The Cruel, Morally Bankrupt, and Irresponsible Fire Department

There has been a lot of talk about privatizing government institutions, Police departments, schools, etc. On paper, this could potential be a good idea. In practice, well we didn’t know, until last week.

Have you ever forgotten to pay your electric bill and had services stopped? It’s inconvenient, but a family in Tennessee found out the risk of forgetting to pay for fire services. The South Fulton Fire Department refused to show up to a burning house because the homeowners had not paid a $75 fee. They eventually showed up, but only because the neighbor had paid the fee and his property was in danger. While their house caught fire, the homeowners begged, and offered money to have their home, belongings, memories and pets saved. The fire department watched the house burn to the ground.

This case shows us the cruel, morally bankrupt, and irresponsible actions taken when we run the government like a business. Conservatives on National Review called the homeowners “jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates”, and Glenn Beck mocked them for sponging off their neighbors. Wasn’t there a man who spoke about loving thy neighbor? I can never remember his name.

Was it right to allow someone’s home to be burnt to the ground for not paying a $75 fee? I don’t think so, and I suspect people will disagree with me. I do hope people will agree with me when I say; it’s irresponsible to allow a fire to continue in a populated area. For this alone I hope the mayor, fire chief, and firemen are reprimanded.

So what was the benefit of the fire department running like a business? I guess people will never forget to pay their fees, and I guess now there is one less house to worry about. But at what cost?

Stephen is my hero.

The Path to Socialism

After watching Glenn Beck talk about all the hidden symbols of socialism throughout New York, I had an epiphany. Could it be possible that the socialist propaganda could go much deeper than we had thought before? I started my research early in history and looked at our most recent president, George W. Bush. I didn’t think it could be possible for this president to be socialist, but the horrific reality soon struck. I looked at his tax cuts, make sure the rich stay rich. I heard him talk about trickle down. He wanted the rich to have more money so they could spread their wealth down to the least fortunate. It couldn’t be possible, was he actually claiming that more spending by the government in order to allow the rich to spread wealth was a good idea. My knees became weak.

If President Bush was sponsoring socialist ideas could others be doing the same? What about our founding fathers? My stomach felt empty as I researched the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson had asked for public schools. He had asked for the government to pay for socialist program. Fortunately he was turned down. Who knows what could have happened if he would have lead us towards socialism 200 years ago.

By this point I knew that I must let go of my fear and look deep into my heart to find how far this conspiracy goes. I knew Mr. Beck had asked us to step away from churches preaching social justice. So I opened my Bible and read Mathew. Jesus was preaching social justice. My whole reality shattered. Could it be that 2,000 years ago Jesus was creating the groundwork for Socialism? The truly explains why the Romans needed to stop him from spreading his ideas.

How hard is to live and let live?

Gay marriage is a sensitive topic, and in my small town of Beloit things get heated. This is what I think, but others have some pretty wild ideas.

As far as I can tell there are only three arguments for denying adults the right to spend the rest of their lives with the person they want. The first is based on tradition. That is to say, that we cannot change something that we’ve had for so long. The idea that we can’t change tradition is well, wrong. We can and have. There’s quite a list of traditions that have been changed over time. Slavery, women’s rights, even things like monarchies were all traditions we no longer have. So the argument for tradition doesn’t really hold up well.

Then there’s religion. Judeo-Christian belief, a belief that is not universally believed in, a belief whose rules are not universally followed is used to deny people right to marry whom they please. It is, after all, against the bible to eat pork, and shellfish. There is an entire book, Leviticus, dedicated to the many rules and laws that should be followed yet many of Christian faith don’t. Are all Americans expected to follow one rule out the Bible while the Church’s own followers refuse to follow the rules themselves?

Finally there’s the constitution. I will give you that nowhere does it appear that gays have a right to marriage, but by the same token nowhere does it appear that you can deny this right. Also there is a reason courts exist. Courts exist to check that our laws are upheld; otherwise the Supreme Court would be out of a job. There is a reason for courts and that’s to make sure that no one, not citizens, politicians, or presidents go against the constitution.

Read the BDN Opinions, and let me know what you think.

Supreme Court should decide

Off again on gay marriage

I was in the BDN again, no surprise there, but I got called a socialist. The funny part is my letter was about not calling people socialist and other sound bite words. Personally I get annoyed at people not knowing what the hell they're talking about.

http://www.beloitdailynews.com/articles/2010/08/17/opinion/letters/let1701.txt

How to prove Ann Coulter is crazy using Google and a phone. pt 2

So how do you prove generalizations? Most people rationalize them, but very few actually try to prove them. It is very difficult to prove generalizations because they are always based on false assumptions. Ann has found a great formula for her proof. I like to call this formula, one for all and all for one.

There are two steps to this formula. First, take a comment that has been made by any member of the group and apply it all. This one is pretty useful: if one liberal says they don’t believe in God than no liberals do. In this way you can take anything ever said and label the whole group with it. Best of all this can be done regardless of how unrelated the individual is to the group. This is how Ann can prove that liberals love both Stalin and Hitler.

The second step is where it gets clever. It is not enough for a group to stand for certain beliefs, but the individuals believe everything the whole group does. If one liberal says they don’t like the death penalty because it’s inhumane than all liberals, as individuals, believe the same thing and no liberals believe differently. This goes further than a label or statistic. In Ann’s world the idea is concrete not a possibility. Like the first step, this step can be done regardless of the individual.

By following these steps Ann finds contradictions in the liberal mentality. For Ann she can say the following and it makes sense. When talking about the death penalty Ann will say “They say that life in prison thinking about the crime is worse than death. Evidently not to the murders on death row who regularly fight their execution tooth and nail. But just so we understand, is the problem here that the death penalty is too humane, or not humane enough?”¹ Ann uses “they” to make sure she doesn’t have to quote anyone and can attribute to all liberals equally. She uses this kind of statement to prove that all liberals have an innate hypocrisy in their ideology. She completely ignores that a group can’t be hypocritical because it’s made up of many different mentalities and ideologies.

It is possible for an individual to be a hypocrite. So here is my favorite example of Ann demonstrating the concept. In her book Slander Ann makes the following statement. “More than other hate speech, the left’s attacks on women for being ugly tell you everything. There is nothing so irredeemably cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks. Attacking a female for being ugly is a hideous thing, always inherently vicious.”²

So anyone, by Ann’s standards, anyone who attacks women for their looks is irredeemably cruel, and vicious. Ann, you are irredeemably cruel, and vicious. Here is what she has to say about Susie Landalfy and Andrea Duerkan. “…Miss Landalfy, to put it as charitably as possible is physically repulsive in apearance. With a presentation that was about as erotic as phone sex with Andrea Duerkan, or actual sex with Andrea Duerkan come to think of it”¹ The rest of the quote just gets worse, but you can listen to it yourself.

1. Ann Coulter, “Godless, The Church Of Liberalism,” [audio CD] Random House Audio. I attached the audio so you can listen to Ann says all these things herself.

2. Ann Coulter. “Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right.” Crown Publishers, New York, New York. 2002

How to prove Ann Coulter is crazy using Google and a phone.

I’ve always heard that Ann Coulter was crazy, but I wanted to find out for myself. Because of some deep curiosity, or my slight masochistic tendency, I decided to read Ann’s books. So I did something desperate and went to the public library and found three books: Slander, Godless, and Guilty. Then I read and listened, two of the books are audio books. Reading Ann’s books are not easy to get through - especially if you actually bother to read what she says. In the end I think what I have found is worth it, but I know some parts of my soul will never grow back. What I have managed to do is compile a list of all the ways in which Ann is a nutcase as well as all the lies and the ways in which Ann uses them. I manage to do all this using nothing more than the Internet and my landline.

Part 1: Assume a liberal
Ann really only has one book: How liberals have destroyed society. This is the only theme that Ann has. In order to make her argument Ann starts with one big lie. Ann asks the reader to blindly assume a lot about liberal and a lot of it is false. Ann never tries to prove her assumptions; we are just told that they are true. In Ann’s world liberal are “Druids”, who “hate science”, and “deny the existence of God”. Liberal also “hate mankind”, “love Stalin”, are “zealots”, and “hate America and God”. Yes we can hate God while we deny he/she exists. This is Ann’s starting point. She starts with “liberals are nutcases” and just tells us to trust this statement. Here’s a great example of what Ann considers a good argument: “If Hitler hadn’t turned on their beloved Stalin, Liberals would have stuck by him too.” This argument is for why liberal will defend anything hateful. She has no proof of her beginning statement, “liberals are nutcases”, and so anything she says from here will sound crazy. She starts with crazy and moves onto to crazy, all with false assumptions. Ann doesn’t stop at just false assumptions, she continues into something that I don’t think has a word.

Here’s another great argument by Ann: “Colleges pick up where the public schools leave off inculcating students in the religion of hating America and hating God.” This I would usually call generalization, but Ann makes sure her generalizations start at awful. Most generalizations can at least be rationalized, but what Ann says can’t. Her comments serve two purposes; first she makes sure that liberals sound like nutcases. Second she makes the reader believe that all liberals think the same. This kind of argument I don’t think has name, but I would call it lying. The way she argues is rather brilliant because it can be used on any group. Let me show how to use it against Republicans. “Conservatives are superstitious, who hate the earth so much that they are willing to waste money and gas on watching car go around in circles.” These are gross generalizations that can’t be proven. I’m pretty sure that there are Republicans that don’t like NASCAR just like there are liberals that do. I also believe that believing in God does not make you superstitious. Nothing in my sentence can be proven right. Ann, however, has found a great way to do it.

Next time:
Part Two: All for one, and one for all.

1. Ann Coulter, “Godless, The Church Of Liberalism,” [audio CD] Random House Audio.

Stirring the pot

After my last letter to the editors in the Beloit Daily News, I have gotten a big response. There have been three letters aim directly at me.

Six months left before elections

Seek solutions, not propaganda

Will not uphold the Constitution

This Monday the Beloit Daily printed an editorial called. Arizonas not the bad guys. You should read the comments. Lots of fun.

So here's what I hope the Beloit Daily will print this week.

The Beloit Daily News editorial on May 24 demonstrated that people conveniently ignore the situation. The editorial suggested that the New Arizona Law will not lead to racial profiling. It is wrong to assume that it will not. Even today existing laws are pursued on the basis of stereotypes.

The editorial stated that the law was not aimed tourists or American citizens, but in the past laws created to protect citizens have hurt those it was meant to protect. Prohibition is an example. It led not only to an increase in violence, but it helped root the American Mafia in the States. I’m pretty sure some of the people who lost their loved ones or their own lives were not making moonshine in their basement.

Criminalizing marijuana has done the same thing. It created a demand for marijuana. Many officers have died due to criminals smuggling it in. The new law will create a greater demand for fake IDs and stolen identities, and someone will fill this demand. This law is not a solution - it is only feeding the problem. You are raising the stakes for crossing the border, and are therefore raising profits people can make by human trafficking.

The editorial also attacked President Obama for having federal authorities investigate officials. What the president said was "We're examining any implications especially for civil rights…” Implications of the law does not mean they are looking into the officers who will enforce it.

The editorial also conveniently managed to ignore what people have been saying, we need immigration reform. No one, not the White House, not liberals, not Obama has said that we can leave the immigration situation alone. Even Felipe Calderon during his address to congress asked for help with immigration reform. So why are these facts constantly overlooked

So what do you think? Am I stirring the pot too much?

The modern Samaritan

My friend was telling a chilling story on our way to a workshop. As she was walking her dog early Sunday morning, she noticed another dog running straight at her - a pitbull. While I know that dogs are as poorly behaved as their owners let them be, I understand my friend’s fear as she saw this animal running toward her. The strange dog was innocent enough at first until it tried to jump on her.
My friend’s dog, a German Shepard, became agitated and did what any good dog would – protect her master. A fight started between these two medium-sized dogs. I can only imagine how frightening of a sight this must have been for my friend.
The commotion attracted on-lookers as people started coming out of their homes with their video phones to film the excitement. Even the owner of the pit-bull just watched. My friend, after seeing people at their doors, screamed for help, but no one came.
My friend gathered her courage and tried to restrain the pit bull only to be bitten herself. Even more terrified than before, and with her faithful dog’s throat in the jaws of a pit bull, help finally arrived. Not from the many onlookers, or from the pitbull’s owner, but from two strangers driving by in their van.
One man helped separate the dogs and restrain the pit bull in his van while the other, a veterinarian in training, helped make sure the German Shepard was unharmed. My friend was also proud to mention that the two strangers were Hispanics; we do like to keep track of the achievements of our people.
This story, of course, is a metaphor to what I see as the current condition of the world. Too many people expect someone else to fix the world. Everyone is so afraid to make a stand on their own. People will either hide behind massive groups, like the tea party, or the government. Political lines are drawn creating a mob mentality; both liberals and conservative are guilty of this. And in the worst case scenario people will hide behind God.
Of course God did tell us about the Good Samaritan. I don’t think people read into the parable enough. The parable is not just about a stranger coming to a man’s aid. It’s about one man who stopped caring about what his group thought.
There is one group who claim to be revolutionary, Tea partiers. To truly do something revolutionary you need to do something different, Stop saying No. Stop thinking that everyone outside your group is your enemy. Do the revolutionary thing, be a good Samaritan and reach past your groups mindset.

Dear White People

Dear white people,

Please stop trying to speak for us non-white people.

Love,
Adan

The reason I say this is not because I don’t appreciate the support of the majority. I think you should be a key part in minority issues, I just don’t think you should try to voice our opinions. Let me give some examples. A situation occurred where some courageous student decided to wear American flags on Cinco de Mayo. They were sent home by Kim Lemos the assistant principal of the school. She, I think, felt that we Mexicans would be offended by this. As a Mexican, I don’t care what these students wear. She thought she was doing us a favor, helping us out. I think she overreacted.

This, of course, was not the end of the drama. While I was listening to Christian radio, the least offensive of conservative radio, I heard a very curious statement. They were discussing the drama with the high school students. The comment that was made was this, and I am paraphrasing. “We don’t celebrate Bastille Day, the French revolution, but we celebrate Cinco de Mayo because we have a rich history with Mexico.” Now I don’t think it’s just me, but the host implied that Cinco de Mayo was our revolution. Well for all those not paying attention during high school history classes, it’s not. Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo because it gives you an excuse to drink. I celebrate it for the same reason, but it’s not a national holiday in Mexico, it is not our Bastille Day. The host was trying to help by justifying why we have a day dedicated to Mexicans, but he only ended up showing how ignorant he is.

Lastly I have to bash on my least favorite talk show radio host Erich Muller (Mancow). His comment is easily one the worst I have ever heard, and it is one of the reason we have the word racist. He commented to his black co-host, and I am quoting not paraphrasing, “You wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for slavery.” I’m sure I don’t need to explain that one.

All of these examples have one thing in common. All these people are trying to do minorities a favor. Kim Lemos was making sure Mexican weren’t offended, the Christian radio host was helping his white audience better connect with their Mexican brothers, and the Mancow was showing how much his people have helped in the creation of the African-American.

This is why we use the word racist. We don’t use the word when you don’t like us, or when you provide service to white folks first, we use the word jerk, along with others.

We do like the support just make sure you let us use our voice, and us get offended. We don’t need you to protect us from being insulted. We are strong people. I think we can handle it.

Immigration

My favorite part of the new Arizona immigration law isn’t the fact that it gives police too much power, or the fact that it encourages stereotyping, but I amazed at the law’s supporters. Conservatives that have been getting the public riled up by calling the government socialist are now supporting a law that allows the police to ask any citizen for their papers. I am reminded of 1984 by George Orwell and more recently V for Vendetta by Alan Moore. The conservatives that I’m talking about are the clown conservatives. People like Glenn Beck, Erich Muller (the Mancow), and Cal Thomas. These are the kinds of conservatives that have been going around name calling, and complaining the government is too big. These are the same people who feel their lives are being invaded by the government. These are the same people that support a law that gives the government the ability to stop anyone just for looking illegal. I thought we were innocent until proven guilty. Of course these conservatives will hide behind the necessity for immigration reform, and I agree with them. Immigration is a mess. It’s too hard for the brilliant minds to come to the states. It’s too easy for criminals to traffic drugs, and the current laws encourage human trafficking. Once they have crossed the border, illegal immigrants create unfair job competition for all Americans. There is no reason to pay someone more to do a job that some one else will do for less, and someone who can’t complain about being mistreated. Everybody loses in the current system, but that doesn’t mean we need to turn around and create unconstitutional laws. We tried that with the Patriot Act, and remember all the 16-year-olds that were on watch lists because they looked up how to make a bomb on yahoo.

This is only the latest example of buffoonery by these conservatives. Clown conservatives have been hurting not just their cause, but the nation. They have pitted perfectly reasonable people against each other by running around and calling everyone a socialist, Nazi, and what ever other scandalous name they can think of. These people are in show business; they are in it for the money and have resorted to using a childish tactic of shock. I urge people to stop following the example of these clowns, but by all means hear them out, it’s important to hear both sides of the story, but don’t follow their example. You will know what is right and wrong, and you will know what is fair, but only if you realize that some people are trying to get you riled up because they can make money out of it.