Friday, November 16, 2007

  If you intend to vote next year, then let me offer a suggestion in deciding for whom you will vote.  There's one thing you can look at that is, in my opinion, an excellent standard.  A disqualifier, if you will.

  You don't necessarily have to watch a debate, though it would probably help greatly, but listen carefully to the questions they are asked and how they respond.  Write things down if it helps, but pay special attention to the "yes or no" questions.

  These are questions that can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", with or without additional clarification or qualification.  Pay close attention to who just will not give a "yes" or a "no" to a particular question.

  If the candidate refuses to give a straight answer to a simple question, then they are trying to deceive you.  They're more interested in power than the best interest of America.  It wouldn't be entirely accurate to say they cannot justify their position, because they're not actually giving you their position.  They want you to remain ignorant of their true intent, because they know you would oppose it.

  It's something I tend to pick up on, due to my years of discussions with people.  You ask a simple question, and they dodge it.  They talk on and on without ever actually answering the question.  A person true to themselves, their beliefs, and to others, will give you a straight answer, whether you like the answer or not.

  If any candidate does not give a "yes" or "no" answer to a "yes or no" question, I recommend moving them to the bottom of the proverbial list, if not striking them off of it completely.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

  I watched a documentary called I Am an Animal: The Story of Ingrid Newkirk and PETA.  I'm not really sure where to begin.

  Well, I guess I'll start with something that stood out to me like a sore thumb.  Nowhere in the entire documentary did they provide any logic or justification supporting her/their beliefs.  They offered no reasoning or explanation of "animal rights".  They provided absolutely nothing that was not emotion driven and purely subjective.

  Let me offer some advice to any person wanting to take up the torch of "animal rights" and wants to be taken seriously by people who don't already agree with you.

  Define "animal rights" and provide some kind of evidence (preferably proof) that it even exists.

  Here's just a couple of observations.  She says she an atheist.  She said flat out that she does not believe their is a god.  On two ocassions, she used the phrase "move heaven and earth", and on one ocassion, during a speech, she said, "that's the god's honest truth."

  Devil's advocate: she's just saying them because they're common phrases.  They're just expressions.

  Well, people who genuinely and deeply believe something will not casually say things so obviously to the contrary of that belief.  They either make a point not to, or they just naturally don't do it.

  Side note: What's the god's honest truth from an atheist worth?

  She was talking about euthenaisia.  She was once totally opposed to it, but then she later "saw" that sometimes it's the right thing to do, or compassionate, or whatever way she worded it.  She studied on how to "do it right", humanely, or however you'd like to phrase it.  She prefers to not let the animal know they it's about to be killed.

  That just sounds right compassionate, don't it?

  Let me de-bullcrap this for you.  You're taking it upon yourself to decide whether this animal deserves to live or die, deciding it deserves to die, and then are being sneaky about carrying out its execution.

  You don't want the animal to see it coming?  Why?  Because maybe it does not actually want to die.  You're going to kill an animal that would rather live in what you're assuming is misery, and you're going to tell me you support animal rights?

  Well, if you are an animal (which I don't dispute), and I just happen to believe you're suffering, then it'd be okay for me to kill you?  Don't worry, I'll be sure to not let you see it coming.  Don't want you fighting for you life or anything.  That might make me feel bad.  I might even cry a little.

  Let's move on to equating the mass slaughter of animals to the holocaust.  What do the two have in common?  The taking of life in great numbers?  Sure.  What else?  Hmmm.  ...  Um.  ...  There are some slaughter houses in Germany?

  How about the differences?  The holocaust was humans killing humans.  It was to wipe out a race of humans, which some nutty people call genocide.

  Slaughter houses kill particular non-human species for the purposes of food.  And in case you weren't sure, because you have somehow never seen nature, or something, many animals are food.

  By the way, it's PETA who want to cleanse the world of domestic species of cats and dogs through spaying and neutering.  That's called genocide.

  For anyone who may suspect otherwise, I do not condone the cruelty of animals, but then I may have a different definition of cruel.  Actually, I generally don't bother with the word, cruel, because it's circumstantial.  I focus more on what is and is not necessary, what is and is not practical, and generally not being an asshole to other living things.

  I do not think it's cruel to hold a chicken upside down by the legs to move it from point A to point B.

  I do think it's cruel to whip a beast of burden to the point of bleeding because it won't move.  The problem with PETA is that they can't see beyond the act.  Address what is behind the cruelty.  If some guy is beating a creature for not moving, and it's continuing to not move, then the guy is probably angry and a moron.

  Let's look at Merriam-Webster's definitions of cruel.

  1: disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings <a cruel tyrant>

  2 a: causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke> b: unrelieved by leniency <cruel punishment>

  Don't many life-saving surgeries cause injury and pain?  Well, actually, since it's surgery, it automatically causes injury.  Usually, the pain comes after.  And you want to tell me there's never ever any grief in any cases?

  "Cruel" is a wiggly, floppy word with no real substance.  It's commonly used by wiggly, floppy people with no real substance.  Take your "cruel" and ease it gently up your well-lubricated ass.

  Peta also wants to put an end to people having pets.

  I don't have pet's because I don't want to be responsible for the life and well-being of another living thing.  They cost more money than they're worth to me.  And a part of me does say, generally, leave the animals alone unless you're going to eat them.

  However, if a dog wants to live with you, eat food that you're willing to give it, and lick your face because you made it happy, then so be it.

  What I don't like is to see dogs chained to things, especially if the chain is only about four feet long.  That just pisses me off.

  But then there are a number of things that piss me off, like people trying to force their beliefs on others through lies, destruction of private property, and general "terrorism".  Especially when they're massive hypocrites.

  Yes, Ingrid Newkirk, you are an animal.  You are an animal of the human species, omnivourous by nature.  So, why don't you have a little respect for the animal you are, and include some meat in your diet?

  Many of the things you find horrible, I also find horrible, and yet I find you an appalling individual.

Friday, November 30, 2007

  It's rare that I would be truly enspired by a Liberal, much less a Liberal presidential candidate, but one has defied all odds and, well, I'm just so inspired that I don't think I can wait until next September.

  I know it's really early, but in the words of Barrak Obama, Happy 9-11.  I wonder if he'll send out cards.