.
I guess my biggest resentment is directed at American people. Even though it is common knowledge the American people were manipulated starting five hours after the terrorist attacks in Manhattan, nobody did anything to bring justice to the people who orchestrated the lies, the spin, and the war itself. I guess they are all too busy shopping online and at the mall.
So, what brought my ire right now? It was two things. Last Friday, I was watching Bill Moyers Journal, and one story featured this Iraqi war veteran who was injured. He was shot through the chest, and the bullet-round exited through his spinal column. He is paralyzed below the nipples down. He cannot cough (which is something I cannot imagine not being able to do), and he constantly gets light-headed because he cannot regulate his own body temperature. He is now in a coma. The second thing that is truly sad is another death in Iraq that was reported today in the news. Of course, people dying in Iraq is nothing new; that has been going on since 2003. It is the way this Army private died that is so gruesome. To save his comrades in battle, he threw himself on top of a live grenade. Throwing oneself on a live grenade is something that I’ve only seen happen in Hollywood action movies. That is fucked-up.
So, what does the future mean for America, as we move forward in time, but not in mentality? There will be bucket-loads of disenfranchisement, for sure. I am disenfranchised with this country and its citizens. I cannot be the only one. I just hope that Americans finally wake up and start questioning everything. I hope they wake up and question the leadership they elect. I hope they wake up and question their place in the world, as individual people, and as Americans. I hope they wake up and question themselves, and improve for the better when they realize they can improve. I hope that Americans wake up and begin to grow.
Then again, who am I kidding? Why would anyone do these things when there is shopping to do?
I totally agree. Every cloud has a silver lining. Bank-breaking gasoline prices will make the bottom 85% of Americans conserve fuel, but the top 15% will continue to buy their SUVs. If gas prices go back down to tolerable levels, people will forget, and just re-buy all their fuel-inefficient trucks again.
Well...that is what happens when Americans don’t get involved in politics. As long as their child is not being shot at, they aren’t going to think about the war because it won’t affect them. If there was a draft, the war would have been over before it started. The author of this postcard is playing to an empty audience chamber.
~~Nick
I remember being 24 years old living in Camp LeJeune, NC, and getting in disagreements with my comrades about the political state, then. I was one of the few people who would actually have the balls to say that I would vote for John Kerry. Naturally, I got verbally bashed. It seemed to me the arguments for my willingness to vote for Kerry was nothing more than rote memorization and regurgitation. All the arguments were the same: John Kerry is not for the troops; John Kerry wants to down-size the armed forces; and other arguments along those lines. I was told that George Bush was for the military, was against the terrorists, and would help out the troops.
These reasons for Bush and against Kerry simply do not make any sense! Now, I don’t understand how anyone could be “against” the military if they have lived the life as a commissioned officer, like Kerry did. I also don’t understand how anyone could be “for terrorists” and “for terrorism,” as was implied by saying that Bush is “against” those forces. So...that argument is just political posturing to make Kerry look unpatriotic. I also don’t understand how Bush could “for the troops,” and therefore “help us out,” if he never served a day in a war zone.
Of course Bush is not “for the troops” in any way. I later found out, near the end of my enlistment, that in the year 2004 the Bush administration was tasked with cutting governmental costs. The only thing Bush could cut was veteran’s benefits. Yes, the patriot Bush is going to send American boys and girls (because, really, that is what they are, if those individuals are not above the age of 21) into an incredibly dangerous war zone, and then later “pull the rug” from under the very people who get injured when they come back to the USA. That act alone does not tell me that Bush is “for the troops.” He is for sending us into a war zone to steal a natural resource that belongs to someone else. He is into allowing ancient art and historical documents to burn into ashes – as Iraqi people riot in the streets – as long as the Ministry of Oil is left intact and unscathed. He is for allowing people to enter a fire-fight wearing only the minimal amount of armor to protect their lives. Hell, we still don’t have armored vehicles that can withstand improvised explosive devices.
I also found it incredible that the Republican Party painted John Kerry as unpatriotic, while it put Bush on a pedestal as the only person who could protect this country from the un-Christian dark people. Kerry is a Purple-Heart decorated Vietnam War veteran, while Bush used his power and influence to get out from going to a war zone. Also, our Vice President Dick Cheney got five deferments so he wouldn’t fight in Vietnam. I guess I could glean from that fact that five other people went in his place since those slots had to get filled. I wonder if those five fillers-in made it out alive uninjured and mentally stable.
Cut to today: We know these things now. So why would I bring something up from four years ago? I do it because of what has happened since then. America has been fighting in a war that has (and will) cost this country more than we could ever comprehend, but people still don’t get it. I get so pissed at the fact that, during this war, the American people were asked to sacrifice absolutely nothing. Ziltch. Nada. Zero. American people can do anything and everything, as long as they don’t have to sacrifice anything that would compromise their consumerist lifestyles. They can shop and drive, and shop and drive some more, all the while young kids are fighting and dying and getting brutally injured in a war-zone.
Due to that fact, I feel pangs of anger, resentment, and embarrassment. It dawned on me that I went to a war zone so the American people could shop without restraint. I went to a war zone so people could have cheap gas to drive their gas-guzzling fuel-inefficient American cars.
That is only part of the problem. The war is still going on right now, as I type these words. Right now, boys and girls are being maimed in the name of “freedom and democracy” to people who simply don’t want those things right now. About six months ago, the question came up as to whether a life was “wasted” in this war if someone was killed. Of course, the sheep flag-wavers said, “No, No! They are fighting for democracy!” and all that bullshit. Others said, “Yeah...maybe. Since the reasons of the war changed so often, maybe there is no reason to be there, and therefore the lives lost are wasted. But I’m still a Patriot!” They always have to add that last part in, just incase they are in the proximity of some jingoistic right-wing nut-case who will accuse them of being godless liberals who hate America.
You know what? Those people who do die in Iraq are wasted. Those lives are wasted because the battles we fought, and fight, are for the wrong reason. Young people who enlist know the consequences of that act: They know they may be sent into a dangerous war zone. The only thing they (and I) ask is that the battle be legitimate. The only thing I ask of the people who order me into a battle is that the battle is for something. All those 4000 lives that have been lost in Iraq were wasted because they are in a losing battle against an unstoppable, and unseeable enemy, because we are the invaders. We invaded Iraq for its oil. Nothing else.
Maybe, instead of oil, we should fight to spread democracy and freedom – but only if they Iraqis wanted it, but were denied. Or maybe, we should have never invaded Iraq in the first place, and stayed in Afghanistan. I am sure the 4000+ deaths that have occurred would be more legitimate, since we are trying to get the mastermind of the terrorist attacks. I would think that just about everyone would rather die trying to find that asshole Osama bin Laden, then dying needlessly as war profiteers get unfathomably rich as they fleece the federal government.
I guess my biggest resentment is directed at American people. Even though it is common knowledge the American people were manipulated starting five hours after the terrorist attacks in Manhattan, nobody did anything to bring justice to the people who orchestrated the lies, the spin, and the war itself. I guess they are all too busy shopping online and at the mall.
So, what brought my ire right now? It was two things. Last Friday, I was watching Bill Moyers Journal, and one story featured this Iraqi war veteran who was injured. He was shot through the chest, and the bullet-round exited through his spinal column. He is paralyzed below the nipples down. He cannot cough (which is something I cannot imagine not being able to do), and he constantly gets light-headed because he cannot regulate his own body temperature. He is now in a coma. The second thing that is truly sad is another death in Iraq that was reported today in the news. Of course, people dying in Iraq is nothing new; that has been going on since 2003. It is the way this Army private died that is so gruesome. To save his comrades in battle, he threw himself on top of a live grenade. Throwing oneself on a live grenade is something that I’ve only seen happen in Hollywood action movies. That is fucked-up.
So, what does the future mean for America, as we move forward in time, but not in mentality? There will be bucket-loads of disenfranchisement, for sure. I am disenfranchised with this country and its citizens. I cannot be the only one. I just hope that Americans finally wake up and start questioning everything. I hope they wake up and question the leadership they elect. I hope they wake up and question their place in the world, as individual people, and as Americans. I hope they wake up and question themselves, and improve for the better when they realize they can improve. I hope that Americans wake up and begin to grow.
Then again, who am I kidding? Why would anyone do these things when there is shopping to do?
I totally agree. Every cloud has a silver lining. Bank-breaking gasoline prices will make the bottom 85% of Americans conserve fuel, but the top 15% will continue to buy their SUVs. If gas prices go back down to tolerable levels, people will forget, and just re-buy all their fuel-inefficient trucks again.
Well...that is what happens when Americans don’t get involved in politics. As long as their child is not being shot at, they aren’t going to think about the war because it won’t affect them. If there was a draft, the war would have been over before it started. The author of this postcard is playing to an empty audience chamber.
~~Nick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)