Since seemingly no one has desired to write anything the past few weeks, I'll try and jumpstart a conversation. What do you all think is going to result from the terrorist events of September 11th? World peace, or World War III? What's your opinion?
The evils of Walmart are so many it's hard to list them all on one page. The redeeming qualities listed by Jesse earlier seem to be the only ones. I was almost glad to hear that a Walmart store had gone out of business (this was about a week or two ago). For starters, have you ever tried to walk through the aisles there? The management crams so much crap into said aisles that I find it impossible to pass someone when they decide to peer upon the crap stacked in the aisles themselves. Also, need I say it again, music censorship is evil!! I feel sickened when an upstanding store such as Target (which is a great store (for the most part) in my opinion) censors the music they sell. It sickens me to the core. Well thats about it for now. If I think of more evils of the modern-day world, I will be sure to make my opinions known.
Now to defend myself: In my article, my point (however clearly I put it) was that I would rather have drug trafficking done by no-one, much less by the government which is supposedly here to help us with our problems rather than magnify them. I think we all agree that if marjuana was legalized, it would be more accessable to the average person (Little Jimmy could rob a pharmacy, forge a prescription (it's easier than you'd think) or commit some other sort of crime to obtain it, rather than just buy it direct from the dealers and crime lords). Why not recruit more police officers to go undercover and stop the drug trafficking that occurs now, rather than destroying more innocent lives for a 'good cause'?
Remember the Presidential election from this past year? The Florida controversy? Al Gore complaining on national television for weeks on end? What a mess! The whole thing seems to me to be done in a shoddy, back-asswards manner. But what I consider the most appalling travesty of this whole mess is the manner in which the election was decided. The Supreme Court, the highest, most respected court in the land, was used to decide the election, which it could not legally do!
Under current law, the US Supreme Court is forced to make decisions in a manner completely nonwithstanding of political affiliation. The election, as I see it, could only have been decided correctly on a political basis, since an election is an entirely political event. So why then should the Supreme Court decide this case? Isn't it a matter of what the people of the United States, and of Floida as a whole think, and want to happen in their great nation?
It also baflles me as to how the good ol' liberals even got to this decision in the first place. I mean, this is a case in Florida. Perhaps it is a major part of a Federal case, but it is still a Floridian matter. Why not ude a state court or other such law-interpreting body, rather than a court which would have to go against one of its most central rules to decide the case?
Thirdly, for those of you who claim that this decision wasn't a political one, this ruling basically decided the election. I feel that it is a terrible travesty of the rights of Americans to have a major political decision be decided not by the people, but by nine powerful people in black robes.
In conclusion, I am not lamenting the decision to elect George W. Bush president. I would actually prefer a man who stumbles over his words to an outright liar ("I invented the Internet!") and a major censorship advocate ("Remove raunchy shows like Seinfeld from the air!"). I am simply lamenting the way in which this great country elected their 43rd President. The conservative candidate had obviously won, and the liberal demands that there be a recount of the votes, while hidden caches of liberal votes were brought forth from the depths to be recounted again and again. It just seems like a mess to me.
~ Chris Franson
Coming Soon: Welfare reform.
Consider this situation: little jimmy is interested in getting high, and he doesn't want to kill himself using inhalants, or pay a whole bucketful of greenbacks to get hooked on cocaine or heroin. So he walks down to his friendly local drugstore with a forged prescription for some medicinal marijuana, claim that he has stomach ulcers, and walks out of the store with enough pot to get and keep him high for a month.
A scary thought, but its the truth: under the drug legalization bill, created by the liberals who we love so much, huge quantities of marijuana would be kept and dispensed to people with only a doctor's prescription, which can easily be falsified. Why may I ask would we want to make drugs even more accessible to young people in this already drug-infested society?
Also, marijuana is considered a gateway drug; that is, its use leads to the use of other, more powerful drugs. If marijuana were legalized, the people who used marijuana might very well open the gateway, to LSD or cocaine, or another powerful drug. If they could get lots of people to say that that drug was the only true cure for the pain of AIDS, cancer, or other such terminal illnesses, then it becomes possible for lil' jimmy to go get stoned as hell on medicinal LSD. That is, of course, until he thinks he's being attacked by a monster and stabs himself to death, or thinks he can fly and jumps off the top story of a high-rise building.
Why, may I ask, do liberals even want to legalize drugs in the first place? Supposedly they want to put people out of their pain and suffering if they have a terminal illness, or restore their appetite during chemotherapy and such. I hate to be blunt, but isn't that what morphine and appetite supplements are for?
Lastly, have liberals weighed the consequences of this idea against the possible benefits? I mean, is it seriously worth shattering so many young minds and lives through drug addiction to remove pain from a few individuals? Is it really worth so many lives to end a few isolated cases of suffering? Also, cannot morphine and other existing, legalized pain relievers be used effectively?
In conclusion, I believe that liberals need to seriously look at their plans to increase the availability of illicit drugs. Why would anyone in their right mind make the decision to risk so many young, innocent lives to end the suffering of a few? Why breed a whole generation of drug addicts to supposedly deliver pain relief and appetite increases where conventional methods have not yet been proven to be ineffective? It simply makes very little sense to me. Chalk another ineffective, unnecessary, potentially dangerous plan up for the good ol' liberals.
~ Chris Franson
Soon to come: defacing the Presidential election of the year 2000.
Animal testing is causing a lot of heat in today's political climate. On the one side of the debate, the fact that testing of this nature has saved thousands upon thousands of human lives. On the other, the debatable argument that the testing has the same moral implications of torturing a person. How then will we decide our opinions on this very important matter? Let's hear the arguments:
Conservatives argue that Animal Testing has saved countless millions of human lives, reduced plagues of pandemic proportions to sticky-looking liquids in test tubes in microbiology labs, and is moving us closer to creating cures for horrific diseases, such as Ebola and cancer every day. Obviously, for these reasons, Animal Testing is something that we want to keep around.
On the other hand, liberals argue that animals have senses of touch as well, and can feel pain just as acutely as a human infant can. Since they can think and feel and (to an extent) reason, that they should get the same treatment as humans, even though they are, in reality, animals. Also, they argue that conservatives should look at this issue from a cosmic perspective; to ask themselves how important humankind really is in the universal plan?
What I consider interesting is that whenever I've ever asked a liberal who they'd rather have live, their family or a group of lab rats, I've gotten the same answer, and it's not exactly the one you'd expect from a person who would risk their lives to save a tree in an old-growth forest.
Also, liberals fail to consider one major point: animals involved in testing almost never feel pain. In fact, something like 94% of lab animals never even feel pain as a direct result of testing.
So now, it's time for you to make the decision: should we preserve our ways of testing animals to save countless human lives, or should we give it all up to save a few rats bred especially to be tested on? For me the decision is easy. How about you?
The rap star Eminem is quite possibly the most controversial figure in all of modern culture. Why? Because he expresses himself in a way that some people find offensive, and some claim causes violence and vulgarity in other people. Why, I ask, is Eminem being attacked by everyone from my parents (believe me, they have) to his own mother, when so many other people do the same things as he does?
Well, for starters, Eminem supposedly says some of the most offensive things found on mass-produced recordings. For instance, many critics note that in Eminem's song "Kim", he slits his girlfriends throat, and as she drowns in her own blood, he screams obscenities at her, before an angry refrain of depression buzz-phrases. Not only is this style of bloody lyric far from unusual, but it is found in songs by some of the greatest artists of all time, including Jimi Hendrix, among others.
Fred Durst and his band Limp Bizkit, in their song "Break Stuff", sing about a bad day. The passage "I hope you know I pack a chainsaw/I'll skin your @ss raw/and if this day keeps going this way I just might/BREAK YOUR F*CKING FACE TONIGHT!" is included in the lyrics to this angry new-age rock song, followed by "just give me something to break/How about your F*CKING FACE?!". Why I ask is this song so very different from Eminem?s lyrics, so as to provoke numerous attacks and lawsuits on him, while leaving Durst relatively unscathed?
My answer to this mystery? Liberals. The liberals don't like Eminem's angry, in-your-face style that walks over their ideals, so they grow to hate him. Our great nation has already borne sacrileges against free speech from such liberals as Tipper Gore, who started the concept of ?Parental Advisory: Explicit Content? badges on CDs, and Joseph Lieberman, almost Vice President (thank God for that) who pledged in his speeches to protect children?s ?fragile minds? from nudity and other such explicit content by banning ?raunchy shows like Seinfeld? from the air. What in God?s name was this man trying to ban Seinfeld for?! When has raunchiness EVER been a feature of the comedy that we love so much? And how is it in any way not a heinous abridgement of our Constitutional Rights to Freedom of Speech to be banned from selling works to people under age 18?!
But there is something that you can do to stop this sadistic and evil liberal activity: vote conservative in 2004 and beyond! Send a message to those freedom-stealing bastards that they are not welcome here! End the Democratic chokehold on Minnesota now, in our great generation!
~ Chris Franson
Soon to come: the evils of Animal Rights.
I just want to thank Jesse for letting me in on this.
~Chris Franson
I'm in!
