War is Death (But I'd call it Murder)

This blog seems to be taking a slightly different turn-not for the worst. It just cannot be about the things listed on the first post it is much more than that and that's why I'm making this post.

It is Universal and Unchanging - It cannot be denied, misconstrued, altered, fabricated or otherwise changed. War is Death. And everyone knows. Whether the victim is a dreaded "enemy" that horrible horrible person is human too. He or she is human just like you.

The only difference between you two is that the "enemy" is on the wrong side or was raised to believe in something destructive, something violent or perhaps that "enemy" was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Why do wars happen?

Because humans are selfish.

What caused the Sept. 11th attacks?

Honestly I don't think anyone can truly answer that save the people that did it. But it was most likely the fact that the Taliban got billions of dollars in aid and weapons from the US and wanted more. They got so much more.

How does war benefit anyone?

It benefits those with the supplies needed to continue the war and the people who would be employed to "work for the war." And the people who would get rich by pillaging the towns and getting all their money and precious artifacts and other needed resources.

Can we ever stop wars?

We cannot stop them from continuing. They will continue until humanity eventually wipes itself out because someone said something bad or blew up some people on a much smaller scale than total annihilation. We can try and stop those in progress... if those in power were the kind to be easily convinced otherwise.

What is the job of a soldier?

To kill.

Simply put that is what they are trained to do. They kill people. They, with the support, backing and orders from their superiors kill people.

Just remember that when you send your son or daughter off to war they may very return to you as murderers.

Isn't the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for our freedom?

That is bullshit. No really it is fucking bullshit. What freedoms are "we" fighting to protect? The Patriot Act summarily removed lots of our freedoms and by the way violates the Constitution. The "terrorists" didn't have to do a thing. Well, they did attack the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and tried for the White House (Bush wasn't home) but besides the senseless killings we've been pretty good so far. Except for the Patriot Act of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

Don't knock wikipedia. They're as good as any chum like me (or better).

Long story short:

Terrorists: 2,974 + (for 911 WTC)
USA: 94,562 for Iraq and counting, over 5000 in Afghanistan
(news reports of civilian deaths in Afghanistan are few and far in between)

I think you know who has more blood on their hands.

Another Debate About the Drinking Age -- Oh and Discrimination, too

So the Amethyst Initiative wants to lower the drinking age from the age of 21 back down to the age of 18 (which is much more reasonable and not as hypocritical) as it was during the conscripted war in Vietnam (if we can force you to kill people or be killed, the least we can do for you is give you a bottle of booze to help you NOT think about all that blood on your hands (or on ours)).

I, of course, totally and completely agree that is should be lowered, as I said before because 18 years olds are legally responsible to themselves, their country and their children (if they have any) so they should be allowed to drink, period.

dis·crim·i·na·tion
–noun
1.an act or instance of discriminating.

2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Now, since those in the "underage" or even "age" (everyone has an age, you can't escape it...unless you lie) category also fall under this category, I do believe nothing more needs to be said. Discrimination is discrimination. And having this blanket law demanding that people not be allowed to put something into their own bodies is far beyond wrong.

Here is a lovely CNN news link that relates to this story. I also have an ireport account and have ireported, I won't tell you who I am just so that you know one of those pro-lowering-the-drinking-age stories is mine.

Birth Control =/= Abortion

I got this email from my mom and I thought I should post it. For those of you too lazy to read here is a summary: Bush wants birth control to be considered the same as abortions. Therefore doctors and insurance companies could make it even harder if not impossible for women to either get access to it or be given family planning...family planning! I assume by family planning they mean tell the soon-to-be-mother how to raise the kid and get access to pre and post natal care. (It appears to me that the staunch Christians want you to be on your own...yes even if you're married.) I could be wrong but that's what I heard.

Take Action. Save the Children! (This is meant to be sarcastic)

HHS Needs a News Flash: Birth Control is NOT Abortion

This summer, women's rights advocates discovered an impending administration attack on birth control. After hearing a multitude of protests, Secretary Mike Leavitt of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services blogs that it wasn't his intent.

Let's make sure it isn't. Take action NOW!

Action Needed:

Tell Mike Leavitt: "Birth control isn't abortion. Period. No matter how you try to explain it, this proposal will undermine women's access to birth control and other reproductive health care services -- so DROP this idea immediately."

Send an email to Secretary Leavitt!

Post a comment on Secretary Leavitt's blog!

In July, advocates learned of a draft administrative regulation which -- if implemented as written -- could:

1) Effectively redefine abortion to include commonly used contraceptive methods, and would discourage medical providers from offering those contraceptives. This expanded definition of abortion will discourage doctors and health care clinics from providing birth control products to women who need them, out of fear of losing critical federal funds.

2) Force family planning clinics to hire personnel who are anti-birth-control? No kidding! The drafted regulation would also have required agencies that receive family planning funding to certify that they will not discriminate in hiring people who object to abortion or who object to dispensing birth control on the basis of "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

3) Result in a dramatic influx of federal funding to fake clinics -- so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that provide no family planning or abortion services, and often provide false and misleading information to women.

When all of this was pointed out to Leavitt, in letters from Congress, in comments posted on his blog, and in petitions circulated by Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), he backtracked -- but the draft regulations haven't yet been changed. And according to the Washington Post, Clinton and Murray aren't satisfied, writing to Leavitt: "We remain concerned by the regulations' potential to create barriers for women seeking health care, to jeopardize federal programs that provide family planning services and to disrupt state laws securing women's access to birth control."

TAKE ACTION NOW -- Send an email to Secretary Leavitt or post a comment on his blog urging him to drop the proposed regulation altogether.

Background:

The draft regulation, prepared by the Bush Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and currently circulating among anti-women officials, redefines abortion as, "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." Taking a page from the extremist right, they are deliberately blurring the lines between contraception and abortion, providing an extraordinarily broad definition of abortion that could be interpreted to cover various forms of birth control, including oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices (IUD's), and emergency contraception.

This draft regulation requires entities and individuals that receive family planning funding to certify that they will not discriminate against people who object to abortion or to dispensing birth control on the basis of "religious beliefs or moral convictions." Under the guise of passing anti-discrimination laws to protect health care providers participating in federal programs, the proposed regulation would effectively undermine a health care provider's ability to offer the very services for which they are funded, as well as a patient's ability to access those services. All health care providers must be able to appropriately screen and hire individuals capable and willing to perform the core services that they provide.

The regulation puts laws and policies that protect women's access to birth control in serious jeopardy, including state laws that require hospitals to provide sexual-assault survivors with access to emergency contraception. The draft rule limiting Title X funding will create a direct conflict between Title X (America's Family Planning Program) and the Maternal Child Health and Medicaid programs, which requires that grantees provide a broad range of contraceptive services and supplies to their patients.

Currently, there are "crisis pregnancy centers" in communities across the country that look like health care centers, but deliver woefully incomplete care and only provide the reproductive health care options that fit their agenda: NO birth control, NO abortion -- and NO choice for women and families who need it! If Bush's proposed regulation takes effect, these "crisis pregnancy centers" are likely to receive a massive influx of our tax dollars.

At a time when 17 million women are in need of publicly-supported reproductive health care services, this regulation disparately impacts the low-income, uninsured and under-insured women who rely on these programs for their health information and services!

TAKE ACTION NOW -- Tell Secretary Leavitt that his staff should be fired if they really circulated this draft regulation without his knowledge. He should drop this whole idea.

The Difference Between a Liberal and a Conservative - Stop me if I'm getting too off topic

Ok, this isn't exactly a joke. Or the beginning of one. Nor am I trying to offend anyone considering themselves to be a "Conservative."

Let me remind all you (I don't believe I have an audience yet, but someday, someone will discover this blog, and may or may not be offended by it...if so...deal with it) I am no expert in anything, save common sense and the definition of liberty--freedom.

As I am uneducated here is my definition of a "Conservative" (with the help of http://www.dictionary.com/)

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Ok so in layman's English that means someone who DOES NOT LIKE CHANGE.

The definition of a "Liberal" is: (sorry I like all these definitions too much to leave any of them out)

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2.	(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3.	of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4.	favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5.	favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6.	of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7.	free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8.	open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

9.	characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

10.	given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

11.	not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

12.	of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.

13.	of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun

14.	a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.

15.	(often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

FOR THOSE WHO HATE READING (get out of my blog you lazy bums)

Conservative = No Change (which means if your leader is dictator...DON'T DO ANYTHING)
Liberal = Give me Liberty of Give me Death. aka Personal freedom

Who hates Liberty? Honestly? Oh, the Conservatives want to restrict personal freedoms as much as possible. Since when was that cool?

Never

That's when. I like being free. Freedom is awesome. You like freedom too, don't you?

I thought so.

My Rights End Where Your Rights Begin - A Fallacy of an Argument

I think we can all assume, if nothing else, that willfully injuring, maiming or killing someone is wrong, no matter your reasons. In a "natural selection" population control way, yes, it helps curb the rapid growth of the human population by having members of the same species kill one another over ideas, beliefs, or control on anything someone can come up with. However, since we are "human beings" we are also supposed to be "civilized" and in a "civilized" society people do not, no should not go around killing one another.

Based on my 20 odd years of life experience, which is not much since the human life span can be up to 120 years max, I have discovered that we are mighty good fakers. Yes, that's it! We faked it. We ALL fake it. We fake being civilized. We pretend to be above our nature, our nature as human beings, nay as animals. As animals who eat both plants and fellow animals. We are omnivores, a small population of animals that eat both plants and animals, so, in other words, we eat everything that is edible for us humans and use everything, and all these things that we eat provide their own nutritional value and further help us develop into "advanced" creatures. I don't see bears building condos out in Colorado. I don't see dolphins building an ocean resort. I don't see Cows building a cow ranch where they raise humans. I don't see any of that. I see humans building condos in Colorado, humans building ocean resorts...though not "in" the ocean, I see humans building a ranch and raising cows for either their milk, which we drink, or their meat that we selfishly and naturally consume.

We are not at fault here, we are bound to our nature, you are, I am, everyone and everything is bound to its nature and we cannot defeat it, hard as we try. Otherwise we won't be human anymore. We do still want to be human, don't we?

What are Rights?

Based on my uneducated definition..."rights" are a concept, created and enforced by humans that no one is supposed to violate. Meaning "I have the right to be alive," "I have the right to not be abused" etc. Rights are something that are supposed to be set in stone, that are supposed to..well... allow people to be people and do what they like..so long as their rights don't intrude on the rights of others- and that is a fallacy of an argument. As I said before if your rights are something that allows you to be you and you do not impose yourself on others or harm them or kill them... whose rights have been limited? Since maiming and killing is wrong... it stands to reason that no one has the right to do that.. (not even the government) whose rights have been violated? No one's.

Therefore no one is harmed so no one's rights have been violated.

Here's an example:

I am a highly religious person and I want everyone to be saved, because I care so much for their souls, so very much.

However, non-religious people or other religious people DO NOT want to be saved (by me, the religious person) and when I try and tell them if they do not convert their souls will burn forever in hellfire and you do not want to hear that. I have the first amendment protecting my free speech as do you have it protecting yours therefore you have every right to tell me to go away and I have every right to say what I want to say, however if you do not want to hear it you can move away and I cannot pester you (because that's just rude) and/or you can tell me to go away if I have invaded your personal space.

See? Everybody wins. No one's first amendments have been violated, you can disagree with what I have to say and you can choose not to listen and go away or tell me to go away if I'm invading your space (if you were there before me).

Make sense? Make sense!

Age Discrimination

Please read all the definitions.

Age and then Discrimination are defined below.

age
–noun
1.the length of time during which a being or thing has existed; length of life or existence to the time spoken of or referred to: trees of unknown age; His age is 20 years.

2.a period of human life, measured by years from birth, usually marked by a certain stage or degree of mental or physical development and involving legal responsibility and capacity: the age of discretion; the age of consent; The state raised the drinking age from 18 to 21 years.

3.the particular period of life at which a person becomes naturally or conventionally qualified or disqualified for anything: He was over age for military duty.

4.one of the periods or stages of human life: a person of middle age.

5.advanced years; old age: His eyes were dim with age.

6.a particular period of history, as distinguished from others; a historical epoch: the age of Pericles; the Stone Age; the age of electronic communications.

7.the period of history contemporary with the span of an individual's life: He was the most famous architect of the age.

8.a generation or a series of generations: ages yet unborn.

9.a great length of time: I haven't seen you for an age. He's been gone for ages.

10.the average life expectancy of an individual or of the individuals of a class or species: The age of a horse is from 25 to 30 years.

11.Psychology. the level of mental, emotional, or educational development of a person, esp. a child, as determined by various tests and based on a comparison of the individual's score with the average score for persons of the same chronological age.

12.Geology. a.a period of the history of the earth distinguished by some special feature: the Ice Age. b.a unit of geological time, shorter than an epoch, during which the rocks comprising a stage were formed.

13.any of the successive periods in human history divided, according to Hesiod, into the golden, silver, bronze, heroic, and iron ages.

14.Cards. a.Poker. the first player at the dealer's left. Compare edge (def. 10a). b.eldest hand.
—Idiom
20.of age, Law.
a.being any of several ages, usually 21 or 18, at which certain legal rights, as voting or marriage, are acquired. b.being old enough for full legal rights and responsibilities.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/age)

dis·crim·i·na·tion
–noun
1.an act or instance of discriminating.

2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3.the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.

4.Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination)

The most important and pertinent definitions for these two words has been provided.

When someone has not yet reached an "age of maturity" they are not, by the state, and by law to be considered mature enough to make their own decisions. They are not mature enough to have any control over their lives, even over their own health. They must get permission for everything.


They are under the state and their parents complete control.
Who would give a job to 12 year old? Oh and pay them too. The law says you don't have to. Actually it says you can't. You CAN employ them however, you just can't pay them for their hard work (read: school..who would've thought?)
Who would rent an apartment to a 14 year old? Again, if you're under 18 they probably won't rent to you...because you're not mature enough to sign a lease.
Who would give a 15 year old birth control or condoms or protection in general from STDs, because a 15 year old shouldn't be having sex anyways, they either won't give them to you, or call your parents so they can give THEIR consent...which of course they probably won't. Anyone under 18 isn't allowed to have sex, so why should they give you condoms or birth control? If they did wouldn't that automatically mean they're promoting sex between minors? That they're encouraging it? Oh no, we can't have that. They're too young to have sex!

Age discrimination is not only only wrong it is illegal. Oh no wait that's what those "DON'T BUY TOBACCO FOR MINORS" ads you see in your local wal-mart. While I do not like cigarettes (as they have a high probability of KILLING you...the warning label says so! It's right on the box!) I, as I have said before, don't think we should "restrict" access to minors to any product just because we don't want them to do something...with their body nonetheless!

Again, cigarettes DO kill. However, punishing a group of people who are under some arbitrary age is discrimination! Scroll up and reread the definition if you're still not convinced that minors are people too. Minors are people too! Again, minors are people too!

I shan't continue because this subject matter is making me angrier as I think about it.

Also, yelling through the internet is NOT a sign of immaturity...it's a sign of being enraged as I should be.