half-assed world domination ...

you know what really pisses me off about the war in iraq? no, i am not some pussy that is going to cry about the deaths, whether they are american soldiers or iraqis (either of the "innocent" or of the "insurgent" variety -- matters not).

really, the only part of the death that has every really bothered me has been that i have been living, continue to live, and will most likely always live on the fat of the lamb that is american policies, both foreign and domestic. and though it is the same sort of policies that "hold me down" and whatnot, i know that my existence would be pretty meager if it weren't for slavery, capitalism and mindless following and the likes that have produced this great union.

on some sort of stoned sidenote, i wonder what whitman would think if he ever read my writing. would he adore in me what i have taken from him? or would he even be able to understand? my guess is the latter. no one ever really understands. and how could they? and that's the end of the tangent.

i guess i don't like it because i would gladly choose the meager existence if that is what i thought the fates had planned for me. i would certainly opt consciously to live a meager existence if living the life i live had to mean the deaths of innocents ... or even offenders. no matter who you are, i do not believe that you should have to die for me or the likes.

at the same time, i am not so idealistic as to reject all that i am in favor of what i think should be. one of the ways that we are certain that the existence we have created for ourselves is not the truer existence is that we are faced often with the conflicts of worlds. when my world and your world come to head, logic dictates that my world should always win out, as i am the omnipotent creator. and at the same time, logic also dictates that you should always win out. but what really happens seems to be interdependent not only on each of worlds and existences, but of all relevant ones to the scenario. and with fear of starting some sort of butterfly effect tangent, possibly more than just that.

that was the long way of saying that i realize that even with some sort of incarnation of "free will" i am still a slave to the existences of others. and that, of course, is a good thing. don't get me wrong. i am attempting to use the word slavery with some sort of positive connotation. but at the same time, i am equating such a connotation with the positive connotations of words like disgust, hurtful, and (most understandably) death. in these connotations, the positive aspect is a deeper, longer and more aesthetic expression.

well, those are both the long ways of saying that i have no intention on changing my life because i don't like my government's foreign policy. the truth is, and this is what does piss me off about the war, is that i don't see the logic in this shit.

i do think that we are at an interesting crossroads in the history of american civilization. this is undoubtedly the end of the pax americana. this thing has run its course, and it is time for the union to adjust or fall. i think (and often like to hope) that people will soon see how obsolete the constitution is.

but i watch what my government does, and i am just baffled. why make this commitment to iraq? why not invade mexico or canada? yes, i sort of joke. obviously, it isn't very logical to assume your neighbors are your friends and go ahead and attack the rest of the world. this is just not wise. in fact, if america goes too far in the wrong direction, i can assure you that both mexico and canada will be significant factors in the end of the american empire.

but iraq means nothing other than oil. does that mean that the only motivation for iraq is greed? is that what our government has become? i think that if you asked most people that support bush and this war effort, they would like to be kicking ass because we are american and better than them, not because some stupid fat bitch wants to get rich on a fuel source that itself will soon be obsolete. it is all so half-assed.

the problem is that most of our man power is going to be either deployed or with a low morale by the time that we come to blows with korea (china) or someone that really matters. i mean, fuck this iran and syria shit. and yes, i know that it is important to get the natural gas from the central asian republics down to a coastline where it can be shipped to ... me. i really am not as stupid as i sound.

i am probably about as arrogant and ignorant as i must sound. and i certainly am as tired as i sound. so i think it's time that i lie down and pretend like i am going to get some sleep tonight. it's really become quite the habit.

brilliance as bullshit ...

i swear, i have been working on another entry. one of (little) substance and whatnot. of course, i am not very good at writing anything of substance. it's like a little curse of mine. i prefer to sit around and write cuss words until people stop thinking and start getting real ... or something.

it is an interesting curse though. i don't really know where i got it from. it's like, one day i woke up and realized that i was the center of the universe, and all that the universe could ever mean, i could only understand what it is in my perspective/reality.

dispite how enlightened that may sound, it is really quite the opposite. when you realize that the world that you understand and know only exists in your head -- and that it is scarcely similar to the true world that exists without knowlege or regard to life and consciousness (do they walk hand in hand?) -- you are left feeling horribly alone.

it's like, nothing you do matters anymore. after all, it stands to follow that if existence is only in my head, then nothing will exist after i die. and one of the cold hard truths about life is that life itself has little if any value within the context. it is only when we take life out of context (i.e. deny fundamental truths about reproduction and evolution) that we are able to convince ourselves that an individual's life matters.

this is, of course, evidenced in the common experience of one giving his/her life for the greater good. think about how this works for a second.

let's take a mother in the naturally dangerous process of giving birth to a child. of course, i make this distinction because in the modern era, where life has been augmented by medical science, it is expected that all mothers will survive child birth, and that does not serve my purpose. but sans medicine, it would not be uncommon for a woman not to survive the process.

now her existence began on the day of her cognito and ended with her death. that means that her world was created and ended all in that span of time. she left no legacy in her existence, and no legacy on that other greater existence that has no relation to life. but we can look at the life of the child, and convince ourselves that her life did matter. after all, she, at that time, gave the world a new existence.

but the problem is that the new existence will only matter in the same way that her's did, at best. it, like her's, will never impact the truer, greater existence. and therefore, it is out of the context. but at least while it is out of context, it does matter.

and at the same time, there is a larger picture. in this picture, both the woman and the child fill the roles of personifications of perpetual life and the greatness it encompasses.

what the fuck happened? i really just started rambling this time. i think my head is falling apart. and, as you can see, this is the problem that faces me. whenever i think about my own life, i am confronted by these notions that i consider to be the fundamental truths about the universe.

i feel like i am on this constant quest to figure them all out, and figure out (more importantly) exactly how they affect me and the way that i want to live my life (as living life is always an active process). but the more i get into it, the more i wonder why i even care. it's the trail head of the wonderful path known as apathy. anyway, it's nearing 4:20 ... time for me to relax and try and convince myself to sleep.

through the eyes of a lazy, unlikable bastard

i really am quite lazy. i don't know what exactly it is. i am just not interested in very much.

i remember when things started to get quite tense between myself and my college newspaper adviser when she began to characterize my writing as "apathetic." i think it confused me because i knew she didn't mean it to be complemetary, but i couldn't see exactly how that was a negative.

it really is hard to care in this day and age ... at least for someone like me. i am not really impressed with achievement or even really having something to show for your trouble. i would much rather have the trouble.

so maintaining this blog is often hard work for me. i could care less about michael jackson or the runaway bride. i could care less about politics or the tweaking of meaningless laws. i could even care less about an american foriegn policy that makes our peers on this planet tremble. and it seems to me that the true nature of war is boredom ... some sick war of attrition. fuck people, seriously.

i can't wait until the day that this whole shit pile goes up in smoke. i envy the day when we run around like the little cockroaches that didn't die when you set off the fogger. there is something quite romantic about a new world, a new start. and there is something quite romantic about the notion of rebirth.

of course, there is little chance that any one individual would survive any sort of catastrophy. but i do think it would be very cool to be part of that pack of people that made it far away from the ocean before the astroid came crashing down.

i think it would be fun to help craft a new world. of course, it would be unfortuantely similar to life in the old world. no matter what you did, what you learned or accomplished ... all of your work is for naught. people don't learn.

i have this love/hate relationship with history. it's like i want to learn it, i want to understand what it is that happened before the creation of my world. but at the same time, i know it is as much bullshit as anything else -- filled with the tales of the victors through the eyes of the lemmings. and as much as i like the intention, it doesn't make much sense to me to base your knowledge on your sucesses, forgetting all of your shortcomings. ... especially when life seems to be a long series of shortcomings.

of course, it's not wise to turn to apathy based blindly on pesimism, i guess. i think that it serves some sort of calming purpose. i think it is best to live my life without the influence of other lives. given the laws of permenant independent realities, it doesn't make much sense to assume that your life will ever affect anyone else's. and that's not to say that it doesn't, just that you would never be able to see evidence of such during your own existence.

so you throw it all out the window. you assume that kindness is a token, and that the goal is to serve your own reality with the assumption that in creating the best reality for yourself, you create the best reality for the interdependent collective -- or history if you will.

i guess that's my way of saying that if you don't try to please that collective, than you will do so anyway ... and maybe to a greater degree. i don't know. really, i don't know anything. but eventually, i will find something of interest to write about.

taking punk rock to bed ...

i know the sun has got to be on its way. it's a strange feeling i get when i look at the clock and see that it's surely morning for most people. for me, it's yet another night without sleep. got to love the life.

i do try and lay down, seriously. but there i am with one thought running through my mind: "if you could sleep with liz phair, that would be your crowning achievement."

i suppose that is a commentary on who i am as a man. i see so little accomplishment in the good that humans do for each other, and so much accomplishment in the act of getting naked before the one you love. and i don't really have an explanation for that. i guess that's just the way that i see the world.

i stood at the pizza parlor the other day and listened to one of my friends talk about how her boyfriend would let her stray as long as it was for a celebrity that she had dreamed of. and it got me thinking, who would i want to sleep with ... if the opportunity presented itself.

of course, i am not the kind of man to fantasize about a woman that i don't know. and surely, i have never fantasized about liz phair either. don't get me wrong. i guess it's just not my deal. i think i would want my girlfriend to let me sleep with one other person, no questions asked. is that asking too much?

to me, it feels like it's the exact same thing. in fact, i am not sure that i could allow my lover to take to bed with a rich and famous man. where would be the sanity in that? i mean, why would she ever want to come back to me.

i am not sure what this american fascination with the celebrity is. maybe it's just that we see them as living that american dream that we would like to believe is a real possibility for the rest of us. of course, that makes me wonder what exactly constitutes the american dream. is it having sex with multiple women? having all the possessions that one man could dream of?

i guess i always thought that if i could have anything (other than the opportunity to have sex with two women at once) it would be to ensure that my children and their children would be able to live happy and productive lives for the rest of their existences. is that asking too much? and why is that not the american dream?

sometimes i wonder if parents understand how much they owe their children. do people understand that children never choose to be part of this world. and i am sure that if you gave most children the choice, they would opt to go back to wherever it is that they came from.

well ... no, that's a stupid thought. there i go again, thinking i understand what would make other people happy.

do i even have a point tonight? seriously, i need to stop writing when i am tired and wishing i could sleep. i am not sure that this serves any purpose. for my experience, i find that it is best to write stream on conscious when you are tired and listless. but what the fuck do i know. after all, i wrote this shit. but at least i didn't read it. so the joke, ultimately, is on you. hahaha.

keep the government's hands off my pipe!!!

yeah, i just kind of let the whole medical marijuana thing pass. i was aware of it when it happened, but i just didn't feel the motivation to write on it ...

... and why should i? yeah, i smoke weed. so what. that doesn't mean for a second that i support medical marijuana. in fact, i get tired of all these fucking pussies talking about how "sick and dying people are being denied their medicine." it's not medicine, it's weed. and it's fun to smoke, but it ain't going to cure your cancer, and it ain't going to cure your aids, so give it up already.

and really, that's where i was coming from when i first heard the decision handed down by the u.s. supreme court last week that denied states' rights for the first time in my (pot-shortened) memory. it seemed to me, at least when ever i would pay attention, that the supreme court appeared to stand adamantly in the corner of states' rights. that, as far as i know, has been a cornerstone of the conservative soap box for decades ... since before goldwater.

of course, i don't really know anything about history or politics, so please don't take my word as truth.

from what i understand, the claim made in the majority decision of the court on the matter was that the prohibition and regulation of controlled substances falls under the jurisdiction of interstate commerce. and that's a pretty solid argument ... being that one of the fundamental demands for a union such as ours is the need for continuity in interstate commerce.

still, i am not buying it. i find little in the constitution to protect a lot of our government's practical applications. and most of my complaints about said applications would center around interstate commerce and the so called "eclectic clause" of the first article of the constitution. and i blame this largely on the often stubborn approach to government of alexander hamilton. but really, i am quite far away from any point that i had when i began this entry.

i just don't like medical marijuana. i think that last week's ruling was most likely bullshit, not because of the constitutional basis of interstate commerce, but because of the fascist notion of controlling what "free" adults do with and to their bodies.

i don't even think there should be an argument about medical marijuana. i have long held the opinion that all substances should be legal and readily available to the public (meaning no government regulation). obviously, if it can't be got, then there is no discussion.

but i think that doctors should only make "recommendations" and not "prescriptions." if some moron wants to go to the pharmacist and buy a bunch of vicadin and kill himself ... then more pot for me.

and pot, of course, should be totally legal for recreational use. and if aids patients and cancer patients want to get high because they think it helps them in their illness, then more power to them. but i hate to see people expend energy to save marijuana as a medicine, when they should be using that energy to let ME get high. there is nothing that marijuana can do for you that there isn't a better, stronger pharmaceutical for.

on a side note, i will someday learn to spell ... well ... probably not. and you know what? fuck this entry. i am so full of shit anyway. i would rather just get high. of course, the funny thing is that there is nothing the government can do to stop me from smoking weed, but they sure seem to be doing a number on these sick people. sucks for them, i guess.

i should point out, in the name of full disclosure, that i have always voted against all medical marijuana propositions. and i feel that if people win on the medical front, they will forget that there is nothing wrong with getting high. what really needs to happen is those powerful tobacco lobbies need to realize that if they were allowed to grow weed, they could save their industry.

planning mass murder ...

now if i were a terrorist, i think i would strike this eu summit coming next week. don't get me wrong, i realize that all these terrorists were pussies ... one hit wonders exploited to keep a nation in a constant state of fear.

but i would think that anyone could see a terrorist attack on the scale of sept. 11 stands miles ahead of its kin in that it has historical meaning and value. if the goal of terrorism is to gain political ground through the use of violence, then this is one hell of a political opportunity. i have a feeling that the whole world will be watching ... except america, we could give a fuck less.

i would be willing to bet that if i asked all of my friends about the european union, three would know what i am talking about. there is no such thing as good news to us anymore. i know one person who watches the nightly news. i don't know anyone that reads the newspaper.

the point is just that you could really drive home the fact that there is a sincere clash of cultures here that needs to be addressed imediately on an honorable and level table very soon. i guess that's just what i would get out of it. but fuck, i have kind of lost track of whatever it is that the terrorists want.

would it really be as simple as turning our back on israel? and if it was, how many americans would be down? that's what i really want to know. how much does the general american public really care about israel? i mean, if we fail to make the connection between iraq and oil, than how are we going to see the connection between israel and oil?

my sense is that we could never even ask these questions. and there is a large part of me that believes the answers would not be what i expect.

i think that if god talks to you, then i am pretty scared of you. that's really what it comes down to. i don't want to fuck around with someone that thinks that they are getting hooked up on the other side of the big sleep. it's like bribery. it just isn't right.

i wonder what turning our back on israel would result in. would israel kick eveyrone else's ass? i mean, these countries are pretty weak, as near as i can tell. there was the whole six-days war thing. and this last little battle with iraq, who was punking all these bitches anyway.

and would israel use nuclear weapons?

whatever, it's not going to happen. i know that i won't die for israel, and that's something. shit ... did i have a point?

this machine kills fascists ....

i just read most of an article about the dutch and french rejections of the new european union and constitution in today's times. clearly propaganda, it pushed all out capitalism (is that the key issue of the new union? i guess i should have been paying attention.), and did little to answer key issues. for example, instead of focusing on how it was a "democratic infitada," it should have focused on what exactly the people were opposed to.

in that, i am saying that i felt the article was far more concerned with how the rejection of the constitution was a referendum of the european politicians, and not a genuine vote on the constitution.

it should be noted that any progression toward a world community cannot be based in values that are not shared universally. for a communist and a capitalist to agree, they cannot discuss social and economic structure. a true democracy would not enforce ideals. and for democracy to spread, it cannot attempt to do so.

in saying this, i am rejecting any democracy that doesn't cooperate with any and all structures. and by rejection, i mean that no such democracy will ever be the "more perfect union" sought in the united states' constitution. and i am leaving that vague because it is still hard for me to imagine a democratic system that allows for unity and peace more effectively than a rolling empire.

of course, that conquering empire is not an option in the nuclear age. and so i am convinced that the solution is in a more true, more representative form of democracy that allows for all religious viewpoints and political approaches -- as god and country are almost always the causes of war.

either way, this article did bring up one valuable point (at least in the part that i read). and that was that a lot of europe is worried about the inclusion of turkey into the union, and it implied that europeans do not want the increase in the islamic influence in europe. for obvious reasons, i think this is pretty significant.

it will be hard to find peace in a world where hurtful prejudices are so ingrained. in that, i am not saying that i don't find it a legitimate concern for the minds of europeans. but with regards to my vision, i am not sure how many, if any, religions are really ever going to be happy sharing the planets with others.

i still remember the day when kermit (an elderly pakistani man that worked at the store around the corner -- we called him kermit, because he look and spoke like the furry frog; we called the store "hallah" or "goat head" because it sold hallah brand goat meat) and i spoke of kashmir.

if you don't know, kashmir is probably the most likely scene for the opening act in a nuclear exchange. this is a land between pakistan and india; both nations lay claim to it. pakistan and india are both nuclear powers. and pakistan, an islamic nation, is ruled by a military dictator who often cooperates with the west.

at this point in time, i feel that the most likely scenario for the first nuclear exchange would be an islamic revolution in pakistan, followed by islamic extremists control of nuclear weapons, and yada yada yada.

either way, i asked kermit about kashmir and he switched from kermit to hitler. he began to preach rather violently about how the indians weren't even on the same level as the rest of us (meaning jews, christians and muslims) because they did not even believe in god. he repeated several times "they worship rocks." it was one of the most amazing and powerful experiences in my life.

i guess i am saying that i can't forget how much people hate each other. and that to want to change how someone feels, even when they feel hatred, is wrong. it presumes that you know what is right and wrong, and you are willing to enforce it. and where that may be just manipulation in a social environment, when you are talking about people you don't know, it is fascism.

and it's in this clash between common interests and intolerable means that we find the greatest hurdle in the race with the nuclear age.

i think i am rambling now.

screaming at your television ...

ok, i admit that when i am doing laundry, i am often smoking pot and watching the news. i don't know if that means that there is something wrong with me, but it definitely means that i enjoy the finer parts of life. some have their wine and cheese, i have my herbs and cnn.

but the problem with news is that only fox news is worth a damn, and i hate the viewpoints expressed on the propaganda network. but cnn is such a sad state. i am convinced that you aren't going to find quality information on a 24-hour news network. but fox news has created a new type of news and sold it to a mindless, slightly retarded public. cnn doesn't even do that much.

cnn seems to be crossed between dedication and reactionism toward whatever fox news does on one hand, and some horribly egotistical declaration that they were the first and (at one time) the best 24-hour news network out there. as if television news can even compete. most people, i think, pay attention to the television to stay abreast of what is going on, and then they turn to a newspaper or the internet to find out the details.

i know that when i hear something interesting on tv, i often leave the room and head to the computer to find out what is really going on ... or at least what information is really out there.

today i laughed at the tv, right before i changed the channel. cnn is celebrating its 25th anniversary. and if that wasn't pitiful enough, today it celebrated its coverage of the 2000 presidential election. and if that wasn't pitiful enough, the anchor was showing a clip of herself, talking about how she covered the news.

i just couldn't take it. i admit that i look back at that election and see a drastic change in my life. and i didn't particualary feel like having cnn hold my hand for the duration of my nostalgic look back to the old world and how it began to change in a demonstrative way.

i think if there is one thing that i have learned from my ventures into the news world, i know that all news people are incompetant. they can't even adhere to their own archaic beliefs about truth and service. i think it stems from the method in which we breed the journalists of the future.

but i guess what they are doing is far more productive than my aimless rambling.

another thing i forgot to mention last night, largely because there is no definable resolution, is the comotion of the new european union and constitution. i am not too sure about what the french people think, but i know that another european nation today followed suit with a clear rejection of the constition.

i have always liked the idea of a european union. in my vision of a peaceful world, political and national issues are settled in bloodless meetings. and as the first major step toward that world, nations must unite and grow larger. i envision one nation per continent. two united states (north and south america); an african, asian and european union; and one union of island nations for a total of 6 distinct political entities. but more than that, i will not get into right now.

the point is just that i am watching this rejection of the european constitution. and i am very interested in motives, shortfalls, cultural oppositions and everything that goes along with it.

propaganda and blowjobs: the new pb&j?

propaganda: i learned today, while watching the last fifteen minutes of real sports on hbo, that the whole pat tilman thing was little more than a government engineered story designed to help create a hero in the eyes of football fans, making them more likely to support the war.

for those of you that don't know, pat tilman (i am not sure if i am spelling his name right) was either a full-back or linebacker for the arizona cardinals. following sept. 11, he became an army ranger, and was eventually killed in action. the original stories portrayed him as a hero, who gave his life to save his fellow rangers.

it turns out that he was shot rather ungloriously (is that a word?) by friendly fire. i guess the family came out and said that they thought what the government had done to his image to try and encourage more people to support the war effort was disgraceful.

i don't know if it means there is something wrong with me, but i like pat tilman more now than i did yesterday. i still can't say that i like him. i think that running off to war in the wake of something as inconsequential as sept. 11 shows more reactionism than it does bravery or strength. in fact, it shows that you are willing to contribute to the cycle of violence that is international politics.

but i guess that knowing that the whole thing was bullshit makes me not gag so hard when i think of it all. and i guess that is progress. well ... i guess progress would be me stopping my interest in professional sports, but ... fat chance. after all, sports is often far more interesting than news ...

blowjobs: ... except when that news is the revelation of the identity of the famed "deep throat." i guess it was time, as i am sure very few people really know who deep throat was anyway. but what the fuck ever.

i found a couple of things interesting about deep throat and the condemnation that his identity places on our society and its heroes.

the first interesting point is that his motives appear to be anything but noble. his family, i saw on the news, claims to be very proud of him, that he is now an american hero. but upon further examination, he was the second in command of the fbi. he was upset with nixon for two major reasons: nixon had appointed an outsider to replace hoover (isn't it funny to think that without j. edgar hoover, there would be no watergate?).

deep throat wanted to be the director of the fbi. of course, he was also upset that his beloved fbi was being corrupted by the president. the truth about his motives, i am convinced, lies somewhere between these two feelings of his. either way, it was not the selfless act that the anti-nixon culture of mainstream america will sell it as.

of course, i no way want to imply that i liked richard nixon or that i don't feel like deep throat did the right thing. but there is part of me that remains devoutly committed to the notion that the ends can never justify the means. and for ideals that i don't believe in to topple other ideas that i don't believe in doesn't exactly warm my heart.

but the most interesting thing about deep throat, to me, was how little he appears to matter. it's as if history has built such a great expectation of this man. but really, knowing who he is makes me feel no different about the whole situation. i don't feel like i have any answers.

really, the big question to me has always been, what did he do wrong? i mean, we are really talking about one campaign bugging another. i really hope that this is a practice employed by all political candidates. if you don't have some sort of spy system set up, then just go home. it's like you aren't even playing the same game.

i think that if you compare what nixon was actually doing to what the public perception of him was, you are left with a great void of understanding. i really don't think that spying is high treason. i mean, it's not subversion until you put your desires into practice. in fact, i think that george w. bush is already shown to be far more sinister than nixon. but i digress.

the point is just that i don't see the watergate thing in any different light now that i know who deep throat was. and i suppose that i was expecting to.