Do You Feel Safer?

As the Republican National Convention gets underway, one theme that they keep trying to promote continues to frustrate me. One of the banners that the Republicans have raised in Madison Square Garden says something to the effect of "A Safer America." Well, I know that I'm not alone when I say this, but I feel 100% less safe on this planet as a US citizen than I did before September 11, 2001. I know that the Republicans have to use this as their main selling point since this Republican President's term has largely been about the so-called "War on Terror," but let's keep it real, we're indeed less safe as a country when it comes to international terrorism plots. Anybody that believes otherwise either hasn't left a cave since September 10, 2001 or is for real smoking the crack rock.

Now I don't intend this particular blog to be a Republican-bashing post, because I'm not about that. However, I have a problem: I have to call a spade a spade (and there appear to be no hearts, clubs or diamonds at the Republicans disposal).

Clearly, worldwide, places that are frequented by travelers from the Western World (especially from the USA) are big targets for terrorists. One would only have to look at the blasts in Bali, Indonesia (at night clubs that were frequented by Westerners) for an example. And did you know that New York City has been on High (Orange) Alert ever since 9/11? So now the city exists under a cloud of fear.

The last time I checked, feeling afraid and feeling safe were on opposite ends of the spectrum. Seems a bit bipolar to me. Then again, I'd expect nothing less from an administration that can tell me to live my life as normal as possible, but that the nation will be on high alert over the holiday weekend, all in one breath.

If we were truly safe, as the Republicans claim, of what value is an alert system and why hasn't it reached the lowest alert level yet? I've often wondered when New York City and the "targeted" Financial Institutions will be taken off of High Alert, and when the USA will be down to a Blue alert as opposed to the Yellow one that we've been on for over two years. Will it be 2 years, 5 years, or when the next major attack occurs?

The thing that I abhor is that there are people who will eat up every word that the Republicans have to say about this country being safe because there is now a Department of Homeland Security (which has been a huge flop to this point) and some colors, stolen from a rainbow, that will let us know when conditions are good or bad. I must admit, though, that it is a great tactic for the Republicans to use probably their weakest selling point as a battle cry. Psychologically, one would probably think that America's Security is in good hands with the Republicans because what kind of political party would try to sell people on a point that they have proved incompetent at?

In the final analysis, if you believe that you are safer today than in years past (despite people literally loosing their heads for being from the United States and others for merely supporting the USA's ill-advised war), then I think you need a heavy dose of prayer. May God have mercy on your soul.

-Maelstrom

What the Media Won't Let Us Realize

Sometimes I sit back and really wonder why and how it is that the biggest news stories of the day are typically small and insignificant to the bigger issue of informing the public in a supposed "free and democratic" nation. With all due respect to victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, why is it that the Scott Peterson and Kobe Bryant trials are even still news? And don't give me some BS about the tenacity of the alleged crimes or the fame of the alleged assailant. Thousands of women are beaten and sexually abused everyday, and we'll never even hear about it. So what makes these cases more important than any others and how is it possible for them to be major news years after they were first reported?

If I were like my former college roommate, I'd probably be screaming "it's a conspiracy." And maybe, for once, he'd be right. You see, it is my belief that by reporting so heavily on such cases, that honestly bare little significance in the lives of most Americans, the media doesn't have time to really report on issues that really affect them. Even worse, the media can ignore international issues that might affect the way we view other countries and affect who we vote for on November 2nd.

As for the "War on Terror," the media would lead you to believe that all of our enemies in the world are Islamic Fundamentalists, and that once we establish Democratic (which I'd easily argue could be interchanged with Christian) states in countries that are Islamic, we'll be just fine. I mean, there's always some al-Qaeda (which means Islamic, which means evil) tie to everything that happens bad to the USA. And they certainly report on that.

Unfortunately, with our attention focused on Kobe, and realizing that al-Qaeda is a bad thing, we never realize the depths of how hated our country is, by everyone, and not just al-Qaeda.

We have successfully spent the last decade pissing off everyone from dictatorships, to members of the United Nations. Our worst enemy in the Western world, Cuba (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is largely a Catholic nation), enjoys free trade and visitors from countries all over the globe except for us. However, the media would have you to believe that it is virtually an isolated nation, solely because we don't do business with them.

We've also had our run-ins with China, which has a religious diversity ranging from Buddhism to Christianity. After we unremorsefully (if that's a word) killed two Chinese people at an Embassy overseas, and then got caught spying on them (with a USA plane that they intercepted), Chinese feelings towards the USA have also gone sour.

And most recently, when word got around that Colin Powell was going to attend the closing ceremonies at the Olympic Games in Athens, Greece, a substantial protest was headed towards the US Embassy there. About 1000 protesters had to be tear-gassed before they reached the Embassy. Later, a more peaceful group chanted "Get the Killer Imperialists Out of Greece." Apparently they succeeded, because now Colin Powell (a man who once held extreme high esteem in the international community) has canceled his plans to attend.

For some reason, though, the news isn't seriously entrenched in reporting international views on the USA. Sure, you might hear about these things every once in a while, but they won't remain in the news for nearly as long as the lowly Scott Peterson. This is despite the fact that a negative view of the USA can affect all of us in this country in a multitude of ways.

It doesn't matter if Muslims worldwide see us as a threat to their religion, or if nations the world over see us as Imperialists seeking world domination, it is clear that we've made far more enemies than we might imagine. We've certainly made more enemies than the media portrays, and we definitely have less friends than "the Coalition of the Willing" suggests. And pretty soon, with people like British Prime Minister Tony Blair being out of power, we will be left alone in the world with only Israel's support. Then, I wonder, what are we going to do, and how are we going to sugar-coat the news?

All my life, people (including myself) have said that despite its shortcomings, I would rather live in the USA than anywhere else. Well I suspect that it won't be long before that sentiment changes.

-Maelstrom

Paul Hamm

Paul Hamm has no class.

I've been listening, for a couple days now, to each of his interviews, and I've come to the conclusion that he is a selfish, conceited, pompous stump of a man. I have yet to hear him mention any significant concern for the feelings of the South Korean that suffered the incorrect scoring, and when he says that the judges error is unfortunate, he says it with himself in mind. Over and over again he exclaims, "I believe in my heart that I am the (Olympic all-around) champion."

So, personality-wise, Paul sucks.

But let's keep it real, the Gold medal is his, and there is no reason for him to turn it over to the unfortunate South Korean. We all know that the judges made a scoring mistake. They awarded a starting value of 9.9 to the South Korean gymnast when it should have started at 10.0. And in case you don't know, judges award a start value and then deduct from that starting value based on mistakes that they see.

Almost everyone seems to be implying that if the start value had been a 10.0 like it was supposed to, that the South Korean's overall score would have increased by 0.1, giving him the Gold instead of the Bronze.

How foolish!

Let me give you a crash course in reality and human psychology. Had the S. Korean's start value been 10.0, I guarantee you that his overall score would not have increased by exactly 0.1. Judges are human, and therefore have a tendency to score relative to other's scores and performances. What I mean is that if the average score from 3 previous competitors is 9.5, then an extremely superior performance may only garner a 9.65 when it might warrant a 9.8.

Furthermore, performers sometimes become more tentative when the pressure's on because they're in the lead. Had the South Korean gone up with a big lead at that point, who's to say that he wouldn't have choked under pressure during the final rotation? The flipside is often true as well. Many people perform better when they aren't winning and aren't concerned with maintaining a lead.

So, my conclusion is that the 0.1 difference in scoring may have increased the South Korean's chances of winning the competition, but it certainly doesn't guarantee it, as much of the news media is suggesting.

Also, the nature of the sport is subjective. Athletes in diving, figure skating, and gymnastics are all aware of the fact that human error is involved. Though many would hate to admit it, they've probably not only suffered, but also benefitted from human error in competition.

It is for this reason that some rules were written. More specifically, rules like the one that the South Korean failed to follow. The rules clearly state that if there is a scoring discrepancy, then the competitor needs to notify the judges before the next apparatus rotation. The S. Korean didn't follow the rules, and was thus penalized for his inaction. Paul Hamm, and all the other competitors, played by the rules, further strengthening my position that he should retain his Gold.

Such a rule should come as no shock. It is common in sports to have such "fail-safes." In the National Football League, in order to challenge a call, the coach must drop the red flag before the next play commences. If the coach does not, then the play is unreviewable.

The same is true in Tennis. Just a few short months ago, Venus Williams uncharacteristically lost in the second round of Wimbledon, largely due to the fact that she did not correct the judge when the score was stated incorrectly during a crucial tiebreak. As I recall, there was no significant outcry for Sprem, the lady who gladly took the unearned point from Williams, to relinquish her victory.

Finally, many people have suggested that Hamm should share his Gold with the South Korean, citing a 2002 figure skating scandal that awarded both the Canadian and Russian figure skating teams Gold medals. I again disagree. What happened at Athens was a mistake that could have been rectified by the S. Korean. What happened at the 2002 Winter Olympics was deliberate cheating.

Unfortunately, Paul Hamm will always be known as the Olympic All-Around champion that didn't really win, when he in fact did. I do believe, however, that if Paul could be more gracious and humble in his interviews, that it would help people to see the undisputed reality of his success.

-Maelstrom

Blind Loyalists and Irrational Supporters

Probably above everything that bothers me about people is the apparent inability of individuals to think independently and to rationally interpret facts. Politics is often the biggest arena in which this "blind mice" anomaly occurs on a frequent basis. Either due to religious/moral convictions, loyalty to parental political voting records, and sometimes for no reason at all, people will choose to side with a particular political party. Clearly this election year is no different.

If people really thought about what a particular party or candidate stands for, I'm sure that most would agree and disagree with people from both sides of the isle. It is for this reason that I consider myself a political independent. I refuse to just side with a party because I grew up in a home where my parents voted Democratic or Republican. As an individual citizen/person/human being, that just doesn't make sense.

No matter how strong my religious convictions, I recognize that we live in a Democracy and not a Theocracy. Therefore, although religion may influence my train of thought, I recognize that Theocracy and Democracy exists on different plateaus. As a result, I realize that there are some social realities that dwell in a Democracy that Theocracy, from a governmental standpoint, cannot change. So voting with religion in mind can sometimes be in vain (I should note that I make this statement with much gravity, and that it may not be coming off in the manner that I intend it to).

Furthermore, I realize that no matter how great my upbringing, or how well intentioned my parents are/were, I am a separate entity from them. That means that I shouldn't just don the mantle of their selected political party, but that I should rather decide which party/candidate best suits me.

It is non-independent thinking that has, from my vantage point, trivialized and cheapened the voting power of large social groups, like the African-American demographic. Democratic candidates are so expecting of the Black vote that they often appear as their friend prior to election, while rarely implementing any political change that would benefit the group later on.

Why is this important? Well, although I have vehemently tried to stay away from politics in my blogging up to this point, I cannot ignore a report that was just released by the University of Maryland.

If you read through the report (it is quite long), you'll note that the majority of people used in the study clearly haven't been paying attention to what is being said, by the Bush administration post-war, about the war in Iraq and about fallacies in pre-war intelligence. (If you don't read the whole report, I think that you should at least take a gander at some of the graphs and their explanations.)

Now, in my opinion, the report seems to paint the picture that Bush now recognizes his mistakes, and is now telling the truth about the Iraq War. Indeed, maybe there is some truth in that. However, if people would continue to listen, Bush has repeatedly said, while on the campaign trail, that "if (he) knew then what (he) knows now about Iraq (and their weapons program, etc.), that (he) would not change his approach and (the USA) would have still gone to war."

Almost 1000 American lives later, thousands and thousands of Iraqi (both
civilian and "insurgent") lives later, and $200 Billion later (with gas prices
soaring worldwide to boot), that man wouldn't have changed anything?

This is despite the supposed 20/20 hindsight knowledge that there is no significant evidence Iraq had any Weapons of Mass Distruction, and that there is no solid evidence of a link between al-qaeda and Iraq (according to the 9/11 Commission Report).

And that's the man that about 50% of America still wants to re-elect.

The question lingers, "why would almost half of the country still want to re-elect someone who would have still gone to war over false pretenses?"

My response would be blind support, without questioning current statements and correlating them to past actions, as a reason for such re-election statistics (I'd surely have to include the insidious disease of political apathy as a cause also).

I just wish that people would actually do a little research of their own before they cast a vote, for whomever, with their "eyes wide shut."

-Maelstrom

Majority Minorities, Be Careful

As a Black Man, I recognize that I am part minority, and part majority. Plainly put, my "blackness" puts me at a disadvantage, while my "manhood" puts me in a position of power. For the socially ignorant, this is not something I've heard, it's a reality that I've observed.

I am certainly not the only one in such a precarious position. Many people suffer social strife because they are members of both a minority group and the upper class. I've noted this anomaly in black women, who feel that "that white girl messed Kobe up," but believe that the government came down hard on Martha Stewart because she was a woman (I think I'll discuss that one in further depth in the future).

So clearly, it is up to the individual to decide what struggle to fight for at any particular moment in time. Sometimes, however, I think that minorities can become so comfortable in one of our majority capacities that we criticize minorities in that capacity the same way that we may be discriminated against in another. Let me explain.

On a visit home, a few weeks back, something that one of my brother's said to me triggered significant frustration in me. I can't even remember what it is that he said to me, but I remember my response. "Don't be so American," I said. (As an immediate disclaimer, I am wholeheartedly proud of both my American as well as my Black heritage. There is no prouder person of their duel background on the planet.) I told him this because I recognized that he had become so comfortable in his privileged American background, that he felt he could look down upon people from other countries. Alarms were sounding off in my head louder than a freight train at 4 in the morning.

Unfortunately, his American arrogance reared its filthy head again last week, at the start of the Olympic games. He began criticizing the host country, Greece, because they hadn't completed all of the Olympic venues until three days prior to the Opening Ceremonies. He vehemently argued that "if you're gonna host the games, then you should have the venues ready months ahead of time...there's no excuse!"

I then exclaimed to him that it isn't as easy as it sounds to put on such an event, plus people in other countries don't necessarily have the advantages that we have here in the USA. Well, he went on to argue that "it doesn't matter if you're a 1st world country or a 3rd world country, you have the money, you've got ample time, then there's no excuse."

Needless to say, I was mad as a six-shooter. I was so heated that I refused to talk to him for quite a while. So, here's why I was upset:

For starters, in such a tumultuous time in history, ripe with terror threats, unlawful military pursuits (by guess who....), and rampant ethics violations, we should be grateful that someone is willing to host the games at all. I really wonder if the games would go on this year if the United States were to be the host.

Secondarily, when the games started, the venues and arenas in Greece were complete and ready to go. That's all that was necessary, and it is quite a remarkable thing considering the hardships that the Greeks encountered early on. Furthermore, as you might recall, the USA had issues being prepared for the games just eight years ago in Atlanta, and we are "the greatest country in the world." And despite our tight security, we still weren't able to spare the life of one person who died in Atlanta during those Olympics after a bombing. Point being, it's not as easy as it sounds to just put on the Olympic games.

Now, as legit as those arguments are, that's not what really got under my skin. What really did it for me was that I was hearing the sentiments of the white majority against affirmative action exiting my brother's lips. Ok, so we weren't discussing affirmative action at all, but the arguments were virtually identical.

So, for the affirmative action unaware, here's a quick crash course.

People in the United States of America are discriminated against for things they simply cannot change (ie race, gender). Before his assassination, President Kennedy said that "affirmative action" was going to be taken in order to counter these forms of discrimination, and to insure that everyone has an equal shot at success.

In order to stay on topic, I'll just note that true proponents of affirmative action, like myself, do not believe that affirmative action is the only way, or even the best way to level the playing field between minorities and majorities. We typically believe that it is the best way currently devised to recognize such social injustices and do not believe it should be eradicated before something else that better suits America as a whole is conjured up and implemented.

Let's rewind a little bit, and recall that my brother believes no matter if a country is 1st or 3rd world, that given ample money and time, there's no excuse for their direliction in preparing for the games. The inherent flaw in such a statement is that there is clearly a difference between a 1st and a 3rd world country (And I am in no way implying that Greece is a 3rd world country, but no country is more 1st world than we are). There is certainly a reason for this distinction.

Growing up in such a privileged country, my brother fails to see that there are certain inscribed hurdles that Greece had to jump over in putting on The Games that we never even think about here in this country. There are numerous terrorists (not al-Qaeda related) groups homegrown in Greece. Certain resources, and the wherewhithal with which to obtain them aren't necessarily at their fingertips like they are here. Indeed, I'm sure that there are numerous things that I can't even imagine, that also played a role in their Olympic delays.

I can't really blame my brother though. He is a priveledged American, and has never walked in the shoes of Athens' mayor, whose husband was murdered by a Greek terror organization.

Then again, yes I can.

You'd think that my brother, who has been "ghosted" by white (and sometimes other minority) security guards in a store for no reason, might recognize that no matter how affluent he is, he is still a target. And surely, I'd expect my brother to realize the parallels between his notions and those of people like President Bush (who hasn't lived a day as a minority, but wants to end affirmative action).

I painted it clearly for my brother. The ample time and money that my brother was touting, I'd liken unto affirmative action and acceptance into college as a minority. 1st and 3rd world, I'd liken unto being white and minority, respectively.

Now, inherent in the notion of being 3rd world are such things like severe poverty, lack of industrialization, and little access to technology. All things that the USA doesn't have to think or worry about. Likewise, as a result of minority status, women aren't given equal pay, blacks don't technically have the right to vote (the voting rights act has to be renewed every 10 years or so), and rich, white men have run this country since its inception. All things that the majority rarely contemplates (I'm extrapolating that conclusion from the cornucopia of conversations I've had with people who can't even understand the concept of affirmative action).

Getting into college only presented me with a chance to succeed. It didn't change the way people looked at me (solely because of my race). I heard numerous negative, racial comments, was shocked to learned that many of my friends had never befriended a black person before, and certainly noted neglect and sometimes mistreatment by Professors who seemingly had an aversion to anyone that darkened their classroom. Likewise, giving Greece money and time to put on the games didn't change the political, social, or economic struggles that the country faced. Money and time were indeed like affirmative action for Greece. They didn't change the atmosphere, they only gave Greece a chance to prove itself to the rest of the world.

So where does my brother get off feeling so high and mighty?

I don't know, but unfortunately he's not the only minority I've seen get comfortable in one of their majority offices, and take that opportunity to castigate other less fortunate people. And maybe therein lies the reason for such condemnatory behavior. Maybe by criticizing another group for their "incompetence," minorities get to vent frustrations that were born in their own mistreatment.

It's like the child on the playground that is consistently bullied, always seeking an opportunity to release their anger. They find someone who is subordinant to them, and jump on that chance to exact their revenge.

So maybe it is a lesson in human psychology. Or maybe not. All I know is that we should be slow to criticize, and be cautious to "do unto others as we would have them to do unto to (us)."

-Maelstrom

Are You Kidding Me?

In the United States of America, Presidential Elections occur once every four years. During the election year, candidates have an opportunity to display to the public just what it is that they stand for, and why they should be elected. Well unfortunately, this election year has been everything but informative. Neither candidate is focusing on the issues that actually matter to the people, and when they attempt to, they often get sidetracked by peripheral issues.

Quite frankly, I was furious that the war in Iraq was the major topic discussed during the former half of this year's campaigning. Though it is severely important and deserves considerable attention, there are plenty of other topics that should garner equal attention by the Presidential candidates (ie Education, Health Care, Job Creation, Environmental Policy, etc.).

Well, the Iraq War discussions turned into a sideways debate that arrived at a complete state of vanity. Instead of figuring out how to handle the war that we had engaged ourselves in as a country, Democrats and Republicans began pointing fingers and carried out pointless debates over the reasons we went to war. Now clearly we went to war under false pretenses, and the country was indeed mislead. Those responsible for such a disaster should be held accountable and reprimanded in some form or fashion, but can we move on. The fact is that we went to war, pissed off the whole planet, and need to figure out the best possible way to benefit the people we claimed to be helping as well as preserve the lives of our soldiers.

So move on we did.

Sadly enough though, we've moved from one pointless debate to another. Instead of considering Senator John Kerry's Senate voting record, or even his purported Presidential platform, all we keep hearing about is his Vietnam War record. How silly!

Well, here's what I think.

John Kerry can't really be mad about all the attention and controversy that his Vietnam past is conjuring up. He was the one who made his Service and Veteran status an issue. The problem is that he vaunted up the fact that he volunteered for the war, and served his time, while seemingly forgetting that he came back and denounced the war. So, he needs to realize that you can't have it both ways. Furthermore, it's perfectly fine to oppose a war. Therefore he need not try portray himself as a man that fought and came back with no ill thoughts towards the war.

As for Bush, he should denounce the "Swift Boat" ads, not because he has anything to do with them, but because it's the right thing to do. It's hard for the Bush administration to say that they aren't connected to the "Swift Boat" ads at all when Bush won't even separate himself from them. The Bush Campaign strategists keep touting their clean campaign and say that the Kerry Campaign is and has taken many cheap shots at Bush. Well, if they were so magnanimous, they would denounce these independent ads (as Kerry denounced independent ads against Bush), and quit sticking up for Bush by saying that he's not required to denounce them. I don't see why he wouldn't just denounce them anyway. From my vantage point, he looks like a really mean and dirty candidate for just allowing this to balloon into what it has-but clearly, I might be in the minority there!

Finally, the media is just as much to blame for this futile form of campaigning as the people who make the insidious ads. News stations nationwide, listen up:

STOP INTERVIEWING VETERANS ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT KERRY'S WAR RECORD!

I can't believe that all the news buzz is about John Kerry's Vietnam service. Who cares? Seriously, are you kidding me? We can't discuss anything else? Can we not relive a war that I wasn't even around to witness. Can we discuss issues that matter domestically? Can we quit pointing fingers?

Now, every veteran can seemingly get air time in either support or in protest to Kerry. Some rudely suggesting that his war medals weren't earned. Incidentally, I think that if this were a boxing match, saying that Kerry inflicted wounds on himself in order to earn Purple Hearts would be likened unto throwing five hard uppercuts below the belt.

People, like Former Presidential Candidate Bob Dole, are calling for Kerry to apologize for his testimony before a senate panel thirty years ago. Well Mr. Dole, please tell me what that will accomplish today? The next four years? Absolutely nothing. If you didn't like his testimony, you should have told him then; now is not the time!

What we are witnessing is a political circus in full swing. And I'm flat sick of it. When are we going to discuss the best possible way to benefit the Iraqi people while bringing our troops back home? When are we going to truly figure out how to "leave no child behind" educationally? When will the air be breathable every day in Los Angeles and Houston? How can we prevent people from working for fifty and sixty years out of necessity? When will people be able to buy necessary prescription drugs without having to cross the border into Canada? When will women and minorities receive equal pay and equal opportunity?

John Kerry and George W. Bush, these are the issues, and the American public hopes that you address them before November 2nd!

-Maelstrom

Goodies?

A new hip-hop artist, by the name of Ciara, recently dropped her first single. The title of the single is "Goodies," and in it she proclaims that if you're "lookin for the goodies, keep on lookin' cuz they stay in the jar!" So essentially, she's not the kind of girl that you're just gonna spit game to and end up waking up next to the following morning.

Not a bad message if you're listening to the song in your car (minus the Petey Pablo rap verses). But upon viewing the video, you might find yourself a little confused.

There she is, gyrating like a pop tart that's just risen, leaving you with the impression that her goodies are ripe and ready.

Ok, to be fair, she is wearing jeans and a top.

However, her jeans are extremely low cut (especially enticing since she spends half of the video bouncing her hinder parts in an apparent attempt to tease you with "what's in the jar"), and her top only covers her arms and breast (and could almost be mistaken for skin paint because it is so tight).

Although the lyrics suggest a cool young lady that isn't gonna easily give it up, the video displays a young lady who is throwin it all around, in what some might suggest invites negative male sexual attention. If you haven't seen this version of the video, watch MTV or VH1 because BET runs a much cleaner version.

I raise this issue because for years, I have heard women argue that no matter how provocatively they dress, men shouldn't make assumptions about the kind of girl that they are. Furthermore, men shouldn't expect a certain behavior, like easy sex, out of a woman because she's dressing provocatively.

Fair enough; I agree.

However, although men shouldn't make assumptions, they're going to (in fact, so are other women). And no matter how wrong it is, recognize that how you dress and carry yourself will send a powerful message to "the viewing audience." And frankly put, it can be very confusing.

I heard the very illustrious comedian, Dave Chappelle, once address this issue in a comedy skit. I'll paraphrase what he said:

"If you were walking down the street and someone snatched your purse/wallet, and you looked around for help, and saw me standing there in a Policeman's Uniform. You'd probably walk up to me and ask me for help. Well then, I'd respond that although I'm wearing the uniform, I'm not a policeman, and you should go somewhere else to seek help."

Confusing, huh?

Now certainly the assumption was wrong, but given the social norm, it was completely valid. Policemen walk around in police uniforms, not average citizens.

My point is that people should be careful that what they are saying and doing all line up. As the cliche goes, "it's hard for me to hear what you're saying, for seeing what you're doing."

-Maelstrom

Sorry! :o(

Ok, I'm so incredibly sorry for my hiatus from weblogging. However, it isn't because my brain has stopped thinking, and trust me, there are multitudinous whirlpools of contemplation surrounding each vicissitude of my life. And once I get acclimmated to life in my new surroundings (at a new school, in a new State, in a strange time zone), I shall flood this site with a whirlwind of information, thought, and insight that I hope you (the reader) will find beneficial.

But until then, feel free to challenge my already posted blogs with comments of your own. And most of all, brace yourself for the coming storm that is The Vortex!

-Maelstrom

ps: I'd like to send a shout out to my DFWG...U know who U R!