realdre

June 5th,2007 23:20PM EST

Why Do People Have Kids?

I have always wondered why people choose to have children.

There is nothing rational about purposely raising one's own stress level, or having less discretionary income, or doing things your normally would not do in life. The answer most people often give for having kids is having a bloodline continuation, joy, or happiness. But why are children so expressly associated with happiness? Just because one has a child does, not automatically make everyone happy. Some people get rather depressed by having children, case in point (post partum depression).

All reasons for having kids are personal. In fact the times in which people had children out of necessity are non-existent in the modern civilized world. If you had a large farm that needed workers, okay that makes some rational sense. But these days if your an accountant, and she is a chef, you have no large amount of fields that need to be tilled, or livestock taken care of, so why? Continuation of a bloodline? I've driven around America from NYC, to California, to the deep south...some bloodlines should not be allowed to continue. We know for a fact not all persons whom are parents are good parents. We know some folks that have children should probably not have had children. I do not think many folks would have objected to Hitler's folks getting an abortion, but of course hindsight is 20/20.

Is there any way to logically arrive at an objective reason for having children?

I'll expand on this later, but for now one example is the economy. The economy quickly springs to mind, with the issue of having more potential workers. However...people whom do not have children pay more in taxes that people with children. People without children are discriminated against in the workplace because they do not get the "breaks" someone with children get in that environment. Children are so socially accepted into the fabric of being "good" and "positive" in the human psyche, we give families tax breaks to help them with a decision they made themselves which only affects them personally as that particular family. Is it fair and just to make people whom do not have children pay for the education of people with children as well? Logically, No. But people that don't have kids and went to public took use of the system, so okay they're paying what they used back basically. No argument there.

But why should those whom have children get tax credits? It defies logic. Your subsidizing not only other people's choices, but other people's children directly . Parents in society bear all burden of responsibility for their children's well being in all other matters, so why should people without children bear a financial responsibility to your child in the form of you the "family" getting a bigger tax break?

If you make $60,000 a year, and you have 3 kids let's say the government takes out $12,000...and you get back $5,000. And I make $60,000 a year have no kids, and they take $12,000 and I only get back $3,000 how is that fair to me? I worked hard as well, made the same amount of money..and let's say I lived across the street from you. The logic is when you have kids you have more expenses. Gee, REALLY. Logic says you could have had more money in your pocket if A) you did not have kids, B) had less kids, then you wouldn't need that extra $2,000 to cover what you have done for yourself. People do not have children for the community in modern day society.

You have them because you and the significant other had them for whatever reason, hopefully you both mutually decided to have children. No one has kids, and turns them over to the military from birth. Kids are not community property like a park bench, or a subway station. They are your kids, but they are also individuals. I can't walk up and say I need to borrow your kid to wash my windows, nor can anyone else in the neighborhood...(less they employ them, but that's another matter). So a couple having kids does not benefit the community in the short term at all, but rather an assumption that you having those children will benefit the community in the long term. Assuming you raise your kid to be a productive citizen whom gives back...less of course out of your so called non-selfish act of having kids, the kids does not turn selfish, and then it's all for naught based on your original intention of it being a selfless act.

The second reason is largely psychological. People say that children "bring joy", are a "blessing". And every other type of euphemism along these lines. Once again these are not objective reasons for deciding to creating a child, these are emotional responses from having children. And there is no guarantee once the child is born both parties, or one party, shall feel this way joy forever. A lot of things in life look good from the outside looking into them. If you are already an unhappy person, having a child more than likely will not make you happy unto itself. Because you were already unhappy as your life was, of course these unhappy feelings may come from feeling "unfulfilled" and a child certainly fills that emotional gap.

But what happens, when you tie your emotions into this child that you may or may not get tired of? Children may disappoint you later on as they get older, or not follow your requests, and then you'll be back to the same state of unhappiness. So to tie a child to an emotional response is truly dangerous and unfair to the child that did not request your procreating and bringing them into this plane of existence.


The third reason people have children is, tradition. The point of marriage for most folks is for the procreation of children. Now looking at current society we know this not to be true at all. Marriage is not at all necessary to have children. Teen pregnancies, out of wedlock (interesting name), sperm clinics. We know marriage has nothing at all to do with the specific action of creating children. Is there anything wrong with following tradition? No. Is there anything wrong with not following tradition and looking to do something new? No. But if you take the stance that you get married to have kids...does that not say you're really not in it for the love and devotion to your spouse but just simply to not feel the guilt from traditions and perhaps religion to have sex and children? Seems like a pretty weak reason to get married. Why be legally affixed to someone just for having children, to have an emotional guilt free escape card? Hardly seems noble or righteous, and what does that really do for the image of marriage does this not cheapen the idea of marriage you hold to be so strong? Seems like this vantage point makes marriage built upon a poor structure.

Face it folks, there is not one objective reason people choose to have children. None whatsoever. However, it is often cited that people whom choose not to have children are selfish.

The Child-Free side of the coin...

The folks whom choose to live child-free, as opposed to childless. Difference being one is a conscious act of will (child-free), and the other is usually due to medical defects (childless). People say it is "selfish" not to choose to have children. Argument usually being something along the lines of "If you do not have kids, and you are a good person then there will be less good folks in the world". That's not true so because, so as far as we know Hitler's parents did not kill masses of people. So what about those conscious choosing to be child-free folks?

First, what is selfishness? According to Webster's dictionary, it means to be concerned either one's own welfare excessively or without regard for others. Now to be fair this sounds more closer to being reckless, than being selfish as the appropriate wordage. Child-free folks are not selfish because they take the initiative to think about the welfare of the child with them as parents first off, as well too think so heavily about this issue as having children is serious, is with great regard for others rather than disregarding others. Child-free people are actuality self-composed, and self-contained.

Self-composed: Having control over one's emotions...see above reason #2.
Self-contained: Complete in self. Showing self control.

We all look around each day people struggling to afford their children, whether it be feeding them, sending them to college, dealing with their emotional issues on top of their own, not being able to keep them quiet in restaurants, movie theaters, etc..etc. Why is it folks whom often have children, always complain about not being able to find a babysitter..which means wishing to get away from them. Or constantly tell their kids about the "sacrifices" they made in having them..there goes reason #2 again...(not getting quite that gratitude you thought you'd get)..nice, must be sad to guilt a person into being thankful.

In regards to economy people without children pay more in taxes than those with children ultimately, because they do not get the benefit of child tax credits. Assuming all make the same amount of money. And as well since by them not getting the same amount of money back, as a family with children would...they are actually subsidizing your child care needs and placing more money in your pocket by not having children in the first place. So in essence, they cost less than people with children.

In regards to social interaction, they are looked down upon. Why? Because people associate the idea of choosing not to want children with hating children. This is completely asinine and stupid. Most of them are the educators your child will learn from in school, or create a theory to benefit mankind, cover for you at work because you have to take your kids to the doctor or make an appearance at one of their events. In reality you should be thanking people that choose not to have kids, because they are in essence making things easier upon you financially, and socially for having kids, yet they are the one's making the sacrifices so many people with children take for granted, daily. And do they get a "thank you"? No. Next time they come in late to work, and don't have kids to have a "better excuse" than you...back them up and stand up for them in the work place.

As well they challenge tradition. What makes kids inherently good? People have bad kids all the time, we even have the "terrible two's". Believing kids to be good, is just that a belief not a proof. If you have ever been to elementary school you know that most children have nothing to do with altruism. Nor does having children make one altruistic. Just makes them parents, and not necessarily good one's.

Psychologically, they are content. They already have fulfillment the way their lives are structured without children. Like I said children do not necessarily breed happiness, nor does not having them. Happiness is unto itself. So they are not sad, depressed, crazy individuals they just simply made a choice you as a parent chose (hopefully) not to make.

But how are most kids conceived? Accident or Unplanned. Choosing not to have kids, is in itself a planned action. Of course some kids are planned, obviously.

So coming back to the basic question asked earlier, why do people choose to have kids?

Because they can. It's really not more complicated than that, they do it because it is there. Just like a child whom touches stuff because it is there, no other inertia is needed. There is no objective reason for having kids unless your going to directly after birth hand them to the military, or make them expressly community property something along these lines. (Which is illegal, even adoption agencies don't make the kids clean up the highway or work fields as they are wards of the state.)

My personal opinion, I think it is done to fill an emotional gap.

Kids are an unspoiled reflection of both the partners. They know not of lying, cheating, harm, sorrow, pain. They are pure in that sense. And people will do anything to connect back to that part of themselves that living in the real world, and becoming an adult takes away that stockpile of innocence that children have so much of at birth. And as they get older you watch that stockpile decrease.

Which is why a good deal of parents hopes their children do not age, and "stay children" even though we know growth is inevitable. Which is another reason people I think have more than one child, just to keep trying to recapture that "high" of innocence lost. Now of course that's an addictive property associated with drugs, but I believe the correlation fits rather nicely.

On another note...Personal Responsibility comes into play. In this society there is this constant notion that people are responsible for themselves in regards the health care, socioeconomic status, if that is the case then why are not only parents responsible for their children's costs on the system? If this were true, people that did not have kids would not subsidize people who have kids. The healthy would not pay for the non-healthy, The young would not pay for the elderly. So it's really not about personal responsibility, it just sounds like it is about personal responsibility.

Final note...

No one should ever be guilt-ed or manipulated into having children. Ever. Children should never be conceived through what I call "soft coercion". You may know it as "If you really loved me, you would do this and I should not have to ask you". Not only if these methods are used is that not love, but 100% unjust. Because a child unlike say a car, cannot be returned to sender of there is no more love in the relationship. Often instead of serving as a reminder of love two persons once had, it is interpreted as a bad decision or mistake between those specific two people at that time...then it really wasn't love in the first place now was it?

True lover's or those in love truly...never would manipulate their partner into doing something you know that is against their wishes. If it's wrong for a man who wants 3 kids, and his woman wants 2 to "soft coerce" her into having that 3rd is wrong. It is just as it is wrong to "soft coerce" your lover into having kids as proof of loving you. Rather that "love" now becomes manipulated for your own selfish ends because you feel you are entitled to have a child with them, they now "owe" you that child. This no longer is love, but cold calculated selfish manipulation of strong emotions nothing more. It is love perverted by selfishness, and such is never LOVE.

If you encounter this with your partner it is best to break it off. Because it only works if both want kids, or do not want kids. If its a mixture of both it will never work out. She'll be in love with what she wishes you were as opposed to what you really are, and vice versa. And that is never fair to all parties involved.

May 29th, 2007 18:09PM EST


The greatest threat to national security is not terrorists, nuclear weapons, bird flu, immigration, guns, or even religious fanatics from all sects of religions. The greatest threat is to US National Security is the uneducated, ill-informed, US citizen. Thusly, this makes democracy the lowest form of government.

For a democracy to truly work at its finest, it rests solely on the notion that its citizens are educated. It is a requirement, not an option. But not educated simply from textbooks, it has to be as well about the separation of deciding between what is good social policy for all citizens. And it must leave out all moral considerations when doing such in the exercise of that power.

Democracy rests heavily on majority rule. In essence to win everything you only need more stupid people to vote as opposed to smart people. And the Yea's will have it every single time. Rather than have an exam for the intelligence of the voter, there should be one for the person whom is going into the elected office. The last thing any democracy needs is an uneducated ill-informed leader essentially in charge of the system. Education alone cannot be measured by degrees attained, to which it stands that testing the IQ , critical thinking ability, and analytical reasoning of all government workers, especially candidates to elected offices is essentially vital not only to the security of a democracy but the prosperity of the nation henceforth as well.

America has done a piss poor job of education Americans in regard to the fields of mathematics and science. However, it also fails to educate American's in its own history, it's legal system, it's penalties, how to appeal a decision, the citizens rights as a juror. Most people do not know the laws in their own state, let alone the federal laws, the court system. We should spend years upon years education citizens about their rights and privileges as a US citizen...and need to do more than just the cliche of teaching them the Bill of Rights' it is essential, but there has been far many more laws written and interpretations of it since the time it was written originally.

Democracy is defined as "government by the people", "majority rule". But we know this cannot be true in each case. If the people decided to bring back black slavery as a majority some would say so be it, it is majority rule. However, this would take away the individual liberty and freedom that is the right of every single US citizen. If the people decided to take away the right of women to vote, the same concept would apply, it would be interesting to note whether or not if black women would be specifically affected. It would undoubtedly bring up the question is the individual with born with natural breast and a vagina is a woman first, or black first...Interesting indeed.

The key of education is of absolute importance to the advancement of any democratic system of government. Without proper education of the masses, you do not have a democracy where all are equal, you have and create an elite class of citizens by lack of education for the others. Sure everyone will not go to college, nor is college for everyone. But everyone is fundamentally entitled to the same level of superior education from childhood, to whence the become of the age of majority.

And from this vantage point do we begin and lay the foundation for the building block of making our democracy truly strengthen. All men are not created equal, biology alone dictates this enough. Not all of us are tall, have blue eyes, or can play electric guitar. But educationally we all must have the same commonality of education. Yet we as citizens are, even though we may not be purely fundamentally.

No matter the IQ or academic abilities of a person, there is such a thing as a shared concept or notion. We all get the point. Human language is the lowest for of communication and there are few words we all understand, and we need every damn one we can get. The concept is more important than the words themselves, but we still fight petty and childish arguments of "language" in this nation.

One problem of educating the American citizen is that, education in America always is placed on the back burner to popularity. One garners far more attention and respect for being popular then being smart. Not saying that being smart does not make one popular, just not as popular as the "rebel" the "jock", or the "pretty ones". I am not trying to invoke the Breakfast Club here, but it is true. When democracy is absentee of its need for intellectualism it becomes exactly a microcosm of high school and no longer becomes a democracy, but a poorly made attempt at one.

May 21,2007 22:48PM EST


The case for why "GOD" has to be IMPERFECT and AMORAL

All religion rest's solely on Pascal's Wager or Gambit, which states as follows...

1)You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.

2)You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your loss is finite and therefore negligible.

3)You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

4)You may not believe in God, and God exists, in which case you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.

Basically better to believe to be safe, rather than not believe and be sorry. This is nothing more than religion through fear of an eternal punishment ultimately which has never been empirically proven to exist. But,such cannot be considered a true path to "GOD" because if one believes all "GOD" is pure goodness it is illogical. Which I shall get into later...

But let us look at an even more at the communication of the so called "scriptures" themselves Thomas Paine makes a rather excellent point on this notion in dealing with the language.

"Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. Human language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and uniform information, and therefore it is not the means that God would use in manifesting himself universally to man.

It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God. Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything; and, in this case, it would be just as consistent to read even the book called the Bible to a horse as to a man. How, then, is it that those people pretend to reject reason?"--Thomas Paine, Age of Reason Part I Sec VII

He makes a very valid point, and is correct language in regards to words does change over time, as well do do meanings.

God cannot be perfect for a variety of reasons. Think about it, a perfect being has cannot have desires. It is already perfect, already content. Perfection cannot long for anything other than perfection. A perfect being is essentially complete in every possible aspect, and in every measurable way. If you believe the "Creation Story" of Genisis in the Bible, it already negates the idea that God is perfect. Why would a perfect being create something? After all, it was already perfect in its existence by itself, already was it not? The need to create requires that there is something missing, that it is incomplete, therefore imperfect especially from a being that is supposed to be perfect.

If you believe God created the universe then you have to admit that there was no sun, moon, stars, galaxy, concept of time..nothing but the entity of perfection called God alone. So out of what purpose would God create a universe? We'll come back to that one later as well...anywho... you are lead to the argument that that everything created from God must be perfect, because God is perfect, so therefore mankind has to be perfect...and if this is the case why do the revealed religions constantly fall in line of mankind is not perfect...the concept of original sin could not exist, sin could not exist, good and evil can only have one value, that being goodness and perfection.

But the universe is not perfect, evil does exist, and many religions believe sins or acts against God can occur and do in fact exist.

Then the other argument you run into is that GOD created humans out of his compassion and love. God's need to create in of itself is proof God is imperfect once again. If you say God created spontaneously that is no reason at all, it means the universe and everything in it came into being with a reason, without a purpose. And it would mean God is not loving at all.

God as well cannot have free will either or be omniscient. If God is omniscient he cannot make any other choices at all. He can only make one choice, and then it is not really choice just a matter of programming. If you know all the choices you will make, you cannot change them. It would suggest GOD was wrong if he has the ability to change them. So no wiggle room whatsoever, no room to change, because after all God is supposedly perfect and can see the future. God not only has to make the best choices, he can only make choices that are perfectly good.

God cannot make decisions that are less than perfectly good. God has only one choice, the absolute best moral choice. Since God does not have free will, he cannot make any other choices but this one. In order for God to be able to exercise free will, for him to do this has to mean he can make a wrong choice, which means otherwise he is imperfect and has to contemplate the choice. Therefore, God being only allowed to make one the utmost choice in essence has to amoral.

If God however does have free will, God as well must also be imperfect. If God is infact imperfect then and only then is it possible for God to choose anything less than a perfection action. If God is not imperfect, of course than God cannot do anything that is imperfect. So logically, God cannot have free will.

God has to be amoral as well. Why?

Because since God must make only the most moral optimum choice, he has no free will. As well he is not omniscient because every choice he was going to make was perfect and already decided. So God would have to be amoral by default. Either what is right or wrong is simply because God says so or God says what is right or wrong because it is, simply. God's command for this to be right would have to set up a standard to which there is no moral reasoning for following, and then this only becomes followed out of fear. Then on the other hand God's command is irrelevant to ethics and that ethics have nothing to do with religion and never flowed from it by divine inspiration. (This would negate Moses, and the bible as a foundation for laws, other than symbolism.)

Then how do you explain evil?

"The free will justification for evil does not work. Free will does not require the existence of evil or suffering. Heaven is a place where there is free will, and no suffering. There is a lot of suffering and evil that are not the result of free will, such as natural disasters, so free will could not actually account for all suffering, only some of it. Also, the free will of one person can cause suffering for another innocent person, God should not allow the moral choices of one being affect other beings as this goes against moral accountability.

It is inadequate to say merely that knowledge or experience of suffering is requirement for us to enter heaven as a justification of why suffering exists. God can give us innate knowledge of evil, rather than let us experience it directly, and if babies or the unborn go to heaven then is clear that experience of the suffering of life is not actually required, after all. If angels or god exist in heaven then it shows that it is possible for beings to be in heaven without first experiencing suffering. The experience theodicy does not work.

The Absence Theodicy is the argument that seen as "God" is "goodness", anything not good such as evil and suffering, is the absence of God. Therefore, the absence theodicy claims that God is not responsible for evil, merely for good.

What this does is put "good" and "evil" either side of a scale. We define many scales as part of our experience. From "hot" to "cold", from "rich" to "poor", we measure all kinds of things on all kinds of scales. What all of them have in common is that God created them. God, in most monotheistic religions including Christianity and Islam, created heat and cold, created the "ups" and "downs" and created every little in-between bit of all those scales. Likewise, God created the scale of good and evil. God could have created a scale of "amazing goodness" through to "medium goodness" down to "amateur goodness", and therefore let all beings experience no evil or suffering. That God decided to create evil, suffering and pain and put them on the scale is an inexplicable act for a supposedly all-good god. The explanation that suffering is the absence of good is not sufficient to explain why God created suffering in the first place"


http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/theology/responses_to_biblegod_not_perfect.htm

May 18, 2007 2:56 AM EST

There has been a lot of attention over as to what to do with the problems of global warming, and high energy costs. Oil we know is a finite resource and we are going to run out whether it be in 2030 or 2050 is irrelevant. And I do not know about the rest of you, but I do not want to be in my 40's and paying well over $9 bucks a gallon for gasoline. Not only that, but it would end the dependence on foreign oil.

Miners would not have to worry about being killed because we would no longer be drilling deep beneath the ground, as well it would cut down medical costs of their respiratory diseases. This in essence would promote healthier families. Also richer families because with the cheaper price of electricity families would have more money, and this is always a good thing in America.

So what is nuclear energy? Where does the power come from?

Nuclear energy is energy that is released from the atomic nucleus. Nuclear energy is released by three exothermic processes; 1) Radioactive decay- a proton or neutron in the radioactive nucleus decays spontaneously by emitting a particle, 2) Fusion- two atomic nuclei fuse together to form a heavier nucleus, 3) Fission, the breaking of a heavy nucleus into two nuclei.

The energy is produce by a controlled nuclear chain reaction. This occurs when one nuclear reaction is caused by another nuclear reaction, thus an exponential increase in the number of reactions. An uncontrolled nuclear reaction is what leads to an explosion. So when thinking of an "uncontrolled nuclear reaction" think setting off an nuclear weapon, that is an uncontrolled nuclear reaction. A controlled nuclear reaction takes place withing in nuclear reactor or a US nuclear submarine, obviously where it is controlled.

Currently nuclear reactors provide 15% of the worlds total electricity.

We already have the infrastructure, everything we own runs on electricity, we depend on electricity. We have cars now that run on electricity solely. If we have nuclear plants generating the cheap electricity, all you need do is plug your car into a socket from your home, as well you can design fueling stations that would instead of pumping gasoline, you simply plug in and recharge your vehicle. They only thing you would have to speed up is the absorption rate of the car recharging.

When the nuclear chain reaction is controlled, the energy released can be used to heat water, produce steam and drive a turbine that generates electricity. In a controlled nuclear reaction a nuclear explosion cannot happen because the level is being controlled, that is the rate of fission does not become capable of producing a nuclear explosion because it cannot reach the significant levels needed to create a nuclear explosion in the first place.

Uranium is basically the gasoline of what produces the nuclear reaction. Much like gasoline if you light it on fire, produces the heat and warmth. In this case the uranium produces the electricity you seek. The price of uranium is about $130/kg. At current levels there is enough to last for the next 70 years. The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect on final price.

For instance, typically a doubling of the uranium market price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 26% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would typically add 70% to the price of electricity from that source). At higher prices eventually extraction from sources such as granite and seawater become economically feasible.

Uranium 238 is estimated that there is 5 billion years worth of supply for use in nuclear reactors. However, Uranium 233 by way of Thorium is three times more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium.

What about the waste?

The biggest issue concerning nuclear power is what to do with the waste. As of 2003, the United States had accumulated about 49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors. Underground storage at Yucca Mountain in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety. The amount of waste can be reduced in several ways, particularly reprocessing.

Reprocessing can potentially recover up to 95% of the remaining uranium and plutonium in spent nuclear fuel, putting it into new mixed oxide fuel. This would produce a reduction in long term radioactivity within the remaining waste, since this is largely short-lived fission products, and reduces its volume by over 90%. Reprocessing of civilian fuel from power reactors is currently done on large scale in Britain, France and (formerly) Russia, will be in China and perhaps India, and is being done on an expanding scale in Japan. The potential of reprocessing has not been achieved because it requires breeder reactors, which are not yet commercially available. France is generally cited as the most successful reprocessor, but it presently only recycles 28% (by weight) of the yearly fuel use, 7% within France and another 21% in Russia.

The US has stopped civilian reprocessing as one part of US non-proliferation policy, since reprocessed material such as plutonium can be used in nuclear weapons. Spent fuel is all currently treated as waste.

What about health?

As far as medical is concerned, you are exposed to more radiation during an X-ray. Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities.

In 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health announced that a large-scale study, which evaluated mortality from 16 types of cancer, found no increased incidence of cancer mortality for people living near 62 nuclear installations in the United States. The study showed no increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia mortality in the study of surrounding counties after start-up of the nuclear facilities. The NCI study, the broadest of its kind ever conducted, surveyed 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near nuclear facilities.

What about it being used as a weapon, nuclear proliferation?

To prevent weapons proliferation, safeguards on nuclear technology were published in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and monitored since 1968 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nations signing the treaty are required to report to the IAEA what nuclear materials they hold and their location. They agree to accept visits by IAEA auditors and inspectors to verify independently their material reports and physically inspect the nuclear materials concerned to confirm physical inventories of them in exchange for access to nuclear materials and equipment on the global market.

Several states did not sign the treaty and were able to use international nuclear technology (often procured for civilian purposes) to develop nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa). Of those who have signed the treaty and received shipments of nuclear paraphernalia, many states have either claimed to, or been accused of, attempting to use supposedly civilian nuclear power plants for developing weapons. Certain types of reactors may be more conducive to producing nuclear weapons materials than others, such as possible future fast breeder reactors, and a number of international disputes over proliferation have centered on the specific model of reactor being contracted for in a country suspected of nuclear weapon ambitions.

However, wars are fought or rather have largely been fought over resources. Simply. Having nuclear power available to all the nations of the world would cut down on making war, because everyone would essentially have the power they need, thusly the primal reason for going to war historically would be greatly abandoned. We also must remember anything is subject to a terrorist attack, the Washington monument, gas plants, chemical plants, which is why security and the tightening of it is what needs to be greatly stated, if you secure something the right way, there is less chance for mischief.

The one resource we have to worry about is water, but thats for another date and time to discuss.

What about pollution?

Nuclear generation does not directly produce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury or other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels (pollution from fossil fuels is blamed for many deaths each year in the U.S. alone

It also does not directly produce carbon dioxide, which has led some environmentalists to advocate increased reliance on nuclear energy as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which contributes to global warming.

So what about the costs?

The cost of nuclear power generation has been dropping over the last decade. This is because declining fuel (including enrichment), operating and maintenance costs, while the plant concerned has been paid for, or at least is being paid off. In general the construction costs of nuclear power plants are significantly higher than for coal- or gas-fired plants because of the need to use special materials, and to incorporate sophisticated safety features and back-up control equipment. These contribute much of the nuclear generation cost, but once the plant is built the cost variables are minor.

Just look at the production costs...(courtesy of NEI, Nuclear Energy Institute)

This is in the costs per kilowatt hour...




Nuclear by far is the cheapest when compared to gasoline, coal, and of course oil. And for the folks that would tell you solar is a better way to go...when the sun goes down you have no energy...when the wind does not blow you have no energy. People need electricity at night, and when there is no breeze.

May 12, 2007 19:35 PM EST

The question as to whether or not GOD exists is a question which has many different answers. If perception truly is reality. That is the way in which one perceives the world is the vantage point from which one will see the world. So if you are a Christian for however long during that time you will see the world as a Christian. Or Atheist, whatever have you.

But, if perception truly is reality if everyone was born with no concept of a "GOD", "heavens" ,"hell" no concept of the possibility of an afterlife would "GOD" not cease to exist in the first place? Can something exist that no one has no knowledge of and does not believe in?

It would stand to reason in my opinion if no one believed in "GOD" it could not exist. For the "GOD" machine is very much dependent on believers. "GOD" itself in the logical sense, in a more pure sense has no need for followers, it is, as it is with "GOD". It does not need worship from humans or to feel secure in the fact it knows that we know of its existence. After all, humans for all purpose’s have no empirical physical evidence "GOD" exists. Why would such a supreme entity, being need self assurance let alone assurance of it's own greater intellect, supremacy from mere mortal humans? Such then could not be a very powerful "GOD", certainly not very sure of itself. Such a "GOD" would need it's own psychologist.

If "GOD" however, does exist it certainly does not need religion and is completely separate from this notion about belief in "GOD". Christianity in of itself logically is one of the worst religions to follow on the planet, because it's setup is not determinate unto truth but onto conveniences. If something cannot be explained it just smiles and suggests that is beyond the capacity of a mortal to understand the reasoning. And at the very same time if something can be explained through rational human thought, logic, experimentation, scientific and mathematical theory, this too is still an extension of the one called "GOD". Is this not extremely convenient? To have both possible scenario's already with a solution that is open ended. It’s not genius but it is rather clever in it's setup.

The truth of the matter really is "GOD" is an escape, a crutch, a debilitating condition of the acceptance and lack of responsibility for and of suffering. Look at the setup of "Christianity" the most popular religion in these United States of America.

Man internalizes his pain and rather than take the steps to correct such deficiencies by the actions most necessary, he blames suffering on an external tormentor this being "evil", "bad luck", "the devil", "bad karma" whichever you wish to call it. Christianity in it's setup applies to the downtrodden, the weak, the disadvantaged. Think about it, why bother and strive to make the current life situation you are in better by taking better steps to alleviate them screw it you’ll get your rewards later and in the end, in the next life.

It"s based heavily on resentment of those with power, with success, with "luck", with "skill". Then it becomes well faith is not about achievements in life but rather matters of the "soul". So rather than dealing with the present, the focus becomes on the afterlife, the transition to another plane of existence. Of course this a plane in which one cannot see and can only gain entry through death. So now because the world, the reality one lives in becomes unacceptable, harsh, burdensome, and above all painful. And life is painful. Such an acceptance of this vantage point on life devalues life itself.

The reasoning that comes to the surface is that, if the afterlife is so grand, so peaceful, so wonderful why not just commit suicide and to hell with skipping "GO"? Just go for it. But then there is restraint, the restraint of the concept of "guilt" of "sin". But what are these really? To deny the negative qualities of human nature and the will not to embrace them those being sex, disrespect, skepticism.

Morals have no altruistic value, neither does sin, or guilt. These are merely words that express concepts and behaviors that some humans become disgusted with in man’s existence. To say one acting or committing "sin" and it is against "GOD" is absurd and is nothing more than an opinion. Truly, humans cannot have intimate knowledge of a "GOD" which by their own definition is mysterious. So basically "GOD" could have changed its mind eons ago and we would never know if this occurred, there could have been a misunderstanding, a misquote.

I do not proclaim to know "GOD", its judgment, its existence by any stretch. But I do know to claim anyone person, group, or authority, to suggest a specific way is the only way too such is completely self serving and absurd. The ten commandments serve not to safeguard human behavior but to restrict, and if humans are incapable of restricting themselves for the betterment of all then you need something in place by which to control them psychologically.

Here is where "GOD" fits most perfectly. Think about it, Moses goes to the top of a mountain, by himself, no one else around, and for better or worse comes up with ten rules in which to help control the populous from complete anarchy. Nothing wrong his reasoning. But he is not stupid. If he comes down and says I declare we follow these rules, these laws, well he is just one man with his opinion whom is he to dictate? Yet, he comes down and says these are the "Commandments from GOD" when the people did believe in "GOD" already, the reasoning, the will to follow becomes airtight. There becomes no room for argument. Look at the ten commandments from a logical standpoint.

I) "Thou shall have no other gods before me". This makes "GOD" into an insecure diva, but let's look at it realistically. How do you create unity, peace, and harmony? If everyone believes in the same ideas. So in order to maintain the peace it was beneficial to create one "GOD". Having dissenting "GODS" creates problems, leads to argument, anarchy, unrest. (Explains Constantine's reasoning for the switch, huh?)Makes logical sense. Maybe it's to stem chaos for all practical reasons, maybe this was to suppress argument from those of different vantage points and ideas. And that is "GOD" through oppression, not "salvation".

II) "Thou shall not make unto thee, any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is the earth beneath, or that is the water underneath". So for all purpose "GOD" is to be image less, colorless, non race specific, even gender specific…technically. It’s presumed male but any who. But why? If you say "GOD" looks like this or that, people that will look different from this "GOD" will ask for conformation of some kind which you cannot give, so this avoids that whole question. Same with heaven, don't know what that looks like so if you do not describe, you cannot mislead unintentional or intentional. And if goes perfectly with the 1st commandment, if you begin to worship the something in the earth or water you run great risk of violating the 1st commandment.

III) "You shall not take the name of the LORD your GOD in vain" Some people would suggest that this means do not say "God damn" or anything like that. I do not think that was his aim. "Vain" means of no real value, idle, worthless, futile and unsuccessful. As well to be not conceited, narcissistic, vainglorious. Now to me this does not mean do not curse and say "GOD" at the same time, but do not engage in overly professing your belief in "GOD", do not excessively state your belief, your faith in "GOD", do not beat people with your achievement of believing in "GOD" be humble about it. Why? Because when boasting it leads generally to people feeling inadequate, and when people feel on is being preachy or full of themselves it alienates and causes discord. Of course this was not the intention of Moses, he was trying to quell unrest and bring together perhaps not through the most honest of means but the ends was going to justify in his logic I would gather.

IV) "Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy". Simply, remember to worship at some point on the 7th day. This could be Sunday or Saturday logically depending on how you count. It does ensure a day off, a day of relaxation more or less. It takes away worship from the "LORD" if one is always at work with tasks at hand, as well people whom are overworked lose interest, and you cannot further interest into "GOD" if everyone is too busy to listen.

V) "Honor thy mother and father" The most ambiguous of the commandments. What is honoring one’s parents and what is not? Let alone why is this inserted. Some would tell you it is because at the time children more or less do as many do now but to a lesser extent take their parents in their home whence they reach old age and provide for them. But it has to do with adulation. If one cannot respect one's parents that are their physically, how can they be called on to worship and pay homage to something which has to be found and cannot be seen? So if you can raise them to honor their parents first, surely they can at least find it almost equal to honor "GOD". Once again still maintaining societal control to "GOD" by other means.

VI) "Thou shall not kill". Basic enough. Even rational. Accept when it comes to defense, and threats. Of course you do not see an exception made to this rule till you get to the New Testament in Matthew when "Jesus the savior" says it is okay to kill as long as you have a reason. Matthew 5:21-22 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shall not kill; and whoever shall kill shall be in danger of judgment; But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment". As long as you kill for a reason "a cause" you are not in danger of "the judgment". Now if you connect that to the crusades, the holy inquisition, slavery, Salem witch trials…you can make the case this justified those from a Christian standpoint. But why place it in there? Simply, people like to live. And not quite ready to leave earth behind. Nothing inherently controlling about this commandment except it may allow for a threat to still exist when it is more rational the threat be neutralized immediately.

VII) "You shall not commit adultery". Adultery is a sexual unfaithfulness to a married person. But even broader than this specific definition it means honor your commitments. Which makes sense. You make a promise stick with it, do not welsh. Nothing wrong with that, someone makes a promise to us we expect them to keep it and honor the agreement. Just a reasonable expectation here. But aside from that, it cuts down on rampant sex with many different partners, which does cut down on disease. But since adultery can only logically apply to married persons it is designed to restrict married people's from "double dipping" into the pools of single people. Basically, you got yours let others get theirs. Do not be greedy, and selfish by doing this double dipping. Why is this a control? Well if you have married couples they in essence are off limits, but if they are not adhering to these rules, then how can you expect those whom are not married to not restrict themselves from their desires when for all purposes these married persons have someone to fulfill their human sexual desires? It becomes great hypocrisy and leads to great discord as well.

VIII) "You shall not steal" Simple enough as well. Logical. Even helps promote public safety. But if you have any knowledge of mosaic law is was not stealing if you were stealing food, or something in someone’s fields because you were hungry. Stealing was stealing basically for the sake of it, this brand if you will of stealing was problematic, this kind would not be tolerated at all. A necessary control perhaps, helpful? No question. But the broader point it still connects to greed, envy. Greed, and envy someone would call it economy others say it leads to a negative place. I would argue the concept of value leads to that negativity not stealing in of itself.

IX) "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbors". Basically, do not lie. Once again nothing wrong with this as well. No logical problems. But lying causes a good deal of harm for others, but more importantly why do people lie? To make themselves seem more important than what they are, to place focus on themselves. To draw worship away from the "LORD" and that goes against the 1st commandment which from which all the others after it flows.

X) "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's". Well like I said this is called economy. Now does having possessions make people angry, resentful? Yes to an extent. To covet is to extremely desire, like I really have to have what they have. This is not to be confused with seeking your own and creating a good economy, but jealousy of all things, having disaffection for your own life and accomplishments and that turns the focus from "GOD" once again to you the individual and that is wrong in the eyes of Moses and these commandments. Now maybe this was said so people would have the attitude of not feeling envious, feeling like losers, being appreciative of their lot in life. Or perhaps it was said in order to keep people to "GOD".

Remember the appeal of Christianity is to those whom are suffering and dissatisfied with their life. The meek, the weak, the slow, the ugly, the poor. It's setup, its design is for those who have great disaffection with their own life. Because when one is happy and satisfied with one's own life, there really is no need for the Christian "GOD". He's not speaking for you, towards you, hell really he is condemning you for being successful, and for getting through your hardships and not letting it keep you down. And when you do not need "GOD", when you do not need to seek him, it takes away from his worship, logically. Because with your success there is no reason to wrap yourself up in the reality of the suffering of others. It is not apart of your perception any longer, thusly unnecessary and immaterial.

April 22,2007 10:05 PM EST

I have been silent on this issue and waited for the heat to die down because things must always be looked upon objectively but let us talk not about Imus for the moment, but the aftermath. All of a sudden now the discussion seems to be focusing on hip hop music and the lyrics. People are claiming to state that it is hip hop's fault because Imus said what he said, that somehow hip hop has allowed the civility in society to decrease by making such lifestyles and words seem socially acceptable. Even, Imus himself tried to lay hip hop as the cause for what he said.

This comes down to one word; RESPONSIBILITY.

We live in a society today where personal responsibility is shaken from people, that everyone is a victim. All this logic does it take away from real victims. But what is a victim? A victim is a person whom cannot help what happens to themselves. They are helpless, they need protection. Usually, children are victims, the elderly, the weak. But a grown wealthy man such as Don Imus a victim hardly. Now should done Imus have been fired for being racist in public? Maybe, but at least smacked once upside the head for being stupid. He said "nappy headed hoes" let's break this down for a second.

First of all, people must realize that "hoe's" in of itself is a particular female with a very specific set of character issues, and usually not good ones. In this case when he tried to label this as the Rutger's Women's Basketball team, he picked the wrong group of women to identify with this word and its characterizations. What is hoe, however? In the urban sense and it's first meaning; a woman that is loose sexually with many males or females for that matter in 2007, different from a prostitute in only that a prostitute does such for business and monetary gain. A hoe does such usually for personal satisfaction, perhaps we would call this person a nymphomaniac. But as well a man can be a hoe as well. He sleeps around with multiple women, from Bruce Bigelow "a man whore". Yes the first meaning is applied to females, but it's context is not gender specific.

Second, he used the term "nappy headed", now this applies strictly to black people, and in this case black women. For all purposes the team does not consist solely of black women. Had some white women on the team as well. So he went out of his way to clearly single out the black players, in all honesty if he just would have called them all hoe's he would have caught hell for that and rightfully so, but injection of the term "nappy headed" just clearly signifies his racial intent in his comments. Now if he would have just called them hoe's because of the kind of women he is talking about still would have probably got fired, and caused a lot of damage. Had he been talking about actual whores, prostitutes would not have been an issue. So the issue once again comes into context. Not the words themselves.

Third, on the matter of hip hop itself. Ahh yes the violent lyrics and degrading things it says about women. Aren't we a pot calling the kettle black, and in this case the kettle that is white is not getting it's fair share of media exposure and image plastered all over the screen.

Now on Hip Hop...

First, it is not degrading to women if they are getting paid to be scantily clad in videos...it is 2007, not 1957. If I am a producer and I'm looking for women to be in my rap video, and I tell them what I wish them to wear, what I wish them to do..and I pay you, it is an offer of employment not exploitation. You can choose to say, no I am not going to do that, it goes against what I believe in no harm no foul you just turned down a paying job...the matter is resolved. Did Halle Berry not do topless scenes for a long time in her career, there are several female actors such as Jessica Alba that come too mind whom stated will not do nudity.

And I rarely hear of a "video vixen" not getting paid, granted it may not be the amount of money she really wanted but ultimately if she chooses to do so she agreed on the price because she performed the services required. This is female empowerment. If a woman chooses to do these videos, how is that degrading? She is choosing. I thought that is what the struggle was about?

More choices for women, now if other women and some men do not like the choices some of these women are making fine that is opinion. But if we "clamp down", and "pu pu" on these choices they have in front of them...is it the job of society to be censors for us all? Or the job of each an every individual American citizen?

Secondly, the use of the words "bitch, hoe". Now let us be realistic, bitch and hoe are characteristics...that are displayed by some women. Here is the question some people may hate to answer, but are some women bitches and hoes? Yes. They exist and we need to stop sugarcoating and pampering this society. A bitch is a woman whom constantly complains, ie the term "bitching", or in the case of its male application a person whom is weak or soft ie "bitching up". Hoe (see above reading). Now say I am a rapper, and I cannot use these two words specifically, I can still describe a woman who displays these characteristics and these manners. So really what are you getting rid of, here? I would truly like to know from the moral and socially conscious.

Thirdly, the use of the word "nigger". While I do not agree with its use as a term of endearment. I am not foolish to think it's use to be banned is going to hold up to constitutional standards, but as well the human element. You go banning words left and right, why not ban "faggot", "cocksucker", "motherfucker", "pussy", "dick", "bastard", "wench", "slut", "tramp"...just saying. It becomes a bit ridiculous does it not?

But the other question is it just rappers as well whom have to watch what they say?

Why not comedians?

What about authors?

What about script writers, screen writers, movie directors, poets? GrindHouse, Disturbia, Fracture have raked in millions upon millions in the past few weeks, critics even praised a few of these. Yet no one bats an eye or raises an objection. And the people, well some are buying tickets as I am writing this piece. How many will go see "Hot Fuzz" right here in the New River Valley Area of Virginia, this upcoming Friday?

Ohh wait, but that is fictional violence..but wait I've read the Social Contract by Rousseau he advocates some violence, should he not be to blame if I flip out? The buck always stop with each individual person, individuals need better to learn to master themselves. But in blameless society why bother...

Going to ban the words the may use to express themselves as well? Actual artists that paint things that may offend and shock?

Civility defined by society never works, it is why we had the Victorian age, and why we have moved away from such. People should be allowed to decide for themselves, not governments, not civil groups, not lobbyists, not naggers and language nanny's. Individuals. Say it with me...IN..DI...VI...DU..ALS...

But let me get this straight some of you whom may disagree with me, you want me to trust the judgment of society at large?

You know the same one, who said slavery was a good idea, women are second class, blacks and namely Native Americans third class, that separate but equal is equal, that used Christianity to make the slaves docile? Where you have a people still suffering the effects from the Willie Lynch letter? The same one that makes a big deal about a President and his sex life? The same one that calls the deaths at Virginia Tech a national tragedy, yet fights a war, one that says that illicit narcotics should be illegal, yet more people die from cigarettes, alcohol, and overdoses on prescribed medications? People that want prayer in school, but in reality only Christian prayer...and whose own holy text states prayer is to be done in private and secret in the book of Matthew....CONTRADICTORY.

This is the contradicting society in which I am to trust the judgment of such decisions. I am fully capable not only as an adult, but as well an individual to decide things for myself. That is what responsibility is last time I checked. Imus is a coward for trying to hide behind hip hop to defend his conduct as well so are his defenders for using it as a shield, tisk tisk when a man well into 60's has to pull back for excuses regarding his own conduct.

But which is more important...Free Speech or Civility, and you can only choose one?

Next time someone kills let us blame it on Grand Theft Auto, and Scarface, and US SOCOM 3...

Funny what video games were they playing, when they decided to beat slaves, what music where they listening too? Or for the lynchings? When so many black people, whose final numbers will never be known were lost to white mobs, and race riots...

Hell when people get arrested for DUI, do we hold Jack Daniels or Budweiser accountable for every single DUI accident/murder? Why not, should we? Yet I do not hear of anyone saying we need to stop liquor ad's for promoting drinking, or even potentially sexual gains.

This is just as idiotic and ignoring the actual problem. It is just like suggesting that giving out condoms promotes sex.

But that is what we do in this society, responsibility for actions is no one's fault. So why not the next time someone says something stupid blame it on the lack of widgets, because responsibility seems to be just as fictional.

April 16, 2007 3:14PM EST

I write today's piece with a most heavy heart. As a member of the Virginia Tech family, first and foremost I would like to thank all those who grieve with us during this time of tragedy not only for the victim's, but the student body and faculty as well.

As we all know by now, at least most do know that yesterday 32 people lost their lives yesterday in act of not just violence but senseless violence. They died for no cause, fought no war, involved in no political struggle. Just regular everyday students whom came to Blacksburg, Virginia and Virginia Tech to better themselves. Some people are going to make what happened here about gun control, the "gun culture" of America, the violent nature of Americans. Which is not what this incident was about and for shame on those who want to make this tragedy and score political points whether warranted or not is simply bad form against all those involved in this tragedy.

I can go on and on about how the actions of one crazed individual should not hamper the decisions or freedoms of other's whom are law abiding citizens, who are responsible people. All yesterday proved was that guns with their power in the wrong hands has evil to do terrible and capable things.

Guns in of themselves are not evil because they are just cold pieces of metal. It is by sole action of the user to whether they are used to defend justice, or to bring forward injustice. Alcohol kills plenty of people each year usually from the hands of another person, cigarettes we know second hand kills people...yet both of these still remain legal and available and no one hardly says a word about restricting their sales. Gun control laws only take guns out of the hands of citizens whom are law abiding. Criminals will not readily turn over their firearms as they do not now.

To me the true causation of this tragedy is not the manner in which members of my family died, but why they died? This person was a loner. He had no one to reach out to, no one was there to perhaps listen to guide comfort this person. Isolation, anger, fear, quality of life all those things I believe had greater influence for the tragedy at hand that now lay in wake before us all. Time and time again we see people who cannot get help, because no one listens. And when people feel they are not heard, they are discarded, they are not listened to some you get these quite abnormal behaviors.

How many times do we ignore people each day, how many times do people fall short to which we show no compassion, no understanding? Or entire culture of being results orientated in my opinion is to blame...we got rid of bankruptcy pretty much in this country, we hardly use discretion when imposing sentencing for albeit lessor crimes....we want people to face the harsh consequences of their actions and leave them to those devices alone.

I have come to believe that one of best ways to show compassion is to forgive. Truly I cannot say it without a slice of anger but I do forgive Cho Seung-Hui not because of any deference to the victims, but because forgiveness is the only balm that can sooth such anger and lay a better foundation for the love we absently forget to show each other when situations of this magnitude do not occur.

Why is it always in tragedy's do other things no longer matter? Right now classes do not matter, grades do not matter, that VISA bill you had yesterday does not matter, price of gasoline does not matter! But on the other end that friend, that sister, that brother, that son, that daughter...they now matter, they now take precedence. They are truly governing the your life, my life. All the issues against Imus with Rutgers already I can tell you is a far distant memory and a more welcomed pain than this one.

Events like this in my opinion must be seized with great vigor and love because they do serve the necessary function of time to time reminding us that people do matter, and they should matter at the end of the day at all times. Many people on campus so many scurry about doing this, doing that...but now all that stops because it is human to take a moment and reflect and acknowledge that everything but the moments of connection, of appreciation, of joy mean far more than any grade, car, raise, bonus, or even political issue that can ever come about in the life you have.


They cannot know the pain we feel
Their suffering has long been lifted with great mercy
No longer beholden to the earth and it's harshness
No longer beholden to the cruelty of the human condition
Their souls are now lifted in the light of love and joy
So we should not seek them to be miserable behind their leaving
But joy us in the occasion that their essence is comforting to all
What they are is gone, Who they are shall always be with us
But it is our duty to see that the flame of courage in their name
Is not extinguished by decades of erosion, but constantly lit by the compassion
They were my brothers, they were my sisters, they were friends, they were family
And they shall always be remembered....

March 28, 2007 11:00 AM EST


Well it is 2007, and we are still dealing with the issue of gay marriage being good, and not good for America. Now maybe in 20 years gay marriage will be legal in each state, and this issue will be over. However, I deal in reality. And reality tells me the idea of two men frotting inside a home with children, frankly makes people sick to their stomachs. I prefer women, but I think what two grown people do in their bedrooms is their private moral, and legal business.

Just like a straight couple that would not involve their children openly in their sex life, I do not logically understand why people have this great misconception gay people some how would. But I'm tired of this issue being talked about, I'm tired of the debating over this issue. I am tired of watching protest after protest, I want focus on more important relative issues. So I'm going to outline how to win this argument once and for all for those Christian Right Wing Conservative folks.

You do not like the idea of queers, fairies, peter puffers, carpet munchers, getting married? Makes you sick your stomach? Feel like they are ruining the entire concept of marriage? Feel like it is a danger to children that should be adopted rather than abused in shelter's? Okay, I will tell you how to win this argument and gain sole dominion over this issue.

Changing the law to allow only one group of people, i.e. straight people to get married. Is not the way to go about your goal. Because you have to keep in mind the laws of each state, and the federal government functions under one principle as the law must. That is, all persons are equal in the eyes of the law, and everyone no matter what has the same rights and privilges as anyone else fundamentally. There is no way to get around this fact, other to openly practice discrimination which legally is a contradiction upon the very principle of the law itself which is equality and justice.

Gay marriage supporters may not personally agree with the lifestyle, I know because I do not. I love vagina's far too much for that, as do my lesbian friends. Now, their argument rests upon not of moral grounds for very few holy texts say anything positive about gays let alone gay marriage. But the law itself having to be fair for all it's citizens and that it cannot deny privileges for one group of people. Marriage contains rights, but automatic rights when one engages in this practice. Approximately, 1138 to be exact. Imagine having to fill out forms to get all of these rights, when it is just easier to say "I do" and these are all automatically inserted by these words very utterance.

The list includes thirteen categories of rights and benefits, including: http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/details.php?rptno=GAO-04-353R%20

Social Security and Related Programs, Housing, and Food Stamps
Veterans Benefits
Taxation
Federal Civilian and Military Service Benefits
Employment Benefits and Related Laws
Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens
Trade, Commerce, and Intellectual Property
Financial Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

So want to win this argument and have sole dominion over this issue of marriage? Take marriage out of the courts. That is make "marriage" solely the dominion of religious institutions. Take out state involvement, regulation, the 1,138 rights completely. Make it to where states cannot recognize marriage at all between any persons because if they do recognize the marriage of straight couples, they must recognize the marriage of homosexual couples. The law cannot differentiate, nor give favortism to one group over the other simply because it is not popular, or because of moral edicts by any group.

But religious institutions cannot be compelled to marry gay couples.

Because 1) there is a separation between church and state, 2) it would violate the right of churches freedom of expression, 3) it would make the church essentially turn their backs on their beliefs. And no law abiding democratic government can ask this of a religious institution. Only the church through time, leadership and its members can decide to marry gay people, or continue the existence of not allowing gays to marry. Now people can still be married, it would still remain only straight people can get married by a church or similar institution.

However, as long as there is no legal recognition by the state or federal government legally you would never have to worry about a challenge in court, or in the legislature from the homosexual community or those that support them...remember separation between church and state. Just another reason why the should remain separate...could you see them blending and states compelling churches having to marry homosexual couples? No I'd think not....

Of course many people on the side of the ultra conservative will disagree fundamentally with me, but my logic in this matter cannot be denied. If you really want gay marriage to not become legal, you shall have to sacrifice and declare all marriage recognition by the state as a violation of the separation between church and state, thusly eliminating all the rights and privileges that come automatically with state involvement and settling for only those religious one's. Question is how much are you willing to sacrifice to not allow gay marriage by any means? Do you really wish to endanger your family, your generations future by not being able to leave property to a love one without having to sign a contract? Or decide to terminate the life of a loved one without having had to fill out a form so they shall not suffer in a vegetative state?

Are any of you really wishing and have what it takes to risk all of that, simply because you disagree with a sexual lifestyle?

Because this is the only solution.

March 28, 2007 1:02 AM EST


Now there is no constitutional right that states people have the right to smoke marijuana, the right to smoke tobacco, spices, cotton, or anything else is not specifically mentioned either. Yet you can go to any vendor and buy a pack of Marlboro, Kool, or whatever else you as an individual adult US citizen decide to place into your body. See this is the very question is it not? Who in a democracy has governance over one's own private property...their body for what could possibly be more for private use than anything else on this planet.

When the US Constitution was first written a lot things were not included, rights for blacks, rights for women, the IRS, well I guess they got at least one thing right back then. But there was no law against what one could not place into their own body. People were left to decide such matters themselves as captains of their own physical realms. Now of course there were no safety regulations, product testing, and such..but they did have the one thing most assuredly US citizens do not get in these regards today. Choices about their own health care, essentially their own bodies. Now it would stand to reason that those whom would call themselves Republicans in the sense they believe in the individual over the welfare of the group, would support the legalization of marijuana. But of course logic lately has not been this groups strong suit, then again hasn't been the Democrats either.

Now government does exist to protect its citizens, however not to protect citizens from themselves. Okay, maybe you're saying well government should protect those whom would do drugs that endanger the lives of other US citizens. Good point, but it does not stand to reason simply because alcohol is legal. We all know that the staggering number of alcohol related deaths is alarming. Alcohol poisoning, drunk drivers, people killed fueled by alcohol rage, this is just endless. Cigarettes kill people each year, and just as well endanger the long term health of children, workers, etc..yet still legal.

So why such an axe against a substance that is naturally made by the earth itself? This really comes down to a couple of things.

1) Control
2) Drug companies
3) Decades of dis(information) fed to the public about marijuana
4) Morals

1) Marijuana can pretty much grown anywhere. In your closet, a few lamps, presto...no need to buy marijuana from growers, or companies that could sell it...all you need is the seeds. However, if this were to become legal and fall into the corporate realm what would happen? Better strains, better marketing, better product...just like there was innovation and improvement with soda pop, cookies, cereals, companies exist on the basis of their product has to be better than their competitor. And if you grow it yourself they really want you buying their brand, instead of your brand. And competition is good for a capitalist nation such as America. More jobs, generates more taxes, and could save space and money in prisons, and stop wasting money on a drug war that is bearing less fruit than Iraq at this point.

2) Drug companies your Merck's, Bristol Meyers Sqibb, do not want this to be legal. Why spend tons and hundreds of thousands on expensive designer pain medications? Marijuana takes care of that...people that suffer from anorexia would get increased appetite for example. Now perhaps anorexia is more mental than physical, but if their body feels hungry and they must satisfy it, sounds to me like problem solved. And aren't supposed to be worried about girls wanting to chase some dream about being thin all the time?

It increases sex drive, no need for viagra. It is a stress reducer...hmm does this also cut out alcohol which is far more dangerous, and cigarettes of tobacco which are more harmful to the individual and those around them? Leads to a person feeling more euphoric or happier, damn we can cut out all the anti-depressants...imagine how much money some of these companies would lose. Of course some people would react harshly to the drug, but once again see alcohol for the same effects...but Jack Daniels is still going strong.

3) Dis(information) by your government, yes the American one. Marijuana is not a gateway drug. No one has ever died from a marijuana overdose. Well I take that back one case has happened...There has only ever been one recorded verdict of fatal overdose due to cannabis. In January 2004, Lee Maisey of Pembrokeshire, Wales was found dead. The coroner's report stated "Death due to probable cannabis toxicity". It had been reported that Maisey smoked about six joints a day. Mr. Maisey's blood contained 130 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of the THC metabolite THC-COOH. However, the validity of the finding did not stand up well under review.

4) Morals while folks often mean well, that track record concerning mass social policy has not been good. Crusades, against gays, endorsement of slavery, second class nature of women. But let's place this in a Christian context since most of America is Christian. Why if you are a Christian are you so judgmental about what other people do with their private lives?

People that want to cite Jesus the Christ as an example, really seem to never pay attention. Jesus judged no one, and did not beat people over the head with his sense of morality but understood in order for people to follow you, you must allow them to walk behind you, not chase them for then they shall run away from the light not towards it. This message gets lost and lost with each successive banter of sinner bashing rhetoric.

Morality as once stated by Rousseau has no standard unit of measurement. Another words, moral for one is not going to be moral for two, so on and so forth. So why do we bother trying to decide what is moral for a group that directly concerns individuals? Now you can make the argument well why not legalize murder?

Well if you look a self defense, friendly fire, manslaughter, it pretty much is..just depends on the circumstances. At last check "thou shalt not kill" was an absolute with no conditions. But humans through reason, logic, and time have thrown conditions around that statement to fit "reality of the human condition" which is sometime death is necessary, as is killing. Just look at the concept of warfare if you need further proof, or self defense for that matter.

But drugs are big business. When something is illegal, it is against the law. Thusly, to do such an act requires concealment, covertness, risk. The more unscrupulous characters that get involved. Can't turn to the law, the courts when engaged in illegal business. So you are left with "code of the streets". Where power, might, intimidation are the tools. If it were legalized, taxed, regulated, controlled, you would have less unncessary murder, you would have space in jail for much more serious crimes like murder, rape, arson, sexual abuse....to lock a person up for putting a substance in their body? It seems silly that at one point people were carted off to jail for having a drink...soon I hope it will be just as silly to lock someone up for smoking a blunt.

America has what about 2 million people in jail...want to also break this down by race?

Among persons convicted of drug felonies in state courts, whites were less likely than African-Americans to be sent to prison. Thirty-three percent (33%) of convicted white defendants received a prison sentence, while 51% of African-American defendants received prison sentences. It should also be noted that Hispanic felons are included in both demographic groups rather than being tracked separately so no separate statistic is available.

Source: Durose, Matthew R., and Langan, Patrick A., Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 1998 Statistical Tables (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, December 2001), Table 25, available on the web at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/scsc98st.htm, last accessed December 21, 2001.

Now granted breaking the law is breaking the law. But enforcing the law more against one group of people is not justice, it is corruption masked as justice.

"In 2001, the chances of going to prison were highest among black males (32.2%) and Hispanic males (17.2%) and lowest among white males (5.9%). The lifetime chances of going to prison among black females (5.6%) were nearly as high as for white males. Hispanic females (2.2%) and white females (0.9%) had much lower chances of going to prison."

Source: Bonczar, Thomas P., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Prevalence of Imprisonment in the US Population, 1974-2001," NCJ197976 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 2003), p. 8.

In 1986, before mandatory minimums for crack offenses became effective, the average federal drug offense sentence for blacks was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later following the implementation of harsher drug sentencing laws, the average federal drug offense sentence was 49% higher for blacks.

Source: Meierhoefer, B. S., The General Effect of Mandatory Minimum Prison Terms: A Longitudinal Study of Federal Sentences Imposed (Washington DC: Federal Judicial Center, 1992), p. 20.

About families...

Lately, this government has been getting into the business of promoting marriage. More government intrusion into the private lives of people. But if this government really cared about families why send people to jail for drug possession when they have minor children? Would it not be more beneficial to send them to drug rehab? I mean we can send them to drug rehab without sending them to jail can we not?

"In 1999 State and Federal prisons held an estimated 721,500
parents of minor children. A majority of State (55%) and Federal (63%)
prisoners reported having a child under the age of 18. Forty-six percent
of the parents reported living with their children prior to admission.
As a result, there were an estimated 336,300 US households with minor
children affected by the imprisonment of a resident parent."

Source: Mumola, Christopher J., US Department of Justice Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children (Washington,
DC: US Department of Justice, August 2000), p. 1.

Want further proof the drug war is a complete failure?

Despite the fact that federal spending on the drug war increased
from $1.65 billion in 1982 to $17.7 billion in 1999, more than half
of the students in the United States in 1999 tried an illegal drug
before they graduated from high school. Additionally, 65% have tried
cigarettes by 12th grade and 35% are current smokers, and 62% of
twelfth graders and 25% of 8th graders in 1999 report having been drunk
at least once.

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug
Control Strategy: Budget Summary (Washington DC: US Government Printing
Office, 1992), pp. 212-214; Office of National Drug Control Policy,
National Drug Control Strategy: 2000 Annual Report (Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office, 2000), p. 97, Table 4-2; Johnston, L.,
Bachman, J. & O'Malley, P., Monitoring the Future: National Results on
Adolescent Drug Use Overview of Key Findings 1999, (Washington, DC:
NIDA, 2000), pp. 3-6.

And do not blame hip hop for this one, no rapper or song, makes a person want to try something like drugs. It is choice. Everything is choice. They advertise that tofu is good for you, but I will never eat the stuff in this lifetime. Think about it, will you?...do not be lazy and take the FOX News way of doing things. All I am saying folks is that it is the right of adults to place into their bodies what they wish, it goes against the constitution itself and the spirit of freedom and individuality this nation was founded upon...at least one of the few good things this nation was founded on. We could make billions each year and create new jobs to stimulate the economy.

The more money people have, the more money they spend this we know is true. And since morality is extremely subjective it makes no sense. We say racism does not exist anymore? Prove it...they day when all races are prosecuted equally in the justice system, is the day when we will no longer need to keep or have statistics on such. So like I said folks exercise your rights, think for yourself, unlearn the bullshit that has been fed to you for so long, and once you do this you will achieve true freedom...

So light it up...it's on me..

Thank you

Sorry I've been gone for so long. Just had to take time to collect my thoughts and renew my strength. While I was gone I was studying at the Jedi Temple. That's right Jedism is a new age religion and it is taken from Star Wars. However, it is not just a bunch of people dressing up in costume and playing with light sabers all day long. But rather deals with the principles of the JediKnight. To which I can say I am a part of, truly with all the events going on the past 6-8 weeks.

Jedism in a nutshell;

TEMPLE OF THE JEDI ORDER STATEMENT OF BELIEFS

Jedi Believe:

In the inherent worth of every person. People are worthy of respect, support, and caring just because they are human.

In working towards a culture that is relatively free of discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin, degree of ability, age, etc.

In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment

In the importance of democracy within religious, political and other structures.

In the separation of church and state; and the freedoms of speech, association, and expression.

That the systems of truth in the field of morals, ethics, and religious belief that we have studied are not absolute: they vary by culture, by religion, and over time.

In the generally positive influence that most religions have had on their followers and on society, with the exception of a handful of destructive cults which have had an overall negative impact on the world.

In the importance of individual believers determining evil influences and policies within their chosen faith group, and advocate for their correction.

In the importance of education. We believe that people are not truly educated unless they have studied at least the world's major religions and ethical systems. They need to learn of the good and bad impacts they have had on society


THE 16 BASIC TEACHINGS OF THE JEDI

1. Jedi must maintain a clear mind; it is achieved through meditation and contemplation. The mind can become cluttered and must be purged of the unnecessary elements on a daily basis; our minds can be infected by forces and attitudes that we encounter every day.

2. Jedi live and focus on the present; they must neither dwell on the past nor be concerned about the future. As the mind wanders, focusing on the present is a task not easily attained, for the mind is not content with the eternal present moment, release the stress and ease your mind.

3. Jedi feel the Living Force flowing around them, they are spiritually aware of the Force, and are sensitive to its energy and its fluctuations and disturbances.

4. Jedi trust and use their feelings, they are intuitive, more so than others and with this heightened intuition they are more spiritually evolved their mind is in harmony with the force.

5. Jedi are mindful of their thoughts, they focus their thoughts on the positive. The positive energy of the force is healthy for the mind, body and spirit.

6. Jedi are patient. Patience is elusive but can be consciously developed over time.

7. Jedi protect the peace, they are warriors of peace and are not ones to use force to resolve a conflict; it is through peace, understanding and harmony that conflicts resolve.

8. Jedi are mindful of the emotions that lead to the dark side: Fear, Anger, Aggression, and Hate. If a Jedi senses these emotions manifesting within, they meditate to purge these destructive emotions.

9. Jedi understand that physical training is as important as training the mind and the spirit, all are necessary to maintain the Jedi way of life and to perform the duties of a Jedi.

10. Jedi believe in destiny and trust in the will of the Force, they accept the fact that what seems to be random events are not random at all, but the design of The Force of Creation at its deepest level. Each living creature has a purpose, understanding that purpose comes with a deep awareness of The Force.

11. Jedi must let go of attachments, both material and personal. The Obsession of possessions creates the fear of loosing those possessions, which can lead to the dark side.

12. Jedi believe in eternal life, they do not mourn those who pass. Grieve as you will but take heart, for the soul and spirit continue.

13. Jedi use the Force only when it is necessary, they do not apply their powers to boast or be prideful, for knowledge do they use it, for humility is a trait all Jedi must be always embody.

14. Compassion and love are central to a Jedi’s life. Jedi believe that the core of everything is love. We must love each other as we love ourselves; having done this shall all of creation be enveloped in the positive energy of the Force.

15. Jedi are committed and loyal to the Jedi cause, the ideals of the Jedi define the belief of Jediism, they take action on this path for self improvement, and to assist others, they are both the witnesses and protectors of Jedism.

16. Jedi are guardians of peace and justice. Jedi deeply believe in finding peaceful solutions to problems, gifted as they are they remain negotiators of the utmost ability. They never negotiate out of fear but never fear to negotiate. Jedi embrace justice, protecting and preserving the fundamental rights of all living creatures. Empathy and compassion are vital to the Jedi; it allows the Jedi to comprehend the wounds caused by injustice.

But enough about me....

So what has been happening lately, Anna Nicole Smith's death I heard was all over the news, the Supreme Court held up the idea that detainee's have no rights under US Law or Geneva (I called that one), FBI admits to abusing the Patriot Act (really did not see that one coming), Bush is concerned about the poor in Guatemala (he should try driving around America first), Libby got busted (should have ratted out Cheney), Hilary Clinton has beef with Barack Obama, General Pace says to be gay is immoral, and they finally buried James Brown.

My my, what busy beavers we have been. First of Anna Smith's death, while tragic should not have been plastered all over the news. Secondly, calling her America's Princess Diana points to something truly sad and wrong with American culture. If our Princess Di is an ex-stripper whom married an old man for his multi millions, we really have gotten beyond the bottom of the barrel. Detainee's have no rights under US law, I said this before especially over many spirited disagreements with one of my great colleauges Nathan Morrison.

Nancy Pelosi still will not push to impeach Bush, damn her ass must really be snug in that seat of the Speaker. And they wonder why you do not elect women into government, she just has no balls. FBI admits this week that they might have kinda sorta abused the Patriot Act, I mean really you have the broad ability to conduct surveillance on any and all Americans without going through a court, and you did not even use that power to get back at an ex-girlfriend frankly I am disappointed in you people. Bush went to Latin America this past week to check out and help that countries poor, you got poor people still in Louisiana, Mississippi, Watts, Compton need I keep going? And we saw how this government handled Katrina...gee I guess Regan was right, the ten scariest words are "I'm from the federal government and I'm here to help"!

Scooter Libby is down for the count, down for the count. Well, this is what happens when you do not turn your boss over and he tells you I will protect you. No one is going to do jail time for you, that time you do alone and by yourself. And now look, Libby is going to the pen by himself. The sad part about all this is when he comes out, he'll have more street credit than Cheney and all of the shit he has done. Hill is made that Barack is cutting into her plans to be President. How dare that nig%$#%, I mean African American get in the way of what I have been working on since Monica gate. The nerve, this country is not ready for a Negro President, I am a white woman for crying out loud, first come first serve.

And General Pace said that homosexuality is immoral. And people are calling for the man to apologize. Can I ask for what? The man did not say it was the government's position, the military postion. But his own, private personal opinion as a man and a US citizen. It's funny liberals will bitch about this current administration placing strangleholds on what the soldiers cannot say, yet here is one voicing his opinion and people want him to not only change what he said, but admit what he said was wrong because it was hurtful. And then people wonder why the gay community is seen as soft in the first place and they say it is a stereotype. Out burts like these from them, just keep confirming the "myth" to be true rather than a rumor.

Man what happened? Did people get really super sensitive while I was out? No wonder this country does not get anything done anymore in crunch time. Guess ain't but one thing left for me to say...

"Get the fuck out the thrown you clone
The King's Back!"