Cost of Illegals

Just a quick comment about the cost that illegal immigrants actually have on the heath care industry. 

I'm sorry but I find it very hard to believe that 14 million estimated illegal immigrants, a portion of whom are lower middle class households, have a more negative impact on the health care system than the estimated 46 million uninsured legal residents, most of whom are upper lower to lower middle class households.

The logistics of such a claim just doesn't hold up.  To say that illegals cost more money than legals is like saying 4 is greater than 5.  It doesn't add up. 

Furthermore, the only states that are disproportionately affected by illegal immigration are the border states, like Arizona, New Mexico, southern California and Texas.  Even then, I doubt that the amount of illegal immigrants in those states are more numerous than the legal residents who are unable to pay their medical bills.  There is absolutely no way that this is possible.  Especially since most illegal immigrants are able to purchase private insurance if they want to.  There is no data showing definitively that the government is or ever has been footing the bill for ALL 14 million estimated illegal immigrants.

With that said, some people need to stop acting like illegal immigration is what's going to bankrupt or ruin our country.  There are a lot more detrimental things in this country to deal with and the illegal immigration issue is pretty low on that list.

Math and Politics

Former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once said that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

Over the past few weeks we have seen what some have tauted as the "majority" of Americans coming out to these town hall meetings.  This "majority" has yelled, interrupted, and seethed their opinions out all over the heads of the so called "minority."  There have also been several news sites claiming to know without a doubt whose opinion really is the majority.  Citing polls that have been featured on their websites or from the sites of outside organizations.  This is a very common practice among politics.  Something that can only be deemed as the greatest of all political lies.

Statistics are at best the most unreliable aspects of life.  There are some cases where statistics are reliable, however, such as when a medical association tallies up the number of heart attacks per year and compares it to other reasons for death, or when the census is able to tell us how many people of each race or ethnic background are in the country.  School drop out rates and birth rates are quite reliable, as well.  But these reliable stats are reliable because they are not opinions.  Political statistics are a direct result of opinion.

When a news organization states that 53% of the people polled showed to be in favor of something, they are speaking of 53% of the people who not only watch their news broadcasts, but also visit their website.  And they don't tell you how many people voted.  It could have only been 53% of 100 people who voted.  Is that really indicitive of the feelings of all Americans? Absolutely not. 

On a similar note, the same can be said for the town hall meetings.  Some of the people who have some to these events are not even from that area, so they don't really represent the people of that state or town.  The information they have been given is not reliable information because it has been skewed by the organization they received the information from.  The statistics they speak of are stats that represent those who are of a like mind to them.  People who get stats from conservative sites are getting stats that represent people with their same opinions.  Just as people who hear stats from TV stations are getting the opinions of viewers just like them.

But what do these town hall meetings actually achieve in their wake?  They solidify the feelings of both sides.  They strengthen the resolve.  Regardless of statistics.  If you are pro-reform and you see people yelling about 'death panels' and socialism, it makes you that much more determined to get legislation passed or, at the least, to educate the misinformed.  If you are anti-reform it may move you to be more steadfast in your opinions because you see people of a like mind getting their opinions heard - since thsoe opinions are your opinions, too.  It's almost as if you had been there saying it yourself.

So what do statistics teach us?  Absolutely nothing.  Are the people at these town hall events, on either side of the debate, representative of all of American?  No.  Just like every other issue that has faced this country there is never actually a dichotomy of right or wrong, one side or the other.  There are many people in this nation who fall somewhere in between.  Some want reform, but not the kind that is being offered.  Some people don't want legislation but still want to get affordable health care.  So why do we ignore these moderates?  Could the moderates really be the majority?  Could the moderates really have a better grasp on the issue at hand better than they fringes?  Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever truly know.

Iranian Uprise From Perspective of Former Empress

Just read a great interview with the former Empress of Iran.  It was her husband's monarchy that was overturned in the 1979 Middle East revolutions.  I can't help but thinking that no one expected their plight to go from bad to worse. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31495270/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

If you had to choose for America, would you pick monarchy or theocracy?

Photos from UNHCR

A haunting and thought provoking stream of photos from the UN High Commission on Refugees, courtesy of Flickr.  This stream won't be up much longer, so check it out as soon as possible.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/unhcr/sets/72157617551690524/

My Thoughts on Abortion

Abortion Solutions

Almost two weeks ago, a doctor who performed late-term abortions in Kansas was shot and killed outside of church.  Based on the comments I received on this post the first time around it is safe to say that both sides of the argument believed that murdering someone because they perform abortions is very serious and incredibly wrong.  To which I agree.  Women have the right to abortion, and no one has the right to murder.  And no, I am not willing to start a debate on the rights of fetuses, etc. because that is not the direction in which I want to take this conversation.  I have decided to rewrite the post because I want to better convey the points that I was trying to make the first time and may have failed at. 

In my personal opinion, because we know it will come up eventually, I believe that anti-abortionist are wasting their time.  So long as we live in a nation where women are afforded the rights to their own bodies, Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned.  So what I want to explore are some solutions to the problem of abortion and unwanted pregnancy.

First, let us look at abortion from a realistic point of view.  Abortion is never a woman’s first choice nor is it ever easy to make that decision; almost all abortions are done as a last resort.  We should also point out that in recent years it appears that there has been an influx of teenage pregnancies.  That is not necessarily true.  Statistics, though they can give a somewhat accurate assessment of a  situation, are usually unreliable.  There have been just as many teen pregnancies in the past decade as there have been in the decades before.  The only difference is that more and more teenagers are carrying their pregnancies to term, unlike decades before where some children would be declared as a brother or sister, or if the pregnancy was terminated it was never declared in hospital records, especially before the legalization of abortion.  So,  it is safe to say that abortion and teenage pregnancy stats over the past half a century would be more similar to the numbers we have for the past decade mainly because these things are more readily talked about by society and the medical establishment.  Many organizations would like you to believe that the times in which we live are vastly inferior, morally and ethically, compared to the previous decades.   Another point to make is that most women who get abortions are not teenagers but in fact older women who are usually married and already have children.  So it is safe to say that the face of abortion is not some unruly teenager, or drug addict, or promiscuous woman.  There are many different reasons for women to have abortions.

So how can we lower the number of abortions performed each year?  The first way would be contraceptives.  Some people believe that having contraceptives will only create more problems, but the truth is that people will have sex regardless if they have condoms or not.  It is in our chemical make-up as humans. So why not give people condoms, birth-control pills and morning after pills?  There are many different reasons given for not using contraceptives, for example, some say that it is like playing God, but quite frankly if God wants you pregnant he’ll get you pregnant.  I mean, look at Mary.  But the truth of the matter is that preventing a pregnancy is not the same as terminating a pregnancy, therefore it should be favored above abortion.  This is why I am always shocked when people challenge the morning after pill.  If a woman chooses to use an emergency contraceptive, what business is it of the pharmacist?  Why is it that in some states a pharmacist can exercise their views, opinions, or religion over the rights, views, opinions or religion of another person?  We would never allow this to occur in other areas of contention.  Also, it has been shown that oral contraceptives lower the risk of pregnancy and condoms lower the risk of getting an STI, so why are we so hesitant to teach children about these in schools?  Which of course brings me to the next step to prevention.

Information.  Did you know that in some African nations, people are taught that only “infidels” can catch HIV/AIDS?  These are the same people who believe that the best way to keep women from getting pregnant is to sew and scar their vaginas shut, so that it is more difficult, but not impossible, to penetrate.  We need to make sure that all people in this nation, by whatever means, get the right information about sex, disease, and pregnancy.  Just telling young people not to have sex isn’t going to keep them from having sex.  When I was in high school we had several classes hammering that point home and several days where we were asked to pledge ourselves to abstinence.  How many pregnancies do you think our school had in a single year?  Almost 10, and overall, during my whole high school career, almost two dozen.  And that’s in a rural, farming community school.  How many pregnancies do you think the inner-city schools had?  More than that I can guarantee you.  Also, students more likely to get pregnant are also more likely to drink and do drugs, but I wouldn’t put much weight on this because I know of plenty of women who do not drink or use drugs and they still get pregnant. 

Not only do people need to be taught about sexual education, they also need to be taught social education.  They need to be taught the difference between love and lust.  They need to be taught the difference between the teenage brain and the adult brain.  They honestly don’t understand that their body goes through more changes than just puberty.  Nor do they understand that the person they are enamored with in high school will not be the person they marry.  Very rarely do high school romances last, and if they do result in marriage, only a percentage of those last more than 10 years, let alone a lifetime.  More than that, though, men need to be taught differently when it comes to women.  More and more, young men are not taking responsibility for their actions.  Too many young women are forced to take care of their children alone because the young man doesn’t want to deal with the responsibility.  These same women are also the ones blamed for the outcome of these situations.  If a woman doesn’t use the pill, no one asks why the man was not wearing a condom.  Too often are men allowed to get away with being sexist and misogynistic.  Furthermore, why should we just educate the children?  Biological sciences have achieved leaps and bounds since most people were in school.  In fact when I was in high school they were just talking about stem cell research now they have actually achieved medical results from stem cells.  That was in less than a decade.  That’s why I believe that parents should have to attend a mandatory sexual education class, as well.  Each year the local area schools should host a lecture series for the parents to attend, that way no parent can say ‘I’m sorry I can’t get off work that night,’ because the same lecture will be held at several points during the school year.  Also people should not be allowed to excuse themselves from such important classes because of their religion.  Religion is not an excuse for denying yourself information.  You would be doing yourself and your children a disservice by limiting their knowledge and education.  It would be irresponsible as a parent to do such a thing.

So, let us recap.  Abortions are never an easy decisions, and instead of trying to outlaw abortion, people should be working towards realistic ways to reduce the number of abortions performed in America each year.  The solutions I have given are more readily available contraceptives and a more in depth and information oriented sexual education program for parents and children. 

Prop 8 Constitutional?

I can't believe this. How can anyone say that banning marriage between two people because of their gender is constitutional? Denying people marriage because they are gay is unconstitutional, it's as unconstitutional as denying two people marriage based on their race, which by the way was deemed unconstitutional decades ago!  And guess what, the same religious BS arguments about marraige being sacred was also used as an argument to deny people marriage based on their race and we see how that worked out.  Why are people so resistant to change?  Why are people still clinging to hatred and discrimination? If America is really a nation in support of freedom and liberty, why are we denying people their basic human rights? 

Why are so many people in this nation allowing a small faction of people the right to control the lives of everyone?  There are millions of people in California, and not everyone voted in the last election, and only a little more that 50 percent of those who voted in the last election voted against gay marriage, and most of those people didn't understand what they were voting against or were blatantly misinformed about the subject!  How is any of this constititional?

The argument being given is that the majority has the right to be heard, but the constitution not only protects against small minority factions but majority factions as well.  This is appalling on so many levels.  This should not be allowed to happen in the United States of America.  And the definition of the word marriage!  I am tired of people talking about this.  I don't know what the Oxford Dictionary definition is of marriage, but to me and to millions of Americans it's a union between two people who love each other.  That's it!

How is it that I, an atheist, can marry a man and it be called marriage, and two people who are Christian and gay cannot?  How does that make any sense? This is not a religious issue!  This is a human rights issue, and I am tired of people justifying their homophobia and prejudice in the form of religion! 

All anyone can do now is hope that our lawmakers pull their heads out of their asses and their bank accounts out of the wallets of factions, because this is going to be one hell of a fight if they don't!  But history has proven that those who are oppressed will always win in the end, and I am pledging every future vote of mine in favor of same-sex marriage.

In Favor of Same-Sex Marriage: Part 1

             For this entry I have broken the arguments in favor of Same-Sex into two parts.  The first part will explore the idea that homosexuality is a natural occurring aspect of human life and evolution, while the second part will explore the social and constitutional ideas surrounding the argument.

                Many opponents of same-sex marriage make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural since it doesn’t result in the reproduction of the human species.  But I believe that homosexuality is an inevitable and naturally occurring variation in the course of human evolution, as is heterosexuality.  First , I would like to quote to an excerpt from the Daodejing:

       Being and non-being create each other.

       Difficult and easy support each other.

       Long and short define each other.

       High and low depend on each other.

       Before and after follow each other.

                This poem asserts that one extreme creates, defines, and is dependent on the opposite extreme.  To apply this to sexuality, one could say that homosexuality and heterosexuality create, define, and depend on one another.  In religious argument, the most prominent point made is drawn from Genesis when God says to his newly created man and woman “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28).  But this argument is, at best, unsubstantiated and prejudicial.  Creation mythology exists in almost every known religion with explanations ranging from the realistic to the paranormal.  The only thing all creation stories have in common is that they are essentially uncorroborated and unable to verify with actual physical evidence. Christian belief asserts, like many religions, that humanity was created by a superior being, but science asserts that humanity began billions of years ago in the form of microscopic one-celled organisms.  Even though the scientific theories surrounding creation are sill far from being definitively proven, it is much more likely since most scientific theories thus far have been corroborated and verified with physical evidence in the form of fossils, geological data, experimentation, and mathematics.  For example, scientists have been able to map the movement pattern of the earth’s tectonic plates back 550 million years.  Based on this information, the movement of the earth’s crust would have aided in the redistribution of the oceans which would have given life forms the opportunity to settle on the shores of different sides of the continents, assuming of course that the majority of organisms on earth began in the water.  But even if human organisms began forming primarily on land, the redistribution of the crust would have also aided in the spreading of certain life forms to different parts of the world.  Also, add to this theory the natural process of precipitation and you can see how organisms may be drawn from the ocean due to evaporation and then replaced inland.  In fact, a recent discovery suggests that life may have started in landlocked lake beds when scientists found microorganisms in lake sediment.  The belief is that organisms would have been able to flourish in this type of environment because oxygen would have been able to penetrate the water more easily that in the vast ocean.  Also, it has been discovered that dust, which is generally microscopic, can travel from China to the state of Florida.  One could argue that precipitation and strong wind currents could account for the spread of a portion of organisms on Earth, especially in their infancy.  But even if one disregards the influence of rain and wind, the marine origins of life still fit into the known evolutionary timeline.  The earliest forms of life have been measured back four billion years, but more advanced life forms (organisms with brains) only originated roughly 550 million years ago.  During that time, the continents were separated, and over the next 280 million years came back together to form the supercontinent Pangaea.  About 170 million years ago Pangaea began to separate, again, to form the continental positions we are familiar with today.  Over the next 70 million years of organic evolution the first small mammals were forming, until around 100 million years ago when the very first genetic ancestors of humans are said to have been identified.

                Now, what does any of this have to do with homosexuality?  Religious argument usually asserts that homosexuality was not created by God but rather originated from the perversion of man after the banishment from Eden.  In scientific argument, homosexuality, as well as heterosexuality, is considered to have been present in the genetic structure of the earliest one-celled organisms, which would have been passed on through the earliest of mammals and into the genetic ancestors of humans.  Which would mean that homosexuality is a naturally occurring genetic predisposition and not a deviant sexual behavior created out of a behavioral disorder or mental defect as most religious arguments assert.  The notion that sexuality may be genetically determined may very well be true considering that an estimated 95 percent of the human genome is “Junk” DNA, meaning that its purpose is unknown to modern science.  If scientists are able to prove that sexuality is genetically linked, it would have a devastating effect on the religious arguments against homosexuality.  Genetics are something one is born with and according to religion is nothing to be altered for that would be an insinuation that God made a mistake, which would translate to an assumption that God would be fallible.

                Which brings me to the point that homosexuality is imperative to the social structure of the human race.  Think about the impact homosexuality has on population control, not only in the United States but all around the world.  If you add the number of people who are homosexual to the number of infertile people around the world you can see right away that homosexuality and infertility aid in keeping the population some what under control.  In actual numbers, it is estimated that at least 5% of the U.S. population is gay, which adds up to about 15 million people.  Combine that with the reported 7-10 million people who experience fertility problems over the past decade and in the end you have an estimated 20-25 million people who are unable to naturally have children.  Gays and people struggling with infertility will either seek sperm donors, surrogate mothers, fertility treatments, adoption, etc. to have a family, but not all of them are able to actively trying to procreate.  Just like their heterosexual counterparts some choose never to enter into the realm of parenthood.  So if you can assume that hypothetically this 20-25 million people in America never have children, and then you factor into that the average American family consists of 2.5 children then you can estimate that there are at least 20-62.5 million less mouths to feed because of them.  If all of these people decided to have children, it would be a baby-boom of epic proportions.  

                And that is in just the United States alone.  Could you imagine the ramifications of every homosexual or infertile couple all over the world deciding that they wanted to procreate using surrogates or in vitro fertilization?  It makes one realize even more how intricate homosexuality is to our social and economic structure.  The most beneficial route any couple in such a situation could make would be to adopt.  Rather than inflating the population, it would instead just redistribute the population.  Also, one must take into account the fact that many heterosexuals tend to procreate more indiscriminately, and will have more children than their homosexual counterparts, it only adds to the theory that homosexuality is necessary to counter the effects of lax heterosexual breeding practices.  Furthermore, we must consider the natural occurrence of intersexuality in nature.  In these cases, being doubly gendered or having both male and female genetic markers does not necessarily determine one’s sexuality.  Intersexed people can be born with or without genetic anomalies, but still exhibit altered genitalia, and in some cases, some people never even find out that they are intersexed, but rather it is discovered after their death during autopsy.  For example, having female genetics and male genitalia doesn’t mean that a person is going to identify with the male lifestyle (or vice versa), which signifies that sexuality is not determined solely by one’s genitals and that genetics more than likely plays a larger role.  This can be seen the very publicized case of a Canadian man who because of a botched circumcision was reassigned to the female gender.  During the circumcision, more than just the foreskin was removed and his parents, not wanting him to feel insecure about having mutilated genitalia, decided to turn his penis into a vagina.  They secretly gave him hormones and tried to impose the female lifestyle onto him.  Throughout his whole life, he felt that he was somehow different, but couldn’t exactly understand why.  As a girl, he felt that he was a tom-boy and insisted in doing things like most boys his age.  For a while, he simply thought that he was lesbian, since he couldn’t understand his attraction to girls his own age.  When he finally discovered the terrible secret that had been kept from him his whole life, it proved to be too late.  Even after years of therapy, both medical and psychological, and several surgeries to restore his male genitals, the damage had already been done and he ended his life in suicide.

                I believe it is important to remember, as well, that homosexuality spans the globe and occurs in humans regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, nation, or faith.  This fact alone indicates that homosexuality is a naturally occurring genetic predisposition that has been present ever since the beginning of life on this planet, which in turn makes it a necessary element in the evolution and structure of mankind.  Thus ends the first part of this argument with the second part hopefully to come shortly.

Illegal Immigration

You know what I'm tired of?  I'm tired of the people complaining about the illegal immigration issue.  This is an issue that could very easily be solved by the US Government, and the solution doesn't need to be deportation, but rather amnesty and a fine. 

Think about it.  The only reason people hire illegals over legals is because they don't have to receive minimum wage or benefits.  They are cheaper, it's that plain and simple.  But if you legalize these individuals it means that employers will have to pay them equal to minimum wage and benefits if they qualify.  Which means that no white people can ever play the race card when they get denied a job, because the employer will have chosen the minority because they were more qualified for the job rather than it saving the employer money in the long run. 

I don't know about you guys but that seems like a pretty obvious solution to me.

NO to PROP 8

There are many arguments for and against the legalization of same-sex marriage, but what I fail to hear from people are the obvious reasons why it is unconstitutional and discriminatory to ban marriage between people of any sex.  Here is a truth that people must come to grips with - homosexuals, transgenders, and intersexed people come in both genders, all races, and all religious backgrounds.  If you vote against same-sex marriage then you are voting against civil rights; if you vote against same-sex marriage then you are voting against women's rights; if you vote against same-sex marriage then you are voting to revoke the rights of interracial couples to marry.  A vote against same-sex marriage is a vote for regression, not progression. 

One of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that same-sex marriage is detrimental to the "family."  This is ludicrous because children who come from one-parent unmarried households, or two-parent unmarried households, are no better or worse off than a child from a two-parent married household.  I can speak from experience.  I have been raised in a two-parent married household and I am no better off than the people I know who are not.  Just because my parents are married doesn't mean that I have not felt neglected or unloved.  It is not the structure of the family that determines your child's path in life.  It is the relationship one has with their family (no matter how small) that determines their path.  If a child doesn't have a father, it doesn't mean that they will grow up to be criminals or underachievers; however, if they do have a father, it is the relationship with that person that will determine their path, whether good or bad.  In other words, it is how a person copes with their lot in life that determines who they are, not the size or structure of their family.

A second argument made against same-sex marriage is that religiously it is forbidden.  That would be a viable argument in my eyes if we lived in The United Christian States of America.  However, we do not.  America is a very diverse nation, and the majority of Christians are moderate in their political views.  By stating religion as a reason against same-sex marriage, one is ignoring the fact that there are many pious and religious people in the GBLT community.  More importantly, about 14 percent of Americans identify themselves are non-religious, which includes atheist, agnostic, nontheist, and some pagan practices.  Who is it that decided Christianity should be a blanket religion to be imposed on those who denounce it?  Using religion as a reason against same-sex marriage is a constitutional violation of the separation of church and state.  The government cannot use it in determining its ruling on the issue. 

Also, religion should have no bearing on the issue, because the Bible is NOT the Constitution of the United States of America. On a personal note, why is it that I, a heterosexual atheist, would be able to have a legal "marriage," while at the same time two men who are religious people can only have a "civil union?"  I think this proves that religion has no bearing on the origin of "marriage" as a religious union only.  In fact, it's common knowledge that marriage used to be purely a means of increasing one's social status and finances.  There is nothing innately religious about marriage, except for the ceremony that takes place, which in some cases can be a secular occasion.  If a heterosexual couple chooses to have a secular ceremony, they are still able to designate it a "marriage," whereas if a homosexual couple were to have a secular ceremony it is considered a "civil union."

I think the most important issue to point out is that, as I mentioned above, a vote against same-sex marriage is a vote against interracial marriage.  As recent as the 1980s, some states still had constitutional amendments stating that two people of differing races could not legally marry.  These laws implicates some important details, which are racial superiority and ethnic purity.  A white person cannot marry a black person because, as it was so widely believed, whites are superior to blacks.  It was also a way for communities to keep themselves racially pure.  A white person would not want to taint their blood lines by marrying an "octoroon," as it were. These laws also originated because it was once believed that blacks and whites were completely different species.  It is obvious now how ignorant this argument is, but in fact, that is just what many people believe about homosexuals.  Homosexuals are not a different species.  They are not a different race.  They are not a different gender.  They are human beings.  They feel.  They think.  They love.  They cry.  They laugh.  Just like any heterosexual human being.  Pointing out the similarities between white women and black women, Harriet Beecher Stowe writes in her famous novel _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ :

                'I've lived a many years in Kentucky and Virginia both, and I've seen enough to make any one's heart sick. Suppose, ma'am, your two children, there, should be taken from you, and sold?'

                'We can't reason from our feelings to those of this class of person,' said the other lady ...

                'Indeed, ma'am, you can know nothing of them, if you say so,' answered the first lady... 'I know they do feel, just as keenly, -- even more so, perhaps, -- as we do.' (104)

'We can't reason from our feelings to those of this class of person.'  In other words, these black women are a different species and they are inferior in feeling to ours.  What an ignorant sentiment that now echoes itself in the demeaning of homosexuals.  Stowe also points out in the same text, that it is dictated in the Bible that blacks are inferior and are therefore destined to be slaves.  That they should not fight it because it is God's plan.  Like I aforementioned, religious scripture is cited by those who are anti-same-sex marriage, even though it has proven fruitless in the past when trying to oppress minorities and reinforce racism.  The scripture is now being used to oppress homosexuals and reinforce homophobia.  If history repeats itself, as so many believe it does, than in the end homosexuals will gain their freedoms and homophobes will be forced to pow-wow together in back-wood shanties and conspire against the masses, which will essentially have no impact on the rest of the nation.

I can't stress this enough -- history has shown us that the oppressed will gain their freedom.  Whether it is the abolitionist movement, the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, the women's right s movement, or presently the gay rights movement, oppression will fall to progression.  It will not happen overnight, and it will not be an easy road to traverse, but so long as I am alive, so long as I breathe, so long as I have a voice to resound, I will not stop fighting for the rights of my sisters, my brothers, my friends.

President-To-Be

First, I need to mention that I had a huge scare earlier when my blog deleted itself while I was typing it.  I hate that - when you get on a role and you're really writing great stuff and then all of a sudden POOF! It's gone.  Hopefully, that will never happen again.  Moving on...

Election day is almost a month away (thank god! I can't wait for this to be over) and it's got me thinking...does any of it really matter?  I might not have a PHD in Political Science, but I can tell you a few things about politics:

1) They never change! Which is intereting because when the constitution was framed it wasn't meant to be permanent.  Amendments were supposed to be frequent and radical.  The Framers had the where-with-all to know that society was an everchanging, everevolving amoeba like creature that needed to be dissected and mended whenever necessary.

2) Politicians are out for themselves! They never really do anything for the people.  They do things for the constituency and that means statistics.  Constituents are the majority numbers, not the pie graph.  They only focus on the percentage of people who agree with them on every issue.  I believe it was Mark Twain who declared that there are three kinds of lies: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."  I think that sums it up quite nicely.  Stats are only as good as the people taking them and their only as good as the people giving them.  Think about when you were in highschool and they make you fill out those forms about your ethnic background and if you've ever done drugs, etc.  All kids lie, what makes you think they stop that as adults?  They don't.

 3) Finally, voters need to pull their heads out of their asses!  Don't vote against someone, vote for someone.  Don't vote just because someone's conservative or liberal, or democrat or republican...vote because you have read their platforms, vote because you think that they are intelligent and capable.  Listen to a person - if someone of a different party makes a good point don't act like you didn't hear it.  Here's an example - I'm a registered Green - I am going to vote democrat because I listen to Barack Obama and what he says and even though I don't agree with everything he says, it's enough for me to vote for him.  I'm not against John McCain, he seems like he knows what he's doing, but what makes me prefer Obama is the fact that the people I know who are voting for McCain are not the kind of people who see America the way I do.

What I mean is that when I hear a person say they are voting McCain, these are also the same people I hear spewing racial epithets, the same people who don't want to pay taxes because they're greedy (not because they're poor), the same people who make their faith their politics (can we say theocrats?), the same people who figure their politics to be better than others, who act like they are the superior American.  I don't want to vote for McCain because I don't like the people who are voting for McCain.

Israel-Hamas Conflict

I wrote previously about the conflict between the Israeli Jews and Arab (Muslim) Palestinians, here's what has been done or revealed since I last reported:

1.       Israel claims that it is not attacking the citizens of Gaza so much as it is attacking the Gaza leaders, which would be the "terrorist" group Hamas.  Now I put terrorist in quotes because I think terrorist is a very vague, misleading word.  Hamas is basically a group of Islamist radicals who hate Jews and want them out of Israel - strike that - the whole world.

2.       There was a cease fire, in which the Israelis withdrew their troops and stopped all attacking but that was breached about a week later when the Palestinians "activated an explosive device," which lead to the Israelis defending themselves. That happened about two days ago.

3.       Then just yesterday, Israeli militants bombed the tunnels near the Gaza-Israel border.  It is believed that the tunnels are used to smuggle weapons into Gaza to use against the Israelis.

Here are some conclusions that I have drawn about this whole mess.  Hamas are a bunch of anti-Semites.  Notice I say HAMAS, I'm not extending this to all Muslims because I know better.  I know that there are good people in the Middle East who just want to see everyone stop fighting and get over it.  Quite frankly, every Muslim should be thankful to the Jews in the first place because without Judaism there would be no Islam.  I'd, also, like to bring everyone's attention to the concept of Ahl al-Kitaab, which is a Muslim concept that basically states that Muslims, Christians and Jews are all people of the same book and they should recognize and accept one another as true brethren.  Not to mention, anyone who knows anything about religion would see right away that the Bible, Qur'an, and Torah are all talking about the same thing. 

 Also, Hamas are a bunch of hypocrites.  They go around crying foul when Israel begins attacking them,  and then when a cease fire is implemented THEY are the ones who breach it!  What a bunch of dumbasses.  And now they are acting as if they've been unnecessarily attacked in retaliation.  What is wrong with these people?  Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems in the Middle East is the unfair media coverage of these attacks, I'm sure that in Gaza people are being force fed lies by the government controlled media.  How am I sure of this?  It happens in America all the time; things get twisted and sugar-coated and talked around.  They only difference is that our people have the where-with-all to question it and investigate it for ourselves.  Not to mention, any Muslim or Jew in the Middle East should never criticize the American media for reporting falsehoods or inaccurate information, because after all we get that information from the Middle Eastern news sources.

Here's what I think some people need to realize, also, if you are a Palestinian living in Israel, you should have realized by now that no one is trying to force you out of that country, because if they had wanted you out they would have done it.  Also you probably have a higher chance of being killed by other Palestinians than by Jews if you live in the Middle East, and no, I'm not being racist, it's a numbers game.  Muslims out number Jews at least four to one in the Middle East, which discredits all Islamist extremist claims that Jews are running rampant and taking over the Middle East. 

And finally, every Middle Easterner (or every human being for that matter) needs to ask themselves this question:  Why do I hate people for being different? If your answer is either because their religion is different or because my religion tells me to, then you need to get a reality check and get over it! Listen, Palestinians have been fighting amongst themselves now because of something as petty and insignificant as who the rightful caliph should be.  That started 1,400 years ago.  Here's a thought: Muhammad was a prophet, just like Jesus and Moses, which means that he was not GOD!  God is God and no one else is, that's why you shouldn't listen to anyone but God, especially not their prophet, because prophets are men and subject to fallibility.  Now I know that there are some Christian faiths that believe Jesus was the earthly embodiment of God, but we aren't talking about Christianity, now are we? No we are not. 

Here's a lesson I was taught as a child: if you don't like someone, just don't associate with them.  You don't have to go out of your way to be nice, just don't socialize with them, but also you shouldn't get mad at your friends who do associate with them.  I think that the Palestinians, and all Islamic extremists, could benefit from that advice.  You don't have to like your neighbors, so just leave them alone.  If you don't touch their lawn, they won't touch yours.  Also, have you ever heard the phrase "mind your own business?"  Yeah, Hamas could learn to use that one, too.

Israel-Palestine Conflict Part 2

First let's start by saying that the first religious group to ever establish a national homeland in the Palestinian region were the Jews over 2000 years ago.  With that said, I have found some information detailing the history of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.

After WWI the Palestinian region, located to the north east of Egypt, next to the Sinai Desert, was given to the British Empire.  The British decided to divide the area up into two separate regions:  A Jewish Palestinian Homeland (about 1/4 of the region to the west of the Jordan river) and an Arab Palestinian Homeland (the remaining 3/4 of the region east of the Jordan River).  On paper this sounds like reasonable use of the land, except the Brits didn't realize the bad blood that has been coagulating between the two peoples. 

It became clear quite quickly that the Arab Palestinians did not want to share the Holy Land with the Jews.  Attacks started in the mid-1920s and continued until the beginning of the Holocaust.  These pre-WWII attacks prompted the Israelis to create what would later become the Israeli Defense Forces. 

After WWII the British, who had turned a blind eye to the conflict because the abundance of oil in the Arab Palestinian region, decided to turn matters over to the UN.  The UN then decided to take the Jewish Palestinian Homeland and divide that up, which resulted in the creation of a smaller Jewish Palestinian region and a SECOND Arab Palestinian region.  This, however, was not good enough for the Arab Palestinians so they refused the deal. 

Finally, in 1948, the Jewish Palestinians declared their own State of Israel and officially became known as Israelis.  The very next day, on May 15th, the neighboring Arab nations invaded Israel (this includes Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Yemen).  After 19 gruelling months of war, the Israelis were victorious. 

Over the past 40 odd years or so, the Arab Palestinians and Israelis continued to feud.  But it can't be blamed on solely the Arab Palestinians.  The Israelis had several chances to take a more aggressive stance, but instead of forcing all Arabs out of the taken areas, and keeping any land won in the wars, the Israelis tried being reasonable.  Never once did the Israelis try and force any Arabs out of the State of Israel, but rather the Arab Palestinians, thinking they would exterminate the Jews would inform the Arabs to leave the area.  Many did not, assuming that the Jews would lose the wars.  Secondly, Israel relinquished the Sinai Desert back to Egypt which proved to be a huge mistake in the long run.  Rather than helping to foster peace talks it just gave Egypt a reason to occupy that area more aggressively. 

Here's my take on the situation.  Arab Palestinians need to just give up.  The Jews have been pushed around for way too long but everyone and everything.  Their people have been ritualistically slaughtered for centuries by Christians and Muslims.  Yes, I understand that the Jews have blood on their hands, but the fact that they have at least been trying to live peacefully and are trying to move on and start over shows that they are the more reasonable and rational than their Arab neighbors.  No war is ever good, but this is something that will not go away overnight and will more than likely be going on for hundreds of more years.  Unfortunately, this is one reason why religion should never be incorporated into government.  If everyone is living for God and no one is living for the people then the people suffer.  The moment a Government Official steps into their office in the morning they need to be nonparitsan and nontheistic.  Too many people are working for factions these days and not for the whole of the people. 

Israel-Palestine Conflict

I have to say that I've been watching the CNN coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict and it makes me just sick to my stomach.  The fact that any country, especially two that are so deeply rooted in religion, would resort to such unabashed violence is horrifying and I can't help but think about how much damage this is going to cause the citizens who get caught in the crossfire of warring governments.

I don't know much about the areas engaged in the conflict but here's what I do know:

- This is not the first time Israel and Palestine have had military conflicts.  The most recent being in 2004 and 2006.

- There had been a cease fire resulting from the 2006 conflict that expired a few weeks ago.  Israel claims that Gaza bombed them first and that Israel was just retaliating. 

- I also know that Israel is a Jewish State (the only in the world) that is surrounded by mostly Islamic States.  It is not surprising that the Islamic States are claiming that Israel is in fault for this conflict completely.

- Israel has been fighting for a very long time to keep its land.  They have faced many conflicts that have been targeted at taking over their land by Muslims because the land is considered sacred. 

Like I said, I don't know much about these areas, but that's what I do know (or at least think I know).  If I'm really off, let me know, but I'll be doing more and more research on this. 

I do want to make clear, however, that the only thing I care about is not the "sacredness" of this supposed holy land, but rather the poor defenseless people that are going to be displaced from their homes.  I don't think many officials think about what conflicts do to families, nor do they realize the chaos this is going to create in the countries neighboring them.  If you are Muslim you can flee to any nation in the surrounding area, except of course to India (I think there is bad blood there as well), and the only place Jews have to go is Europe.  I have a feeling this is going to be a conflict that is not going to soon be resolved judging by the frequency of the conflicts in the past decade.  All I know is that no one should ever have to be thrust into conflict because their government officials are being stubborn and unreasonable.