Show Nostalgia
Current mood: anxious
Category: Music

So far I have had one hell of a year as far as shows go. I just wanted to recap for myself and to try and make everyone jealous, jk. But I really do want some kind of record I can come back to of this.
I'll do my best with dates:

March (I think)
Andrew and I road tripped to SLC to see Thrice, Brandnew, and mewithoutyou at the Salt Palace place. mewithoutyou sucks anyway so I didn't think they were any good. Thrice was incredible. I only remember them playing
"firebreather"
"digital sea"
"burn the fleet"
"artist in the ambulance"
"open water"
and "the earth will shake" and a ton of others.
They were incredible as always. Brand New was good. I was a little disappointed because the singer changed the melody so much it was hard to sing along to and even hard to figure out what song it was at times. they had 2 or 3 drumsets on stage i remember and only on a few songs had multiple drummers going at once, although I am not sure why. I can only remember that they definitely played "The quiet things that no one ever knows" "snowing season" and "millstone".  afterwards we tried to sneak around the back through the bushes to meet the band like we did back in highshool, but we got caught and escorted back to our car. boo.

May (end of may I think..?)
Ben and I road tripped to San Francisco to see Thrice, Circa Survive, Pelican, and Aushua (i think that is everyone) at the Filmore. I can't remember a whole lot from everyone but I know Circa Survive played:
"the only difference between medicine and poison is the dose"
and i think "living together"
and i can't remember the rest. they were fantastic.
Thrice played:
"the lion and the wolf"
"firebreather"
"the earth with shake"
"digital sea"
"open water"
"daedalus"
"broken lungs"
"deadbolt"
"kill me quickly"
"the artist in the ambulance"
"of dust and nations"
"flags of dawn"
"come all you weary"
"trust" (i am think)
"kill me quickly"
"cold cash colder hearts"
"stand and feel your worth" and others.
probably the best I have ever seen them. Pelican was good, an instrumental hardcore band, kind of strange but good. Aushua was absolutely incredible. everyone needs to listen to them.

The would probably be the trip ben and I did to SLC. I think this was around July...? for this one i had to work till 9 the night before. So after work i drove straight to elko, about 4 hours. I got there and ben and I got our stuff together and took off, him driving of course. We met Tim at the Hotel and headed over to Warped Tour. Me having slept maybe a total of 3 hours at best about to enjoy 12 hours of music. nonestop. I wont list songs. We saw (in no particular order): Maylene and the Sons of Disaster, Norma Jean, As I Lay Dying, Story of the Year, Relient K, The Color Fred, The Devil Wears Prada, Real Big Fish, Protest The Hero, August Burns Red, Every Time I Die, Alesana, and A Day To Remember. I think that was it. It was a lot of fun. We were sunburned, parched, exhausted, broke, hungary, and about 2 miles from our hotel, and 3 blocks from our car. We lost Tim because ben's phone died and then randomly Tim pulled up in the hotel escort van and we went back to the hotel, slept for 15 hours and then booked it home. What a good time.

The next one that comes to mind was either end of July or beginning of August. Ben came up to Reno, always a treat. And he, Dana, and I went and saw Paramore, Jack's Mannequin, Phantom Planet, and one song from the opener Paper Route, who actually weren't bad at all, at the GSR. Praise cannot be said of Phantom Planet, however, who I and everyone I was with, thought were terrible. Jack's Mannequin was wonderful they played:
"Dark Blue"
"MFOE- you can breathe now"
"mixtape"
"american love"
"swim"(i think)
"bruised"
"ready"
"la la lie"
"into the airwaves"(maybe)
and possibly some others
Paramore was actually remarkably good. I am not a huge fan, but I was pretty impressed. That girl has one hell of a powerful voice for such a tiny human being. I don't really know their songs. I only know that they played "thats what you get"

The next one that comes to mind was The Human Abstract, All That Remains, Trivium, and 36 Crazy Fists at the New Oasis here in Reno. This one was special because my friend Camille was awesome enough to come to the show and hang out with me even though she really wasn't into the music. what a good friend :) THA opened. They were really good. 36 Crazy Fists, a band I don't normally care for all that much, were actually really good. They were just really fun and I found myself wanting an album or 3 after they played. I was pretty impressed by them. All That Remains was out of control. The singer anounced that he was too sick to sing and began pulling audience members in from the crowd to sing full songs. most of them sucked balls. especially the kid that either didn't know the lyrics or didn't care and just death metal growled the whole time. the singer stood by and shook his head and one of the THA members came out and sang the chorus over top of the crazy kid. Then the actual singer sing the last song and sounded fantastic. That band was unbelievably tight. They were so perfect it almost sounded surreal. Their drummer plays traditional grip!!!! and he grinds like that!!! I was pretty amazed. Still not a huge fan of their music, but what a good show! Trivium was everying you could except, overly theatrical, under delivering, metallica rip-off, pretty boring. the crowd went crazy nonethe less. We had a good time and to cap off such a fun night Camille's phone was stolen. She went home in a pretty sour mood and i felt really bad.

The next little adventure is one of the greatest weekends of my life (also blogged by Jon Jon's Blog). but first a little background. for several months my brother and I had been planning this trip to see protest the hero and Acacia strain in Orangevale CA. Then I accidentally overbooked that by setting up a trip to go see dashboard confessional with my friend Jon the same night. we remedied the problem by making this a huge weekend adventure to go see Dashboard the night before in san jose and then go to the PTH show the next night. and spend the weekend exploring CA. I figured I would recruit all my friends to go so that we could split gas and hotel so here is a list of everyone I can remember inviting who said definitely 100% for sure yes or something close to that at some point: Chris Moll, Jon Fortenbury, my brother Ben, his friend, Camille, Josh, Elle, Jesse Phipps, Jon's friend, and Shauna, and at least a few other people I forgot. who ended up going? Me and Jon. Feel jealous, everone ;)
I'll be brief. I bought 4 tickets because there was (at the time) at least 3 people going and I got a really good deal on a 4 ticket pack. When it came down to the 2 of us i figured I would try and scalp the last 2. we made plans the night before, did a little shopping, spent maybe a total of $8 on food for the weekend and went to sleep. Met the next morning, October 11th, threw everything we could think of into the car and took off. On the way we randomly stopped at UC Davis to check it out, almost dying in the quest to embellish on the "you only live once" creedo. It was absolutely amazing and I have never seen so many bikes except maybe at burningman. there was conveniently some kind of farmers market or festival going on down the street and we got some free food samples. (there are pictures i will be posting soon of the campus). we headed out to Berkly to meet up with the dude (Cody), who I later found out was one of the coolest people ever, that we were staying with. We got there met Cody, worked dilligently to peruade him to come with us to the concert until fianlly he gave in. We made it with minor difficulty to san Jose university for the Rock Band tour featuring:  The Cab, Plain White T's, Dashboard Confessional, and Panic at the Disco.
The Cab: one of the worst bands ever. dont ever listen to them, forget i mentioned them here
Plain White T's: way better than I expected. absolutely fantastic singers.
Dashboard Confessional: Remarkably good. Not only was Chris able to hit the crazy notes he hits on the albums effortlessly, he did harmonies way above them. They were great, heres their set, in order (i wrote it down :)
1. Vindicated
2. The Good Fight
3. These Bones
4. Thick as Theives
5. Don't Wait
6. Screaming Infidelities
7. Keep Watch For The Mines
8. (covered a Weezer song!)
9. The Widows Peak
10. Hands Down
11. Stolen
Panic was weird becuase their first 2 songs weren't good at all. then they were good for a while and then just kind of played good and bad on and off. They played 9 in the afternoon and thats the only one i remember. They were good overall. They finished their set with that southern baptist sounding song "shout". which was the most perfect way to end that show.
This show was Cody's first and kind of strange in several ways. in between bands kids would get up on stage and play rock band. and there was advertising like crazy going on between bands as well. plus the mean age of the crowd was maybe 16 at best. So Cody had an interesting first show.
afterward I had a migraine powerful enough to end the world but tenaciously drove us to ocean beach in San Fran where we met some of the strangest and most interesting people ever. Wen finally made it back to berkley and crashed hard. We spent the next day in Berkly: road the subway, explored UC Berkely, visited telegraph street, had amazing indian food, saw ameoba music, visited people's park, talked philosophy and politics, and headed back. we got back to the apartment got our stuff and headed out for Orangevale
We went to the Boardwalk (one of the best sounding venues ever). I talked Jon into going with me and we saw Gwen Stacy, Whitechapel, The Acacia Strain, Protest The Hero, and Unearth. Gwen stacy was fun, but man was a good thing they went before whitechapel. That band is so ridiculously heavy and aggressive. they had the crowd going nuts. I love watching those guys. Acacia Strain was brutal. Oddly they only had one guitarist, I later found out that that happened before they even did their most recent record. Who knew? They were insanely heavy nonetheless. man were they one angry band. They played:
4x4
see you next tuesday
skynet
carbomb
sun poison and sun cancer
angry mob justice
whoa! shut it down
JFC
and other songs i can't remember or didn't know
Protest was fricking amazing. I got yelled at by the singer for tugging on his mic chord. haha.
they played
No Stars Over Bethlahem
Bloodmeat
Sequoia Throne
divinity within
Nautical
limb from limb
The Dissentience
Goddess Bound
and some others I can't remember
Unearth was also really good. They were just super tight and heavy. they opened with Endless. Awesome. we headed out after. we stopped at in and out on the way home. We had a lively disscussion but i ended up having to revert to some unsavory methods of keeping myself awake while driving.

Finally on October 19th I went to the New Oasis all by myself and saw My Children My Bride, The Shodown, Haste The Day, and Norma Jean. and got there late so i missed Children 18:10. My children my bride weren't bad. Super heavy. and super preachy Christian. The Showdown was super rock and roll. Good stuff. a really good time. Haste the Day was really good. they also dropped a big fat "J" bomb all over the place. They played:
Pressure the Hinges
The Minor Prophets
White Collar
and a bunch of others i didn't know
Norma Jean was fucking phenomenal. absolutely fantastic live show.
they played
Blueprints for future homes
and then there was a swarm
Robots 3 humans 0
a small spark vs a great forest
bayonetwork
the birth of the antimother
surrender your sons
vipers, snakes and actors
the entire world is counting on me and they don't even know it
and Memphis will be laid to waste (as the encore)
and probably a few others I couldn't remember. Then i rode my bike home.

The year is not over and I am super excite for my brother to come down again next weekend to see the halloween show of Sky Eats Airplane, Foxy Shazam, Senses Fail, and Dance Gavin Dance.
yaaaay  thats all.

If you read this whole thing at once, congratulations, you rock!

Currently listening : Hello Rockview By Less Than Jake Release date: 1998-10-06

4:20 AM - 3 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Important Point On Patriotism
Current mood: contemplative
Category: News and Politics

I feel silly posting articles that other people of written, but sometimes they just say it better then I can. Plus I want to help be a venue as much as possible to spread the gospel truth! haha enjoy!

Palin's Kind of Patriotism
by Thomas L. Friedman

Criticizing Sarah Palin is truly shooting fish in a barrel. But given the huge attention she is getting, you can't just ignore what she has to say. And there was one thing she said in the debate with Joe Biden that really sticks in my craw. It was when she turned to Biden and declared: "You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America, which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic."

What an awful statement. Palin defended the government's $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic.

I only wish she had been asked: "Governor Palin, if paying taxes is not considered patriotic in your neighborhood, who is going to pay for the body armor that will protect your son in Iraq? Who is going to pay for the bailout you endorsed? If it isn't from tax revenues, there are only two ways to pay for those big projects — printing more money or borrowing more money. Do you think borrowing money from China is more patriotic than raising it in taxes from Americans?" That is not putting America first. That is selling America first.

Sorry, I grew up in a very middle-class family in a very middle-class suburb of Minneapolis, and my parents taught me that paying taxes, while certainly no fun, was how we paid for the police and the Army, our public universities and local schools, scientific research and Medicare for the elderly. No one said it better than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."

I can understand someone saying that the government has no business bailing out the financial system, but I can't understand someone arguing that we should do that but not pay for it with taxes. I can understand someone saying we have no business in Iraq, but I can't understand someone who advocates staying in Iraq until "victory" declaring that paying taxes to fund that is not patriotic.

How in the world can conservative commentators write with a straight face that this woman should be vice president of the United States? Do these people understand what serious trouble our country is in right now?

We are in the middle of an economic perfect storm, and we don't know how much worse it's going to get. People all over the world are hoarding cash, and no bank feels that it can fully trust anyone it is doing business with anywhere in the world. Did you notice that the government of Iceland just seized the country's second-largest bank and today is begging Russia for a $5 billion loan to stave off "national bankruptcy." What does that say? It tells you that financial globalization has gone so much farther and faster than regulatory institutions could govern it. Our crisis could bankrupt Iceland! Who knew?

And we have not yet even felt the full economic brunt here. I fear we may be at that moment just before the tsunami hits — when the birds take flight and the insects stop chirping because their acute senses can feel what is coming before humans can. At this moment, only good governance can save us. I am not sure that this crisis will end without every government in every major economy guaranteeing the creditworthiness of every financial institution it regulates. That may be the only way to get lending going again. Organizing something that big and complex will take some really smart governance and seasoned leadership.

Whether or not I agree with John McCain, he is of presidential timber. But putting the country in the position where a total novice like Sarah Palin could be asked to steer us through possibly the most serious economic crisis of our lives is flat out reckless. It is the opposite of conservative.

And please don't tell me she will hire smart advisers. What happens when her two smartest advisers disagree?

And please also don't tell me she is an "energy expert." She is an energy expert exactly the same way the king of Saudi Arabia is an energy expert — by accident of residence. Palin happens to be governor of the Saudi Arabia of America — Alaska — and the only energy expertise she has is the same as the king of Saudi Arabia's. It's about how the windfall profits from the oil in their respective kingdoms should be divided between the oil companies and the people.

Currently listening : Dookie By Green Day Release date: 1994-02-01

4:10 AM - 3 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

A Few Observations
Current mood: animated
Category: News and Politics

It has certainly been a while since I decided to open my mouth and share my opinion via blog. For those who enjoy it I apologize for the long wait. For those who don't, I apologize for ruining your life. And for those who don't care, the majority of you, I hope that this is Rubicon you have been waiting to cross. Just kidding.

Well I would just like to make a few simple observations. Perhaps link them together

1) Car sales last month were way down, especially trucks and SUVs. The "weakest sales pace in 15 years, (1) " which was, ironically, just after the 12 year "reign of terror" (Reagan/Bush Sr). Due to the fall in profits Chrysler had to shut down one of their locations, leaving 2,400 American employees unemployed.

2) The stock market has officially hit a level referred to as a "bear market." I won't define it for you but suffice it to say that the there were 3 marked bear market periods in the last century. The worst one was the great depression (2). CNN reported that stocks for S&P 500, and Dow Industries struggled for the worst June since the great depression (3)

3) US unemployment hit 5.5%, "the steepest spike in 20 years" (4) ironically, the end of Ronald Reagan's last term in office, and the beginning of George H.W. Bush's.

4) One of the most expensive bank failures in the history of the planet, IndyMac just happened last week (7/13). The last 2 record setting bank failures were in 1984, and 1988 respectively. Ironically when Ronald Reagan was president.

5) Exxon Mobil just made record profits for any US company in history. (5 and is currently raking in $78,000 every minute. In the time it has taken you to read this blog, they will have made more than $156,000 (probably, depending on how quickly you read). More than I would make in probably 13 years of my current salary.

Maybe it's my repugnant illusions at work here, but it seems like there is a pretty clear link between complete economic failure, and the president. During Reagan and Bush Sr, everything was terrible. Then Clinton came into office and by the end of his second term had us in a supremely good state. Then "W" got into office and sent us back into record setting economic failure. Bad for businesses, which are dropping like flies around Reno because of the poor economy. Bad for citizens who, after having a steady income are now living on the streets because of our poor economy. Bad for the country. But hey at least not everyone loses here. Exxon, Shell and Chevron are all doing great!

I am not making any of this up. If you don't believe me check my source and do your own research.

I'll have a myth buster coming soon!

Thanks for reading!

Scott

Sources
1. http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/01/news/companies/auto_sales/index.htm
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_market
3. http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/30/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm
4. http://www.newsreview.com/reno/Content?oid=681421
5. http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/)

Currently listening : Introducing By Foxy Shazam Release date: 2008-01-22

4:49 PM - 3 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

Republican Myth-Busters III - Small Government
Current mood: contemplative
Category: News and Politics

Happy New Year!
    As the holidays are drawing to a close and I find myself for the first time in a while, at home with some tiny smidgen of free time, and I decided it is high time for another Myth Buster! There are a good amount of myths floating around out there and I spent considerable time decided which one would be best for cracking. Well, as usual, I was inspired by a crazy person, to write on the many facets of the pock marked concept of a "small government."

Myth: Republicans/Libertarians/Conservatives etc.  want a small government. Let me edit this a little bit: they may want a small government, in theory. So rather the myth will be that they support ideologies of a small government.

Fact: First of all I would like to address what it means to have small government. I went to a few people whom I am friends with and asked them what they believe to be a small government and pretty much we all came to a general consensus. A small government, in our minds, would be a government that has very little control over the lives of individual people,  so it has very little power over the choices people make in their lives, and that they are fiscally responsible, or rather there is much less government spending. Of course there is more to it than that, but those are the basics. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this myself. So let us then examine conservative ideologies (those who claim to favor small government) in those terms.  

Let's take an issue for example, gay marriage. Briefly, the concept of marriage is traditionally the union of two people in the eyes of god. So based on that, only Christians can technically marry. That means no atheists, no agnostics, no pagans etc. well I don't see any laws banning atheists from marrying, but there it is. In modern times, marriage is more of a legal term than anything. It could easily be replaced with the word civil union or domestic partnership, and be the same thing. Anyone (man and women that is) can go down to the justice of the peace and sign a document and walk out a married couple. There is nothing religious there. So by a small government, does that mean one that is so small that it can tell you that you can't go sign a document saying you are married if you love someone? See the government having enough power to make laws discriminating who we can and can't marry sounds like an incredibly powerful government to me. That is the government directly interfering with individuals lives.

Let's take another one, abortion. (This is for Ron Paul) This is truly an argument that can never be won, on either side. But here I will concede a point or two. Abortion should not be a means of birth control (in my opinion). It is something that can be very important in situations for example if neither the mother nor the child would survive the delivery, then it is better one life be saved rather than both lost (in my opinion). And people who are between the height of 5'3" and 5'5" should be allowed to have children (in my opinion). But regardless, the government has no business telling people whether or not to get an abortion. That would be the same as if I made a law that stated that all people who are between the height of 5'3" and 5'5" are to be subject to forced abortion. How? Because the principle is that someone who has a certain opinion is forcing that opinion onto someone else by abusing their power. That is the government directly interfering with peoples' lives. If they are going to get an abortion, and you believe that because of it they are going to burn forever in a lake of fire for it. Then that is their loss. It is none of your business it is none of the governments business, and if the government were to try and take part in it, you can't deny that is means that it has enough power to do so, and that means that it is too fucking powerful.

There is the argument that if there are restrictions on 6 months or 3 months or whatever that that is still government interference because it is regulating it, so by putting full restriction on it that keeps the government out. But then that same idea could be (and would have to be if that's the argument) applied every kind of restriction that we have. Drinking age, I think it should be 18, but if that is a government regulation then instead of having any regulations then just make it illegal for all ages, then the government stays out. Or marriage age, no age limit, no one can get married.  Driving age, no age limit, no one can drive. Gun control, no regulations on who can or can't own a gun (I mentioned this before, crazy people with a history of violent crime should not be running loose with an AK47), no one can own a gun. This is a prime example of how the government is saturating itself in power over our lives.

The patriot act is a great one. Do you believe in a government that is SO small that they can wire tap your phone and spy on you at any given moment without a warrant or legal document of any kind? Is that a small government?! Has anyone read 1984!? Habeas Corpus, one of the most basic rights of mankind for centuries: the right to have to be tried before a judge and jury in a "fair" trial before being sentenced. That you are to be made fully aware of the reasons for why are being imprisoned before being imprisoned. And our president just got rid of it! That means that right now you can be arrested and thrown in jail indefinitely and never told why. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!! That is quite the opposite of a small government. That is a monstrously HUGE government.  

                These are a couple examples of conservative ideologies that give the government more power than god! Big brother is watching you!

                But while we are here, let's talk fiscal responsibility. You think social programs are a drain on our economy? Our current administration spent just shy of $700 billion on defense. 56% of this in 2007 was "discretionary" spending. This $700 billion also includes allocated funds to outdated cold war technology and security systems, and a budget to building and maintain enough nuclear warheads to blow up the world 15 times. That is over 60 times what the government spent on education. And I'm sorry that but that doesn't look like very appropriate numbers to me. In this mess of fiscal irresponsibilities also lies the ever daunting remarkably mislead tax cuts. The crazy person I spoke to today told me that because of our tax cuts, our economy is soaring miraculously and that our deficit has never been better. While I challenged his sources by listing 5 of my own, he could list only… 0. The truth is that our current GDP growth rate is the lowest it has been in 50 years. The income growth of the top 1% earned income families of the country is the highest it has been in 80 years. The unemployment rate is the highest it has been since the great depression. In fact "in 1981, Congress approved very large supply-side tax cuts, dramatically lowering marginal income-tax rates.  In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off.  Despite the very different tax policies followed during these two decades, there was virtually no difference in real per-person economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s.  Real per-person revenues, however, grew about twice as quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were increased, as in the 1980s, when taxes were cut" (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm).  And our deficit is the worst it has ever been, ever. The problem is that conservative ideologies regarding taxes are stubborn and unrealistic and damaging to the economy. The point however was to show that a small government does not centralize its priorities on $4.5 billion of "discretionary" funds, and an incredibly objectionably war. A small government does not piss away billions of dollars on things that never benefit the people.

                So though this was far more brief than I wanted it to be I feel should end here, at 2 pages of length, having felt as though I at least communicated my point effectively. The fact is that "right-wing" politics are most closely related to fascism, which is COMPLETE government control of everything. While "left-wing" politics are most closely related to socialism, which is NO government control, otherwise stated: "of the people, by the people, and for the people." –Abraham Lincoln, 1863.

                (I do not mean this to state the republicans are fascist and democrats are socialists, just that those ideologies which belong to their respective politics relate closely to those extreme circumstances, in order to more well establish my point that republican ideologies do NOT favor a small government, as is their claim)

Oh and I really have nothing against people who are 5'3" to 5'5", have all the babies you want :)

As always thanks for reading, I love you all and I hope you all had a fantastic holiday break!

Sincerely,

Scott

Currently listening : What Have We Become By Seemless Release date: 05 September, 2006

9:38 PM - 9 Comments - 8 Kudos - Add Comment

Republican Myth-Busters III - Small Government
Category: News and Politics

Happy New Year!
    As the holidays are drawing to a close and I find myself for the first time in a while, at home with some tiny smidgen of free time, and I decided it is high time for another Myth Buster! There are a good amount of myths floating around out there and I spent considerable time decided which one would be best for cracking. Well, as usual, I was inspired by a crazy person, to write on the many facets of the pock marked concept of a "small government."

Myth: Republicans/Libertarians/Conservatives etc.  want a small government. Let me edit this a little bit: they may want a small government, in theory. So rather the myth will be that they support ideologies of a small government.

Fact: First of all I would like to address what it means to have small government. I went to a few people whom I am friends with and asked them what they believe to be a small government and pretty much we all came to a general consensus. A small government, in our minds, would be a government that has very little control over the lives of individual people,  so it has very little power over the choices people make in their lives, and that they are fiscally responsible, or rather there is much less government spending. Of course there is more to it than that, but those are the basics. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this myself. So let us then examine conservative ideologies (those who claim to favor small government) in those terms.  

Let's take an issue for example, gay marriage. Briefly, the concept of marriage is traditionally the union of two people in the eyes of god. So based on that, only Christians can technically marry. That means no atheists, no agnostics, no pagans etc. well I don't see any laws banning atheists from marrying, but there it is. In modern times, marriage is more of a legal term than anything. It could easily be replaced with the word civil union or domestic partnership, and be the same thing. Anyone (man and women that is) can go down to the justice of the peace and sign a document and walk out a married couple. There is nothing religious there. So by a small government, does that mean one that is so small that it can tell you that you can't go sign a document saying you are married if you love someone? See the government having enough power to make laws discriminating who we can and can't marry sounds like an incredibly powerful government to me. That is the government directly interfering with individuals lives.

Let's take another one, abortion. (This is for Ron Paul) This is truly an argument that can never be won, on either side. But here I will concede a point or two. Abortion should not be a means of birth control (in my opinion). It is something that can be very important in situations for example if neither the mother nor the child would survive the delivery, then it is better one life be saved rather than both lost (in my opinion). And people who are between the height of 5'3" and 5'5" should be allowed to have children (in my opinion). But regardless, the government has no business telling people whether or not to get an abortion. That would be the same as if I made a law that stated that all people who are between the height of 5'3" and 5'5" are to be subject to forced abortion. How? Because the principle is that someone who has a certain opinion is forcing that opinion onto someone else by abusing their power. That is the government directly interfering with peoples' lives. If they are going to get an abortion, and you believe that because of it they are going to burn forever in a lake of fire for it. Then that is their loss. It is none of your business it is none of the governments business, and if the government were to try and take part in it, you can't deny that is means that it has enough power to do so, and that means that it is too fucking powerful.

There is the argument that if there are restrictions on 6 months or 3 months or whatever that that is still government interference because it is regulating it, so by putting full restriction on it that keeps the government out. But then that same idea could be (and would have to be if that's the argument) applied every kind of restriction that we have. Drinking age, I think it should be 18, but if that is a government regulation then instead of having any regulations then just make it illegal for all ages, then the government stays out. Or marriage age, no age limit, no one can get married.  Driving age, no age limit, no one can drive. Gun control, no regulations on who can or can't own a gun (I mentioned this before, crazy people with a history of violent crime should not be running loose with an AK47), no one can own a gun. This is a prime example of how the government is saturating itself in power over our lives.

The patriot act is a great one. Do you believe in a government that is SO small that they can wire tap your phone and spy on you at any given moment without a warrant or legal document of any kind? Is that a small government?! Has anyone read 1984!? Habeas Corpus, one of the most basic rights of mankind for centuries: the right to have to be tried before a judge and jury in a "fair" trial before being sentenced. That you are to be made fully aware of the reasons for why are being imprisoned before being imprisoned. And our president just got rid of it! That means that right now you can be arrested and thrown in jail indefinitely and never told why. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!! That is quite the opposite of a small government. That is a monstrously HUGE government.  

                These are a couple examples of conservative ideologies that give the government more power than god! Big brother is watching you!

                But while we are here, let's talk fiscal responsibility. You think social programs are a drain on our economy? Our current administration spent just shy of $7 billion on defense. 56% of this in 2007 was "discretionary" spending. This $7 billion also includes allocated funds to outdated cold war technology and security systems, and a budget to building and maintain enough nuclear warheads to blow up the world 15 times. That is over 60 times what the government spent on education. And I'm sorry that but that doesn't look like very appropriate numbers to me. In this mess of fiscal irresponsibilities also lies the ever daunting remarkably mislead tax cuts. The crazy person I spoke to today told me that because of our tax cuts, our economy is soaring miraculously and that our deficit has never been better. While I challenged his sources by listing 5 of my own, he could list only… 0. The truth is that our current GDP growth rate is the lowest it has been in 50 years. The income growth of the top 1% earned income families of the country is the highest it has been in 80 years. The unemployment rate is the highest it has been since the great depression. In fact "in 1981, Congress approved very large supply-side tax cuts, dramatically lowering marginal income-tax rates.  In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off.  Despite the very different tax policies followed during these two decades, there was virtually no difference in real per-person economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s.  Real per-person revenues, however, grew about twice as quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were increased, as in the 1980s, when taxes were cut" (http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm).  And our deficit is the worst it has ever been, ever. The problem is that conservative ideologies regarding taxes are stubborn and unrealistic and damaging to the economy. The point however was to show that a small government does not centralize its priorities on $4.5 billion of "discretionary" funds, and an incredibly objectionably war. A small government does not piss away billions of dollars on things that never benefit the people.

                So though this was far more brief than I wanted it to be I feel should end here, at 2 pages of length, having felt as though I at least communicated my point effectively. The fact is that "right-wing" politics are most closely related to fascism, which is COMPLETE government control of everything. While "left-wing" politics are most closely related to socialism, which is NO government control, otherwise stated: "of the people, by the people, and for the people." –Abraham Lincoln, 1863.

                (I do not mean this to state the republicans are fascist and democrats are socialists, just that those ideologies which belong to their respective politics relate closely to those extreme circumstances, in order to more well establish my point that republican ideologies do NOT favor a small government, as is their claim)

Oh and I really have nothing against people who are 5'3" to 5'5", have all the babies you want J

As always thanks for reading, I love you all and I hope you all had a fantastic holiday break!

Sincerely,

Scott

Currently listening : What Have We Become By Seemless Release date: 05 September, 2006

9:38 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Republican Myth-Busters II
Current mood: stressed

    So it is back already! The last one was so much fun I decided to write another one right away. Most will be happy to know that this one is really easy and therefore will be pretty short. Hope you enjoy reading!

Myth: Democrats want to take away everyone's guns.

FACT: A long time ago, especially around the 70's during Vietnam War time, People were crying for gun control. The forefront activists of this movement were democrats. For a long time Democrats fought a few small anti-gun ownership battles, and pushed for stricter gun control. This is because with each and every radical there is an equal and opposite radical. With radical war and super pro militia people in the country there was a very strong rise-up against them. Today the gun removal cries from the left no longer apply, and in fact it hasn't for some time. Many democrats, such as ex-president Jimmy Carter are in fact members of the NRA now. I think we started realizing that if we were the party pushing for people's rights that it was hypocritical to say that they didn't have the right to bear arms if they chose to do so. Also it was pointed out that the right to have a gun was originally put in place to rise up against the government if the people wanted change and it wasn't happening. Most of us want change, and those evil little weapons don't look so evil anymore. I guess most important is that we have to realize that only a very infinitely small number of democrats still harp on anti-gun stratagems. 

                A good example of a modern democratic outlook on gun control would be Senator Barack Obama. Obama knows that there are already plenty of gun control laws in place, we just aren't enforcing them. He doesn't plan on creating more laws, just making sure the ones that are already in place are working. Like with the Virginia Tech killings. Based on that guys mental history he should not have qualified for gun ownership. But he wasn't properly checked. That is the case in many situations. Any sane person without a history of violent crime can own a gun. Does that sound unfair? Would you really want a schizophrenic person running around your neighborhood with a hunting rifle? I don't! So really this really shouldn't be an issue any more. For anyone who is torn between democrat and republican on the issue of gun control can rest easy. We aren't going to take away your guns, we won't even try.

                So that's that! I told you it would be short sweet and to the point. I don't know if you should be expecting more writings in a week or so or not, it is finals week…

                As always I hope you all enjoyed reading, and I wish you all the best!

Love

Scott

Currently listening : Monroe Doctrine By Farside Release date: 15 June, 1999

2:07 PM - 3 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Republican Myth-Busters!
Current mood: peaceful
Category: News and Politics

    I hear a whole lot of people who say that they agree with both parties because they both have their good sides. Or they say they only agree with republicans because of the evilness of democrats. But then when they start talking about the issues I really discover that they really only agree with the Democratic side, because very few people are actually selfish Nazi's. I realized also, that the reason most people think that they agree with both Republicans and Democrats is because they have been lead to believe an abundance of lies and stereotypes about Democrats that are so blatantly false that they are often times the opposite of the truth. Hence the reason I am now introducing: Republican Myth-Buster! I will introduce these over a series of several blogs. Here is the first one, enjoy!

Myth: Democrats just want to raise taxes on everything and take money away from the working man. (AKA- Democrats don't believe that people should get to keep the money that they work for)

In Fact: That is so far from correct, and wrong on so many different levels that I am going to have to break it up into sections.

--> -->1. Democrats do raise taxes generally speaking. But they raise taxes for things like imports, things that affect major corporation businesses, and people who make 1 million dollars+ a year.

--> -->2. These taxes are what pay for our schools, for our police, for our fire department, for our roads, public pools, community cleanup projects, jails, trail preservation, and everything else in our lives that we don't directly pay for.

--> -->3. Many, if not most of the taxes that Democrats vote into legislation, Republicans also vote for.

--> -->4. As stated earlier, most of the taxes that Democrats vote to raise affect the top 6% or higher income families in the country. This is to say that Democrats endorse a system in which people who make tons and tons of money should have to pay more in taxes then people who are just scraping by to survive.

--> -->5. Furthermore, if there is anyone responsible for taking money away from the working man it is the Republicans. Oh sure they cut taxes, if you make more the 3 million dollars a year you benefit from tons of tax cuts from the Republicans. I will break this down a little

--> -->A. Republicans believe in the trickledown theory of economics. This means that they believe if you give more and more tax cuts to the extremely wealthy, they will in turn spend more money, which will eventually, some day make its way down to the poor man… in the form of a trickle. A good analogy would be: they believe that we should give all the pure water to the wealthy Americans so that they have to piss more. Then the rich will piss all over the poor people and they will get their water that way.

--> -->B. Part of this theory comes from the fact that a lot of republicans have got a lot of rich friends, and they make deals with their friends that go a little something like:

(Rich Guy): I'll give you 25% of my savings if you don't make me pay taxes

(Republican Politician): Sweet deal, I'm in!

--> -->C. The current administration supports a tax system in which (these are not exact numbers, but this is how the system works using numbers as an example) people making under 1 million dollars a year pay income tax on 100% of their income, but people are make more then 10 million a year pay income tax on a fraction of 1% of their income. Fair?

--> -->D. This all boils down to: if you are rich then you can stay rich, and if you are poor you stay poor, or become so poor that you are homeless.

--> -->6. Democrats raise taxes to pump money back into the middle and lower class so that the money is more evenly distributed.

--> -->7. Statistically speaking, 99% of people who are rich, were born rich, so they technically didn't do shit for their money, especially work. Because of their rich environment they were able to attend expensive schools and join the high income family businesses. And usually end up with jobs where they do nothing but decide who they should fire or hire that day, and work less than 3 days a week at most. Most people who have that kind of money will not have worked even half as hard in their entire lifetime as you do in one day. Many of them will even admit that they don't work for the money; they work because it gives them something to do.

--> -->8. All of that aside, think about it this way: if you made more than a million dollars a year, would you be willing to give up a few thousand of that to make sure that children were getting a place to sleep, food to eat, and the opportunity to go to school? I sure as shit would. If we don't take that money from people who make more then they need then it has to come from somewhere else. And that somewhere else is people who can barely afford to live as it is.

I know this comes off as me condemning rich people, but I truly am not doing that. I don't hate rich people. I don't think other people should hate rich people. But now you see that the Republican system is truly the one taking money from people who work for it. Democrats aren't the only ones raising taxes, Republicans do it too. When they cut taxes they make cuts that benefit people who are already living well within their means. Their staunch refusal to implement taxes where necessary leaves us without social security (for people who can't find good jobs, and can't afford to move to an area with good jobs), without medical insurance (for people who, even when they make plenty, have to pay for several medications that are upwards of 15,000 a month), and without the basic services we rely on the government for to survive (all mentioned above). Almost no person who is living on the street is there by choice. Nobody who is poor is poor because they want to be.

That's my Myth Buster for today. This is why I believe most of you who think you are Republican, really aren't, because you are not so selfish that you can't feel something for another person. Most of you are not self-serving elitists who make a trillion dollars a year and only think about yourself. Please, if you give a fuck about other people, if you are able to any degree to feel sympathy for someone who never had it easy, then don't vote republican.

As always thanks for reading! You all have my best wishes at heart J

Scott

Currently listening : Dirt By Alice in Chains Release date: 29 September, 1992

10:51 AM - 8 Comments - 7 Kudos - Add Comment

How stupid can you be?
Current mood: pensive

I know a lot of people are going to think that this about them, its not. ITS NOT ABOUT YOU.

When I was in highschool, in my psychology class, I once said that sometimes people dont necessarily fall into two specific categories (I can't remember what those categories are now) because stupid people are just confused, and sometimes apply to both. Well I was then challenged to define (objectively) what makes someone stupid. Its funny because although it may seem like common sense to some, it took me a really long time to identifiy exactly what it meant to be stupid. And much to my chagrine, I was anable to rise the challenge, and I guess I was the stupid one. Please feel free to challenge this, as my definition could always use some critiquing I am sure. I define stupid thus:

- Not being able to learn from your experiences, and thus be able to make better judgements and better decisions in the future
 
- Choosing not to learn from your experiences

- Refusing to educate yourself before making life changing decisions (or re-worded): not examining the consequences before doing something exorbitant

- Not be able to connect information and apply knowledge to life situations

- Doing counter-productive things without any cause, motive or reason

- Choosing to ignore issues that impact you or the people around you, or pretending that they don't exist.

- Assuming things (primarily dealing with stereotypes)

So basically I think that in most situations, being stupid is a choice. It most certainly is not for some, and then stupid is the wrong word to use, even if the situations apply. But primarily it has to do with making choices.The more of these categories in which one falls, the greater the level of stupidity. Also (as mentioned above) repeatedly making bad decisions increases the magnatude to which one should be accountable for being stupid. And that it what it means to be stupid. As I said earlier I would really appreciate it if somone would challenge this and give me examples of when this is not true, so I may more objectively understand this subject.

Thanks for reading!

Scott

5:02 PM - 7 Comments - 10 Kudos - Add Comment

My 1st Music Review

    After looking at some picture of a friend of mine who attended a concert that I would have been particularly disgusted by I was inspired to write a short music review.
    I was mildly stumped however on who I should review. My roommate suggested It Dies Today. At first I declined, not really having a strong opinion of the band, but then I changed my mind and decided it would be worthwhile to bash them a little.
    So for those who don't know, It Dies Today is one of your run-of-the-mill screamo/metal-core bands. They formed in 2001 in New York, but didn't really make it succesfuly, which is to say onto a respectable label and into the "scene," until 2004 when they hopped on Trustkill records and joined the revolution of bad metal-core albums that were springing up at the time. Thier first album (correction here: Thier first decent sized record label release was): The Caitiff Choir, was a shinning example of how guitars should never ever ever sound if they aren't MIDI. The album was also heavily marked by the most artificial sounding vocals to be heard outside of electronica. The album was not without some merit as they did manage to poop out one crappy single: "A Threnody For Modern Romance." Good things can happen when, if you don't know how to write music, you simply follow the verse, chorus, verse, chorus, end, formula. Needless to say I was not impressed. The album was kind of agressive at best, lacked a single decent breakdown, and although I hate to harp on this, the singing sounded like they kicked they singer in the neck and said: "we wont sell any albums if you don't try and sing."
    They released "Sirens," again on Trustkill, in 2006. Having wasted a year and a half listening to "The Caitiff Choir," "Sirens" was truly music to the ears. I would personally like to send out a thank you to the band to going to a real studio and getting a real recording with real guitars, thank you. If you had not spent a year and 1/2 listening to the first "pile" then picking up the new IDT really wouldn't be anything very special at all. I will give it this, the songs are way better, and the vocals are way more dynamic. But (there is always a "but"), for a metal-core album, or even a hardcore album, it is miles away from being heavy. The vocalist moved way from the long cardboard tube that he was singing through and took lessons or something. So now you not only have your standard WAY over chorused choruses, but now there is some James Hetfield yelling. Also, although the screaming has been cut down to about 25% of the album it has deapend and formed a somewhat pleasant sounding scream. I will say right now I don't ever really listen to this album for pleasure, but if I had to pick one of thiers I would definitely choose this one.
    So if you are in the market for metal-core you may as well give It Dies Today a chance. If your looking for metal-core albums you're probably relatively hard to disappoint anyway. On a scale of 1-10, 1 of course being the worst musician to attempt music, and 10 being the greatest album ever recorded, I give "The Caitiff Choir" a 4, "Sirens" a 6, and It Dies Today a 5.5.

Love,

Scott

11:29 PM - 6 Comments - 6 Kudos - Add Comment

Tahoe Retreat
Current mood: happy

We are nerds :)
it was a lot of fun

11:48 PM - 3 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Concerning Books and Hannibal Lecter
Current mood: chipper

I have finally finished the "Hannibal Lecter" series (for lack of a better name). They are the books by Thomas Harris. 4 of the 5 that I am aware that he has has published. Anyway for my deprevation of anyone to converse with I have decided to write my feelings on here for all to... "enjoy" :)

So basically I love the Character of Hannibal Lecter. I decided to start with Hannibal rising even though that is the most recent, it seemed logical to begin there for the sake of chornology. Hannibal Rising was an intense action filled book with good character and story development, pleasantly gruesome death, and an overabundence of a particularly fecund vocabulary. The book was one of those good "page-turners" that keeps one reading. I would strongly recommend it separately from the rest of the Hannibal books for it is vastly different. Overall this one was probably my favorite for entertainment purposes.

Then, of course was "Red Dragon." I had already seen the movie, and to this point I might add: if you have already seen the movie and not read the book, try and savor your good feelings for the movie as your read, because the book is infinitely better (as the story always goes). This book was (as part of the what I would consider to be the actual Hannibal series) the most action packed. The writing style in this one was considerably less developed and harder to read, as Harris decided for whatever reason to express quick action sequences as short, ambiguous one word sentences. Otherwise a very good read.

"Silence of the Lambs" followed, and I might add here that at this point I had not only never read the book, but I had never seen the movie. This book seemed less of a sequel to Red Dragon, then it was simply using the same characters for a different story... if that makes sense. The writing and story development was way better, and spoiling my conclusive description for "Hannibal," the best of the Hannibal series. This one was very entertaining even though at this point one begins to grow ever so slightly weary of the authors persistant prods towards his own intellectual vanity. Only for this book while I dive slightly into the story. I was particularly keen on the way in which Harrison seemed to splice characterstics mainly from Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahmer when creating  Jame Gumb. And I was also greatly entertained as the realization of millions of pop culture references dawned upon me while I read: "It puts the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again" (quoted from the movie and not the book, as that exact line does not appear in the book... at all). And though this was a fantastic movie, particularly for its time, it still fell dreadfully short of the book.

Finally came Hannibal. Having previously seen this movie as well I was all too excited to begin reading. I don't remember much of the movie, which made me quite happy, but the book delivered the story in almost movie script form, as it was fanastically visual. This book was very definitely a sequel to Silence of the Lambs. This was easily the least action packed of the books. It begins and ends with edge-of-your-seat action sequence with 200 pages of nothing in the middle. I still thought this was a really terrific book. The ending particularly waaaaaay better then the movie. Just that Dr. Lecter is very fun to read about and instead you get chapter after chapter of Mason Verger in his handicap bed. I am particularly fond of stories of vigilanteism and more importantly revenge. So this story really caught me in that respect.

All in all I would say that Hannibal Lecter is one my favorite fictional characters. You can see how much Harris developes and changes his character throughout the books. In Red Dragon you really get the sense that Dr. Lecter was created soley for the purpose of the being the immoral criminal genius, hardly relevent to the plot. And never even alluded to as being concerne with formality or a concern for respenct. In Silence of the Lambs: still completely evil, yet purposeful and with much more human qualities of a conscience. Now suddenly having the property of courtesy, and obsessed with respect. The scene in the movie "The Silence of the Lambs" when Miggs throws sperm on Agent Starling was so poorly done it was almost embarrassing in my opinion. Then in Hannibal: Dr. Lecter is now further devoleped to have quite a complexity of personality traits (that were kind of introduced in Silence of the Lambs). He now has a strong distaste for immorality and injustice. He has a strong appetite for delicacies and rarities. and he is miles (literally) from where he began in Red Dragon. While the first 3 (speaking in the order of which they were published) were actually quite good at following and adhering to the past actions and events connecting the stories together, especially considering they were published yeeeaars apart; Hannibal Rising is terribly incongruent with its predecessors. Which is why I would considerate kind of separate from the series.

While I am on my little rant; American Psycho is a phenomenal book. I can honestly tell you that I am not sure what it is actually about. I can also say that that book as no plot and that it is amazing how interested an hooked you can stay on a story with no climax, and no conclusion, and still love it. Also, this book was so exceedingly gruesome, that I actually had to put it down at one point. If they were to make a movie that actually followed the entire book verbatim, the one with Christian Bale would be rated G, and the real one would be rated X. And I gauruntee you that while reading it you will stop at least once and say out loud: "what the fuck!?"

So thats that. I have moved on to a new monstrously large book I intend to conquer throughout the semester: The Count of Monte Cristo!

Love

Scott

4:16 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Super Secular Humanistic Expialadotious

Hello All!

    I have been pondering over appropriate topics to blog about for so long that I have neglected writing all together. But I have been been reading some literature recently that forces one to explore the darker side of human nature and most importantly: empathetic ability with what most would consider "morally bankrupt." Thus I have decided it is time to write again. The topic I have chosen has nothing to do with the darker side of human nature or moral ambiguity.
    What I have been noticing more and more is the commonplace agenda of people to emphasize and embellish thier own intellectual vanity. Not the least of which is pretending to understand concepts, as simple as vocabulary. This is better, I suppose, then people feigning ignorance; but worse then being honest... No matter, the point is I recent began researching a term I am familiar with, but did not fully understand. Secular Humanism.

    Recently I was participating in an activity that is considered illegal, although it is a silly law I don't agree with. While I was doing this I was accosted by a missionary. Ironic. He stopped me and asked my about Jesus and God, and my Faith etc etc. Being in a hurry and a little short on time, not to mention eager to get back to playing video games, I skipped the interview part of the encounter and politely informed the man that I was an atheist. He asked me if I knew anything about mormonism, God, whatever. I informed him once more that I had extensive background knowledge of mormonism, the bible, and various other dogmas. I told him that I liked a lot of little treats that come in the whole mormon family package, but it was something I did not believe in, and it didnt make sense to me. I also told him that if it worked for him to stick with it. He told me he couldnt imagine life without God. To which I responded: "I love me life." We shook hands a parted ways.
    Frequently I have been accosted by people: friends, family, coworkers; who have the audacity to tell me that I am close minded about music. Their argument has three reasons: 1. I like music with screaming. 2. I don't like country. 3. I HATE rap. I am so close minded in fact that in my music library you will find such heavy metal gods as Lynyrd Skynyrd, Cold Play, Jack Johnson, The Cure, and The Beatles. I have never heard country that I liked. Which is not to say that it is not out there. What I hate about rap is partially the synthesized music. I like synthesized music a lot here and there, just not for 50 min at a time. and most importantly. I hate rapping. I hate it. If they are simply rhyming away to a drum machine. It does not appeal to my particular taste. There it is. Deal with it.

    What does this have to do with Super Secular Humanism Expialadotious? Secular Humanism is: any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines. (www.dicionary.reference.com/browse/secular%20humanism).
What this implies, and is consistently referred to is: a lifestyle preoccupied with being good and happy while simultaneously free of the ephemeral bonds of ideologies.

Because this blog is very long already I will cut to the chase.

As a secular humanist I can live a fulfilling life and be good and moral and happy. I can accept the exceptional and unpopular with appreciation if not love. I can choose between agony and ecstasy at my own intervention. And I do not need, do not have, and do not follow any docterine claiming divinity. I was born, I will flourish and I will die.

Is that not a beautiful concept? I fell in love with it as I was researching it.

That is my little revelation for the month.

Thanks for reading!

Love

Scott

Currently reading : Hannibal By Thomas Harris Release date: 08 June, 1999

2:00 PM - 3 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

Highest Inspiration
Current mood: cheerful

Dear Loyal Fans, (hahaha)
I find the highest motivation and most frequent inspiration for blogging is when you are pissed off. I find a million blogs about the worst day ever, or getting over your boyfriend, or how much you hate your job. I will admit that I also am guilty of this. Most of my blogs in fact are written when I am so angry that I am grinding my teeth into a fine powder. There is nothing wrong with this, but just for this one time, I have chosen to tell you about how awesome my crummy life really is.

I love my life.

I wake up too early after never getting enough sleep. I know that it will be at least another 17 hours before I can relax again. I don't have time to eat before I leave. I don't have enough money to by food when I am hungry. I work too much and I'm not doing well in school. I spend my day alone, missing the one who makes me whole, whom when I finally get to see her we are both sleeping. I have bills I can't seem to shake. I am barely making enough money to cover rent and bills. I don't have any time for myself. Most of my things are breaking or broken. Most of my clothes come from thrift stores. It is always cold and I am always dressed inapproprately for the weather. I can't see where my life is going if anywhere. And the only thing I wait for is the end, the end of the day, the end of the week, the end of the semester, the end of my life.

But all things considered I am actually really happy. I have a wonderful family who I adore. I have a wonderful girlfriend. I have amazing friends. I have fulfilling music. And I have a sense of humor. I can always make myslef smile or laugh. And all in all, I usually feel pretty good.

This was my day today as well.

I hope that when you are having a bad day you too can realize all of the sweet nectors in your life and learn to say: ah fuck it.

Love,

Scott

Currently listening : Back in Black By AC/DC Release date: 16 August, 1994

10:19 PM - 8 Comments - 14 Kudos - Add Comment

Owning a Canadian
Current mood: pleased

This is an article I found online, it is absolutely hilarious, check it out!!!

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I