Well, in terms of recent events I can say absolutely no one.

Especially in terms of a particular political party that is supposed to be pro-choice.

Let’s take a look at what the term pro-choice means.  (Since I personally believe that the entire country with the exception of a chosen few need a refresher on this term.)  Pro, derived from Latin, means for, as in for or against.  Choice, is Germanic in origin, and simply means the act or choosing the thing chosen.  So together, in all rational thought you would think that being pro-choice would then mean to be for making choices.  Not deciding to be for a specific choice, but the action of making that choice (sorry for the redundancy, however in the light of the Miss Teen South Carolina candidate, one can never be to sure about proving a point).

So why then do the liberals (who unfortunately get lumped into the category with democrats and lazy republicans), say they are pro-choice? 

The answer is so simple: they lump it together with abortion.  Like a small majority of Christians who consider all other faiths to be heathen and un-christian (ex. my god is better than your god so lets fight about it, which is not unlike early kung-fu movies).

So I say drop the noise and notion that you are pro-choice, because you obviously are not.  If you were, what is your stance on gun control?  I advocate safety and proper technique, not crummy legislation that will keep law abiding citizens from owning and operating guns.  While they are not a toy, neither is an automobile.  I don’t see anyone trying to improve the mass transit in this country either, but I’ll save that for another day.

Next this funny thing called citizenship, it is for citizens.  Persons born in or who migrate legally are citizens.  Not illegal immigrants who work without paying federal, state, and local taxes on their incomes.

So in conclusion, I would venture to say that the majority of liberals by my rationale are pro-choice, like so many other things, when it suits them or is more convenient.

please note: definitions are reduced from merriamwebster.com, with the exception of pro-choice.

While the name of this blog may bring of thoughts of something racy, I am not talking about what is going on in Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan or Central and South America. I am speaking more in terms of visual pollution in the forms of endless websites, unyielding amounts of bumper stickers, and hours of wasted media coverage. Wasted on whom you ask? Local, homegrown, good ol’ American terrorists.

The first of these are those people who want you to realize, “Meat is no treat for those you eat.” Yes, it is the crazed vegetarians, who would rather you become sickly and dwindle to nothing rather than harm animals. Therein lies the problem. They put the well being of the animals they protect above their own. Kind of ridiculous in concept design alone, but they also have to spread their propaganda all over the Internet with websites like Peta and Peta2, not to mention all over Myspace pages and in e-mail.

The other major organization that we can collectively not care for is AIM, or the American Indian Movement, who keep a list of “U.S. Political Prisoners,” which is primarily a list of American Indians who have been incarcerated by the U.S. government for various reasons. The most illustrious of these, Leonard Peltier, is currently serving two consecutive life sentences for killing two FBI Special Agents on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. They are also major supporters of the “Sure you can trust the government, just ask any Indian” mentality, bringing forth their message of individual sovereignty for tribal groups in protests, writings, poetry and art.

That alone is not a major problem, but the way these groups spread their message like a disease (or the Baptist church) is the issue. The way they distribute propaganda, you will hear them out or go to hell: do not pass go, do not collect $200 dollars. Well, of the latter that is for sure, since it will go directly into their never ending, yet always almost empty coffers. Besides, someone has to start a large bumper sticker campaign. This is most popular amongst teenagers and adults who haven’t grown out of their activist past, which should have been left in the past (also see: the 60’s), and we would all say thank you.So, grow out of years gone by, as we have new ways of changing things other than just bitching now. You can always run for political office (see: Ben Campbell) and use the tools change things set forth by our founding fathers.

I recently cleaned out some of my old hard drives and found something I wrote a while ago but never shared.  A little something to think about when things get you down, moonbats drive you nuts, or you are fed up with everything.  

A Simple Analysis of 20th Century Thought:

• Capitalism, he who dies owns the most toys wins.
• Hari Krishna, he who plays with the most toys wins.
• Catholicism, he who denies himself the most toys and little boys wins.
• Anglican, the boys were our toys first.
• Atheism, there is no toy or boy maker.
• Polytheism, there are many toy or boy makers.
• Evolutionism, the toys made themselves.
• Church of Christian Scientist, we are the toys.
• Communism, everyone gets the same number of toys and you are in big trouble if we catch you selling your toys or playing with them.
• B’hai, all your toys and are fine by us.
• Amish, toys with batteries are surely a sin.
• Protesting Moonbatism, war toys are evil.
• Good Ole Lefty, toys that are violent are to be rounded up and put into camps in order to become nonviolent toys.
• Taoism, the stuffed rabbit is as important as the dump truck.
• Mormonism, every boy can have as many toys as he wants.
• Voodoo, let me borrow that doll for a while.
• Hinduism, he who plays with plastic farm animals loses.
• Seventh Day Adventist, he who plays with toys on Saturday loses.
• Southern Baptist, if your toy is Disney product, you have a one-way ticket to hell.
• Jehovah’s Witness, he who sells the most toys door to door wins.
• Pentecostalism, he whose toys can speak wins.
• Existentialism, toys are a figment of your imagination.
• Confucianism, once a toy is dipped in the water, it is no longer dry.
• Non-Denominationalism, we don’t care where the toys come from lets just play with them.
• Agnosticism, it is not possible to know whether the toys make a bit of difference.
• Unitarian Universalism, we still have not decided if the toys exist, much less how, where, or who made them.

Isn’t that nice?

Today, on my way back to my office I happened to catch National Public Radio’s Evening Edition. The story was about a new web reference source in response to Wikipedia. Evidently there are a group of individuals who believe Wikipedia to be too liberal. I am not saying that this group of individuals is wrong, but they came to this conclusion based on the statistics of a poll by Wikipedia editors.

There are several bits of flawed logic with this idea. The assumption that the editors of Wikipedia aren’t human because as a straight set of data this poll would leave no room for human error or a lack of honesty. These facts are statistics. Statistics by nature can be used to sway one way or another. If not lawyers wouldn’t be so profitable. However, the major problem with consevapedia.com, is the misuse of the word conservative.

The main example can be shown by comparing the definitions of the word kangaroo on both sites: Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Okay, I am fine with either of them until I get to the Origins section of the Conservapedia definition. The first thing listed is a creationist theory explanation. That in itself was fishy enough for me to check the dictionary for the definition.

The Oxford dictionary (I would have used Merriam-Webster, but the link wouldn’t pull up) states that a conservative is “(in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.” If this is the case then where does interjecting religious beliefs into the origin of a species come into play? A true conservative world should not include religion. Religion is much more defined either one way or another.

Conservapedia.com even goes on to say “A conservative is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue.” Where does this give them the right to inteject a secular religious viewpoint, much less stake a claim of moral virtue? If they are truly conservative should they not list the scientific information first?

With that in mind I would like to propose a new web address for this website: severelyscrewypedia.com

     People amaze me these days.
     You say “liberal,” people can’t get it out of their heads that you’re slamming Democrats.  You link to Michelle Malkin because you met her and her husband a couple of times, and supported her in her fight against YouTube for removing her video for no good reason, then, oh, you must be a RepubliCon!

     Here’s another video, dedicated to our troops in Iraq, but has been lambasted with votes on YouTube that the content is Objectionable and Obscene.

     The word “liberal” shouldn’t piss anyone off, but I think people search for it these days so they can show their disdain, and become ever pedantic about things that were commonly broadcast this week.  It amuses me how the word itself refers to an ideal of “free of intolerance and prejudice” when it seems that those who themselves Liberals politically are so not that.

     If I say ”liberal groups,” most people have an idea what I mean.  They are groups who adamantly seek reformation in laws regarding their cause, play watchdog to private sector businesses and individuals, and may even have a radical section who choose to reform people by harrassment or violence.
     If I say “conservative groups,” most people have an idea what I mean, as well.  They are groups who protest change, organize protests, and may even have a radical section who choose to reform people by harrassment or violence.
     It is for the latter problem in set of groups why I choose not to align myself with any “group.”

     The terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” with regards to political parties came in their interpretations of our Constitution.  Liberals believe that the Constitution is dynamic, and that it should be updated.  Conservatives believe that the document should be preserved, and that it says what it says.

     These terms have little or nothing to do with “Democrat” or “Republican.”  Either can be Liberal or Conservative, and even liberal or conversative.  There can be conservative Democrats who are Conservatives.  There can be liberal Republicans who are Liberals.  And any mixture in between.

     It’s all twisted.  Considering the twists on both sides, polarizing everything just makes it worse.