here's the letter, I'll show you the response later.

Dear George W. Bush,        

      I hopefully imagine that all of your actions have been to secure our freedoms.  Unfortunately, you know, and I know that they have not.  When this country was born, we had a good amount of freedoms.  As time passes, our freedoms begin to dwindle.  Is this your fault?  Probably not.     

     I am an electrician.  In the National Electric Code, it is stated that we may not legally add electrical wiring to an illegal condition.  As the codes change, we understand that certain wiring situations were created before we knew that they were dangerous.  So as of now, we need to allow those conditions to exist, knowing that eventually somebody will have to correct them.  At all costs, we are NOT allowed to use an illegal situation to create any new situations.    

     If we, as a nation, are worried about terrorism on American soil, then we should have a greater number of troops in our own nation to protect us.  We have the resources in this country to survive on our own.  I used to live on an Air Force base.  Since I moved away from that base, I have very rarely seen any military troops securing my freedoms.  I can only depend upon the media to see what they are doing for me.  I pay my taxes, I expect protection.  What other reason for a government do we have?     

     You are a Republican.  If we look into history, Republicans have supported individual freedoms, and the lack of a government trying to control each and every one of our lives.  Has the platform of the Republican Party changed so much that we may have to dismiss what the party originally believed in?      Let's explore the word "republican."  Does it not come from the word "republic?"  And if so, why are the nations that we the people are supposed to be so "vehemently opposed" labelled republics?  China, Thailand, the old U.S.S.R. and others are all calling themselves "Republics."  So are we like them?  Or are they what the original Republicans sought to achieve?     

     Let me show my true colors, as I feel that I am backed by all of my fellow citizens.  I think that most people think that we are forced to deal with your platform, as well as the Democratic platform.  Your platform seems to promote big business, and monopolies, while the Democrats seem to support more laws, more confusing laws, and less aptitude to really address our individual problems.  You say, "We can't please everyone"  I say, "we can"  Why?  Because we are all human beings on this earth, following the laws that God has set forth on us.  God would not want any of his children to suffer, while others who spoil the earth enjoy lives of luxury.  If you ask me, the exploitation of Mother Nature will burn in your soul forever.     

     So have fun in this short life of yours, for you know that you will be denied any perfect happiness that God has offered you.  You sold your soul George.  No matter what your Public Relations officers do to make your material life better, you will still burn in hell.      Maybe that doesn't bother you...because maybe you don't truly believe in God...which makes you a hypocrite, and a liar.     I don't want to vote for John Kerry...I don't want to vote for you...I just want to continue living the life that I have so much enjoyed up until this point.  If you want my advice, and you realize that my advice has helped more people than your "patriot act" will ever help, here are my rules to life.

1.  Treat people the way you want to be treated

2.  Accept responsibility for your actions.    

     It's been said that the simplest answer is usually the correct one.  This letter will be sent to a multitude of people.  And your response will also be relayed to them...It's up to you to decide what is the best scenario for the millions that look up to you.  

Jay

an opinion from a friend

humans seem to be able to be one of the only ones who dont know what we're
supposed to be or do, we try all the time to establish our independence yet
still we strive for togetherness, we rape and pillage and fix then brake all
at the same time with no real balance. in alot of ways i believe that humans
are there own population control. all other animals out there in the small
world have an enemy. small fish have bigger fish, zebras have lions, mice
have cats and cats have dogs(not to say that each one of those animals
doesn't have a shitload of other things to watch out for). people just seem
to have themselves. sure there are plenty of things out there that could
kill us but none of which that in the right situation can "outsmart us" or
out plan us as the case of human existance has proved. what tends to be
human nature is to find any and all ways of breaking what rules nature has
bestowed apon us and to make new meaning of them, at one point it was
believed impossible to fly without the wings of a bird. at another point
electricty was something to be feared in its rawest forms of unharnessed
mass but now it is one of the simplest concepts of our everyday lives, this
can be said for alot of things discovered that boggled intelegent minds.
unfortunatly hidden deep within all of us is the desire to change the things
surrounding us without having to leave our areas of "comfort". in so many
ways humans have abandoned the natural adaptation process and created a
variety ways of being able to adapt there surroundings instead. humans
wern't made to survive the cold so we came up with heaters and heavy
clothing. we weren't made to be able to fight big animals so we invented
weapons that could do it for us. knowing these things we continue to change
our boundries and ultimately the boundries of natures too. now that leaves
me at a point i didnt even know existed til i got here in this, is that with
all of our ability to defile natures being what realy stops us from
destroying nature itself, other than those with knowledge we do not yet
have. some rules must exist or there would eventually be no balance, we
would find too manys ways as humans to destroy everything in time. and yes i
have to admit that along with creating (or finding) those rules alot of
negative can come, such as those who will ultimatly capitalize from the
suffering of others, its not without my understanding that people would be
more than capable of doing just that without those rules. do i agree that
the methods currently used to makes those rules known are right or in any
ways close to perfection, no. but i do believe that they are much better
than the methods of our ancestors who tended to be much more violent with
there beliefs. example= egyptians, greeks. im with those who are willing to
change things for the better. theres no doubt in my mind i would support a
major overhaul and downsize of all our forms of government, but to deniey
the relevance for there simplest gestures is not something im willing to do.
not because im bound to them, but i respect the fact that without something
somewhere telling the majority of people out there what is or isnt right
there would be far more problems. and please before you turn my last
statement against me i would like to elaborate a few things. "government" in
my mind should be a system of "values" passed on to everyone whether they
care for them or not because it will always be that persons final judgement
whether they do something anways. values to me means absolute rights and
wrongs. for example nuclear bombs should not exist, guns should not be used
to kill other people unless you intend to eat them, toxic waste and for that
matter any trash should be disposed of properly, burning someone elses house
out of anger or fun should not be allowed, and other stupid shit that really
should be common sence but never is should be punishable by some kind of
action. taxes and fines are agreeably retarded. if a law must be passed that
children must learn a basic set of knowledgable things in their life make
the parents of even the children themselves be responsible for comphensating
there teachers.if someone wants to kill themsleves fine (quickly or slowly
and painfully). if all forms of government dissappeared there would be some
other manipulative asshole out there more than willing to destroy what it is
that we've got going. i mean at one point before history books and colonys
and religions there had to be a time before government was around right? so
if it was so great why did people give it up to join the ranks of a
selectable society. its bound to happen thats why. its human nature, to
control and be controlled at the same time. to make a suggestion or an order
and hear a reply. to learn from the same people you tought. to poke, poke,
poke and know that all your poking will only lead you to an all to
uncontrolable outcome. its what we do best. we're humans and without
boundries we will end up at a far worse end than that of having someone
leaching off of us, or finding that theres an obstacle in the way of doing
something you probably shouldn't be doing anyways. so yes i believe things
in our systems need to change but not all things, just the ones that really
dont mean shit in the long run, and the ones that protect and serve the few
and not the whole.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Inalienable Rights

The government is set up in such a way that if we all decided to get healthier all at once by quitting smoking and drinking, it would royally fuck their budget up.  No taxes from those entities.  Were all those taxes going to solve only problems created by people drinking and smoking?  You know that isn't true.  So this country would go through tough times if we got healthy.  Imagine a government that doesn't want us to be healthy.  No wonder we don't have a universal healthcare plan.  

Look inside yourself

It's not just for me

If only the world could see

One system, many branches

Liberty oppressed, power dances

Everybody follows

Bitter taste you must swallow

Free me from this shit

Or society takes a hit

Paranoia was invented

All your freedoms are only rented

Unleash what's inside

And they cannot hide

 

survival of the fittest

     I am stunned by the way that people view life...the masses believe everything is as it should be.  Yet they are always complaining about how things are.  They point to our leaders and say that we need to follow their rules to survive.  Yet they are constantly complaining about the men in Washington, their taxes and their laws that are increasingly more difficult to follow.

     I ask why some men are so rich they could support thousands of men for an entire lifetime whiile others are too poor to feed even themselves.  Most common response given?  "Well it's survival of the fittest, right?"  That statement is true but it does not explain why that situation exists.  See, survival of the fittest refers to natures way of making sure that the strongest and smartest survive, while the weak fall.  It is designed so that only the best of each species carries on its genes.  So let me break down what is wrong with using that statement to describe the billion dollar men vs. those in poverty.

1.  If this governmental system truly was survival of the fittest, those people in poverty would have already died off by now.  But the rich men keep the poor alive with welfare, charity and wage employment.  That allows the big money to continue to be so powerful.  If the richest men were the fittest, their goal would be to let the weak die off, so that the rich shall inherit the earth.  Does it make sense for us to support them?  Does the biggest baddest lion give any of his food to the weaker lion from the pride across the field?  Does he offer this food to other weaker lions to get them to do the killing while the biggest baddest lion secures most of the deer for his own pride, and then let the weaker lions that did the actual hunting feast on the mostly bare carcass?  We, the people are the weaker lions in this analogy.  We are killing the deer, dragging the deer to this big bad lion, waiting for him and his pride to finish eating so that we may enjoy some of the scraps afterward.  We killed that deer, so we don't need the big bad lion to convince us to go do it.  In fact if we can kill our own deer, and the biggest baddest lion can't kill his own deer, then maybe we should kill that lion instead of killing for him.  Can those billion dollar men kill their own deer?  Politicians get driven around, waited on hand and foot by maids, wardrobe, speech-writers, public relations, and when they need to, the police.

2.  If you look at those men at the top of country, politically and economically; you will realize that most of them could not fend you off if you attacked them.  They need police to secure their safety.  Could they fend off those police?  Even some of us could fend off the police.  Have you ever heard of a criminal getting away by shooting a cop?  So wouldn't nature's "survival of the fittest" want us, the big bad workers, the farmers, the builders, the teachers, the scientists and other problem solvers to inherit the earth?  After all, we are much more fit than those weak pathetic billion dollar men.

dog eat dog

Who doesn't know what a dog eat dog world is?  If you don't, here you go.  It's a metaphor about another species, but it refers to us humans.  It doesn't refer to dogs, because I've never heard of a dog eating another dog.  But we humans eat other humans, literally and figuratively.  When one man who enjoys all of life's wonderfulness exploits a less fortunate man, he is devouring that man's future.  Yet he is seen as a powerful, succesful man.  But those who eat other humans are considered sick fucko's.  Which they are...but we usually have sympathy for the sick, and help them recover. 

     In a recent journal entry I quoted Thomas Jefferson.  Our founding father didn't believe in a government.  In fact, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, some of his colleagues pointed out that he owned slaves.  He admitted that hypocrisy, but also ordered all of his slaves to be released.  Yet our current government uses our passion for our founding fathers to get us to support our government.  Think about that hypocrisy. 

     Power is given. When a man claims to be your leader, you give him the power to control your life.  This leader isn't necessarily one man...for we continually vote new men into office every eight years at the maximum...sometimes sooner.  I will still refer to the leader as one man, for other governments exist where the one man is the leader for much, much, much, much (is that too gratuitous? haha) longer.  Once you have done this, and others have done this, he starts to build his empire.  As time goes on two things happen.  Every problem that this so called leader solves can lead to more problems that need to be solved.  At first you appreciate all that this man is doing to make your life better.  Meanwhile he is building an army to protect himself.  This army originally believes in his causes.  They are rewarded with money, respect, and sometimes fame.  By the time the leader's followers notice how fucked up things are getting, they have no choice but to go along.  Now he has police and military to scare you into sticking with his plan to exploit you.  If today, I break a law, even a ridiculous one, I can not just walk away from the police.  I cannot tell him that his power is worthless to me.  Because if he can't bring me down...there are plenty of other officers to give him back-up...If I foresee that and create a plan to protect myself from these officers, they can send the SWAT team, and if I am ahead of that plan they can send the military.  If I try to plan for that, I must organize many people for my cause.  If that leader finds out that I am organizing those people, he will arrest me before it comes to that.  So we feel trapped, and therefore are slaves. 

     This is why I can't do it alone, and I can't find enough allies.  The beast will fightand fight for its power.  The only way that we can take their power away is to have more men on our side than them, and a good plan to exploit their protection system.  The military men and the police are benefitting from the system in a monetary way, but they also risk their lives everyday to a greater degree than the rest of us.  They also know that they will be royally fucked if the higher ups in those forces find out that they are ready to set their weapons down. 

     I will speak with various members of these forces and you will see that they are people, just like you and me.  The higher ups don't actually fight these wars themselves.  They don't die for our freedoms...they don't die in the line of duty...In fact most officers of the military have never been a soldier.  The American people, including the soldiers, the street cops, the workers, and even the ghetto kids, outnumber those higher up officers, outnumber the politicians, and outnumber every dictator in the world...So we can not change our lives unless we stick together...

Don't worry Uncle Sam, we aren't threatening your safety, we are only securing ours...isn't that the platform you use when you invade another country?

stories

A biography is when somebody writes about somebodies life.  An autobiography is when somebody writes about their own life.

There is good and bad to both of these.  They both offer an opinion, but from a different point of view...that is good.  They both can be laden with propoganda...that is bad.

When somebody writes a biography they can choose to leave out the subjects true feelings.  When somebody writes an auto-biography, they can choose to inject perspectives that they didn't see with their own eyes.

Just found this quote

I wrote the previous entry yesterday...then while searching chaos and anarchy I came about this quote from one of our founding fathers.

I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate.

- Thomas Jefferson

I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government...

He is about to describe a certain society...the indians...and how they live without government.

...enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments.

Those indians are happier with no govenment than people who live under European government.  He was oppressed by the English government which was in Europe, so he was trying to stick to those things he saw with his own two eyes.

Among the former, public opinion is in place of law...

The former being the first society he mentioned.  In those indian societies the public would decide what was right and wrong...which is why he felt democracy could be the answer.

...& restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere

That public opinion has at least the same effect as any law, any government has anywhere.

Among the latter, under pretense of governing, they have divided their nation into two classes, wolves and sheep.

The latter being the societies under European governments (again, he was speaking about European govt's because that was all he had seen with his own eyes.)  And he is saying that those societies have a class of people that are wolves, who are infinitely stronger, faster, and certainly more cunning than the other class (the sheep). 

I do not exxagerate

Hopefully it's obvious that he wasn't trying to make things seem worse than they are...after all, the term sheep is common for somebody who just follows, much like sheep follow a shepard, despite having no idea why they are following him. 

So wolves versus sheep IS the natural order of this earth, but they are two different species, and many species are set against many other species.  We humans are the SAME species. Why fight?  Give each other our space, and secure our own lives.  If you wanna live in a pack, that is fine...but don't sacrifice your future for the betterment of another humans future, unless you desire for that person to have a good life.

 

I am explaining this quote, because this can be confusing...I've explained and leave you to  re-read, and decide if I am trying to propogandize this quote. 

 

 

Never thought I'd say this

SHEEP

I refer to the sheep on occasion.  This lends itself to buying into a stereotype.  So to dispel that hypocrisy, I offer you this.  Sheep blindly follow.  As I speak to people, even the ones I may have considered sheep, I learn about their individuality.  So to ignore those peoples wants and needs is wrong.  I am not grouping all the people I consider sheep into a dismissive category...I am only pointing out one aspect of their life, and trying to help them dispel the false notion that they have no recourse towards anyone who tries to choose a life path for that person. 

Don't stereotype the sheep, they are individuals like you and me.  They are just unaware of how free they are.