who didn't see this coming?

well, i wasn't too shocked when i saw that the chief justice is in bad health. in fact, i have wondered why he has not retired before now, leaving bush plenty of time to replace him. but it's time for some change.

i still feel that the most important issue in almost any presidential election should be the supreme court, as this is the way that the president most can affect your life ... other than going to war.

so i am totally confused by the small priority that people put on those two issues. i can't say it enough, what is wrong with the american people? even the ones that make it seem like they are fighting for noble issues often fall in line with rigid in-the-box thinking on other issues ... which they just don't hold up as noble.

i don't think it's too much to ask that people be able to think for themselves. i am scared that too many people are voting because of what the believe is wrong, not for what they believe is right. therefore, they are not pushing the development of society.

and frankly, that's what's wrong with american society. it just stopped developing. we are so much of the evil of our history. we are the slaveowners. we are the puritans. we are the whores and imperialists that we ran from. we are the society obsessed with the expression of violence and the rejection of sexuality.

and worst of all, we are the nation that endorses so adamently the diametric approach to current events. you have to fall on one side of an issue or another. there is no depth. and then the roaches seem to make it as if because you believe one thing, it must make you a certain type of person. there is no such thing as democracy in the united states anymore.

we can't even think for ourselves. we think the thoughts of tradition and religion while celebrating our individuality. and the sad thing is that we have bought our individuality from people that make money by making as many people the same as possible.

well, fuck you if you think that progression is a black or white issue.

from PK in an e-mail

i got this in an e-mail from pieter earlier today. i found it quite interesting, so i figured i would share. sorry if there are some typos ... translation problems.

latimes article
link to original athttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer19oct19,1,4021122,print.column?coll=la-home-utilities

The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket
The agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials

by Robert Scheer
October 19, 2004

It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although thereport by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed inJune, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligencecommittees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level peoplewere not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 isbeing suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the reporttold me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing forthe administration, because it makes it look like they weren'tinterested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in thegovernment responsible afterward."

When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), rankingDemocratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she andcommittee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days agoasking for it to be delivered.

"We believe that the CIA has been toldnot to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned."

According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on conditionof anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and nowby Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman ofthe Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief byPresident Bush.

The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specificthan the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointedSept. 11 commission and Congress.

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger atindividuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. Thisreport does that," said the intelligence official. "The report foundvery senior-level officials responsible."

By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holdingback such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss norMcLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for notdelivering the report to Congress."It surely does not involve issues of national security," said theintelligence official.

"The agency directorate is basically sitting on the report until afterthe election," the official continued. "No previous director of CIAhas ever tried to stop the inspector general from releasing a reportto the Congress, in this case a report requested by Congress."

None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's greatdetermination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into howthe security of this nation was so easily breached.

In Bush's muchballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss.The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission,for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure wasapplied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain.

And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath, or onthe record. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commissionmembers, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White Housemeeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes. All in all, strange behavior for a man who seeks reelection to the topoffice in the land based on his handling of the so-called war onterror.

In September, the New York Times reported that several family membersmet with Goss privately to demand the release of the CIA inspectorgeneral's report.

"Three thousand people were killed on 9/11, and noone has been held accountable," 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser toldthe paper.The failure to furnish the report to Congress, said Harman, "fuels theperception that no one is being held accountable. It is unacceptablethat we don't have [the report]; it not only disrespects Congress butit disrespects the American people.

"The stonewalling by the Bush administration and the failure ofCongress to gain release of the report have, said the intelligencesource, "led the management of the CIA to believe it can engage in acover-up with impunity. Unless the public demands an accounting, theadministration and CIA's leadership will have won and the nation willhave lost."

the funny thing is ...

The New York Times > International > 'Catastrophic Success': The Strategy to Secure Iraq Did Not Foresee a 2nd War

i don't know about the rest of you, but i am pretty sure that saddam hussein forsaw the second war. in fact, i think that he was banking on it. the old man was probably hoping that he could have laid low enough for long enough to just wait out the american invasion force. and now, the only real question is how long will the american force last. personally, i would hope not very long. idealy, america should start leaving tomorrow.

sick and tired ...

seriously, i am sick and tired. i think i picked something else babysitting the other day. i have a bad soar throat, and a constant drip in the nose. but that didn't keep me from watching the third and final debate.

a couple of things struck me tonight. and both, as funny as it may seem, simply insure that i will not be voting for kerry. and i say that's funny because i feel that bush won these debates.

i was watching nightline earlier. and during the analysis of the debates, someone said something about how the important question in the recent history of presidential debates had been the old "who would you rather have a beer with?" and i agree, i felt in 2000 that bush had won the debates because he seemed cool to me, and gore seemed like a loser.

now, i still threw my vote away on gore, but it was only because i felt that bush had done so well in the debates that if i didn't, bush could possibly win california -- i know, i was dellusional. but the point is just that said question seemed to be the benchmark on the race.

and the commentator on nightline said that this was no longer the question of the race. and i agree with that too. not that i thought i would like to have a beer with bush. i thought that bush looked as retarded as ever.

in fact, i felt that bush had come with only a few predetermined arguments, and that he was determined to use them no matter what kerry said. kerry wasn't much different, he just had a lot more to draw on, and more planned and concise direction. and i think that was key, for him.

so i know, it sounds like i am kissing the man's ass. and that's what i mean by i thought it was funny that i would find so much fault with kerry.

the first thing he did (and won on): kerry pushed forth his notion of health care reform, and he did so with details -- something quite uncommon in politics. of course, he didn't have a lot of details, and i remain convinced that no one really has anything planned for action if they should win ... at least not that they would normally admit to.

and kerry offered as evidence something that i think we all know, or at least should know: that the united states is the only industrialized nation without socialized health care. and this is fucking stupid. how can we really look at the world and claim leadership when we refuse to take care of our own people?

but kerry is so consumed with making himself look mainstream that he cannot, and would not, support any sort of step. no, though the solution seems to be screaming his own logic in the face, he just isn't hearing it.

and this is the most grave of the concerns about kerry. the man doesn't seem to ever follow his own logic to its natural conclusion. it seems like he is just a step away from admitting that all health care should be socialized, and that the real problem with this "epidemic" is the overwhelming greed of the healthcare providers and the pharmaceutical companies.

and he does the same thing with his approach to the war in iraq. but i don't want to get into that again right now. i think that with any simple thought, one can realize that we need to be out of iraq post-haste. so, i would rather direct my attention to the war on terror.

and that's the second thing that kerry did tonight that struck me. kerry used the same line again that he has used in each of the two previous debates. he said "we will hunt and kill the terrorists." i can't even believe that it is acceptable that a person says this kind of thing about another human being -- i certainly can't believe that it would come from a person who claims to have so much admiration for his god.

i think that it is a line that kerry worked on for the debates. he wants to seem hard, but he comes off seeming silly to me. and i just don't think i can vote for someone that refuses to stand up to the president on the issue that i find most important.

and my main concern is this: i still don't believe that there is such a thing as the war on terror, and i think that many, many people see it just as i. whatever the motivation for all of this may be, it was going on long before 9/11, and it has almost nothing to do with terrorism, no matter how you wish to define the word.

either way. i am glad that it looks like kerry could win. i have to stick to my principals, because that's what i think that voting should be largely based on. of course, as with anything else, it's about what you have to do when it is time to do it. anyway, i am just saying that i would be a happier person if bush is not president next year -- even if things don't get better. after all, without bush, things won't get worse quite as fast.

prop 59

California Statewide November 2, 2004 General Election - Propositions

i guess this is a good place as any to start. it won't take long. my stand on this is pretty simple. i am going to vote in favor of prop 59. in general, i am not much for pointlessly improving the state constitution -- california has far too many laws and whatnot on the books. but this is different.

so first, this is very pointless. it does nothing to expand rights in california. there are laws and statutes in place to protect each of the rights to disclosure that this amendment targets.

but this amendment does have some positive outcomes. the government will have to provide reason to keep any file secret. and these rights will now be protected by our state constitution.

my reasons for voting for it are a little bit more pure. i want the state, and every government, to be transparent to the people it serves. people should always have a window into the authority it submits to.

ok. i'm done. so that's it. vote yes on prop 59. now i am going to bed.

i liked this story ...

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > The Bush Record: Challenging Rest of the World With a New Order

i even left the double link this time. i am reading this right now. and i intend to read the whole thing, so i figured i would go back and forth between my reading and writing.

i don't know if i have "liberal" leanings or what not. i consider myself a conservative. i have now only been affiliated with two political parties. i was a libertarian for the first five years of my voting, i was without affiliation for about five years, and i registered as a republican just last week (something i am very proud of).

i consider myself a fiscal conservative, but i think that the appropriate application of taxes is to target the higher classes -- though in a way that is similar to the flat tax ... but that's another story. i would say that i agree with kerry on this matter.

and let me again clarify that i will not vote for anyone that is not against fighting the war on terror, and certainly anyone that voted for going to war in iraq ... no matter what excuses are being used.

i am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. and that is that i do not believe that abortion is a good thing. but i believe that is the choice reserved for the people whose bodies are being affected. let's say that i follow the reagan-esque stance of "the government should stay out of a person's bedroom" -- was that reagan? ahhh ... who fucking cares, this is all a tangent.

i tend to have "liberal" leanings socially. though, i would argue that i am still conservative. i believe that government should not make laws prohibiting any of the "victimless crimes" (i.e. gambling, drugs, prostitution) ... taxing those things is fine though. so needless to say, i push the conservative to being liberal. and i go further. i think that all things that are necessary to sustain life in america should be paid for by the government, and taxes (from the rich).

i feel like the united states -- and this is all my opinion, and not my interpretation of the constitution or history -- is a pact between the lower and upper classes. the pact is simple: you pay for my shit, and i don't kill you. the plain and simple truth about classist societies is that as the upper class will always be in the minority. a revolution is possible at all times.

and i that this is a characteristic of the united states because i believe that not only do the rights in the constitution favor the rebel, but that the framers of the constitution had full knowledge and acceptance that there would be another revolution that would bring about and even "more perfect union."

this separates me from other conservatives in that they usually believe that the rights in the constitution are designed with the intent to protect private property. and to them, i would just say, "look at the first civil war, dumb fuck. do you really think it's about protecting personal property?" of course, they are right. and that's cool. but no one ever saw this world. that shit was written before the industrial revolution, before the revolver, before baseball, before cars, before flight, before nuclear weapons.

and so on ...

the point is this: i don't like kerry more than bush. i just don't like bush ... at all. it is all i can do to keep on loving the man. but damnit, i am committed to loving everyone ... even the people i don't like very much.

but i read this article, and it appeals to me and my sense of dislike for the president. i find an intriguing point of view here. i had always wondered why it is that the president seemed to have gotten smarter after the attacks. it wasn't just them. i really thought that he seemed smarter. it's like, if you give a simple man a purpose, it all the sudden knows what has to be done.

i don't know if the president was really guilty of texas justice. you know, the whole "that man tried to kill my pa" thing. i am convinced, however, that the elite of his administration were all about this from the get go. i have always thought that bush's order is "wife, god, country" -- as it should be, in my opinion. and i think that all three fell into place after the attacks. his wife, his god, and his country all were after the same thing. unfortunately, i obviously don't have the same wife, i can't really even fathom his god (it seems too much like a comic book, or science fiction -- it's not my bag, i guess), and though i imagine i have a similar love for country, i have a very different concept thereof. but i respect him nonetheless.

i do think that he is unfit to be president. it's interesting how the mexican president speaks of bush's approach to diplomacy. he says something about not even offering mexico anything. i think that the politics of the world aren't much different than those of the street: everyone knows what everything means and how everything should be done. and bush is acting like that motherfucker that gets shanked in the kidneys.

i also find it very interesting how even the ny times is now printing the beginnings of saying that the president is aiming to make democracy the dominant ideology in the world. and i have said for a long time that this is a crusade of ideology. our government believes that democracy is the only acceptable form of government, and is going to push that forward. the times reads: "contagion of liberty installed, at least in Iraq, by force of arms." like i said, it's a beginning.

of course, i say that bush wasn't motivated at first by texas justice -- though facts may imply something else, as he appears to have come into office with a mission to get saddam hussein. since he has been this man possessed, he has embraced everything that is "texas" -- including the justice.

i know, how long am i going to go on? i assure you, not much longer. i am just having a lot of fun trying to get into bush's head. i still can't really understand this man's motivation. i have found both bush and clinton to be very intriguing. must be my age.

but this is the kind of thing that i hate: on the top of page three, they say that the united states had to react to 9/11. i would say that of course, we had to react, but the right course would be to change the foreign policy that breeds such contempt throughout the world, not declare war. i can't say it enough, justice = revenge. finding justice is the same thing as getting even. again, a whole nother arguement.

i also think that it is a miscarriage of truth to say that because the chinese and indian governments support bush in the war on terror, that a third of humanity support the president. ahhh ... whatever. i am always working the anti-government angle.

i look at china and india, and i think problems. as soon as the pakistani government crumbles, islamic militants will have nuclear weapons. i still believe that the first time i see a nuclear attack on the news, it will be pakistan using it against india, the second would of course be the official shit hitting the official fan. i think that india would fire back in force.

china i see as a likely enemy in the upcoming world war. i think that the two countries are a lot like the sox and yankees, on a date with destiny. i think that the nuclear part will most likely be with korea, unless the path changes, but the big fight will be with china.

i know that just glosses over terrorism. but i still don't take terrorism seriously. sept. 11 always scared me more for the implications than because of what happened that fateful tuesday morning. i knew the game had changed. and i think that bush is a big part of that -- regardless of his intentions and motivations. and i really hope that no one read this whole thing. i am not even sure that any of it makes sense. i think i just love to ramble on. sort of like the end of this paragraph.

i think it would be ironic ... if it were ironic

The New York Times > International > Middle East > Muslim Divide: Iraqis Fearing a Sunni Boycott of the Election

i found the parallels of the newspaper interesting today. this story is a little queer. who the fuck are the people that thought the iraqi elections are going to go off without a hitch? i mean, someone should really shoot these people, put them out of their misery. well ... that's assuming that it is them, and not i, who lay in a constant state of misery. and frankly, i am just not going to buy that one yet.

no, i sat thinking last night about the pitiful state of the world when the mean of intelligence is as low as it is. and it really occurred to me that everyone but me must be really happy with everything, or at least people to stand in the way of change. and i am just not the kind of person that believes you should ever force change on someone who doesn't want it.

but whatever, i am getting sidetracked.

i think that it may very well be more blissful to not understand the truth about the world. i think it is an awful painful thing to understand the bullshit that surrounds you ... and to feel as hopeless as i in the fight against. it's like i toe my way between people that don't see what is wrong, and those that don't see that it is all supposed to be this way. and that's the real thing that i don't think people understand. they either want to reject fate and embrace this foolish notion of free will, or they think that the gods of fate are anything more than mere happenstance.

either way, they should get off the pipe. there is no possible solution that iraq has a valid and successful election this winter. and it's just foolish to even talk about it -- let alone do what the times has done here, and assume that it is a forgone truth, and be puzzled and fearful that things might stand in its way. fuck ... i don't even know if that's what i mean to say. i just mean that people should start with the notion of impossibility and move forward.

like the song says, it takes a long time, but god dies too. and maybe that's what i am suggesting, people should give up on this romantic notion of fate. fate is just what happens, and so many people have so much control of it, that no one person could ever truly have free will.

you can call it pessimistic or something, but it really isn't. it's the answer to wading through a world you despise and maintaining a love for life. you know, if you assume that everything really just fucking sucks, then you will be so pleasantly surprised when that's not the way it is. it's far better than lying to yourself that things are better, and then finding out what shit it all really is. not that i would know, i have been so enlightened for as long as i can remember.

anyway, there's some morrisette style irony here. the story next to this one in the online version of the times that i read this morning was almost the same thing, only worrying about the confidence of black americans in our electoral system. but i wonder how many people will actually put the two together.

there is a lot that we want to overlook about the world ... and more specifically, the united states. we have some serious fucking problems here. the end of the pax americana is nearing, and we are all thinking that not only are we the best in the world, but that we are getting better. i think that the fucking morons of the world have bought into the "rising tides raises all ships" bullshit.

i don't know. i just don't know. i know i want the next year to pass. i want this all to blow over really quick. i want to go to bed (preferably with a beautiful woman that i adore) and wake up in a world where george bush isn't president, you don't find corn syrup in cashews at the grocery store, and that the world ending in 2012 and the rapture happening in 2005 jive so nicely. i guess i am saying that i want christianity to finally come to an end. but alas, i am a stupid, stupid man. in fact, i think i am as naive as the morons i detest.

round 2

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > The Overview: Bush and Kerry Trade Attacks in Their Second Presidential Debate

i thought tonight's debate was better than the last one. i mean, the cheesy and often uninformed questions from the audience aside -- and forgetting the whole good morning america kinda feel -- both of the candidates seemed a little bit more like themselves. bush wasn't as stupid as he had been before. and kerry seemed like he was a little bit more comfortable running for president.

but other than that, i didn't really see a lot. i did, however, see enough to believe that bush may not win this election. and yes, i realize i have been saying that for a while now, but i think i believe it for the second time (the first being as the audience stood up and clapped for fahrenheit 9/11 during the opening showing).

but i did think that both candidates cemented even further in my mind of why i cannot vote for either. bush was bush ... and i guess i will get to that. but kerry continued his hawkish threats to "terrorists" around the world. no matter how much time passes, you will never convince me of anything other than that justice is just another word for revenge, and that gandhi was right: and eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.

there will never be any sort of amicable solution to our troubles in the middle east until we have a radical change in our foreign policy, and i am just convinced that kerry is not a radical change. i am not convinced that the money behind him is any different than the money behind bush. he is just as religious (though in a way that i find less frightening). and he is willing to accept this notion that the appropriate step from here is to continue an open-ended war against an indefinable enemy. this is sad.

the one chance that i saw for kerry (according to me): there was a point in the end of the debate where a woman asked bush to name three instances in his tenure as commander in chief in which he could say that he felt he had done the wrong thing. what she was asking was simple, in my mind, "are you man enough to admit when you have made a mistake?" bush responded with a resounding "no." and that's cool, that's pretty much what i had thought of him anyway.

but i felt kerry had an opportunity at that point in time to gain a little respect in my mind. all he had to do was to stand up and say, "i understand your question, ma'am. you want to know if your president is man enough to admit when he has made a mistake. and the answer, ma'am, is no -- he isn't. but i stand here before you as a man who has made many mistakes, and pledge that if i were in his position, i would always be willing to stand up for what i believe is the truth, as misled as i may have been before."

needless to say, his answer was far less elegant. he did highlight that he had made mistakes, but that's about as close as he got to any redemption in my mind. and that's all good. i don't really think it matters who i vote for. i think it's a forgone conclusion that kerry will win california. i know that i won't get suckered into voting for another peeg, they way that i fell i was suckered into voting for gore.

i am holding fast to my pledge to never again vote for a man who believes that war is a viable option to peace. and moreover, i am sticking to my more recent resolution to never again vote for a democrat or republican -- though i am officially a republican now.

i found bush to be quite interesting tonight as well. he seemed to be very angry. he came into the debate with this approach that he was going to make kerry suffer for his record as a senator, and he held fast to that approach, even when it had clearly fallen apart. as the evening went on, he seemed like a little kid who thinks that he has found the solution to a complex argument. he kept pushing, holding kerry's stumping for the presidency (and therefore absence in the senate for voting) against him.

and i thought about it for a while. why isn't kerry in the senate doing his job? but i don't get caught up on that for too long. i am certainly under the impression that a good legislature is inactive. and i would jump to kerry's defense and say that i believe that all national elections should be federally funded -- however they have to work it. and in that case, no one would need to run all over the country, instead of being present in a legislature that spends too much time in washington as it is.

but bush proved himself to be angry and simple minded ... something that he has done time and time before, but ... he did not look as bad as one might think. i would tend to say that kerry won the debate, being that i am more likely to reward intelligence in a match centered around rhetoric. but that's just me. and i am unfortunately in a very small minority in this world.

don't worry, it's not another vietnam

The New York Times > International > Middle East > Insurgents: At Least 26 Die as 3 Car Bombs Explode in Iraq

the more i look at what is going on in iraq, the more i worry about the future of our nation. this isn't working.

i will tell you, though, what iraq has to do with 9/11. in some sort of weird fucked up time thing, 9/11 was a result of the war with iraq. bin laden and his peeps knew what the united states was up to, and thought that they had to make the strike. and just to cement that in the heads of all non-americans, bush stumbled into this really fucking bad joke. and now i am convinced if you ask someone why 9/11 was a heroic maneuver, they would offer the war in iraq as evidence.

either way, i remain convinced that nothing would be different with kerry at the helm (other than that we may not have gone to iraq if kerry were president). we can't forget that these people all get their money from the same place, and if kerry isn't corrupt by now, then people just aren't trying hard enough -- because that man has blowjob lips made perfect for the giant cocks of the corporate world.

and you guessed it, the war is leading us down some really bad roads. there is no end in sight. we will not be winning this without killing a whole lot more people. this is what happens when you force your beliefs on other people: you think you are right so you push, but there is no such thing as "right," so you never get what you want. there will never be the kind of peace that we want in iraq. if we succeed in installing our puppet government, then there will be civil war. and if we don't, more american troops will die.

the people there want the ability to choose their own governments. and that is just something that none of the big cheeses in our government will ever see. i don't know what to say. i just find myself becoming more and more bitter on the whole thing -- apathy is quickly turning to disgust. and there is part of me that wonders if we saw the truth about what is going on over there a little bit more often, if we would feel about this thing in the same vein that people felt about vietnam.

and frankly, i am starting to tire of hearing that we can't just pull out now. why not? fuck you.

sometimes you gots to wonder

The New York Times > Washington > Intelligence Evidence: Rice Defends Going to War Despite Dispute About Iraqi Weapons

i just don't understand what would make the american people believe that we went to iraq because of weapons or because they were a threat to the united states. and if they didn't believe that before the war, they should have realized that when the millitary crumbled the way that it did. i mean, wasn't that a fucking hint?

but people follow dubya like they are fucking lemings.

the truth is that i don't always know what i believe. i am not sure what drove the mission into iraq. there are so many plausible movites. but none of them could be that iraq could have ever hurt us.

i was convinced from day one that it had something to do with religion. and then, after taking that history of the middle east class, i started to wonder if it wasn't all more geopolitically motivated. and even still, how much of it is just good old fashioned backwoods texas justice?

now i kind of think that it's a mix of all three. when i see condi saying shit like this, i think that it has to be geopolitical. she doesn't seem like a zealot. she certainly shouldn't be supporting any sort of backwoods justice. and she is all about the geopolitics. i am still convinced that she wants the united states to take over the world. and, of course, i am still convinced that is exactly what we are doing.

iraq matters a lot on a geopolitcal level because we want to have a large arabic "democracy" in the center of the middle east. but it's more in the underlying beliefs. it's easy for me to think that rice and cheney are motivated by the oil and the land needed to access the persian gulf and ship out the natural gas.

but i have a hard time looking over the coincidence that this is all happening in the holy land. and those really stupid things that the really stupid president says in reference to god. and then the christians. man, the fucking christians.

and then you look at sadam making the attempt on dubya's father's life. oh ... it's all so pathetic. and i find a hard time taking it seriously.

maybe the united states should just take over the rest of the world. maybe if we did force everyone into "democracy" they would all be a little bit hapier. i know that i would. and being an american, i know that is all that really matters.