Political Poll

Today I am conducting a poll. I am curious as to what political demographic is viewing this blog. Scroll down to the very bottom where the poll is posted. It's completely anonymous so don't gripe about how it's too personal of a question.

It will be open for the next six days, so I'm very interested to see what the results show.

Thanks!

What is Communism?

Keeping with tradition, tonight I'm going to share with you another "educational" (please note those quotes are very sarcastic) video that explains communism.

According to Mr. Philbrick, the communists are
Lying
Dirty
Shrewd
Godless
Murderous
Determined
International
     Criminal Conspiracy

...Sounds to me like Reality TV.

Religious People Outsmarted by Atheists?

The "Religion Issue" just gets more and more colorful. Tonight's post is a follow up to my previous two articles on religion, Religion, and Religion -- Good or Bad?. As it turns out, a recent study showed that atheists and agnostics knew more than devout followers about their respective religions. Does anyone else find this kind of amusing?

"Los Angeles, Sep 28(ANI): A new survey, which measured Americans' knowledge of religion, has found that atheists and agnostics knew more than followers of most major faiths."

This just seems really funny to me. It continues

"It said that atheists and agnostics - those who believe there is no God or who are not sure - were more likely to answer the survey's questions correctly."

You can read the full article here: Atheists, agnostics know more about religion than believers, finds US survey

Government's Quest for More Power

This post is quite similar to the yesterday's post, in that it discusses government meddling with things it should keep it's nose out of. In Santa Clara county in CA, there is proposed regulation that would, in effect, ban the inclusion of toys in happy meals. Of course, I find this insane... What's the point of a happy meal if it doesn't have a toy? The free toy is the whole reason for buying a happy meal. Again, this just goes back to more government regulation.

That's all I'm going to write for this post because I want to hear your ideas -- there are some very good arguments for both sides so please leave your comments/thoughts on this matter.
AAP36PUH9MK4

This is just crazy...

I was reading the most recent issue of Time magazine and I stumbled upon this article. Read it -- It will blow your mind. When you think of federal agents with guns in hand raiding a house, what comes to mind? A drug bust? A squat team after a dangerous criminal? It turns out that in this case it's neither. Federal agents raided a house because they were looking for, (drum roll please) RAW MILK. The CDC and FDA are trying to get a complete ban on the sale and distribution of raw (unpasteurized) milk. Why? Apparently it poses some health risks. According to that article, 1,600 people got sick from drinking raw milk -- over a ten year period. And of those people, only TWO have died. Now let's compare this to cigarettes. According to the CDC, about 443,000 people die of cigarette-caused illnesses per year. In ten years, that ~4.5 million people who die from cigarettes. It's also worth noting that it's the CDC who is leading the crusade against raw milk. Isn't there something wrong with this picture? This is obviously government just trying to gain more power. What's next? Banning sodas because they're too sugary? I actually wouldn't be surprised -- several organizations and even the mayor of San Francisco have proposed a "soda tax" in order to deter people from drinking it. Animal rights activists have already gotten California to pass legislation to ban the production and sale of foie gras. It takes effect in 2012. This is all very alarming -- the government is slowly but steadily beginning to control more and more aspects of our lives. Right now it's food, but who knows what aspect of our lives they might try to regulate next... And of course it's always for "public health and safety." Those buzz words will get the public to accept just about any regulation. Yesterday I wrote about 1984. Here's a prime example of how that world is slowly starting to infiltrate this one.

The (First) Saturday Review

As I've stated, every Friday I'm going to right a tour-de-force essay, mostly on political issues or any suggestions that are made on the suggestion page (that's right, there's a suggestion page, but it's kind of hard to find). As a result, I've decided that it would be a good idea to do something a little more low-key on Saturday. From now on, every Saturday I will review something (book, movie, etc). Probably mostly political or related issues, but I'm not going to limit it just yet.
With that said, here is the first review.

1984 by George Orwell
Okay, I know I'm probably preaching to the choir, but if you haven't read this book before you definitely need to. It is the story of a man living in a totalitarian society where children accuse their own parents of being spies. It is a story of oppression, rebellion, and suppression. This is one of those books that earns the title of "timeless." No matter who you are, what country you live in, or what language you speak, this book applies to you. My favorite quote is "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." The haunting part about this quote is that it's so completely true. I have read this book at least 5 times now, it may be more, I'm actually not quite sure. But whatever the number is, I love 1984 more than any other novel I've ever read. If you've read it, I'm sure you agree with me, if you haven't, I urge you to go to Amazon and order it. This book gets my full endorsement and approval.

Religion -- Good or Bad?

As promised, today I am going to go further in depth about my views about religion. You may wonder, "Why is this relevant? Why do I care about this topic?" To be honest, I don't know the answer. If you're not religious, you probably don't really care about it. Personally, I have a general disdain for religion -- I've been an atheist all my life, so I simply can't understand its logic. That being said, I do have respect for it; it gives people hope and it gives them something to believe in. I also agree that people have a right to believe in whatever they want to, and that no one should ridicule them for their ideas. My problem with religion is this: it is often used as an excuse to commit acts against humanity. So many horrors are brought about in the name of this god or that, and therein lies the root of my grudge against religion. That grudge also extends to the groups who believe that they need to impose their views on others. Several days ago, I watched the movie Jesus Camp and it really just solidified my opinions. There are hate mongers in all religions. What I mean when I say that is this: all too often in the news, you hear about the extremist Muslims and terrorists etc. But what the news very rarely tells you about is the radical Christian groups in the South who believe that the new generation, my generation, will be the one that will witness the second coming of Christ.

Isn't this alarming to anyone else? In effect they're saying is that within 80 years, Armageddon will come and everyone will be judged for his sins. If you don't believe in the Christian god, you are going to burn in hell for eternity. Doesn't this raise any red flags?! In an age when it seems like everything is crumbling -- the banks are collapsing, jobs are running overseas -- is it the best idea to be running around preaching that the world is going to end on a final day of fiery judgment? That's just another way to cause more hysteria and chaos. If you read my earlier "blurb" about religion, you know I think that, if things continue on their current path, the end of the world will not be caused by some divine being coming back down to earth; it will come as a result of a final war of the religions, probably a Jihad. Who will strike first? I don't know, but in the end it's going to be ugly. The fundamental problem with religion is that it often calls on its supporters to disrespect -- or in some cases even hate -- the members of all the other religions (at least in many of the extremist radical groups). It is in some ways one of the most egotistical practices one could partake in -- you're right, your religion's right, and all others are misguided heathens. This condescending attitude has caused so many wars and conflicts -- from the crusades (though that was also a political move by the Catholic church) to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. How can a decent, modern, forward-thinking society allow itself to be instilled with hate in the name of religion? And here I'm not talking about 9/11 -- I'm talking about the religious hate groups that reside all over this country and that cloak themselves in "free speech," all while they endorse hatred against gays, minorities, Muslims, etcetera  (basically everyone who isn't them). This is WRONG! Something needs to be done about these groups, but no politicians will go near the issue because they're afraid of either losing the support of middle America, or coming off bigoted themselves. This brings me to my final point.

Religion has no place in politics. Period. Point finale. End of story. No legislation that is influence by religion should be passed and no politician should openly support any church. It is wrong; the founding fathers knew that as soon as government and religion got intertwined, things would fall to pieces. The separation of church and state is meant to protect the churches from government control and meddling, but it is also meant to prevent the church from going in and creating a theocracy. We cannot have laws and regulations being passed that are directly linked to religion. Now you may be thinking, "Oh Sam, government isn't that affected by religion. There are very few laws or proposed laws that are influenced by religion." To that I will simply provide a list: don't ask don't tell, ban on gay marriage, abortion policy, "blue laws" in the south, creationism in schools... the list goes on and on. Here's my radical, crazy idea: let's remove religion from our governmental system. That is the only way to maintain the integrity this country was founded on. The separation of church and state is one of the most important principles in our society. It's as important as free speech and the right to say that 2 + 2 = 4. It's so important that almost all other industrialized countries have copied us and implemented the separation of church and state. It's crucial that we now stick by this standard and fight against religion as it slowly starts to wrap its tentacles around our government. Not violently, not angrily, but instead through discussion and reasoning. That's the only way. It is so important that we stick to these principles set forth by our founders 200 years ago. And to give you an idea of how serious this is: as of today, Texas is considering a ban on "pro-Islam, anti-Christian" textbooks. Who decides what is "pro-Islam?" The governmental body of course. It is blatant censorship in the name of religion! It must end. I can not stress enough how important it is that we maintain the separation of church and state.

And with that, I shall leave you with a quote from Boston Legal: "If you are religious, for God's sake, keep it to yourselves." That's exactly my point -- I actually wouldn't care about religion at all if it just kept to itself, if it agreed to not worm its way into government, and if it refrained from hate mongering and the promotion of the idea that the world is going to end before we reach the year 2100. Those three things are all I ask. Are they really so unreasonable?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell (Or the Repeal Thereof)

This is another one of those topics that inspire extreme emotion in people. Either you are adamantly for or against don't ask, don't tell (and then there are the few, the proud, the... those of you who are apathetic and really don't care). But for the most part I'd say everyone has one view or another in regards to this topic. As for me, I am against don't ask, don't tell, and for the bill to repeal it. I though this would be an appropriate topic for today because it is very current. Yesterday the Senate shot down a bill before them that would, in effect, repeal don't ask, don't tell. It is this bill that I am going to focus on today.

The apparent reason for kicking the bill back to the House is that there were not enough "pork barrels," or extra baggage on the bill that really has nothing to do with the subject on hand (The bridge to nowhere in Alaska was a pork barrel). This is the problem with government today -- it is way too partisan, and there are way too many "bridges to nowhere." Now congress has a chance to change the bill around to get past the Senate, but the question must be asked: will the bill ever be passed? The Republicans are so dead-set in their views on this issue that it's hard to believe that anything will ever get done in congress. Until the two parties start working together, this country is going be in trouble. What are your thoughts?

P.S. Come back tomorrow for my full post/article on religion.

That Pesky Bomb!

Since the last two days have consisted of fairly serious posts, I though I'd lighten things up a bit by sharing this video. It's a "civil defense" (propaganda) film made in 1951, and is meant to... "inform" (insert dr. evil sarcastic quotation gestures here) children about the dangers of "the atomic bomb." Enjoy. :)

By the way, most of the stuff said in this video is completely untrue and would not help you in any way during a nuclear attack. (In other words, hiding under a blanket is not going to save you)

Also, on a side note, you'll notice in the beginning of the video that even in the 1950's they had suicide bombers.

GOP Woes

The Republican party is going through a civil war of sorts. (minus the blood and violence) Unfortunately, this is causing a huge problem for the political system as a whole. For nearly 200 years this country has been dominated by the two major parties -- the Republicans and the Democrats. I won't lie, I actually disapprove of the two party system; I think it quashes many alternative ideals and perspectives. But despite that downside, the system does work most of the time. But recently the Democratic party has gained too much favor in this country. As of 2004, there were 72 million registered Democrats, making the Dems the largest political party in the world. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but in today's political climate it is. Here is why:

The GOP has divided into two factions: the "old timers" and the tea party (though one could argue that the tea party consists of old timers wanting to go back to the constitution and everyone else is a radical, but it all depends on the side from which you look at it). The two sides within the party actually have very different views; the tea party wants small government, the mainstream GOP is pro-army and very "imperialistic." And that's just one area where the two factions differ. You may be starting to think I'm going off topic, but I'm not. Here is how this affects the democrats and our system as a whole. The Republicans are split, meaning they're vulnerable, while the democrats are gaining more and more favor. It just goes back to the old saying, "divide and conquer," except the dividing is happening entirely within the party without any outside prompting (i.e. the democrats aren't influencing the situation). What does all of this mean? It means that until the Republicans can figure their conflicts out (or possibly divide to create a three-party system) the democrats are going to be able to dominate the political scene. Yes, they are going to lose many seats in November; yes, Obama's losing favor,  but the battle between the tea-party supporters and the mainstream republicans is going to be long and ugly, so the democrats will end up with a lot of power and influence in the coming years. Is this a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. I suppose it all depends on your party affiliations. What are your thoughts?

Religion

Wow... This is a big one. Well I'm going to go into greater depth on Friday, but for today, I thought I'd just share some statistics (for shock and awe).
45% of Americans believe in creationism and discount evolution entirely.
75% of all home schooled kids are evangelical Christians
82% of Americans claim to be "Christian"
40% of Americans believe the world will end in a battle between Jesus and the Antichrist
And half of those people believe it will happen in their lifetime.
My opinion? I think the world will end, not because of some mythical battle of good and evil, but in a Jihad, a holy war between the faiths and religions of the world. Come back on Friday for a more in-depth look at religion

Sources
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-56877162.html (actually it was originally an article in Newsweek)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_US#Main_religious_preferences_of_Americans

Format Change

Due to the fact that writing an essay-sized post everyday is getting to be extremely difficult, I am going to change the format of this blog. From now on every night there will be a post much like last night's nuclear energy post. It will be smaller, provide some preliminary facts and open the conversation up. Every Friday I will write a long, essay-type post, similar to the affirmative action and marijuana posts. This will give me a chance to do better research and provide a much more well-written article than I could if I posted everyday. This is also so that everyone doesn't have to read a page and a half of text everyday. Now for a little entertainment. America, this is what your country has been reduced to.

Nuclear Energy

The post will be fairly short today as I am without access to a computer. This is written entirely on an iPhone. My opinions are fairly indifferent when it comes to this topic, so I will try to provide a brief synopsis of both arguments, for and against.

Nuclear energy is important because it represents one of the important methods to fight global warming -- and that is alternative fuel. Coal and oil are polluting the atmosphere so much that we really have no other options. Wind and solar helps, but it simply isn't enough. So many strides in technology have been made; in many ways nuclear power is safer than many, say, coal or oil. It is extremely efficient and represents a very important form of energy for the future.

All of that being said, it also has a high risk of failure by things that can't be controlled. And when talking about nuclear energy, failure means the release of extremely dangerous substances into the environment. There is also a risk of terrorist attacks and human error. That is why there's so much danger with these installations.

So what's the answer? To be honest, I really don't know. A lot of things need to be seriously considered. What are you're thoughts?

The Blog War

Today there will be no post related to this blog because there is a temporary "cease fire" in the "blog war." Instead I shall just add on to the previous post by showing this video.

Family Guy -- Bag of Weed

Pot for Thought

        With this post I am not so much providing food for thought as I am promoting pot for thought (or recreational use)      
        This is one topic which (for the most part) I think people have become much more open to recently. In fact, in California, there is a proposition on the ballot this November for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. I am a firm believer in the legalization of marijuana, and I hope to convey some of my ideas. The debate on this topic is certainly not very new, and the arguments are really not original anymore. But I will repeat them just the same in order to get the conversation started.
        First a little bit of background info. The earliest evidence of the smoking/inhalation of marijuana has been dated to the bronze age (or some 5000 years ago). Hemp used for rope and various other applications has been dated back 10,000 years. It has been illegal for only 1% of the time that it has been used by man. In fact, between 1763 and 1767 you could be jailed in Virginia for not growing hemp. It was a huge cash crop for the early colonies, and it was legal throughout American history until the early to mid 1900s. At this point William Randolph Hearst ran a smear campaign against marijuana in order to get it declared illegal by congress. What were his motivations you may ask. The answer is not what you may think; it wasn't for public health or safety, in fact the best interests of the public weren't even in question. No; his motivation was simply this: profit. Hearst had tons of money invested in timber, the material used to make all of his newspapers and publications. At the time hemp was poised to replace timber as the main material for printing. Hearst stood to lose a fortune, and as a result he fought for a bill to be passed making marijuana illegal. This brings us to modern day.
        There are hundreds of conflicting studies, some government sanctioned, others not, begging the question: Who is right? Well if you subscribe to my point of view, for the most part marijuana is harmless and should not be illegal. Many opponents argue that marijuana is addictive. This is simply untrue. Marijuana has no chance of physical addiction. Sure, it may be habit forming, but this is true with almost everything. It is so much cleaner than tobacco and cigarettes, and it carries almost no risk of long term harm if used with a vaporizer. The only real danger that has been conclusively proven to be linked to marijuana is smoke inhalation. This can be avoided in a variety of ways. Alcohol is more toxic than marijuana. In fact, as we have seen in recent years, marijuana is very effective for medicinal purposes. And there's even more benefits in the legalization of pot; millions of dollars in taxes could be collected from the sale and growth of marijuana. This money could be used to balance the crumbling state budget, and it would be a major boost for the economy. Not to mention, the legalization would allow actual corporations to grow and distribute marijuana, leading to a decrease in gang violence and the destruction of much organized crime; the marijuana drug cartels would practically go out of business. There would be no need for black market pot when it could be sold legally at the store. This would solve so many problems in today's society. And finally there's quality control; government could set standards preventing toxic chemicals from being added, as well as preventing the insertion of addictive substances. Why haven't we legalized it yet? It's an interesting question, and hopefully in November it won't need to be asked any longer. And finally, on a related note, please vote YES on California proposition 19.

Sources
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana

Unions

        Right, so this is a fairly heated topic. I am going to try to make sure that no one gets too offended. I won't lie, my general view is that unions are bad for America. They served their purpose long ago, and now they simply are not needed. Here is why.
        Unions were created at a time when workers were constantly being abused, people had almost no power, and the minimum wage was nothing more than a pipe dream. It was a time of absolute, unadulterated, runaway capitalism. Hours were long and conditions were terrible. Companies abused the poor, and the poor had absolutely no power whatsoever. And because they were so poor, they depended on these jobs. Many were indebted to these companies, and as a result they were forced to deal with all sorts of abuse. Then workers got the idea to join together and stand up to the companies -- and it worked well. Instead of it being an entire company against the individual, it was the company against an entire organization of workers who, together, had much more power than all the executives combined. By use of several tactics, chiefly strikes, these early unions were able to persuade the companies to treat workers better and improve working conditions. This created a balance of power which helped to make America the industrial power house that it once was. But over time, as happens, these unions became corrupt. A whole hierarchy was created, and the power-elite grabbed control of them. This brings me to the modern day.
        Now labor unions are acting much like the early industrial companies were acting. They are using coercion to keep people from leaving, and they are making it very difficult to survive outside of them. Unions are to blame for a variety of problems in today's society. One of the big ones is outsourcing -- jobs are going overseas because labor unions are demanding too much. The companies simply can't justify keeping those jobs here when there is such a large and willing work force elsewhere. And the problem is even more prevalent with small businesses. Small businesses can't handle unions because they have limited budgets and can't afford to pay all the demands made by the unions. That is the fundamental issue -- either unions demand so much that a company has to close its doors, or the profit motive takes over and jobs are shipped elsewhere. And the final issue is this: unions have too much power in government. Obama is in bed with numerous unions and organizations of unions -- the AFL-CIO, the ACLU, and the SEIU, just to name a few. And you don't need to take my word for it; at a town hall in Iowa, Obama was quoted as saying "I'm a pro-union guy." That says it all, doesn't it?

Link to town hall video

Today's Topic

I apologize, everyone -- due to some unforseen issues today I was unable to complete the daily post. Please understand that this will not happen too often. Come back tomorrow evening for my post on unions.

Affirmative Action

        Yes, I realize that this is an old topic. It has been discussed and re-discussed. But I would like to submit my point of view just the same. As the title of this blog is "The Devil's Advocate" I will not divulge whether or not I agree with any of these statements -- I am simply trying to provide some perspective for the side that I see as outspoken. Before we go any further let me say: I am not a racist, I am not making personal attacks, I am stating this all purely for the sake of argument. And with that little aside... aside, let's get to the point.
        Affirmative action is absolutely ridiculous. The idea that we should set aside a certain number of spots in university is not only unfair, but in a way it is racist. In fact, to agree with affirmative action is to agree with predestination. Predestination is the idea that God has decided whether or not you are going to heaven or hell before you are even born. The similarity is this: people on the aff-side of this argument say that many minorities are at a disadvantage because they are born into poverty etc. Do you know what that means? That's like saying that your socio-economic class is determined simply by what color you are, and your color is determined before you are born. If you are pro-affirmative action, you are saying this:
        Random chance = Ethnicity
        Ethnicity = Socio-Economic Class
        Socio-Economic Class = Level of Education achievable
Therefore, by the transitive property of equality, we get: Random chance = level of education achievable, or predestination. In other words, your chance to succeed in life, to make money, to achieve a high status, is based on random chance, and this is racist in and of itself because it says that minorities can't achieve these goals. And please understand, this is the argument of the aff. I'm not just making this up -- they actually believe that all minorities are so disadvantaged that they need action to be taking to help them (hence "affirmative action.") This is simply unacceptable. And the worst part -- to say that minorities need help getting into college, etc. is simply insulting to them. That is saying "you're too stupid to make it on your own, here we'll help you." That argument is much more condescending than anything I could say or anyone taking this position could say. I would even say that it rises to the level of racism. Discriminating against one ethnicity because too many of them go to college, while helping others simply because they can't make it on their own is pure, unadulterated ignorance. It is akin to the social Darwinism of Europe's imperial days.
        And finally there's the argument that it's not fair for everyone else -- I won't get into this, as you can probably guess what it would say, but I will point out that is not fair. There are plenty of impoverished people who won't get the same opportunities simply because affirmative advantage looks past them. But enough of that. The bottom line is this -- if we want to truly create a color-blind society, we need to stop with things like affirmative action. Affirmative action, though it may help in the short term, is not color-blind. It is therefore, in principal, as racist and bigoted as anything else, and it is exactly what we tried to free this country of decades ago. We need to get rid of it, and though it may be hard, strive for a truly equal society without the aid of affirmative action and programs like it; they are a crutch, and we need to learn to walk on our own without them.

Welcome

       I certainly don't have as much life experience as most people. I certainly do not know the ways of the world, and I probably have a lot to learn. But what I do know is that most people don't actually know the answers to everything, and that people like me can contribute to the debate. My goal is to provide you with a little bit of commentary; something to consider as you go about your day. The subject of these posts will be political, or at least related to political and social commentary. I figure, we've got the Glenn Becks and the Keith Olbermanns spouting their views, why not give the rest of us a chance?
       In any case, I am open to all forms of debate and I will gladly hear all points of view. I love politics and I truly enjoy a good discussion. Hell I just love arguing. So with that I hope you enjoy what I have to say and I hope you tell all your friends about this blog. :)

Thank you,
Sam