Go Google!

I love google!

Look up the word failure in google, and you'll see why.

Liberals in America

The Democratic party, what would us liberals do without that bastion of liberalism? And what would liberals do without their more moderate allies, the Democratic Leadership Council?

The Democratic Leadership Council respect liberals' opinions, as shown here:

OH Wait, no they don't.

With friends like those, who needs enemies?

Nietzsche and Feminists

One thing that utterly, utterly, utterly baffles me when randomly checking people on myspace.com or friendster.com is when I run into a girl that claims she is a feminist and names Nietzche as a literature hero. It's not just that feminism is incompatible to Nietzsche's philosophy, it's that Nietzche's philosophy is the antithesis of feminism.

Just in case you don't see how, let me give you some translated paraphrases from Nietzsche:

(1) When a woman has scholarly inclinations, there is usually something wrong with her sexually.

(2) Everything about woman has one solution: that is pregnancy.

(3) Woman has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty licentiousness, and immodesty lies concealed in woman.

(4) Where neither love nor hatred is in the game, a woman's game is mediocre.

Honestly, the two nicest things I remember Nietzsche say about women is that

(5) Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.

and that women are more compassionate then men (of course, considering how Nietzsche considers compassion a moral weakness, it wasn't exactly a praise).

So, do these girls just name a famous philosopher without reading his shit--a la Otto with Nietzsche in a Fish Called Wanda--or are they just weird? I feel like writing them a message and asking.

Of course, some people try to say Nietzsche was only using sarcasm, but it doesn't make sense for him to use sarcasm every single time he mentions women (unless he was using sarcasm throughout; but this seems strange, since he talked about his other principles openly throughout his lectures). Also, Nietzsche is a philosopher writing his philosophy on paper, not a sitcom actor or comedian. So, if you're a feminist, please stop naming Nietzsche as your favorite author.

The American Political Tradition

Recently finished reading The American Political Tradition And the Men Who Made It by Richard Hofstadter.



Now this book is considered a historical classic; however nearly everything I read in the book is rather common knowledge in the present age--or at least common thought among liberals. However, this book was published in 1948, and I must admit that it was probably a ground-breaking work in that time period. Seeing it from a 1948 lens, this book is amazing. The fact that most things stated in the American Political Tradition are known to me as a mainstream historical account shows how well-entrenched this book is. The notion that the two American parties rarely had any philosophical differences--not to say they didn't have any policy differences--is common today, and this book was the first to state such a notion. I'd highly recommend it, although I would suggest Anti-Intellectualism in American Life first (a topic close to my heart), since I believe its thesis and conclusions are less well-known to most modern day people (I will warn you that by 1964, when Anti-Intellectualism was published, Hofstadter had become somewhat bitter).

Nor can I say that Hofstadter's reason for showing the underlying conservativeness of men like Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Wilson is boring or uninteresting--Hofstadter is trying to show us the conservative nature of the so-called "liberal" tradition in America. Americans phantom themselves democratic, liberal, and tolerant; Hofstadter undermines and, in some cases, destroys the foundations of these myths--especially for men like William Jennings Bryan. This alone, is enough to read the American Political Tradition book for; plus, I'm a hard-core fan of the notion that you should always read the classics.

I was also going to write a review of Ghost Wars by Steve Coll, but I'm lazy, so too bad. I will say that it's a good book, but that it relies way too heavily on a single source. Worst yet, when Coll does finds other sources to support his main source, he finds conflicting views between his main source and the other sources. This means that the book can only be taken as a very general outline of what happened in Afghanistan.


I'm a 700 page, Pulitzer Prize winning book...and the Prophet only wrote four sentences reviewing me!

Wisdom of the Day (the Remix)

Some months ago I wrote a blog about how people should read more (here).

I would like to clarify:
Ignant motherfuckers need to fucking read more.

In the immortal words of Bun B:
"Go read a book you illiterate son of a bitch and step up yo' vocab"

Jon Stewart Grew Some Phucking Balls

If you have never watched Jon Stewart's Daily Show, then it sucks to be you. The Daily Show is a hilarious show, but I had one main issue with it: Jon Stewart would never challenge his guests. Even when it was someone he completely disagreed with, he would just shut up and let the other person speak without argument. No matter how stupid the things said, Stewart would smile and nod. To quote Stewart, he once asked a Bush advisor if Bush would come to the show; the Bush advisor said he didn't think the Daily Show was Bush's type of show. Stewart replied by saying, "He shouldn't worry, I'm a pussy. I'll agree with everything he says." That was a perfect response, mainly because it was true. Stewart--whom viciuosly criticized Crossfire for not asking the tough questions--would just hide behind the fact that "he followed a show filled with talking puppets."

On last night's show, however, Stewart changed his methodoloy; he literally attacked the guest. He asked him a million tough questions, and generally made the guest look like a fool. I noticed that his new set (he got a new set on Monday) looked like a political talk show set, or news show set. It seems that Stewart has realized that with power comes responsibility.

And with that said, I'll leave you with the following:



On Wyclef Jean's Appearence on Sesame Street:

"All went well on the set until Wyclef and Elmo got into a contest to see who could over-refer to themselves in the third person...
Elmo left in tears."

--Jon Stewart

GTA is a Horrible, Horrible Game!

The violence, the SEX!



Oh my God, will someone please think about the children!

It feels like I've been hearing this crap about sex and violence in video games (or rap or movies) since I was like 11. People--especially Hilary Clinton--need to get over this. If people want to play Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, they should be allowed to play Grand Theft Auto. If you're a parent and don't want your kid playing the game, here's an idea: don't let them buy it. If you complain about how you cannot keep track of your kid's every move, that's a problem with your parenting. Stop watching so much American Idol and spend some time with your kids. Lest we forget, your kid needs a TV and an XBox (or PlayStation 2) to play the game, or a computer, not exactly the smallest items to hide around the house. And don't forget, thirteen year olds don't really rake in the dough by cutting grass. You don't want your kid to buy a violent, sex-induced game (which btw, only adults can buy), don't give them 100 dollars to spend on shit like that.

Thank you; done with my ranting.

P.S. Hillary Clinton is a sell-out (you'd expect a liberal fron New York to actually be liberal).

Go Planet!

I remember once, in 12th grade, I was tutoring this girl in math after school. She was ridiculously cute, and I noticed I wasn't getting through to her with my explanation of polynomial division. I rushedly crumpled the piece of paper I was writing on, threw it towards the trashcan, grabbed a new, clean piece of paper, and began with a new approach. She gave me a nasty look, but I thought very little of it. My new explanation worked, but she still seemed mad at me. I politely asked her if something was wrong. She just glared at me. I thought for a second, and asked if it had to do with me throwing the piece of paper away. Apparently, I was a bad person because I threw away the piece of paper even though it had a lot of writing space on it; I was destroying the rainforest.

I sort of muttered, "Oh." She was right; I had squandered the paper. Then I asked her if she knew that most of the Amazon was actually burned to create farm land, and not cut to create paper-goods or use as timber. She was more than sceptical; actually, she straight up didn't believe me.

Well, here's the thing: I wonder how many vegans or vegitarians think that they are better than us meat-eaters because they drink soy-bean milk (instead of milk) or eat only tofu (instead of meat). In a rather easy sense, they are causing less damage to animals; but in a more complicated sense, they are helping to fuel the demise of the Amazon. Soybeans is now one of the largest reasons for Amazon deforestation. Obviously cattle ranching, lumber-logging, road construction, and other human endeavors are all at fault for the Amazon's yearly shrinkage (the Amazon loses an area roughly equivalent to the size of New Jersey every year), but soybean "farming" is the only profit-making endeavor actually increasing in its destruction of the rainforest. So in a way, while saving a few cows, the hard-core soybean eaters are helping eradicate an animal species--and numerous plant species--a day.

This made me wonder how many things I do and believe create beneficial outcomes, actually create harmful outcomes. Fucked up shit, no?

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. (GI Joe; sorry, couldn't help myself)

Karl Rove

Now, I'm no fan of Karl Rove, but I do feel some mad pity for Scott McClellan. CNN was showing footage of Scott McClellan taking questions from reporters, and the reporters were just screwing with the man. At one point, one reporter stated something equivalent to, "No, I won't let you finish, because you aren't saying anything. This is utterly ridiculous." McClellan almost busted out crying.

Now, I'm not sure whether Karl Rove specifically stated that Valerie Palme helped her husband Joe Wilson get that job in Africa or not, but what we know of as of right now is mad sketch. Of course, the best part of this is watching the Democrats state that Karl Rove is the devil incarnate, and then watching the Republicans state that (1) Joe Wilson lied about the Iraqis not purchasing uranium from Niger--that ridiculous amount of spin, aka lying, made my jaw drop--and (2) the left-wing media is attempting to bring down Karl Rove.

So, does Rove deserve to be fired?

I say yes, but I'm not exactly an objective observer here.

In the Closet

Just saw all 5 parts of R. Kelly's In the Closet. While I'm not a large fan of R. Kelly (and I find his golden shower/ young girl fetish f*cked up), I must admit that In the Closet is a pretty amazing story/ song/ video. If you haven't watched it yet, you should.

Also, I am unbelievably amazed that they showed R. Kelly waiving a gun for nearly 5 minutes.

On the Ethics of Wars for Self-Determination

This isn't an essay, or anything enlightening; in fact, if it accomplishes anything, it should confuse you more. The question I am asking is the following: is a war fought for the imposition of self-determination (democracy) on another nation/country/region ethically justifiable if the nation imposing the self-determination has no ulterior motive?

I guess an easier way of posing the question is this:

Had the United States not gone to war with Iraq for WMDs or as a pre-emptive strike, but had actually gone to Iraq purely to bring about a democracy in place of a dictatorship, would the war have been justified?

I tend to lean yes, but, to be honest, I'm not completely sure. In general, this is a very liberal, idealistic, Wilsonian view (the principle of self-determination, and democracy spreading throughout the world). Unfortunately, I can see how someone could argue that a war like that is unethical. Killing is inhumane (especially of civilians, which in modern times is nearly impossible to avoid), the opinion that democracy is the best form of government is an opinion, not fact, etc. This quandary is bugging me, and I wish I knew a purely ethical or logical way of resolving it.

Any comments?

4th of July

Happy 4th of July!!!