What Is and What Should Never Be: Why the Hypersexualization of Women Does Us as a Society No Favours Whatsoever

This one's been on my mind for a good long while, now. Why is it that a lot of people wish we could live by the morals and standards of the 1950's? Why do we long for a bygone era when people treated each other with basic decency? Well, just look all around you. It's a complete mess. I'm positively certain that, at one time or another, you've been at a fine eatery with your friends when, all of the sudden, one of them belts out a raunchy one-liner about wanting to either grab a female patron's unmentionables, take her out to a venue conducive for sexual intercourse, or both(as is so often the case). I'd be so embarrassed, but it seems that most everybody else would join in with the gutter talk. What happened? We used to be better than this. We now live in such a sick, diseased, and depraved culture, my friends, and that's a fact which you should be able to pick up on by mere virtue of existence. Men seem to view women in such a sorry fashion these days that it now seems they only choose to go out on dates and make friends with a woman so that the man may eventually have his roll in the hay(instead of to actually form a long-standing friendship with someone). These next few paragraphs will, I hope, explain clearly and reasonedly why this view is the wrong view and why it serves as a detriment to society.

Getting to the root of the problem is not as easy as it might seem. These attitudes have been around since at least the days of the Roman Empire, if not for all of known time. These attitudes were put in check by a Christian society which held all people to a certain moral standard. This continued from the days of the Pilgrims until fairly recently. Everything seemed to descend in the 1960's, with the anti-Vietnam War movement's embracing of the free love movement. From its humble beginnings, the free love crowd has advocated an agenda which opposes the covenant of marriage. Widely considered anarchistic and atheistic in nature, the free love crowd believes in man's fundamental right to experiment(sexually) in whichever way he sees as being benefiting to himself. Put it another way: They are ardent proponents of hedonism in its purest form. Their whole deal is to immediately act upon the whims of physical attraction and do it with whoever and whatever. All of this had been kept at bay by the prevailing Christian morals for hundreds of years, and then along came the hipsters with their anti-establishment nostrums. They took to the streets protesting, in addition to the unconstitutional, illegal war in Vietnam, the deeply held views of the generations of their parents and grandparents. They embraced the free love crowd in an attempt to try something new, and then they went mainstream as a prominent anti-war political force, propelling the sexual revolutionaries into the social consciousness with them. It's all been on a downhill slide since then, gents and dames.

There are so many glaring issues with these "ideas."

The first issue I find with such ideas I will pose as a hypothetical. Let's say I meet a nice young girl, and over the course of months/years we grow to love and respect each other for who we are as people. Now let's say I start viewing her in a sexual manner over the course of weeks. If I were to do that(and this, I must stress, is strictly hypothetical), do you think I could ever come to love and respect her as a person after having mentally performed unholy actions upon her? I don't. The only way all that would be acceptable is within the confines of a marriage, where we would be bound together for life by God himself.

Which leads me to my second issue: How can a relationship survive if you're sexually experimenting with other people? How does your woman trust you if she knows you're beating around the bush, so to speak? Answer: She can't trust you, and it won't survive. Why else do you see high rates of divorce and broken families in relationships where the man has cheated? After some trying, the woman just comes to realize that she just can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. And while we're on the subject of Humpty Dumpty and cheating men, in a most famous example, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich(R-GA) tried to get his second wife to agree to what is known as an 'open marriage.' It went over like a lead zeppelin, and she divorced him(Side note: Can you imagine how our country would have survived having that philandering fool as President? I sure can't. It's enough that we had him as Speaker under his philandering brother-in-arms President Clinton. I think we dodged 40 or so years of God-mandated darkness, there.). And the lesson here, gents and dames, is this: When the trust is gone, the same can be said for the love. You cannot have love without trust. All an 'open marriage' is designed to do is save the man from the embarrassment and humiliation of outright divorce(if people were just a little more committed, then there would be no need for such a thing, but I can only dream, can't I?).

My third issue pertains to two common pitfalls of sexual experimentation: Out-of-wedlock child-birth and STD's. When a man gets hot for a girl and manages to sack her, do you really think he's considering anything other than what's going on in his 'moment of glory?' I strongly think not. What's he going to do if she carries his child to term(if he doesn't choose to pay for an abortion instead) or, God forbid, he gets an STD from her? What's he gonna do then? Will he marry the lady and father the child, or just run away and hide? What's he gonna do to earn the money necessary for both raising the child and receiving medical treatment for aforementioned STD's? I don't know, but all I can say is that decision lies in the court of him, her, her doctors, and/or their respective legal teams.

My fourth and final(at least for this report) issue regards the collision of the experimentation environment and the family environment. Not only does swinging/experimenting adversely affect the marriage, but there's also the children to be considered. At a young age, children look to their parents for influence and inspiration. I know full well that, at some point, the parents will not measure up to the mental image which their children have of them, and in the process exposing their innately human flaws, but still. There's a stark difference between letting them down easy and repeatedly punching them in the mouth. Swinging has a lasting, damaging impact upon the children. What is a child to say when his friends are talking about what their fathers do for a living? "My daddy's a firefighter!" "My daddy's a rich CEO!" "My daddy works for the Governor!" "My daddy's a swinger." "What's a swinger?" "He sleeps with women other than mommy." That's got to be torture to a little fellow. And I've not even gotten to the inevitable divorcing of the parents. As I have no personal experience with divorce, I can safely say that I know not whereof I speak, but from what I've heard and seen of other people who've been through that experience, I feel I can say this: The pain of the parents divorcing can only be rivalled by the pain of the death of one of the parents. If anything good can come from a divorce, it is that, according to a chapter in Rick Santorum's seminal book "It Takes a Family," children of divorcees are learning from the mistakes made by their parents, and are themselves trying harder to make their marriage work. Concluding my final issue, swinging around the block trolling for young, firm bodies to work it with is an anathema to any marriage and family relationship.

What one must do to reverse this disturbing and, frankly, disgusting trend lies with each and every one individual. One must practice morals as taught by the Bible, a book which this country was founded upon. I'm not a practising Christian by a long shot, but that doesn't mean that I don't see the wisdom in following the moral code as told by true men of God. Men must love their woman with all their heart and soul, and women must do the same for their man. Men must stop tip-toeing through the tulips and get their act straight! Imagine what a better place the United States of America would be if we had more happy families and less broken ones? We'd be well on our way back to both that dreamed-of world and #1 in the world again. And think of it this way: If more of our US Representatives and Senators were happily married to a good wife and fewer of them were swingers, the two Congressional chambers wouldn't be as keen to wage wars on countries where war is un-necessary. They'd have a leveller and more peacefully inclined head waiting for them at home to talk things over with.

In concluding this editorial, I hope to have expressed in as clearly and reasonedly a way as I can the pitfalls of viewing women in a sexual manner. They're human beings like you and me. We should give them the same consideration which us males give ourselves. I'll relate this to you: Years ago, when I was a ranting and raving sexist, the only way in which I viewed a famous lady positively was in a sexual manner. Years later, after having watched and observed beautiful women such as CNN's Erin Burnett and a couple of young ladies whom I've met in my travels, I can safely say that sexual attraction isn't everything. It matters more to me who she is as a person than what she may or may not look like underneath a white sheet. I wouldn't dare to think of any of the above women in a sexual manner. I already think highly of them, and I wouldn't want to ruin that with a vision of unholy origin. That's a sin I'd richly deserve to spend an eternity in hell for.

Television Journalism's 5 Most Attractive Women of 2012

In one year of television news watching, several female news talents have caught my male eye. From day to day, depending upon the age of and the amount of the makeup used, the attractiveness of various female news talents will vary. Some look good in it, while some don't(on that same wavelength, some will use too much, while some will use too little). With that said, only 5 female news talents really stand out to my eye as being of the highest calibre of attractiveness, regardless of the makeup content. This list is merely based upon my personal taste, and not on my view of the person's journalistic integrity. I won't take my precious time to explain why I consider them to be such, as I find that explaining one's tastes is a rather hard feat to pull off. With all that in mind, here is my list of television journalism's 5 most attractive women of 2012(listed from 5th to 1st):

5. Trish Regan(Bloomberg)

4. Brooke Baldwin(CNN)

3. Kate Bolduan(CNN)

2. Savannah Guthrie(NBC News)

1. Erin Burnett(CNN)

I hope you appreciated my 2 cents, and I hope you'll give your 2 cents in the comments.

2012 Electoral Predictions

As we come to the close of the campaign for the United States Presidency(or, as I like to call it, "Protectorate of the Electorate"), one thing has remained constant: Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama has been able to break out of the currently tied nature of the Presidential contest and vault into a clear lead. With that said, many things have caught my eye which lead me to believe there will be a landslide win on Tuesday(I think we should have a call by 10:30 PM). Those things are as follows:

1. Independents: Mitt Romney has held a lead from anywhere between 8 and 13 points nationally amongst the pivotal Independent vote. In the states, the margin is generally much larger, with Romney, in some instances, leading by as much as 26 points(in the swing state of Virginia). Followers of elections must remember that, in 2004, John Kerry won Indies by 1-3 points nationally, but still fell a hair short of winning over then-President Bush. To win this voting bloc by double digits is indicative of a groundswell of support for Romney which will propel him to a landslide victory. With that in mind, it is worth noting that the winning of the Independent vote can usually be attributable to the enthusiasm which one party or the other holds for their nominated candidate.

2. Party enthusiasm: Right now, Republicans are more enthusiastic about their chances than are Democrats. Republican enthusiasm is two-fold. They are not only enthused about beating Obama, but they have also grown to like Romney as both a person and a policy maker. Democrats, however, are depressed and un-enthused for a few reasons, not the least of which is a stagnant economy and the handling of the fiasco in Libya. A prime example of these factors in action is the slipping of Obama's leads in predominantly Democratic states such as Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

3. Late Breakers: Those who are undecided at this stage of the election will usually do one of two things. They will either vote for the challenger(Romney) or stay at home on Election Day. If the state(such as, say, Ohio) is close enough in the polls, the undecideds will likely determine how the state goes. Undecideds will have likely perceive themselves as having too much at stake to sit this one out, so I see this small chunk breaking for Romney by a 5-1 margin.

So, without further ado, here are my predictions and musings with regards as to how this election will go down.

UNITED STATES PRESIDENCY

AL(9 EV's): Mitt Romney 63.7%-36.3% over Barack Obama.
AK(3 EV's): Mitt Romney 59.5%-39.8% over Barack Obama.
AZ(11 EV's): Mitt Romney 56.5%-43.5% over Barack Obama.
AR(6 EV's): Mitt Romney 62.0%-38.0% over Barack Obama.
CA(55 EV's): Barack Obama 53.8%-45.8% over Mitt Romney.
CO(9 EV's): Mitt Romney 51.7%-47.9% over Barack Obama.
CT(7 EV's): Barack Obama 49.7%-48.9% over Mitt Romney.
DE(3 EV's): Barack Obama 58.6%-41.0% over Mitt Romney.
DC(3 EV's): Barack Obama 71.4%-28.5% over Mitt Romney.
FL(29 EV's): Mitt Romney 52.3%-46.5% over Barack Obama.
GA(16 EV's): Mitt Romney 58.1%-41.2% over Barack Obama.
HI(4 EV's): Barack Obama 66.2%-33.6% over Mitt Romney.
ID(4 EV's): Mitt Romney 74.0%-25.4% over Barack Obama.
IL(20 EV's): Barack Obama 57.5%-41.7% over Mitt Romney
IN(11 EV's): Mitt Romney 56.0%-42.9% over Barack Obama.
IA(6 EV's): Mitt Romney 50.6%-48.8% over Barack Obama.
KS(6 EV's): Mitt Romney 58.7%-39.9% over Barack Obama.
KY(8 EV's): Mitt Romney 57.5%-42.5% over Barack Obama.
LA(8 EV's): Mitt Romney 61.5%-37.9% over Barack Obama.
ME(4 EV's): Mitt Romney 50.9%-48.5% over Barack Obama.
MD(10 EV's): Barack Obama 58.1%-41.9% over Mitt Romney.
MA(11 EV's): Barack Obama 58.4%-41.4% over Mitt Romney.
MI(16 EV's): Mitt Romney 50.5%-49.5% over Barack Obama.
MN(10 EV's): Mitt Romney 49.5%-48.5% over Barack Obama.
MS(6 EV's): Mitt Romney 64.5%-35.5% over Barack Obama.
MO(10 EV's): Mitt Romney 55.7%-44.3% over Barack Obama.
MT(3 EV's): Mitt Romney 55.5%-43.2% over Barack Obama.
NE(5 EV's): Mitt Romney 58.5%-41.0% over Barack Obama.
NV(6 EV's): Mitt Romney 50.7%-49.0% over Barack Obama.
NH(4 EV's): Mitt Romney 51.7%-47.7% over Barack Obama.
NJ(14 EV's): Barack Obama 53.5%-46.5% over Mitt Romney.
NM(5 EV's): Barack Obama 56.3%-43.3% over Mitt Romney.
NY(29 EV's): Barack Obama 61.0%-37.5% over Mitt Romney.
NC(15 EV's): Mitt Romney 54.5%-45.3% over Barack Obama.
ND(3 EV's): Mitt Romney 58.0%-42.0% over Barack Obama.
OH(18 EV's): Mitt Romney 51.1%-48.7% over Barack Obama.
OK(7 EV's): Mitt Romney 71.5%-28.5% over Barack Obama.
OR(7 EV's): Mitt Romney 49.8%-49.4% over Barack Obama.
PA(20 EV's): Mitt Romney 51.5%-48.5% over Barack Obama.
RI(4 EV's): Barack Obama 58.0%-41.5% over Mitt Romney.
SC(9 EV's): Mitt Romney 56.5%-43.5% over Barack Obama.
SD(3 EV's): Mitt Romney 57.9%-40.9% over Barack Obama.
TN(11 EV's): Mitt Romney 63.2%-36.3% over Barack Obama.
TX(38 EV's): Mitt Romney 59.5%-40.1% over Barack Obama.
UT(6 EV's): Mitt Romney 66.5%-33.5% over Barack Obama.
VT(3 EV's): Barack Obama 60.7%-39.3% over Mitt Romney.
VA(13 EV's): Mitt Romney 51.3%-48.7% over Barack Obama.
WA(12 EV's): Mitt Romney 50.1%-49.2% over Barack Obama.
WV(5 EV's): Mitt Romney 62.5%-37.4% over Barack Obama.
WI(10 EV's): Mitt Romney 51.0%-48.5% over Barack Obama.
WY(3 EV's): Mitt Romney 70.0%-30.0% over Barack Obama.

UNITED STATES SENATE

AZ-SEN: Jeff Flake(R) 54.5%-45.5% over Richard Carmona(D). GOP HOLD.
CA-SEN: Dianne Feinstein(D) 63%-37% over Elizabeth Emken(R). DEM HOLD.
CT-SEN: Chris Murphy(D) 52.5%-47.5% over Linda McMahon(R). DEM GAIN.
DE-SEN: Tom Carper(D) 62.2%-37.8% over Kevin Wade(R). DEM HOLD.
FL-SEN: Connie Mack(R) 50.8%-49.2% over Bill Nelson(D). GOP GAIN.
HI-SEN: Mazie Hirono(D) 56.3%-43.7% over Linda Lingle(R). DEM HOLD.
IN-SEN: Richard Mourdock(R) 51.3%-48.7% over Joe Donnelly(D). GOP HOLD.
ME-SEN: Charlie Summers(R) 47.5%-45.5%-7% over Angus King(I) and Cynthia Dill(D). GOP HOLD.
MD-SEN: Ben Cardin(D) 59%-26.9%-14.1% over Daniel Bongino(R) and Rob Sobhani(I). DEM HOLD.
MA-SEN: Scott Brown(R) 52.1%-47.9% over Elizabeth Warren(D). GOP HOLD.
MI-SEN: Debbie Stabenow(D) 53.6%-46.4% over Peter Hoekstra(R). DEM HOLD.
MN-SEN: Amy Klobuchar(D) 68.5%-31.5% over Kurt Bills(R). DEM HOLD.
MS-SEN: Roger Wicker(R) 67.8%-32.2% over Albert N. Gore Jr(D). GOP HOLD.
MO-SEN: Todd Akin(R) 53.3%-46.7% over Claire McCaskill(D). GOP GAIN.
MT-SEN: Denny Rehberg(R) 51.2%-48.8% over Jon Tester(D). GOP GAIN.
NE-SEN: Deb Fischer(R) 57.1%-42.9% over Bob Kerrey(D). GOP GAIN.
NV-SEN: Dean Heller(R) 52.9%-47.1% over Shelley Berkley(D). GOP HOLD.
NJ-SEN: Bob Menendez(D) 55.3%-44.7% over Joe Kyrillos(R). DEM HOLD.
NM-SEN: Martin Heinrich(D) 55%-45% over Heather Wilson(R). DEM HOLD.
NY-SEN: Kirsten Gillibrand(D) 68.4%-31.6% over Wendy Long(R). DEM HOLD.
ND-SEN: Rick Berg(R) 51.5%-48.5% over Heidi Heitkamp(D). GOP GAIN.
OH-SEN: Josh Mandel(R) 50.3%-49.7% over Sherrod Brown(D). GOP GAIN.
PA-SEN: Tom Smith(R) 51.3%-48.7% over Bob Casey Jr(D). GOP GAIN.
RI-SEN: Sheldon Whitehouse(D) 68.5%-31.5% over Barry Hinckley(R). DEM HOLD.
TN-SEN: Bob Corker(R) 73%-27% over Mark Clayton(D). GOP HOLD.
TX-SEN: Ted Cruz(R) 63.3%-36.7% over Paul Sadler(D). GOP HOLD.
UT-SEN: Orrin Hatch(R) 74%-26% over Scott Howell(D). GOP HOLD.
VT-SEN: Bernie Sanders(I/D) 67.7%-32.3% over John MacGovern(R). INDY/DEM HOLD.
VA-SEN: George Allen(R) 51%-49% over Tim Kaine(D). GOP GAIN.
WA-SEN: Maria Cantwell(D) 57.5%-42.5% Michael Baumgartner(R). DEM HOLD.
WV-SEN: Joe Manchin(D) 65.2%-29.8%-5% over John Raese(R) and Bob Baber(Mountain). DEM HOLD.
WI-SEN: Tommy Thompson(R) 50.7%-49.3% over Tammy Baldwin(D). GOP GAIN.
WY-SEN: John Barrasso(R) 71%-29% over Tim Chesnut(D). GOP HOLD.

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

GOP{+58(With the addition of 9 newly-drawn seats)}: AZ-1, AZ-2, AZ-9, AR-4, CA-3, CA-9, CA-21, CA-24, CA-41, CA-46, CA-47, CA-51, CO-7, CT-4, CT-5, DE-AL, FL-6, FL-22, GA-2, GA-9, GA-12, IL-12, IL-13, IN-2, IA-1, IA-2, IA-3, KY-6, ME-1, ME-2, MA-3, MA-4, MA-6, MA-9, MI-5, MN-1, MO-5, NV-4, NJ-6, NM-1, NY-1, NY-4, NY-17, NY-25, NY-27, NC-7, NC-8, NC-11, NC-13, OH-16, OK-2, OR-4, OR-5, PA-12, PA-13, PA-17, RI-1, SC-7, TX-15, TX-25, TX-35, TX-36, UT-2, UT-4, WA-1, WA-6, WV-3
Democrats(Sole "gains" are in newly-drawn districts): CA-29, FL-9, OH-3, TX-33, TX-34

STATE GOVERNORSHIPS

DE-GOV: Jack Markell(D) 62%-38% over Jeff Cragg(R). DEM HOLD.
IN-GOV: Mike Pence(R) 56%-44% over John Gregg(D). GOP HOLD.
MO-GOV: Jay Nixon(D) 57%-43% over Dave Spence(R). DEM HOLD.
MT-GOV: Rick Hill(R) 53.5%-46.5% over Steve Bullock(D). GOP GAIN.
NH-GOV: Ovide LaMontagne(R) 51.1%-48.9% over Maggie Hassan(D). GOP GAIN.
NC-GOV: Pat McCrory(R) 62.5%-37.5% over Walter Dalton(D). GOP GAIN.
ND-GOV: Jack Dalrymple(R) 59%-41% over Ryan Taylor(D). GOP HOLD.
UT-GOV: Gary Herbert(R) 66.7%-33.3% over Peter Cooke(D). GOP HOLD.
VT-GOV: Peter Schumlin(D) 64.1%-35.9% over Randy Brock(R). DEM HOLD.
WA-GOV: Rob McKenna(R) 51.7%-48.3% over Jay Inslee(D). GOP GAIN.
WV-GOV: Earl Tomblin(D) 59.5%-40.5% over Bill Maloney(R). DEM HOLD.

THE FINAL BREAKDOWN

Presidency:

Mitt Romney: 370 EV's
Barack Obama: 168 EV's

Senate: GOP 56-44, with Independent Senator Bernie Sanders(I-VT) caucusing with the Democrats.

House: GOP 300-135.

Governorships: GOP 34-16

FINAL THOUGHTS

Mitt Romney did what no other GOP candidate(bar maybe Santorum) could do: He drew the contrast between himself and Obama, put forth a plan, and gave the average American hope for the future in the wake of his imminent victory.

So, in conclusion, Democrats dug themselves into this hole by re-nominating a badly flawed President. His handling of the economy and foreign policy(which led to the Libya fiasco) are mere manifestations of his flaws. Had Democrats taken my advice(here and here), they would not be on the precipice of a historic loss such as this. Mitt Romney will, in fact, beat Obama like a weapon of mass percussion. Democrats=Too dumb for words.

Hope you appreciated my musings on how the election will go down.

Agents of Deception: Why Barney & Friends' Theme Music is Torture to the Intellectual Mind and Deceives the Masses

New torture techniques used against Guantanamo Bay detainees have been in the news lately. One such method of 'torture' is the playing of the "Barney & Friends" song which goes "I love you. You love me. We're a happy family." ad nauseum. From the jump, this appeared to be a mixed bag of marbles. On the one hand, those terrorists who've not grasped themselves a full and complete understanding of the English language(or those who are just too pea-brained to give a damn, regardless of knowledge of the aforementioned language) would not be negatively affected by this new method of torture. On the other hand, you have those terrorists who would suddenly and simply spontaneously combust over the love overtones emanating from the song. It's not just torture to terrorists, among other haters who are just gonna hate. It's also torture to the intellectual mind, as it brings to the fore a whole new level of deception and outright lies. The fact that we would trust our kids with Barney is concerning enough as it is, but the fact that we do so knowing that our children take to heart the far left, peace and love hokum espoused in songs such as "I love you. You love me..." is a cause for great alarm. All of this puts our society in the jaws of great peril, and I will explain why in the following paragraphs.

Aside from being too sunshiny and happy happy joy joy for my tastes, "We're a happy family" is not only a factual fallacy, but also is a massive blunder that would cost any candidate an election. First of all, who is this "we" that is constantly referred to? "We" has such broad connotations that I don't know where to begin. Back to the original topic, we as a nation and a planet are not one big "happy family." If we were, there wouldn't be all these endless wars, massacres, genocide, famine, corruption, and general strife around the world. And, on a more local level, rates of divorce, single-parenting, out-of-wedlock births, gang rape, armed robbery, drug usage, fraud, and murder would be at or damn near zero if we were actually one big "happy family." They are at all time highs, especially in the inner cities. And when do members of the big "happy family" fantasize about one another in a sexual manner? Never! We as a nation and a planet are not one big "happy family." Rather, we are a nation ridden to the core with malcontentment and misanthropy. Society has lost God and has got to get itself back to the garden. To say otherwise is serial deception. And we've not even gotten into the political ramifications of such falsehoods.

Let us not kid ourselves, a falsehood to this degree brings with it political ramifications. Some are small, but most are broad and encompass many aspects of our lives. Statements like "I love you. You love me" are massively hyperbolic and misleading. When you boil it down to its essential components, such claims are really just hipster brouhaha on steroids, and it has our nation in such a stranglehold that we might not ever come back from the brink. Whether or not you love me is your choice, but that does not make it safe to assume that I love you in return. Such assumptions lead to many a broken heart when our hopes are dashed. Broken hearts then lead to hostility, hostility leads to war, and war leads to thousands of dead people. So, in conclusion, broad-sweeping assumptions can inadvertently lead to war and death. So can lying. Lying is like backstabbing, but I've already delivered a screed on that. Broad-sweeping statements such as "I love you. You love me." can also fit into the category of lies, because, again, you don't know if I really love you, do you?

In conclusion, I hope to have made my points in a clear and reasoned fashion. I must note that I have got nothing against Barney personally(some of my fondest childhood memories were of reading those Barney children's books). What I do have misgivings with is deception, lies, and hippie propaganda disguised as children's music/theme music. It's indoctrination in the worst form.

One Toke Over the Line: Why I Support Pot Legalization and Why Drug Laws are a Burden

In our lives, we hold many opinions near and dear to our hearts. Over time, however, our views on certain subjects change. While my views haven't changed that much through the years, there is one notable issue on which my mindset has changed, and that issue is the legalization of marijuana. I will explain why in the following paragraphs.

Before I deal with the specifics directly pertaining to this issue, I will first relate a personal story which brought me to my current position. A few years back, I met a guy who would become one of my best friends in life. His name was Tim, and he was a crusader for the legalization of marijuana, most notably medical marijuana. He believed that it was fundamentally wrong to deny someone their medicine, even if said medicine came in the form of a drug that was deemed 'illegal' and 'hazardous' to one's health. As many people with first-hand experience have related, the drug does not leave one with any long-term health problems when used correctly. My friend also used it as a means of escaping the rough life he led. And in reality, what is wrong with any of this? Our country was founded upon the basic principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How is someone who smokes marijuana any different from someone using his God-given liberty to pursue his happiness in such a way as not to harm others? It isn't any different at all.

Which brings me to the matter of the federal government's involvement in marijuana laws. Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to penalize dealers and users of either marijuana or any other drug? The Constitution makes no note of marijuana specifically, but the Tenth Amendment clearly mentions that powers not stated in the previous nine amendments are delegated to the states. That should clear things up, shouldn't it? Apparently not, as the federal government continues to waste billions of taxpayer dollars, not to mention human lives, on a futile war on drugs(arguably as futile as the original endeavor in futility, Vietnam) which, if anything, has led to an uptick in crime and deaths, especially in inner cities where poverty is high and the street value for marijuana is just as high. Maybe if the federal government actually followed the Constitution and delegated the power over marijuana to the states, who are directly accountable to the people they represent, we may begin to see a decrease in crime and deaths from drug violence across the nation.

In conclusion, I hope to have, at least, made my position clear and made my points in a reasonable and logical fashion. Obviously, I will not convince everybody of my points, but I at least hope to have educated somebody and given one something to think about.

Predictions and Thoughts on the WI Recall

Scott Walker(R)-52%
Tom Barrett(D)-48%

When this recall first came to my attention back in February or March, 2011, I never doubted that, given the circumstances up to that point, this recall could be successful, but I questioned the need/necessity for it. After all, Walker had only been Governor for 1-2 months. I figured they needed to give him more time. They didn't, and I, like everyone else, saw this as mere knee-jerking on the part of the Democrats. Once the public got off the anti-Walker euphoria ride and opened there eyes, they saw the same as I did. As a result, not one poll has shown anything short of Walker having the edge in his bid to fend off said recall election. Maybe if the Democrats were more tactful, they might be in a better position. Instead, they are going to lose something that they, ordinarily, should have walked away with, and might possibly end up putting the state in play come November.

Musings on Depression

I was thinking of this as I was riding through a northern suburb of Atlanta yesterday afternoon.

You want to know the kind of setting that would weigh the most heavily upon a depressed man such as myself?

Try a hot summer afternoon in the city.

That hot sun beating down upon your face is like the weight of the world reining decisive blows down upon you.

And the cars whizzing by you can reinforce these preconceived notions you have that no one gives a damn about you.

And then there's those business types that make up the inner-city crowd.

Those types, battling it out for a position atop the company ladder, have lost all touch with everyone else, which also reinforces aforementioned preconceived notions.

And the gang violence really hammers home a bloody fine point.

If you want true happiness in a protracted depressed state, then surround yourself with the best of your best friends and hang out in the secluded countryside.

People may call this solution over-simplified.

I call it learning from what I didn't do.

Just my musings on depression.