In Awe of the Almighty God-State

MSNBC's post speech coverage is great. I'm sure there were more state-worshipping statements, but I was busy watching Family Matters.
Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rev. Eugene Rivers just went through the Litany of Saint Lincoln. Michelle Obama, glory to her name, is a descendant of slaves. Reverend Rivers mentioned America is unique, and great, because the North and South had a war and other nations didn't.
His truth comes marching home indeed.
Deacon Matthews mentioned how he hates Hollywood for making the south sypathetic. That's right, he wants to portray them as the devils they apparently were. Let Hollywood help those Sherman apologists, because not one Southerner was good. Let them be portayed like the germans portrayed those apparently hook-nosed greedy jews. Let them be portrayed as those monkey-like Japs our government so lovingly did.
What was the result? Six million people of a relitively small religious group murdered. Six million more of Jewish and Gypsy ancestry slaughtered. Tens of thousands of Japanese annihilated with an intrinsically evil weapon.
Deacon Matthews should know this.
Even if the Jews were trying to take over, is it ever right to commit a genocide? If the Japanese's spirit was strong, is it righ tto crush it by wiping out two cities?
Slavery is immoral. Humans can not be another's property. And yet the ends don't justify the means. Sherman's march was total warfare, which is immoral.
How can a man, supposively a worshipper of the Prince of Peace, glorify war instead of peace? There can be no mistake, they worship the state. Matthews is the Deacon to the reverend. And Olbermann is a promising young acolyte.
These false teachers called on hollywood to portray the Confederacy as an evil on the level of Hitler and the Union on the level of Saint Michael. And yet both sides seemed to be in the wrong. One advocated slavery while the other advocated statism.
Finally, Olbermann said that the CSA rebelled against the Union and were insurrectionists. If Lincoln didn't invade the South, there would have been no war. The South didn't want to take over the north too.
Everyone has a right to leave a country, whether a state/province, region, city, neighborhood, or individual. Why do I say people worship the state? Look at secessionist regions in the world. They treat each one as a schism if they aren't pro-US. South Ossetia and the CSA? No, they must remain within the one true faith.
On the other hand, they treat pro-US regions like the Church would if a protestant group asked to come home. Kosovo? Let them have their freedom!
It's one thing for a religious group to protest a schism since there is a true faith. It's another for a country sincce there's no one true country.
Although the South embracing slavery was reprehensible, there was something noble about it. It had a more Catholic/Anglo-Catholic culture. An air of dignity, a natural social structure (minus slavery of course), and a more easy-going attitude. The North? Although more "advanced", it was so much more irrational. Just take a look at the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
What was once a cultured society became the stereotypical Southern culture of today. When the northerners moved south during reconstruction, they brought their anti-Catholic and state-worshipping attitudes with them.
Indeed, the Civil War was the first of your modern wars-destroy life and property to bring around a good, then spend millions and billions on reconstruction.
The spread of state worship eventually led to America's nationalism which plagues Liberty to this day. The north fought for the slaves' Liberty, yet it was ironically the death of American-style Liberty.

A Frenchman Tells the Truth

Not that I'm calling the French liars or anything. I mean, just look at the blog address!
Today on Fareed Zakaria: GPS (a very good show, from the few episodes and segments I've seen), the host interviewed a Frenchman and a German. The former said Barack Obama was an idealist and a realist, while the neocons are extreme idealists. Then he said Barack was a mixture of a neocon and Kissinger.
Take it from a man with a clear head, a rational man. Obama is no Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich (though I disagree with him on Darfur), or Cynthia McKinney. He's just going to start more wars that are more directly linked to the "war on terror" and genocide
Watch out Pakistan! Watch out Iran!
Turns out that entire nations are terrorist nations if they don't do enough in the eyes of the leviathan. And never mind about possible civil wars if moderates start attacking extremists. The legionaries will come to the rescue!
Yep, we should just kill the people instead of the source, mainly the American Hegemony.
I mean, I think you'd be pretty ticked off if someone decided to stay in your back yard or porch and threatened to shoot you if you tried to get them out, right?
Didn't the colonials have a revolution because the redcoats tried to have sleepovers?

In God We Trust?!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/

Interesting topic. "Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?"

So, I wonder what our options are?

Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

No no, it isn't.

No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.

Wait, these are my only choices?

Guess I ought to just view the results then

Vote to see results

...oh.

I'd say it shouldn't mainly for the "patriotic" significance. I trust in the Prince of Peace. I trust in God. However, the politicians trust in Mars it would seem. I don't want their perverted worship of a false god, the god of war that they masquerade as the one true God, to be proclaimed from my near-worthless money. Not to mention it implies some sort of Divine Mandate that a Chinese Emperor could only dream of.
Of course if we had gold coins it wouldn't matter much what was printed on it since an American coin would be worth the same as a nigerian coin with the same gold amount. Hell, it could be privately minted with the atheist atom symbol.
(Heck even though I'm not one, I'd probably try to hunt one down)

Too Much Choice?

http://climate.weather.com/articles/overload2008.html?from=hp_fe_link

I get what they're trying to say. "The more there is, the more likely you're going to miss out on something." and "The more there is, the more likely you'll buy things that you wouldn't have otherwise gotten."
When in reality, they're saying (or implying) "Listen to us, we'll provide everything you need and you should be happy."
Variety is very good. For example, A&W root beer is better than Mug, Stewarts, and Olde Brooklyn. However, Olde Brooklyn is the best if taken in moderation (very strong taste). If that's all we had, I'm sure I would hate root beer. Mug has better cream soda than those other companies. I like Pepsi better than Coke, AC, and a plethora of no-name brands. I like my hamburgers well done. My french fries curly and by a certain brand. I can go on and on. I'd also type my shoe preferences, but there's not much variety in the sandal family than brown.

Choose between soda sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup or cane sugar, flavored artificially or naturally, colored pink or red or green or blue or purple.

Of course, there's a difference in taste between cane sugar and h-f corn syrup. Artificial or natural. And, hey, who wouldn't like to pick their favorite color?
Here's where it goes from "dang that's sure cool" to "Wait, what?"

The notion transcends simple consumerism. It also is the dilemma facing whoever wins November's election. With options beyond our great-grandparents' dreams, is freedom of unlimited choice really a freedom at all?
In a universe of unprecedented static, how can an American leader lead?

The author obviously doesn't realize that before the 20th century, the major parties were made up of a coalition of smaller parties. If we have so much choice, why do the two parties have a virtual monopoly on the political landscape? Without unlimited freedom of choice, a leader would actually lead. Republicans get behind a Republican as long as he doesn't break a few cardinal laws (mainly war, though to a lesser extent taxes and social issues). Democrats get behind a Democrat most of the time. Imagine if the whole nation got behind a president, like they eventually did with Roosevelt and eventually Wilson too? That experiment was very successful.
The whole article is a contradiction of capitalism.
Why is it on "Forecast Earth"? I wonder if it's a jab against oil and non-green technology. Of course, like the hypocrites they are, they'll argue for more choice until a green fuel becomes as popular. Then suddenly...

Thank Goodness for Bottled Water!

I've heard plenty of people complain about consumerism in the United States. We're a consumerist cuture. Is that really all that bad though?
The main example I usually hear is the selling of bottled water. "Why should water be sold? It should be free!" "It's a precious resource God gave to us!" "We need it to survive, something so valuble shouldn't have a price."
And yet food is sold. Isn't it also valuble and necessary for survival? Tap water certainly isn't free since you have to pay the government for it. So, it's morally wrong to give a corporation money for water, but it's fine for the government to charge for it? Of course, I forgot, most people worship the state, so the state is the final arbiter on morals (assuming someone from your preferred political party is in office).
So, the only bad thing about bottled water seems to be a fuzzy moral line.
What is the good that is always overlooked?
Well, it helps in droughts, right?
And during disasters, it'll be there long after water stops flowing and you run out of emergency water.
While jogging, you could pick up a bottle.
Flavored water is always good if your tap supply happens to taste really bad. Or even when it tastes good.
No need to worry about terrorists doing anything funny to the water
Buying in bulk usually is much cheaper, so it's good for picnics.

Of course, there's plenty of other uses for bottled water, but these are the ones off the top of my head.

Russia-Georgia

The media is finally reporting on the war between Russia and Georgia. The media has automatically taken Georgia's side since, y'know, the Russians are always evil.
We hear of an alleged Russian bombing of an apartment building, but they attacked an ammo dump that was next to the apartments. Apparently good guys build highly destructive military installations next to residential areas, right?
There was a lot of talk of democracy. Okay, I'll bite. The South Ossetians want to be free from Georgia. They might want to join Russia or they might want their own country. I don't know, but I do know they don't want to be part of Georgia. Don't they have a right to leave if they feel like it?
Let's assumed the countries were different. Let's say Israel was a part of an arabic country. Let's also say that Israel decided to leave this nameless country. They voted to, but not everyone seems to recognize it. The arab country, over a decade later, decide to shell Jerusalem. Fourteen thunred are dead. Would the US not attack? This is the same situation. It seems like the Georgians started it all, yet they're the heroes. They shell a city (destroying about 80% of it) and they're martyrs. The Russians destroy an ammo dump next to an apartment builing and they're evil.
Now the press reports that the Russians are invading the heart of Georgia. The Georgian president declared war on them. He wants a cease-fire not even a day later.
I'm writing this because I'm utterly amazed at the hypocrisy of the two mainstream candidates and Americans in general. If Russia does it, it is evil, but we can go into any country we want and it's okay.
I understand this is the way politics works. I guess I should just laugh since it's so glaringly obvious it's actually a bit funny.