All the Same

Lying in our bed last night, I thought through my day with and without you.

Was it that the excise tax moves left up the demand curve or was it down to the right? Or was it to the left down the supply? The graphs, the charts, the fucking exhibits 4 point so and so: the blue line, the demand, and the red, the supply. Or was it the red: demand? Blue: supply?

I lay there cloaked in our blue paisley comforter as a priest during a requiem mass. Staring into the lightless space above my small face, my big, round eyes—the eggshell appeared to commence my baptism, yet the paint froze to the ceiling, only millimeters for its origin.

I turned to face my sleeping love. His sandy, blonde hair hid his unopened eyes; his freckles sheltered the fair skin of his shoulders. Not long after I lay with my eyes toward him had I become warm, so I removed the comforter.

I lay there in the dark bedroom with my body, or as he would say, my "humble breasts" and "womanly thighs," exposed to the room as the room laid exposed to us upon our first night in this apartment: the walls adorned with nothing, the photos of the family still in suitcases and boxes and not on the bedside stands, and the bed itself was only the mattress on the tan carpet.

I was not tired, yet I longed to be with him in our marital bed. His heartbeat and the vibration of him breathing gave to me more comfort than the air conditioning; the mattress and the pillow from my mother’s; the metal-blue, cotton sheets; the answers to tomorrow’s assignment; and the moon that laid a golden tint to the eggshell-cold walls.

Was it that? Yes, to the right. To the right with the demand curve. Yet the excise tax is a producer’s tax, so than it would be left with the demand. Or would it?

I felt his beating heart, all the same.


I had an hour to write a description of something (it did not matter to my professor), yet it had to be from a woman's point of view. I think of this as prose-poem; however, I going to post it on this blog.

Regulated Economy Equals Regulated Liberties

Thomas Anger, a retired Washington economist, posed this question, “Why, despite sound arguments and concrete evidence, do most Americans tend to resist denationalization and deregulation?” That is a question we, as citizens, all should want answered.

And Anger does just that: “Their resistance arises from two things: risk aversion (both personal and paternalistic) and economic illiteracy.”

To clarify what Anger calls, “risk aversion,” it is when people are afraid of taking a chance. And they start asking questions to justify their terror, yet no movement towards answers, which would, after comprehension, alleviate their said terror.

Anger’s second claim “economic illiteracy” plagues people, how could one dispute this? The average person does not grasp economic theory, and he or she only views financial and economic situations (as well as governmental issues due to the interdependence of our government and economy) through his or her myopic glass bubble. That is, thinking solely on the present money in hand, not the money in bank in the next 30 years.

This idea that a government’s job is to rescue its citizens from poor personal budgeting and the ignorant understanding of finances is a falsehood. That leads--in our case, as Americans--to the Socialistic War, which I have spoken on previously.

In doing so, we allow, as economist Bruce Yandle, Ph.D., calls “Bootleggers and Baptists” to occur. Dr. Yandle explains, “Bootleggers, you will remember, support Sunday closing laws that shut down all local bars and liquor stores. Baptists support the same laws… Both parties gain, while the regulators are content because the law is easy to administer.”

The “Bootleggers” are those in the business world who use regulation to oppress competition in the marketplace, so to profit while at the expense of the consumer. Need I remind one who the consumer is in this equation?

The “Baptists” are, as Anger states, the “self-appointed guardians of our health and well-being (the sum of all our risk-averse fears, you might say).”

Nationalization and regulation hinder the economy and thus the people’s pocketbooks, not only at present but into the future. Anger adds, “The benefits of nationalization and regulation come at a high cost, but we tend to focus on our own benefits… and forget the cost (the taxes we pay for benefits that go to others).”

Denationalization and deregulation promote free market and a strong economy, which means the consumer will be granted the liberties he or she foolishly pissed away out of asinine behavior.

The liberties I speak of are the ones that allow you, the citizen, to choose your own box of cereal, your own showerhead, your own doctor, and your own insurance company (which is an issue in Massachusetts at the moment) and, basically, spend your money the way you see best fit.

Of course, if this would occur, we all would need to start signing up for budgeting classes, which I would rather have than someone else’s “regulated” liberties thrust upon me. How about you, the American citizen?


Here is my last column for this term. It is sad; I know the problems I (and the Parthenon) had working together, but I believe those problems are behind us. Most of the columnists were writing “Goodbye” columns. I thought about that, yet I opt to write mine with no reference to ending of the term. I hope this post is one you will like.

No Baby an Angel

Why do we, as a society, even attempt to protect children? Is protection really what children or is it society that needs protection?

Children, overlooking their guileless exterior, are not innocent creatures with pure intensions; their actions show the fundamental animalistic nature within each living being. Every individual born into this world initially cares about one individual and that individual is oneself.

It is plainly society that is afraid of children (with good reason).

Society’s defensive stance against children is the particular result of its own fears. Society teaches ethics, morals, rules, and laws, and the punishment, if any of these are broken.

Consider this: when an adult does or says something that pushes society’s limits of tolerance, what do we voice back to that person? We say, “Quit being childish,” which means more explicitly, “Quit acting like a child because the social circumstances we are in do not approve.”

We, as a compassionate group of men and women, believe we have an obligation to shelter children due to their so-called naivety, yet after pondering, if we will, the thought process of a child, we will disclose that assumption itself is naïve.

Being realistic, children are irrationally selfish, demanding, hateful, violent, loud, crude, and revengeful. Children are blatant lairs and they have no comprehension of respect for another individual’s emotions.

Every child--realizing that the word “love” is a powerful term to adults, maybe because of the sincerity in our voices--screams out to any given parental figure that “I don’t love you anymore” or “I hate you” or “You are a bad parent; you don’t love me.” That is an example of the pain they intensely inflict.

Some adults praise children for their frank honesty, yet many more are embarrassed. Furthermore, I believe rightly so, and out of that embarrassment society protects itself against the multitude of these miniature combatants.

These pint size individuals might be held as a so-called fresh air in a stale world, yet the actions of our little off-springs are deemed unacceptable in the adult reality due to the push for harmony--that is, for a society to function there has to be guidelines or rules.


Now, people can understand my disliking of children. That is not true. I love kids, yet I am worried about the idea of becoming a parent one day. Children are not angels and I hope my girlfriend better comprehends my disdain for parenthood.

Hey, Try Cooperating for a Change

I have wanted to speak out on this topic for a very long time, now. In fact, it goes back to last term, when students accused police officers of taking aggressive actions at an unapproved (I will refrain from the adjective, illegal) block party.

First off, I am excited that the Georgian Congresswoman apologized, even if it was only halfheartedly, Thursday afternoon. What an end to a week of shameful, name-labeling lunacy!

For those who do not yet know, Rep. McKinney D-GA was stopped as she was entering the Capital in D.C. She apparently had a makeover--that is, a newer, sexier, and fresher hairdo. She did not have her congressional ID pin out in easy sight and the officer did not recognize her.

When the officer asked her to stop, she did not do so willingly. When he asked her some questions, she did not cooperate. Finally, she struck the officer.

McKinney tried to play the race card as for the reason the officer stopped her and never once did I hear or read of her discussing her motive for striking the officer for doing his duty.

Do not get me wrong, if race was the underlying purpose then I would be arguing that; however, McKinney forgets that real racism occurs and her incident was not one of those sad displays of intolerance and lack of education. There are good, hard-working people in this country being denied career opportunities, cast aside in social settings, and harassed by mere words or by physical means.

However, back to my topic: the treatment of the police officers. My grandfather, a retired officer after 35 years of service, raised me, since I was four. Furthermore, having that perspective showed me a side that most people do not get to see. I learned of the motives for a police officer’s actions, which the layman might not understand at first glance at the situation or incident.

Richard Keplinger, another retired officer from my hometown, stated once to me that “an officer has a few moments to make a decision that might take a court and/or the public months, if not years, to tear apart and say if you [the officer] were wrong or right in the action you took.”

I have to agree with him. Police officers protect me, the writer of this column, and you, the reader of this column, and everyone else. Then why do we, as citizens, seem to like to bad mouth their behaviors or degrade their actions or piss on their characters?

Maybe the reason lies with the way we see our influential citizens. Maybe when the rapper or singer curses the officer or when the actor plays the part of the “bad cop” or when the congressman or congresswoman, in this case, assaults the officer for servicing and protecting.

There are officers in this country who do not fulfill their duties and are these “bad cops”; however, those are the few and the far between. Whatever the reason may be, though, I believe a thank you is in store for the men and women wearing the uniform and carrying the badge.


This was a last minute column. I am not happy with it, but it is okay. I hate when I procrastinate. I am planning on starting earlier this week and write a great column.

Religion [and Politics] Should Be Separate

Some have the idea that America was a Christian nation; that is a false assumption. America was the dumping pot of Europe--they sent their criminals and impoverished lowbrows to this new world just to cleanse their lands of the so-called unsophisticated populous.

Somehow the insane took over the asylum. We became the land and the “government of the people, by the people, for the people”--the safe haven for the world’s lost and beleaguered.

We have been force-fed half-truths and idealistic notions about the faith of our United States. We heard from the classroom to the pulpit to the home that our nation was a Christian nation, and that itself was spread to us by people whom themselves had never read the complete U.S. Constitution, if at all.

Joseph Ellis, historian and author, answered a question about the intended faith of our nation, “Jefferson, along with Madison, is the author of the famous separation of church and state principle, which essentially insists that there be no government enforcement of any particular religious denominational preference.”

The Framers of Constitution would be undoubtedly appalled by their fellow countrymen of today. The Framers stood up against the world’s most commanding nation to gain the freedom to establish a nation that viewed liberty as the core of its existence, not an overbearing Theocracy.

In a letter to Samuel Kercheval in 1810, Jefferson said, "But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State."

Robert Carver, historian, wrote, “At the Constitutional Convention, the Framers looked to the examples of antiquity, the Greeks and the Romans and not to the Ten Commandments. They were a pragmatic lot, and they were not interested in being bound by their religious heritage, despite today's claims to the contrary.

“Rather, they were searching for virtually any idea, from virtually any source, that would work to create a better government than the failure produced by the Articles of Confederation.”

John Leland, a Baptist preacher, wrote to the Framer as they were drafting the Constitution, “The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils.”

The Baptists, under a state united with a church, suffered extremely. Baptist preachers were fined, imprisoned, and tortured for advising their congregations to read the Bible for themselves--something of which the state church disapproved.

Also, citizens had to pay tithes to the state church, even if they did not attend said church. This still occurs in many of the world’s nation, such as many European nations.

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution seeing this noticed the uncanny similarities between these treatments of citizens in the newly established United States and the old tyranny of England.

The Framers made a conscious decision to deflate these motives of cruel treatments and inhumane practices before they would be exacerbated any longer and eventually tearing their fragile nation apart at the seams--destined to be another failed, degrading, self-righteous Theocracy.


I have been very ill; I have missed a week and half worth of classes. I wrote a six page paper awhile back on this topic. So I just cut it down that 3000 word argument to 540 word column. However, for the newspaper it was too long and they cut it even more--that is, to 390 words. I am posting my draft here because I feel that the three paragraphs that were cut were the most important.

Four Elements of Success

Over the past several weeks, I have written on an array of topics: the Theocratic and Socialistic Wars, U.S. trade deficit, Danish/Muslim cartoon conflict, freedom of speech, port security, and the oppression of the minorities by the moral majority as well as the angelic librarians guarding and protecting our way of life within the confines on their shelves.

This week I want to discuss the ever eluding mysteries of how to be successful. There are four elements, which I find, in every successful individual. And those are as followed: passion, labor, faith, and love.

Firstly, Passion: It is what gives one the strength to make the first firm step in the direction of his or her goal, prize, and/or future. Passion lights the fire as well as maintains it.

Some may question, "Why is not a dream the root of that which is successful?" And I will answer, "I have dreamt, since I was knee-high to a midget grasshopper, to be an astronaut, but I lack the passion to invest my life into that endeavor. So, will I be the first man to walk on Mars—highly, doubtful."

Secondly, Labor: One will have work—many kinds and many styles. Physical labor is the first form that comes to mind, but mental labor is equally important, if not more so.

Scott Crawford, former store manager of my hometown Wal-Mart, told me, when I worked there during the summer of 2001, that "you get paid according to what you know." So, he encouraged all the young, high school employees to find something that they could dig into and in his words, "get an education, for one can only reap from his labors and his alone."

Thirdly, Faith: Each morning one arises to greet the newfound day, one must have the faith to say in a strong and confident tone, "Today is going to be better than the last."

Faith could be in a higher entity or not; that is a personal decision, which will be made on one’s own. The faith I speak of, however, is the faith in one's abilities and that is what keeps one coming back for more.

Finally, Love: That is love of the road one walks, the people one walks it with, and the ones one has at home waiting upon his or her return. The love of the ones who kindle the flames in one's absence is the evening star that shines so bright that it lights the footpaths one chases at the day's end.


I had many issues I wanted to talk about, but I did not see a reason to waste a good, long researched column right before spring break. I hope it is nice short, up-lifting column.

Can I Ask a Question?

Is it just feasible that a substantial portion of white Americans and/or moral majority view the minorities in this country as somewhat of inferior, lowbrow indentured servants waiting upon approval of civil liberties--which are due, but are reneged on--after years of asinine oppression?

I understand that is a mouthful of a question as well as quite a loaded one to boot. However, I cannot help but to look around and see pompous bigots swearing by their own dull-minded morality.

Firstly, there has, since the origins of human societies, been something, be it skin color, religious beliefs, national origins, and/or financial statuses, to divide the masses.

Sadly, racism was and is a dividing line in America. It is apart of American history and continues, with no signs of ceasing, to affect American current events. Furthermore, it is something that stands flatfooted on our shores, laying a damp overcast on the welcoming smile of our own Lady Liberty, and yet even sadder, laying a still harsher wake-up call to the dreams of the minorities in this county.

Nonetheless, within the last hundred years, America has progressed in the areas of racism and other discriminations; however, there are battles that are still raging.

Secondly, and crazy enough, religious morality harbours many, if not all, of these discriminations, basically, the “Us” and “Them” factor. That is, the whole mentality that “We’re better than you. We know something you don’t.”

From religious scriptures came the justification for the ideology of slaves, the owning of one individual as one might own a dog. Do not get me wrong, mankind has always brutality treated his fellow man. This goes back before articles of faith were even copied down in any form of a written language.

What I mean though is that religious scriptures justify the practice of slavery and the disdain against anyone that disagrees with the text. America’s history, moreover, shows the battle that modern civilizations have had to wage to cleanse itself of an obtuse, written-in-God’s-own-hand, moral bigotry.

Thirdly, once again, the war flags wave high: the moral majority using their religious scriptures to justify their discrimination of another minority, homosexuals. Of course, this is a battle that has been fought against this group in the past, but now the religious majority, feeling these people pose more of a threat than previously, are unleashing there influences into politics.

If these people (homosexuals) do not wish or ask to be a practitioner of a faith, whereby, their so-called “sexual deviance” would be an abomination to some higher deity, then the morally self-righteous should quit thrusting their own holier-than-thou beliefs on these people’s backs. Due to the same freedoms that give to you, the religious majority, the right to be the way you are and the way you choose, so the freedoms belong to the minorities as well.

Finally, the majority blindly forgets sometimes--that is, actually, a substantial part of the time--to act as if they were the minority; that is, to consider themselves outnumbered and still wake each day to face the onslaught of fear, misunderstanding, and persecution.


This week's column was spurred by two elements: the reading of another Parthenon columnist's comments about Brokeback Mountain and the reading of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story, Young Goodman Brown. It is one thing to realize our differences and embrace as well as poke fun at them, but the blindsided disdain of another because of a difference that they, themselves, cannot control is beyond stupidity. In my humble opinion, it is the shittiest display of a fuck worthy education.

Economy Needs Foreign Investments

Democrats decry whatever the Bush Administration does and once again are pretending to be something they are not--sincere and wise. Of course, several strong issues exist that Americans should rightfully question the president on and demand change for, but this Port Security issue is not one.

For those who do not yet know, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) received approval of a transaction by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a multi-agency body that was established in 1975 to evaluate the national security implications of foreign acquisitions.

The transaction encompasses the purchase of six U.S. seaports for $6.8 billion by the UAE-based Dubai Ports World from another foreign company, the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Irwin M. Stelzer, director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute, paraphrased the president by saying the UAE “has arrested several key al Qaeda operatives, welcomed visits by American naval vessels, provided landing rights for U.S. aircraft at its strategically located airport, and cooperated in the inspection of cargoes headed for American ports.”

Furthermore, Thomas L. Friedman, columnist of the New York Times, wrote, “Many U.S. ports are run today by foreign companies, but the U.S. Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port security, entry and exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the containers; and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos.”

He added, “The port operator simply oversees the coming and going of ships, making sure they are properly loaded and offloaded in the most cost-effective manner.”

America has a long history of welcoming foreign investment and ownership to her shores. So why is this an issue?

The Associate Press stated, only 25 such investigations have been conducted “among 1,600 business transactions reviewed by the [CFIUS] since 1988.” What makes this issue this time different than the overwhelming majority of these transactions?

With literally no security risk, the answers to these questions are very simple and unbelievably sad: race and nationality as well as Democrats (and some Republicans) needing to appear tough in an election year. The opposition to this port transaction only cares about its own well-being, not America’s

As I remember Democrats are against racial profiling--criticizing the President when someone of Arab background or appearance is stopped and questioned, even if his or her coat is extraordinarily heavy.

Friedman stated, “If there were a real security issue here, I'd join the critics. But the security argument is bogus and, I would add, borderline racist.” So, I am not the only person that sees the race connection.

Friedman wrote, “As a country, we must not go down this road of global ethnic profiling--looking for Arabs under our beds the way we once looked for commies. If we do--if America, the world's beacon of pluralism and tolerance, goes down that road--we will take the rest of the world with us.”

In conclusion, just because a business is located in an Arab country or any other country should not hinder that company from investing in America. America’s economy thrives because of foreign investments and at the same time the American economy drives the Global economy. Therefore, if we stop supporting foreign investments, we hurt the world at large as well as ourselves.


Here is week Six. I liked it, but I feel I used Thomas L. Friedman a little too much. So far I find it scary if the American people follow the Democrats on this political war against the President: where he says something and they have to say the opposite. To stop investments based solely on race and nationality is asinine.

Librarians on the Front Lines

Librarians are on the Front Lines of an educational downfall. They stand on centuries of tradition, while holding the reins to tomorrow.

Before I continue, let us start with the history of the written word. A&E, the Art of Entrainment channel, did a poll several years back of the most influential people of all times, and who was number one? Johann Gutenberg, the man who invented the printing press.

In 1452 Gutenberg conceives the very idea that will transform the world by the fabrication of movable type. In his workshop he combines the technologies of the day: paper (which came Italy from China in the 12th Century), oil-based ink (which came into existences during the 10th Century), and the wine-press (which, in one form or another, has been around before Christ).

With these three invention commonly used in the 1400’s, the printing press was born. No more did men copy word after word on to a scroll, then knowing that that scroll would be obsolete and in need of recopying within just a score of years. Man knew even at that time the word was everything, for without it communication would cease and without communication man would never survive.

Returning to my original statement, now.

Neil Gaiman, the author of American Gods and Neverwhere and the DC comic series The Sandman writes, “I love librarians… I love librarians when they crusade not to be stereotyped as librarians. I love librarians when they're just doing those magic things that librarians do. I love librarians when they're the only person in a ghost town looking after thousands of books.”

Librarians guard the words of those who came before, those who are present, and those who are soon to arrive. If librarians lose the lust for their obligations and lay down their defenses, we have lost our history, our art, our knowledge, our edge, and, quintessentially, our communication.

Somewhere along the way getting this point in our nation’s history, we forgot the importance of respect for those who hold, essentially, our society within the confines of their shelves. Books birth dreams and kindle passions and push imaginations to a realm of absolute possibilities, and we, as Americans, cannot allow for this process to stall, if so, thus, stalling the pace of human development.

Throughout history countless writers have told countless stories upon countless pages weaving countless words bounded within countless books to be read by countless readers for countless hours. The pleasures, the pains, the joys, the sorrows, the intrigues, the disappointments, the loves, the losses, the facts, the lies, and the truths captivate people, for people wrote these tales for a reason and that reason is to be, at the day’s close, human—to feel, to grow.

While books are the beacon to which ambition is drawn unto, librarians lay out the course of its navigation. No matter how much and how often ignorance grapples with our way of life, librarians just knuckle down and stands their ground. Librarians are on the Front Lines of an educational downfall.


I delivered a speech on this topic before (go through the Archives to find it). I wanted to write on Globalization this week in response to a “letter to the editor” and my last column (read below), yet I have had so much work and so little sleep this week, so I just turned this one in to fill my weekly commitment.

U.S. Trade Deficit Soars to Horrifying Heights

The U.S. trade deficit peaked at $725.8 billion, an all-time high, in 2005, and it was propelled skyward due to record imports of oil, food, cars and other consumer goods.

On February 10th Martin Crutsinger of the Associated Press reported, for the "fourth consecutive year… America's trade deficit has set a record as American consumers continued their seemingly insatiable demand for all things foreign from new cars to televisions and electronic goods."

Crutsinger stated that imports rose "12.9 percent to an all-time high of $2 trillion, swamping a 10.4 percent increase in exports, which reached a record high of $1.27 trillion."

Reading this, I wondered if the American people even care about their nation, their homeland. Yes, we are exporting more than ever before; however, our percentage of increase is not as accelerated as our imports.

I hear, it must be all the time, that outsourcing, off-shoring, and globalization eliminates American jobs, leaving millions unemployed for the gain of a few. I would argue the 4.7 unemployed rate (7.2 million individuals) is the lowest for a number of years.

Furthermore, Thomas L. Friedman, New Times columnist and author of "The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century," talked about China's embracement of free market trade, thus globalization, and "how [they have] managed to pull more people out of poverty faster and in larger numbers than any country in the world by adopting a pro-globalization/trade strategy."

I am an avid free trade supporter; ergo, I support the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). "Why?" you might ask. Besides the results Friedman spoke about with China's impoverished citizens, the NAFTA and CAFTA are the only way for America as well as the Americas to compete with countries, such as China and India. At the same time, it helps the development of all involved nations--that is, economic-wise.

Check this out. If one buys a textile product made in China, 100 percent is made in China. Yet, if one buys that product made in El Salvador (one of the six nations in the CAFTA), 60 percent is produced in the U.S., while 40 percent is constructed in El Salvador. So, in return we, by buying textiles from the nations in the CAFTA, help to keep more American jobs in the States than if we purchase ones made in China or elsewhere.

The trade deficit, being so high, horrifies many and with good reason. It is especially horrifying, when $201.6 billion of the deficit is due to imports from China--still being a police state socially.

Crutsinger added, "The rising trade deficits must be financed by increased borrowing from foreigners, who so far have been happy to sell us their products and hold U.S. dollars in payment which they invest in U.S. stock, bonds and other assets."

He concluded, "The concern is that at some point foreigners will want to reduce their dollar holdings. If the change occurs at a rapid pace it could send the value of the dollar, U.S. stocks and bond prices all plunging."


The person editing page four in the Parthenon this week took some liberties, which I disagreed with and thus changing the meaning of a sentence or two. So, I am posting my draft. Next, I wonder if the person who titled this column, “U.S. Trade Deficit Misleading,” actually read it, and because of that I am not posting that title as the title of this ed-op piece.

Freedom for All or for None

Explain to me, if one will or possibly can, why? Why did the Danish not think before publication, knowing fully the passion of the Muslim world? Why does the Muslim world have to be so blind to the reaction of their own actions? Why should the Free world care?

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten was undisputedly wrong in the publications of twelve cartoons that depicted the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, especially, one which showed the Prophet with a bomb for a turban; that is, if we live in a tolerant world--a world of political and religious correctness.

Obviously, any practitioner of Islam should, based on his or her books of faith, be outraged. Furthermore, living in this world of tolerance we must give every religion (tested creeds and unestablished oaths) the courtesy and respect we ask for our own, whatever it may be.

Let us flip the tolerance perceptive. Should the Muslin world be tolerant of another individual who, apparently, does not believe in the Islamic faith and sees it quite fitting to make a joke or draw a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad or Allah, in that case?

Back in the 90’s a so-called artist placed a crucifix in a jar of urine, capped it off with a lid, and proclaimed it art. Did the Christian world rise up and riot, destroying buildings and causing deaths? No, they did not. The other month when the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the Holocaust was a “myth.” Did the world watch in horror as the Jews burned embassies? No, we did not.

Yes, there was a cry, however, in both cases from these two different faiths, but violence was not their answer. Here in the West, we acknowledge now, thanks to Gandhi, that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

The Muslims world--in this event--has shifted the attention from the ignorant display of Jyllands-Posten’s religious intolerance to themselves. They moved the focus of the initial victim (the Muslin community) to the Danish newspaper and the Danish people as well as neighboring countries. Did they not think about the repercussions to their actions, just as they asked of the Danish?

“One assumption behind some of the debate,” states Andrew Sullivan, a journalist and blogger, “over the Danish cartoons is that blasphemy is always antithetical to religion. But, of course, many great religions began in what was then deemed blasphemy. Jesus was a blasphemer, and he died in part because of his blasphemy. Religions that enforce rules against blasphemy are defensive, cramped faiths, closed to the possibility of error, which is to say, closed to the possibility of a greater truth.

We live in the West, Sullivan adds, we can depict anybody without people rioting. This is about the freedom of speech.

Is it a freedom to blasphemy, even if it is not one’s own faith? Is it a freedom to decry someone for blaspheming against one’s personal faith? We cannot live by double standards; either freedom for all or freedom for none.


The only time I did not have a title is when I get ask for one. I told Rasmi she could look at the last sentence and she worked with it. When I called to tell her I found a couple errors, she asked if she could remove a paragraph (second to last) for length’s sake. It was hard to go with but I did. I added it here.

The Socialistic War

Last week I spoke on the Theocratic War America faces within her own borders and how it is unconstitutional to deny one individual his or her natural rights as a citizen of a Republic, not a Democracy. According to Thomas Jefferson, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”

This past Tuesday’s edition of the Parthenon ran the article “Defining Marriage”: a great example of the majority attempting to abolish the natural rights of a minority and giving them civil rights--nothing more than approved privileges.

However, this week the Socialistic War is my topic.

This Socialistic War chastises the rights of private property owners and private businesses alike. The government has been pushing for more regulations--the Democrat’s way.

Firstly, eminent domain has been understood, since the mid-19^th century, as the government seizing privately owned property, especially land, for the “Public Good.” Yet, that is no longer.

As reported by Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer, “The Supreme Court ruled yesterday [Thursday, June 23, 2005] that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed."

The government is stepping beyond the parameters of their legal jurisdiction. Privately owned property is just that, privately owned. We should side with the construction of a school, hospital, highway, and/or government building, yet not on the side of taking privately owned land and turning it over to another private party.

Additionally, the Wal*Mart Bill, like the one currently proposed in the West Vriginia Legislature, would grant state governments the power to tell privately owned businesses of 10,000 employees or more to spend 8 percent of its earnings on employee healthcare. There are 31 states with some form of the Wal*Mart Bill in their state legislature. Wal*Mart is the only business that has 10,000 employees or more and does not provide that level of healthcare.

We all should disagree with Wal*Mart, or any corporation, which only provides 40 percent of its employees with company healthcare; nonetheless, that is an issue the employees have to take up themselves, not the state government.

Business Insurance, a weekly newsmagazine, reported January 23, 2006, “[B]usiness groups and employers are attacking the measures [of the Wal*Mart Bill] as anti-business, asserting that such mandates not only will hurt the economy but ultimately could exacerbate the nation's uninsured problem.”

The economy always hurts when the federal or state government decides to get involved. This country succeeds only when privately own businesses are allowed to play freely within the free market arena.

As for the Theocratic and Socialistic Wars, which our nation battles, we have to keep in mind there are two particular issues that cannot be legislated: morality and free market.


This is the final installment of the Theocratic and Socialistic Wars; however, I am not too pleased with this one: it seems more like facts than opinion. It is fine. I doubt anyone will remember it. Again, I did not title this one.

The Theocratic War

America has two wars pending. Both are attacking the very foundation of our governmental system. One is pushing toward a theocracy, while the other is beginning its fight for socialism. This week I will speak on the topic of this Theocratic War.

This nation within the last decades has been in the middle of a faith revival, particularly, Christian, which is absolutely fine. However, our Senators deem it now of national importance to know the faith of a Supreme Court nominee and that is simply unconstitutional. Moreover, we, as citizens, vote for government officials based on their religious/spiritual beliefs or either the absence of those beliefs, and again, it is simply unconstitutional.

If one disagrees with me, just research and read the last paragraph of Article Six of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, let me save one the energy of seeking out the old dusty text, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Many look around and wonder how we have gotten ourselves to this polarized governmental situation: Democrats (Left), Republicans (Right).

I disagree with many Democrats (mostly the extreme liberals, as I do with the radically conservative Republicans), yet it is not based on the same grounds that most Americans do. According to former U.S. Senator Gray Hart (D-Colo.), many Americans view the Democrats as immoral human beings.

With that particular stereotype pushed on our minds daily, we then begin to believe Left equals Evil, so then Right equals Right; there enter the Republicans.

Many vote Republican for their personally religious beliefs (specifically, Protestant Christian beliefs), instead of voting for the best candidate for the task. That goes for the followers of the Democrats as well. That is the root, now, of the polarization problem our nation faces, religion dictates our politics. Yet again, that is simply unconstitutional; furthermore, within the next decade or two, it will play out before our very eyes.

Because we live in, as the CIA Factbook states, a “Constitution-based federal republic [with] strong democratic tradition,” we live in a stark contradiction.

In a republic citizens’ possess natural rights, which are protected (in our case) by the Bill of Rights, and the minority’s rights are the priority--hence, the filibuster.

In a democracy the majority rules; 51 percent is all that is needed. Additionally, any rights for the minority are civil rights--more or less, just privileges--granted by a condescending majority. The reality of a democracy is it is a dictatorship of the majority.

The majority of the group voting republican for religious reasoning actually push for a majority-rules democracy, while the ones voting democrat want a minority prioritized republic. I find that ironic.


Here is my weekly column for The Parthenon. Firstly, I did not title this column. The Parthenon is not the New York Times--where the columnists have the privilege to write their only titles. However, it is fine; I cannot wait to see next week's follow-up title. Secondly, I want people to praise or condemn my thoughts and words. At least, those people will read and ruminate and digest (to some degree or another). Lastly, if the Managing Editor of The Parthenon, Rasmi, ever reads this blog, I want her to know I hold nothing against her; it is the newspaper process, which I have a problem with, and maybe in a future column, I will write on the commercialism of that process.

A Truth about The Truth

If one believes his or her truth is The Truth it is he or she who judges The Truth of another individual by the sole comprehension of his or her own truth; ergo, another’s truth is The Truth to him or her, yet not to the one’s truth, so is there then an actual The Truth?

That means: if one believes his or her truth is The Truth he or she then holds others to his or her personal standard of his or her truth. Furthermore, one will or can easily forget or just plainly dismiss that his or her truth is not a universal truth but a single belief held solely by that individual and nought more.

One cannot pretend to know the full complexities of The Ultimate Truth because The Truth is not objective nor a particular thing, which one can reach out with his or her ardent or meager hand and touch it by physical fingers and/or understand it by mental capabilities; it is purely relative to one’s own path of life‘s experiences.

When one condemns another for his or her actions (mind they stay within the boundaries of the societal and governmental laws, if deemed justice or equal to the minority as well as the majority) or personal convictions based on his or her interpretation of The Truth and still holds him or her up against one’s personal truth without concerning that individual’s own belief in his or her truth, where then is The Truth?

Try wrapping your mind around this: ruminate how something can never go wrong, never break, never malfunction. The answer would be the most deplorable of answers, if one valued his or her humanity. The only way for everything to go right is for nothing to exist in the first place. For another example, what is veritable love? One would first have to acknowledge that love has a myriad of different forms, intensities, and expressions, so thence veritable love would be the sum of all of the forms, intensities, expressions.

So now, by the acceptance of The Almighty, Enlightening Truth, consequently, one would have to encompass all truths (not only his or hers); hence, the acceptance of all truths would thus prove that there is no The Truth.

To conclude: no one individual and/or group’s truth is beyond another, if there is even a truth, for The Truth exists only when there would be no truth. To be The Truth, one most be all, whereby the embracing of all would no longer be one, so that ascertains there is no one truth, if The Truth exists.

I wrote this to be my first column for this spring term for the Parthenon (campus newspaper); however, it was "too advanced," at least that is what the editor said. I have mixed feelings on the issue of ed-op piece in a newspaper. It is enough to make one question his career plans.