Welp apparently winsomecowboy is coming to the Big Smoke, and it is my duty as a member of the Rubber Chicken something-or-other to meet up with him.* He comes in on August 14 and is staying for just under 20 days.

Now it seems like nearing may be coming up as well, although I don't know if she was serious.

Synthesis lives nearby and I would expect him to try get into town.

Personally I'm getting my wisdom teeth out on the 14th, so I'm not doing anything that weekend! But the weekend after, the 22-24, looks great for me (it will also be sweet to get together before I leave for Vancouver and SF on the 25th :D)

Now this is a minimeet, so everything is up in the air. If you live in or near Toronto, why not stop by at least for a drink or two... or six as it tends to go with these Vinemeets.

2.0 you ask? Stolte-sawa, Vikibabbles, Synthesis and I hit the town in December for version 1.

* Sidetrack, where did frank go? Hm Ryan and Myk?

Hip-hop often comes under attack for the lyrical content found in much of the music released such as the glorification of drug use, the focus on a largely material life, and the promotion of violence. However, one issue that often stands out from the others is the apparent representation of women as objects and other misogynist practises.

So what examples are provided when it is argued that hip-hop is misogynist, or at least more so than other genres of music? Let's take it back to Dr. Dre's classic 1992 album, The Chronic, specifically the final track "Bitches Ain't @!$%#". Arguably the most sexist part of the song would be considered Kurupt's lines:

Bitches on my nuts like clothes /
But I'm from the pound and we don't love them hoes /
How could you trust a hoe? [Snoop:] Why? [echoed 3X] /
Cuz a hoe's a trick /
We don't love them tricks [Snoop:] Why? [echoed 3X] /
Cuz a trick's a bitch /
And my dick's constantly in her mouth /
And turnin' them trick ass hoes the @!$%# out

Within these 8 lines are contained most of the so called "problems" with hip-hop music. First, the rapper makes constant mention of hoes, bitches, and tricks, all of which are considered misogynist labels for women. Second, the rapper mentions that he will not love (and as a common extension, respect) these women. Third, it can be safely assumed from these lyrics, as well as from evidence taken from many other songs, that the rapper sees these women as worth less than him.

These lyrical causes of criticism are joined by the themes found in many hip-hop music videos, for example in the video for "Area Codes" by Ludacris and Nate Dogg. The central message of the song is that these two rappers have a large quantity of women they can call upon in many different area codes, presumably to receive sexual gratification from (as the chorus goes, "I've got hoes in different area codes"). The video basically contains numerous different locations showing plenty of scantily clad women dancing around while the rappers perform the song. These practises lead to cries that hip-hop music videos overly portray women as sexual items and as unrespectable members of society.

On the surface it seems to be obvious that hip-hop is definitely misogynist. Fairly recently the problem was brought further into the spotlight due to Don Imus' "nappy headed ho" comment and his justification that black woman are labelled similarly by their own men. Unsurprisingly, Oprah took this opportunity to spearhead the misogynist problem. She dedicated two shows to the issue and had numerous guests participate in the discussions. The first show entitled "Now What?" included activist Al Sharpton, artist India Arie, a former CBS executive, and two journalists, while the second show "The Hip-Hop Community Responds" had Russell Simmons, Dr. Ben Chavis of the Hip-Hop Action Network, rapper Common, and record executive Kevin Liles.

Both shows focused largely on the same topics, primarily the excessive use of metaphors used to refer to woman, most of which are considered sexist. Dr. Robin Smith commented that when "you feed someone garbage, eventually it starts to taste good," Common mentioned that hip-hop, being still so young, needs to be guided the same as children need to be, and Russell Simmons explained how while running DefJam he would try influence his artists to be more conscious of their lyrics. Diane Weathers a former editor of Essence magazine even went as far as suggesting that Snoop Dogg should have his contract terminated because of his lyrical content and music videos, as well as his participation in the pornography industry (he has directed two porn videos).

The problem with Oprah's discussion and quite often other discussions on the subject of misogyny is the lack of representation by the artists who are being attacked. Why didn't Oprah invite Dr. Dre, 50 Cent, or Snoop Dogg to defend themselves and explain their side of the issue? Furthermore, why didn't she invite the female artists who exploit the situation in order to gain more popularity, such as Lil Kim or Trina. Even more to the point, why weren't the women who are being "exploited" in the music videos invited?

And what measures have been suggested to solve the problems many argue are facing hip-hop music and culture? Well unfortunately, there are only few and none of them can be considered very good. One of the most vocalized suggestions has been for a censorship on the offending words, as has been expressed by Russell Simmons in his call for an elimination of the words "bitch" and "ho" from the music industry. Thankfully, Simmons is only calling for a voluntary ban as he believes in respecting the creative output of lyricists and poets, but there have been calls for legal bans, such as in New York where it was debated whether the word "bitch" should be outlawed. This solution should be rejected simply on the basis that censorship as forced by the government is never right.

From the information provided thus far it seems appropriate to agree that women are often portrayed very poorly in hip-hop music, yet the debate is far from being so simple. To get the full story on the use of sexist metaphors in hip-hop, one must analyze it from the point of view of those who are responsible for continuing the use of the words.

Generally when rappers mention bitches and hoes they are referring not to all women, but to a specific type of woman. Although definitions are not completely consistent, the underlying agreement is that bitches and hoes are women who lack respect for themselves. Immortal Technique wrote about this common problem found among black women in his song "No Me Importa," explaining:

Escuchame [Hard working] senorita, if you don't respect yourself /
Don't expect respect from anyone else /
Don't expect un hombre [a man] to support you with wealth /
Go to college and be successful, do it for delft [??] /
Nunca vas a ser [You are never going to be] @!$%# without knowledge yourself /
Mami's with cultural ineptitude are bad for your health /
That's the type of mujer [woman] that I put back on the shelf /
And go back to the packed crowd to look for somebody else

Not many rappers express their respect and desire for independent and strong women, as Immortal Technique does here, but that doesn't mean rappers don't support the idea. However, the seemingly excessive referrals to bitches and hoes can at least be partially explained by other themes of hip-hop, notably the idea of living the big (successful) life. Along with lots of money and fame, it is common to have popularity with the opposite sex seen as a sign of success. It is ften men who are seen as the biggest agitators of this, but how many women in the entertainment industry have been guilty of bragging of their popularity among the men – it goes both ways, and as a potentially shallow method of judging a person, the problem extends far beyond hip-hop culture.

Getting back to the definition of bitches and hoes, when rappers refer to such women, they are referring to the women who give sexual favours easily, who drop out of school unnecessarily, who are willing to demean themselves for money or even only acceptance, and the women who enthusiastically dance to and sing the lyrics "Superman dat hoe!" without care for the sexism inherent in the action of actually Supermaning a woman (if anyone is curious, ask and I'll explain what it is).

Now the title bitch don't apply to all women /
But all women have a little bitch in 'em

This famous lyric spit by Ice Cube in N.W.A.'s "A Bitch is a Bitch" is a sentiment shared by most rappers. When 50 Cent sang "bitch get off me" he wasn't referring to the women who respect themselves and live their life accordingly. Nevertheless, some will argue that such a justification is useless because referring to any women as bitches or hoes is in effect an attack on all women.

In the end, the words in question in this debate are simply that – words – and as should be treated as such. When a woman is labelled a bitch they should step back and judge if the comment is at all valid and from there they should act appropriately. It is the responsibility of the women to respect themselves and live their life according to that principle. This applies equally to men – not all men are dicks (in the sense that they are rude, excessively aggressive, and egotistical), but all men are able to be a dick, and it is their responsibility to make sure that they don't act like one.

This isn't a defence of being disrespectful, but a response to the accusation that rappers are unfair to women as a whole and that they promote similar disrespect towards women among their fans. All of society needs to reform its views of women and to single out hip-hop as a misogynistic stronghold is just wrong.

-----

You can also find this article over at the new Listen In Website.

Bryan "Baby" Williams, AKA the #1 Stunna, AKA Birdman, exploits the big living, MOB lifestyle to the fullest, and as the owner of Cash Money Records, he knows a thing or two about how to do it. Birdman is responsible for bring Lil Wayne into the hip-hop game, and as a diehard Lil Wayne fan I've heard my fair share of music from Birdman.

Not as lyrically talented as his protégé, I can't say I was expecting dazzling lyrics from Birdman. What I was looking for was killer beats, the bling bling lifestyle, and the features, namely Lil Wayne. Birdman has been huge on the mob image lately and this CD follows the same theme of skits as his collaboration album with Lil Wayne titled Like Father, Like Son: Birdman is some sort of mob boss figure, along with the rest of Cash Money being his family.

To some, this whole family idea has been taken too far; however, one has to realize that Lil Wayne was signed at 11 years old to Cash Money along with the rest of the slightly older, but still young Hot Boys. Birdman led these hip-hop amateurs to being 1x platinum and 1x gold, launching the careers of 4 rappers who together would get their fair share of platinum and gold albums. Time, however, brings change, and all the Hot Boys are gone except for Lil Wayne. Birdman is Lil Wayne's surrogate father, so to them, this is a family.

Anyways, Birdman is now rich, and that is what this album celebrates. It is a shallow subject, to be sure, but for someone who grew up dirt poor, Birdman feels he deserves to spend money. Looking over the tracklist, I'm not surprised to see Lil Wayne featured on over half a dozen tracks, but what strikes me is the small number of out of house featuring artists. Fat Joe makes an appearance which to me seemed obvious considering the recent success Terror Squad and Cash Money have been having together. Young Jeezy and Rick Ross are there, but only once and it is on the song 100 Million, the second single which has actually been out for months.

Brisco and Allstar are in house, and Yo Gotti was at one time rumoured to be signing with Cash Money so it isn't quite a surprise to see him here either. It is obvious that this album was for Birdman to build a Cash Money family-oriented album, revolving around money. Ah, Cash Money Records is still the same as it was over a dozen years ago when they started.

Instead of going track by track, I'll just highlight some of the better songs on the album:

• Pop Bottles (feat. Lil Wayne) - This is the first single off the album and was released way back in September. By now it is an old song, but I still love listening to it. The beat is hypnotic and is probably one of my favourite beats in the past few months. So what is this song about? Well, to be honest, it's an anthem to living the grand life of poppin' expensive bottles of booze, hooking up with models, and wearing expensive jewellery. However, Birdman explains that his life wasn't all good:

  Got my own shoe, brand new on the set /
  Went from sittin' in a cell, to sittin' on a jet /
  From sh*ttin' in a cell, to sh*ttin' on a jet /
  I lost too many friends, but I won too many bets /
  I made too much money, I ain't made enough yet /
  So I scratch, and yes, Junior is the best

  Lil Wayne is fire as usual and he playfully twists his lyrics around the beat; he is definitely having fun doing this song, and in the video you can see how much he loves what he is doing. Birdman shows up lyrically in this song, and overall this was an obvious choice for the first single.

• 100 Million (feat. Lil Wayne, Young Jeezy, & Rick Ross) - This is the second single off the album and is the ultimate testament to spending and making money, as Birdman says in this interview with DJ Booth:
  

  DJ Booth: Let's move on. Star-studded single, "100 Million," blowing up across the country – have you realistically spent 100 million dollars in your lifetime?
  Birdman: I've probably spent more than that.
  DJ Booth: More than that. So, how come it wasn't 150 million? Just sounded better as 100 million?
  Birdman: Yeah. And we tryin' to grab a hold of another hundred. We're just lookin' at what we can do and what we can accomplish, and a hundred is just a number, that's was our goal and our mission.

  The beat is quite heavy and overwhelming, making it impressive in its own right, but when mixed with the theme of the lyrics, it really makes for a grand sound; it really sounds like 100 million dollars. DJ Khaled provides the hype at the beginning and ending, and when all is said and done, this is just a big song. It isn't quite mainstream, but it could be. To fully understand, take a listen.

• Believe Dat (feat. Lil Wayne) - This song is interesting, to say the least. As they said over at NappyAfro, "this one has that radio feel to it, but the song is STREET at the same time." The chorus isn't much, but Lil Wayne still makes it addictive. To be honest, I always felt that Cash Money was most lacking in the quality of their choruses, and to see such a simple chorus be so impressionable is impressive. Birdman flows well throughout the song, but I must say I would have liked to have seen a Lil Wayne verse on this beat, especially with the way he flowed on the chorus.
• Fully Loaded - I'm not a huge fan of songs with just Birdman, but this one was one I enjoyed quite a bit. It could be because of the powerful, heavy driving bass, or Birdman's tendency to flow over a beat respecting the limits of his skill; he really deserves props for not trying to over extend his lyrics.

In the end, this album is exactly what you should expect from Birdman, and on top of that, it is actually quite good. Lil Wayne makes some key appearances, even though most times it is just to do the chorus. Birdman is a decent rapper, but I find he gets repetitive, and featuring artists helps solve this problem. I don't expect that Birdman thinks he will sell tons of copies, but it could do fairly well considering the huge success and publicity Cash Money is getting just off Lil Wayne. Personally I got this album primarily to listen to the songs with Lil Wayne, and in the end I thoroughly enjoyed what I heard.

The album isn't for everyone, that much is obvious, but for those who want great beats and that MOB styled lyrics, this is a hot CD.

----

Tracklist

1. "Intro" (prod. by Kelstar) (1:06)

2. "Fully Loaded" (prod. by Kane Beatz) (3:41)

3. "I Run This" (feat. Lil Wayne) (prod. by Tmix) (3:31)

4. "So Fresh"" (prod. by Young Yonny) (4:35)

5. "The Old #1 (Interlude)" (prod. by Kelstar) (1:01)

6. "100 Million " (feat. DJ Khaled, Lil Wayne, Young Jeezy, Rick Ross & Dre) (prod. by Cool & Dre) (3:29)

7. "Believe Dat" (feat. Lil Wayne) (prod. by Tmix) (4:01)

8. "Wet Paint" (prod. by Tmix) (3:46)

9. "Grind" (feat. Lil Wayne & Brisco) (prod. by StreetRuners) (3:48)

10. "All The Time" (prod. by Johnson) (4:09)

11. "The Old #2 (Interlude)" (prod. by Kehlstar) (0:48)

12. "Busta" (prod. by Young Yonny) (4:28)

13. "Pop Bottles" (feat. Lil Wayne and Jadakiss) (prod. by Raymond "Sarom" Diaz & Steve Morales) (3:25)

14. "Love My Hood" (prod. by Tmix) (4:32)

15. "I'm A Stunna" (prod. by Tmix) (4:37)

16. "The Old #3 (Interlude)" (prod. by Kelstar) (1:02)

17. "Make Way" (feat. Fat Joe & Lil Wayne) (prod. by Fliptones) (4:33)

18. "So Tired" (feat. Lil Wayne) (prod. by Fliptones) (4:06)

19. "Outro" (prod. by Kehlstar) (0:50)

Wu-Tang has not released an album since 2001's Iron Flag, but getting them together has proven the right move, as 8 Diagrams is a new classic album in an age where hip-hop is supposedly dead. If anyone could be relied on to bring classical skill back into an album, it is without a doubt the Clan - they have deep history in rap, which is thoroughly evident in 8 Diagrams yet doesn't overshadow the amount of new sound they have also infused.

Founded by RZA and GZA, Wu-Tang consists of the two mentioned cousins, Method Man, Inspectah Deck, Raekwon, Ghostface Killah, U-God, Masta Killa, and the recently deceased Ol' Dirty Bastard. Within these nine men can be found "multi-platinum selling solo artists, multi-platinum record producers, Grammy winners, TV and film stars, screenwriters, product spokespersons, business owners and, most recently, major motion picture composers" (1). As a group, Wu-Tang is 6x Platinum and once Gold over four albums, showing the strength and history they have and causing expectations to be high; however, the group doesn't slip and really provide great material.

Tracklist

1. Campfire - The first song on the album begins with a audio clip from the movie which the album derives its title from, Eight-Diagram Pole Fighter. This follows in the tradition of using a Kung Fu film which are most often the basis for the title and skits of Wu-Tang albums, both as a group and individually. Method Man comes in with the first verse and really sets a great first-impression for the album, spitting steady rhymes that flow perfectly with the deep bass line. Method Man's bars then flows beautifully into Ghostface Killah's, bearing remarkable beauty to "Bring Da Ruckus"(2). The final verse belongs to Cappadonna whose style suits the deeper sound of the beat.

2. Take it Back - This song includes five of the Wu-Tang members and really feels like a classic Clan song. Raekwon provides great lyrics and I have to say I greatly enjoyed U-God in the final verse. The chorus boasts of Wu-Tang's history, saying:
   

   First we told ya'll n*ggers, then we showed ya'll n*ggers /
   We gon' take it back with this /
   By the time you get a show, we been all over the globe /
   We gon' take it back with this /
   Before you even had a name you was screaming Wu-Tang /
   We gon' take it back with this /
   When we was runnin' on the block, you was under your pops /
   We gon' take it back with this

   Method Man and U-God really have a point in what they are saying, as the first Wu-Tang album, the classic Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), was released back in 1993. The Clan has seen hip-hop go from its glory days of Tupac and Notorious B.I.G to its commercial days of Soulja Boy and Yung Joc, and have seen enough to convince them that they need to get back into the game. These lyrics definitely are not typical of the ones found these days.

3. Get 'Em Out Ya Way Pa - This is one of the weaker songs in the album, although I would place the blame on the weak lyrics from Masta Killa and mediocre ones from U-God. Method Man in the first verse, however, brings tight lyrics to a song that crutially needed them. The beat itself also isn't the most exciting, although I did enjoy the sound of the electric bass, and the chorus smoothly fit in with it.
4. Rushing Elephants - Easily one of my favourite tracks off 8 Diagrams, the beat alone drives the pace of the song and really plays well with GZA and RZA, who make their first appearance on the album beautifully, Raekwon, and Masta Kill who greatly improves over his performance in the previous song. The song is somewhat nerdy, with Rae mentioning Excalibur swords, GZA talking of DNA and "energy that shifts in colours," and RZA referring to J.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.
5. Unpredictable - Finally on this track Inspectah Deck, one of my favourite Clan members, really gets the opportunity to unleash his skill, and he runs with it, boasting that "Wu-Tang keep it fresh like Tupperware." RZA's verse is up to par, yet nothing special. The beat itself is very up tempo and built from a bunch of different percussion sounds; however, I must say that because of the beat and the chorus, which was somewhat annoying, this is a song I skip over more often.
6. The Heart Gently Weeps - This is obviously the song that is intended less for the hip-hop fans, although I have to say it will make a great single. An interpolation of The Beatles' "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," the song includes George Harrison's 29 year-old song, Dhani Harrison, on acoustic , and the Red Hot Chili Pepper's John Fruciante on lead guitar. Throw in Erykah Badu singing the chorus, and it becomes an unmistakable classic. Dhani was a huge fan of Wu-Tang, as RZA said, "not only does he know all the Wu-Tang songs, he knows the samples of the kung-fu movies that I use" (3). Furthermore to bring even more nostalgia into the song, RZA had Dhani play the part using the mint condition 1961 Gretsch guitar RZA received from Russell Crowe after filming American Gangster.

   It is also amazing to hear RZA's inspiration for the song, which is heroine. As he sees it, too many famous rock artists have become lost chasing the magic dragon and he equates the strings of the guitar with our veins. The guitar is weeping because the veins are weeping, which is because the heart is weeping, and all those who find themselves in the heroine trade, whether buyers or sellers, find themselves weeping because they are either killing themselves or killing others.

   In the aisle, busting them paper towels, and wiping my Wallies down /
   I stood up to face a barrel, he's holding a shiny pound, it's him /
   He want revenge, I murdered his Uncle Tim, I sold him a bag of dope, his wife came and copped again

   This verse is from Ghostface Killah, who I must say performs one of his best verses ever, lyrically and rhythmically. RZA actually believes that his verse in this song could get the same attention Ghostface received for his verse in Impossible from the Wu-Tang Forever album, which won Lyric of the Year from Source Magazine. Method Man rips up his part, but at only 30 seconds he doesn't really have enough time to get in a lot of bars. Raekwon has the first verse, and it is also of high quality.

7. Wolves - This song is another that could have been skipped from being included from the album, although I did really enjoy U-God's verse. Method Man and Masta Killa also have verses, although I would say that they are nothing new, exciting, or particularly interesting. This is definitely not a bad song, but it really doesn't deserve as much praise as most of the rest of the album. For those of you who remember Parliament and Funkadelic, George Clinton sings the chorus.
8. Gun Will Go - The dark beat plays well in the middle of the album and I really like the sound of the violin (I believe) in the background of the chorus. Method Man is fire, and I enjoyed the echo effects RZA threw in part way through Meth's verse. Masta Killa's flow was impressive and I would say is one of this better verses on the album, and once again RZA plays around with the sound effects in a cool way.
9. Sunlight - This is RZA's solo where he really opens up emotionally and spiritually. It really has to be listented to in order to be truly appreciated, as it poetry in lyrical form, and forms almost a funeral speech for ODB and message for the listenters. Props to RZA for this song, because it says a lot.
   

   And as you play all day like the grasshopper who work and toil /
   Like armies of ants carrying stones of soil /
   Building a home for themselves and storing food /
   At night we praise ALLAH and adore the moon /
   In sync like the flow of the Nile, the growth of a child /
   Only fearin' GOD, we great a ghost with a smile /
   That which is spirit is spirit, which is flesh is flesh /
   Meaning life has no partnership with death

10. Stick Me for My Riches - What an amazing song. I've read of a lot of people who really don't seem to like the > 1 minute singing introduction, but it really compliments the rest of the singing done by Gerald Alston throughout the song. Method Man starts with the first verse and simply cleans up once again with that amazing flow, there is no doubt that he is one of the best Clan members to listen to. Inspectah Deck was decent, but GZA and RZA really clean up. RZA comes in and is simply amazing, then he hands off to GZA who flows beautifully. Oh god, this is one hell of a track. Easily my favourite.
11. Starter - This song is a bit too R&B for the rest of the album, and although is not rare for RZA to produce, it is much too mainstream for a Wu record. The guys basically rap about women; "she acting all shy, but she likes handcuffs." A good song, but is definitely out of place.
12. Windmill - I must admit, the best description of this song is one I found a few weeks ago over at the Hip-Hop Connection:
    

    RZA in soundtrack mode, this is an atmospheric slow-burner with a low key vibe to it. At the risk of getting repetitious, it's a pleasant surprise how motivated Meth sounds across the project, spitting self-referential boasts like "In living proof I'm the wittiest unpredictable/Most talented rap mother@!$%#er you ever listened to."

13. Weak Spot - This sounds like a classic 36 Chambers song, really has a grungy feel to it. RZA, Raekwon, and GZA all take turns bragging about how great they are, and to be honest they are allowed to. Their verses are all strong and the kung-fu clip that is continuously mixed in makes this a classic Wu-Tang track. At the end is a quick ODB interview clip which transitions well into the next song…
14. Life Changes - Here is the tribute to Ol' Dirty Bastard, as this is the first album released since he passed away. Split by a simple chorus, each Clan member takes a turn expressing his feelings on ODB; however, Ghostface Killah doesn't have a verse, which is interesting. Inspectah Deck opens up the most, saying "and I share the blame, 'cuz you was calling for help kid / Shoulda' coulda' woulda' had the time – I was selfish." Really a beautiful piece, as it shows the connection these guys have built over the years. They grew up together, gained famed together, and they continue to be there for each other.
15. Tar Pit - A decent song, with a strong verse from Streetlife, a close associate of the Wu-Tang Clan, although I would have either moved the song earlier in the album or removed it, because it would have been nice to have the previous song, Life Changes, to have transitioned into the last song.
16. 16th Chamber (ODB Special) - Bad sound quality, but classic lyrics. This is a track that RZA had lost years ago, and within the last two years he managed to get his hands on it again. "I lost it, because the DJ who handled my equipment back then, we just got disconnected," he says. "He actually found the tape about eight months ago and flew out to California with it. The problem is, it doesn't sound all that great, because this was 1992 or 1993 when it was recorded. But ODB's performance is f*ckin' immaculate. So maybe I can find some software to restore it and put it on as a bonus track" (4).

All in all, this is another Wu-Tang classic album that deserves 5 Grapes, no question about it. RZA developed great beats and the members really show up lyrically. Not much more can be said beyond go get the album yourself, sit back, and enjoy it.

Every once in awhile in my internet browsing I find something particularly angering, and to be honest it usually involves the government. The upset today comes from Wikipedia, specifically the article on Abstinenc e-only sex education. Scroll down to the Rise in the U.S. section. Read the first paragraph.

" Through direct funding and matching grant incentives, the U.S. government steered more than a billion dollars to abstinence-only education programs between 1996 and 2006."

Think about that for a second.

Over one billion dollars.

The government has stolen $1 billion+ from their citizens and used it to promote a largely religious ideal in the schools. You have not had a choice in this. What right does the government have to replace parents in the lives of children?

Oh, and it would in the least be nice if the material used in the programs was accurate; however, a report released in 2004 found many errors:

• misrepresenting the failure rates of contraceptives
• misrepresenting the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, including the citation of a discredited 1993 study by Dr. Susan Weller, when the federal government had acknowledged it was inaccurate in 1997 and larger and more recent studies that did not have the problems of Weller's study were available
• false claims that abortion increases the risk of infertility, premature birth for subsequent pregnancies, and ectopic pregnancy
• treating stereotypes about gender roles as scientific fact
• other scientific errors, e.g. stating that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual" (the actual number is 23).

To me it seems like every other government program pushed through quickly not intended to actually be successful or try to be truthful. This is a clear example of governments pandering to interest groups or installing law based on their own beliefs, even though these types of government interference are against the Constitution and just plain logic.

The program doesn't even work. Many studies, such one released this year that I looked at, found that those under an abstinence-only program were no more likely to remain virgins when compared to a control group who did not follow an abstinence-only program. Regardless, the federal government still pays out the ass for these programs. In 2006, the fiscal budget for Community-Based Abstinence Education was $115 million.

If spending hundreds of millions of dollars domestically on this trash wasn't enough, Bush has brought it to the rest of the world:

President George W. Bush announced his Five-Year Global HIV/AIDS Strategy. Also known as The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the plan committed the U.S. to provide $15 billion over five years towards AIDS relief in 15 countries in Africa and the Caribbean, and in Vietnam. About 20 percent of the funding, or $3 billion over five years, was allocated for prevention. The program required that, starting in fiscal year 2006, one-third of prevention funding be earmarked specifically for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

I'm glad you aren't coming here to Canada, because I would start taking it personally.

This really isn't more than a rant, but please. "Sex education doesn't work, a team of McMaster University researchers has found. And neither do the other methods of preventing teen pregnancies" (source). Leave it to the parents to teach their children. Teach the kids to be rational and they will act in that way. Teach them that they will get warts if they have sex just isn't logical.

Stop @!$%#ing with the future of children because your delusions of a God say premarital sex is bad.

All quotes and numbers are from the Wikipedia article in the first paragraph, unless otherwise sourced.

It is no secret that China continues it's persecution of dissident voices in order to create an appearance of unity, not only for the world but for her own citizens. Covering up horrendous acts committed by the government was once a much easier task for regimes, yet with the introduction of a more vigilant media the world has had it's blindfold removed, exposing the atrocities that occur in this great planet of ours.

Far from the capital Beijing lies the once peaceful and still breathtakingly beautiful Tibet, a nation within a nation struggling for independence. Soon after gross abuse on protestors in Burma by that government, China embarrassed herself by sparking violent clashes with hundreds of Tibetan monks. Dozens of monks who set out to repaint the residence of the Dalai Lama inside the Drepung monastary, near the Tibetan capital of Lhasa, found themselves violently beaten and hundreds were arrested.

The cause of such brutality on men of peace? They were celebrating the civilian honour bestowed on the Dalai Lama by President Bush on behalf of the American people.

"The move of the United States is a blatant interference with China's internal affairs which has severely hurt the feelings of the Chinese people and gravely undermined the relations between China and the United States," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters.

Even harsher criticism came from the Chinese Communist Party's secretary for Tibet, Zhang Qingli, who said "We are furious… if the Dalai Lama can receive such an award, there must be no justice or good people in the world."

It really does seem foolish for the Chinese to assume that they are acting on the side of justice, especially when we see the government trying to regulate Buddhist reincarnation or, and much worse, torturing Falun Gong practitioners to death.

This all happens while China attacks Tibet in a completely more devious and sneaky way. In order to dilute the number of Tibetan seperatists, China has assigned large amounts of resources developing the infrastructure of Tibet in order to open it up to commerce and tourism. It was recently revealed that Tibet is receiving a record number of tourists, numbering more than 3.2 million people this year already, with them spending 2.89 billion yuan ($385 million USD), a 90.1% increase from last year.

This is all thanks to a new railway and airport built in Tibet, bringing the total number of airports up to three, with a fourth one coming in the near future.

The Tibetan people deserve their freedom from the tyrannical nature of the Chinese government and it will require more activism on the part of us, the third party bystanders. We aren't directly effected, but it is a problem we should see as our responsibility to at least help create progress. It is up to us.

--

Other news on the situation in Tibet:

• Tibetans Storm Chinese Embassy
• Does the Dalai Lama Still Matter?
• How a 16-Year Old Trekked from Tibet to India to See the Dalai Lama

Selfishness is one of the most despised traits, it seems, a man can hold. It is decried as being evil, as being no good in a world where integration among men is required. Social conscious is seen as a necessity, a virtue which should be rewarded, and a trait that is opposite selfishness.

I can agree that selfishness at the unfair expense of others is despicable. The actions of partnerships between those with the guns, the government, and their partners in big business, who require support from such force, are not those I condone. A free market has not been the cause of our companies making billions at the expense of the common people. It is the cronyism that is to blame. But when a man earns his keep through fair trade, through two parties coming together and bother receiving and giving what they consider equal value, what evil has he done?

I am a selfish man in that respect. Everything I earn is entitled to one man alone, and that is me. Do men not deserve the fruits of their labour? Why is it that men who are good at making money are seen with reproach?

This is where I lose respect and hope in society. To think that those who don't earn wealth still feel they are entitled to it is truly more despicable than those who have made their fortune through their own sweat and blood; those who have done so in no way except through the trading with values. Businessmen offer their value and expect no more in return than what others feel it is worth. A man who produces what is demanded earns what he receives for it, but it seems society becomes jealous of what men are able to collect.

I am a selfish man in that respect. Anything that is offered for what I can give is by right, mine. Why should I worry what third parties stand to benefit from it? They are not offering what is needed, so they are useless.

The rhetoric of the looters has set into the minds in society after decades of hearing it. Men are expected to give to society based on what they could earn and society could not. It is now seen as acceptable to have the government dictate the public good at the expense of the few who really excel. And when more problems arise, it is not blame to be placed on the beggars and looters, but furthermore on the talented, the producers, the industrialists. It is a seemingly endless spiral into the depths of disaster.

No more do we respect personal achievement through hard work. We see fortune as a curse. This is unfortunately a view that has persisted through the centuries; just take a look at Christianity. Yet the best that there is to offer has come not from those who are parasites, slowly devouring another man's success, but from those who fight to earn their place in the world. This continuing fight for a "public good" has killed so much creativity and innovation. It has trampled on success and thrown it into the pits of hell through the use of labels such as greedy and selfishness.

Men who do not earn have no right to the estates of those who earn it. Men do not create wealth, innovation, advancement through an attempt to help anyone else but themselves. Men do not offer themselves, their skills, and their output for less than it is worth. I am losing my faith in society because it is respectable to demand from the rich a comfortable lifestyle for the poor. To quote Ayn Rand:

Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth - the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune.

There will always be different social and economic classes. Some men will always be better off than others. Is this in any way the fault of the deserving rich? To turn the question around, is this in any way the fault of the poor?

The men who achieve in life do so solely thanks to themselves. What I earn in my life is mine and let no other lay claim to it. I am selfish because I expect to, and intend to, collect on every penny of value I produce for others. I will not allow others to receive more value from I than I do from them. I can't hold respect for a person who achieves at the expense of others. I can't hold respect for a person who loots what is not theirs, even if they are doing it for "good". I can't hold respect for a person who feels they are entitled to wealth of which they have not earned.

I have come to embrace my selfishness because it is the true more goodness in our world. Receiving what I earned will always be more righteous than receiving what I have not earned.

I am selfish… am I evil?

After all this controversy lately I think it is time for some lighter discussion. There is a weekly column in the Toronto Star called Random Acts of Kindness. It is filled with a number of user submitted stories of plain and simple kindness – little things that made a person's day that much better.

The first time I read this column was after a particularly brutal day in the news – I can't remember what was going on, but I know that I was very frustrated with humanity in general. We all know the media loves bad news because it sells, so I thank the Star for creating such a column.

So I sat down with the paper and started reading it, distraught because of everything I had been seeing in the news. Once I had finished reading the stories, I will admit I was teary. The stories were of actions so simple, yet so kind. These were stories of people who didn't give a damn that the world is slowly going to hell – they wanted to help.

I was in between jobs and every cent counted. I withdrew money from the instant teller but with so many things on my mind forgot to take the cash. I got home and realized what I had done.

I got a phone call from the bank stating that someone had my money and wanted to return it.

The bank gave me her address and I went to pick up the money. She had two young children and was but a child herself, I'd say a young teenager. She had hardly and furniture and the apartment was basically empty.

I told her she needed the money more than I did, but she refused any reward. I asked her why, when she obviously needed the money. She answered that she hoped to be treated the same way.

This story in particular caught my eye – kindness from someone who couldn't afford to be kind. These things happen every day, yet we never hear about them. So here is your chance to tell a story of altruism. When has your day been brightened by a stranger?

Augustus has been called the greatest emperor of Rome and his rule as Augustus was a successful one. However, to look upon him as being wise and fair for his entire life would be a mistake. Augustus had two personalities through his life: the personality of pre-Augustus Octavian which was ambitious, calculating, and at times brutal and cruel, and the personality of Augustus the emperor which was wise and fair. The road he took to becoming emperor was filled with violence and propaganda yet upon receiving the power of an emperor Augustus propelled Rome into further greatness. However, one must realize that it was the upper class which largely bore the younger Octavian's personality, actions which led to the support of the Plebeians; he always held concern for the lower class citizens throughout his life.

Octavian's grab for power began after the death of Julius Caesar when Octavian began to enlarge his personal forces with the veteran legionaries who had been loyal to Caesar. Octavian made extensive use of his status as the heir to Caesar to garner the support from the legionaries and was fairly successful in doing so. Soon after, Octavian increased the size of his forces at Antony's expense, convincing two of Antony's legions to join him. This was while Antony was experiencing a downward spiral of popular opinion as Cicero had attacked Antony in a number of speeches. Knowing his year of consular was approaching its end, Antony attempted to take over Cisalpine Gaul from Decimus Brutus, one of Caesar's assassins. In response, the senate, encouraged by Cicero, granted Octavian imperium – command power. This made his command of troops legal and the senate then sent him to challenge Antony's siege. In April 43BC, Octavian defeated Antony at the battles of Forum Gallorum and Mutina, forcing Antony to flee to Transalpine Gaul. The two consuls who had been sent along side Octavian had died during the battles, making Octavian the sole commander of the armies.

After Antony's defeat the senate tried to take the command of the consular legions from Octavian and present them to Decimus Brutus but Octavian refused. Afterwards in July of 43 BC Octavian sent an embassy into Rome demanding that the senate give him consulship yet it was the senate's turn to refuse a request. Octavian then showed his ambitious and calculating side by marching on Rome with eight legions. He was greeted with no military opposition and was elected consul. During this time Antony allied himself with Lepidus who was an important Caesarian and potential rival to Caesar. These three men would then form the Second Triumvirate which was to last five years. Unlike the First Triumvirate of Gnaeus Pompey Magnus, Julius Caesar and Marcus Licinius Crassus, this Triumvirate was supported by Roman law.

In a display of greed, or perhaps necessitate for the continued representation of the lower classes, Octavian along with the Triumvirate began proscriptions which would take the land from 300 senators and 2,000 equites, the upper class citizens. The victims were also killed if captured. It is highly possible that the proscriptions were used to raise money to pay troops, although whether it was justified or not is another debate.

In January of 42BC Rome recognized Julius Caesar as a god of the Roman state which Octavian in turn used as fuel for his popularity – he could now claim to be the son of a god. Not long after, Antony and Octavian defeated Brutus and Cassius and the Second Triumvirate made a new agreement that would find Octavian in control of Rome, Antony in control of Egypt, and Lepidus in control of Hispania and the province of Africa. Now in a more independent position of power, Octavian caused political and social unrest by taking land from Italians in order to reward and pay the Triumvirate veteran soldiers.

In 40BC, after the death of Fulvia, Antony's wife, Octavian gave his sister Octavia to Antony for marriage. Despite have a number of children together, Antony eventually deserted Octavia which can be seen as the reason for the divide which occurred in Rome between Antony in the East and Octavian in the West. While in Rome, Octavian built a network of allies and consolidated his power. With his increasing influence, Octavian began to spread propaganda against Antony, saying that he was becoming less Roman due to his 'infatuation' with Egypt. With this pressure, the senate was convinced to declare war on Cleopatra. In the Battle Actium Antony is defeated, and after hearing of what Octavian would plan to do with her and because of Antony's suicide, Cleopatra herself committed suicide. Her son, Caesarion, was "butchered without compunction" and Octavian supposedly said that "two Casears and one too many." This is where a major difference is shown between Julius Caesar and Augustus, in that Caesar demonstrated clemency while Octavian apparently did not.

After the victory, Rome was still not ready to make Octavian despot, yet he couldn't resign. So in order to maintain stability, Octavian marched into Rome and forced the Senate to name him consul, a move which made him legally in command of the legions of Rome and marked the end of his forced promotions.

In 27BC, Octavian returned power to the senate and his wise and fair personality began to take hold. He offered to give up his military supremacy over Egypt and as result of his actions a compromise was made between the senate and Octavian's supporters. In what was called the First Settlement, Octavian was given proconsular authority over the Western half of Rome and Syria. He was given the titles Augustus, meaning "to increase". It was more a religious title and was used to separate the rule of Augustus from the reign of terror of Octavian. He was also given the title Princeps which meant "first-citizen" or "first-leader", a title for those who serve the state well and one which also also given to Pompey. Furthermore, Augustus, as he was now known, was granted the right to hang the corona civica ("civic crown") above his door and to drape laurels from his doorposts. As both were important symbols of the state, the permission given to Augustus was to symbolize his importance.

His popular support proven, Octavian renounced the consulship in 23BC but was allowed to retain his consular imperium. In another compromise between the senate and Augustus, Augustus was granted much more power including those of tribune and censor. These gave him influence in almost all aspects of the government. Furthermore, he was granted sole imperium which placed all armed forces under his authority and impreium pronsoulare maius, or "imperium over all the proconsuls". Although he had all this power, Augustus never claimed to be a king or autocrat. He remained modest of his power, only allowing himself to be addressed as princeps.

From violence, ambition, and occasional brutality, Octavian was reborn as Augustus, an emperor with the love and support of the people. It can be seen by the amount of power given to him that the people trusted Augustus and enjoyed his rule. Although he was brutal with his attacks against the opposition to his authority he did it for the Plebeians and as a result they rewarded him. Not only did he support the lower class, but he put Rome on track for further greatness. So although he initially had a more volatile personality, it stemmed from his interest for the people. Augustus played hard ball in order to gain power, but then blossomed into a wise and fair ruler.

--

[*] This is article #007 in Jon Nagelmakers' quest to win the Last Viner Standing competition in April, 2007. His other articles in this series can be found here.

The Peloponnesian War was the end of the Athenian Golden Age, a period which began with the Greco-Persian wars. Pericles himself did not survive the war yet played an integral part in its beginnings. His role in the war can be divided into three parts: the prelude, the first year, and his final two years of life. The war reshaped not just Athens, but the entire Mediterranean, and can largely be seen as a result of the arrogance of both Pericles and his city. The Peloponnesian War was the final large event of Pericles' life and during the years when he was alive for it, he showed his aptitude to running an empire.

To both Pericles and Athens, it seemed that a war with Sparta was inevitable, mostly because of the history and geography shared by the two major cities. It had just been twelve years earlier in 445BCE that the Thirty Years' Peace officially brought the First Peloponnesian War to an end. Athens' had given up most of that which they had conquered since 460BCE and made an agreement with Sparta to not attempt to lure allies away from each other. As Pericles saw the war as inevitable, he lacked hesitance when dealing with issues related to Sparta. This could be seen in the conflict between Corcyra and Corinth. Corinth was both an enemy of Athens and an ally of Sparta and had a long history of dispute with the Corinthian colony of Corcyra. Pericles made the decision to send troops to support Corcyra, and the result was the Battle of Sybota in 433BCE between Corcyra and Corinth and the Battle of Potidaea in 432BCE, which was a direct battle between Athens and a combined army from Corinth and Potidaea. Furthermore, it was during the same period that Pericles suggested the Megarian Decree. This was essentially a trade embargo as it contained a number of economic sanctions brought upon Megara, a Spartan ally. The sanctions worked, as "the Megarians after a while were becoming desperately hungry –starving, in fact. So what could they do? They began begging the Spartans to reverse that whore-begotten law!" This embargo broke the Thirty Years' Peace, but to the Athenian people it was justified. The Megarians had cultivated land which had been consecrated to Demeter, and their actions on the land were seen as impious.

Sparta watched what Athens was doing and after discussions with its allies, they made a number of demands. The most important of these demands was the expulsion of the Alcmaeonidae family, which included Pericles, and the revocation of the Megarian Decree. It was here that Pericles delivered his first famous oration, telling the people of Athens to not give up to the weaker enemy. Pericles attested that as Athens was the stronger state, they must not accept the Spartan demands. It seemed as if "rather than to submit to coercive demands, Pericles chose war." [1] Instead, Pericles make a proposal to the Spartans, that Athens would retract the Megarian Decree as long as Sparta would stop periodically implementing the Xenelasia laws, laws that proscribed the inclusion of foreigners, and to acknowledge the autonomy of Athens' allied cities. The Spartans rejected the offer, and both sides prepared for war.

The Peloponnesian War began in 431BCE with the Spartan invasion of Attica. The Spartans had sent a delegation with a final demand that Athens give into Spartan wishes, but they were not allowed into Athens due to a resolution passed by Pericles. The resolution stated that Spartan officials would not be allowed into Athens if Sparta had invoked military pressure, pressure that was found in the Spartan army at Corinth. Fortunately for Athens, Pericles had already evacuated all Athenian citizens out of Attica. Although it was for their wellbeing, many of the citizens were upset with having to abandon their land. To calm them, Pericles promised to give his land to the city if it remained untouched. Although their land was being ravished, Pericles refused to fully engage Sparta:

He, meanwhile, seeing anger and infatuation just now in the ascendant, and of his wisdom in refusing a sally, would not call either assembly or meeting of the people, fearing the fatal results of a debate inspired by passion and not by prudence. Accordingly he addressed himself to the defence of the city, and kept it as quiet as possible, though he constantly sent out cavalry to prevent raids on the lands near the city from flying parties of the enemy. [2]

During the looting in Attica, Pericles did however send a fleet of 100 ships to patrol the Peloponnese coasts and a force of cavalry to guard the walls of the city. In autumn, Pericles led a force that invaded Megara and at the end of the year he delivered his famous Funeral Oration. The speech was done in honour of those who had lost their lives for Athens and to raise the spirits of a city at war. It is unknown how much of the recorded speech was actually Pericles' words, as Thucydides noted:

[I]t was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said. [3]

The Spartans looted Attica a second time in 430BCE, yet Pericles continued to refuse a revision of his initial strategy and so again he led a naval force of 100 ships to the Peloponnese coasts. In that summer an epidemic broke out in Athens. Thought to be typhus or typhoid fever, the epidemic ravished the Athenian people. Because of this, Pericles was forced to his final speech in which he attempts to defend himself and at the same time he shows his distaste for the disloyalty and ingratitude of the Athenian people. Nevertheless, Pericles' rivals managed to have his status as a general revoked and imposed a fine.

Within a year however, the Athenians had re-elected Pericles as a strategos and put him in command of all its 429BCE military operations. It seemed that Pericles would grasp hold of Athens once again. However, the death of his two sons, Xanthippus and Paralus, demoralized him and eventually he died in the autumn. Athens would be ultimately be defeated in the Peloponnesian War, and Thucydides placed the blame on the death of Pericles. Thucydides felt that those who came to lead Athens after Pericles were weak in comparison, and that they "committ[ed] even the conduct of state affairs to the whims of the multitude." [4]

Pericles was a cautious military general who heavily relied upon the Athenian navy in war, and it served him strongly during the Peloponnesian War. He had a strong defensive strategy, and while he was alive during the Peloponnesian War, Athens never fell. His policies were never the most popular, yet they worked. Leading up to the war he convinced his fellow citizens of a plan, during the first year he stuck to his plan and also showed his dedication to the people through the dedication of his land, and during his final year and a half he came back from political death to regain the support of Athens. Just in the Peloponnesian War we can see how brilliant a man that was Pericles.

--

[1] A.G. Platias-C. Koliopoulos, Thucydides on Strategy, 100-103
[2] Thucydides, 2.22
[3] Thucydides, 1.22
[4] Thucydides, 2.65

•Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian War, I-III

•Platias Athanasios G., Koliopoulos Constantinos (2006). Thucydides on Strategy. Eurasia Publications

[*] This is article #006 in Jon Nagelmakers' quest to win the Last Viner Standing competition in April, 2007. His other articles in this series can be found here.

The world is a cold place where a leading light is needed for the general population to maintain a level of fortitude. This sanguine element takes many forms; however, it always contains a much needed component of faith on the part of the individual. Faith is that which keeps the world running smoothly and strongly, and without it the human race would spiral into nihilism. Faith is important when working with the unknown and hope. Each area relies largely on faith, and without faith, would become a dizzying topic to discuss. Yet before one can explore the needs for faith, it must be defined first. Faith is a confidence in the truth or value of a person, idea, or thing in which there is no logical proof or material evidence. It is the persuasion of the mind that a certain thing is true, without having the facts to back it up.

The unknown is such a large and expansive topic, that one could not go over all the sub-topics within it; however, there is one widespread feature of the unknown – the need for faith. Ever since the beginning of human's existence there has been both a fear and wonderment about that which is unknown. This is when religion was first created to explain the unexplained parts of the world such as life, death, and nature. The first men of this planet created and projected their own qualities onto an external force so that they may place faith in that which is greater than they. One will find it impossible to put faith into nothing, so man created something to explain the nothing. What is the difference between God and the unknown? It is that God is tangible and alterable, meaning if something did not fit, it could be changed and still have its status of a fait accompli. On the other hand, the unknown can never hold shape unless given a shape by a higher being – the divine. Life, death, nature are all parts of the divine, and run according to its will – therefore it is also open to pleasing, and this offers a sense of security.

When one thinks of the unknown aspects of life and nature, many things are imagined: extraterrestrial beings, the future, the beginning of the world, the weather, and more. Also if we look back on early man, even more parts of life were unknown: birth, animals, and human differences – things that we have figured out and proven today. As the unknown is discovered, man slowly removes that aspect from the god he is worshiping. It used to be that in order to receive rainfall, a tribe would have to perform a ritual towards the god to please it. After science explained the truth behind rainfall, the rituals became outdated and ejected from the faith. One would think that this would destroy the entire religion; however, as has been seen with the Catholic Church, it does not.

Next we have hope. Every time a person says he/she hopes something will happen, they are secretly putting faith into it happening. Hope, being defined as the wish for something to happen with expectation of its fulfillment, cannot work if the person doesn't have faith that it will happen. What good is wishing for a new bike if you do not have an ounce of belief that you will get it? James Redfield shows his idea on faith and hope in The Secret of Shambhala:

A prayer that asks God to intervene assumes that God can intervene but only if he decides to honor our request. It assumes that we have no role except to ask. The other form of prayer assumes that God is ready and willing but has set up the laws of human existence so that whether the request is fulfilled depends in some part on the certainty of our belief that it will be done. So our prayer must be an affirmation that voices this faith. In the study, this kind of prayer proved to be most effective.

The basics of hope show that hope and faith are connected - you cannot have one without the other. When one hopes something is true, they have faith that it will be true. When one has faith in a person, they hope the person will succeed. The biggest difference between the two is that hope can be used as a less strong ('weaker' being a negative adjective should not be used) feeling because you are not as sure that your beliefs will succeed. People do not place faith in the lottery, they place hope, and if they happen to win then they were lucky; however, a person can place faith or hope into a person succeeding. However, a problem many encounter is that they do not believe in themselves, and in The Secret of Shambhala, man is given advice on the subject: "And then we realized that we had a greater power within us to help us accomplish what needed to be done." People need to believe and have hope in their own actions, else they will not succeed.

--

[*] This is article #005 in Jon Nagelmakers' quest to win the Last Viner Standing competition in April, 2007. His other articles in this series can be found here.

Tonight on CNN there is a special on Jesus and the major political issues of the day. If you are interested in watching it tune into CNN at 8PM EST.

Let's open the discussion to Newsvine. According to your interpretation of Jesus, how do you think he would respond to such issues as abortion, the war in Iraq, and poverty?

Christianity is a huge driving force in American politics, especially with the Conservatives. Many political figures see themselves as doing what God and Jesus want even though their beliefs are never fully supported by the entire Christian population. Would Jesus accept such integration of politics and religion?

Personally, I feel that the Church has been hijacked in America by the politicians. The religious views held by some political figures have transcended simply religion and become social issues which must be acted on. Many feel that the government should be protecting the rules and regulations of Christianity.

However, these are the same people who pretend to be protecting the constitution. Separating government and religion doesn't seem to be a big topic for them and neither are the personal liberties that these politicians try and limit.

I view Jesus as simply a man who taught a moral code much in the way Confucius and Moses did. These were people who did not want a religious following as they only taught what they felt was the way to act. I don't think that Jesus would have completely accepted his divine status.

But as to what Jesus would say on government and religion - would he want his values enforced or perhaps the liberty for people to choose. He was raised in a time of persecution for those who went against the Roman Empire, so it is a possibility he would want everyone to be as free as possible.

Was Jesus a socialist? Was he a Republican? Some think he was a libertarian:

When Jesus says to give to the poor, He does not mandate a welfare department and expanded powers for the tax police. In fact, He repeats the Old Testament commandment against theft (Matthew 19:18), thus putting His stamp of approval on private property. The New Testament also states that, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (II Thessalonians 3:10) and that "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (II Corinthians 9:7). God asks for a voluntary contribution of ten percent of our earnings, whereas Caesar puts a gun at our heads for half of our earnings.

I'm not versed in the Bible enough to make a strong argument on the subject, but I do know that as much respect as I have for Jesus, I'm still never going to let him infringe on my liberty.

--

[*] This is article #004 in Jon Nagelmakers' quest to win the Last Viner Standing competition in April, 2007. His other articles in this series can be found here.

Adam Smith was an 18th century political economist and philosopher who not only created, but greatly impacted the study of economics. His ideas were highly influential and helped create the basis for such ideologies as the laissez-faire market, capitalism, and ultimately libertarianism. His most famous book, Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, was the most complete and exhaustive work of the time to look into the market and expressed the ideas that Smith held for a smaller government influence on the market.

Although Smith's date of birth is unknown, many place it as most likely on the date of his baptism, June 5th, 1723. His father worked as the controller of customs in Kirkcaldy, Fife, Scotland, but died months after the birth of his son. His childhood wasn't especially interesting except for when he was kidnapped at age four by gypsies, although this only lasted a short period of time before his uncle saved him. Smith continued to live with his mother until he turned 14 which is when he received and accepted a scholarship to attend the University of Glasgow where he studied moral philosophy under Francis Hutcheson who was one of the founders of the Scottish Enlightenment. During his education at the university, Smith developed his lifelong passion for liberty, free speech, and reason. In 1940, Smith received a scholarship and attended the Balliol College in Oxford; however, it was due to the process of tenure, a process which Smith publicly criticized after he had left, that he concluded his studies in 1746.

It was after leaving the Balliol College that Smith began his years of public lecturing under the patronage of Lord Kames in 1748. Smith began by lecturing on rhetoric and belles-lettres, but soon moved on to lecturing on what he took at the University of Glasgow, moral philosophy. After this, he began to lecture on economic philosophy, focusing on "the obvious and simple system of natural liberty," as he later said in his The Wealth of Nations. It was during this period of lecturing that he met David Hume, a man who was his senior by a decade. Hume became a life long friend and was a peer in both the Scottish Enlightenment and intellectual thinking.

In 1751, Smith received the appointment to the chair of logic at the University of Glasgow and continued lecturing about the multitude of subjects he had previously studied: ethics, rhetoric, jurisprudence, and political economy. He then used some of these lectures in his first published book The Theory of Moral Sentiments. This work is considered one of the most important books in the theory of capitalism, as it explored the groundwork for his later The Wealth of Nations: the ethical, psychological, methodological, and philosophical. The influence of Hutcheson can be seen in Smith's division of moral philosophy into four parts: ethics and virtue; private rights and natural liberty; familial rights; and state and individual rights. The beginning of The Theory of Moral Sentiments largely summarizes what Smith set out to explore and his basic assertion:

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from the sorrows of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous or the humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it.

After publishing his first book, Smith began to move away from his studies of moral philosophy and moved into the area of jurisprudence and economics. It was here that many of Smith's ideas began to take the form as will be shown in The Wealth of Nations. His ideas at the time were found and published through lectures notes taken by one of Smith's students in around 1763, thirteen years before publication of The Wealth of Nations. The lectures notes were published in Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms. Smith stepped down from his occupation at Glasgow to travel with the stepson of Charles Townshend and become his personal tutor from 1764-1766. During this time, Smith met with many of the intellectual leaders across Europe, but more specifically in France.

On his return, Smith began to work on his great work An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, a work which occupy much of the next ten years of his life. His magnum opus was published in 1776 to great popularity which secured Smith's fame. It is an account of the atmosphere in the political economy at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and was so influential that it helped create the field of economics and turn it into an actual discipline. Part of the reasoning behind its popularity was because it was written for the average educated person rather then the higher educated individuals. This allowed its influence and popularity to rise and continue to this day. Considered the first defence of the free market, as well as the most influential book in economics, The Wealth of Nations was heralded as a classic manifesto against mercantilism, the political economy of the day. Due to economic hardships and poverty, the book's ideology became popular opinion and the support for free trade grew.

The most predominant idea put forth in The Wealth of Nations was that of the 'invisible hand'. The thought was that although the market may seem chaotic and uncontrolled, it actually is restrained and controlled through the works of an invisible hand, or market forces. Instead of having a central power deciding what the market needs, Smith believed that the market itself would work out the problem. Take a shortage of supply for example. If there is a shortage of suppliers in the bread market, price will go up as the product will be scarcer. As the price increases, profit margins increase as well which entice new suppliers to enter the market. On the other hand, if there is an excess of bread, prices will fall. As prices fall, profit margin approaches, and may pass, the zero profit mark. This forces a supplier who is making negative profits (losing capital), will retreat from the market. Through this invisible hand, the market forces, the price of a good will hit its 'natural price' and the market, supply and demand, will be at an appropriate level.

Smith also attacked government intervention into markets when it was unnecessary. He held the opinion that government intervention through regulation such as tariffs hindered market growth and actually hurt the market. In the long run, Smith believed that government intervention would create inefficiency and higher prices. This theory of a lack of government involvement became to be known as laissez-faire, French for "let them do", which is the basis for such ideologies as capitalism and libertarianism. Although he disliked involvement in most cases, Smith did believe that the government should have a handle on some markets: markets which weren't profitable, national security, and a judiciary as examples.

The Wealth of Nations went on to influence not only governments, but also a multitude of individuals. A few economists and individuals who were influenced by it are David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman. It became the foundation for economic thinking whether one agrees or disagrees with the material. Smith himself became the staple for economic thought and it would be a safe to say that almost all economic thought has branched from him.

--

[*] This is article #003 in Jon Nagelmakers' quest to win the Last Viner Standing competition in April, 2007. His other articles in this series can be found here.

There are a number of issues discussed and debated over between the different political ideologies and when the air smells of election these issues become hot topics. Even though awhile away, the 2008 election already has filled the air with anticipation. It seems that it is never too early to begin campaigning.

These issues are an integral part on how we judge both politicians and the parties they represent. These issues are what call the partisans out to war. Abortion, for instance, draws very strong public attention and support. A race for election can be won or lost based on the stance a politician holds and even how strongly they support that opinion.

So in the spirit of getting smarter I wanted to learn more about all the issues and the different opposing opinions within each one. These things can be found by reading the debates and discussions in the comments on related articles; however, I find that this does not make for a good reference - there is simply too much noise. What I want is the issues and the different opinions on the issues neatly packaged in a clear, easy to read form.

Better yet, I would love to have the different opinions cleaned up and defined as best as possible. While it is easy to explain a position generally, it is much more educational to clarify a point a view. To achieve this I would need some sort of forum which was limited to clarifying arguments.

Introducing… IssueVine.

Now I know the name isn't very original but stick with me for a moment. The idea behind it is simple – for each issue I will put up two (or more if needed) articles. Each will contain the same overview of the issue, written by me, which will include background information, relevant links, etc. Each article will also be 'supporting' a point of view on the issue. Going with the abortion issue again, there would be two articles: one for abortion, one against abortion.

Now in the comments section there will be strict regulation. The comments will be limited to identifying and clarifying the support for the stance represented in the article. Supporters of the stance will post why they agree with that particular ideology. Those who disagree with the stance have a role too. They will ask the supporters to clarify on points in their arguments.

For example, if the article is of the abortion issue, specifically against abortion. If a supporter writes the argument that "abortion is an attack on life," some who disagree might feel inclined to point out the possible infringement on the rights of the woman. However, please refrain from arguing with the supporters – the person who disagrees could ask "how much control should a person have over their body."

While the support is identified and clarified, Viners will vote for the strongest arguments. If you don't understand the logic a person uses to form an argument, don't vote for their comment but ask them to clarify. If you believe that their clarification is a strong argument, vote for it. This part of the debate isn't about which side is right, it is about finding the strongest arguments on each side of the issue.

One way to look at it is we want to break down the arguments made by each side into smaller and more specific parts until all that is left is a normative argument. Once it becomes pure opinion we have found the true talking points.

After the two (or more) sides of the argument have been defined in their articles, I will write up a concluding article showing the most popular/strongest arguments on all sides of the fence. This is where we will be able to discuss the results and continue debate.

I'm not sure how this will work and I'm open to discussion on how to improve the idea. If you have issues you would want to see covered let me know.

--

[*] This is article #002 in Jon Nagelmakers' quest to win the Last Viner Standing competition in April, 2007. His other articles in this series can be found here.

In the first few months of groups I think most Viners have found themselves lost as to the actual goal of the groups. The idea was to appeal to the smaller groups of interests within Newsvine – the ability for linux users to pool their news into one location so that they may all benefit, and the hilarity of some of our users are swirled together at our own circus.

I too have created a number of groups – groups that I felt would be extremely helpful to the niches I was creating them for. Some were a success, such as the Libertarians group. I never had any idea that there were so many libertarians on Newsvine and as a whole I think the Newsvine libertarians all benefited from the exposure to one another. Unfortunately us Canadians haven't had the same success, but it is still moving along.

But then we move into the grey areas. I also created a free market group for just that – issues concerning a free market. And this is where our problems with groups begin. Most are left alone and allowed to collect irrelevant articles, like cobwebs in an old home. We begin to see news about a Libertarian candidate in the free market group. The groups become simply tools of exploitation to get more page views. They begin to lose their purpose as a special interest news location and sub-community.

So, on that note, I've created guidelines for posting material to the groups which I started. These are all open to debate and criticism is welcome. I also suggest you take a look at the groups if any of them interest you. If your curiosity gets to you, add one to your watchlist.

Free Market

This group is specifically for news and other information on the free market. If a senator is proposing a bill to raise minimum wage the article would be appropriate to be in this group. Shopping, on the other hand, although based on a free market, is not directly pertaining to an influence on it.

Silly and Stupid

This group was meant to almost be the Digg of Newsvine. Not so much news, unless it is funny news, but more the random things on the internet. Find a cool picture? Seed it to the group. Perhaps others would also be interested in searching with K-Fed. All in all, Silly and Stupid is the not-news group.

Libertarians

This group is where I perhaps have the most problems. What should be allowed –news which a libertarian would be strongly against, so perhaps might want to see so that they can express outrage or only news directly related to the libertarian movement.

So I have decided to create a second group, the Libertarianism group. This group will be dedicated to the libertarian movement and the political and economic philosophies of libertarianism and associated movements.

The original Libertarian group will be for any articles which would relate or be of interest to libertarians.

Anti-War

This group is popular and is constantly bombarded by quite a large number of articles per day. I knew when I created it that a lot of information would pass through it. But now I think the members of the group should look at something bigger. Perhaps a series of some sort to speak out against war all around the world.

Canadians

This group hasn't really had any issues, so keep up the good work, eh! Anything that is Canadian I'm sure the rest of us want to read about.

Religions have always relied on their truths being absolute, an idea that makes the religion seem more universal and grand. Many of these absolute truths are shared by most people of the world such as murder and theft which are never socially acceptable. However, when religious beliefs divert from each other or from secular beliefs there opens the chance for evil.

The Bible has a number of passages which disallow homosexuality which has in turn led to many prominent members of the government speaking out on it, even though the government is supposed to be secular in policy. However, when one looks through the Bible and looks at how it has been used in society there really is not a reason for these Christian government officials to speak out. They are simply blinded by an absolute truth.

Conservative Christians quote many parts of the Bible in defence of their distaste for homosexuality. In the Bible all references to homosexuality are negative although it is only mentioned a few times. Especially with conservative Christians the Bible is seen as being inspired by God, making it an absolute ethical guide, separating what God considers good and what He considers to be sinful.

This can be seen in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England which dictates that Anglicans are still responsible for the moral commandments in the Old Testament. It is in Genesis 1 and 2 that God creates mankind and establishes their relationships as being a man and a woman. This is one of the cornerstones of the anti-homosexuality movement, saying that 'God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.'

Regardless, these passages are seen as "foundational for the classical Judaeo-Christian teaching that sexual intercourse is designed for expression solely within the life-long, marital relationship of a man and a woman." Next in Genesis there is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, specifically 19:4-8 where it is said:

"Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly."Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." "

It is believed that God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of the sins of the people who lived there, and it was from this story that the term "sodomy" was coined in reference to homosexuality and anal sex. It was not just in the Old Testament, however, that negative passages about homosexuality are found. In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27, Paul writes

Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

This is the only passage in the Bible which mentions female homosexuality. It becomes apparent how such dislike for homosexuality came around. The references in the Bible seem to plainly point out that homosexuality is a sin, essentially evil because it goes against God's will. When interpreted in one way the Bible looks as to completely disallow homosexuality making it an absolute truth that homosexuality is bad.

It is the teaching of this interpretation of the Bible which has led many government officials to be so outspoken on the subject of homosexuality. With religion removed it seems logical that those involved in politics would stay away from the subject of homosexuality simply to avoid career suicide, yet there are many who voluntarily choose to get involved.

""I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Gen Pace told the Chicago Tribune."As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behaviour] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behaviour,""

That was Marine General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a man who represents part of our country, the military. One can see here how the absolute truth of homosexuality is oppressing a social group of people. Discrimination itself is bad, but from a public institution it is even worse.

Since 1994 there has been a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" in the military. The idea behind it is that as long as nobody knows of a person's sexual orientation there isn't a problem. It was seen as a way to allow homosexuals into the army without having to deal with them. The idea of one evil, sodomy, has given rise to another evil, discrimination.

Even the President of the United States is wary of homosexuality, running on the 2004 platform calling for "a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage" And public figures justify their beliefs by quoting such passages as Leviticus 18:22 which says "And with a man you shall not lie with as a man lies with a woman; it is an abomination."

The point of contest to these government officials is that the Bible is open to interpretation and it is by no means considered completely literal or relevant in our society. Such is the case with Sodom and Gomorrah, a case where it is cannot be assumed that God's decision to destroy the cities was based on the homosexual acts. Light is shed on this in Ezekiel 16:49-50:

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

These sorts of discrepancies makes one wonder if it can be justified to discriminate against the homosexuals who are just as much part of the country as everyone else. Even the passages in Leviticus – the most clear on homosexuality – are disputable. It is a held belief that the chapters in question were part of the purity codes that Jesus rejected, which would make it no long relevant (Johns 2004).

Christians as a rule place importance on the teachings of Jesus, a man who never mentioned homosexuality. It was in Jesus' teachings that we find a message of love and being a good person and where he rejected external factors as a judge of who is righteous in Galations 5:6: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; they only thing that counts is faith working through love."

The conservative Christians who claim they are doing the will of Jesus are mistaken, as Jesus wanted man to love everyone equal. Yet because of their impression of the absolute truth on homosexuality they are willing to treat homosexuals as less-than-equal, going directly against the teachings of Jesus.

The idea of an absolute truth being forced upon a nation which is supposedly built on liberty and freedom is scary, and the fact that it is based on quite disputable interpretations of the Bible is even more so. While it is true that the Bible has explicitly labelled homosexuality as a sin there are also plenty of passages which would strike down any reasoning for the discrimination of homosexuals.

With the government being so entangled with such a limited interpretation of the Bible the USA, and even Canada are subjected to discriminating policies. In the name of religion and drunk in absolute truth these Christians promote their own form of evil, going against the teachings of Jesus Christ.

---

"2004 Republican Party Platform," The American Presidency Project, < http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R2004>.

"Gay sex immoral says US general," BBC News, < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6446815.stm>.

Hilborn, David, "Homosexuality and Scripture, Evangelical Alliance UK, < http://www.eauk.org/theology/headline_issues/faithhopeandhomosexuality/upload/homosexualityandscripture.pdf>.

Johns, Loren, "Homosexuality and the Bible: A Case Study in the Use of the Bible for Ethics," Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, 23 December 2004, < http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm>.

So you think an article is dead after eleven months and nothing will really come out of it anymore. Apparently it isn't true, sbukti came up with the idea for a thread for all of us to explain our nicknames, if we have one. Do you use a nom de plume and if so how did you choose the name.

Also, if you are using your real name perhaps you could fill us in why the name was chosen and what the heritage of your name is.

As for myself, my full name is Jonathan William Nagelmakers. Jonathan, my mother tells me, was the first name she thought of when she saw me, I was her gift of God (Hebrew translation). William came to me through my maternal grandfather and his linage of fathers - I am the 7th generation William. Nagelmakers is my step-father's family name, the only group of Nagelmakers in Canada are related to my father, a family which came from Holland. However, it was only in the past few years that my last name was legally changed to Nagelmakers. In the law of the eyes I was Jonathan Bain, but to everyone else I was Jonathan N.

But to be sure, the name I am most proud of in my family is my mother's father, Hughes. I seriously debated taking his name instead of Nagelmakers because of the connection I have with him. He had four daughters and all sisters, so his name finished when he died just over a month ago.

Our names are where we are from, where we are going. Even an alias or nickname holds deeper meaning than what is on the surface. So what about you?

The Neoconservatives are on the forefront of the push for war with Iran, and in general the Neocon policy calls for war, regardless of whom with. Now I don't underestimate the Neocon belief that Iran is an immediate, and very dangerous, threat. I can believe that they truly think this. However, after Iraq, I wonder why they aren't more cautious about the situation. They somehow seem set on a strategy. And the individual wars are in themselves debatable, but as a generality, the Neocon policy does most definitely call for war.

The Search for an Enemy

Look at current foreign policy debates in relation to the Middle East, and look back at what the Neoconservatives were arguing in the 1990s. It is clear that war is essential to their political theory, and some point to the Middle East, but I think it is more than that, and it isn't just about Israel either. A year prior to 9/11 the Weekly Standard was demanding more pressure to be put on China over the spy plane incident.

And prior to that, you had many Neoconservatives, including Bill Kristol, providing huge support for the Kosovo War, a war which had nothing to do with American security. So the 1990s were really just an uncomfortable time for Neoconservatives. The Soviet Union had collapsed, and there wasn't any clear cut enemy to fight.

Just look at the 1996 article that Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote in Foreign Affairs, titled "Towards a Neo Reaganite Foreign Policy" an idea, like neoconservative and conservative, there isn't much similarity. They justify and encourage war when they say

"Most of the world's major powers welcome US global involvement and prefer America's benevolent hegemony to the alternatives….The principal concern of America's allies these days is not that it will be too dominant but that it will withdraw."

Add to it that they expand on how American weakness will be the downfall of American power, so she must remain on a war footing. Without a threat, it really becomes the political theory of Neoconservatism which comes under threat. The idea seems to be that we must engage in these wars in order to maintain our dominance and keep the world afraid of American superiority.

It is almost appropriate of Michael Ledeen's comment a few years back where he said that "every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." So to the Neoconservatives, it really isn't an issue of who we go to war with, as long as we go to war.

Liberals Mugged by Reality

When defining a Neoconservative, there really is only way to do so, and it is as Irving Kristol said, they are "liberal[s] mugged by reality." A funny definition, but also truthful in its own right. The original Neoconservatives were disaffected left-wingers. You have the one wave of ex-Trotskyites who were disillusioned with the Soviet Union, such as Irving Kristol. Next you had a wave of liberal-democrats who had been alienated by the new left in the 1960s. Prominent Neoconservatives now include the Kristols, Norman Podhoretz and his son John, and William Bennett just to name a few.

Now you don't have to be an ex-leftist to be a Neoconservative, it just comes down to whether you agree with their policies. Cultural decline in America, and cultures in general are very important, as can be seen in their aggressive Wilsonian foreign policy. Basically, they are the opposites of libertarians or Goldwater conservatives. They accept the welfare state, with Irving Kristol writing piece years ago where he called for a "Conservative welfare state."

Big Government and War

There is no doubt that Neoconservatives are big-government conservatives, yet we mentioned before their pro-war policy. It seems that to the Neocons, domestic and foreign policies are linked. While libertarians and Goldwater conservatives are content with having the freedom to build their businesses, Neocons seem to think that prosperity requires bold acts on the part of the government. Simply look at the subset of Neoconservatives who call themselves the National Greatness Conservatives, who include Bill Kristol and David Brooks from the New York Times, these are men who believe and support this.

David Brooks had written that American greatness can only be found in Washington, and when else is Washington at its most dominant? Well of course, during war time. The Weekly Standard is blatant about its belief of Teddy Roosevelt being the greatest president, a man who said "In strict confidence ...I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." He felt that war was great for the national spirit and helped promote the masculine virtues.

These men think that economic dominance isn't all that great, that it doesn't really show America's might. These men think that America must expand its influence globally and maintain the position as the greatest nation.

A Future Policy of War

It is almost funny that a conservative debate today can take place about what World War we are in. Newt Gingrich says WW3, Norman Podhoretz says WW4 because he counts the Cold War as a World War. But regardless of the number, they all are united around this perpetual war concept. And when combined with the War on Terror, it is causing problems. It means more wars with other nations, for example Newt Gingrich in an article suggesting Iran, maybe Syria, or perhaps North Korea as targets.

And the thing about these wars is they allow for greater civilian fatality tolerance. You even see some Neoconservatives hinting that, hey perhaps we didn't kill enough people when we invaded Iraq. John Podhoretz wrote a column in the New York Post suggestion perhaps the mistake in Iraq was we didn't kill enough Sunnis? At least enough to intimidate them and scare them into surrender.

What does this mean to us? Well for starters, it means a permanent war footing and many more restrictions on civil liberties. Max Boot wrote an op-ed called "Forget Privacy, We Need to Spy More," a title which sure doesn't make me feel comfortable. John Yoo is a favourite constitutional theorist, the same guy who worked at the Justice Office of Legal Counsel from 2001-2003 where he was a point man for the Bush administration.

He designed an entirely new constitution for the administration, the Neoconstitution. This is where you have one branch of government with all the power. Wars are easy when Congress isn't involved in the process. Wire taps are easy as there is no need to go to a judge. Even the ability to lock up people indefinitely and refusing a fair trial.

Truthfully, I see the Neoconservative plan as a huge mistake. I don't see how the Neocon solutions are going to fix the problems with Al-Qaeda. It seems we have tried this with Iraq and if anything it gave a boost to Al-Qaeda.

Yet in the face of this evidence the Neocons continue on forward with their plan. Liberals mugged by reality may still be true, but their relationship with reality isn't anything like ours. They deny the logical, rational reality and focus on their policy of war.

What does it take to be happy in this world? Is it simply – he who dies with the most toys win, or perhaps the person who does the most charity. Apparently, and this is science, the happiest people are the Buddhist monks who gain control over their minds.

Matthieu Ricard was your average academia type. He got his Ph. D. degree in molecular genetics, but then gave up his entire career to concentrate on his practise of Tibetan Buddhism. He spent years developing his Buddhism mental control and became quite famous. His philosophy on happiness was that "our life can be greatly transformed by even a minimal change in how we manage our thoughts and perceive and interpret the world. Happiness is a skill. It requires effort and time."

And boy did he show it.

In MRI scans it was revealed that "long-term meditators - who had completed more than 10,000 hours each - experienced a huge level of "positive emotions" in the left pre-frontal cortex of the brain, which is associated with happiness. The right-hand side, which handles negative thoughts, is suppressed."

Now the idea that meditating can cause happiness, and one would think combat stress, is astounding. And it is now being suggested to the average man or woman in the West. Just think of all the stress in the hustle and bustle that has become our lives. People have no time to let the mind relax, there is always something to worry about.

It really is amazing that this man can simply generate happiness. It simply blows my mind, and I know my entire life will definitely be not so great. But maybe it could be, if I trained myself. The mind is a powerful tool. And like all tools, it can be both a help and a hindrance.

When you think about it this way…

Upset people are upset because it is where they feel most comfortable. They feel in control. Shy people are most comfortable being unseen, unheard. The social person needs to be with other people. These things may not make everyone happy, but it at least makes them comfortable.

And really, that is what life seems to be about. Get comfortable and hope for happiness. Or at least, that is what we are trained to think. First you need to be stable, so go to university. Second, you need to get a good job and a good spouse. Have the kids, retire, and push your own children in the same direction you went.

So our minds are perpetually thinking of achieving a set lifestyle. The ultimate goals are always horribly difficult to come by, such as retiring wealthy with the cottage and two or three amazing, smart kids. It can be done, but sacrifices are made. We sacrifice the things we dreamed of accomplishing. We don't dream about the standard white picket fence family, we dream about reading an entire library of books or spending our days scuba diving.

And this is what I think happens with the monks. They truly believe in their religion, and they accept themselves for who they are. They overcome their regrets, something very few people do. It makes me realize that the world is what you make it. It is how your mind perceives your situation.

So now I tend to look at the world as possibilities. I know I have the smarts, and the education is available to me no problem. I am happy with my situation and I have long since decided that I am going to take a path which satisfies me, not what I'm 'supposed' to be.

""Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions." - Dalai Lama"

I sit here, at 1 in the morning, having a cigarette and thinking how relaxing it is. It makes me think of the misunderstanding of people who don't smoke. I smoke and I enjoy it. There is nothing quite as satisfying as a smoke after a good meal.

While it is true, I would like to quit, that doesn't change how I feel when I have one. You know, that is the difficult part of quitting. It is the moments in your day when you can have a cigarette and relax. It balances you out. When trying to quit, life becomes more hectic.

According to Wikipedia, "tobacco related illnesses kill 440,000 people per year." Now I don't know that number off the back of my hand, but I know that smoking kills a lot of people. It is preventable. Heck, my grandfather passed away just about a month ago from lung cancer. The part that gets my parents riled up is that he only smoked for a few years around my age, 18. Sure, there were probably other circumstances but as both my parents smoked, it makes them that much more worried.

Cigarettes are addictive, yes I agree. But it is not just a physical dependence. It is the feeling of balance, that familiar relaxation. It is an escape from the world. And we all have them, whether it be getting lost in a good book or a video game.

Life makes us all need a break once in awhile.

What is it about life that requires us to take time outs? Why is life that stressful? I find I smoke the most when I am feeling low about my current situation. When I feel that I am underachieving, I combat it with drugs: nicotine, alcohol, or weed.

But I have dreams, and we all do. When I get into a low part of my life, something sparks my interest again and makes me remember my dreams. And most of us are lucky to have it happen to us. A good friend of mine went into rehab for drug abuse in November. He had betrayed his best friends, his girlfriend, and his kids. But he realized what he stood to lose, got into rehab. A month later, he was out, clean. He proposed to his girlfriend and now they are happily engaged. New Years day I talked to him and he said that it had been his best New Years Eve, and all he had done was be with his fiancée and kids. He didn't even make it to midnight.

I visited him recently, and life is going great. It gives me hope, and got me out of my own rut. I took a week, stood back, and looked at my current situation. I noticed what was wrong, and vowed to change it. After the week, I went back to university and was put to the test. Sure, I made some compromises, but I am back on track. I find the motivation to write, to read, and ultimately to learn.

All of us go through the ups and downs, and we usually get through it just fine. Some though get hit with bad luck, and the least we can do is offer a hand. When I saw my friend continue to feed my buddy drugs, even though she knew he had a problem, it disgusted me. I had to step in and tell him it was getting to a point where he doesn't want to be. I like to think I was a helping hand.

So yes, we will all have our vices. We will all give in to the craving. Me, I might be doing better in life, but I still will enjoy this smoke.

Recently at work I got into a discussion with my boss and a co-worker. I was telling them of my dreams to enter politics in the United States and make changes for the better. I am currently in a political science degree, and find myself heavily pulled towards the idea that liberty should not be infringed upon. I want to get into government and try shrink it, as it has become way too bloated. If I could achieve my libertarian goals, I would be extremely happy; however, I am content to simply make an impact by fighting for the freedom of the people.

Now the discussion started with my explaining why I am for small government. A lot of the points they agreed with, but my co-worker was trying to say the government needs to be more accountable. I couldn't disagree, but tried to point out that one reason for all the corruption is that the government is just too big. He agreed once again, but was very sure that what I was proposing was as good as a Utopian dream. Now, as a former anarcho-capitalist, I thought I had shifted more to plausible reality in libertarianism, or classical liberalism.

His point was as follows. The government is corrupt because of all the money made by big business and lobby groups. This means that the big politicians are all heavily funded by people with interests. With so much money in politics, it would be impossible for modest folk to get into politics. And once the rich are into power, they have to serve the interests of those who got them there. So even if a modest person got into power, they would still have to bow to pressure.

It was a horrible thought, but no, I thought to myself, with the internet we are capable of a more grassroots political movement, money isn't as big an issue. But Kevin had a reply for that - the nice guys just don't last. With the amount of power big business has these days, combined with the mainstream media, the nice guys will be forced out, one way or another. He said to look at Kennedy. Now, I am not strong in American history, so I can't comment on it, but there it is.

He then asked me to think about myself in that position. How would I respond to pressure. And I would like to think that I can stand up for what I believe in, not give into corruption. That is what I want to do, and I am fairly sure I could do. But is it true, that everybody has a price? Is there really any chance of making that big a difference?

There are two parties, and once one screws up, the other one comes in to do the same. They respond to the mob, simply for the votes. I recently learned about this in classical studies, where after Pericles died the politicians began to do whatever the people wanted, not thinking about what was best for the country. This is how we have lost our freedom, because although individuals are smart, the group is stupid.

So a politician screws up big, like Bush is doing. The Democrats are voted into office, and now they have a mess to clean up. They will run into problems, criticism will be high. With the way politics is in America, the Republicans could be in '10 and '12.

So are my dreams stupid? Is it actually impossible for someone to get into politics and stay clean? And if that occurs by freak chance, do they stand a chance against the big-government-endorsed big business? Perhaps it would simply be better, or easier, to live the life of an academic. Discuss the subject, yet remain comfortable with the knowledge I'm somewhat safe from serious opposition.

I really just need to ramble for a bit, as I have held back on commenting and writing for awhile. However, I have continued to spend at least 2-3 hours reading per day, so I am up on the latest happenings. There are a number of things I want to cover, I just hope I remember to get to all of them.

First, groups. Groups have given us the opportunity to clean up the front page, an area which has long been a topic of complaints. Too many meta articles and too many 'fun' articles. Personally, I would add satire as being 'too many' as well. How to solve it? Use the damn groups. I don't want to read satire: I have not a single ounce of motivation to read it. I understand, however, that there are people on Newsvine who love to read satire. How to solve the problem? Put all satire in a group and off the Vine. You want to read satire? Watchlist it.

What about too much meta content? Well if all of it was placed in a single group and kept off the Vine, nobody except those interested would have to see it. Remember that Calvin has said only a small percent of people on Newsvine actually comment, would would lead me to believe a small percent of people actually want to read meta content. Put it in the group, take it off the Vine, and it will not show up, even in the Top Comments/Votes boxes.

This lead me to think about the Newsvine Community group - should it be limited to only meta content, or should it be for all things not-news. If it is going to continue being a location for most anything, perhaps we need a group for only meta content. I have the Newsvine Community group on watchlist, yet I hate most of the content in it - I only keep it watch listed because I don't want to miss meta content.

Oh and I do believe that more historical or conceptual, not really news articles and seeds should be on the front page, but only more academic ones.

Another thing about groups is I think they need to be moderated better. People seem to not care what a group is for, as long as it is almost similar to the subject of the article or seed. If they can get broader exposure, they will do it. Don't think I'm painting a broad picture, as it isn't a huge problem, but it is a problem nonetheless.

My experience and example of this is two of my groups: the libertarian group and the free market group. While Libertarians believe in the free market, not everything about the free market has to do with Libertarians. When I subscribe to the Libertarian feed, I want to read about Libertarian philosophy, news, and anything else that has to do with actual libertarianism. Similarly, not everything to do with Libertarians has to do with the free market.

This is also a problem with tags.

Speaking of tags, I think we need a small group of staff to handle tags. My idea is that some people should be allowed to add and remove tags. This would remove a lot of the controversy, as the problem would usually be solved before many people noticed it. Furthermore, perhaps we need a list of acceptable tagging procedures for certain topics. Such topics would include George W. Bush - do we tag an article about him with George-Bush, George-W-Bush, or Bush?

Thinking about Bush has led me to thoughts on the Republicans, which of course sparks my thoughts about right vs. left wing. There have been many problems with "too many liberals" and "Republicans are troublemakers." Yet for every complaint I read, I see hypocrisy as well. I won't name anybody specifically, but there are many prominent, well respected people on Newsvine who have been very disrespectful. While I thankfully see some people pointing out the inflammatory behaviour, I don't see it stopping, or even slowing down.

This leads me to censorship, which has been beaten dead over the past few days. Just a quick word on it though, I promise.

It is the right of Newsvine to limit what material is presented or how it is done so. However, my personal feeling is that Newsvine should allow controversial content. If I wrote an article about the Holocaust being a fake and I submit it with a well constructed, however misguided, argument, should it be removed? Should even the people of Newsvine have that ability to remove the article? They would think I'm an ignorant piece of @!$%#, yet why censor me. I would think that disproving my argument would show more than simply censoring me.

Nevertheless, I would agree with the censorship of an article denying the holocaust which didn't provide any reason beyond a racial one (and I mean clear cut racism).

Another problem recently has been the issue of our imagine to the outside world. How are we viewed, is it bad, and how could we correct it? Well, once the fluff is removed from the front page and opinions are respected more, I think the problem would be solved.

Not much more I can think of right now, but I finally got a bunch of stuff off my chest.

The last week has been interesting for me. I haven't had the motivation to write articles, even though in October, five of my articles garnered a total of 201 votes and 460 comments. I was greatly surprised by the amount of response I had experienced, and even had dreams and a goal to have a 50+ vote and/or 100+ comment article per week.

I, however, switched methods to try something different. I had a grasp on how to write solid, popular articles, and thought about the methods used by other Viners. I had never been very successful with my seeds with the exception of a rare gem which sparked a high response. I started my short mission to figure out an efficient way of seeding.

Starting a week ago, a higher percent of my seeds became popular. I still wasn't being very efficient in what/how I seeded, but I was making progress. I had written an article on tagging properly and was determined to put my words into action. I had two paths open to me - seed to as many places as possible to gain the greatest exposure possible, or seed to specific places. I decided to ignore the mass exposure and focus.

I seeded articles which were definitely not news, so I chose to not publish them across all of Newsvine, but rather only in appropriate groups. The articles got quite popular, even though it didn't have the same exposure it could have had.

I also seeded articles which wouldn't be considered popular, yet once again I put them into their proper places. A seed about Apple which was placed into the proper group gained quite a bit of attention. So did a seed on making great bread which I placed into the Foodies! group.

Beyond this 'niche' seeds, I had the more mainstream ones. However, instead of seeding a lot of articles and hoping one gains popularity, I went more for quality. Sure, quality is sometimes controversial, but not always. My Obama seed wasn't very controversial, but it became very popular. Others were definitely controversial, yet still not simply fluff pieces seeded for a response. I even had an actual news article which I seeded with a twist of humour.

All these things combined has been what put me into first place for popularity. It is not exactly that I have been on Newsvine longer, and have more exposure. I created my own exposure by diversifying what I seeded, and putting it in the proper places to attract the most relevant readers. I had religious seeds, political seeds, humorous seeds, and everything in between.

I'm not bragging about my recent position on the Leaderboard, although I am proud of it. The thing which makes it great though, is that anyone can do it. Sure, I have my own specific time schedule of when I seed and post articles, but that is only preference.

The most important point I wanted to come out of this article is that one doesn't always have to go for maximum exposure. Quality over quantity. If you target your most likely audience and direct material at them, a greater achievement will be made over simply mass-seeding. Don't be afraid to limit your material to a small corner of the site, because the more people do it, the more diversity Newsvine will receive. The Watchlist will benefit from this, because we will get more appropriate and relevant seeds to read.

The more organisation we get on Newsvine, the more user friendly it becomes. With ease of use comes more members. And with more members, comes more activity in votes, comments, and earnings.

The GOP has become a party for the religious Christians, big business supporters, and increasingly fewer freedom fighters. What once was a party for a more balanced budget, smaller government, and more freedom, has transformed into a creature which seems to care little about previous ideologies. The conservative philosophy has been lost upon the GOP for the moment, and I am afraid that because of this we shall see government continue to grow as people continue the false-dicotomy of the Republicans versus the Democrats.

Unfortunately, this is what we have seen happen. Libertarians who have traditionally swung more to the Republican vote, have become unsure of the GOP, largely due to the neocon agenda. How can any Libertarian continue a cycle began by George W. Bush of national spending going completely out of control. Small government has been thrown out of the window, and freedom has been encroached upon.

This can be seen in the huge shift of the Libertarian vote from 2000 to 2004. In 2000, 72 percent of Libertarians preferred Bush over Al Gore, who was preferred by 20 percent. During this presidential term by Bush, we saw spending increase tremendously and the beginning of the government's intrusion onto our freedom. In the 2004 election, Libertarians realized that the GOP was not what it once was, and the numbers showed this. The margins for Bush against John Kerry were 59 percent pro-Bush and 38 percent pro-Kerry.

The Cato Institute recently had a study completed by David Boaz and David Kirby which explored the Libertarian vote, and the numbers were encouraging. From a number of surveys, the number of Libertarians or people with libertarian ideologies (most of whom either don't know the term libertarian, or simply never classified themselves as one) is some 13 percent of the entire electorate. This is not a small number and should not be underestimated. With 13 percent, elections can be won and lost.

Unfortunately very few have taken note of this, especially the media and more importantly the voters. The third-party vote is still viewed as a waste in the eyes of some, yet I at least see it as a manner to get the GOP back in line. For all those who are disgruntled as a result of the neocon infestation in the GOP, vote for the Libertarian party. Voting for the Democrats doesn't solve the problems, as they too want to spend more money and have bigger government then we should have. Voting for the Democrats simply because the Republicans are not what you would like at the moment seems almost as stupid as Bush's 'with us or against us' policy.

An exodus of voters from the Republicans over to the Libertarians would prompt required immediate action in the GOP. It would serve as a wake-up call to those who still remember what the conservative soul is, and would force them to go back to that ideology or risk losing more and more voters. Eventually the neocons will be old news and irrelevant, as they won't be able to produce the votes anymore.

Don't turn your back on the principles of small-government, minimized spending, and civil liberty simply because a party - one which is supposed to be based upon it - has turned its back. No, go to the third option that still protects you and your opinion. This is also not a plea for more votes for the Libertarian party simply because I am libertarian; no, it is a plea for voters to be rational and not continue the construction of bigger government and a realistic view at the problem. Voting Democrat will have a similar, but much less powerful message to the GOP, and hurts all of us at the same time.

Voting for the Libertarian party is voting for the freedom of the people.

There I am, sitting on the patio at my local steakhouse, just finishing my meal. This is about the time I would light up a cigarette, and of course the idea crosses my mind to do so - that is until I remember that it is against the law. It is against the law because I am sitting across from a section of the patio which is partially covered by an awning.

So first I was forced out of restaurants, now I am forced off of the patio. Not only that, but I went into the local coffee shop to read the newspaper the next day and my rights were restricted yet again. I go to this particular coffee shop instead of one which is a bit closer because it has a smoking section - a section of the store completely surrounded by glass walls, and separate ventilation.

So can I still go to a smoking club, which only draws customers who smoke and thus accept the responsibility associated with it? No, they too are being hit. The smoking laws in Ontario now say that I can't smoke inside any establishment or on its property if there are awnings, or any other cover which restricts airflow (single umbrellas are alright, as long as they aren't in contact with another).

Not only are my rights being restricted, but the rights of private business owners being restricted. It is their businesses which suffer financially when the number of customers drop (and it does).

How can the government get away with such a large infringement on our rights? Where do they become responsible for my own personal decision which hurts nobody but me, and if it does hurt others it is by their own decision?

After all, if a person does not want to experience second-hand smoke, they can go to a smoke-free restaurant. That is the beauty of the free market - if there is a demand, a supply will rise. So here we can see the public making decisions for their own well being. Smoking establishments form, non-smoking establishments form, and partial-smoking establishments form. The choice is there for the consumer.

Hell, I guess if the government can ban sexual acts between consenting adults whenever there is money involved, they can ban a private establishment from allowing a smoking customer-base. Or if the government can force an employer to pay an employee a set wage, even if the employee agrees to a lower wage, it stands to reason that they can ban an establishment from putting up a smoking shelter for their employees.

What are they going to do next, ban people from getting drunk at a private establishment? Oh wait, they have already arrested people for that.

When do we reach a point where the government becomes so constricting, that we no longer have the rights and freedoms we once thought? When do we become so self-conscious, that our rights supersede others and we need the government to put our rights above all others, even on private property? Murder, okay that is infringing on the rights of others; theft, I can see how the rights of others are being trespassed on. But running a smoking club?

How much further can government intervention go? How much longer are we going to allow our government to turn into our baby-sitter?

Don't get me wrong, I understand that smoking is not the best of habits – but neither is eating fast food, drinking beer, or even the still-debated consumption of dairy products. Is what I eat my own business? Is the government going to make me become a smarter shopper when I am out looking for food? Should I just give up my own ability to reason, and let the government work out my health issues?

Sure, let the government do everything for me – I could really use the lack of stress which I develop from having to make decisions.

Or, I could be self-sufficient in looking out for myself, take responsibility for my actions, and be more involved in my own life. I could find a non-smoking establishment if I didn't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, I could call the companies and find out what is in their food products, and I could stop going to fast food restaurants. These are things that I can control, and should ultimately be placed in my own hands for the final decision. These are things that don't concern you or the government, so back off.

--

This article was inspired by See a Smoker in Omaha? Dial 9-1-1, a seed by Steve Andrews, and also by my discontent for being controlled by the government.