Morgan’s Fun Ranting Corner

Today in South Korea, a group of South Korean activists launched 10 helium balloons, stuffed with thousands of pamphlets critical of North Korean leader Kimmy Ping-Pong Jimmy-Jong-Il. Boring, right? Well, the balloons are being flown over North Korea, the last truely Stalinist state on Earth.

North Korea is the most vile country on Earth. To be exact, it has the most vile government on Earth. Korea was split after World War II between the North and the South. The North was under the control of the Soviet Union, and the “Democratic” “People’s” “Republic” of Korea was established. Meanwhile, the South became the Republic of Korea, under the protective wing of the United States of America. In 1950, the North tried to “re-unite” the two, and the funny thing is, they’re still officially at war, because the war ended in a truce, not a peace treaty.

Everything in North Korea is under the control of the government, and the government uses scare tactics, such as Nazi-esque concentration camps, where the family members of defectors are sent, as “political prisoners.” North Korea is also guilty of numerious other abuses to human rights, too many to list here. My hope is that these flyers somehow reach the countrysides of North Korea, and it somehow sparks a mass revolt. The government has starved and scared the populace into submission, but there’s hope in a major fact: Pyongyang, pretty much the only city majorly seen by the outside world, is reserved for those who are loyal to the government. Everyone lives in smaller villiages and towns, and it’s entirely possible that some of these are atleast partially below the government’s line of sight.

That’s Kim Jong-Il, right next to the guy everyone thinks is an evil bastard. If you notice, he’s really fat, and he looks like my former math teacher. The latter isn’t important though - he’s real fat, but most North Koreans are actually starving. A North Korean is, on average, a few inches shorter than a South Korean. A famine in the 1990s killed millions, but yet, Kim Jong-Il remains pudgy as ever. Despite being a communist, he has a large range of movies, several cars, and a collection of wines. Some say he even has a Starcraft account. He is able to eat fancy dinners, while the people of the country starve.

North Korea is a perfect example of a country that looks nice, but isn’t. Look at the name: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Really, if a country puts “Democratic” in it’s name, that’s a good sign that it’s not democratic. Also, if you translate all that into it’s original Greek, the name would be Popular Government People’s Public Thing of Korea. I just find that hilarious, but seriously, North Korea is a really bad place to live. Luckily for the Korean people, Kim Jong-Il likely got a clogged blood vessel in his brain, otherwise known as a stroke. It could have been anything that caused him to have health problems, but since he looks like he had eaten a bunch of cheeseburgers, I’d say it was a stroke.

Maybe the next leader after Jong-Il (that’s his forename) will be less of a jackass, some kind of reformer. Hopefully oneday the people of North Korea will rise up and fight against the oppressive government. It’s a stretch though.

I’m having some writer’s block when it comes to my blogs, but I may have an idea, although it’s not very political. In the meantime, I have started up a poetry page, which you can find on the upper part of the front page. You can’t miss it, it’s a button thingie that says “Poetry.”

Poetry is my way of expressing how I feel about things, but rarely do I think up a poem that’s any good. Once I finish my research paper, I might upload it to here. Also, when I copywrite some of the stories I write, I might post them on here.

Take a look at them, namely the only one on there, “Stacie.” As I put more up you might get an idea of how my insane mind works.

PepsiCo has recently donated a half-million dollars to the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). I got a shiney new email from the AFA, in which they stated that PFLAG’s intent is to “push the homosexual agenda in the workplace.” In reality, it’s more like educating people about gay rights.

The AFA wants Pepsi to stay neutral in this little thing they call a “culture war,” but it seems like they’re being selective about which companies are neutral or not neutral in the culture war. Showtime has a show called “Weeds,” which features a suburban mom (or something) who sells pot. They also have a lot of sex and nudity on their shows, yet they’re “neutral” in the “culture war.” What would the AFA do if a company donated money to an anti-gay or anti-abortion group? Would they be “neutral” in the culture war still? Or would the AFA be fair by putting them under fire? My money’s on the former.

The AFA refers to PFLAG, in red letters, as a “political advocacy group that promotes radical homosexual political causes like same-sex marriage, hate-crime laws, and gay adoption.” Well of course they are, morons. The NAACP was a “political advocacy group that promotes radical black political causes like interracial marriage, desegregation, and voting rights.” It’s pretty obvious that, with the statement made by the AFA, that they’re homophobic.

As I mentioned before, “gay adoption” has been made illegal in Arkansas in a very broad manner. If gay adoption is banned, that would be a lot of kids deprived of a loving home. Also, I don’t get why they mention “hate-crime laws.” They have a problem with prosecuting someone who killed a guy because he was gay? Also, the basic thing with same-sex marriage is that it doesn’t effect anybody.

“But Morgan, the dictionary says-”

The dictionary isn’t a law book, silly. A dictionary defines how words are most commonly used, and since same-sex marriage is only legal in a handfull of countries, a dictionary, especially the Oxford dictionary, would define marriage as between a man and a woman. Also, the dictionary has an alternative definition of marriage, which is “a joining of two parts.” Also, Wiktionary, Wikipedia’s dictionary friend, defines a gender-neutral definition of marriage.

Ever noticed how people in Massachusetts, Canada, or Spain aren’t having a huge gripe about the legalization of same-sex marriage? Yes, Spain, the nation that has a long tradition of religious conservatism, has legalized same-sex marriage. In Canada, there was no slippery slope chain of events that led to a curtailment of freedom of speech. Apparently, countries in Europe are a lot more grown up than us.

For some reason, the site went down for a few minutes, maybe around a half hour. I was getting ready to go caveman on it and just delete everything and start anew, but luckily, it popped back up again.

Weird.

As mentioned on a comment somewhere around here, Arkansas has passed something worse than Proposition 8. I have no idea what the hell it’s called, but it strips not just same-sex couples, but people who are single also, from adopting children. Arkansas, the state where my favorite band, Evanescence, was founded, has probably the worst foster care system in America. Over the past five years or so, a thousand children have reached the age of eighteen without being in a permanent home.

Keep in mind that Arkansas used to be governed by Mike Huckabee. Another thing to keep in mind is that despite it’s name, it’s name is not pronounced “Are Kansas.” Now, Arkansas is just as bad as Utah in my opinion. In 2006, 9000 kids were in foster care in Arkansas. Where are the people to foster or adopt these kids going to come from? Out of Governor Mike Beebe’s ass? Oddly, Mr. Beebe is a Democrat.

This ballot initiative had two obvious intents in mind:

1) To eliminate same-sex adoption.
2) Encourage co-habitating couples to get married.

It’s obviously not just the first thing, because that would be simply throwing the, sorry for the irony of this pun, the baby out with the bathwater. They’re obvious intent to encourage marriage is far from commendable, because as someone said on Current, he knows a couple that has decided not to get married, but they’ve been living together for fifteen years.

Also, the initiative says, “A minor may not be adopted or placed in a foster home if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state.” Is it just me, or does this sound like a mild attempt at policing sexuality? Do they need video proof that the two people living together are sexual partners? If so, where can I apply for their job? Just kidding, I’m not like that.

And here’s the proof to my enforcing marriage theory:

The people of Arkansas find and declare that it is in the best interest of children in need of adoption or foster care to be reared in homes in which adoptive or foster parents are not cohabiting outside of marriage.

Let me ask a question: how does it benefit a kid if his or her parents are married? Also, why should everything except what’s in the “best interest” of the child be completely sweeped off the board? If the foster children in Arkansas, and all of America could vote on this, they’d probably vote no.

Imagine if you’re say, twelve or so. You were taken from your mother at five because she was a meth addict, or something, and you’re placed in foster care. You’ve been in foster care for seven years, without any permanent home. Wouldn’t you like to have a loving home, reguardless of it was a mom and a dad, a dad and a dad, a mom and a mom, or just a mom, or just a dad? There are many children who are raised by same-sex couples, or unmarried couples, or single parents. There are many adults who are successful in life, and they were raised by a single mother or single father, or even two mothers.

Seriously, what’s next? Atheists can’t adopt children in Arkansas? You’ll have to be a member of a church to adopt in Arkansas, perhaps? The latter is a much nicer way of saying “non-Christians can’t adopt.” Perhaps only couples that subscribe to Mr. Huckabee’s “covenant marriage” will be able to adopt? Can 57% of Arkinsawians really be that heartless? They’re using children as pawns in their little traditionalist agenda.

A very noticable percentage of marriages end in divorce: 50%. Second marriages have a divorce rate of around 67%, and it gets higher and higher. Of course, we can fix this if we force Mike Huckabee’s “covenant marriage,” ban divorce, ban porn, close strip-clubs, arrest people for adultery, make women chattel again, and make the husband the sole owner of his family’s property. But hey, it’ll all be for the children.

It’s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. …

That quote is from Rahm Emanuel’s book The Plan: Big Ideas for America. Who is Rahm Emanuel, you may ask? Emmy here is going to be Obama’s Chief of Staff once he’s in the White House. It’s easy to imagine that he chose Emmy here for his viewpoints on compulsary community service - Obama supports the idea of community service for high school students.

Emmy doesn’t himself have the power to introduce legislation, but he can easily whisper in Obama’s ear about his idea, and Obama will go ahead and introduce the hypothetical bill into Congress. Since the House and Senate are both controlled by Democrats, who might possibly be more stupid than the last bunch, the bill will likely become law. Then, we’ll see another youth revolution! Can somebody say “Hell no, we won’t go”?

Let’s read on with Emmy’s grand idea, shall we?

Here’s how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They’ll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we’re hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities’ most pressing needs.

Wait a second, we’ll be “asked”? According to Wiktionary, asked is a past tense of ask, which means, as the meaning relevant to this, “approach someone to do something.” Generally when we ask someone to do something, it is asking them to partake in a voluntary action. I think the better term will be “told.” Of course, “told” doesn’t sound very nice and democratic, unlike “ask.” You don’t need a law to ask someone to do something. You do need a law to tell people to do something.

I still think that Obama will make a better president than McCain might, but still, I refuse to be forced by the government to do community service. I would do community service - donating to charity, volunteering - but I will be doing community service by my own choice. I would possibly take survival training classes or a CPR class by my own free will, but not because the government will tell me to. The government shouldn’t force people to be good citizens - a little encouragement through non-legal action would be better.

It seems like both parties reguard the people as the property of the state. They steal our tax dollars and give them to millionaires with golden parachutes, they steal our lives in the name of freedom and democracy (talkin’ ’bout war), and they tried to steal our privacy in the name of counterterrorism. Now, they want to grab the nation’s young’uns by the ear and force them into community service.

In general though, I think Obama might be an overall decent president….maybe.

Well, same-sex marriage has been banned in California, Arizona, and Florida. Thanks everyone for bringing fascism to California! Thank you AFA for all your support and your oh-so-nice email today! Thank you LDS Church for funding a campaign in another state that doesn’t even concern you! Thank you 52% of Californians for tearing our freedoms to bits.

What I love about the email from the AFA is this part:

Finally, in California, our country’s largest and most liberal state, the citizens voted 52% to 48% to overturn the state Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex marriage. This is BIG news! Radical homosexual groups, Hollywood celebrities and the liberal media came together to try and defeat Proposition 8, yet the pro-family and pro-marriage citizens of California won a huge victory and, if I might add, put the arrogant California Supreme Court in its place.

Radical homosexual groups? Pro-family and pro-marriage? Here’s the thing - so far, 52% of people voted yes on Proposition 8. The rest voted no. Does that seem like a fair majority? It seems hypocritical to me, because the Prop 8 supporters claim that the ban on same-sex marriage was overturned by a four to three vote, or something - a slim majority.

Now, they have the morale to move on to something else. Now they’re probably going to beef up their attempts at censorship. Oh, and guess what? They’re supporting a Federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. I have no problem in saying that they’re assholes - actually, AFA can easily stand for Ass @!$#ers Association, hehe. Actually, considering the things they support, American Fascism Association is more fitting.

Also, as I said before, the LDS church funded the campaign with $20 Million. I certainly hope they don’t do anything else to curtail our freedoms.

The two major parties have once again smothered the third parties. The media ignores them, they don’t have the money for nationwide campaigns, and people have to choose the lesser of two evils. I like Obama for the very fact that he’s not a conservative with a winking “hockey mom” for a Vice President. He’s the lesser of two evils though - Bob Barr is the real one I have supported.

I have watched CNN thought the whole campaign. Every other word was Clinton or Obama, McCain or Palin. I never once heard a mentioning of the Libertarian Party, their campaign, their candidates. C-SPAN had live coverage of the Libertarian National Convention, but that is all I have seen in the sense of serious coverage. CNN didn’t even have the dignity to stand up and say, “Hey everyone, these guys deserve at least a minute of your attention!” NBC didn’t either, and I think it might have something to do with their corporate sponsors.

You have to go on the internet in order to get any information about the third party candidates, and even then, major websites don’t really mention them too much. Type “Bob Barr” into Google, and you’ll see his website and Wikipedia article, of course, but I noticed only a few major outlets mentioning him: the bleh Huffington Post, and the website for Reason Magazine. The latter is a Libertarian magazine, and the former is an “online newspaper” founded by a woman from Greece who happened to keep her rich ex-husband’s last name. As a general side note, I find Arianna Huffington to be annoying.

Now, type “Obama” into Google. Holy sh*t! CNN, New York Times, Huffington Post, dang. Time Magazine published a few good articles about the third parties, such as “Libertarians: A (Not So) Lunatic Fringe,” which I got in the mail from my buddies at the LNC. Still, the news refuses to even do a single story about the third parties. I know that they don’t make much news, but I think they could have at least mentioned the Libertarian National Convention in passing. “Oh yeah blah blah blah did ya know the Libertarian National Convention is going on? Blah blah blah something else.”

In 1992, Ross Perot got 18.9% of the vote, swaying the election to Bubba Clinton. So class, can anybody tell me how Perot got so much recognition? Perot is a billionaire from Texas. At one point, there was a sign that he could have won the election! Now, how does him being a billionaire matter? He had more money than the Republicans and Democrats combined! He had ads on TV, like the two other candidates, Bubba ‘n Bush, and he could reach the American people just as effectively as the other two guys. Sadly, the Republicans messed around, and he had to drop out, but re-entered the campaign. He could not re-gain the lead.

According to the Libertarian Party website, they have a total of $289,632 as I type this. The Republicans and Democrats, although they don’t say on their websites, have millions. They have the money to get commercial air-time, and have their big fancy fundraisers. They can very easily gain ballot access in all fifty states. They have the lack of principle that allows them to bend over for special interests and big wealthy donors. The Libertarians have to pay for their unwillingness to bend over and spread ‘em for special interests.

The one problem though, that cannot easily be fixed, is the mentality a lot of voters have. They think that since Bob Barr or [whoever’s running in ‘12] won’t win anyways, there’s no point in voting for them. Sadly, that’s the very reason why they won’t win. This point is somewhat weak actually, so I won’t delve into it. The popular vote doesn’t really count too much anyways, because we have a dreaded thing known as the Electoral College.

The Electoral College, for those of you who don’t know what that is, is a system where every state has a certain amount of “electors.” Quoting from Wikipedia, “Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.”

So, when you vote for Obama, you’re really voting for someone who might vote for Obama. The electors are anonymous as far as I know, and they don’t have to vote for the person they have “pledged” to vote for. Look at the 2000 election. Bush got more electoral votes, but less popular votes, than Gore. In 2004, one elector in Wisconsin voted for “John Ewards.” In the elections of 1888, Benjamin Harrison got a lot more electoral votes than Grover Cleveland. Problem is, Grover Cleveland got a lot more popular votes than Benjamin Harrison.

How does this relate to what the @!#% I’m saying? Well, a Q&A of the Electoral College (a short one) can be found here, but it doesn’t mention that it reduces the importance of the third parties. The proponents of the Electoral College system see the emphasis on the two-party system as a good thing. They claim that the two-party system can adapt to changes quickly.

In some cases, the third party candidates have won electoral votes, like in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party, or when dreaded George Wallace ran on the American Independent Party. Ross Perot, though, got 18.9% of the popular vote, yet no electoral votes. In theory, a third party candidate could get a majority of the popular vote, but no electoral votes.

The Republicans and Democrats are basically two sides to the same argument, and two opposites basically. The Dems are all for social freedom with a state-run economy, but the Republicans are all for a free market, while all for social policies that promote good ‘ol family values. The Libertarians are right between them, supporting social and economic freedom. The Greens are center-left, and environmentalist in nature. Yet, people still continue to vote for one side of a two-sided argument that really has multiple sides.

Now, how can we solve all these problems? The first thing we could do is abolish the Electoral College. It’s a daunting task, and it might not help all that much. Next, we would need to somehow equalize the playing field. We could send all the people who donate to the DNC and RNC to Cuba, but that might be a bit fascist. What we could do is have, at least in most states, or even just a few, laws that would give political candidates equal air-time. People running for president, with ballot access in that state, would get 30 seconds of free air-time in the whole state. People running for the House of Representatives, State Senate, or State Assembly could have commercials in their respective districts. Of course, it would be too bulky to have free commercials for mayor or city council. This would allow Joe Libertarian to have commercials airing alongside commercials for Mike Republican or Billy Democrat.

Another thing that might help, is somehow making it easier for parties to get ballot access. Take a look at this site, which lists the various ballot access requirements of each state. They are mostly very ridiculous. A lot of them seem to force a two-party duopoly in the state, putting requirements on third parties and independents, which, in many cases, the Republicans and Democrats do not need to meet, or they simply have the means to get to those requirements without much trouble.

The Libertarians spent most of the election season getting ballot access in every state. I could go on, but I’m not sure how long my front page can get. Really, America’s political system is not as fair as everyone would like to think. We have democracy, yes, and freedom, but we also have two major parties that smother all others, long lines at the polls, faulty voting machines, lying politicians (which all nations have, of course), and most of all, the political system is a bit too complicated for many people to get involved in. Sure, ballot access laws prevent hundreds of people from running for office, but requiring a petition with 196,255 is a bit steep.

I hope that one day we can kick the two-party system aside. I’d like to leave you all with something said by George Orwell in his famous prophetic text book, Nineteen Eighty-Four:

“no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship”

It relates to this, mostly the first sentence.

I’m looking at the results so far for the election, and Obama has 51% of the popular vote, while McCain has 48%. This means that potentially, the third parties may only make one percent of the popular vote combined. The same thing happened in 2004, except they made less than 1% combined. It’s sad, because the two major parties are smothering the third parties, basically.

Hopefully things will look up a bit with the states that still don’t have their votes counted up yet. I thought perhaps Bob Barr would break the 1% line, but of course, CNN, NBC, CBS, and other networks do not cover the third party campaigns, which do actually happen. When people come over to buy appliances (my dad sells appliances), they ask who Bob Barr is. As you know, I have a Bob Barr sign on the front lawn.

I really lost a lot of respect for CNN for some reason. First of all, they use the Libertarian’s color, yellow, to represent states that don’t have all their votes counted yet - they could have used grey, like on their website, but noooooo. That’s not all that bad though. They have frequently included segments about the Democrats and Republicans, while ignoring the Libertarians, Greens, and others. CNN is supposed to be a kind of intelligent network, so why can’t they get up and say “Hey, look at these guys!” Why? Because of their corporate sponsors who are supporters of one of the two parties.

Obama is now the 44th President of the United States. McCain can go back to running for president every damn election, and Palin can go back to winking her way out of nasty situations. Now, what I look forward to, is the 2012 election. I hope that next time, the third parties are not smothered.

By the way, Enghorn, what’s the reaction to Obama winning there in Alabama?

Alright everyone, today is the big day, the day where we our electors decide who will be the next president of the United States of America. I honestly have little doubt in my mind that the next president of the United States will break the traditional model for a President. By that, I mean the next president will not be Caucasian. And by that, I mean Barack Obama will likely win the election. People have been caught up in his crap about hope and change (except for the south, of course).

I also think that there’s a chance for the third parties breaking past the 1% line in the popular vote. Last time, the the third parties got less than one percent of the vote combined, and in 2000, Ralph Nader got 2.7% of the popular vote. The third parties really do have some chance, but it really depends on platform. The biggest success for a third party was in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt and his Progressive Party got 27.4% of the popular vote. Problem is, he was already President once before then, so a lot of people liked him already - people liked his platform.

Bob Barr seems to have the best chance of breaking the 1% line. He’s a more moderate Libertarian, compared to someone like Mike Gravel. Of course, he won’t win, which is sad. In order for someone to have a chance at contending with the two big guys, the Libertarians would need the several million dollars the Republicans and Democrats have. They’d need the money to have commercials and pay for advertising on websites, and have fancy little fundraisers like the Republicans and Democrats. And of course, they’d have to be willing to bend over for big business and special interests - the Libs don’t do that though - they’re a party of principle.

I encourage you all to get out the vote for Bob Barr. I also encourage you all to vote based on who you agree with, not who might win or who’s in the same party as you. I intend on encouraging people, starting in the next few days, to vote based on who they agree with. I had the idea of getting one of those “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” things, and a few Libertarian pamphlets, and going to a Farmer’s Market thing they have near where I live.

So, get out the vote everyone! Also, keep in mind that if McCain is elected, and he dies, Palin would become president. A fate worse than death.