feran’s whereIstand Blog

Guys, let’s find more countries to save, more people to help, and more concepts to fight!

Oh no, this is the real one:

http://www.truthin2008.org/

But will the president tell the truth, the whole truth, about the numbers and the extent of our nation’s financial woes over the long run? Will he acknowledge the true cost of the emergency economic-stimulus package now being worked out by Congress?

The Institute for Truth in Accounting is determined that the real numbers will not only be spoken and written, but considered by all the candidates running for office this year. This nonprofit, nonpartisan institute has created a Web site to bring the financial facts to the public attention.

Source: thestreet.com

whereIstand Tags

• GeorgeWBush
• GeorgeHWBush
• Has the War on Terror been effective?
• Should Iraq be the central front in the war on terror?

I was thinking about it, and it’s actually kind of funny.

To some people, Senator Obama is the messiah, to others, a fraud. To some, a preacher, to others, a harbringer of destruction. To some inexperienced, and to others a symbol of change. But I think one of the most prevailing characteristics that people come to realize about Barack Obama is that he stands for change. He sways people’s emotions and makes people riled up, and I think that’s a lot of the reason why people are afraid of him. They’re afraid of change. And as one article pointed out – Obama does indeed possess a risk factor, but it’s a question of the gamble, and whether that risk is enough for you to dare to dream again.

But the irony is that my support of Obama pre-dates his grandiose speeches.

To me, Obama was always just another politician. I never heard his great speeches that made people feel ‘moved’, or follow him like zealots, or worship his supposed greatness. I’ve never heard his speeches that make people feel like their lives have been touched.

Nope, not at all. I think that the emotional high is probably why a lot of people get shocked when they hear the controversial rumors, or when the trash and the drama gets spewed up. Because Obama becomes wrapped in this bubble and this image, this symbol of hope, and the more faith and energy you dress it up with the more it could hurt when you see things that might make you doubt yourself.

But if people wonder either way – they’re voting and they’re supporting for the wrong reasons. Not that I think that’s necessarily completely bad though. Things have been the same for so long that it is completely true that we need a change.

Regardless being that my support of Obama existed before the speeches, before the “Obamessiah” nonsense, and before his legions of followers supported him, then, what exactly is my grounding in my support of Obama?

A further irony, is that there are certain issues upon which we disagree that shock me at times, and are things that I don’t really necessarily agree with.

Regardless Obama and my opinions are the same for the most part.

But given all these factors – why would I support Obama?

It’s because Obama has something that other candidates don’t have. I haven’t really been big in politics for years, and I hadn’t really followed much lately at all. It just happens that my job is intertwined with politics a decent amount so I just happened upon snippets over time. Snippets of things he’s said to reporters and to the press, and things that he’s taken positions on.

And what I caught was the undertone of a very intelligent man.

You see there are some issues where answers are extremely difficult, if you want to retain what you truly believe, and stand by it, and be honest, while still not pushing people off because your beliefs are off the norm, or conflict with what your supporters believe.

And it was on issues here and there, where I was honestly expecting the typical politician crap. The typical crap they spew out to satisfy their party, or their interest groups, or whatever personal agendas they have to win.

But Obama didn’t do that.

I think one of the things that stands out to me the most is that Obama is an honest man. He’s skilled, he’s tactful, he can handle things appropriately, but he can move in a way where he can do the right thing without losing face.

It’s a brilliance of psychology, that’s not easy to recognize.

So it was from his positions, and the way he carried himself, that I grew to respect Obama, and why I believe he’s the best candidate for president.

Because he’s not just another phony coming to sit at the wheel of the political Mercedes, fueled by the blood, sweat and tears of the American people. He’s not just sitting up there spewing bullshit to make people happy. He’s not taking the typical sides, or the typical routes just to win.

He’s both preserving what is right, and what he believes in, while finding a way to compromise it in a way that can make everyone happy.

I’m not an Obama zealot. And quite frankly I could care less who he knows. With money you come to know a lot of people, and a lot of those people aren’t clean regardless. There are scandals and fraud and laundering galore – but that doesn’t reflect who YOU are.

It doesn’t matter who Obama knows, or what the people he knows says. It doesn’t matter if his 3rd grade schoolteacher was a part of the KKK or his minister was psychotic.

What matters is that Barack Obama is Barack Obama. What matters is that he’s genuine, and he’s not a fraud. What matters is that unlike other politicians, he doesn’t believe that America’s broken state is largely irreparable, and that we’ll just work on fixing some rough edges.

He believes in change, in a time where so few support the notion. And he has the ability and skillset to accomplish it. And I am 110% sure that if he becomes the President of the United States of America, this country will really become a better place.

–

Addition: 05/02/2008 11:03AM

I just read this article.

And it just goes back to give you that feel of Obama as a real person. I mean honestly, what candidate would admit, “…the problem is you don’t really learn much when you’re listening to yourself talk.”

Stuff like that, the small things, are the reason why Obama stands out. I don’t get the impression that he’s just another fraud spewing bullshit to make private interest groups happy. It’s extremely rare to see a candidate who actually appears to care about the American people.

I don’t get that from anyone else. I get a lot of people trying to persuade, or trying to convince. Trying to promise. But without any real feeling or any emotion, or any sentiment to the American people.

But Obama is different. And that’s why I know he’ll beat Hillary and win the nomination, regardless of the trashtalking.

whereIstand Tags

• BarackObama

Jeremiah Wright is the typical fanatical kook. Akin to the same types as Falwell and the televangelists, a zealot and a fool.

But let’s be honest here people – it is only self-evident that when you give a crazy man the stage, he will take it like wildfire. I’m sure that Wright in his lack of infamy was assuredly not as vocal about his mental defects while Obama was attending the church.

And if you’ve been attending a church for 20 years, yes, you will know that your pastor may believe in certain things that are contrary not to both your own, but the ideals of the Church and the bible in and of itself.

Regardless it doesn’t reflect upon you that your pastor is insane. As it does not reflect upon ourselves as Americans that George Bush slaughtered millions of Iraqi innocents in his crusade on Terror.

So Obama didn’t want to publicly deface and call his pastor a lunatic.

If your mom was a fanatical “Zionist” would you publicize that on television if you were famous?

Would you take the stand and say, “Hey guys, I just wanted you to know – my mother is a lunatic, so don’t listen to her.”

Is that the type of person we want as a leader or President? Someone with no compassion, no feeling, no sympathy for the people’s feelings?

The fact that he did not immediately denounce Jeremiah Wright shows a respect and sympathy for others that is not inherent in the militant and money-driven politician framework that we view today.

In fact I am glad to see that Obama is a human, and does share a sympathy or care towards others, and even if he doesn’t always come across in the greatest way, at least he tries, and he’s honest, instead of putting up a happy face and feeding people shit they want to hear.

I don’t see him as a fraud, or a liar. Admittedly you can’t stereotype all of Wright as a complete lunatic, assuredly there were at least a few valid things that he preached or taught. But people are so quick to generalize and mark.

At the end of the day – I don’t harbor any regret or anger towards Obama for having a lunatic pastor. It has nothing to do with him. What I would not condone however, is if the pastor began gaining publicity, and he was not denounced. America is supposed to be about “innocent until proven guilty”. Obama gave the man a chance. He took advantage of it. And it’s Obama’s responsibility to denounce him. And he did.

No damage has been done. No lives were lost, no net negative effect. The only result is that people are slinging mud like children, continuing to avoid the things that really matter, but hey – that’s what America’s all about right?

whereIstand Tags

• BarackObama
• Will Barack Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright prevent him from winning the Democratic nomination?

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/profiting-disaster-capitalism
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

Naomi Klein does raise good points. However it’s the natural course of order in the world. When something is lost, someone else is always gaining. When someone is gaining, someone else is always losing.

So let’s play devil’s advocate.

Given that you know a war is going to happen, who wouldn’t invest? Seriously.

Let’s take housing as it is today. Everyone’s freaking out about the housing market, people are going into foreclosure, prices are dropping. People are running around in fear like chickens with their heads cut off.

You know what I tell people? Now’s the best time to buy!

Let’s take the CEO of Moniker.com. He brokered wallstreet.com for millions of dollars — why? Because when the whole web thing crashed and went down the smart people turned the bankrupt companies losses into assets. He went out of his way to pick up the domain names of several bankrupt companies after the dot com bust and he brokered them later.

So let’s take the war. Someone bombed the WTC. Given that a war is going to happen, the business decision to do is to realize that there will exist companies that will benefit from the war, and then to invest.

Is it sick? Yes.

Is it wrong? Yes.

Is it reality? Unfortunately.

Next time a war comes around I’m going to invest too. Every single ‘loss’ or ‘crash’, someone else is benefitting. It’s just a matter of perception.

Is what I’m saying sick? Yes.

Is what I’m saying really messed up? Yeah.

But what can you do? We can all protest but no one gives a shit. The country’s been disarmed, the US is too huge, the media is too influential (in seconds you could be painted from a hero to the biggest piece of shit on earth), and the chance for rebellion is almost impossible.

So what can you do? People are conservative. People live in fear. People like what they’re used to. They’re afraid of the unknown. They want to be able to sleep at night. They’re selfish.

So what can you do?

Regardless my point is – screw the conspiracy theories. ExxonMobil does not rule the world. You can only have so much money. It’s illogical to assume that politicians are so money-hungry and greedy that they need to kill the lives of millions of innocent people just so an oil company can have a million dollars. You have to realize there is some ulterior motive.

Unfortunately that motive isn’t purely based on money. I don’t know what it is. If we all knew what it was maybe the world wouldn’t be so messed up. But please, don’t give me “new world order” “private banks rule the world” bullcrap. There has to be some ultimate goal. These people already have millions of dollars. They have to have a plan or want to do something with it.

I always wondered, how do people pride themselves on being a “member of the right wing”?

I think that over time humanity has begun to attribute generalized concepts into labels to differentiate themselves and reinforce the faulty integrity of their existences through defining characteristics that divide us as opposed to unite us.

But leaving my philosophical tangent, I state that obviously some Americans have forgotten what left and right mean.

Left-wing is characterized by items attributed to the people, and to social equality, power to the people. Therefore to embrace ‘democracy’ as Americans claim to do (and for some, worship, oddly), one must be left wing to begin with.

Furthermore, right-wing is attributed to authoritarian states.

The National Socialist German Workers Party was “far right”, by the way (the Nazis). So, if you believe in fascism, rule by the few, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism, then by all means take pride in identifying yourself with the right.

But if you believe that individual people have rights too, and that we should all be treated equally, then identify yourself with the left.

But rather than making up labels to divide us, I think that we should embrace the fact that moral ideals and judgments exist beyond generalizations of thought pools, and that we should all pitch in together to do what’s right (no pun intended), instead of creating nationalistic tendencies around concepts that don’t serve any productive purpose.

whereIstand Tags

• BarackObama
• HillaryClinton
• JohnMcCain
• Will the Left and Right ever find a way to live with each other in a civilized manner?
• What impact do political parties have on government?
• Should the U.S. have political party affiliations?
• Is the two-party system an effective means of governing?

So everyone (such as this lady as an example) is harping on about how Barack Obama is an elitist for his statements in Pennsylvania. Yet I’m still not 100% sure how attempting to sympathize with an assumed bitterness makes him elitist, nor do I understand how it makes him condescending.

I understand that elitist people are the type of people who think they’re better than other people, but I don’t understand how Barack Obama was openly claiming that he believed he was better than others, nor do I see how he was looking down upon people.

So he thought they may have been bitter. First of all, why would bitterness be considered an unwholesome trait? Why would being angry at being screwed or feeling taken advantage of be considered wrong? Being angry or bitter is a perfectly human, normal, and natural feeling and emotion.

I don’t think the statement in itself was condescending, but rather that people are choosing to take it that way. Suppressing your emotions and wearing a facade of happyglory isn’t the right way to go about life. We only solve problems through confronting them, not suppressing them. Bitterness is not an inferior feeling.

Arrogance would be a more appropriate word. Perhaps Obama was arrogant for stereotyping middle-class Americans as bitter. But elitist and condescending are out of the question.

Perhaps I’m missing something.

whereIstand Tags

• BarackObama
• HillaryClinton
• MichelleMalkin

I honestly can’t believe the stuff I’m reading on the news these days regarding the Olympics.

And what irritates me more is the obvious arrogance of all of the protesters.

The Olympics is supposed to be an event for the world to get together and compete, not have some morons get together protesting to inflate their own self-righteous world-saving egos believing that they’re making a difference.

Obviously provoking the Chinese government with flashy displays of handcuffs and claims about human rights is:

a) Beneficial!
b) Relevant to the Olympics

What protesters are doing is equivalent to terrorism. Obviously provoking the Chinese government isn’t going to help anything. If you want to help people you don’t tell them they’re pieces of shit and try to destroy other people’s lives and international events for public stunts.

Yes, obviously if someone shoots someone, you should shoot someone else in retort. Violence only begets violence.

What irks me more is that self-righteous arrogant attitude, though. Because people are so damn selfish they only see what they want to see, and only care about what they want to care about.

No one really cares about being productive. What the hell is boycotting the Olympics going to change anything?

So many horrible things have already happened in China, but is getting arrested to inflate your ego going to change anything? It’s just adding oil to the fire.

People are so dumb.

Yeah, great you made a statement on public display. You attention whored in front of the whole world. Thank you, oh great savior. Reality check –

Lives Saved Count: 0

You wanna save someone? Actually save them. Don’t be an attention whore, because then, it starts to become all about you, and your righteousness. While the real lives in suffering are being ignored. So it’s boycotted. So you complain. Everyone already knows everything you’re saying. What difference does it make? All I see is media and publicity, I see no real change. Where do I see “The actions of protesters against the Olympics has saved the lives of millions of Tibetans!”?

Do you -really- think it’s going to do anything? Are you really going to make a change? And if not, then why are you doing it?

whereIstand Tags

• Should the U.S. boycott the Beijing Olympics?

A lot of people like to fight terrorism in other countries, but refuse to acknowledge the terrorism at home. America is full of terrorism. Just not bloody terrorism. It’s a country where the rich can exploit the poor, where you can dumb down the masses with bright vibrant imagery and flashy lights while sapping the very life of their existences.

Terrorism. Isn’t terrorism when I can’t go outside because there are drug dealers on the street. Isn’t it terrorism when I, a hard working American business owner running a mortgage brokerage gets mugged in front of my house for money by the local delinquent thug teens.

Where there’s shooting, crime, and violence.

The people that like to tout their moral wonders are oftentimes not the majority. The majority of America is poor. There are millions of poor people barely able to make a living here, countless homeless, countless hungry. There is drug dealing, there are murders, there is still much here that could be worked on.

But people don’t want to face the facts. In denial they’ll help other countries, without turning to help their own.

There are a lot of problems in America. How could we forget?

whereIstand Tags

• Has the War on Terror been effective?

This actually started as a comment reply to Tall Paul’s recent entry on religion, but it got a bit long so here’s an entry instead, in response.

~~~

People always say that God is omnipotent etc. etc. we can’t understand God, “divine plan” yada yada, but the Bible explicitly states that God created Man in his own image. Also in Hebrews 5:9, it states “And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him;” ~ meaning that Jesus was not initially perfect. He was the Son of Man and became the Son of God. We are Sons of Man, and according to the Bible with the Spirit we can achieve eternal salvation. It also states that Jesus is an “author”, meaning he’s a guidelines for others to also “become perfect” by “killing the flesh” – Jesus died on the cross as a symbol for ridding ourselves of worldly attachment because in John 15:18-19 it says, “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” If you compare to the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism:

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

Therefore Jesus and Buddha said the same things, and yet!! And yet so many people preach this Bible nonsense with no actual scripture backing.

Consequently, if we are to follow the Bible’s teachings, we are to follow Jesus as an example and learn and understand the deeper allegorical and metaphorical meanings of spiritual texts (e.g. The Bible, the Torah, etc.), to understand that they are using imagery and symbolism to teach philosophy to find inner spiritual peace.

Thus, I state – point in fact – God helps those who help themselves.

The Bible does not teach blind faith.

Argument: Given that Christians believe that Jesus is the path to salvation, then doesn’t it logically follow that following Jesus’ teachings will lead to salvation? And if Jesus says to believe in him, do you believe in Jesus by just believing he’s God and then thinking that you get the Kingdom of Heaven for free? If it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to go to heaven, then obviously there’s a contingency for salvation meaning that believing in Jesus requires that you follow his teachings and therefore “help yourself”. I think you’d shame God by having God create you in his image and then sit on your butt saying “I BELIEVE” and doing nothing about it expecting the kingdom of Heaven to be handed to you on a silver platter.

~~

For the record, I would most likely be categorized as an atheist. I am an ex-Roman Catholic and am another one of the atheists who ironically seem to know more about the Bible and various religious texts than the proponents of the religions themselves.

whereIstand Tags

• Are spiritual gifts granted to Christians today?
• Can a Christian lose salvation?

Yet another chapter in the endless debate of abortion.

I’d like to strike a vein at hypocrisy, however, this time.

People continually argue that life is precious.

So let’s take a scenario – a fifteen year old girl is raped and left pregnant. She wants to have an abortion because she knows that she can’t financially sustain the child. She knows that her family can’t financially sustain another child. But her parents won’t let her have one because they don’t believe in it.

Is it alright, then? For a child to live without a father figure, for a child to live as a bastard, for a child to go to school seeing all the other children with mommies and daddies and all he has is a mommy. To live without a father figure, to live without a proper family environment. To live with someone who most likely is NOT emotionally or psychologically or financially ready to have a child.

The child may not have the proper backing to go to college. The parents may kick the child out and not be supportive. The child won’t have a proper parenting upbringing and will most likely turn to delinquent behavior.

While all the pro-life advocates will claim they saved a life, subjecting a child to a lifetime of torture, misery, and failure, all because:

“Life is precious”.

So here’s the hypocrisy -

If life is so precious, then isn’t human life important enough such that every human be given the opportunity to live and grow up with a stable, loving family?

Why should every human being not be granted the right to grow up in a proper household?

It’s only a fact that higher-class income families have easier access to benefits for their children. That a middle or upper-class child will have a significantly higher chance at success than a kid in the ghetto or the slums, sent to the local public school full of delinquents, his peers and “friends” being drug dealers and addicts.

Why would anyone want to get an abortion in the first place?

People go around touting “IT’S MURDER! IT’S EVIL!”, so what then, every woman who wants to have an abortion is a senseless ruthless killer bent on the destruction of innocent lives?

Did you ever think there might have been a reason why they wanted to get an abortion?

Perhaps the reason is because they care. Because they know the value of a human life, and they want to get an abortion to save the child, not murder it.

So say, that, the child was instead given up for adoption or foster care. So what, then the pro-life advocates are betting on that low percentage chance that they’ll end up with a good, loving, caring family?

It’s preposterous really.

Men carry sperm in their testicles, and basically when you ejaculate, a lot of those cells don’t all breed children. So is sexual intercourse genocide? The act of childbirth is when one of those little guys happens to find an egg, and the egg fertilizes the sperm and it eventually becomes a child.

And to Christians – in the Bible, there is no definitive information on whether or not abortion is murder, and no one, not even the Pope, can claim that it is one way or the other, unless the Pope has definitely proof that he received his message directly from God.

Pro-choice is what people who have deeper insight have. They understand the value of human life, and care about human life enough to understand that it’s a big deal.

Pro-life is a shallow, baseless argument of self-righteous idiocy that doesn’t take the child’s life into account at all.

That is all.

whereIstand Tags

• What parental involvement should be required in the abortion decision of a minor?