Russia and Iran are hypocrites on the issue of intervention

     Syria's revolution is a very complicated one, so I'm going to just lay out the basics on it, so we don't waste a lot time before getting to the main idea of this post. There is a 3 way battle going in the country right now.
     1. Syria's dictatorship is putting down a revolution that has been waging since 2011. They are backed by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.
     2. The moderate, secular rebels, under the umbrella group called the Free Syrian Army, (FSA), are fighting against the dictator and the extremist rebels, (next group down). They have very few backers, only the US for non-lethal aid and individual foreign volunteers.
     3. The extremist rebels are also fighting against the dictator and the moderate rebels. They are backed by Al-Qaida and many of the Gulf states, (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc).

     The main point of this post, in one sentence, is that Russia and Iran cry all the time that the West cannot intervene in Syria, yet they're intervening in it themselves. It's hypocrisy at it's best. It's an attempt to try and seem impartial and fair to the Syrian people, but really they're just doing it to better themselves in the political/military realm. Iran has at least 4,000 troops in there right now, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/17/syrian-activists-say-al-qaida-linked-militants-blow-up-shiite-mosque-in-hatla/ and Russia has sold at least 50% of the arms Syria has, including $1 billion in 2011 alone, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-russia-arms-insight-idUSBRE97S0WW20130829.

     To be fair, Russia and Iran are operating as the same as virtually every other country does: They have 2 sets of rules: one that they say that everyone else has to follow, and one set for themselves. The thing is, the rule set for themselves is blank; they don't have to abide by any rules, even those they expect other countries to follow. It's how the US can say to other Al-Qaida "Don't kill civilians," and then turn around and bomb Iraqi civilians dead. It's how Pakistan can whine to the US about drone strikes killing its citizens, and then it turns around and kills Pakistani civilians in broad daylight.  
     But just because other countries do it doesn't make it right. In Russia's mind, other countries cannot intervene in Syria. Except Russia. It can, because it's special, and doesn't have to follow any rules. Iran believes the exact same for Iran, Hezbollah thinks the exact same thing for Hezbollah. So we have all these countries and organizations running around with weapons, thinking that they are so fucking special that they don't have to follow any rules. Is it any surprise as to why these leads to never ending war in the world?

      I'm not saying on whether the US, Russia, etc, should or should not intervene in Syria. That's not what this post is about. All I'm saying is that do not follow the "do as I say, not as I do" routine. Don't ask a country to do something that you won't do yourself.
     Ironically, a Russian statement on this bears some truth:

A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry this morning warned of "catastrophic consequences" for Syria and the region if the United States and its allies intervene.

 http://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-warns-catastrophic-consequences-us-meddles-syria/story?id=20081747

     He's right, there are catastrophic consequences for foreign intervention. Syria's civil war started off as a purely domestic war between the dictatorship and rebels. But now, it seems all the major countries in the world are picking a side and getting their hands dirty to sway the war one way or another to benefit themselves. The US and Israel are supporting the rebels because they want Assad gone. Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are supporting Assad because they want Assad in power. Saudi Arabia and Qatar want the extremist rebels to win because they want a hard-line Islamic government in power. This has increased the number of soldiers and arms in the battlefield tenfold, which only dishes out more death, more destruction, more refugees, more seriously injured civilians, etc, etc. 

     It's like a fistfight at a soccer game: what started off as a fight between two players has turned out into a full field brawl, with both teams at it, plus the referees, players, police, etc.

     Suddenly, the war is not about what the Syrian people want anymore. It's all about what other countries want. And that's the tragedy of the whole thing. What started off as a legitimate revolution has now been hijacked by foreign and extremist elements.

     What can we ordinary Americans do about this? Unfortunately, not much, as usual. But at least, when this war is over, we can be on the right side of history. We can say "I supported the moderate, secular rebels, and I did not support the dictatorship or the radical rebels." We can talk talk talk. Post on facebook, twitter, tumblr, write a letter to the editor for a newspaper, etc. Explain that not all of the rebels are extremists, that the Syrian people have a fundamental right to basic human rights, and the right to fight anyone who takes them away from them, that using violence is acceptable if you use it to defend yourself or someone else who is under attack. Challenge the racists, the bigots, explain that Islam is not the cause of this conflict, that this conflict is purely political and this type of conflict has occurred plenty of times in non-Islamic countries.
     That's all we can do for now.    

  

France's colonist imperialism continues

     In case you guys didn't know, which is very possible considering how mum the US media is on this, France invaded another African country in the last couple of days, (They already invaded Mali earlier this year, wait, you didn't hear about that either?!). The latest victim of the French aspire to return to their colonial glory days is the Central African Republic, (CAR).
     Now, the CAR has a whole host problems without the French involved; it's not like France is the only cause of their problems. But certainly France's invasion has done nothing but benefit the 1% of French society. A quick summary of what's happening: The CAR is in a civil war right now, (as it is more often than not), and the battles lines are not exactly clear. We got a new government run by Michel Djotodia, the leader of the Seleka rebel group that came to power last year in a rebellion. They overthrew the government of Francois Bozize, who had come to power in 2003 by force, (hence was not legitimate).
     So we have this new Seleka government battling remnants of Bozize's fighters and supporters, in addition to people who are sick of the Seleka's many and horrible human rights abuses in their short 1 year rule. This was bad enough before the French invaded this year. But they did, fighting against the Seleka government.
     Here's the main point of this post, one that will show that France is not fighting to "help the poor African people or for humanitarian/selfless reasons." On December 9th it was reported that the French soldiers are going door to door in the capital Bangui, seizing all weapons and leaving the residents defenseless: 

 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilKuiauSYXwMH7rs8eYqbHHTpFwg?docId=dd8da109-c3d7-41ed-b32c-3cb8d5a420bb

     You don't have to go any further to see why any sensible, ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding citizen of the CAR would fight against the French. They're seizing weapons that people, regardless of race or religion, are entitled to have to defend themselves and their family. This fascist crackdown leaves them without any weapons to defend themselves from any thugs or gangs that are taking advantage of the chaos due to the civil war. They've even taken machetes.

     The French are just making enemies at this point. I mean, how would you react if Chinese or Russian troops were walking down your street in your neighborhood, knocking down your doors, and demanding all of your guns and melee weapons? That's right, you'd say "Hell no and fuck no" and start fighting back against these foreign occupiers who are trying to deny you your rights. That's what our ancestors did against the British, that's what the French underground resistance did against the Nazis, and that's what the Vietnamese did against the French and the Americans.

     This isn't France's first meddling in the CAR. The CAR was France's former colony, in which the European country did the standard crimes that all colonial powers did back then: Abuse the country for cheap labor, deny them basic human rights, and stealing their natural resources for profit back home, while the citizens of CAR see none of that profit.
     France also supported the authoritarian dictator Francois Bozize when he was in power, and is currently backing his supporters in this civil war. That's right, all of the suffering that Bozize inflicted on his people, the French helped him do that, why? For a friendly government that they could manipulate and control. Since France was Bozize's lifeline, they could make him do whatever they wanted him to, since without them, he would surely fall rather quickly.

 What can we ordinary Americans do about this? You know I usually try to end a post with practical advice. Unfortunately, there is very little Americans can do about this; this is between France and the CAR. But we can use our voice. Just like I'm doing now, all I'm doing is typing on a keyboard. Use whatever social media you normally use: Facebook, Twitter, blog, Tumblr, etc, whatever, it doesn't matter. Write in defense of the citizens of CAR, since they hardly have the means to have their voices and opinions travel around the world in a nanosecond like you and I do. Explain to people how they have the right to defend themselves, that they have the right to violently overthrow a dictator like Bozize, who oppressed and repressed them for years. Explain that just like not all Christians are bloodthirsty killers like some of the extreme Christian vigilante groups in the CAR, that not all Muslims are bloodthirsty killers like some of the radical Seleka. There are good and bad in every race and religion. Preach equality, unlike some radical Americans, who support the French and support disarming all CAR Muslims so they will be defenseless. 

     So there you have it, an imperial power sticking it's nose in a civil war that is quickly becoming a sectarian war. Things are going to suck there for a while. A European country who has no business being there isn't helping at all. Did France learn anything from Vietnam? MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS AND STOP STEALING THINGS FROM OTHER PEOPLE!! 

And everyone's...okay with this?

Every week, the world learns more and more about how the NSA is being the world's #1 douchebag when it comes to respecting our privacy and actually doing anything to protect us or better this country. This week's revelation is that they collect and log 5 billion cell phone calls everyday. 

 http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/how-the-nsa-is-tracking-people-right-now/634/

Not only that, but they use these logs to track your every movements. They can even track your relationship with others, since they have the ability to run tracking data to identify which cellphone users' paths cross, even when you're not even using it. When you move from cell phone tower range to another cell phone tower range, the NSA keeps track of these movement. When confronted about this by the Washington Post, the NSA replied in the most fucked up, retarded piece of shit reply I've ever seen in my entire life.

"NSA says it doesn't collect intentionally US location information in bulk."

Hey, NSA asshole dipshit. You log 5 billion cell phone calls every damn day. What, by accident? Do you expect anyone in the entire planet to believe that pathetic excuse?

The NSA just doesn't do this to terrorist suspects, no, it does it to millions of Americans, who have done nothing wrong. This is its normal, run of the mill practice, it's default surveillance. It's pissing companies off so much, that even big business proponents like Google and Microsoft are getting pissed off, and introducing new methods to try and hide data from the NSA. Because every time the NSA spies on an American, it has to get through a company's data in order to do so, such as Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. And companies do not like that at all, not any less than Americans, but companies have more power to do something about it when they're pissed off. The American people have the potential to be more powerful, but that would require mobilization off their fat couches and doing something about it, which doesn't look like it's gonna happen anytime soon.

But, a small section of the population is getting really pissed off. Activists in Utah want to cut off the water supply to a NSA database center:

 http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/04/nsa-opponents-want-to-cut-off-utah-facility-from-water-supply/

The NSA has called their database "FASCIA." Isn't it hilarious and ironic that word is very similar to the word "fascist?" Or maybe that's the reason they named it that in the first place, to publicly gloat how much fascism they're getting away with in broad daylight.

Oh wait, it gets better. The NSA also has infected ten of thousands of computers with viruses and malware to get the information they want.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/74845/the-nsa-probably-has-installed-a-virus-on-your-computer-and-everyone-else-s

This is massive destruction of the 4th amendment. The NSA is at war with the American people. They must hate us a hell of a lot to be able to do all the shit they do to us on a daily basis and be okay with it all. They believe they have the right, the privilege, to know anything and everything in the world, laws and logic be damned. They will do whatever it takes to get the information they want. They will pass any law to protect their own actions, so that if anyone complains, they can sneer "Oh it's legal!"

What can we ordinary citizens do about it? Not much unfortunately, but the things we can do, we should do very adamantly. Resist resist resist. Write to your congressmen, write letters to the editor to your newspapers, follow activist groups that are fighting on this issue, go to a protest, or write about in your blog, twitter, whatever. Heck, the NSA is probably reading this blog right now. I know I write provocative anti-government, anti-fascist, anti-neo con shit. I know exactly what I'm doing. Provocative, in your face shit gets people thinking. I ain't scared of the NSA, and nor should anyone else, including you. They're bullies, they're trying to intimidate us into submission. They're trying to scare us into not speaking up, to stay silent. They want complacent, docile, drone citizens. Don't let them win!!

To the NSA prick who's reading this: FUCK YOU ALL!!    

Why pay to play online games suck (and other subscription based cloud software)

     This post will be a bit different than normal. Usually I talk about politics but today I'm going to be talking about video games. Video games is another big interest of mine; I started playing them in 1st grade. They're a good stress reliever because it allows someone to completely detach themselves from this fucked up world for just a little bit, and focus on something fun.
      The traditional way of selling and playing video games has been like buying 99% of all other products: you pay for it upfront, a one time deal, and then it is yours forever. This is the way it has been ever since video games were able to be sold to customers and they could take it home. This happened from the 1980's to about the mid 2000's. That's when things started to change, slowly at first, but now, this new way of selling video games is becoming more and more prevalent, and analysts say that eventually, all video games will be sold in the way I'm about to describe. This is rather annoying for me, because this new way completely fucking sucks.
      This new way is that you pay per month to log onto a company's server online to play a game. You no longer have a physical copy of the game. You just have a subscription, a log-in that you use. This sucks for us, the customers, for a number of reasons.

1. The cost of subscription based software will rapidly become more expensive than buying a physical copy, starting in just the first few months of owning the software. For example, let's say I bought Hellgate London in 2008 for $50. That's all it would cost me to play that game till the day I die. Now, let's look at the second example, where I would pay $10 a month to play Hellgate London online, through the company's servers. In just half a year, it would be more expensive for me to subscribe to that game versus if I had paid a one time price to have a physical copy of it. Fast forward to November of 2013. In the first example, guess how much money I've spent on Hellgate London? That's right, still $50. But how much would I have paid in the second example? A whooping $900.  For one fucking game. That is absolutely mind-boggling how expensive it would be, in addition to how mind-boggling it is that band-wagoning swag fags think this subscription based software is cool and hip and so much better than the "old way."
2. If you want to avoid paying that astronomical amount as described above, you have to constantly subscribe and un-subscribe to all your video games, based on the ones you're only currently playing at the moment. Let's say you only play 2 video games at a time. So you subscribe to those two for a while, then once you beat the game or tired of playing it, you have to unsubscribe to those 2 games, (to avoid being charged monthly for a game you don't even play), and then subscribe to 2 new video games. What if one of your friends comes over and wants to play a game you're not currently subscribing to? "Oh sorry man, can't play that one, I'm not subscribing to it at the moment."
3. If your internet goes out, bam, there goes your game. This is critical for people with shitty internet, like me. (Xfinity is ripping my landlord off like a motherfucker. She's paying for 55 mbps and I'm sitting on the fucking computer and can clearly see I'm only getting 5 mbps). Meanwhile, I'm having a blast fighting sand monsters in Prince of Persia, while you're sitting on your ass, not being able to play any of your games, because your internet went out. 
4. If the company goes under and gets rid of it's servers, then bam, there goes your game. I play a few games, like Hellgate London and Titan Quest, whose companies who made them no longer exist because they went out of business. Guess what, I'm still having a blast playing those games. But if you subscribed to one of these games online, then you lost your game. Sucks for you.       

 

     And this just doesn't go for video games, it applies to other online subscription software that lets you access it in the cloud, such as Microsoft Office 365. Let's say you and 3 other friends decide to get Microsoft 365 for the 4 years you guys are going to be in college. That's $100 per person, if you get the best plan geared towards students. (Some other plans for students are $130 per person, and they only allow you to have Office 365 on one device.)
      But let's say you and your 3 friends are smart and get the actual CD for Microsoft Office 2013. Guess how much that costs each of you? $13.75. I know critics of this idea will say "But the box software of Office 2013 will only let you put it on one computer!" To which I reply "Then install it without internet access and never register it. That way, Microsoft will never know how many times you've installed it!" It's a simple and easy way to save money. My siblings and I did this with Office 2010. We've had it installed on 5 different computers, all for way less than if we did Microsoft 365.
     In conclusion, this is very troubling for gamers like me, because if all video games start to be sold like this, then I'll simply not buy anymore new video games, and I'll just continue to play old video games. I refuse to go through all that BS just to have a little fun. If I spend my hard earned money to buy a game, then I better damn as well be able to play it when I want, how I want, and install it on as many systems as I want to. Combine this problem with the fact that the quality of storyline, gameplay, and the music of video games on a whole has substantially gotten pathetically worse since about 2008, (Skyrim is the one exception, and the only game since 2008 that I'd consider to be one of my favorite games), and we could possibly have the death of the video game industry as we know it.        

Woman is murdered for asking for help after a car crash

A 19 year old woman, Renisha McBride, was in a car crash with a parked vehicle. A family who was there at the time of the crash offered to help her, because she appeared confused and was bleeding. She refused help, and instead walked a mile to another house, asking for help. The homeowner said he "feared for his life" and shot McBride in the face with a shotgun, killing her.

Renisha McBride

Full story: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131111/METRO01/311110095/Autopsy-Detroit-woman-19-shot-face-not-close-range?

Okay, this case is bizarre. There are many things that do not make sense and need answering. The fact that this happened on November 2nd and we still have very few facts about this case is very troubling. As the report in the link says, this story has more questions than answers, specifically:

1. Why did McBride refuse help at the scene of the accident and not wait for police and an ambulance?
2. Why did McBride walk a mile to ask for help, when help was already offered to her and refused?
3. Why did the homeowner shoot McBride in the face for simply walking up to his door and asking for help?

The way I see it, one of two things happened. But the fact remains is that none of us, myself included, really knows what actually happened. All we can do is conjecture based on the facts we already know. So here are the two scenarios:

1. McBride was wacked out on something, either illegal drugs or using prescription drugs that are used to treat mental health problems but end up making mental health problems worse in a person, (that's a whole different topic). That would explain why she appeared "confused" to witnesses, refused help, refused to stay and wait for police and an ambulance, (which were on their way), and walked a mile to another house. Police report said she actually walked off for a while a first time after initially being in the crash, returned to the scene of the accident, and then, upon hearing the police were coming, walked off a second time. All of that is irrational behavior and one of them is a crime, (leaving the scene of an accident). She didn't want the cops finding out that she was wacked out on something, so she left. I do not believe that simply saying this is a possibility is an insult to McBride or her family. It is a logical theory based on the facts we already know. But again, do I know if this is actually the case or not? Nope, not by a long shot. 
2. McBride was racially profiled by a white man brainwashed by our pathetic mainstream media, brainwashed into thinking that all black people are criminals so logically the only reason why a black person would be at his house at 3:40 a.m. would be to rob him. So, he did what the brainwashing media tells him to do: shoot. So he did. 

But it's possible that both happened. One does not exclude the other. Just because McBride might've been wacked out on something does not mean that the homeowner could or couldn't racially profile her. This might've been just a freak incident. But, whatever happened, it did show two important things that are the lesson of this week's post:

• Abuse of drugs while driving is bad, (mmkay). Recreational drug use in private property is not a problem. It's when people abuse it that it becomes a problem. If McBride was on something, it might've had a role on why she did all the irrational and bizarre things that she did. 
• When someone knocks on your door, even at night, find out who it is and properly identify it he/she is a threat before shooting. The homeowner broke 2 fundamental rules of proper gun use. 1. Always identify your target before shooting. 2. Do not put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot. 

The homeowner said that the discharge of his shotgun was an "accident." There is no accidental discharges of firearms, only neglectful discharges. And, what are the odds that this neglectful discharge happened to be pointed right at McBride's face? What a coincidence, right?!
The homeowner thought McBride was a threat. She was not a threat. Therefore, the homeowner did not properly identify his target. His finger had to be on the trigger for the gun to go off, yet he said it was accident, meaning he did not want to shoot. So his finger was on the trigger when he was not ready to shoot.

A sad and bizarre case. Keep your eye out for developments in this story. Maybe the authorities will figure out what the hell happened and why it happened.    

 

Why I'll be voting for Robert Sarvis and not Ken Cucinelli or Terry McAuliffe

     The election for Governor of Virginia is less than a week away. The candidates are Republican Ken Cucinelli, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, and Libertarian Robert Sarvis. Wait, there's a third candidate? I thought there was only Cucinelli and McAuliffe. I mean, that's all the media talks about, (Of course they do. They wouldn't want to give attention to a non-establishment supporter, RIGHT?!)

      I will be voting for Sarvis for a number of reasons. It's really no contest. Cucinelli and McAuliffe are both God awful candidates. It's a testament to both the parties' decadence that this is the best they can come up with. So here are the reasons:

1. Cucinelli opposes gay marriage. Sarvis supports it. 

     I'm as straight as they get, but I support gay marriage. Why? Because there's no reason not to. All the conservative arguments against gay marriage are complete and utter bullshit:

• Gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Really?! Look at the stats at marriages now in days. 45% of all marriages end in divorce is a low ball estimate, some estimates say as high as 65%. Abuse is rampant, cheating is a plague, people being their children's friends instead of disciplining them when they do illegal or immoral things is the new norm. So, all that doesn't ruin the sanctity of marriage, but gay marriage will? Yeah right. Someone else's marriage has no effect on how I see my marriage or what it means to me.
• Gay marriage is against Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. No. It's. Not. You can read the Torah, Bible, and Quran from front to back, and you will find absolutely NOTHING about banning gay marriage. This is just another example of people using religion as a cover to protect their own hatred ideals. Besides, let's just say for argument's sake, that Christianity does ban gay marriage. Fine, then you personally, don't get married. But just because you think you shouldn't do something, does not give you the right to shove that ideal down someone else's throat, and say to them that they have to have the same opinion about this certain something that you do. 
• More gay marriages end in divorce that heterosexual marriages. There is no conclusive evidence that shows this. Yes, some websites say so, but other websites, which are just as credible, say no. So one of them is lying. Which one is it? I don't know. That's why it's inconclusive. Besides, let's just say for argument's sake, that more gay marriages end in divorce than heterosexual marriages. So, using that same logic, we should ban Christians from getting married, because more Christians get divorced than Muslims. We should only allow Muslims to get married in this country. If we made that law, people would be up in arms, rightly so, because that's infringing on their rights. So why should we do the same thing to gays if Americans would riot if that same thing happened to them? 
• Gay marriages lead to more trouble making kids, lower grades, etc. Again, no conclusive evidence. Sure, you can find a scientific study done by a influential organization that says so, but then you can turn around and find another scientific study done by another influential organization that says completely the opposite. Besides, even if it were true, since when did America ban everything except the group that is the best? That's like looking at schooling demographics, and banning all races from going to school except Asians, because Asians do the best in school. It's insane!

      2. McAuliffe supports fascist gun control, Sarvis does not.

       Gun control restricts peoples' inalienable right to defend themselves. It hurts law abiding citizens while helping criminals and thugs. There is really no argument here. The thing that will hurt citizens the most will be limiting magazines to only 10 rounds. I don't know about you, but if I'm facing 2 thugs each with gun that can hold 30 bullets, I'd sure as hell want a gun that can hold 30 bullets rather than 10. It's still possible to beat them, but a smaller magazine will just make it harder. And in a life or death situation, you want every advantage you can get.

     3. Cucinelli voted to not raise the minimum wage.

      http://votesmart.org/bill/3821/11799/50871/minimum-wage-increase#.UnFgFBBKQTs
      One of the most basic things they teach you in economics is that the minimum wage must be proportional to inflation and standard of living. Well, the neo-cons have been so successful in keeping the minimum wage down for decades, while inflation and the standard of living have skyrocketed. If the minimum wage was proportional to inflation today, it would be more than $10. (Look it up, I'm not gonna waste my time putting a link for this well known fact).
     Cucinelli follows the standard Republican mantra of not giving a flaming fuck about the poor people working their asses off to put food on the table. He just wants to lower taxes for his super rich friends and supporters, while squeezing the middle class out of existence and forcing them into the poor class.

      4. McAuliffe wants to increase Medicaid, furthering our national debt and furthering peoples' dependence on government.  Sarvis does not.

     http://votesmart.org/public-statement/800471/issue-position-healthcare-and-virginias-economy#.UnFidxBKQTs
     Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to take money from hard working people and give it to other people? That's right, nowhere. The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to run such programs as Medicaid and Medicare. Those two programs are an overwhelming huge part of our federal debt. As tragic as peoples' stories are, we just cannot afford to keep these programs. They're running our country into the ground. Do I sound heartless because I don't want to give money to Grandma and poor kids? Maybe. But I don't think it is heartless to say to someone who is old and sick "I'm sorry, but I am in debt up to my eyeballs. My financial situation is a complete and utter wreck. I really can't afford to give you any money right now."
      What the government should be focused on is strengthening the economy enough so that people do not need to rely on Medicaid and Medicare and lowering ridiculous medical costs so they don't cost the same as a house to get a simple operation done. There's nothing in the Constitution saying that the states themselves cannot provide Medicaid and Medicare, just so as long as they don't use federal money. People should also change their spending and lifestyle habits so that they're not completely broke when they get old. For example, in many other countries, old people move in with their children when they cannot live and work on their own. The child then pays for much of their old parents' expenses, eliminating the need for such programs as Medicaid and Medicare.

      5. Both Cucinelli and McAuliffe do not want to legalize marijuana or end the ridiculous war on drugs. Sarvis wants to do both.
      http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues/drug-reform
     Cucinelli and McAuliffe both believe that the government knows what's better for you than you do. They believe the government knows how to better spend your money than you do. They believe that since they personally do not believe smoking marijuana is a good idea, then that means they should force that idea down peoples' throats, and make it so no one can smoke it.
      If you think that smoking marijuana is bad/immoral, fine, I have no problem with that. Then don't do it then! But don't try and make everyone else think that same way!
      Outlawing marijuana gives power to the Mexican drug cartels, because now they have a monopoly on selling the stuff, because legal companies can't. Estimates say that a whooping 60% of the cartels' profits come from selling marijuana:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19longmire.html?_r=0

     Just imagine if every ABC store also sold marijuana, for example. You could get it virtually in any town, and for much cheaper, because getting stuff on the black market is always more expensive than getting something the legal way. It wouldn't be profitable for the cartels to sell it anymore. Boom. There goes 60% of their profits. With a crippled income, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to fight them. But Republicans and Democrats want the war on drugs to continue. They want Mexican citizens to be continued to get kidnapped and beheaded. Why? Because as long as there is a war right next to us, the government can continue to sell weapons to both the cartels and the Mexican government. War is a racket. They can continue to get money for training the Mexican army and police. They don't give a flaming fuck about the Mexican people. They just want money money money.  
     Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, and it's not working with marijuana. The government should not micro-manage peoples' individual spending habits on luxuries. They should stop viewing casual users as criminals, just like casual users of alcohol are not alcoholics.

     And there concludes my list. This is not a completely full list, just the top 5. Notice that both Cucinelli and McAuliffe both have ideas that I like. Cucinelli does not favor gun control. I agree with him on that issue. McAuliffe supports gay marriage. I agree with him on that issue. The thing is that their negatives far outweigh their positives. Sarvis is the only one where I agree with him on all the important issues and the majority of issues in general.

Robert Sarvis, Libertarian candidate for governor of Virginia

Vote on November 5th!            

 

More evidence that the US has a terrorist government

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch recently released a publication that, in essence, shows that the US government is killing a lot more civilians in countries like Pakistan and Yemen that they freely admit.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/security-and-human-rights/drones/will-i-be-next
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5GOvAarMc
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/10/21/us-reassess-targeted-killings-yemen

The numbers speak for themselves:

• In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman.
• Amnesty International said it found strong evidence that more than 30 civilians were killed in four of the attacks in Pakistan. 
• The groups’ findings coincide with a report released Friday by a U.N. human rights investigator, who estimated that 2,200 people have been killed in drone strikes over the past decade in Pakistan. Of those casualties, at least 400 were civilians and 200 others were “probable noncombatants,” according to the U.N. official, Ben Emmerson. He said the statistics were provided by Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry.
• Amnesty International highlighted a July 6, 2012, drone attack in the village of Zowi Sidgi, near the city of Miran Shah, in which it said 18 civilians — including a 14-year-old boy — were killed. 
• In December 2009, a US cruise missile strike on a Bedouin camp in the southern village of al-Majalah killed 14 alleged AQAP fighters and 41 civilians, two-thirds of them women and children. The attack involved cluster munitions – inherently indiscriminate weapons that pose unacceptable dangers to civilians.

The ages of the victims speak for themselves:

• By the end (of 2 particular drone strikes in Pakistan), 18 people were dead, including at 14-year-old boy, and 22 others were wounded, including an 8-year-old girl.
• It recounts another strike, in October 2012, in which a 68-year-old woman, Mamana Bibi, was blown apart by a drone as she picked vegetables in front of her grandchildren, several of whom were injured in the attack. 

Shakira, a Pakistani girl that was 1 year old when a US drone strike hit her and disfigured her. Was she a terrorist? Was she a future producer of terrorists???

The refusal of responsibility, the lack of transparency, and the arrogance of our government acting like a complete God damn dick speaks for itself:

•  With rare exceptions, the US government only acknowledges its role in targeted killings in general terms, refusing to take responsibility for individual strikes or provide casualty figures, including civilian deaths. The Yemeni authorities have been almost as silent. Both governments declined comment on the six strikes that Human Rights Watch investigated.   
• The six strikes also did not meet US policy guidelines for targeted killings that Obama disclosed in May 2013, Human Rights Watch said. 
•  The U.S. government almost never publicly acknowledges its role in individual drone strikes, and its legal justifications for targeting specific people are shrouded in secrecy. 
•  But in virtually all cases, the groups said, it was impossible to know whether the targets had met Obama’s threshold of posing an imminent threat to the United States, because U.S. officials have kept that information a secret.

The aftermath of a Pakistani wedding, bombed by an American drone. If this happened at your wedding, wouldn't you be PISSED OFF?!

What is the definition of terrorism? That's right, killing unarmed civilians. That's what the US is doing, and has been doing for centuries. It's time to get people out of their comfort zones. People feel uncomfortable talking about the crimes that their country's soldiers do, or admitting that they aren't 100% perfect little angels. Fuck your uncomfortableness. People are dying by the thousands because of the American peoples' lazy inaction. The American people could easily solve 90% of the nation's problems by simply voting third party, but no, they still vote for Republicans and Democrats, while both parties are working tirelessly day and night to ruin us.

Look at the facts, look at the stats, look at history, look at peoples' stories. The US HAS A TERRORIST GOVERNMENT. Our American values compel us to get rid of this fucking government as fast as possible, any way we can. Our government is an insult to it's people. It kills innocents on purpose to rile up the friends and families of those killed, so they can justify their one-sided war to get more power and resources.  People have the right to be mad at America. People have the right to fight against America, because America has killed their innocents. If someone killed your wife/husband/son/daughter, wouldn't you think it would be justified if you fought back and killed the murderer?

Afghani children, killed by an American airstrike. Why do we sit in silence when our soldiers kill innocents, yet we constantly demand that citizens of other countries condemn their terrorists? Do not ask someone to do something that you are unwilling to do yourself.

Simply saying basic sentences about the US government will make it easier and more comfortable for you to talk about these concepts. Stating "People have the right to take up arms against America" starts the conversation. We need to have these painful conversations. Yes, it's uncomfortable to talk about these concepts, but the government has pushed this on itself.  Only then can we work towards purging the terrorists out of our government.

Oh, America isn't the only one to blame for this. Drone strikes require the approval of the country it's happening in, otherwise, they would attack our drones with their Air Force or ground to air defenses. But they don't. They let America kill their citizens. The Pakistani and Yemeni are corrupt, self-centered oligarchies that do not care about the well-being of their citizens. They oppress them, denying them the most basic of human rights. Those governments need to be overthrown just as much as America's government needs to be. Without "foreign aid," aka, bribery, from the US, (paid by us, the taxpayers), these governments would not last a month. They're simply puppet governments that allow the US to do what it wants in their country.       

Why pacifists are selfish, and why violence is not inherently a good or bad thing

     This weeks post is going to be on a touchy subject, and it's going to be kind of different, because it's not about a single event in the news. It's coming from a position that is usually described as barbaric at worst, and unrefined at best. So I'm going to be very careful in my wording, because I want my opinion to be seen as exactly the opposite as those adjectives.
      If it can be related to a single event, it would be about Malala Yousafzai being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize, her book coming out this week, etc. For the record, I believe 99% of what she has said. She is very brave and we should all support her because she is going to need all the support she can get, because she's going against a very sick and twisted organization, the Taliban. She is a good role model for young people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, girl or boy. However, just because I support her doesn't mean I'm going to look over the things that we are in disagreement with. That 1% that I didn't agree with really disturbed me, which compelled me to write about this topic.

     Pacifism, in liberal societies, is often seen as having the moral high ground, or being ideological superior to any other thought process that thinks violence is acceptable in at least one situation. I cannot disagree with that opinion more. I believe that violence in pure self-defense against aggressive combatants, and violence in defense of others against aggressive combatants, is the superior thought process. This opinion on violence does not support:

•  violence against non-combatants, (i.e. women, children, the elderly), 
• violence against combatants who did not start any fight, 
• violence where non-violence could've be used to achieve the same result,   
• violence against someone who just so happens to be in the social group as an aggressive person, (either religious, racial, political, etc). 

     Pacifists see all violence as abhorrent. I do not believe that fighting to protect civilians, or fighting against a tyrannical, murderous government, or fighting to protect yourself against a criminal who wants to murder you, is barbaric or vile in any way. On the contrary, pacifists are selfish because they refuse to put their life or health on the line to protect innocents. A person who has the same opinion on violence that I do, would gladly fight, and possibly die, if that meant saving his/her family from home invaders, for example. But a pacifist would just sit there and not fight back all, making it the easiest thing in the world for home invaders to kill everyone in the house. How is that morally superior?

   
     Let's think about the above picture. If a murderer invades a pacifist's house and proceeds to attack the pacifist, what's the first thing the pacifist, having absolutely no weapons in his house, does? That's right, he calls 911. He calls for a person, with a weapon, to come and help him. This police officer believes that a person is allowed to use violence in defense of others in the face of an aggressor. A person who believes in a "barbaric way of thinking" is the only thing standing between the pacifist and death. The pacifist is selfish. He won't put his life or health on the line to even protect himself, but he'll gladly let someone else do it.  
     The pacifist is like the dodo bird. Even in the face of aggressors killing pacifists on a mass scale, they would still just sit there, refusing to budge on their "moral high ground principles."

    Okay, enough bashing pacifists. Let's move onto the second part of the post. The media, and much of any liberal society, views violence as "100% always bad," without a doubt. It is never acceptable. Well, let's look at some of history's most evil villians:

• Hilter
• Osama Bin Laden
• Talat Pasha (responsible for the Armenian genocide)
• Reinhard Heydrich (2nd in command of SS, architect of the "Final Solution)
• Maximilien Robespierre
• Ivan the Terrible
• Vlad the Impaler

     Guess how they all died? I'll tell you, it wasn't peaceful protests that did them in. Right, it was violence. Good guys killing the bad guys. In Hitler's case, he killed himself, but only because loads of good guys, the Allies, were beating the crap out of his totalitarian state by, guess what, killing Nazis by the thousands.
      The point I'm making here is that sometimes, peaceful means will not get rid of a bad guy, or solve a problem. Sometimes, the only option left is violence. It should be used as a last resort. In some cases, it can be a good thing, because nothing short of killing Vlad the Impaler was going to stop Vlad the Impaler from killing innocent people. By killing him, the people who did so saved countless innocent lives that would've been taken away, had Vlad the Impaler continued to reign.
     Sometimes, there is nothing that will stop a bully from beating the shit out of you, except beating the shit outta him. When I was a freshman in high school, I got picked on and beat up relentlessly because I was short and small, because of my race, because I wasn't one of the cool kids, etc. I tried every method of non-violence to solve this problem.

1. Talked to the bullies themselves, told them to stop. That didn't work. 
2. Went to the school administrators. They didn't do anything; they didn't care.
3. Told my parents. They didn't care.
4. Went to the police officer at school. He didn't care.

     At this point I was out of options. Over the months, I started working out a lot. I grew half a foot. Throughout all my fights with the bullies, I learned how to fight well. I took some cheap shots, but due to my size, it was the only way I could win, so I did so. So by the end of the year, I was the one that was winning the fights, not the bullies. Sophomore year I got into a few fights but not nearly as much as freshman year. Junior and Senior year I didn't get into any fights at all. People learned not to mess with me, and that was that.
     I'm not saying to love violence. I'm not saying to go out into the street and start beating up random people for the fun of it. Violence can just as easily be used for evil means as it can be used for good means. I'm only saying to admit that violence can be used for good means. Don't label it as 100% evil, all of them time.

     Malala was asked what she would do if another Taliban goon approached her to kill her. She replied:
 "I started thinking about that, and I used to think that the Talib would come, and he would just kill me. But then I said, 'If he comes, what would you do Malala?' then I would reply to myself, 'Malala, just take a shoe and hit him.' But then I said, 'If you hit a Talib with your shoe, then there would be no difference between you and the Talib."

     Absolutely incorrect. Malala could not be more wrong on this. Killing a girl because she wants to go to school is absolutely nothing like a girl defending herself from a religious extremist. The two actions could not be farther apart on the moral scale. Malala is right on many things, but she has some growing up to do.    

Is it insane to protest against the Russian government?

A man who was protesting against the Russian government last year, and found guilty of beating a policeman during that incident, was sentenced to forced psychiatric treatment.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57606559/russian-activist-mikhail-kosenko-sentenced-to-forced-psychiatric-treatment/

There are several issues I have with this story. Let's deal with the police beating part of it, since that is the more serious of the two "crimes."
1. There's evidence that shows that Kosenko never even touched the police officer who was beaten.
"The majority of the evidence, including from the police officer himself, indicates that Kosenko never touched him," Tanya Lokshina, the rights group's Russia program director, said in the statement.

Sounds like the autocratic Russian government just wanted to punish Kosenko for his activist activities, and just made up this charge so they could stick him with something.

2. But let's say Kosenko did beat the police officer. Is it a crime to defend yourself against a government goon who is going to beat you up, simply because you are using your freedom of expression?
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Russian government is militant, repressive, and theocratic. One must only look at places such as Freedom House or Human Rights Watch to see their long list of crimes.
Every human is entitled to certain rights, regardless of whether the government of the country they're living in, says it's legal or not. Therefore, when the Russian government thugs, a.k.a, cops, came to break up that protest in May of 2012, Kosenko, along with everyone else that was with him, still had their unalienable right to freedom of expression. If that police officer attacked Kosenko, he had the right to defend himself. Therefore, even if Kosenko beat up that police officer, he was still justified. I think you guys would agree that Kosenko shouldn't have just sat there and get his ass handed to him. If you believe that Konsenko was not justified, then you believe that, due to Kosenko political beliefs, he is a legitimate target of genocide, because the police officer, in his beating of Kosenko, could easily kill him. And that, sir and madams, is fascism.

3. It is not insane to protest and/or use force to defend yourself from a violent, corrupt, autocratic, non-legitimate regime.
As I have said in many past posts, it is logical and rational to fight against an entity that is taking away your human rights. For centuries, men and women have taken up arms against oppressive governments. People have a primeval yearning to control their own affairs; it is against nature to want to control them. Do not believe the mainstream media, (MSM), which brainwashes people into thinking that using force in self-defense is barbaric and terrorism. They are doing that to soften people up so that they will not resist the government when it slowly, bit by bit, takes away our human rights.
There is reason why protest groups, who want to be committed to a policy of non-violence, have to train their members to be non-violent even in the face of police breaking up their rally. It is because non-violence is contrary to the vast majority of peoples' instincts. It is normal, mainstream, to fight to protect yourself. But the MSM is trying to tell everyone that it's exactly the opposite! They're trying to say that non-violence is the norm, and that people have to be exposed to "extremist ideology" or "radical thought" in order for them to use force in self-defense! 
Therefore, the punishment of forced psychiatric treatment for Kosenko, who did a logical and rational action, is totally illogical. It's Russia's way of saying "resistance against us is insane. The only rational thing is doing everything we say." It seems Russia has changed little from when it was the Soviet Union.   

What can we ordinary Americans do to help Kosenko and other people who are opposed to Russian fascism? Well, very little, unfortunately. That's the sad truth. America has little to no control over what Russia does, especially in internal affairs. But what we can do is this:

• Spread the word about this story. Have you seen this in any MSM newspaper or website? (Besides CBS obviously). Didn't think so. Simply sharing the CBS story on FB, Twitter, heck even Tumblr, whatever social media you use, will let people read this story who may have otherwise never came across it. 
• Follow Human Right Watch's campaign for Mikhail Kosenko, as well as news from Amnesty International. If you can afford to and agree with these group's values, consider donating to them.
• Present a counter-argument against people who say along the lines of "Only governments can use violence, if a person does it, it's terrorism." This is what I did here in this post, is present a counter-argument and defense for Kosenko. Go ahead, you can do it as well. Use my points if you want to, I don't care, it's not like I copyright any of this shit. 
• Demand that the United States government not conduct any business with Russia. Our American values tell us that we cannot do business with freedom hating governments, because the money we give them can be used to stifle dissent and destroy liberty. I, for one, do not want that on my conscious. On principle, we must isolate Russia until they change their ways, or weaken them enough that a more freedom loving group comes into power. The fact that America does so much business with Russia makes us guilty in the oppression of the Russian people. We are financing their suffering. IT'S GOT TO FUCKING STOP!!  

   

Maybe this government shutdown will wake people the hell up

I don't even need to put a link for this story. Everyone knows the U.S. government shut down, and now doesn't have any money for anything except for "essential personal," (Like all those soldiers overseas and NSA pricks are "essential," but hey, that's another story.)

By itself, this shutdown wouldn't be an incredibly big issue, because hey, people run outta money every once in a while. If this was the one thing the government fucked up at, I'd forgive 'em.

But that's not even remotely the case, isn't it? This fuck up is only the last in an incredibly long and painful list of things our government does wrong. My argument today is that this shutdown should be the breaking point for people, because it is personally affecting their wallets.

The government is killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq? What do I care? I'm not in Iraq. My life is fine. 

I'm not getting my paycheck because of a government shutdown? AW FUCK NO MAN!! We gotta do something about this!

^^^Unfortunately, this is how most people think. It's psychological, but that doesn't make it right. Whatever, I'll take contempt against the government any way I can. The point is, our government has failed us. It's failed us a long time ago. Not just the people currently in office, but the system itself is busted. It doesn't care about us, the common people, the people struggling to pay our bills, to put food on the table. It only cares about the 1%, the unimaginable rich that line the politicians' pockets full to the brim with money.

Yes, there is a bit of difference between Republicans and Democrats, but at the end of the day, both parties want to tyrannize us with minimal rights and poverty, while they get to have all the wealth and power they want. Republicans and neo-Liberals want corporations to rule America. They want us to go back to the way things were in the 1930's, with sweat shops, no federally mandated safety laws, 12 hour shifts, no paid vacation, getting fired for no reason, no workman's comp if you've been injured on the job, etc. They want constant wars with 12+ countries at one time, killing civilians, stealing resources, and setting up illegitimate puppet governments.

Democrats and neo-Conservatives want the government to rule America. They want us to be like Italy and Japan in the 1940's, with no privacy, secret police and NSA spies knowing everything you're doing 24/7, no right to bear arms to defend yourself and your loved ones, no freedom of speech, Constitution be damned, (fuck that old piece of irrelevant shit!!!).

 At the end of the day, tyranny is tyranny. It doesn't matter whether the person shoving a gun against your temple is liberal or conservative, a government thug or a corporation thug. Both parties don't give a shit about us. The fact that so many people still vote for them stands as a testament to how good those parties are at brainwashing and dolling out propaganda. The parties don't even try to hide their agenda. It's out for everyone to see. They openly say they're going to do all these harmful things to people, and then those same people turn around and vote for them.

This article clearly states what I want to happen to Congress as a result of their extreme incompetence:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ways-to-punish-congress-for-threatening-a-shutdown/2013/09/30/4778f724-29ed-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html

I'm surprised a government controlled media source openly said that people said "Off with their heads," and “Line ’em up and shoot ’em. I consider what they’re doing treason.” They might be exaggerating or half joking, but the words clearly show the extreme anger many people have with the government. People that don't normally get pissed off at the government, now are really pissed off at the government.

Okay, so what's the point of this entire rant? If you take one thing away from all this, it's this:

•   Do not vote for a Republican or Democrat for any office. 

 These parties have treated us like shit for decades. It's time to throw. them. out. Every single one of them. A massing purging of government. Now you might ask "I happen to like many of the stances the Republican Party has," for example, "So why should I vote for another party whose stances I don't agree with?"

That's a valid question. I'm not asking for anyone to vote for a party that they don't believe in. I would ask that you research all of the third parties out there in America. There are a lot more of them then you might think. Research them, find out their opinions on important issues. I think you'll be thoroughly surprised that you'll find a couple that have the same opinions that you do. You just haven't heard of them yet because the main stream media puts a tight clamp over them when they're trying to get their message out. Here is a tentative list of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_%28United_States%29   

      

Why do people care so much about having the latest version of everything?!

The I-phone 5s recently went out on sale, and Apple reported they sold 9 million of them in 3 days.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/23/iphone-5s-5c-apple-record-nine-million

Today is going to be a rant against people's wasteful and self-hurting spending habits that hold them back from moving up in the economic ladder. I'm using the I-phone as an example, but it can be used in a variety of situations where people habitually, routinely spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on luxuries a year, which adds up over time.

Let's see what I'm talking about. The I-phone 5s is currently selling for anywhere between $400 and $800, https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=shop&q=iphone+5&oq=i&gs_l=products-cc.1.2.0l10.1574.1574.0.4757.1.1.0.0.0.0.63.63.1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.QerQhbyll6k#hl=en&q=iphone+5s&safe=off&tbm=shop

Apple comes out with a new I-phone or improved platform for an I-phone every 6 months to a year. But there are many people, many poor people, who are obsessed with having the latest version of the I-phone as soon as they can possibly get it. They HAVE to have it ASAP, otherwise they aren't "hip" and their whole world is shattered. So every year, they blow $800-$1200 on a new phone. Every year. That is a huge chunk of their earnings, a huge chunk that could be used for much better purposes.

First of all, they can flat out just save that money. Put it in a bank. Save it for an emergency. Currently, 67% of Americans have little to no savings. They live paycheck to paycheck, http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2013/09/18/majority-of-americans-still-living.html
That is partly due to the crappy economy, but it is also augmented by peoples' incredibly poor spending habits. It wouldn't be a problem if someone splurged and got a new phone as soon as they could get it just once. But I know many people, whose finances are not so good, who do this every time a new I-phone or upgrade comes out. Just over 3 years that could be $2400-$3600 they spend. And that's not even counting the early contract termination fee, or data plan per month, etc. Do you really need a new phone every 6 months? Can you not wait for your two year contract to expire? Is there really that much of a difference between the I-phone 4 and I-phone 4S to warrant such an outrageous expense??

You could use that money to pay for a college class at community college. You can make a much needed car repair. There's a whole list of things your money could be better spent on.

Now, this wouldn't be a huge financial burden on people, if this was the only thing they put a lot of money down on. Like, if they were financially smart in all other areas of their life, to make up for this big splurge. That's not a problem. What's a problem is when this is coupled with several other constant luxury spending binges. Again, I know many people who do this. They're mostly young people, anywhere from 17-upper 20's. In addition to spending that much money on a new phone every 6 months, they spend dozens of dollars on alcohol, every week, and dozens of dollars on cigarettes, every week, dozens of dollars on gas for their car on trips that are not necessary, etc, etc, the list goes on and on. At the end of the month, they've spent all the money that they've earned, so they save nothing, and they stay being poor.
Several months and/or years of smart spending and saving can yield thousands of dollars in your bank, that can help you make purchases to move you up on the economic ladder. You know can qualify for a loan to get a new car, because you have enough money to make the down payment. You can afford to move to a nicer apartment, you can pay medical bills, buy school supplies, etc.
That's all I'm advocating. I'm not advocating not buying any luxuries, I'm advocating spending your money wisely. Indulge a bit, but not to the extreme where you're blowing hundreds of dollars every month on luxuries. I like to party hard as much as the next guy, probably even more. The more craziness there is, the better. But I'm also not an idiot. (Aren't those two sentences an oxymoron lmao?!) I know I can only afford to do this once a month. So that's how often I do it. I don't do it every weekend like some of my idiotic friends do, because then I would be even more poorer than I already am. You'd be amazed on how much you can save by limiting a few luxurious expenses.      

The one thing that will lessen the number and severity of mass shooting sprees

By now, the top story in every national media across the country is about the mass shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C., in which Aaron Alexis killed 12 people before being killed in a shootout with police.Of course, the usual solutions are thrown around by all sorts of politicians and media pundits: more access to mental health services, better security, better background checks, stricter gun control, stricter access to violent video games and movies, etc, etc. These may change the number and severity of mass shooting sprees by 2, maybe 3%, (gun control is the only one out of the group that won't do anything). So we're not going to talk about those concepts, because their effect would be minimal. We're going to talk about the elephant in the room that people just don't want to talk about, because their liberal brainwashing demands that they look at this concept as a violent, right-wing nut job concept that is evil and would never work, statistics, examples, and logic be damned. The one rule that would lessen the number and severity of mass shooting sprees more than all the other ideas combined would be:

If all adult Americans, who can legally get their carry conceal permit, be allowed to carry conceal anywhere in the U.S., excluding obvious places like places of worship and the White House.

(Liberal butthurt haters coming in 3..2..1..)

There is a reason why most of these mass shooting sprees happen in "gun free zones." The shooters are not stupid. They know that at those locations, the vast majority of people will be helpless to stop them. The only people who can fight back are people that stand out: policemen, guards, etc. The shooter knows exactly what and where his threat is. This allows him to kill faster.

On the flip-side, let's say everyone at the Navy Yard was allowed to carry conceal. Alexis wouldn't know who is a threat and who isn't. At any moment when he is firing, someone could whip out their pistol and shoot him before he would know that he/she is there. Consider this statistic:  

There are less deaths in shooting rampages stopped by civilians because 1. They are closer, 2. The shooter cannot identify who is a threat and who isn't.  

When you do not allow someone to carry and conceal, you are taking away their right to life by taking away their right to defend themselves. You are making them near helpless and a target for any crazy person to just walk in and start shooting fish in a barrel. I work at a theater. They do not allow anyone to carry a gun in the building. If a shooter walked into the theater and started shooting up the place, I would have to take him out with my pocket knife, which would be very hard to do. Why? Because I would have to get up into him before he saw me and shoot me. Even though I am very fast, that's still next to impossible to do in a wide area such as a theater. Having a pistol on me would make it a lot easier, and, in turn, make it easier and faster for me to save lives. Even though I do not agree with the rule the theater has in place, I am a law-abiding citizen, (like the vast majority of carry conceal permit holders), and therefore, I follow it anyway. 

The notion that carry conceal makes people more aggressive, more prone to killing, or that they're just itching for a fight, is simply untrue. When I carry conceal, I don't bother anyone. I don't want to fight anyone. If a shooting occurs, you better believe that I'll fight to protect myself and other people, but if there isn't one, then I continue throughout my day as normal. How is the want to protect other innocent people viewed as itching for a fight? Are security guards itching for a fight when they carry their weapons on them? Why is it that as soon as it is a civilian carrying a weapon, suddenly our views on their intents change 180 degrees?

The notion that letting people carry conceal in a mall, for example, would make it easier for psychos to commit a mass shooting spree there is also simply untrue. If a psycho wants to bring a weapon in, he's going to, whether the law says he can or not. The law is the last thing on his mind. The only thing that permitting carry conceal will change is whether someone like me will bring one in or not, because I, unlike the criminal, follow the laws. 

In conclusion, if people were allowed to carry conceal in 99% of places around the country, that would be a real deterrent to psychos who want to commit a mass shooting spree, because it will deny them the thing that they want: to kill a bunch of people in a blaze of "glory" and be all over the newspapers. But instead, he'll think "Wow, the last 3 attempted shooting sprees have been stopped at 3, 1, and 2 victims. That might happen to me too. I guess I won't do that if there's a high chance I won't get what I want!" This will stop some of the criminals, others will still attempt no matter how many shooting sprees have been stopped quickly. But that is the reason for carry conceal; the statistic above speaks for itself: for the shooting sprees that still will happen, carry conceal drastically lowers the number of deaths.     

  

Why the hell are we still in Afghanistan? Let's get the fuck out!

     With Syria and Egypt dominating the headlines in recent weeks, it's easy to forget that we're still fighting the war in Afghanistan. I mean, it's only the longest war in U.S. history. It's been going on for so long that people just take it for granted that it will always be there. It's been going on for the majority of my lifetime. I remember when it started, when I was in 6th grade. It seems like an eternity ago. And yet we're still there, wasting American lives and money, for what?!

Afghan kids killed by a NATO airstrike

      Osama Bin Laden has been dead for over two years. Al-Qaeda has mostly moved on from Afghanistan and into Pakistan, Yemen, and Northern Africa. It makes no sense that we still have tens of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries in Afghanistan, and thousands of civilian workers risking their lives for the rich American oligarchy that has America in it's greedy vice. In fact, this whole war has NEVER made any sense. It's not like it was a good idea at the beginning and then turned bad, no, it was rotten from the very core, the very beginning. I will make this argument by listing the reasons the U.S. government gave for invading Afghanistan back in 2001, and go into each reason individually and say why each one of them is complete bullshit.

1. To go after Al-Qaeda: You don't send hundreds of thousands of soldiers halfway across the world to go after a couple of dozen of people. Wait, what's that you asked? Al-Qaeda was only several dozen people at the time of 9/11? Yep, that's right: http://blogs.reuters.com/afghanistan/2010/09/16/how-many-al-qaeda-can-you-live-with/  Al-Qaeda was only 200 members at the time of 9/11. That's 200 worldwide, total. Who knows how many of those 200 were in Afghanistan, but even it was the majority, like 101, you don't send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight 101 people. Anyone who knows anything the military, policing tactics, counter-insurgency, would know that is a HORRIBLE idea. You would be much more effective if you did small scale counter-insurgency operations with a small force of elite units like a SEAL team or the Army Rangers. They would do home invasions, disrupting operations, infiltration, drone strikes, etc. If you send a whole bunch of troops over, they end up dealing and wasting time with other people that are not Al-Qaeda. Which is exactly what happened. The insurgency against the US is not an Al-Qaeda insurgency, it's a Taliban one. We ended up fighting the Taliban, who had nothing to do with 9/11, and who offered to give us Bin Laden, but we rejected that offer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm Why did we reject that offer? Because we wanted to go to war!!!!
2. To deny Al-Qaeda the space needed to plan another attack against us: That's an impossible task to deny any group, because you only need one house to have the resources and space needed to pull off an attack like 9/11. Remember, 9/11 was committed by only 19 people. To deny people that such a small amount of space, you would need to have a soldier in every house in the world, and we have an Constitutional amendment against that, motherfuckers. 
3. The Taliban, by allowing Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to be in Afghanistan, were guilty of the crimes of 9/11 just as much: No, just because you know someone, or have someone over to your house, does not mean you are guilty of all the crimes they may have done. That's like if a radical French group attacked the US, so then we respond by invading and occupying France. It wasn't the French people's fault, they aren't responsible for the crimes of a few. It wasn't the French government's fault, they didn't do anything. So it makes absolutely no sense to invade and occupy Afghanistan for the crimes of a couple of dozen people. 

     So if it wasn't for any of those reasons, then why did we invade Afghanistan?

• To establish a base of operations that is strategically located in Central Asia, i.e. to better run operations in Iran, Pakistan, etc. That's right, we invaded an innocent country to better our military and political standing in the world. This is something that we should leave back in the 18th and 19th centuries. That's something straight out of a video game or a board game, not real life. To be civilized people, we don't invade other countries just to strengthen ourselves. The government and its media lackeys made up this whole narration listed above to make our invasion sound legitimate, when in fact it was only launched to benefit the military-industrial complex.
• To get the vast amount of mineral resources that are in Afghanistan, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0  Again, we only did it to better ourselves, our own fat pockets. The government didn't care about protecting us or saving Afghan women. No, they did it for wealth.

        So there you have it. The entire Afghan war narrative that we have been fed, some from childhood, has been ONE ENTIRE STINKING FUCKING BULLSHIT LIE. Every person in the Bush Administration who was for the Afghan war should be hanged for launching a terrorist war against a people who were minding their own fucking business. So, 12 years later, what can the average American citizen do to try and bring this phony war to an end?

1. Write to the president and your elected officials, saying, in more politer terms of course: "BRING THE FUCKING TROOPS HOME."
2. Look at the voting record of any elected official running for office that you can vote for. If he/she voted to go to war or voted at any time to keep being in the war, do not vote for that candidate. That will send a message to the government that the American people are sick and tired of going to war to benefit the 1% and the military industrial complex. 
3. Explore the platform of the Libertarian party. Both Republicans and Democrats are addicted to starting long wars that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people who didn't do a single damn thing, just to line their pockets with more money and power. But Libertarians offer an alternative to the "two party" system that is ruining our country, primarily because it is no longer a two party system, but rather an elitist oligarchy. Their official website is:  http://www.lp.org/  
4. Speak out against the war, just like I'm doing now. It can be over social media, it can be a protest in front of the White House, it can be a petition, etc. Get the word out, start people talking about this, because silence is compliance. If we're silent, that gives our jackass government the red light to continue this illegal, immoral, terrorist war.