Thursday, December 13, 2007


A video discussing fraudulent practices of certain institutions in and among the government.

read more | digg story

Wednesday, December 12, 2007


(Before reading this you should realize that I was a little pissed off when I wrote this....)

Society sucks because of the concept of money and the fact that everything revolves around it. It's as simple as that. Every single problem in society today directly or indirectly involves either too much or too little money.

How come no one has realized that all that money does is cause problems? There is literally no need for it, although the first thought that comes to mind is motivation. That view is taken from the standpoint of those that think they need money, for there should be a much more favorable motivation: the greater good. How about becoming a doctor/ dentist/ surgeon because there are people in the country and elsewhere that actually need such people? How about finding a cure for diseases simply because they exist, and not because the government chose to finance it.

The fact that there are no governments have tried to remove currency is an issue because the whole reason a government exists is to serve the people. If it doesn't, then you get pretty much what Hitler, Stalin, and Kim Jong Il have.

Now that we're on governments, let talk about that. Our political system is fucking retarded, and I couldn't find any other phrase to use. Most people think that since ancient times the world as a whole has evolved, but I think just the contrary. Back in ancient Greece, they had forums where people could talk stuff out, which has "evolved" to hired fast-talkers that pretty much just yell what they're told at another with no consideration for the other's POV.

The next question is why are there "debates" in the first place. What's worse is people actually watch them. Is it really that comforting to hear that someone's gonna do XYZ even though you know it's just a ploy and probably a lie? If that's the case then why not just hear a speech from the campaign manager, at least there's a little less deception because the one that actually came up with the idea is the one presenting it to you.

If we back up a little bit, why are there parties? Well, to narrow down the candidate pool. The President has little to no free will to do what he actually wants (whether that's good or bad is another discussion), because he always has to answer to someone; meaning that in all honesty, doesn't really matter who gets picked, but rather that whoever is the representative is supports the right topics. By the way, that "someone" is not referring to the checks and balances, but rather to the lobbyists, corporations, tobacco, and other forms of power.

What do you know? Completely by accident, the moronic handling of power that is America once again comes back to money in the form of corporations. Corporations, by the way, are the worst of the worst in terms of money. Some guy was a CEO of one for under 300 days and got paid something like 15 million.

Back to money, there is an issue with poverty and the poor. Apparently one of the hardest things is defining what "poor" actually means, which sounds alot like asking someone to define "is." I'm sure by now you can gues what the problem actually is

I've done alot of pointing, but not much suggesting. Well I would start with this: Teach people to appreciate and uphold the greater good. What's that? It's your family, your community, society, and the world. Prioritze the betterment of these things above yourself and trust that the rest are doing the same for you. Whereas you aid one, millions are aiding you.

No matter how much I try to rationalize money being a good thing, I can't really find a reason. The other side of the argument so far looks something like this:
Without money, people won't work. That seems to make sense, except that there are people now that don't work.
Without money, domestic acquisition of goods will be impossible. That may be at first, but remember that I envision a people concerned with the greater good. This would mean limiting oneself to the number of items that are costly (in terms of time and resources) to make, realizing that there may be others that have none of such objects.
Without money, how would people decide what jobs they want? The answer is this: based on what they actually want to do, which I would think is the absolute best way.

Without money, international trade would cease. I would say that either trade would remain somewhat consistent or even increase. At first, we could barter cars for cars, chemicals for chemicals, whatever. The long-term hope is that countries engage in the morally advanced concept of "giving." This means that one country give another country what it needs simply because it needs it, as well as the receiving country trying its best to reduce use of resources so as not to be a burden on the world.

Imagine oh imagine what a world this would be without money? Now if I only knew why we aren't there....

-Mike P.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Thought of the Day

It's an interesting thing to see how we as a society have evolved and how quickly we "civilized." The most interesting thing about society is that we "civilized" in a relatively short period of time, coming from groups of equals and devoid of a hierarchy to a vastly unequal society in terms of the wealth gaps and health care gaps. What has brought about such a significant boost in wealth and further stratification of our classes? It seems we are slowly moving to a two class society, one of the rich and one of the poor. The most alarming thing is the lack of opportunity of mobility. That is to say, we no longer have the liquidity we once did years ago. People now are either rich or perpetually working. Then again, we have also made leaps and bounds towards the industrialization of society and the developments in science and medical are quite extraordinary, but at what cost? It seems we are allowing society to become much like a rubber band, stretched out till we eventually snap and we are soon thrust into chaos. What then?

First Post

This is the first post of the blog and I hope to stir up some discussion of sorts. It occurs to me that, life has become a mutated concept since the dawn of civilization. That is to say, we currently seem to become further and further isolated from one another even though we are more connected than ever. Why do you suppose that is? I'll let you mull that over for a while, in the mean time I feel like sharing a passage from Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground. It is rather lengthy I hope someone has the stamina to get through it though.

"Well, in short, actions that all, perhaps, commit; but which, as though purposely, occurred to me at the very time when I was most conscious that they ought not be committed. The more conscious i was of goodness and of all that was 'sublime and beautiful,' the more deeply I sank into my mire and the more ready I was to sink altogether. But the chief point was that all this was, as it were, not accidental in me, but as though it were bound to be so. It was as though it were my most normal condition, and not in the least disease or depravity, so that at last all desire in me to struggle against this depravity passed. It ended by my almost believing (perhaps actually believing) that this was perhaps my normal condition. But at first, in the beginning, what agonies I had endured in that struggle! I did not believe that it was the same with other people, and all my life I hid this fact about myself as a secret. I was ashamed (even now, perhaps, I am ashamed): I got to the point of feeling a sort of secret abnormal, despicable enjoyment in returning home to my corner on some disgusting Petersburg night, acutely conscious that that day I had committed a loathsome actions again, that what was done could never be undone, and secretly, inwardly gnawing, gnawing at myself for it, tearing and consuming myself till at last the bitterness turned into a sort of shameful accursed sweetness, and at last- into positive real enjoyment! was from feeling oneself that one had reached the last barrier, that it was horrible, but that it could not be otherwise; that there was no escape for you; that you never could become a different man; that even if time and faith were still left you to change into something different you would most likely not wish to change; or if you did wish to, even then you would do nothing; because perhaps in reality there was nothing for you to change into."

As humans we can think of the infinite possibilities, both positive and negative, but this is merely just that, thought. Without action this thinking means little of anything and tends to create this defeatism that either option we take is clouded with doubt and uncertainty. That is just life though, and yes his primary aim was to explain show how imperfect we really are, but this mentality is only one side of humanity. To really allow this to become a whole mentality and a whole set of morals and values, only allows you one half of the truth. Those that defy the logic and the norms must exist for anything to exist. Humans are far from being perfectible, but that does not mean anyone can just say "oh well," and give up. For every discontent person there exists another who is their opposite.