Further Contemplating...

After a very thought-provoking conversation with a good friend over lunch, I began to express my frustration with humanity, and why it is that humans have so many divisions. So I'm writing this particular blog to further the discussion from a previous blog (The Division of Unity-12/29), respond to a comment that was posted to a another blog (Why???-12/12), and to make sense of the hurt that has become my life in the last two months. So, if you haven't read those blogs, some of this may not make sense to you (hint, hint...go read them, then come back).

I have always considered myself to be an optimist with a realists perspective. However, what I'm about to write is going to sound more pessimistic than anything.

It really bothers me that there are social divisions. Those major divisions stemming from race, language and religion. With them, people who would be perfectly fine friends often never realize what the humanity of friendship has to offer. Without these divisions, our lives seem to lack direction and meaning. So, it is a sad state that we ALL exist in because, in my best estimation, we are all bound to lead lives that we might not if it weren't for these social constructs. Indeed, we are all bound to lead lives that aren't fully satisfying to us, but that we must lead in order to fulfill the requirements of these constructs as they relate to the people/environment around us.

I know that's a very hard thing to explain (trust me, I can explain it easier in person), and if you do understand what I mean, it's probably hard to accept as the reality, but trust me, it's the truth. No single person does what they do because it totally makes them happy; they do what they do (at least in part) because of the influence of these three factors around them.

Let me give a couple of examples to explain my point.

I know these two people that were heavily involved with each other romantically. From an outside perspective, it was clear that they were in love, and I knew enough about them to know that they had discussed marriage and why it would or would not work out. They were from different races and different religions, though they shared a language commonality. To him, religion was most important with family running a tight second, and it was vice-versa for her. In fact, for her, it was more like:

1a. Family
1b. Religion

so if 1a was satisfied, then 1b was also satisfied. To work up from 1b to 1a would be possible, but hard.

Well, I happened to know them very well, and when it came down to it, I know they agreed that they couldn't get married because of their strong allegiances to family/religion. The problem with this reality was, despite their strong convictions, they were still heavily in love. She ended up caving to the pressure of the family, and broke it off while they were still in love in order to fulfill the requirements of her family (which is representative of race, culture, and religion in this instance), despite the happiness that she felt from the loving relationship she was in. She then moved into a relationship with a guy that was more acceptable by her surroundings, and my friend (the guy) was more-or-less forced to move on without her.

Being both of their friend, I wanted to ask them why? But, I already knew why, and it was already clear. Their thinking was indicative of my thinking. There's so much to risk if you truly seek what you want out of life (family, finances, friends, success...), and seemingly so much to maintain by not going against the grain (it's just easier to keep your family, friends, and community happy). So, both party's were eventually going to have to reject the notion of personal/mutual happiness in order to appease, or make the world that they exist in happy. It just so happened that she was more willing to make that transition than he was at that time.

Now certainly there is happiness in keeping your world smooth, and making the people around you happy. But what about your personal needs, wishes and desires? Are they truly being met if you can't indulge in the humanity of romantic love because of the social constructs that exist around you? Are we bound to live a life of "pseudo-happiness?"

The other example that I'd give is in relation to the tragic Tsunami's that hit much of Asia and part of Africa this week. At this point, the death toll is over 120,000. People directly affected are from 2 continents and over 40 countries. Among the dead are Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, and I'm sure many other religions. Their are Blacks, Whites, Indians, Indonesians, Kenyans, Sri Lankans, Sumatrans, Germans, Swedish, and tons of other races and nationalities of people among the dead. And finally, they spoke a myriad of languages (Arabic, Hindi, English, German, French, just to name a few).

And you know what, the only thing that matters now is that the survivors need as much help and aid as they can get, no matter their Religion, Race, Family, Culture or Language!

So if these classifications don't matter now because of the immensity of the tragedy, why do we ever allow them to keep us from relating to one another on levels that would truly make each individual happy? Why did my friends allow these things to keep them from getting married like they really wanted to? Why do we allow these surrounding factors to dictate how we ultimately live and end up?

So maybe what I'm about to say is the farthest thing from realistic as is possible, but it is what's on my mind. And I recognize that my strong religious background might disagree with this (because religion should define who we are and how we live, and you work outward from there, I've been taught), but it would seem to me that God would want our first priority to be the relationship between one human being to another, not how two humans interact based on divisive tools. And if that human to human interaction is compassion for those in need, or intimate love from a man to a woman (and vice-versa) , then that should trump everything else.
Because we aren't all Sikhs, Muslims or Jews; we don't all speak Spanish, Chinese or Yoruba; and we aren't all Black, White, or Brown. The one thing that we all are, though, is human.

Why doesn't that seem to be important?

-Maelstrom

Happy Christma-Kwanz-Eid-Hanu

The last 60 days of the 365 day year is packed with various holidays and religious observances. There's the Christian holiday Christmas, which celebrates the birth of Jesus; the Jewish holiday Hanukah, which celebrates the Jews independence from the Greeks; and the Islamic holiday Eid, which celebrates the ending of the Holy Month of Ramadan.

And those are just a few religious holidays.

There's also the Indian (and I believe mostly Hindu) light celebration, Diwali; the African-American celebration of unity, Kwanzaa; and my favorite, Thanksgiving (my favorite because it is something that everyone can and should participate in; we all have something to be thankful for). To be sure, this is just a short list of the many holidays, celebrations and observances that occur towards the end of the year.

Since this nation is one made up of immigrants, it only seems right that we respect the multitude of cultural and religious observances. But to be completely honest, until recently, we haven't really tried to. We have only truly observed Christian holidays as a nation; arguably the biggest national holiday of the year is indeed Christmas.

During this so-called "Holiday Season," I found it particularly interesting how Politically Correct this nation has become. I suppose this is a good thing since every race, religion and nationality is represented here in this nation, and I guess (after 200+ years of existence) people are starting to recognize it. I also found it funny how people, mostly the powerful "Christian right" from the Presidential Election, were upset that major stores, like Macy's, now say "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays," in lieu of "Merry Christmas" because it is more inclusive.

Well, look, Macy's is right. You can't claim "melting pot" status as a country if you don't recognize the fact that not everyone here celebrates Christmas.

It has long been my opinion that truly realizing our Constitution is a realistic impossibility. There is no way that you can truly claim to respect everyone's right to the freedom of religion when there are Government holidays based on the Christian religion (like Christmas), or when our money says "In God We Trust" on it when clearly not everyone believes in God. Even if everyone believed in "God," in which God do we trust; and for that matter, why not "In Gods We Trust?" It just can't work.

Consider, there is no official language here, but until recently, everything was done in English (I was shocked to see a section of cards written in Spanish the other day while at a card shop). So why not just make English the official language of the nation, or offer everything in multiple major languages. There is no official religion here, but the only religion that has government holidays ascribed to it is Christianity. So why not make Christianity the official religion of the country, or make national holidays out of other religion's observances.

So to truly avert this problem, and truly fulfill the promises outlined in the Constitution, we need to either become a theocratic government like Saudia Arabia (where it would be perfectly correct to make religious observances, like Christmas, national holidays), or to demand religious transparency like France (where no one can wear any religion defining garment in school).

It's a very complex problem, and as I've stated, unless there are extreme measures taken, there are going to be upset people on both sides of the board. But honestly, if we want to be as inclusive as possible, the Christian right should recognize the reality of this nation, which has no official religion, and respect the fact that there are plenty of other religions represented in the great nation.

So as we approach the end of Kwanzaa, and approach the New Year, I'd just like to say, Happy Holidays to everybody!

-Maelstrom

The Division of Unity

I've come to accept the fact that there are 3 factors that dictate relationships between people who both know each other, and are perfect strangers. Religion, Language and Race.

Religion can unite people from completely different corners of the world, but can divide people who have been friends all of their lives.

Language, much like religion, often unites people who have never met each other before. For people that speak different languages, it can provide a hurdle that is manageable, but that exists none-the-less.

Race certainly divides people, and does not necessarily connect or unite people.

Now if you paused for about two minutes and sixteen seconds, and considered who your closest friends are, I bet you'd discover that they probably qualify in two of the three categories I've mentioned, if not all three. I guess that makes sense, but, I would just hope that we, as human beings, wouldn't limit ourselves to associating with people who are just like us.

I don't know why it is that people sometimes think that racial commonality should make for some significant social connection. For instance, I've often heard black people say that black people should marry each other because they'll relate easier. I don't think that statement could be any farther from the truth. Some black people are extremely well aware of the struggle that their predecessors went through while others simply are not.

I'd argue that what "hood you grow up in" and the similarities that exists there are better indicators of social connection than race. Depending on the neighborhood, two black people in the same city can have diametrically opposed cultural views which wouldn't be condusive to a good relationship at all. At the same time, a black person and a white person that grew up in the same neighborhood could socially (and culturally) relate in multitudes of ways.

Language is an amazing device. It can be so incredibly uniting. I've seen whole friendships blossom out of scenarios where one person discovers that another person speaks their native language, no matter their races. I've also noted that languages often come with a religion, which might explain why language similarity makes for such a significant relationship (Spanish is often related to Catholocism and Arabic is often associated with Islam, for example).

When traveling to a foreign country, it is like a sign of respect to know the language of that country if you aren't a native speaker. People even appreciate your effort if you sincerely try to speak the language of that country, no matter how bad you are at it. On that note, it is often perceived as arrogant or rude when you don't try to speak the language of the country you find yourself in. Finally, although people who don't speak the same language struggle to verbally communicate, that barrier can be overcome through actions. I actually know of people who are married that don't speak the same language, but express love to each other through their actions.

It would seem to me that religion would be the one thing that wouldn't divide, but unite people. Unfortunately, religion seems to be the most divisive of these three levels of social communication. If I can simplify religion (which I can cuz this is my blog), the goal of it is to separate right from wrong. And though it would seem like the knowledge of the difference between the two is humanly inherent, it isn't. Religion dictates what's right and what is wrong. Since there are hundreds of religions out there, each teaching different rights and wrongs, unless two people agree on the same religion, then a wall as tall as Mount Everest often exists between them. Very few people can scale that mountain successfully. And it has been my observation that if you can overcome the religious hurdle, then the language and especially the racial differences are no big thang to swallow.

Unfortunately, religion is often engrained in us from childhood, and the notion of only one right religion (and all others are wrong) is unbelievably hard to shake. As a result, I have witnessed numerous people in love that were never able to fully explore all that their love for one another had to offer (through marriage or similar arrangements) because of religious incongruence alone. Religious solitude is often reinforced by family, further making it a point of significant contention; because who wants to disagree with their family?

If this world were mine, all of these barriers would crumble like cake mix without egg and oil. For some reason, however, these factors significantly define who we are, both to our friends, and to people who don't know us at all. We prejudge people based on what we can decipher about these factors. And as open minded as I think I am, even I'm guilty of harboring certain opinions pertaining to race, language and religion. I guess it is because they are indeed important. I just wish that this human family could truly come together as one unit, and not allow these social/cultural characteristics to further divide us.

-Maelstrom

Make Wise Decisions When You Can

When I woke up Sunday morning, I heard on NPR (yes I listen to NPR, can't help it, I'm a news junkie) that an earthquake, with a magnitude of 8.9 on the Richter scale, had claimed 1,700 lives. Eight hours later the toll was up to 7,000, and now reports say that as many as 44,000 were killed by the Tsunami's that were created by the Earthquake, with the toll steady climbing.

Needless to say, I was incredibly saddened to hear of such a tragedy. I cannot begin to fathom such devastation. Furthermore, I was sickened to hear that most of the lost lives could've been saved had there been some warning device in existence. Although the waves which claimed so many lives were traveling at an astonishing 500 miles per hour, it has been reported that there were at least 2 hours between the time they formed and when they reached land. Even a 5 minute warning could've saved thousands of lives.

So, in times like these, it only amplifies a personal cadence of mine that I truly try to live by. "Make the wisest decisions possible when you can, because there are so many things that can happen to you that you will never be able to foresee." My personal cadence isn't unlike the adage "Failing to plan is planning to fail." And is reminiscent of the childhood fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper.

It is the reality of today's tragedy that brings that cadence to mind because I do not feel that United States of America has acted very wisely in the last 3 years (at least). Today, there are tens of thousands dead, millions homeless, and nations needing billions of dollars in aid. Unfortunately, because we chose to foolishly pre-empt a war with a nation that posed no threat to us, we cannot offer the kind of assistance to those ravaged countries that we should be offering them in this time of need.

We've allocated well over $120 Billion to the War in Iraq, but this morning, I heard that we only donated $4 million dollars to the Red Cross to aid the countries that were affected by the tsunami's. Our total aid package for tsunami victims is up to an underwhelming $35 million.

How sad?

I heard Colin Powell say that the US isn't "stingy," in response to criticism from one of the head aid enumerators who thought the US could do more. He's right, we're not stingy, we're just foolish. We are so far in debt ourselves that it wouldn't make sense for us to offer much more aid. Honestly, you would expect more from the richest nation in the world, but financial mismanagement has been a staple of our current administration, and so we can't feasibly do nearly as much as we should.

I'm not going to spend the time to explain the depths of our financial crisis as a country in this particular blog (you know, the whole plunging "$" value and the very significant trade and budget deficits). But I will just make the point that our $120 Billion spent on Iraq would have been much better spent on people who need it (like those suffering in the Indian Ocean today) as opposed to spending it by killing over 30,000 Iraqi's who posed us no harm.

And the significance is that we chose to waste money in Iraq. Now, we wish and need to be helping out, but we can't because this event was something that we couldn't predict. That is why it is imperative that we, as a nation, make wiser decisions while we can, because there will always be situations that warrant attention that we can't predict.

May God bless and watch over those affected by this tragedy.

-Maelstrom

Fall From Grace

Almost 18 months ago, I wrote my first published editorial at my undergraduate University. In that editorial, I discussed the proliferation of young boys and girls turning into professional athletes without getting a college education. During the article, I remember praising a young man for his squeaky clean image and for how he had conducted himself underneath such a heavy public microscope. Boy how things have changed.

The very same week that my editorial was published, Kobe Bryant was being accused of sexual assault in the 1st degree. I remember thinking how ironic it was that I had just got through applauding Kobe, "then this happens."

Though not a Lakers fan at all (I've hated them vehemently since the mid-80's as I am a die-hard Pistons fan), I was always impressed at how Kobe had an apparent desire to do things his way, but to do them the right way.

He went to the NBA fresh out of high school because he felt he could play at that level and handle himself as an adult. Three NBA championships later, he had proven that he could.

When it came to love, he married a young lady despite the disapproval of his family and even refused to sign a pre-nuptial agreement. Why? Because he never intended to get divorced and because he had to live with his feelings, not his parents or family. Both very tough decisions to arrive at, but indeed commendable.

When it came to his personal life, he pretty much stayed out of the public eye. It is significant that he never brandished a criminal record, which is increasingly becoming a commonality among many of today's athletes, both young and old.

Finally, he had a work ethic in the NBA off-season that many of today's players don't have at all, despite their many endorsements. Each year he came back in better physical shape, and with stronger skills on the court than the previous season.

Stand-up guy!... And then we got to know him.

I remember, in the early days after the allegations came out, how most of the news media was reluctant to publicly "convict" Kobe. I was actually quite happy about this because it said to me that reputation does mean something. His clean background actually came up to bat for him. Had it been Allen Iverson, who has had numerous run-ins with the law, I doubt the media would've been so immediately forgiving.

Well, it turned out that Kobe had cheated on the wife, that he loved so much, with a random hotel desk clerk. To police officers, he admitted to cheating on his wife with at least one other woman previously. Despite the fact that he claimed he didn't rape the woman, his image was already tarnished.

The media still handled Kobe delicately, and it became quite the spectacle to see him in court in the morning handling the allegations, and then on the court at night winning games for the Lakers.

The criminal case was thrown out when the young lady decided not to go further with it. And though there is still a civil case pending, most people seem to have forgotten about Kobe's "sex scandal." The buzz turned again to Kobe's relationship with his team, the Los Angeles Lakers.

Annually, Kobe seemed to be at odds with his teammate Shaquille O'Neal. Miraculously, probably due to the coaching of Phil Jackson, the Lakers seemed to overcome this childish squabble and pull together for another championship. So it seemed was their destiny for the 2003-04 season.

Well, on June 15th, 2004, the Detroit Pistons put a halt to the Lakers championship train in a shocking "5-game sweep." Shortly thereafter, the conductor of that train, Phil Jackson, bailed out, eventually taking Shaquille O'Neal with him. Both cited Kobe as the reason for their departure.

Now Kobe apparently has beef with Karl Malone, the man who had defended him throughout the course of his personal struggles. He claims that "the mailman" delivered a very rude gesture to his wife, Vanessa Bryant. Somehow the whole matter got into the public, and now Kobe is a worse looking sports figure than even Barry Bonds, who has come under much fire over steroid use.

Last night I saw Kobe do the most noble thing he could possibly do in the midst of the many mistakes he's made. He made the rounds on a number of sports shows, answered numerous tough questions, and made it publicly known that he wanted to clear the air with his former teammate Shaquille O'Neal.

Despite that, Kobe still has many miles to travel down the road of reconciliation before the public can once again respect him. Hopefully he can follow in the footsteps of football great Jim Brown, boxing legend Muhammad Ali and even Michael Jordan; each of whom have had their significantly negative moments in the public eye (for domestic violence, infidelity and gambling, respectively).

It's still funny for me to think about how respected Kobe was just two short years ago, and to look at him now. I do hope that he can get back on track, and that he can straighten out both his personal life, and the image that he portrays to the public. As of last night, I believe he started out with big steps on the road to redemption, I just hope he continues until he passes through the desert of public forgiveness.

-Maelstrom

Why???

Seriously, why is it that whenever you try to do the right thing, it seems like everything around you goes wrong?

-a very frustrated and emotionally distressed Maelstrom

The Heisman Chase

At 8pm Saturday evening, the winner of the most coveted award in all of College Football will be announced. Winning the Heisman Trophy is not only historical, but it is the key to a guaranteed huge contract and shot in the pros. The five finalists for the award were given out last night, and they are:
-From USC, Quarterback Matt Leinart and all-around back Reggie Bush.
-From Utah Quarterback Alex Smith.
-From Oklahoma, Quarterback Jason White and Freshman Running Back sensation Adrian Peterson.

Now there has been a lot of hoopla made about Mr. Peterson. His remarkable season has been eye-opening if for no other reason than the fact that he is a freshman doing what only upper-classmen tend to do at his position. Despite his incredible run, it has been consistently noted that no freshman has ever won the Heisman. As a result, many sports analysts and critics have been 'O-pining' to get Peterson heavy consideration despite his freshman status.

Well call me biased but I tend to disagree with the chorale of people calling for Peterson to win the trophy. I do so objectively because I know of at least one other freshman running back that should also be considered if Peterson is to win. That running back being true freshman Michael Hart from the Wolverines at the University of Michigan.

So, if you’re reading this and you disagree, you probably think that I’m biased because Michigan is my favorite team (it is) or that I went to U of M (I did), or that I haven’t followed Peterson (I have) or that I’m just plain crazy (trust me, I’m not). So let me run the comparisons.

Rushing:
Michael Hart is a true freshman that barely played in the 1st 2 games of the Wolverines season because U of M hadn’t decided on a starting tailback yet. He was 1 of 4 tailbacks competing for the spot, including senior tailback David Underwood. He averaged 4.6 yards on 8 carries. If you count those games he averaged 5.3 yds/carry and 124.7 yds/game. If you take those games out, he averaged 5.4 yds/carry and 151 yds/game. He also had a stretch of 3 consecutive games where he went for over 200 yards.

Adrian Peterson is a true freshman that started all 12 games of Oklahoma’s season. He racked up 1, 843 yards averaging 5.9 yds/carry. He also came up big in close games and in the big games. He also had three games where he rolled for over 200 yards.
Advantage: Peterson

Receiving:
What makes a good running back that much better is his ability to receive as well as run. Hart, averaged 21.2 yards/game receiving with an average of 9.3 yards/reception

Not much can be said for Peterson here who only caught 3 balls for 6 total receiving yards in 12 games.
Advantage: Hart

Scoring:
Hart had 9 rushing TD’s as well as 1 receiving for a total of 10 in 9 full games played.

Peterson scored 15 rushing TD’s in 12 games.
Advantage: Draw on the basis that had Hart played 3 more full games like Peterson, statistically they would’ve both averaged just over 1 TD a game.

Surrounding Personnel:
The Wolverine’s had quite a group of Wide Receiver’s to keep the defense busy. However, Hart was being handed the ball from a True Freshman Quarterback, Chad Henne, which made both major backfield positions targets for opposing defenses.

Peterson who had a core of WR’s to take the defensive pressure off of him as well, was being handed the ball from last year’s Heisman winner Jason White at QB. This took more pressure off of Peterson and allowed him to focus solely on running the ball.
Advantage: Hart because he did more with less with respect to supporting cast experience.

Conference:
The Big Ten conference is historically known as a “run, run, pass” conference, so the defenses are primarily designed to stop the run and then the pass. That means that Hart had to run against "stop the run" defenses.

The Big 12 conference is more of a spread offense conference which means that they are more likely to throw than to run. This is a huge advantage for running backs in that conference since the defenses are centered around stopping the pass.

Advantage: Hart because he was highly successful at tailback in a "run" conference.

When you add up Hart’s total offense, his numbers look much better when compared to Peterson’s. And don’t forget that Peterson played 12 full games whereas Hart only played 9 full games. When you consider that factor, Hart’s all-purpose yardage of 1,605 could’ve easily been over 2,000 had he been the starting running back beginning in game 1 of the season. That in comparison to Petersons 1,849 yards in a full season.

And no doubt Peterson’s total yards on the ground look impressive, but it’s much easier for him to focus on rushing when he has last year’s Heisman winner throwing to veteran Wide Receiver’s. He never has to consider receiving.

I am not trying to take away anything from Adrian Peterson, he has had a phenomenol season. However, I am trying to squash this notion that he deserves to win the Heisman and that his Freshman status should be overlooked. My point is that he arguably isn’t even the best freshman running back in the nation. And you can’t give the award for best College Player in the Nation to a guy who isn’t even the clear number one player at his position.

Unfortunately, the Heisman trophy has never been about rewarding the best player in College football. It has rather been about rewarding the best offensive player (quarterback, running back or sometimes wide receiver) in College football on a winning team according to Sportswriters and Sports commentators. So the media has done a great job of making a sympathy argument for Peterson by saying that “it’s not fair if the voters don’t vote for Peterson just because he is a freshman.” By repeating this chant every seven minutes for the last month and a half, I’m sure that many of the voters will give in without looking at all of the data.

Maybe they’ll feel some sense of accomplishment for breaking the tradition of not awarding the trophy to a freshman. Maybe they’ve just been duped by the media’s whining. Or maybe they’ll just be wrong. But I’m begging them, vote for Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Jason White, Bob Dole, Ross Perot, me; just don’t vote for Adrian Peterson, he doesn’t deserve it!

-Maelstrom

United States, Mind Your Own Business

Of all the countries in the world to demand the United Nations' Secretary General, Kofi Annan, to step down, the United States of America should be the last. We have ignored the UN on many fronts, and have heavily criticized it for some of its inactivity in crisis situations when the inactivity has often been largely due to the lack of US participation. If the United Nations is not as strong as we think it should be, there is one country that we should point our finger at as the cause: The United States of America.

The recent criticism from the US toward the UN stems from the UN's "Oil for Food" program. The program, now referred to as a scandal, is purported to have directly benefitted many world tyrants including Saddam Hussein. One notable figure involved in the scandal is the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's son, Kojo Annan. It is on the grounds that Kofi's son is involved in the "mess" that some US Senators are calling for Kofi's resignation. This revelation further frustrated many US politicians who were already calling for Kofi's resignation after he made comments a few weeks ago that suggested that the US violated International Law by invading Iraq.

Although I must admit that Annan seems to be less helpful than he could be in such hectic times, I know that he isn't as incompetent as the US media would like the public to believe. He is a well respected man worldwide, and has an incredibly impressive resume. And, it's worth noting that the United States is the only member of the UN that is calling for his resignation.

Among his many accolades and accomplishments, there are probably two that stick out the most. He is the first United Nations Secretary General to be elected to a 2nd term, unanimously I might add. Typically that position last just one term, and the next representative is from the next Continent in the 6-Continent rotation. Despite protocal, the UN representatives thought enough of Kofi Annan to re-elect him.

In 2001, the Nobel committee honored Kofi Annan with the Nobel Peace Prize. He was given the award, jointly with the UN as an organization, for his efforts towards peace throughout the world. The committee even noted that Annan had added "new life" to the UN.

For some reason, I don't find such realities as grounds for demanding a resignation. And the notion that Kofi Annan should step down because of his son's doings is preposterous. His son is a separate entity and being. It's not like his father told him to commit crimes, and while you're at it give me a 30% cut!

But fine. Let's say that Kofi Annan is corrupt and should step down from his post as UN Secretary General. If that's so, let people who actually care about the well-being of the organization say so; not the country that failed to comply with UN rules on war by pre-empting a war without a UN resolution and who's lack of concern is a major reason that the oil-for-food program turned so corrupt in the first place.

It's not uncommon to hear political critics of the UN (as well as many right-wing citizens) call the UN a weak organization, and say that it doesn't do anything beneficial for the world. That we don't have to wait and listen for what the UN says or thinks, but that we (the US) can do what we want to do, when and how we want to do it.

I also find it interesting that these same critics often explain away US President George W. Bush's many Presidential failures by saying that he was President during really tough times and so couldn't focus his attention on many of the social and economic issues that face us in this country. If that's the case, just imagine what Kofi Annan has to deal with. Everything that was tough for GWB (9/11) was also an issue for Annan, on top of a profusion of other tragic issues throughout the world. So why doesn't Annan get the same pass for some of his oversights, like the Oil-for-food program, that Bush gets?

So my point is this, if the UN is so insignificant and so weak, then why do we care who's in charge of it. Furthermore, if Annan and the organization are so incompetent, why don't we truly participate in the group and build it up from the inside out instead of openly beating it down with harsh words of reprimand from the sidelines.

And finally, since we are the only major country that is so critical of the UN, and the only country calling for Annan's resignation, why don't we just shut up. It's my understanding that unless you're on the team, you can't call the shots. With respect to the UN, we definitely aren't on the team, and therefore don't have the right to call the shots.

So why don't we just take care of us, continue to ignore the UN, pre-empt war somewhere else, and frankly, just mind our own business!

-Maelstrom

Un-Happy Anniversary

Today marks the 63rd anniversary of one of the most infamous attacks on the United States ever. It was on this date that the Japanese bombed the USS Arizona and killed over 2300 while wounding over 1100 at Pearl Harbor. The bombing led to the United States entering World War II, and will forever be remembered by those who were there, and those who weren't, as one of the most criminal acts from one country to another in the 20th century. Though certainly an un-happy anniversary it is, Pearl Harbor is not the topic I'll be discussing in this blog. Maybe next year.

Today also marks the 6 month anniversary of me putting both feet in, and placing all my eggs in one basket. A decision that required much courage of me. A decision that I probably would not have made in years past. A decision that I couldn't pass up on, however, because of the potential prize on the other side and the feelings that I had for that sublime reward. A decision that I was Dying to Find a Way to Get away From or around, but a decision I couldn't deny. A decision that would take me on an often incredible, but ultimately painful voyage. A saga that began like a Hollywood romance, but ended like a tragic Hollywood epic. But that too is a topic for another time.

Today, I'd like to mark the one-week anniversary of the defeat of Jeopardy's supreme icon. A champion like no other, Mr. Ken Jennings. As an avid Jeopardy fan for well over a decade, and a trivia nut, I can honestly say that I never thought such a run of brilliance would ever occur. Each year, thousands of trivia junkies like me try out for Jeopardy. After a series of extremely difficult tests on an ocean of topics that is wider than the Pacific, only a handful of contestants are flown out to California to compete.

Every once in a while there is a contestant that sets themselves apart from the rest, and wins 5 games. That Champion would then leave the show, and could reappear during the auspicious "Tournament of Champions" which showcased the gamet of 5-time champs (and sometimes 4-time champs if there weren't enough 5-timers during the season). Beginning last season, if a Champion won 5 games, they wouldn't be required to leave the show, they could continue winning until they were dethroned by a challenger.

Well, "Mr. Jeopardy" took advantage. Ken Jennings won over $2.5 million dollars in his reign of 74 victories (w/a consolation prize of $2000 in his defeat) which literally left hundreds of extremely intelligent braniacs feeling as though they had more studying to do. In contrast, as I recall, the previous consecutive victories record was 7 on the show (I'm sure you can check me on that one, there's Ken Jennings stuff all over the web).

I remember watching the very first week he was on the show. I knew something was different about him because he was not only winning, but he had virtually won each game by the middle of Double Jeopardy. By that I mean that even if he had answered all of the remaining questions incorrectly (which you lose money for), and a challenger would answer them all correctly, he'd still have more than twice their dollar amount heading into final Jeopardy.

By the 8th episode that he was on, I began telling everyone that they had to see how dominant this Jeopardy guy was. I remember the first time I made my roommate sit down and watch. He marveled in awe because he took note of the fact that Ken didn't answer a single question incorrectly that day, and he rang in on almost every one. I continued to spread Ken's fame to everyone I knew, and only missed when I had to (one particular night in July pertaining to the 2nd paragraph of this blog being one of those times). I was anxious to see if this guy could continue winning, and if so, by how much.

Night after night, Ken didn't disappoint, often annihilating the competition by $20,000 and sometimes $30,000. By the end of the season, he was still dominating and ended undefeated. When the next season began, it was the same ole Ken, winning huge and often uncontested in Final Jeopardy. Then there was this rumor on the internet, sometime in September, that Ken had lost in his 75th appearance after amassing over $2.5 million dollars.

That announcement kinda took the juice out of watching the show, but I still chimed in on a frequent basis just to see if he was still on. Sure enough, he was.

Knowing that his run was reportedly coming to an end last week, I tuned up the VCR, positioned myself in front of the TV, and watched in dismay as Ken began hot, but started to falter in the Double Jeopardy round. He bet big money (as he often did) on both of the Daily Doubles which he usually feasted on. This time though, he missed both of them, something I don't recall him doing in any episode that I saw. So, though he was leading going into Final Jeopardy, he was within reach of the one challenger that remained. She bet just enough to beat him, and he answered incorrectly. The streak was over, but not the fame.

Immediately after the show, he was on virtually every news station. And for the space of about 48 hours, Ken Jennings was a major news story. His chain of victories had already afforded him spots on David Letterman and a significant level of fame. He is now more of a celebrity than most of the losers on those pathetic Reality TV shows, though much less than many overrated athletes and actors.

I have heard some people complain about how big a deal Ken has become, and that they were tired of seeing him on the show. To them I'd like to say that I think it is great that Ken won so many times. Indeed, I think that it is quite refreshing that there is a semi-celebrity out there who achieved that status through intellect as opposed to attaining such status by sleeping with 7 of his roommates in a high-rise in Vegas or by amassing amazing statistical feats with the aid of steroids. Though we esteem education through words in this country, we rarely reward it. On the flipside, though we sometimes criticize the conduct of entertainers, we often praise them, many times for doing very little, through media exposure as well as through monetary gain.

I think that it is a wonderful thing that Ken Jennings, Mr. Jeopardy, has turned the table on the conventional celebrity. And I look forward to Ken's return on Jeopardy during the 2005-06 version of the Tournament of Champions.

Long live trivia!
-Maelstrom

Ken Jennings Info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Jennings

This 'n' That

Wow...there's just so much to write about, and so many topics to get around to. Unfortunately, I regret that I probably won't be able to fully spend my time on all of them, but hopefully I get around to most of them. Seriously, we've got a messed up Ukraine election, the US telling the UN what it should do with its Secretary General, Ken Jennings amazing Jeopardy run coming to an end (a topic that I must pay homage to), should Weed be legal, and many more. However, since I know that I can't focus my attention on any of those topics today (I have a very huge and difficult homework assignment to finish by 3:30 tomorrow), I've decided just to spew out some random thoughts from my head. Is that ok with you???

Ready or not, here I go!

So Monday, I walked outside to catch the bus like I do every morning. However, it was quite sunny outside, and I looked up and noticed a rather large, half-lit rock just floating there in the air. It appeared to be stationary, and for some reason its presence didn't startle me at all. To be sure, the Moon has been there all of my life, so I guess it shouldn't startle me, but I do find it a little strange that there's a massive rock that just rotates around the Earth, and we just accept its existence.

Over the last couple weeks, I've noted to my friends how strange it is that when someone sneezes, no matter how quaint or how violent, we say "God bless you" (or "gezundheit" or "salud"...), but if someone coughs we say nothing. I mean seriously, I've seen people virtually cough their lungs out and not even a peep of concern out of the viewing audience. What's up with that???

Now, I know this all seems really random to you at this point, but you must understand that I am a person who questions virtually everything around me. And if something exists around me that I haven't questioned yet, don't worry, I'll get around to it. I've learned that tough times (either sad, angry or just bored) often makes us curious as to why they happened, and happy times need no explanation...they just are. But even in those cases I still find myself questioning "why was I so happy?" Despite my inquisitive nature, i Don't Feel Wonderment is Good For every situation. Sometimes we just have to let go and move on, no matter how hard that is to do. That may be why, in fact, we don't question the happy times as much. Because why ruin such a good thing by trying to rationalize its occurrence? However, this next "randomness" has to be questioned.

I was sitting in a staff meeting yesterday, half-paying attention, and watching this girl across the room who was nodding off. I mean, she was really getting a beastie little nap in during the meeting. Well, when she finally "came to," she began doing something that I just consider very inappropriate. I watched her raise her left hand, and focus her left pinky finger on the left nostril of her nose. She proceeded to dig out something from there, and then to add levels of vulgarity to the situation, she pulled it out and put it in her mouth. She then "washed, rinsed, and repeated" the whole process a few more times. Why?

Finally, I'm just now getting settled into my new surroundings and my apartment, despite moving in almost four months ago. So, I'm at the point now where the real last big move-in step will be hanging posters, paintings and mirrors on my walls. Well, wouldn't ya know, all of a sudden, Monday night this maintainance guy comes by and tells me that there's water in my heating vents. I questioned this because I had no indication of it, and when he got there he didn't hear anything suggesting that there was water in my heating vents at all (although in retrospect, I did notice that my apartment was humid whenever I'd come in from outside). So, I dismissed him, and he left. Well, it just so happened that the next night, I heard gurgling in my heating vents, and eventually water came splashing out of at least one of them. I told my landlord, and they told me that they didn't know why this was happening, but if they couldn't fix it, they'd have to move me. So, yesterday the guy came back, drained my vents, and the gurgling subsided. A few hours later, it was back. So, it looks like I'll have to pull my shallow roots out of this apartment and make the treacherous transition to another one. A task that will be monumentally taxing, even if they only move me upstairs.

So to all of this, I have to ask the question that I've often asked myself throughout the course of my life; a question that seems far more relevant given all that's going on in my life right now:

Why???
-Maelstrom

The Media Again...Completely Uncalled For

Friday night, after returning to a friends apartment after a cultural show to find that the Pacers vs. Pistons game was still on. I was ecstatic because I thought that I was going to miss the whole game, but I hadn't. Plus, I've been a Pistons fan since the 87-88 season when they should've won their first NBA title, but lost it in 7 games to the LA Lakers (and yes, I was even a fan during the "teal" years), so I try to catch as many games as possible.

When I turned the game on, there were about 8 minutes left, and the Pistons were down. "The Palace" was loud and rowdy as the Pistons pulled within five in the closing minutes of the game (I later found out they were down by as many as 20 at one point). The Pacers had successfully maintained their 5 point lead, and eventually built on it as the game entered its final minute. The lead was too large for the Pistons to surmount, but they had to play it out anyhow.

That's when it happened!

With 45 seconds left to play in the game, while driving to the hole, Ben Wallace was hard (flagrantly) fouled by the Pacers' Ron Artest. Extremely angry, Wallace violently shoved Artest in the neck, and a standoff between the two teams ensued. It was the typical NBA "fight" scenario...almost.

After being shoved, Artest actually laid down on the Pistons' scoring table all while players from both teams were trying to separate him from Ben Wallace. Tempers flaired, but Artest' disrespectful gesture of laying on the Pistons' scoring table enraged some already upset fans (mad because the Pistons were dominated at home) and made him an easy target. A drink in a cup was thrown at him and hit him in what appeared to be his head (from the camera angle). He then swiftly lept off the scoring table as if he were Spiderman, and violently attacked a fan whom I assume he thought threw the drink.

An all out melee then took place that pitted Pistons fans against Pacers players. And if you're reading this (even if you're not), I'm sure that I don't have to fill you in on what else happened because I know you've seen the footage of the bedlam that took place.

Therein lies my problem.

Everywhere I went Friday night, there were dozens of people crowding around TV's to watch the repeat footage of the carnage at the Palace (I should mention that I happened to be outside of Detroit visiting friends this weekend). With each wildly thrown haymaker, an emphatic "OH!" was uttered, and for every ounce of beer that was thrown at the Pacers' players there was jubilant cheering. After one 12 minute cycle of the footage would complete (just prior to another 12 minute cycle), the TV viewers would yell out with glee as if world peace had been achieved, with the occasional shout of "Yeah, that's Detroit," or "Detroit what!!!"

And that's why I'm frustrated. Over and over again commentators and news personalities have expressed how sad and disgusted they are at such a scene. Well, if it is such a sad sight to see, then why show it repeatedly on an endless loop? Why give so much time to such a negative occurrence? Why bombard our minds with such senseless violence?

So yes, I am ripping the media again. I think that it is completely irresponsible of our media to show such footage. It is my heartfelt conviction that the only people that should have witnessed this sad event are people who were either at the Palace when it went down, or those of us who happened to be watching it as it unfolded on our TV screens. If you weren't one of those people, then you shouldn't have even had the chance to see it.

And I don't buy the argument that this is the USA and the people have a right to know. Fine, you do, but the story could have been reported on without camera footage. Furthermore, if camera footage was going to be used, then it didn't have to be as ubiquitous as Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee's sex tape. Once an hour is more than enough. ESPN, for example, literally showed the footage for like 8 hours straight Friday night into Saturday morning. Why?

And believe it or not, stuff like that affects the psyche. I am more than convinced that all of the violence we witnessed Saturday afternoon during multiple college football games (the most notable and severely nasty being Clemson vs. South Carolina) was as a direct result of the "Pistons/Pacers brawl" being shown on a loop all Friday night and Saturday morning. I'd also be willing to bet some serious money that there were numerous random street brawls over the weekend as a direct result of this footage.

The media is so backward. This reminds me of the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" during last years Superbowl Halftime show. I happened to be watching the Halftime show and I knew what I saw in that split second when she bared her breast. But, half of the people that saw it had no clue what had occurred...until after the game when that incident was aired repeatedly on every news station.

What I don't get is if Janet showing off her tit was so immoral and repugnant, why in the world would it get so much press? Everyone who wasn't sure what they saw, and millions of people who didn't even watch the game, all got ample opportunities to behold Janet's supple breast. If it was wrong of her to bare her boob, then why did all press outlets re-air it?

I think that Michael Powell (the head of the FCC and Outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell's son) should be ashamed of himself for being so critical of events like Janet's wardrobe malfunction, but then allowing the news stations to repeatedly air the footage without consequence. I think all forms of media, including this blog, should be shut down for 317 days until every media voice vows to use common sense in what they report and how they report it.

Better yet, there should be a law that I get to regulate common sense in the media. Because then the media would actually report on things that actually matter, and incidences such as the "Pacers/Pistons brawl" would be handled wisely, so as to not provoke other negative situations (like the college football fights) to occur.

Now that would be a wise decision!
-Maelstrom

Can it Stop Now?!!!

Finally! Scott Peterson was found guilty of 1st degree murder in the death of his wife Laci, and 2nd degree murder of his unborn son Connor. Now that he's been convicted, can we please stop talking about this pointless "news story?"

With all due respect to Laci, Connor, and her family, I am so incredibly tired of hearing about this. It never amazes me how much The News can focus on something that has no significant implications to the over 320 million people that live in this country.

Here's my problem: Is Laci the first wife to be beaten, abused or murdered by her spouse? Will this case affect the daily lives of 99% of the people in this country? Is this the only such case currently going on in America? Will this be the last? Is the "Peterson trial" even remotely close to an important nationwide news story?

The answer is a resounding no. And if you disagree, then you are smoking the crack rock!

Do I think Scott Peterson was guilty? Absolutely. He placed himself at the scene of the crime, 80 miles from their home, and his behavior before and during the trial was really not becoming of someone who had "lost" their wife. Plus, she apparently had no enemies to speak of.

Do I think the conviction was shady? For sure. I don't see how a conviction came in less than two days after 2 jury members were kicked off and 2 new jurors were added. It would seem to me that they would need more time to evaluate the case since they were new.

But I'm most mad at the fact that I even know about this case at all. Thousands of women are domestically abused and sometimes killed each and every year. It is a sad reality that needs to be considered, but what makes this case so special?

This trial has made a loser (whether you believe he killed his wife like me, or not, we know he was cheating on her) into a public face that we all recognize. In fact, he has been receiving hundreds of love letters from women across the nation that want to date him. So on top of wasting hundreds of news hours on an insignificant trial, the news has awkwardly made him famous.

And worst of all, it isn't over yet. Now we have to watch hundreds more hours of stupid press coverage of his sentencing. "Will he get the death penalty or life in prison?" will be the question of the day once that phase begins in late November.

Why don't all criminals get this kind of press exposure? Sometimes they actually get off and they could actually date some of those sick women that wrote them love letters during their trial.

Heck, why don't I get this kind of press exposure? I once stole a pack of gum from a grocery store. And, even worse, there have been times when I didn't flush the urinal in a public bathroom after relieving myself. Surely I'm deserving of thousands of hours of press coverage for that!

Clearly we've got our priorities wrong in this country, and if we're ever gonna get them straight, I think we could easily start with demanding more legitimacy of the media.

-Maelstrom

Fear and Foolishness

Shortly after September 11th, a Terror Alert scale was created. The scale is a color-coded schematic that is supposed to be indicative of the kind of alert that the government is on at any particular time with respect to terror. There are 5 colors that range from Red (high alert) to Blue (minimal threat).

Ever since the scale was implemented, the city of New York has been on Orange (just below Red) alert, and remains at that level to this day. Earlier this year, when intelligence suggested that financial institutions were targets for terror, a number of Banks were put on Orange alert all along the East Coast. For much of the last three years, the rest of the nation has been on Yellow (just below Orange) alert.

I have been an ardent critic of this foolish system for a number of reasons. For starters, given the current state of this planet, will there ever be a time when this nation is at the Blue level again? Doesn't this system allow potential terrorists to choose to attack at a time that is most convenient, like when we aren't on Red alert (or even Orange for that matter)? If we aren't on High alert now, what does that say about my safety as a citizen in this country today? Will the next successful terror attack be the only time that we are back on Red alert (because if you ask me, we should be on Red alert always)?

See what I mean? This system is stupid. It doesn't accomplish anything. All it does is toy with the emotions of US citizens.

Two weeks ago, Osama Bin Laden released the first video tape he had made in months. He was clearly defiant and seemed to be as determined as ever. He also seemed very healthy. In times past, when al-Qaeda has released a tape, an attack would follow soon after (Bali, Indonesia and Madrid, Spain for example); not always, but enough to raise suspicions.

It would seem to me that if there were any time to elevate the alert level it would be now. Instead, Thursday morning, the alert level was lowered for financial institutions. In fact, the government boasted that they wouldn't raise the alert level following Bin Laden's tape.

Does that make sense? NO!

So here's my suggestion, either get rid of the pointless and ambiguous system, or keep it to yourself (by yourself, I mean the government. You keep it to yourself). We don't need our emotions toyed with. And when you release security information, we want it to be credible. We need it to be credible.

If you want to have a "code red" alert system, keep that info "in-house." Then you can be honest with yourselves about how dire a terrorist threat is. Because as it stands now, I don't think you're being square with us. All indications seem to be that an attempted attack is just around the corner. We've heard the threats increased in recent days, including Bin Laden's tape. So, for me, you lost credibility the moment you decided not to raise the terror alert-and your integrity further diminished when you lowered the alert on financial institutions the other day.

Get your mind right! Do away with the system!
-Maelstrom

The Imminent Fall of the World's Last Superpower (continued)

As I continue this discussion, I think it is important to note that we are in a war with an intangible foe. A foe that has existed for centuries and that will persist for centuries to come. That foe is terrorism. And since terror is intangible, we will NEVER be able to "defeat" it. Even if we were to capture (or kill) terror's biggest icon, Osama Bin Laden, there will be many others just like him ready to take up his cause. He has become a sort of cult symbol for many oppressed Muslims and a hero to all Islamic Extremists. And as big a deal as he is, I've heard it (accurately) stated that Bin Laden is merely a mosquito over a pond.

One of the very few intelligent statements that I've heard President Bush make is that, with respect to terror, "We (the US) have to be right 100% of the time. They (terrorists) only have to be right once." This admission brings forth the reality that the terrorists are in the driver's seat. They have the advantage of focusing their money/efforts and picking the right time to attack. We, on the other hand, have to spend large sums of money on a continuous basis on "homeland security" in order to avert any POSSIBLE attacks.

So, in order to protect ourselves, we must spend more money that we don't have on any potential attack. And if they do succeed in attacking us, imagine the state of fear and hysteria that will ensue. Hysteria that will undoubtedly result in even more security expenditures.

The sad thing about this is that United States' financial bankruptcy is the goal of these terrorists. Well, actually I don't think most of them are even concerned with bankrupting the United States, but their very intelligent leader is. The very cold, calculating and incredulously insidious Osama Bin Laden recently made it clear that he intends to financially bleed this nation dry. This is a tactic that he claims worked for him in the past. He cited the condition of Russia following ten years of fighting so-called "terrorists" in Afghanistan.

His most chilling statement being that for every $1 his terrorist organization
has spent on strikes, it has cost the United States $1 million in economic
fallout and military spending, including emergency funding for Iraq and
Afghanistan.

Ironically, the United States' financial mismanagement is playing right into the hands of the terrorists that we are supposed to be fighting. The way that we have overextended ourselves in war, and the way that we have alienated ourselves from a world community that would be willing to help us if we provided just cause, have both played a role in our financial woes. Unfortunately, there seems to be no quick solution, nor any financial solution that would reverse this trend any time in the next 5 years.

We are bearing 90% of the financial costs of the war due to our international arrogance. Who's gonna pay that? We are! When? During this generation of workers, and at least during the next.

Medical, Educational, and Transportational costs are in the stratosphere. When are we gonna suffer as a result? Now and for multiple years to come. Is there any plausible solution in sight that will allow us to maintain our "high-level" of living while paying back these debts? Not at all!

And finally, terrorists are seeking to bankrupt this country, can they succeed? I hope not. Is there any way to avoid this possibility? Yes! It starts with being honest with the American public about the financial crisis that we're in. The process continues with wiser decision making (you know, like not sending your armed services into war unless you have to) and better money management.

My point in writing this is that I believe that we have made a huge mistake by pre-empting a war. If we had found just cause to enter Iraq by actually implementing the scoffed at notion of a "global test," which is simply diplomacy, then we would't be in nearly as much financial peril as we find ourselves in now.

Surely the events of 9/11 were going to cost us. And indeed some industries were already in a financial funk (i.e. transportation), but we have only exacerbated the problem by "going it alone" in Iraq. This has further segregated us from countries that served as our allies in the 1st Gulf War and who also incurred a much larger percentage of the monetary burden of the war. And the saddest part of all of this is that this scenario is what Bin Laden wants. He is smart enough to know that if a nation has no money, it cannot function. I'm also sure he's well aware that all previous world powers fell as a result of economic hardship in one way or another. And that is his ultimate goal-that the US can no longer threaten his agenda.

So I am again reminded of Fievel, and his American Tale. He'd be in his mid-twenties by now, and I'd rather suspect that his idea of America as the land of opportunity would be quite tainted. I'd imagine that he'd still be attempting to leave Russia, but not necessarily for America. Maybe Great Britain, maybe France, or maybe even Cuba.

You see, before, America was the Ultimate immigrant destination. Now, however, people are noting that it might not be the land of "milk and honey" that it was once purported to be. And our monetary mistakes are only helping that idea become the reality.

-Maelstrom

The Imminent Fall of The World's Last Superpower

In recent days, I have noted that all of my life, no matter how racist, sexist, or unjust this nation (the United States of America) is or has been, I would much rather live here than in any other country in the world. All of my life, everyone around me (and I mean everyone-save one or two) has echoed the same sentiment. Indeed, this nation has been looked at as the land of opportunity for everyone the world over since its formation.

This reality was underscored by the movie "An American Tale" in the eighties, where a cartoon mouse named Fievel sought prosperity in far away America. Fast forward 18 years, and I really wonder if Fievel would still want to travel from Russia to the USA. I wonder if he'd still be under the illusion that there are no "cats" in America. I wonder if he'd realize that oppression and poverty are increasingly becoming a reality in America much as they already are in Russia. I wonder if he'd foresee the doom that, I now propose, is about to befall this "great nation."

In 1997, President Bill Clinton was able to do what no President had done for decades before him; he balanced the budget. There was a budget surplus, and it allowed the government great latitude in funding federal programs in order to benefit the American economy. Much of this money, for example, was allocated to High School Students who were seeking higher education. Beginning in the year 2000, students who scored a certain score on standardized tests in certain states were given a sum of money to further their education in college. In my home state, the value of this gift was $2,500.

When Clinton left office and George W. Bush was appointed President after a serious Electoral dispute, he was handed a significant budget surplus. He was also handed a nation that was in a recession. I'd attribute the cause of the recession to the big "Y2K" scare of '98 and '99, and also the lack of consumer confidence following the disastrous 2000 Presidential Election.

No big problem. The nation easily survived a recession under Clinton and numerous President's before Bush (including a 500+ stock market plummet under Reagan in 1987). With the right moves and decisions, the nation was bound for recovery. In fact, the stock market was reaching towards an all-time high above the 12,000 mark (with the actual all-time high being reached in January of 2000 at 11,750).

During the early days of Bush's administration, twelve European countries were preparing to switch their currency over to the "Euro." At that time, the only currency in the world that was better than the US Dollar was the British Pound.

On January 1, 2002 the Euro became the official currency of those twelve countries in Europe, with other European countries continuing to sign on gradually. The value of the Euro had already begun to pick up steam months before it was in circulation. It quickly matched the US dollar in value soon after its release and has maintained a value greater than that of the dollar for most of its existence.

The events of September 11th, 2001 obviously caused much economic turmoil in this country. The stock market plummeted, and it took months before any significant recovery surmounted. Despite the severity of the effects of this tragedy, there was room for a complete recovery within a few years.

But then it happened!

The President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, made the mistake that will eventually take this nation down. He pre-empted a war with a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, and he did it without the backing of the world community.

Now this was a huge mistake not because it seriously alienated this country from most of the world, nor because it polarized and divided this nation like never before, but rather because it is financially costing this nation every dollar that we have, and even Billions of dollars that we don't have.

Since we approached this war virtually unilaterally, we are incurring the lion's share of the financial expenses. And that isn't a good thing considering the already struggling economic situation this nation is currently in.

As the 'baby boomers" continue to retire, Social Security is causing serious financial problems for the current working generation and generations to come. The ever increasing price of Health Care is leaving more and more of the nations lower income citizens powerless to protect themselves against disease and illness. Prescription Drug costs are sky high, causing people to cross the border into Canada just to get medicine at affordable prices.

Our nations public schools (including institutions of higher learning) are poorer than ever from state to state. The rate at which government funded loans and grants has increased is far behind the rate at which tuition costs are rising. Furthermore, out-of-country college students who once brought their tuition money with them (which is often a very sizable sum) to pursue an education in "the States" are now preferring to go to other countries (like France and England) for college due to our foreign policies and international image.

The train and airplane industries are both so far in debt (and have been for years now-even prior to 9/11) that each has cut significant jobs, and are trying desperately to avoid bankruptcy- but to no avail.

To stay afloat, hundreds of US businesses are outsourcing jobs overseas because they can pay cheaper wages and, strangely enough, get a financial break from the government to do so.

We still have to pay the $200 Billion it's costing us to wage the War on Terror as well as the War in Iraq. A debt that we will be paying back for years and years to come.

And most ominous of all financial stats to note: The value of the US dollar ($) has been plunging against world currency.

The USA, less than 7 years after we had a budget surplus, is now in more debt than we have ever experienced, and the situation is not getting better. The spending hasn't stopped, and though we thought we felt a financial crunch in the last 3 years, I'm afraid that we haven't seen anything yet.

The scary thing is that considering our critical debt as a nation (something like 7 TRILLION dollars), our homemade money problems aren't the only ones that severely threaten us. Can YOU guess from whence further economic distress might come?

Stay tuned...
-Maelstrom

MC 2

Three days after the election and two days after the final results were confirmed, I am still frustrated with this notion of morality electing our President. So, I will briefly point out why that is the stupidest reason ever. And then hopefully I can move on to from there.

For starters, as I pointed out yesterday, just because Bush doesn't believe in Gay Marriage or abortion that doesn't make him a moral person. There are multitudes of actions that Bush has taken that aren't consistent with someone of high morals (pre-empting a war, deception, the Patriot Act). So, you can't have it both ways. If someone is to be considered moralistic, then they should, in my opinion, be moralistic in more than just two or three ways.

But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Bush is the most moral person the planet has ever seen. Let's also keep in mind that this is a Democracy, and that Bush has already served four years as United States President. Now, let's consider what voting for Bush based on morals will do for you.

Bush is against Gay Marriage, so I'll vote for him. As a result, the nation is still in the worst debt ever, and he still hasn't recovered all the jobs that he lost for us.

Bush is against abortion, so I'll vote for him. Now that we've re-elected him, Health Care costs still are up by over 30% and over 5 million people who lost their Health Care during the last 4 years don't have it today.

Bush prays regularly, so he gets my vote. Now, Osama Bin Laden, 3 years after September 11th, is still at large and openly mocking and threatening the United States.

Bush attends church consistently, so I'm glad he got re-elected. The world community still disdains the US for its pre-emptive strike against Iraq and for how it continues on in imperialistic arrogance.

My point is that Bush's morals have nothing to do with how he governs the nation. They're not the same topic. They don't affect one another. Bush can be the greatest moralist ever, and still be a horrible President. I think he's proved as much. If you think Bush is moral (which I don't think he's any more or less moral than the next man), he's proven to you that someone can be both moral and a pathetic President.

Furthermore, no matter if Bush is for or against Gay Marriage or abortion, these issues are not going to go away. You might have voted for Bush based on his stance on Gay Marriage, but that didn't eliminate Gays from the face of the planet. They're still here, and this is still an issue whether you are for it or against it. If Gays never gain the right to get married, is that going to stop terrorism? NO!

And what is Bush going to do if he makes a law against abortion, jail the doctor and the mother for having it performed? If someone has an abortion, is that going to affect my job status? NO!

Morals are not necessarily related to governing this country!

Finally, you can be 100% opposed to abortion or Gay Marriage, and still vote on reason and not morals. The idea that if you are devoutly religious and vote for someone who is for abortion and gay rights, then you aren't sincere (or you're a sinner) is completely baseless. It might carry some weight if this country were, again, a Theocracy, but it's not. This is a Democracy, which means that the governing powers should tend to the issues that affect the daily lives of its constituents-not the opinion or moral convictions of half of them.

For example, abortion and gay rights might be a problem for Jane Doe, but not for her next door neighbor. Jane Doe may be moralistically upright and her neighbor not so much. However, how the President feels about Jane Doe's and her neighbors convictions doesn't change the fact that both of them will have to suffer because of an ailing economy which is now entering into uncharted territories with respect to debt.

Bush is an example that good morals does not mean good President. Good morals and good politics are not one in the same. And though in good government morals and politics should have a relationship, they are certainly not married!

There, I got it out! :o)
-Maelstrom

Morality Check

Why is everyone so shocked that G-Dub won re-election based on the "morality vote"? I have been telling people for months that the people who are voting for Bush are people who have embraced Bush's perceived good morality. If the Kerry people are shocked, then that's just another major oversight that his horrendous campaign had. But I think I'm through ripping on Kerry's sad campaign. Now it's on to Bush's amazing manipulations.

Again, congrats to a campaign well run. Karl Rove, you are a beast, and Mr. President, the only smart thing you have done is listen to Mr. Rove.

Bush ran on morality. Morality, for the record, isn't going to protect us from terror or create new jobs, but that's what won him re-election. I must say that I am incredibly saddened that people are so stupid as to elect someone as our President in this country based on an issue that has virtually nothing to do with the way he governs. But let me clear a few things up before I expand on this stupidity.

People weren't voting their morals when they voted for Bush. Moral values doesn't mean moral values, it means religious values. Religious values doesn't mean religious values, it means Conservative (Christian) religious values. And Conservative religious values doesn't mean conservative religious values, it means no gay marriage and no abortion. That's what people were voting on.

So the President has adamantly opposed abortion and gay marriage and for some reason that has won him the title of "moralist of the year." He not only won over the Conservative Christians, but Conservatives from many other religions as well (including Amish, Mormans, Muslims and others). Now, I would just like to know, what is so great about these TWO moral stances that they trump multitudes of other moral issues that Bush clearly violated.

Now, I can't speak with as much authority about other religions (though I know some of them well enough to know they agree with Christianity on numerous points), but I know what the Bible teaches. Certainly, gay marriage and abortion are frowned upon across the board with respect to religion, but since when did these TWO values trump all of the others. What ever happened to honesty, taking care of the working man, providing for the poor, not shedding innocent blood? Are these not also moralistic virtues?

As I understand the definition of a lie, it is the intent to deceive and to presumptuously do so. Well even if you argue that Bush didn't lie about his reasons for the Iraq War (which is an argument you'd certainly lose with me), you'd only have to look at his political campaign to see his deception. He deliberately took comments made by Senator Kerry out of context, in order to deceive the people he was addressing, repeatedly. To outright deceive people is not a moralistic virtue that I'm aware of.

Bush never seems to want to admit fault or wrong doing, even when it is clear that he is wrong. He shows no sign of humility; you know, another moralistic virtue that people seem to have forgotten about. It takes a lot of integrity and humility to admit when you're wrong. Bush doesn't seem to possess alot of either.

And then there's the shedding of innocent blood. The Bible never says that we are to create wars. In fact, the Bible says "Blessed is the peacemaker." And to enter into a War of one's own volition is certainly not a value that the Bible teaches. But that is what Bush has done. As a result, over 20,000 Iraqis have been killed (and we all know that they weren't all insurgents-thousands were innocent bystanders). And this is beside the fact that Bush was Governor over a state (Texas) that leads the nation in executions (though the people are guilty, the executions aren't necessary and some of the people are actually innocent). So if G-Dub is so moralistic, why is there so much blood on his hands.

I could go on and on. My point is this, if you're going to give someone a passing grade on your moralistic meter, they better at least be moral on a majority (if not all) of the issues. This country came down incredibly hard on Clinton for his marital indiscretion, but that didn't affect how he ran the country. Clinton's immorality caused only him and his family grief. People aren't suffering today because Clinton had fellatio performed on him by someone that wasn't his wife. Bush's immorality has cost thousands their lives, and his dishonesty (it could be argued) has cost many their jobs.

Bush is no more moral than any other Presidential candidate, and I realize that "gay marriage" and abortion stances aren't going to affect my everyday life. Those economically disenfranchised moralists and conservatives that voted for Bush based on morals will still be poor tomorrow because of Bush's policies.

People fail to realize that this is not a "moral-ocracy," it certainly isn't a theocracy, but it is a democracy. We should vote with conscious and moral in mind, but recognize that you can maintain strict morality and still vote for a guy who might not have your level of moral magnanimousness.

Since when did we become so moral in this country anyway. We have become increasingly more decadent in every aspect of daily life in this country each year. I think it is hypocrisy for these pious people to go to the polls and vote on morals when most people in this country live a moralistically shabby life.

Who do we think we are???

However, it is worth noting, that in this calendar year-2004- we have raised morality in a number of areas of life. It all began with the Superbowl halftime show where we severely over-reacted to seeing a split second of Janet Jackson's right breast. It then moved to Howard Stern and numerous other media outlets. I think it is interesting that these media outlets are mostly run by Bush supporters, and that the Federal Communications Commission (which governs the media) is headed by Bush's Secretary of State's son, Michael Powell. If you wanna talk conspiracy, maybe this was an ongoing plot to make morality a major issue during this election year. It certainly played right into his hands.

The same idiots that were drinking beer and partying in front of their kids during the Superbowl, but were upset about the Justin and Janet incident, are probably the same hypocritical losers that voted for Bush's perceived morality. I'd love to see a poll on that indictment!

Just some food for thought!
-Maelstrom

It's Over!

Finally, this horrendous political season has come to a close. Sadly, it has come to an end that I had certainly hoped it would not, but be that as it may, President Bush is now the 14th (or 15th, I can't remember) President to win re-election. And I do believe, no matter which side you are on, it is a huge relief just to have this election season behind us. This particular election has so engulfed our every day lives that I have honestly forgotten what it's like without a "Swiftboat" or "Flip-flop" ad. Seriously, who can actually remember what life was like without these hateful ads, from both major parties?

As for Senator John Kerry, I fully expected him to lose this election and have expected him to lose for months now. Anyone that has been a faithful reader of "The Vortex" knows that I hold a high level of disdain for him and his campaign managers. So his loss, no matter how close, comes as no surprise to me. He flat out sucked!

My mind keeps going back to the Primary's and the Caucuses-one of which I voted in- and hearing that so many people were going to vote for John Kerry. I asked many of my friends why they were voting for him. The most of them couldn't respond with a politically based answer. Each of them only noted that they had heard that "he can beat Bush."

Well, I was all for beating Bush, but since we had an array of viable candidates to choose from at the time, I questioned why we didn't back someone that actually had clear-cut views and would promote the change that my friends and I desired. To me, Kerry was not that guy then, and we find that what many of my friends heard was wrong now.

One of the biggest flaws with Kerry's campaign (and there were many) was that he came off as a guy that would say anything for political gain. This is the same reason why I was turned off by Al Gore in the 2000 election, in light of the Elian Gonzalez situation. Neither candidate came across as men with strong conviction. Bush, on the other hand, comes off as someone with unrivaled resolve, so much so that people even back him when he is unmistakeably wrong. People are enchanted by someone who is steadfast. This is certainly one of the reasons that both Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004, have come off as weak candidates.

Then there's Kerry's sorry campaign effort. This man didn't become a legitimate Presidential candidate until after the 1st debate. Before that he had no direction and his public image was that of a man who had no goals and couldn't make up his mind. I was appauled at the things he wasn't saying and couldn't believe that Bush was getting away with saying nothing. I honestly feel like Kerry's campaign strategists didn't want him to win this election (he changed managers just prior to the debates). I feel like they wanted him to lose so that another Democrat, probably Hilary Clinton, can run in 2008.

All of the left-leaning news anchors and talk show hosts could tell Kerry what he needed to say, I could rationalize what was wrong with this nation and Bush, and my 12-year-old cousin could give a run down of everything that anyone ever needed to know in order to beat Bush. Still, you mean to tell me that his campaign strategists, who get paid to do this as their career, couldn't direct Kerry as to how to beat Bush??? PLEASE!!!

I was so angry that I often found myself yelling and balling my fist at the tv in disgust as I watched Kerry get bashed by Bush, and as he missed opportunity after opportunity to address Bush's multitudinous flaws. For real, Kerry sucked from day one, and he only continued to suck as the season progressed. He finally became the candidate that Democrats thought they were nominating in the Spring after the debates, when he could have raised the same issues he raised in the debates months and months before.

I can only hope that in the future, the Democrats produce a candidate that has the credibility and the conviction that is necessary to win. Gore didn't have it, and Kerry was far worse than Gore. Maybe a Howard Dean (who was adamantly opposed to the War) or a Dick Gephardt (who had a strong Senate record with a lowly upbringing) should be the prototype for the kind of candidate we nominate next time. And next time, I hope we can have a good reason for nominating the candidate that we nominate and not some silly hear-say basis.

But hats off to the Bush Campaign. I have never seen a better campaign put together in my life, and I don't think I will ever again see such a great show put on by someone who had so little to work with. Consider this:

• Health Care cost are up more than 30% and 5 Million have lost Health Care under Bush's watch
• He is the 1st President in 75 years to lose jobs under his watch
• Numerous civil right's, such as abortion and affirmative action, have been challenged at his request
• We have far less friends and many more enemies abroad because of his policies
• The national debt is at an all-time high and climbing fast
• The Public Schools systems are underfunded and struggling to meet the demands of his NCLB bill at the expense of many after school and liberal arts programs
• Over 1,100 US service men have been killed in a war that we didn't have to wage, all while there is no end in sight to the quagmire of conflict in Iraq
• The number 1 terror suspect, whom Bush vowed to hunt down, is still at large and was largely overlooked by his administration because of the unnecessary Iraq War
  

And still, he was re-elected! Now he was certainly aided by Kerry's pathetic run, but that's a Beast. Bush couldn't make a legitimate political case for anything, in my opinion, here or overseas.

So he didn't!

Bush's platform was basically "let's pray," "no gays," "no Roe v. Wade," "I say what I'm gonna do and I do it (no matter if I'm right)," and "a vote against me is a vote against God." And to aid him in his lack of a message, Kerry's sad showing gave Bush the opportunity to go around the nation repeating the same three sound bytes: "my opponent is a flip-flopper," "you may not agree with me but you know where I stand," and "you can't lead if you keep sending mixed messages."

Great platform, huh?

Well like it or not, it won him re-election. His victory is due not only to Kerry's slackness, but also to the silly Christian Convervative Right, that seems to believe that Bush is some sort of Messiah and that we live in a Theocratic Government. As a Christian myself, I'd really like to know what it is that people think is so "Christ-like" about Bush that he should be the leader of the Free World when he clearly has some un-Christ-like views and certainly a pathetic Presidential record. This is a Democracy people, not a Theocracy. Therefore we need a President that can Democratically lead this country, not someone who isn't capable of even listening to any form of opposition. And if you want a Christian to be President, I can list a litany of Christians that hold political office who are certainly more qualified politically, socially and economically than Bush.

In closing, I must admit, I am petrified for this nation. We have virtually no friends in this world, and the ones that we do have are diminishing and becoming weak (trust me, Tony Blair won't be joining Bush in the re-elected column in the UK when his term's up). We are so far in debt here that the future is bleak, either for us later in life, or our children; someone's gonna have to pay this money back at some time. We need some serious help on the social front. We have never been so hateful towards one another or divided in recent years as a country.

Plainly put, for the United States of America in these coming years, I am scared!

-Maelstrom

I Endorse...

Before I begin this particular post, I must whole-heartedly apologize for my inability to bring all the issues to the forefront during the home stretch of this election season. I ran into significant road blocks that didn't afford me the time to post any additional "Issues Blogs," though I began a few and was in the process of gathering information to complete them. However, the election is now upon us, and I'm sure everyone wants to know exactly whom it is that I endorse for President of the United States of America.

I proudly endorse (drumroll) David Cobb of the Green Party (with Independent Candidate Ralph Nader running a close 2nd) for President. I had the grand opportunity of listening to him debate with Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik, and certainly enjoyed his views which encompassed everything from the War in Iraq to issues that affect me in my own back yard. It was a breath of fresh air to hear someone actually talk about something that mattered. This is in direct contrast to Bush and Kerry. It seems like the more they talk, the less they say; and the only way they could say less is to talk more. So David Cobb, you have my endorsement.

However, I live in a nation full of mindless little trolls that march to the drum of either an elephant or a donkey. As a result, if I want to help the United States save face with respect to the international community, I'll have to put my eggs in a basket that doesn't have any holes in it. It would be nice to truly endorse Cobb (or Nader) and then go out and vote for him. But this year, more than ever, this nation needs change. Both in Foreign Affairs and Domestically. As a result, I am encouraging every soul with a voter's registration card to vote for John Kerry. He is a pathetic candidate, but at least there's potential with him.

We've seen what Bush can do... absolutely nothing. And he's already had four years to do something significantly positive, and he hasn't. He has failed miserably. 5 Million people have lost Health care and costs are up some 30+ percent, he's the 1st President in 75 years to lose jobs, tuition is increasing at a rate that far exceeds Federal funding-making College less attainable to many, and the rest of the world absolutely HATES us. We need not see anymore. We can't see anymore. WE NEED CHANGE.

So friends, family, acquaintances and enemies too, please do join me in record numbers at the polls tomorrow, November 2nd, 2004, and vote that filth out of office. We can no longer stand to beat around the Bush!

And May God Bless America!
-Maelstrom

The Supreme Court

Anyone that has taken a little history in this country knows that the most powerful branch of the Government lies not with the Legislative (Congress) or Executive (President) branches, but with the Judicial Branch (the Supreme Court) . Whoever is President during a period in which Justices retire, however, does get the opportunity to appoint who shall fill the vacancy, as Supreme Court Justices aren't elected.

With the average age of the Supreme Court being so high, it is possible that as many as 4 Justices will retire during the term of the next elected President (only conservative Justice Clarence Thomas is under 65). This is particularly important since many of the crucial decisions that the current Court has made over the years have ended up in a 5-4 split. Among major 5-4 decisions are the following:

-Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) -which was related to abortion rights
-Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) -involving Partial Birth abortions
-Voucher Program for Parochial Schools (2002) -important to Church/State separation
-Federal protections against age discrimination -whether or not it applies to state workers
-The Americans with Disabilities Act
-The Violence Against Women Act
-Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) -the famed Affirmative Action case of last year

Probably the most telling or significant decision that the Court has made recently involved the last Presidential Election. The Supreme Court decided to halt the Florida Recount which sealed the Presidential victory for George W. Bush. What was the margin by which this decision was made you ask? 5-4, of course!

The 10 years that these 9 Justices have been together is the longest running uninterrupted term since 1823. Furthermore, President G. W. Bush is the 1st President since Jimmy Carter to not make an appointment during his 1st term. And I bet he's just itching to appoint one himself.

With all that being said, you better believe that this is an important Election topic. Especially since many potential cases and decisions loom (Guantanamo Bay, The Patriot Act, Immigrants Rights, Separation Between Church and State, Gay Rights, etc.).

Senator Kerry said, during one of the debates, that he'd use a "litmus" test to determine appointees to the bench should any retire during his term if he wins office. I'd suspect that his appointees would be on the very liberal side, considering Kerry's liberal Senate record. I'd also suspect that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (the legitimately moderate Judge) and liberal Justice John Paul Stevens (the oldest at 84) would retire should Kerry win.

President Bush has refuted the notion of using a "litmus" test to determine appointees, but we know that he favors Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas- staunch conservatives. All of Bush's appointees and recommendations in the lower courts have been extreme conservatives. As a result, there has been much filibustering in the Senate by Democrats, in turn blocking the appointment of many such Judges.

Bush used the race card in order to appoint a conservative Judge by nominating a strict conservative Hispanic to one of the lower courts (as a side note, I should mention that serving on lower courts is a stepping stone to the Supreme Court), knowing that Democrats have a strangle hold on minority interests. His efforts failed.

Bush did get a Federal Appeals bench nominee through when he bypassed the Senate confirmation process and appointed controversial US District Judge Charles Pickering. Pickering has had a past that includes opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which essentially allowed Blacks to vote), a law review article that he wrote that would justify the banning of interracial marriages, and opposition to abortion rights laws.

It is clear to me that which ever party wins the election wins the Court. The effects of which could last upwards of 40 years. I think the Republicans have a decided advantage since the oldest member of the Court is a liberal, whom I suspect may have to retire soon regardless of who's elected. Furthermore, I do believe that O'Connor, the voice of reason, shall retire too, especially since she is 1 of 3 Justices to have had cancer surgery in recent years. Her loss will be immense because it is she and Justice Anthony Kennedy that reason and decide virtually every close vote.

So, when you go to the polls on November 2nd, consider not only the man you vote for, but also the issues that concern you daily and what that man's stances on them are. Because this year, more than in recent elections, when we vote for President, we will also be voting for our laws as decided by these potential Supreme Court appointments.

-Maelstrom

For more information, check out these sites:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/18/SUPREMES.TMP

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/20/election.scotus/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/17/bush.pickering/