November Announcement

31 October 2008

I will be taking the entire month of November off! I pledged to write a 150-page novel in November. I’m very excited about the prospect and I think it will be incredibly rewarding. I’ve decided on what I’m going to write on and I’m hoping to release it on here.

So, please note that I will not be writing any posts on my site for the month of November. Please help me accomplish my goal by sending me encouragements or leaving comments in this story. You may follow my progress on my site. I’ll be adding a word-meter so that you can follow along.

 | Posted by mike | Categories: Announcements | Tagged: |

If you’ve never read the book, I highly recommend it.  The movie is just as good.  For those that don’t know it, here is a brief synopsis of the movie:

The movie follows Maj. Ben Marco (Denzel Washington), a war veteran who begins to doubt what is commonly known about his famous army unit. During Operation Desert Storm, Sergeant First Class Raymond Shaw (Liev Schreiber) supposedly rescued all but two members in his unit, of which Marco was the commanding officer. While this made Shaw a war hero, gained him the Medal of Honor, and launched him into a career in politics, Marco and other members of the troop feel that while they remember that Shaw did rescue them, they do not actually remember him doing it.

Shaw is nominated to run for president in his party.  However, as the Marco searches for the truth, he discovers that his army unit was not ambushed but captured and brainwashed by the Manchurian Global, a global conglomerate with major political ambitions.

Because of Shaw’s heroic service, he wins the election.  But he realizes that his mother orchestrated the capture to put a sleeper agent into the White House that can manipulate politics to Manchurian Global’s advantage.  The film ends with Marco assassinating Marco and his mother on stage.

When I first suspected this, I initially thought I was crazy.  But as I began to see the general election come closer and closer, the pieces started falling into place.  And I realized, I wasn’t alone in my thoughts.

continue reading »

 | Posted by mike | Categories: Politics | Tagged: , |

Blog Action Day: Poverty

15 October 2008

With the election only weeks away, the economy has become a hot-button issue. Both McCain and Obama have plans to cure the economy. Of course, one disagrees with the other. The question remains as to how a government can solve poverty. The answer is that it can’t.

Today is Blog Action Day – a day where bloggers from all over the world get together to write about one topic. This year, the topic is poverty. To that end, I’ll cover what society can do to help others in need.

Too much trust is given to the government to help the poor. Frankly, I don’t understand this. This blame is placed majority to the democrats since they see the need to “redistribute” wealth by taking away from the rich to give it to the poor, à la Robin Hood. Stories like Robin Hood fill our minds with the fact that the rich have taken advantage of the poor by ruthlessly taxing them. Some hero comes along to take that money away from the rich and give it back to the poor. Yet, at the same time, we have stories like the tortoise and the hare, which encourages us to take things slow and do our best and we’ll win the race.

What I fail to understand is why people don’t take the time to volunteer or donate money to help the poor. The average taxpayer donates less than 3% to charities, yet the majority of these people demand that congress do more. When I was a student, I tried my best to donate at least 20% of my income to charity. Some months were harder than others. But I still gave something.

Instead of asking the government to “redistribute” wealth, why don’t you? There are many organizations that could use your funds and time. Don’t ask congress to do something that you can do right now! You’ll be surprised how little it takes and how rewarding it is to do something for someone else.

 | Posted by mike | Categories: Editorial | Tagged: , , , |

Where do we draw the line?

10 October 2008
Earlier today, Connecticut joined the ranks of Massachusetts and California to allow gay partners to marry.  I’m completely against this notion for several reaons that I plan to spell out later.  The question I’m often asked is “How does a gay person getting married make things different for straight people?”
 
It’s questions like this that shows just how ignorant people can be when they support a position so blindly.  Think about that question.  It makes several major assumptions:
  • Changes in marriage laws doesn’t make current marriages any different
  • Changes made by government do not effect the private lives of citizens
  • Straight people’s marriages are no better thank gay marriages
  • The person stating this question assumes that they completely understand why those “rednecks and Christian fundamentalists” are living in the past and don’t care about the rights of others
There is something seriously wrong in our society when dialog and understanding are taken over my attacks and ignorance.  I have yet to have a real conversation with anyone who supports gay marriage who doesn’t get defensive and can debate maturely.  If you think you can do this, please feel free to contact me.
 
But let me get to the point.  I don’t support gay marriage for one major reason: symantics is no replacement for law.
 
The debate over gay marriage is not based on facts or a real fundamental right.  It is based entirely on emotions and wordplay.  Now before you say that I’m making assumptions, allow me to present my case.
 
When I hear those who support gay marriage talk, the ‘facts’ they present are often misguided.  I remember one particular person say, “Well, only 50% of hetrosexual marriages actually last.  Don’t you think gay people should be able to marry?”  This person completely disregards the notion of why 50% of hetrosexual marriages end in divorse and completely ignores the fact that study after study have shown that a gay couples break up more frequently and more often than hetrosexual couples.  According to a recent UCLA study, this number is 50% more likely in gay men and a stagering 167% in lesbian women.
 
Showing the facts don’t support their case doesn’t work.  One person responded, “Well, it should still be their right!  Why should hetrosexual couples have more rights than homosexual couples?”
 
This question shows at face-value that the debate isn’t about science or psycology.  It’s about emotions!  The “rednecks and Christian fundamentalists” have NEVER argued that they have more rights than homosexual couples.  The fact that the question is phrased this way forces “rednecks and Christian fundamentalists” to be on the defensive.  And of course, when you’re defensive, you sound more condemning.  The reason behind this is that the left has consistantly used rhetoric to stir people to action.  “Pro-choice” and “Equal rights” are their mantra.  And to an observer, they sound great!  Who doesn’t want to give people choice?  And who in their right mind would want to restrict people’s rights?
 
But the question I ask these people is “To what end?”
 
What has bothered me the most about those who support gay marriage is that they refuse to support pedosexuals and help protect their rights.  I will only support gay marriage if and only if EVERYONE gets the same rights and privilages.  You see, when people say “equal rights”, they really are saying “special rights” because they won’t admit that “equal rights” would extend to pedosexuals and beastialsexuals.  Why, I must ask, do these people not deserve the same rights?
 
Why is it impossible for a pedosexual to be a kindergarden teacher?  When I asked someone this (a gay person, I might add) said, “Well, pedofiles can’t control their urges.”
 
It wasn’t that long ago that society as a whole believed this about homosexuals too.  In fact, homosexuals made the argument that they, in fact, can control themselves and aren’t sexual deviants.  So what is it that makes homosexual couples so special?  Is it because it’s now considered okay?  That it is accepted into main-stream?
 
The only answer that I’ve been given is no answer at all.
 
Please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t think hetrosexuals, homosexuals, or even pedosexuals are any different.  But the discussion that gay people have made is that they are different.  But when people make this argument, it is often misguided.  I understand that people feel passionately about this issue.  There is nothing wrong with that.  But when arguments are based on emotions and rhetoric, you must be prepared to be challenged.  Simply saying, “Well, if you love someone, you should be able to get married.”
 
If love was the only qualification, then I still ask: “Why can’t I marry a rock?  I love my rock.  I have had sex with my rock.  The rock is my beneficiary when I die.  Why can’t I marry it?”  The response to this question has often been, “So, you’re comparing homosexual relationships to a rock?”  And my response is, “No.  I’m comparing love to a rock.  You cannot prove that my love for a rock is different thank the love between a gay couple or a hetrosexual couple.”
 
The problem I have with gay marriage is not gay people.  It’s that people that support gay marriage aren’t open-minded enough others who are struggling to have “equal rights”.  And until that is done, I will continue to oppose gay marriage.
 | Posted by mike | Categories: Editorial | Tagged: , , , |