Earth Day Propaganda.  It is a novel concept that I will agree has good intentions.  I remember back in grade school when Earth Day, was simply Earth Day.  No huge hubbub, just a day to reflect on our environmentally friendly practices.  Try to recycle more, don’t litter, don’t waste energy or water, yadda yadda yadda.  I think that is a very good thing for everyone to do every once in awhile, if not for the sake of our planet’s health, at least to conserve yours and our financial resources by not wasting dollars.

In current times Earth Day is flat out nauseating.  The tree-huggers come out in full force and make it well known that they are on top of their game.  I just question how dedicated they are to this cause.  To me it seems more like the “hip thing to do” rather than a true conviction by all of these left-wingers.  A fellow by the name of Steve Hayward best sums up the health of our environment in my eyes, “More than 30 years ago political scientist Anthony Downs discerned what he called the “issue-attention cycle,” a five-stage process by which the public and especially the news media grow alarmed over an issue, agitate for action, generate piles of scary headlines, and then begin to draw back as we come to recognize that the problem has been exaggerated or misconceived, and the price tag for action comes in. While Downs thought that the issue-attention cycle for the environment would last longer than most issues, it appears the mother-of-all-environmental scares -- global warming -- is following his model and is going to begin to fade like other environmental alarms of the past such as the population bomb and the “we’re running out of everything” scares.”  (You can download his full, realistic report on the health of the environment beneath this rant, which you should read).

I truly question the validity of all of these fanatical earth folk.  I can’t help it.  If it’s not “Being Green,” they would have some other cause to champion.  In not so distant times past these folks were clamoring about a new Ice Age about to come upon us soon, after that all the rage was the Ozone Layer disintegrating and all of us being fried to pieces.  Last I heard, the ozone layer has almost fully restored itself.  Global warming is just another trend.  How do these folks explain that the year of 2007 was the coldest recorded year of worldwide temperatures?  Apparently there is one reading that records all of the world’s yearly temperatures, and combines them into one consensus average worldwide temp for that year.  It seems strange to me that would occur in the midst of our planet going through a global warming crisis.

Throughout the existence of the planet it has went through tons of these different cycles.  Warmer globe temps, Ice Ages, Meteorite impacts, you name it, the events are probably too numerous to list.  I think what people forget is that the Earth is a self-healing object.  Man may contribute some harmful elements to the equation, but they are just a blip on the radar compared to the natural catastrophes that occur.  No matter what man does to it, the Earth will restore itself.  It has been around much longer than us, and will still be around long after we are all gone.

As I stated earlier, I am all for conserving energy, recycling, and being friendly to the Earth.  Just don’t do it for doomsday reasons that the world is ending if we all don’t, because that’s not going to happen.  Do it to save yourself some money, and keep things looking nice for everybody.

Abortion

A hot topic that usually solicits a strong opinion from most people.  Of course the Supreme Court was given the task of handling this issue for the first time, since no legislation had the balls to setup some laws regulating or prohibiting it.  This is a prime example of the Supreme Court getting a bad rap for something they truly don’t deserve.  They did the best they could with this issue that is filled with intricacies, and came up with a decision that infuriates many people.

Most people know the basics of Roe v. Wade, but here it is in a nutshell.  In 1973, the Court used a trimester-based analysis that generally prohibits regulation of abortions in the first trimester, allows regulation for protecting the health of the mother in the second trimester, and allows complete abortion bans after six months, the approximate time a fetus becomes viable.  In 1992, most people thought that Planned Parenthood v. Casey would overturn Roe and prohibit abortions.  However, it basically reinforced Roe and instead only did away with the trimester tests, and put in place a new test to use when addressing abortion cases.  Does the regulation in question place an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion?  Using this new test, courts have upheld some abortion regulations (such as 24-hour waiting periods) while striking down others.  In both of these cases the Court decided to base its decisions on the Due Process Clause, and the 14^th Amendment Right to Privacy.

I was raised in a religious family, and still hold most of the values today, so that part of me thinks that abortion is flat out wrong.  Obviously there is extreme situations where abortion is ok, such as being raped, or a medical condition that would kill the mother, but other than that my core beliefs tell me it should be outlawed completely.  However, then I look at it from a constitutional perspective, and my opinion wavers a bit.  Many right-wing staunch republicans are against outlawing abortion.  To me they are contradicting themselves in a major way with this position.  Isn’t the major position of Republicans less government is a good thing?  Explain to me how outlawing abortion by regulation is less government?  It is truly prohibiting freedom of choice on a fundamental right that is known as privacy.  Should someone be forced to exert their body to something they do not want too, no matter how irresponsible they were?  From a Constitutional perspective I don’t see how abortion can be outlawed in the early stages of pregnancy without going against what the core of our Constitution relays.  I’m trying to look at this from both sides of the issue, no matter how difficult that can be to see the good of allowing abortion.

That being said, as an example to our country and getting back to the moral values we have strayed away from, I believe outlawing abortion would be a great first step in the right direction.  What better way to stress the importance of being responsible about the decisions you make?  Human life is valuable, and not something you can just wash away with a morning-after pill.  One of the biggest problems in our country right now is that most people never worry about the consequences of their actions, which in turn is rapidly degrading our society every single day.  Call me a hypocrite all you want tree-huggers, but I will continue to fight and vote for less government, and yet beg for regulation that prohibits abortion.  It seems some civil rights issues do need regulation in order to get the moral welfare of our country in good shape again.

School Prayer.  This country was founded partly on strong religious beliefs and letting everyone pave their own way of it, without being oppressed by a tyrannical government.  Often in hard times in the early formation of our country, people clung to their faith in God, or whatever Deity they chose to worship.  A little thing called Faith enabled many people to make a go of it for another day, and ultimately succeed.  This country was founded on letting all people practice whatever religion they want, work where they want, live where they want, and sleep and shit wherever they want.  I don’t understand why we are slowly taking all of these choices away.

School prayer is just one of many examples of the things that have slowly but surely been taken away from us as a right.  For the past 45 years, Courts have constantly struck down the right of students to freely pray in school or at school events.  Prayer has been banned from the classroom, graduation ceremonies, and now even before and during sporting events.

I’m not trying to make anyone feel bad about not being religious and not praying, but what is so evil about people that do like to pray in public?  Is it so horrible and appalling to see little Johnny say a prayer to start his day that you have to run and sue the school?  Are these people that insecure that by seeing other people pray they feel like outcasts because they choose not to pray?  No one is forcing people that don’t like to pray to participate.  I thought our country was based on the majority rules?  Seeing that 95% of our population practices or recognizes some sort of religion, I find it hard to believe that the majority of kids would not pray in school if not given the chance.  At least if a designated time was allotted so they wouldn’t feel embarrassed on their own, because that’s just the way kids are.

I think school prayer is the sort of thing that we should advocate to our young people, instead of ban.  Taking some quiet time to tell God or Allah your problems or struggles can sometimes be the ticket to calming a person down, or setting things in perspective.  Religion and the free practice is the foundation of our country, just look at the Constitution, it refers to God and religion numerous times, so it obviously played a big part in the forming of our Nation.

Somewhere along the line we stopped listening to the majority voice on the really important matters, and now cater too much to the minority side of things.  In doing this I truly believe we are unraveling the great nation we have in place.  Once you lose your core values, there is really nothing to stand on in hard times.  Simply put, we have become a Nation of spoiled egotistical assholes.

The Right to Die.  If you were in a coma for any length of time, and it appears the chance of waking up are slim, would you want to have the right to choose by earlier pre-coma evidence that you want to die?  Personally, I would want that right.  So many things can be shown to back up this assertion.  First off, after a while this will wear down your loved ones to a nub.  By visiting you everyday for years it will suck the life out of them.  Seeing you lying there as a vegetable would have to absolutely make their life a living hell by knowing they can do nothing to help you get better.  To me that enough is to want the plug pulled.  Also, this may sound harsh, but the financial drain this puts on society in general is astronomical.  The costs for the hospital to keep running the machine that keeps you alive, constant care, and feeding you will be very large after a certain amount of time.  This in turn translates into massive bills for your loved ones to have to deal with, which in turn translates to higher insurance rates which will affect us all.

The Supreme Court did rule on this issue in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health in 1990.  They allowed a comatose patient to have her life terminated, but only by “clear and convincing evidence” of the comatose patient’s wish to die.  Later, additional evidence was discovered of her wish, and the plug was allowed to be pulled.  Eight of the nine Justices found the right to die was a fundamental right of the Due Process Clause (Scalia disagreed of course).  However, it seems clear and specific evidence is needed to prevail.

Terri Schiavo is another example that I’m sure everyone has heard about.  In 2005, feeding tubes were finally allowed to be pulled after she had been in a coma for 15 years.  Her husband just wanted her to die in peace.  The judicial decision allowing this struck down numerous state and federal laws that were created basically just to keep her alive.  This decision swayed a bit from the "clear and convincing evidence" requirement, which was encouraging to see.  Her parent’s claimed she was conscious, but just by looking at her, I don’t understand how they could be so selfish.  It was inhumane to keep her alive that long in my humble opinion. 

I think after a certain amount of time, if it appears a comatose patient is pretty much dead to the world, the family should be able to pull the plug on their loved one, and save that person some dignity of a noble death.  Even if there was no clear and convincing evidence that the comatose patient desired for this outcome.  Sometimes you have to trust in your loved ones judgments.  **Disclaimer** It’s easy for me to sit and pass judgment on this issue, but if this actually happened to me or a loved one it would be the most difficult and awful choice that I can imagine having to make.  Right now, a difficult choice for me is choosing between Coke and Mountain Dew for my daily morning fountain drink.

Should assisted-suicide be allowed?  I have to admit that I kind of feel like it should for people who meet certain criteria.  Age, health, and other alarming attributes could all potentially qualify.  If I were a Democrat I would call it “Quality Assurance Population Control.”  Thoughts?

The Right to Bear Arms.  The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  Recently, this has been a hot topic with the Supreme Court.

The Right to Bear Arms can be viewed in two ways.  The first view by Pro-Gun advocates (which I am), insist that it guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms.  The second view by Gun Control advocates contend that the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.

I think it can be boiled down this easy: Gun Control Advocates really just want to abolish the Second Amendment.  They see militias as a dead topic, and a thing of the past.  They think no one should be able to possess a gun for any reason, unless you are actively on service in the military, or in law enforcement.  What does this mean?  Forget about hunting, forget about trap shooting, and most of all forget about protecting your home and family.  Just think about all of the horrifying scenarios that would develop if they succeeded in getting rid of all rights to possess a gun.  It scares the crap out of me.  Criminals are always going to find away to get their hands on guns, even if they are banned.  This will just make their pickings for burglaries and other forms of nonsense that much more risk free. 

A citizen deserves the right to protect their castle, and the most effective of way of doing that is with a firearm.  Imagine if that right was taken away?  I see no good that could come out of this ban, and the pure outrage of it being passed would be amazing to watch.  An outright ban will not happen, but I can see some sort of minor remedial measure taken that will still be very annoying.  It seems to me that the measures hunters need to take while transporting firearms are plenty stringent the way things stand as of now.  What more can they do? 

I place the blame of this stupid initiative squarely on the shoulders of the Democrats and fellow tree huggers.  Do they honestly have nothing better to do with their time?  If guns were banned, think the crime rate would skyrocket, rather than go down.  Here’s a thought, instead of banning guns, why don’t we encourage all law-abiding citizens to get permits to carry?  I bet money that would ensure the crime rate drops.  Psycho teenagers might not be near as prone to start shooting up malls and college campuses knowing the risk of being capped by any random as soon as they pull out their arsenal.  Maybe we should let citizens start policing themselves more, instead of less?  I think that risk is much better than the alternative of big government getting even bigger.

People ripping on the Supreme Court.  Maybe I am in a unique position and notice this a bit more, but it still never fails to amaze me how people blame the Supreme Court for so many important issues in this country.  The examples are virtually endless, but to name a few, abortion, civil rights, gun control, presidential races, and religion.

First off, the Supreme Court does deserve some blame for certain decisions because they are only human.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  However, these people get their positions by the Presidents we elect.  True, they do have a life term, and some drastically change their stances on issues over time, but they still start out USUALLY aligned with the views of whatever party in control put them on the Bench.  So in a far-fetched way we do have a say on who sits on the Bench.  By the way, I am in favor of always having a bench with a good balance of conservatives and liberalists.  A view of all aspects is incredibly important when making decisions of this magnitude.

My biggest beef with people complaining over Supreme Court decisions is that the reason they had to make these decisions is that our Legislature usually has failed to make a law or statute to clearly govern the issue at hand.  The reason for that is because these people want to get reelected, and will never chance making a law that could gain them disfavor and cause them to lose their seat.  So that leaves all of the hot topics to the Supreme Court because they don’t have to worry about the popular vote with their trusty life terms.  They do the best they can, and clearly in many situations they are not pleased to have to make these controversial decisions when the Legislature could have handled it from the beginning.  Legislating is usually a trial and error process, so if they at least make an attempt to govern certain issues, they can always amend later for adjustments.  At least they would be proactive in this manner, and cut off a lot of disputes before they even develop.  That doesn’t happen now enough.

I’m not saying the Supreme Court is flawless, there is many things that could probably be done to improve the process, but it works for me.  As long as our politicians refuse to make rules on matters that really matter, be thankful we have the Supreme Court, even if you don’t agree with some of their decisions.  They are way too underappreciated for the shitty job they have.

Why is a college education so important? Why so “prestigious,” so “necessary,” so expected?

I’m here to tell you today that unless you went to Oxford, Yale, or possibly Dickinson State, a college education/degree matters little in the grand scheme of life. In general the college diploma is just another “hoop to jump through” in the quest for a job. But is it really necessary?

If you went to or graduated regular college with regular 4-year program classes (not medical school, dental school, etc.), do you ever use the coursework information you supposedly learned in your everyday, real world occupation? Chances are not bloody likely. Like anyone, I took bogus classes in the pursuit of the 4 year degree.

Classes like Native American Culture and Sociology and besides being a waste of money; I took little from them…which is good because I gave little effort towards them. I guess my point is why force incoming college kids to waste time and money on useless curriculum? When did it become so taboo to have programs of study on learning a specific skill set? Maybe instead of Women’s Studies, we start teaching 18 year olds to manage their money wisely or learn basic plumbing techniques. Let me tell you, students who took classes like that will be much more prepared and adjusted for the real world than bleeding hearts that major in Art History.

The reason why all these nonsense is that colleges and professors have agendas and the only way they can voice them is through “required” classes. Think about it.

I think we should stop telling high schoolers that unless they go to college, they don’t have a chance. Why not promote more trade schools. We all know how hard it is to find a good mechanic or electrician when you need them so let’s get more people trained in those fields!

Rarely do I promote the emulation of Europeans but in general they got it right when it comes to the High School vs college or trade school track. In high schools in England for example, at age 16 you are graded in a series of difficult tests that determines if you go to college or go to trade program. It weeds the students out in an orderly fashion and gives non book smart kids a chance to make a good living with a needed skill or trade. Why don’t we have a better form of that in America? Stop making kids not suited for college go into $20,000 in student loan debt for a worthless degree. They could go 2 years of trade school and end up at the same manufacturing job they’d end up taking after wasting four years, but in little to no debt and better qualified to boot.

The bottom line is that college is NOT for everyone. Just because it’s available doesn’t make it the best choice for the nation’s future workforce. Let’s get people trained to do the many services we now require and stop supporting rubbish “cultural” studies courses that help nobody.

Besides, have you ever met a Sociology major you actually liked?

Perry Tostenmen 3-13-08

The smoking ban.  Most of the time, I am a nonsmoker.  However, when I enjoy an alcoholic beverage, I do also enjoy to have a few cigarettes.  Not sure why, but I have been doing this for years.  When I’m not having a beer, I have absolutely no desire to smoke.  None.  The smell even repulses me.  To be fair, I am trying to quit smoking even when I do have a few drinks, but that is a work in progress.

Smoking is such a dirty habit.  The whole concept is for lack of a better word, gross.  Hmmm, I’m bored so I’m going to light up this little tube of tobacco and choke it down into my lungs.  That should kill some time (no pun intended).  What’s not to like about smoking?  The yellow film that it leaves on your fingers, not to mention lungs, the wonderful aroma it leaves on your clothes, hair, and breath, or even better the heaviness it places in your lungs, and chunky green buggers that will inevitably result the next day are all major reasons to smoke.  What is not to love about this habit?

Smoking plays a part in our economy.  Beyond the fact that many people smoke because they are nervous by nature, and it calms them, smoking does have its purpose.  It produces much income in the form of tax dollars that is being put to use for certain measures that do benefit society as a whole.  So it’s not a total loss.  As for the smoking ban, I am firmly against it.  Don’t get me wrong, I am all for clean air, I will not, and never have been able to eat a meal in a smoking establishment because the odor overwhelms the taste of your food.  I just think there was better ways to go about this ban.  Could we not have designated certain places that do not serve food the right to choose?  Would that really have been such a bad thing?  You say “what about the employees in those places?”  My answer is that there will not be very many of these places, so the effect if these nonsmoking employees choose not to work there will be at best minimal.  Besides nearly all of these employees smoke anyways.

The main reason I am against this ban is that we are starting to get WAY too much government control.  It is now slowly undercutting our 1^st and 9^th amendment rights, and the US people, just like sheep, are ignorantly letting it happen.  Too much government is a very bad thing for many reasons.  It cuts down our freedom of choice, the main attribute of our country, but even more importantly it slowly erodes away at our capitalistic machine.  Small changes like this may not seem apparent now, but over time they start to culminate, and the very backbone of our economy will take a major hit.  Bottom line, who are the ones that pay for that hit?  You my friend.  You can only blame yourself for supporting these measures when it is all said and done.  Even though the smoking ban may seem like a trivial thing in the grand scheme of things, it is small victories like it that empower the evil leftists even more, and drive us closer and closer to the Socialist brink.  The health of a few anal people is not always the best thing for the economy, as crass as that may sound.

Keith Kloob 2-29-08

Atheists.  This is their logo. Apparently Atheists have a logo. They have a website, they have meetings and conferences, and they have magazines and publications, websites and so on and so on. They even have a site dedicated to soldiers and former soldiers who wish to discredit the well-known term, “no such thing as an atheists in a foxhole.” They also like to get really scientific about the whole thing; always trying to act so sophisticated and systematic.

When did atheism become a religion? Honestly people who write, plan, organize and spend their lives promoting atheism have become just that-religious.  What do they talk about at their atheism conferences?

Atheist #1: I call this meeting to order. Is there any new business?

Atheist #2: Yes, I have a statement. There is no God…or gods for that matter.

Atheist #1: Ok, very good then. Any other discussion?

(Silence)

Atheist #1: Agreed. Meeting Adjourned.

The simple definition of an Atheist is: “An atheist is one who disbelieves in the existence of deities. Different definitions identify various levels of disbelief that an atheist may have. An atheist may be one who asserts that no deities exist, one who rejects belief in any deities, or one who simply does not believe in the existence of any deities.^”

Ok simple enough. So if that’s what you choose to believe (or more accurately, refuse to accept) fine. But why have atheists turned their “disbelief” into the belief of their atheism? It seems like a little backwards to me. Haven’t they turned the idea of Atheism into their belief system? Their Deity? Whatever, I guess I don’t really care- I know what I believe and I can take comfort in my destination of life after death.

I just think it’s weird that disbelief in something has become a belief. I’m confused. I’m going to take a nap now.

In closing here is a list of prominent atheists.

Mikhail Gorbachev

Billy Joel

Lance Armstrong

Mark Twian

Jeanne Garofalo (disgusting)

Kathy Griffin (ditto)

Robert Smith

Ernest Hemingway

George Soros (evil)

Adam Corrolla

Jody Foster

Bjork

Alistair Campbell

Friedrich Nietzsche

Joseph Stalin

Charles Darwin

Editors Note: Darwinists (you know, the people with the Darwin fish on their car) are the same way. They turned a theory into a belief system complete with decals and stickers.

Perry Tostenmen 2-22-08

Brainwashing Children, Global Warming and my Response

I saw a Chevy ad where the commercial host asked a group of approximately 8 children, “how many of you are vegetarians?” In the ad, 5 kids enthusiastically raised their hands. The advertisement went on to explain that the Chevy Silverado is also “a vegetarian” as it uses corn based ethanol. The kids smiled and laughed. The sun beamed and danced on the sparkling new truck. The green grass illuminated the perfect utopia setting and the minority host grinned with environmental satisfaction.

Bull Sh*t.

I personally want everyone to know that I know consider Chevrolet and their ad campaign evil. They have bought into a lie and have encouraged children to be vegetarians, drive only ethanol powered trucks and become raging environmentalists. How dare you! You have exploited children into a “green” brainwash.

We as Americans cannot stand for this any longer. Everyone buying into the “green trend global warming” hyper-babble non-sense is ruining our country. I worry about our future and I worry that the kids in this ad won’t have any corn left to eat since its all in their Suburbans’ gas tanks.

Here’s a simple thought from Jason Lewis, KTLK Afternoon Talk Show Host and regular substitute for Rush Limbaugh.  “Instead of tax incentives and subsidies for hybrids and ethanol production, how about we construct 5 new refineries, tap Anwar’s oil-filled a**, and bring gas back down to $1.50/gallon.”

Instead, we feed our next generation lies about corn based fuel and that somehow eating meat is un-hip. In 15 years we will be a nation of vegans, vegetarians, wind energy loons and cowards. Thank you everyone for buying the lies at wholesale value and moving forward with “climate-change” initiatives.

My only response to you Chevy Flex Fuel and all the other tree huggers out there-good f*cking luck!!!!!!!