While this post may seem weeks too late, or too slow, for someone (me) who claims to be caught up with current affairs, I think my patience with this topic has paid off. Recently, hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons called for record labels and broadcast corporations to consent to banning specific language used in music.

This story of course stemming from the Don Imus controversy when he called female basketball players "nappy-headed hos". Imus had undergone a massive amount of criticism and was eventually fired from his over-the-air jobs.

To start off, I have no problem with CBS or NBC firing Don Imus. Those companies have an interest in distancing themselves from bad press and no longer want ties with Imus. Fair enough. And naturally I can agree that there are people with opinions and certain distastes for what he said over the air. I can even agree with Russell Simmons in his call for these companies to adhere to a long overdue standard of language control over the airwaves.

However, what I cannot stand is the people who are belittling Simmons' attempts to clean up the language. These critics are saying that any ban of single words will never rid the hip-hop "culture" of its misogynistic, sexist and racially charged arteries. These critics claim that these record labels and corporations have a social responsibility.

When I read that line, I stopped for a second. Corporate...social...responsibility. It doesn't seem so strange at first when you think of pollution taxes, safety regulations, and fair enterprise; but when it comes down to actual social and moral values in society I'm a little apprehensive to throw my arms open and embrace the moral values of my local Starbucks.

At the risk of sounding like a traditionalist (not to mention a broken record), I think that the responsibility of moral values should be placed at home, from the parents. A companies responsibility lies in the substance and objective purposes of their products, NOT in what people might POSSIBLY infer.

Now, I know that it's a far stretch for me to be comparing what someone might infer with a cup of Starbucks coffee and with what someone might be able to infer from an average rap song. However, if "bitch", "ho", "nigger", and any other controversial lyrics didn't make money, then the hip-hop industry wouldn't produce it.

Starbucks would serve you pig shit in a cup if it sold. And if someone had a moral stance against the consumption of pig shit, we wouldn't suddenly chain ourselves around Starbucks and demand that they stop selling their "Oinky Ovaltine". That person would just need to pack up his anti-pig-shit ass and get out of Starbucks.

The fact that we're adding children into the mix all of a sudden makes this the corporations' social responsibility. And while I agree, that obvious swear words should be curtailed in order to protect children, we cannot sterilize our children from the idea that we are a free country and we are given the right to free speech.

And I know, it seems strange that I'm actually defending the hip-hop culture when I so vehemently despise it, but my opinions are simply that, OPINIONS. I can tell anyone whatever I feel like, and for the same reason I cannot ask that others be limited in their ability to say what they want.

And if rappers are misogynistic, racist, sexist, and violent, then more power to them for finding a formula for making money. It's up to the listeners to take away from it what they want. And if those listeners are as impressionable as children, then it's up to whoever is responsible for them to inform them about what their values are. Thus the phrase "responsible for".

"Family watchdogs" are only concerned about this because it makes their job harder when their under-appreciated and over-drugged children stray away from their astigmatic and inattentive eyesight.

Because all their lives these parents were told that parenting was the easiest job in the world. And that all they had to do was plop their children in front of the TV and inject them full of downers and those kids would turn out to be the future generation of leaders and thinkers.

Fuck these people. It's their stupidity and refusal to admit their stupidity which are breeding the future bigots of the world. It's about time someone dickslapped them hard enough to wake themselves from their irresponsible, self-congratulatory wet dream.

Breaking down the Democrat/Republican bullshit rodeo for the politically less savvy.

I realized today that there are still an overwhelming majority of people who believe they can get a political IQ from a casual exposure to a single news program. Let me assure you...you cannot.

Actually, let me start off by saying that even very reputable news channels and programs are going to shit. My longtime favorite CNN has recently shown a very disturbing side (and I'm not talking about the adopted quadriplegic sister station "Headline News", which chooses to give air time to a failed radio show host Glenn Beck, and former lawyer and complete BITCH Nancy Grace), I'm talking about CNN's stubborn resistance to providing any news aside from dead/missing white women.

SERIOUSLY. CNN has become the new "women behaving badly" channel. From Natalie Holloway's disappearance, to Britney's matching bald spots on her head and pussy, to Anna Nicole's MYSTERIOUS death. North Korean nukes, Iraqi suicide bombings and world news in general takes a back seat to white women.

Other than CNN's lapse into a flatulent comatose heap of news reporting, every other news station seems to be focusing on potential presidential candidates in 2008's election.

This brings me to my next point: I hate party politics.

Liberals and Democrats think they're so fucking superior to the conservative right, Republicans, and basically anyone who doesn't vote/donate massive funds to their party. You want to know why Kerry lost the last presidency? Because he was so goddamn condescending towards the conservative southern voters.

Kerry had the balls to say that if he "informed" them of how the republicans are actually hurting their interests, then they'd welcome him with open arms and that he'd sweep the south.

That's like saying if you inform smokers that cigarettes are harmful, they'd all realize what fools they were and give it up and claim you as their savior. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN JOHN JOHN!

Southerners are rationally ignorant to political fuss. Think about it, streets are paved, crime isn't rampant, you're making money, and everything seems to be going swell for you. Why the FUCK would you want to fuck that up by voting for some shithead who's promising "change"? Better yet, why vote for the guy who just said you're uneducated and ignorant about your own well being?

Note: PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE IF THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY REPRESENT!
___________________________________________________________________
Republicans: Exploit the religious right simply for it's voting potential and it's auto campaign ability. Bush says "praise the lord" and only 10% of people hear it on TV, the other 90% will hear it in church.

Half these fucktards aren't even religious. Even if they were, they're a sack of hipocritical fuckshits. Every second of the day it's FUCK GAYS, DON'T LET GAYS HAVE KIDS...oh 'cept Dick Cheney's daughter, she's cool.

Secondly, if this country was built on such strict Christian values, values which may compromise some interpretations of the constitution (abortion, due process to suspects), then maybe you'd like to point out one of the commandments which affords you the ability to own a firearm?

OH THAT'S RIGHT, THE BIBLE IS PICKY ABOUT WHICH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IT WANTS TO ABRIDGE. FUCK YOU TOO.

I guess in the end it all comes down to whether or not these people actually act on their beliefs. And for all their banter, they're still sackless morons who pretend to give a shit about a cause.

The first 100 days of a Democrat-controlled congress? Remember it was supposed to pass bill after bill? Remember all the big-shot talk from candidates talking shit on Bush's invasion of Iraq?

With all that build-up you KNOW something good's coming down the pipeline for the Iraq war.

Wait for it...
Wait for it...
WAIT FOR IT!!!

...the 109th congress passed a non-binding resolution telling the president exactly how they feel about his handling of the war.

Instead of growing a pair of balls and passing bills that limit the funds to the war, congress pussy-foots the issue, and it's campaign promises by passing a NON-BINDING RESOLUTION.

Whoop-dee-fucking-doo congress...YOU JUST ACCOMPLISHED AS MUCH AS THE UN...

NOTHING!

And while you may be pointing at me and shouting at me for doing nothing, remember this: I never asked for your vote, I never asked for you to place your confidence in ME to have your wants and needs taken care of. I'm not on the ballot, I'm not telling you how well I can solve an issue. I'm just telling you what a shitty job the people you DID elect are doing.

P.S. for anyone who DID vote for me...my apologies for a terribly run campaign...NEXT YEAR WILL BE THE YEAR OF THE "Dalton Party", I can feel it.

Iran is run by a crying pussy. Venezuela is run by a macho wanna-be Mexican tough guy.

First, Venezuela
Last year Venezuela and Mexico withdrew their embassadors to each others' countries due to tense relations and talk between both presidents. Vincente Fox, Mexico's former president, was trying to sell the free trade agreement while visiting several South American countries. Purposely avoiding Venezuela because he knew it wouldn't do any good.

Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's president, took this gesture as a symbolic flipping of the bird, and told Fox to get out of South America because no one was interested in his frienship with Bush. Fox fired back and basically told Chavez to not speak when he's not asked to speak, and that not everyone is interested in his opinion.

Chavez, unused to the upfront insults that he himself so easily dishes out, then told Fox not to "mess with me, because you'll get stung". The argument ended with the withdrawal of the embassadors.

Chavez talks big, he tells the US to stay out of anything international, and basically calling Bush a mass murderer (and yes I know some in the US also say that, but that's another story altogether). At the same time, Chavez celebrates the acheivements revolutionaries such as Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra. Because killing roughly 20,000 in Iraq is mass murder, and killing 600,000 in Latin America is heroic. I love the Che fans, they make me laugh.

He whines that the US has had a vicegrip on the economies of South American nations and has held the continent in poverty. This coming from the man that wants to convert to socialism.

"BUT DALTON SOCIALISM IS GOOD!!!1!one!1"

Whatever your political views are, one must realize that socialism is harmful to an economy. The only reason that drives anyone to work is the fact that they will see the fruits of their labor. Socialism drains any incentive to work because it vastly reduces the effect felt by working harder or not working at all.

The United States didn't get to being a world economic power because it has low labor costs, or tremendous production capabilities (that's China). The US got to where it is because it rewarded innovation. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were able to make a buck from their innovations. Socialism would split the revenue from that new invention and share it amongst the people. This system stunts ambitions and allows countries like the US to reward their creative peoples. This in turn will either drive an economy or bring it to an utter standstill.

Chavez is using an outdated system, and blaming the US's working system for the failure of his own.

Chavez also acts as if he has the international weight to carry his radical promises. He gave a speech to the UN General Assembly for over 2 hours to almost no applause. Chavez has visited 4 countries in the last several months: Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, and Iran...the titans of international persuasion.

In essence, the US doesn't stomp out Chavez because he isn't a threat. When Chavez came to Harlem and berated Bush, the White House basically swept it under the carpet as if his comments were pocket lint which had accidentally fallen out of its designated area.

Iran

Iran's President before sanctions:
-President declares a day for anti-zionism, announces that there will be a day when Israel is wiped off the face of the planet.
-Announces nuclear ambitions
-Begins "religious war games" testing missles and other armaments

Iran's President after UN sanctions:
-Proclaims its innocence
-Declares that the US will suffer greatly for its imperialistic control over international affairs

Now of course I can hear it now, the Santa Cruz hippies are yelling in my ears about how unfair the UN sanctions are, and those stupid fucking MUN retards spouting that sanctions hurt the people and not the government.

These UN sanctions are embargos on nuclear equipment. So unless the Iranian people need plutonium for their flux capacitors, they're not being affected in the least bit. Secondly, if Iran truly wanted to improve their infrastructure, they'd better start somewhere else instead of jumping 20 steps into the nuclear program.

Iran is the fourth largest producer of oil, and yet for the life of me I can never figure out why their net exports were so low. I thought surely they'd sell off most of their oil and only use up about a quarter of their production. But, how surprised I was to find out that Iran actually imports gasoline from other countries.

That's right, Iran, the fourth largest oil producing nation, IMPORTS GASOLINE.

Iran is looking for "peaceful" nuclear capabilities when they can't even refine their own oil for their own use.

Now you tell me hippies, what's hurting Iran more, sanctions or the fact that their government has been so mismanaged that their people have to pay for another nation to refine their resource and send it back at a massively increased price tag.

Atlanta, GA: A suburban school board in 2002 placed sitckers inside biology textbooks reading "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

A federal court judge ruled that the stickers amounted to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion... I'm sorry maybe I didn't read the passage above correctly. All the sticker did was encourage students to critically think about material they are supposed to learn. Along with some of my previous postings, I think this is a major part of why the education system in the United States is at such a deplorable state.

There is absolutely nothing religious stated in that sticker. The only reason why anyone even associates religion with those stickers is solely circumstantial. If this sticker was placed in these textbooks at the beginning of the 1990's no one would even speculate that this was an attempt to add Christian teachings into the classroom. But, since everyone is squabbling over God and Darwin, everything must be about those two.

Now, I'm not saying that the sticker wasn't an attempt to bring creationism teachings, I'm actually positive that the sticker was trying to accomplish exactly that. However, the literal message of the sticker itself simply asks that our students think for themselves instead of mindlessly swallowing what their instructor gives them to eat.

I mean this story could easily have the headline: "Judge overturns critical thinking in classrooms." Of course that's not the intention of the judge, however look at the story literally. A sticker that asks students to question and debate topics in school is "unconstitutional".

So instead of our students thinking critically and debating school issues, our education system deems it proper that they be spoon-fed information instead.

Any theory with no scientific backing does not belong in the biology classroom, creationism included. But this doesn't mean that the only plausible theory is to be taken as fact. Even the thought of this should make me laugh, however it's a sad reality that our education system encourages unblinking trust.

Trust is to be earned, not forced. And if you ask me, our education system has not earned my trust. It's absolutely absurd. Our education system is attempting to bring non-science into science classrooms. This is the state of our education system.

While other countries are trying to improve their students' capabilities, our nation is arguing about a theory which asks people to believe in an invisible man who lives in the sky and controls every ounce of existence in the known universe, on top of that this invisible man speaks to and through men in robes who molest children. A very convincing theory indeed, AND THIS IS WHAT OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM IS ARGUING ABOUT.

Only in a nation where there is such abundance and waste can you find abundance of stupidity and waste of potential. Students with the capabilities to learn just as well as kids in other countries need to be reminded that they're not supposed to question anything they're taught.

If god does exist, why would he knowingly cause such a disruption to kids? Why would he allow children to grow up ignorant and underutilized in his name?

Many many things make me angry in this world. Political correctness is one of those topics that holds a special place in my intestinal tract that, when activated, forces a massive upheaval of diarrhea into the general vicinity of the epicenter of the political correctness. Seriously, FUCK YOU PC.

I can understand why we might censor children from harmful language or images, but adults who are "offended" or "hurt" by anything other than a punch to the gut, a knee to the groin, or a grenade to the face should be given one of the previous actions in order to remind them what real offense and pain feels like.

Conversation with PC:

"Oh Dalton, you can't say such things, people can be offended."

GOOD! I hope I destroy every living person's belief in PCism.

Dalton, that's not right, we here at PC want to show that everyone is unique and has something different to bring to the table.

Fine asshole, let's see how PCism works shall we?
I can no longer refer to a black man as "black". He is now an "African-American" to me. Why?

You see Dalton, we don't want to categorize people by their skin color. It's much more appropriate to group people based on their geography of origin. People are unique, but if we're to categorize them, then we must do it appropriately, by origin, not the color of their skin.

Ok then, I have a friend who has white skin and is originally from South Africa, he's African-American right?

Nope. I think you missed the point Dalton. You see, we actually ARE talking about skin color, but we're pretending that we're not. It's a simple way to get around those touchy "race relations". Your friend is white, but COMES from Africa. Real African-Americans LOOK like they're from Africa...get it?

Ok, I think I got the race thing, what about gender? How come some ladies get angry when I write down "woman" or "female"?

Good question, see in those words are root words that say "man" and "male". And some ladies prefer not to be a simple addition onto "men". They want to be separate and regarded in their own light of existence as womyn..

Ok, I guess I can live with that, but now how come they're constantly fighting for equal employment and equal treatment.

Simple, everyone is equal and so everyone gets the same rights to a job and employment.

Ok...so why are "womyn" held to lower physical standards than men are in physically demanding jobs?

Well you see, it's because wome....whoops "womyn" are naturally on average less physical than men. Men have more testosterone than "womyn" do, so naturally men are going to be better equipped for physical work. But, "womyn" want to have these same jobs but they are unable to meet the real requirements, so the employer must reduce his "womyn's" qualifications in order for "womyn" to have equal employment.

But wouldn't the difference in qualifications eventually backfire with poor results?

WE DON'T THINK THAT FAR AHEAD DALTON! We're not thinking about the firefighting "womyn" that do not meet the real requirements and end up getting killed or are unable to save people because they are physically unable to. The same goes for college admittance, PCism doesn't think about the fact that some students aren't qualified for certain jobs or universities, PCism is about leveling the field so that people who feel unerpriveledged can finally feel normal.


Wait...that last comment about affirmative action admits that you're treating people differently. Doesn't that contradict your argument that people need to be treated equally and given equal opportunity?

No Dalton. Just like PETA doesn't care about people, PCism doesn't care about whites, or well off minorities, they've already found success on their own merit.

You got me there PC, I guess it makes sense. Racial nomenclature actually IS about skin color, but is a clever disguise. And "womyn" actually want to be treated as superior, equal in pay and employment, higher amounts of enrollees at universities, but held to lower standards. Thanks for clearing that all up for me PC.

My pleasure, now I'm off to go stab a screwdriver through my temples.

End Conversation

An enlightening debate. The idea behind PCism is noble: to eventually create a society that treats people equally regardless of skin color and gender. However, the unequal treatmet of yesterday and the overcompensation of today will not lead to the balance of tomorrow. Humans are creatures of habit, and the only reason why some people today may see blacks as inferior is because they were also thought to be inferior 100 years back. So, if we now attempt to groom our children to believe that minorities deserve more than the majority, then we are sending them down the same troublesome tracks we have fought to get rid of.

The only way to habituate equality tomorrow, is to demand equality today.

Only in grammar do two wrongs make a right. Don't try to compensate for yesterday's failings by tipping the scale the other way.

I thought I had outrun the idiot brigade when I changed schools, but...here I stand a very angry man. Today, after my first class there was an internship fair with a lot of businesses sporting their new fancy free pens and clipboards. So, this was a place with a lot of traffic, and so all the hippie bastards decided that today would be the perfect day to spread the word that "Bush" needed to get his "imperialistic" ass out of Iraq, and to get our soldiers back home.

I think I might be one of the last sane people in college who actually still supports the war in Iraq. I say sane because I know for a fact that there are some insanely stupid people who support it as well, and I'd like to disassociate myself from said people.

Back to my point. Back in 2003 over 65% of Americans supported entering Iraq. Today's approval rating of the war has tanked to right around 35-30%. I am the exact opposite. When the war was beginning, I thought it was stupid to give Saddam an ultimatum.

If everyone was afraid that he was hiding anything, why the FUCK tell him when you're going to go look for them? SUPRISE HIM! Think about it, it's like sex. If you KNOW a girl doesn't want to have sex with you, why would you announce the time you're going to make a move? You don't! IT'S CALLED RAPE. Or for the more sensitive: surprise sex.

After we invaded, everyone started whining about how the US didn't go along with what the rest of the world wanted. All of a sudden, everyone was a fucking UN expert and started saying that the US went without any allies or any support. Out of no where people actually cared about the rest of the world's opinion.

I say, the US doesn't have to kiss Europe's ass everytime it feels the need to carry out international policy. It's extremely helpful if Europe lends their support, but if they don't then fuck 'em we're not the biggest economy in the world because we asked for Europe's permission.

BUT! We entered...and people began to forget their loyalty to Europe and the rest of the world. Americans started getting up and shouting that they don't want to be there anymore. All of a sudden the world's opinion didn't matter anymore. I mean who gives a shit if we invade, fuck up a whole country into chaos, and then leave because we don't want to get hurt anymore. NO ONE THINKS! Do you think the world is going to thank the US for pulling out now? NO! They're gonna hate the US even more, wrecking a country and leaving it to rot.

I say we stick it out and take responsibility for our actions. Fuck the people who keep saying that we should never have been there, WE'RE THERE!
(On a side note, WMD's were found buried in Syria. Why is this relevant? Syrian president and Saddam are extremely close allies, and if you look real closely you wont find a single nuclear plant anywhere in Syria. Just thought I'd let you guys know).

Back to the topic, we invaded get the fuck over it. It's not like you can hop into your handy dandy time machine and waltz back in time to save the world from this monstrosity "Dubya" unleashed.

The fact of the matter is that most college students are sheep when it comes to politics. And the biggest voices in America are on the left (that's just a matter of political stance liberals want change, conservatives want to stay the same). So, when some lefty tells everyone that we need to get outta Iraq, everyone else says "I've been saying the same thing since like...forever!"

My point from all this is that liberals and leftys aren't the "open minded" individuals they attempt to make themselves out to be. Setting aside american political party agendas, I'm not arguing a conservative standpoint, which would BE to cut and run out of the situation in order to priveledge OUR OWN well being. I'm arguing a point so left on the scale that these so called "revolutionaries" don't even see it.

They're told that Democrats want to leave Iraq, so it's down with Bush and down with free thinking. The only reason Dems want to get out is because it's a GOP war. If the Dems started the war, they'd take the current GOP stance, and vice versa. The party's stance has NOTHING to do with politicians personal opinion..everything's about getting votes and playing the party war.

So, all these so called "revolutionaries" who refuse to be affiliated with a political party because none of them are "radical" enough, they're complete fakes and pussies. They have no mind of their own, and they kill puppies.

So seriously people, think about what you're doing before you join the congo line of idiots.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the American education system is in shambles. Of 27 "industrialized" nations the United States ranks 24 in education. And although this may not seem so alarming, I'd like anyone out there to name 27 industrialized countries. Such a test will either prove that people in the US are terrible at geography, and therefore prove my point of a failed education system. OR, you'll find out that there aren't 27 industrialized nations in the world today.

That begs the question, who are these 23 other countries that have a better education system? Countries that most college students are unaware even exist. Belarus, Estonia, Latvia all rank ahead of the United States. Countries that need to spend amazing amounts of resources just to keep their economy afloat seem to be able to afford a better primary education than the nation which boasts the ability to fight two simultaneous wars.

I've been meaning to write this for a long time now, and I couldn't because I could not find a justifiable reason why we ranked so low. But today I was browsing through the files of collegehumor.com (I know, I'm not helping the cause) and it hit me. There was a picture posted on the site. The picture was of a letter written to the parents of a high school student by his teacher. A portion of the letter:
Alex consistently defie[s] me. During class he contradicted me numerous times when I insisted that the length of one kilometer was greater than that of one mile. Every other student in class accepted my lesson without argument, but your son refused to believe what I told him, offering such rebuttals such as, "You're lying to the class," and commanding other students to challenge my curriculum.
Although he was correct, Alex's actions show a blatent disregard for authority, and a complete lack of respect for his school. In the future, Alex would be better off simply accepting my teachings without resistance.
Please see to it that your son understands this.

Now of course this example cannot be applied to all circumstances around the United States, but it does bring up question: How often does this happen? How often is it that a teacher is so incompetent that they cannot garner the respect of their students? Worse yet, how often do these teachers get away with being incompetent?

In this case Alex was knowledgeable enough to refute the teachings. And of course this makes for a funny situation in which a teacher is caught not even knowing the relationship between kilometer and mile. The problem is when geography teachers mash all the eastern european nations into "EASTERN EUROPE" and dismisses the whole area altogether due to their lack of knowledge in the area (happened to me).

Or when a math teacher who has never taught a course before, or even learned the curriculum before, but is forced to teach a class while learning it at the same time because last year's teacher quit (happened to my brother).

The problem also stems from the system itself. California school districts get money for every student that sits in a seat and graduates high school. So, schools are more than happy to overload the classrooms, hell they're making bank. And has anyone ever noticed that when standardized tests came marching through town, that there was a sudden movement, on the school's part, to create posters telling students to eat a healthy breakfast, and to get a good nights rest before going to class.

Standardized tests that determine what portion of the state's money goes to the district. And a week after these tests have been administered, these posters and signs disappear. The fact of the matter is that our education system can care less about how well they're breeding "tomorrow's leaders".

If teachers want to keep their jobs (which pay shit by the way), they will prep their students for the standardized tests, be it relevant to the real world or not. Schools reward teachers based on their students' performances on standardized testing.

This ramble has led me astray from my original intent, which is to find out why the American education system is so poorly performing. So here's a list:

1. Teachers aren't paid enough.
Any profession that mays a lot of money will attract the best in that field, or at least the most ambitious. So, if teaching kids how to play tennis pays more than teaching kids math, you're definitely going to end up seeing more and better applicants to teach tennis. Solution: PAY TEACHERS MORE! Get some fucking competition for those jobs so that people like Alex wont have to deal with a teacher who knows less than the students.

That's it. It all boils down to the fact that the pool for hiring teachers has become extremely desolate. My old high school deemed it necessary to provide every classroom with a 3 thousand dollar computer projector. 90% of my teachers never used it. Hell, if the administration didn't have their heads up the superintendant's ass they might have had the intelligence to ask each teacher if they needed one or not. And with the extra money they could have afforded to pay said teachers more, so that they actually felt a need to impress their bosses.

Wishful thinking I suppose.