Stop the House, not the mouse!

ocial network sites face US ban

Many schools have already banned social network sites

Children in the US could be banned from using social networking sites in schools and libraries by a new law.

The Deleting Online Predators Act tries to limit the access paedophiles have to the networking sites which have become hugely popular with minors.

The act has already been approved by a large majority in the House of Representatives.

Critics say the act is too broad and could mean a huge number of websites are cut off from users.



It is not in the governments constitutional right to forbid site access to anyone through the internet, by limiting what we can search on the internet we are disallowed our very fundamental rights! The worst part is they want to ban these sites in school and library's a haven for knowledge, and discussion of ideas, the staple of the rights we enjoy. If the site usage becomes a problem that should be left to the parents and the administrators to decide, it's no place for the U.S Government to make broad decisions on what we may do on the computer. By passing this bill the entire government could over reach it's authority, if they ban these sites, what's stooping thme there? PRetty soon they'll start blocking the entire internet for the public, based on moral conscious, or perhaps the fear of terrorism?


We can't let the government limit our personal freedoms by denying access to certain webpages at school. Remember guys, it starts here we don't know where it will end...


That's your decision

Supply & Demand: Organs

" The number of people needing a transplant continues to rise faster than the number of donors. About 3,700 transplant candidates are added to the national waiting list each month. Each day, about 77 people receive organ transplants. However, 18 people die each day waiting for transplants that can't take place because of the shortage of donated organs.

There are now more than 92,000 people on the waiting list."

These are statistics that have been thrown around for years involving the donation of organs and those who receive them. It's quite a high number thats in demand and we're lucky to get 25 "good" organs a year for donation, is this really fair to those who die waiting, that someone else should have choice over limited supply? Why should we have such a limited supply in organs, there are plenty of viable sources to extract organs are there not?

It is in my opinion that legislation should be passed to allow citizens to sell their own organs, by allowing people to cash in on this you open up a world of possibility. If I get paid $20,000 to donate a kidney to which I only need one kidney, I would more than likely do it as the profit margin is high, others think this way aswell, so those 25 organs a year rise to 25,000 and alot more people can be saved. As the organs continue to come in at a steady supply and demand decreases cost should decrease. therefore everyone has a chance to get a organ they desperatly need.

So why is something so good and beneficial to both donor and receipiant outlawed by the United States? I believe it is solely on moral grounds, rather than actual health concern. People view this as immoral, therefore no Congressman will support this bill as it will cost them an election. To this I say grow some balls! It's far better to go out in a triumph of glory then to go out with nothing accomplished. The only thing Congress should stress on this market is a screening of the organs, to make sure they are viable and healthy we do not want organs that can potentially harm other people.

So why not? We sell plasma, blood, semen, and eggs, we are allowed to donate a kidney in times of need or part of a liver, so why can we not sell them? Why can we not determine what we do with our own bodies? Why are we allowed to do horrid things to ourselves such as smoking, drinking, and putting artificial preservatives down our throat, but when we can do something that can help another we are denied? The market needs to be free, the Congress should stop deciding the fate of the human body on questions of morality, we need to have a change in system but none are willing to risk their campaign on it.

When you think of organs, think of that possibility, think of the benefits, think of the lives you could save by opening this market! Is it not worth it?

I hate free radicals!

I hate free radicals, and by "free radical" I'm not refering to mathematics, although I hate mathematics just as much! What I refer to is people who follow an extreme in terms of economical or political ideology(because they're not in jail hence free get it?). Rarely are they ever in majority, and they seem to be composed of people who come from a ironic yet similar background.

In the United States we are fortunate enough to have the freedom to share ideas in manners deemed appropriate (that doesn't mean you can run around naked pissing on things and claim it's free speech!) Freedom of thought has a price, it breeds whiners, morons, and lunatics.

Let's take the far left for our first example, the great social equalizers champions of the poor and down trodden! These are your Socialists, Communists, Unionists, and mutalists. The funny thing is if you attended any socialist meeting you'd realize they are all upper middle class and their's not many of them there! Now go to the homeless shelter where you have poor people, the sole thing these people look for is a future of prosperity which is usually attained in a capitalist way.

So why is it that for the most part middle class, people from suburbia support socialist ideals? My opinion is it makes them look important or some garbage like that, gives them something to talk about in all reality... "Hey I'm a socialist! Man Marx knew what he was talking about!"

The sad thing is this is probably a 14 year old student from a suburban class family that read the manifesto and didn't understand a lick of it, which is evident by the gross mispronounciation of "bourgeoise" The problem with Socialists in America is the fact that they fight for something that ONLY socialists want! For the most part America from all walks of life would prefer the system we currently have (given improvements to that system)

So I'm safe to say your Socialist, is pretty much an elitest prick, usually by the means of pseudo-intellectualism, and quasi-arguments, that are over generalized and naive!

Now it wouldn't be fair if singled out the far left let's go for the far right, this is usually composed of elderly, self-righteous assholes, who tend to view society as morally corrupt even though society would beg to differ. This would compose your Christian Right, Conservative Republicans, and Bill Donahue groupies.

The problem with these people is they hold holy doctrine and pre-1960 traditions above all else. Despite the nuclear Family hasn't existed since the 1950's and communism for the most part is dead, they still have that panic about leftists of any extreme. They still objectify everything, and everyone. If they had their way we'd all be forced to read the bible or receive a lashing at the post!

So what makes these people think so adamantly against progression of society? I think it's fear, since they are generally older and god fearing folk, and change would upset them! My Grandmother has a panic when we change her furniture around, now imagine that in terms of the nation to a Neo-Con. They'd be shitting bricks and exorcizing their office!

It's kind of funny to listen to them banter actually, they usually rant about homosexuality, stem cells, and abortion, non of those things directly effect them, unless your Cheney and your daughter is a lesbian which would make a awkward Thanksgiving in my opinion.

So they rail on and on, forgetting much more dire issues like the economy, and wars, and try to change the way Joe and Pete behave together...

What a backwards and self-centered group of folks! It kind of makes me glad I'm a Libertrian Centrist so I wouldn't be a cookie cutter of a person like soo many of these people:

Socialist: Usually a young middle class adult, who lived a rather well to do life, needed to find a meaning for his/her existence so read alot of books and spouts off pseudo-intellectual grabage, and always thinks miliant and radical view points can change the world for the better (Ahem! Hitler)

Defining Statement: "Wouldn't you agree that the class struggle between the bourgeoise, and proletariat, is of a lugubrious nature that one classes self interest is iconoclastic to the national integrity as a whole"

Political enemies: Anyone who does things in self-interest (which is ironic)

Political friends: Other young adults with radical views, any Senator with "Fein" in his or her last name. Mumia, for some reason?

Habitat: Usually Universities to where they argue with the Microeconomics teacher over worker's management, get's satisfcation from spouting off generalized quasi-statements on political forums to self-satisfaction

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neo-Con: Usually an elderly person with strong religious beliefs, that tends to be intolerant of any opinion that does not agree with his/her opinion. Truly a Narcissist in the definition, as doesn't think of other people only ones values, traditions, and moral backbone.

Defining Statement: "Damn Liberals are out to destroy our culture, they have no respect for authority, and don't support anything worthwhile to the public! They'd rather say "Allah bless America" Than "God Bless" god damned commies!"

Political enemies: Anyone who doesn't read the bible twice a day!

Political friends: Usually Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilley and other pompous pricks

Habitat: Usually town meetings and social functions, they tend to satisfy their need of attention by starting radio talk shows to shout off the ailments of America, usually with alot of cursing.

You can spot these individuals within your own community if you listen to them talk or just log on to a Yahoo! chatroom if you don't leave the house often.

There are ways to defeat them but for the most part they are too stubbourn and will just get pissy, then start the barrage of Anti-(politician of choice) statements which is ususally a sign of defeat!


*They also tend to wiki most information so beware! They may seem intelligent, but that's because they have the internet on their side!*

The sex conundrum

The American legal system, the staple for which our rights as citizens of the free world are protected, upheld, and established. Our legal system, a beacon if you will for objectionism, equality, and decency which is to be guarenteed to every citizen whom resides within our country. However, is our legal system really fair in itself? We've had bouts of corruption throughout history, we've had injustices done that haven't been ailed by the court system. One such injustice I bring to you is a sexual conundrum, in our current society does the court system favour the female?

In a case of sexual assault involving man and woman, is the man already assumed guilty? Granted statistics, that women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than her male counterpart, but statistics cannot be applied to each individual case, to do so is both naive and denies the entire court preceeding the objectionism it solely requires. So in this scenario what makes us predisposed to believe the female over the male? Is it the statistics, is it the viability, or perhaps the system tends to believe the female solely because she is female?

Now I bring up the issue of child molestation and statutory rape, when a male is indicted and charged with indecent acts upon a minor the male is looking toward a lengthy jail sentence, aswell as public scrutiny. Now we look a woman who has sex with a minor, usually the sentence for this woman is no less than a slap on the wrist, and the victim is lauded as some type of hero for being so "Lucky" now do we call the female child "Lucky" no we give her sympathy which the majority of people will feel angered. As for the woman she will have the public scrutiny, but she will serve less jail time than her male counterpart.

In civil cases involving child support or the welfare of the child, usually the woman is given priority over the man despite that the man may be at a greater advantage financially, emotionally, or physically in certain cases the woman is usually prefered. Now I ask women are given abortion rights in most states they solely can choose to eliminate the fetus if they deem so, so why shouldn't the man have a choice in the situation? Why can't the man choose not to pay child support if he did not want the child? This was a actual court case, I'm not aware of the turn out at this point but I will see as to what the ruling is.

So I ask are we predisposed to favour women in our legal system? Are men's choices within our society limited in terms of children, sex, and legalities? Is the man considered as a second class citizen just as women we're before The Women's Suffrage Act? Is it possible that by progressing foward in terms of sexual equality, we've forgotten our impartiality?

Smoke on the water... Fire in Jounieh

If anyone's paid attention to the news as of lately one can see that the middle east has gone to hell in a hand basket. Israel for the past week has been air-striking fuel depots, docks, and airports of neighboring Lebanon, as retailiation for rocket attacks and the abduction of two Israeli soldiers. Of course this risks drawing in the attention of Iran and neighboring Syria, as the Israeli's continue their onslaught against Lebanon.

I think that Israel has taken things a bit to far going on a all out attack, however I cannot overlook the amount of pressure neighboring Islamic states have been pushing on Israel over the past 10 or so years. Since the death of Arafat, and the regime changes in Iran, and Syria we have seen a more radical viewpoint of Islamic rule which counter's the U.S policy on the middle east.

As for North Korea, we have taken this issue to the U.N and a resolution has been adopted which is fairly weak and is laughed at by the North Korean government, however it's a step in the right direction no matter how baby-ish that step is. So North Korea and the middle east have one thing in common and that is stiring up th international community, creating new tensions, and gaining the attention of every major world power, as the crisis continues to jepordize peace keeping within our quaint little world...

I can only hope that this doesn't escalate into another mid-eastern conflict that drags the U.S into it, we are far overstretched in our current engagements with Iraq and Afghanistan!

My fingers... numb and happy!

So last night is the first time I've picked up a bass guitar since the stone age, it took me a few minutes to get back into the swing of it. I started with something simple like "Iron Man" and eventually worked all the way to awesome bass solos of my own creation! So I did that for about 8 hours last night until my hands felt like they went through the blender...

But the good news is now I am back to playing bass so this means I now play two instruments piano/keyboard and bass guitar (once again!) Not to mention I lessened the tension on the strings to give it that "doomy" sound so my bass sounds far more menacing than a drop D guitar for White Zombie, which I prefer over the crisper sounds of a neatly tuned bass. Now I'm off to get the cog fixed in my "D" string for it was cracked and I can't adjust the string very far and it's way to slack for a sound besides humming.

Well, that's basically it for this blog entry...


(What were you expecting political commentary for today? It's a slow day!)

North Korea, couldn't get it's "Dong" up!

It appears North Korea is having some missile impotency! It can polish off four or five small range but when it comes to long range it fails to please... My continent is unsatisfied with North Korea's limp weapons program, we thought they would have enough will power to at least penetrate our coastline! But what can I say? They're Asian,they lack the extensiveness and rigour that our American missile contain within our bays.

The humour I can make out of the missile is just limitless but a bit over played, well I will be watching this issue closely to see if the U.S and E.U will keep their promise to hold economic sanctions against North Korea, and if Japan will seek further action against the Stalinist regime. It is in my opinion we should have done something about Korea a long, long, time ago, we are contantly giving into demands for Uni-lateral talks which do no good. China needs to also step up it's game on this issue, I have yet to see any action China has taken to secure freedom within North Korea...

We need the international community as a whole to step in and put pressure, economically, politically, and militarily if we must! North Korea is a rogue state that does not abide by treaties and has a long track record of abuse to it's citizens freedoms. We must have some action taken to ensure North Korea will lessen it's tyrannical grip on the impoverished people it helped create!

There is no such thing as freedom so long as one is oppressed...