This is what happens when I try to wax republican... if only for a bit.

With President Obama being a little more cavalier towards the G.O.P. than I’m comfortable with and the RNC having a little too much fun with donations (Denial offered by none other than the high flyer himself, Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele. I’m not personally into the whole bondage theme, but I guess if you’re spending your donations in a questionable way you might as well make it super villain-esque with black leather and whips and chains and what have you) I am just not sure where to turn anymore. Were I to be forced to make due in this bipartisan system, and made to choose from the players available, I think I would have to back the Democratic Freedom Caucus, whose geolibertarian principles of personal and economic liberty, as well as limited government and social responsibility I feel I can actually agree with. Given this is the case and I find myself living (and thoroughly enjoying myself) in a red state, I might have to find a political “next best thing” if I wish to make myself heard. So, given the buzz-words of the evening (those values aforementioned), I find myself studying up on my local tea party candidate (what can I say? Limited government is a huge turn on for me.) Although today after watching footage from the most recent tea party rally in Searchlight, NV, I really must give it my strongest consideration. On the one hand, I do believe it rude to attempt to interrupt someone with a speech to give, those guys getting their butts whooped by big redneck-looking Palin supporters did say they were libertarian, though. Well, snap. I just don’t know what to believe anymore. The tea party patriots website told me that they were a “conservative non partisan group who believed in limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility.” If I may express my confusion… What are Sarah Palin AND John McCain doing rallying with supposedly non-partisan patriots if they’re republicans? More importantly why is a “grassroots non-partisan” organization being rallied by Sarah Palin?

If the Lawyer Fails, the Law Prevails

If the lawyer turns out to be negligent, despite my fierce allegiance to the Constitution, I might have to go with his gut instinct on this one, and just find myself another client. While no one should be subject to any search, seizure, imprisonment or capital punishment without due process of law, I don't know whether the entire process is due in this particular case. Personally, I think any man guilty of beating and raping a woman (in front of a witness no less) is already in violation of his contract with this society enough to be smitten, killing a cop kind of seals the deal. Since there is clearly no evidence against this crime occurring and at least one eyewitness to at least one of the crimes committed in this incidence, my process of judgment in regards to this individual is very brief. This is one case where I betray my liberal disposition in favor of my moral compass. Nobody deserves to die, a tenant that I usually reluctantly extend to death row, but for Albert Holland, to be honest I don't know if I can disagree with the state of Florida for wanting to kill the guy back. Even if the murder committed was a result of the crack epidemic, that really doesn't change the fact that it was murder, of an officer of the peace. If I lived in Florida I wouldn't want to spend my tax dollars to keep this dude alive, lawyer negligence or not...

I don't understand what you think is so damn funny Mr. Obama

http://lauraflanders.firedoglake.com/2010/02/09/can-marijuana-save-the-economy/
You don't think that the number one cash crop in one of the world's biggest economies would save the national economy? With all due respect Mr. President, you must be rather spacy yourself. For a "progressive" president you sure don't appear to be listening to your contingents. The "internet" audience, who the hell do you think you are dismissing us as "the internet audience?" WE ELECTED YOU INTO OFFICE MAN. Act like our president and listen instead of acting like a D.C. socialite whose only concern is making everyone else who's prim and proper in the room chuckle. Make something happen before you go and blame others for the state of the economy. So what if Bush got us here if you can't get us out. You don't have my support and you never did. I hope you change sir. Just because you spent your youth abusing drugs doesn't mean that a little reefer is going to be everyone else's gateway into everything BUT heroin (http://www.addictionsearch.com/treatment_articles/article/obama-and-drug-addiction-and-use-his-own-and-his-perspective-as-presidential-hopeful_66.html).

Why direct democracy (especially via electronic means) is a bad idea.

I'm going to start by addressing the electronic methods portion of this argument because I feel like it helps to justify my opinion on direct democracy in the first place (which I'm against if only because I don't believe that it should be the onus of the people to draft or enforce the law without representatives to make the process more efficient. How can you run a family and a country at once without making it your only priority?) Electronic methods only presents another way for the people to be taken advantage of by the moderators. It's as simple as that, the more control you put into the hands of a few (i.e. the parties running these websites AND the corporations funding them, remember these are people just like you and me) the more their voices will drown out those of the "common people" that they are trying to reach in the first place (that was the point right? To get more people to vote?) Okay, so that's just my inner paranoid conspiracy theorist coming out to play, but what about the more real threats to private information security that abound. Hackers? Pirates? Viruses? (It doesn't take a genius to cause you a malignant system error, either, laptop programs in high schools across the country have been dropped. If we can't trust students to learn in conjunction with technology, what would you expect an adult with criminal intent to be able to do? Here's an article on what I'm talking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1  ) We have all been victims of these at some point, no matter how harmless, but to subject my democracy to the same insecurity that I subject my home computer to? No thanks, I've seen what happens to my computer after a while, I'd hate to see the same thing happen to my country. I'm all for information being available, in all forms, however my deductions from information should run the government. I'm not comfortable with a government attempting to run itself based on its deductions about me (more opportunities for my opinions to be manipulated), it seems a little more than a little backwards. I will never favor direct democracy because I believe that voting is a privilege that should be reserved for the informed. While I believe that it is every American's responsibility to be informed of current affairs, I hardly trust my fellow American to have held up their end of the bargain (I know, I'm a cynic), and while I also don't think that our representative government is necessarily the most effective legislating body in the world, I do like it the best. I think that we are lucky to have a government that has even thought to consider minority representation in addition to majority rule. I think that without the electoral college, elections would probably somehow manage to foul up even more than they do now. In short, I don't think that electronic direct democracy is the answer to anything. I think that an informed and opinionated public is what America is in want of.

Creating Jobs

I've seen this expression plastered over the news for a whole decade now. Being unemployed (hitherto permanently,) I have never once thought to turn to a government office for help finding employment. My main reasoning being that everything else they touch becomes so convoluted and wrapped in red tape that I have this terrible mental image of walking into an unemployment office and drowning in bullshit. Pardon my French. The idea of excessive bureaucracy pains me in a way that I can only describe as "emotional asphyxiation." By the time I'm through with all of it, my energy is gone and I feel less motivated than I did before (My main experience with this being attending a State university and drowning in not only federal bullshit ((they tend to leave me alone because I don't make any money,)) but also in the State of California's bullshit ((which, I hadn't noticed until moving back to Texas, is a nightmare.)) What they say is true, if you can make it in California I guess you can make it anywhere... I guess unless you're looking to grow or distribute marijuana or are allergic to the cold (in which case my suggestion of moving to Boulder just won't do.) Anyway, sorry for the momentary sidetrack, but the point that I was getting at was jobs. I'm biased on this, my opinion having been enstilled in me by my father from years and years ago, but it's my opinion nevertheless. I believe it is the Government's job to help us, to protect us and to serve us, but they cannot be relied on for creating jobs. I think my logic behind this is pretty simple- Businessmen with capital create jobs because they have the resources to do so. The government does not need to have the resources necessary to provide people with jobs in order to accomplish their job, which is to serve us citizens, including the people who CAN help to create jobs- the entrepreneurs, the pioneers upon whose toils and labors this nation's legacy has risen from the dust. As you can see here: , the federal government clearly disagrees with me. If my taxes were coming out of my own pocket, I'd be pretty upset that what's passing has little to do with what I voted for. Financial regulation is great (when necessary), but why is my money (or rather, my parents money, since I have none) going to go to getting some other schmuck a job when I don't even have one? As an unemployed young American, I'm a little angsty over this.

And in case any of you are thinking that I'm complaining about unemployment without grounds, I applied to five jobs yesterday alone, and plan on keeping at it until I finally get one. I don't need help. I think that if anyone SHOULD be getting help on my level, it's ex-cons. I understand the implications of helping former criminals, but I also legitimately think that it would help to do the most good. These people need therapeutic reintegration, not a stigma that will keep them repopulating the prison system. When I was watching Obama's q&a in Ohio this weekend I was disappointed at how he floundered when an ex-convict asked what he should do about a job. I really do believe that a lot of these people are the ones that need the most help, lots of them have never been employed and come from broken homes and have no idea of the rewards of becoming a functioning, contributing member of society. I'll keep my Black Cross opinions to myself at this juncture, but I'm sure we'll get around to talking about in the future.

Ciao for now,
T-Dub

Corporate Spending and the Government

Today, the supreme court overturned policy limiting corporate spending in candidate elections, reports Adam Liptak of the New York Times (article available here: ). The decision was a close one, getting a 5-4 ruling from the bench. The concerns posed against the decision were based on corporate money flooding the government and "corrupting democracy." Please, as if our democracy has any face left to save on that front (just ask your local congressman or senator who their favorite lobbyist to play golf with on the weekends is.) My opinion on the subject? Maybe if the government accepts huge corporate bribes they can stop harassing individuals for money. I agree with the decision that limiting a corporation's contribution to any campaign effort would be a vindication of free speech, however on that same wave I believe that every American has given up on their fellow citizen's sense of personal responsibility. The social contract upon which this nation's political infrastructure is based is broken and irreparable. Before all of you start hating on me for dissing the Constitution please just take this into account: When the founding fathers were initially framing the constitution they had no idea that the world was going to be facing mass overpopulation by now, hell, they probably didn't even know if the United States was still going to be around (how often do you think 224 years in advance? Never. Am I right?) They had no concept of things like nuclear warfare or the internet. So as much as I hate letting the government get away with anything (their whole point is to protect and serve us, not vice versa, remember?), I recognize the need to make allowances. Corporations pouring money into whomever they please is fine provided both that everyone involved in said corporation who is going to be paying to have their opinion heard is held accountable for every dollar spent, and that the citizens digesting the propaganda that they spew out is held accountable for being informed about their decisions. There, my friends, I find a break in the system. No such accountability is anywhere to be found. Not in the corporations, not in the government, and, to my American chagrin, most certainly not in the people. Sad as this is to say, we've reached a point where we deserve to be swindled. Those who have the will to fight back (against the corporations that they hate so much) are not willing to fight fire with fire. They are afraid to infiltrate and change the system they think is broken for fear of "becoming like them (I mean the people with the money of course, the corporations, etc.)." Um, if becoming like them means equipping ourselves as well as they do, then screw this. I'd rather work for them. The public protest, as a manner of voicing your opinion is all but dead. No one listens to the messages being yelled in the streets except for the people in the streets. Who knows, maybe what honest-hearted rebels fighting corporate greed need is a mercenary- someone of flexible allegiance who knows how to take on their opponent with an intimate knowledge of how they work. As Sun Tzu said, know your enemy. So at the moment I favor the decision to allow corporations to throw facefuls of money into the government provided I get my bailout check when the time comes.

The Introduction

This bit of perfunctory fluff is for your own edification in order to make your time reading my blog more tolerable. Yes I said tolerable, not enjoyable. I think that before I pour all of my ramblings (the opinions in which will be obscured, muddled, and without a doubt convoluted) into your head, it is only fair that I give you some sort of basic insight into the head that they are pouring out of. My name is Tyler and I was born here in Austin, my travels have brought me into relatably close quarters with various social issues that can be controversial at best and at worse times have made irrefutable changes to my life (things like domestic violence which I have no personal experience with but have close ties to people who do, and drug abuse which I, personally, have a little more to say about.) I am not an outspoken person in the public eye, I tend to keep my thoughts to myself because I'm paranoid (whilst sober, at least.) While most of the thoughts that I keep to myself are judgment oriented, I'm not a judgmental person. I may have something snide to say, but chances are that my commentary has little to do with any lasting impression that a person has made on me and more to do with personal entertainment. I forgive more than I permit, and I have a tendency towards overreaction. As a culmination to this post, I would like to apologize in advance to everyone I offend with my remarks and commentary. Now that I'm caffeinated, I bid you a fond adieu, and I look forward to any and all feedback.