Saturday, September 26, 2009

Rules for Dining Out

Okay, people. I work at a restaurant, and it would seem most of you don't get it. You just don't. So, here are some instructions! Please learn them well, and add any that you see fitting.

  • When the host asks, "How are you tonight, folks?", the correct response is something along the lines of, "Fine, how are you?" It is not correct to simply say "Two for dinner" after someone has taken the effort to feign interest in you. Be kind, and fake it back.
  • Do not show up during the dinner rush with a party bigger than six people, without a reservation, and expect to be seated instantly. It won't happen.
  • If you make the choice to go to a smoking restaurant, don't bitch about the smoke. You have free will and can go elsewhere.
  • You take the table the host gives you. Period. Don't ask if you can have that booth instead. If he put you there, it was for a reason.
  • Along this same vein, don't request a four top if you have only two people. You don't need it, but a table coming in later with four people will. Don't be selfish.
  • In general, don't request a table. It screws up server rotation. The food is the same, the company is the same, why do you need that table in the left corner over the table in the right corner?
  • For the love of God, don't change tables in the middle of your meal unless you have a damned fine reason. Most restaurants function in server sections, and it's likely that you will be changing sections. Don't do it.
  • If you choose to sit outside, don't complain about bugs. What do you expect the server to do? Call God and ask him to make the bugs stop bothering you?
  • If you aren't ready to order, say so! Don't say you are ready and then force the server to stand there for three minutes waiting for you to make your decision. The server is busy and doesn't want to have to watch you make your decision that you already indicated you had made.
  • If you say you have four people in your party, don't have more than four show up. It's rude, and often difficult to adjust.
  • Don't ask your server what's in a dish that clearly has the description on the menu, otherwise he will assume you are stupid.
  • Don't try to engage your server in a long discussion when he is obviously busy. His income depends on making people happy, and that includes all the other people he is dealing with, not just you. Remember: we don't really care.
  • Don't flag down your server by waving your check in the air. If the server isn't at your table, there's a reason. They waited on you for the whole meal, you can wait on them for five minutes.
  • Don't ask your server to break a Benjamin if your check is only $13. 
  • Tip at least 18%. The concept of 15% for good service and 20% for great service is outdated. Servers are making almost all of their income off of tips, and need 20% at least to make a dent in their student loans, rent, car payments, etc.
This is not inclusive all of the rules, but these are some of the ones that, if followed, will make your server not hate you. And that's important.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

ACORN and Prositution. How 'bout them nuts?

Being a liberal, many of my not-so-liberal friends insist on asking me, "Well, what do you think about what's been going on with ACORN?" They say it as if one liberal organization acting poorly shows that all liberal organizations are wrong. Now, I may be attacked here by some who know me well, because this same type of argument is often used to discredit religion. However, to digress slightly, killing people who believe differently is not the same as telling some one how to get away with a crime, and it certainly isn't limited to just one religion that has done this.

Anyway, back to ACORN. I'm torn.

On the one hand,. I hope to be a lawyer some day, and thus respect the law, even when it's wrong.

However, this mistake of some of ACORN's members does not discredit the institution as a whole. The Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) fights for better healthcare, lower-income housing and wages, neighborhood safety, voter registration, education, and much more, advocating for the lower end of the financial and social spectrum. The organization's goals are just.

But, my main qualm with this entire issue with the videos, which were made in a fashion that would make Michael Moore blush, is very different from what I have heard voiced so far. The videos show two activists, pretending to be a pimp and prostitute, getting advice on how to circumvent the law in order to start a brothel.

I am in no way saying to was right for the ACORN members to give advice as to how to beat the law. However, prior to my getting to my main rant, let me pose a question to those of you who are upset by the video and at ACORN:

How many times have you been driving, on the street or on the highway, well over the speed limit? Let's say, going 70mph on a 55mph highway. Now, how many times have you been going 70, seen a cop staked out a hundred feet ahead, and pressed on your break to take your speed to a more reasonable level? Do you know what you did every time you did that? You found a way to do something illegal without getting punished. You worked around the law. You circumvented the law.

And, honestly, more harm has come from speeding than from prostitution: accidents, life-altering injuries, death. However, if you were to ask someone, "How can I speed and not get caught", one of the first things people would say would be to slow down if you see a cop. Actually, most people wouldn't say that, because it's so obvious. But we sell radar devices that help drivers to know when a police officer is around, so that that person can avoid the law. Does this not seem like a double standard to anyone else?

Now, to my main rant. Though the ACORN members were wrong to give advice as to how to illegally conduct prostitution, I don't feel prostitution should be illegal in the first place. Allow me to make a short list of things that would happen if prostitution were legalized:

  • It would eliminate pimps
  • There would be fewer rapes
  • There would be fewer beatings
  • There would be fewer murders
  • There would be fewer STDs transmitted
  • The entire institution could be taxed
There would be no pimps, because the pimps are just the drug dealers of sex; the elimination of the pimps eliminates a lot of crime.

If brothels were legalized nationally, as it is in Nevada, the rapes involved with prostitution would drop sharply. At the moment, the rapes are almost never reported, because that would involve the woman admitting to being a prostitute. This would not be an issue if it were legalized. Not only that, but brothels would have security, just to increase the safety further. This is the same reason that beatings and murders would both decrease.

As for STDs, the brothels in Nevada are clean and provide contraception (and require it). The prostitutes go through regular tests, from general STD to HIV specific tests.

Now, the best part, my republican friends: it could all be taxed, both the purchase and the income of the women. And these women make good money, which means good money for the government. As was said once in "Boston Legal" concerning the legalization and taxation of prostitution, "Legalize prostitution. Support our troops."

Here's the list of bad things that would happen if it were legalized:

Oh, wait. Nothing bad would happen. It would piss off the religious right, which I almost put on the list of advantages. People would have more sex. How terrible.

Legalize prostitution, protect women, support sex, support our troops.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Italian/Catholic Joke

A old Italian woman walks into a Cathedral, kneels, and begins to pray with her rosaries.

On the level above her, Giovanni and his friend, Mario, see the old woman, and Mario says, “Hey, Giovanni, let's have some fun.” So, Mario calls in a deep voice, “Hello, down there. This is God.”

The old woman doesn't look up, but instead keeps praying.

“Hello, down there,” Mario tries again.

“You don't know how to do it, let me show you how it's done,” Giovanni says. He cups his hands to his mouth and says in a deeper voice, “Hello, down there. This is the voice of God.”

The old woman looks up and says, “Shut up, I'm talking to your momma.”

The Creation Museum, part I

The Museum of Modern Art, The National Museum of Natural History, The National Museum of the American Indian; this is just a short sample of some museums that can be found in The United States. Since a young age, I have been aware of the difference that museums can make in one's life, as I was raised in Saint Louis, where I was graced with several free museums, such as the Saint Louis Art Museum. For this reason, when my father moved to Kentucky, one of the first things I researched was the museums in the area. When typing in the words “Kentucky” and “museum” into my internet's search engine, the second result that came up was “The Creation Museum”.The museum had no website at the time, but it was made clear that it would focus on the origins of life, with fossils, a number of well-known scientists, and exhibits to explain life to younger children. This museum is dedicated to explaining the origins of life and of the universe.

It has been over two years since I first read about the museum, and I am now returning to see what it has become. Going onto the The Creation Museum's website, the first logical course to learn about the institution is the page entitled “About Us”. The website proclaims proudly “Be prepared to experience history in a completely unprecedented way”. This statement in and of itself derives a number of questions, all of which stem off of the primary question of in what way will the experience be “unprecedented”? Is it because of the research that has been done, the size of the museum, or the special effects of the exhibits?

The museum seems dedicated to the pursuit of the natural histories, as it supposedly offers “an exceptional fossil collection, and a mineral collection”. An opposition to the claims of a remarkable, historical experience soon becomes visible, as the website discusses how a visitor can “see the scaffolding, smell the freshly-cut timbers in the busy work site of Noah's Ark” and visit the Garden of Eden, where “children play and dinosaurs roam”. These two examples seem provide a contradiction to both the previous statements concerning historical accuracy and even the title of a museum, especially one that wishes to focus on the origins of life. The website even says that it illuminates “the effects of biblical history”. This particular web page is filled with terms that one would not expect in a truly historical museum that intends to discuss life's scientific origins: “sin”, “Creation” “the Bible”, “The Tree of Knowledge”, and “Adam and Eve”.

The Creation Museum sounds like its focus is on biological history, but it is really about forwarding the Bible's message.

Those who come to The Creation Museum are expected to have a greater desire for learning about the word of the Bible than the history of the Earth, universe, and of life. Those who attend The Creation Museum are overwhelmingly “New Earth Creationists”, those who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that man was created by God, and that evolution is incorrect. This can be seen by following the links on the “About Us” page of the museum's website. All of the four links lead to a page of the website “Answers in Genesis”; due to the museum's heavy reliance on this organization, it is important to follow those links and see what that reveals.

It turns out that Ken Ham, founder of The Creation Museum, is also the founder of Answers in Genesis, which reveals where Mr. Ham believes the real answers can be found. Near the top of the page is a picture of Darwin with the words “200 lost years”, attempting to reduce the credibility of Darwin's theory and those which arose from that. Above that is the quotation “Believing it. Defending it. Proclaiming it.” This is the Mission Statement of Answers in Genesis and of The Creation Museum. Any who came to the museum with the intent of learning about life's origins would be disappointed, for the only time evolution is mentioned is in the attempt to discredit it.

Answers in Genesis's website even encourages its visitors to sign “The Creation Letter Project”, which ends with “We the undersigned affirm the truth of a Biblical, literal 6-day Creation....Evolution is a lie which undermines both Biblical authority and the foundational basis of the Gospel.” Though this statement is not directly on The Creation Museum's website, it is heavily associated with this organization and opens the door widely for Answers in Genesis to push its message.

In order to determine how much the museum reflects the views of its founder, Mr. Ham, I returned to the museum's homepage. The first thing I noticed that seemed to provide a contradiction was an advertisement for “new biology workshops with Dr. David Menton”, a former Associate Professor Emeritus at Washington University's School of Medicine, a fact which is advertised often on the museum's website. Dr. Menton's workshops are meant to focus on the human anatomy, skeletal structure, and senses.

On the schedule for events for the museum, along with this workshop, are a number of events concerning Darwin, such as “The Science of Darwin's Evolution” and “The Origin of Species: Was Darwin Right?” At a museum that has exhibits of Noah's Ark and shows “the sacrificial Lamb on the cross”, it is doubtful that Darwin will receive a fair trial. The Creation Museum uses 'big-name' scientists and the advertisements for biological workshops as a facade to make their attempt to preach the Gospel appear scientific.

An important aspect of any object to consider, especially one like a museum, is the reaction that people end up having to it. While discussing this issue with my father, a substitute teacher at a school district in rural Kentucky, he relayed this story to me. He was discussing dinosaurs with the class and mentioned how long ago a number of them went extinct. A girl raised her hand and said that it was impossible for dinosaurs to have gone extinct millions of years ago, due to the fact that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The reason that scientists disagree with that fact, according to the grade-schooler, is because they need to make money, and the easiest way to do that is to say something new, even if it means lying with things such as carbon-dating.

This is the exact reaction that designers of The Creation Museum seems to desire. This can clearly be seen in two ways, even if one were to limit himself to looking at the “About Us” page. First, the catering to children and whole families is apparent on this page due to the number of items they have directly aimed at children, including the ability to “saddle up on our triceratops and have their picture taken with a dinosaur”. This initially appears to be an innocent enough gag, but after remembering that the Garden of Eden exhibit shows children and dinosaurs living next to each other, it becomes clear that this is more than a simple attraction: it is an attempt to reinforce the idea of humans and dinosaurs living together, perhaps to the extent that human rode dinosaurs.

Another feature that elicits the type of reaction that the grade-schooler had can be seen within the advertisement for the “Dragon Hall Bookstore”. It says that the bookstore includes “technical books (including Bible dictionaries and reference books)”. Typically, when one visits a museum that advertises lectures in biology, including the skeletal structure and nervous system, one would expect that any “technical books” would be along the lines of biological science, not “Bible dictionaries”. By having scientists, “technical books”, and God next to each other, all preaching the same message of Creationism and anti-evolution, the museum elicits a very specific reaction. Those who disagree with the science presented at The Creation Museum are not only presented as wrong, but also anti-God, and thus inherently wrong. The proof for this can be seen back at the parent website, Answers in Genesis.

In an article discussing Darwin, it is stated that “It has often been assumed that Darwin started off as a Bible-believing Christian who later rejected his faith because of the scientific discoveries he had made. Nothing could be further from the truth.” The entire rest of the article is spent focusing on evidence that Charles Darwin and his father were atheist, thus, in the mind of the author, proving that Darwin was wrong. This is a theme of the museum as a whole, and a reaction that it creates: if someone states something that goes against the Gospel, they are against God, and anyone against God is against the truth. The primary topic that is discussed within the museum is the argument between evolution and creationism, but the principle presented can applied to any scientific debate.

When one who believes in God is presented with the problem of choosing between God and science, and being forced to chose one, the faith often overrules the science. This is tactic of The Creation Museum; it presents two alternatives: God and science. Often, the option of God is presented alongside pseudoscience, the only purpose of which is to forward the Bible's message or simply to present the image of a scientific institution. The Creation Museum attempts to discredit modern science by giving its viewers the choice between God and science, thus forcing discussion of the Bible into the science class and casting doubt on anything that disputes the Bible, all the while hiding behind a facade  of being a scientific institution.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

Good God.

Really? Really, America?

A film on Darwin's life is too contraversial, and thus won't be shown in America?

I will not get into the whole evolution vs. Creationism problem right now, but I will say this: according to a Gallop poll, 39% of Americans believe in evolution. Discuss.

foolish out, for now.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Who Hates the First Amendment More? Lefties or Righties?

This issue is one that we often hear, framed more in the way of a statement rather than a question, and one that has particular importance to me. The First Amendment is my favorite Amendment: I would put in on the list of the modern Wonders of the World; I would build a church devoted to it and become a member of First Amendmentism.

But far too often is this amendment limited.

Now, I framed this issue by way of a question rather than a statement, due to the fact that both sides have had some issues with it: graphic language in music, violence in movies and video games, etc. Both sides seem to agree that those are bad, for some reason, which I am sure I will rant about later. But, the question still remains: who hates it more?

In an attempt to answer this, I will offer some anecdotal evidence.

I recently moved back into college, an experience which I hope never again to tackle singlehandedly. Anyway, in the process, when going to pickup my computer from home, I encountered a large protest group gathered outside the offices of our state's senators. They had signs like "Leave My Healthcare Alone" and the infamous "Don't Tread on Me".

Opposite this group, on a matching patch of grass separated by a U-Turn route, were ten to fifteen other individuals, dressed up like the Monopoly Man.

So, seeing as how I have a hard time passing up opportunities such as this, I rushed over to the local Walgreens, which luckily was only five minutes away, picked up a large piece of poster-board and a permanent marker, and began to write my sign.

I quickly drove back to near where the protest was happening, parked in a slightly shady part of the neighborhood, and, literally, ran over.

Slightly out of breath, I crossed the road to the anti-reform camp, and asked politely, "Mind if I join you?"

"Come on in!" "Welcome!" "How's it going?" Quite a polite bunch.

I then faced the politicians' office and held up my sign:

"We have absolutely no idea what we're talking about."

I was standing in front of the majority of the protesters, so it took them a while to notice, by which I mean fifteen seconds. Soon, I was getting shoved, jeered, and had a woman attempt to cover my sign with her sign (luckily, she was only about 5' 2").

In response to these jeers, I quoted my right to "peacefully assemble", to which the little woman responded that her covering up my sign was doing the exact same thing.

I had not been standing there for more than thirty seconds before a man standing next to me called over the police who were standing nearby.

"Could you please make him move to the other side of the street?"


"Get a move on," the officer said. "Just follow the rules," the guy behind me said.

The rules? Separate but equal protesting? Why did I need to be separated from these people? I had no intention of getting violent, no means of becoming violent, and certainly no chance of success when outnumbered 150-1 with police standing nearby. Who was going to get violent?

I didn't "get a move on". I repeated my right provided to me by the First Amendment. I had no intention of getting violent, but I did intend on assembling. This is my favorite part.

While I was attempting to settle my disagreement with the police officer, one of the people standing behind me, a "righty", pushed me. He pushed me hard enough to send me stumbling into the street, not twenty yards away from an incoming vehicle.

Had that driver been sending a text message, or had I fallen completely, I could have died.

After dusting myself and watching the police officer send the man away from the protest, I joined the other counter-protesters across the street, who were dressed as millionaires in an ironic depiction of the opposition's view (to quote one of their signs, "I have my healthcare, I don't care if you do").

During my stint on this side of the street, a woman came over and told us how wrong our views were. We listened, disagreed, and provided our reasons. She stayed until she left of her own free will.

We had to be separated because our views would have resulted in violence against us. According to the police officer that I spoke to later, it was their only way of guaranteeing the peace.

During the Vietnam War, protesters gathered to express their opinion the violence and killings. These protesters were called un-American, were refused employment, were told to "love it or leave it". This was from the Right-Wing.

Does the left side of the aisle have its fair share of attempts to undermine freedom of speech? Yes. Have college students been bawdy at conservative speeches? Yes.

Have those conservative speakers still been allowed to speak? Yes. Were they pushed in front of cars? No. Were they called un-American? No. Were the told to "love it or leave it"? No.

I will not answer my own title question. I will simply submit my evidence. The answer should seem clear. If it doesn't, please voice it.

foolish out.

All The Foolish People

Monday, September 14, 2009

Socialism, Barack Obama, and the Easter Bunny

Not too terribly long ago, I was driving down the road and saw a large group of people standing outside of a small shop, large yellow flags in their hands reading “Don't Tread On Me”.

I had an appointment to keep, so I kept on driving. When I came to the corner of that very same street, I saw a man, on stilts, dressed as Uncle Sam and holding a sign directing people to the “Tea Party”. I am bright enough to make the connection between the two things that I had seen in quick succession.

But I had an appointment to keep, so I decided to keep driving. But something started to eat at me about the whole situation, so I turned the car around and searched for a parking spot for five minutes.

I eventually got out of the car with my sunglasses on, for it was a bright summer day. I walked to where I had previously seen the large group of people, which was now even larger.

At first I simply observed, reading the signs that people were holding and looking at the people themselves. Eventually I leaned over to the gentleman standing next to me and said, “I'm just here as an observer, so what are we protesting exactly?”

A few of the people standing near the gentlemen chuckled, and he responded, “Last week, when we were protesting, the union we were speaking out against got violent with us, so that's why we're here today.”

That is perfectly reasonable.

“If you're here protesting the violence of a union, why does that guy have a sign that says 'Yes to Capitalism, No to Socialism'?” It seemed a valid question.

“Well,” the gentleman responded, “that's what we were protesting last week.”

I nodded. “Okay, so what exactly are you protesting this week?”


Okay, I now understood what was really going on.

“So,” I asked, steeling myself, “what exactly is wrong with Socialism?”

The gentleman with whom I was speaking, in addition to those around him, all laughed at me as if I were a child that was confused as to why the toy phone didn't call anyone but Elmo. “You tell me,” he responded.

This irritated me. I asked him to defend his position, or ostensibly his position, and instead he was asking me to do it for him.

“Okay, well, Medicare, public schools, taxes, and the GI Bill are all quite Socialist --” I was interrupted before I could finish.

“Medicare is bunk,” he exclaimed, as if that answered anything.

“All right, well what about public schools, then?”

Again, that smug laugh. “Well, you tell me how you think public school are doing.” This drew a laugh from his comrades.

Again, he did not answer my bloody question.

“Even at their worst,” I said, calmly, “they provide the opportunity for children to get an education who might not otherwise have had the chance. There are also many cases in which public schools are more successful than private schools.”

They simply laughed.

I wondered whether they had attended private or public schools.

“What about the GI Bill?” I asked.

They had no idea what it was, and I did not have the patience to explain it to them.
This is, to the best of my memory, and accurate representation of what occurred at that road-side protest.

This is, to the best of my knowledge, representative of the majority of people who call out 'Socialist' whenever they see Obama.

Our governmental system takes advantage of many of the successful aspects of Socialism, of which there are a few. Much in the same way does it use Capitalism, for our economic system is not pure Capitalism. A system founded on one precept alone is bound to fail.

We humans, as organisms, have evolved (fact), and so have our political and economic systems. Initially there were the absolute systems, such as Monarchies and pure Democracies. However, eventually people began to use what worked from each system, and thus they evolved into concepts such as Constitutional Monarchies. Our economic system works in the same way.

A little interesting fact concerning Capitalism and Socialism involved Obama's proposition for a Public Option in terms of Health Care. An inordinate amount of people feel, or have told that they should feel, that this is Socialist. But perhaps a little information will help to clear up this issue.

Capitalism requires competition, hearkening back, once more, to evolution. With competition, the successful and best suited to survive will continue on, getting stronger and better and smarter. With President Obama's Public Option, this competition would once more be entered into the equation of health insurance.

For so long, at least since the early 20th century, the major health care insurers have no had a great deal of competition, and thus have no always had to provide the best, because people would either get insurance from their job, from them, or from no one.

Now, if Obama's plan were to be put into action, all Americans would be required to get health insurance. This can involve keeping their current plan, buying a new one from a privately owned insurance company, getting worker's insurance, or taking advantage of the public option.

With one of the choices being affordable and backed by the United States Government, the privately owned companies are going to have to shed some weight if they want to survive: get rid of the unnecessary charges, ditch the regulations such as denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions and dumping people after they develop a serious condition. With these changes, health insurance companies will be cheaper, more efficient, and more fair, or they will fail.

This is Capitalism, not Socialism.

Now, it feels like I'm forgetting something...oh, yes! The Easter Bunny! Well, that's simply to say that if after reading all this, and getting any sort of formal education, you still believe Barack Obama is a Socialist, then you might as well believe that I am the Easter Bunny. You're just as correct.

foolish out.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

FailFest, 2009

This week, thousands of protesters gathered at the nation's capital in order to, according to their own testimony, protest the Obama Administration's actions in general and the fact that the government is too large for their taste. A number of people carried protest signs, many brought their children, pets, and lawn chairs. It was more like a carnival than an organized protest.

Allow me to explain why I describe this as a "FailFest", and say that it is perhaps the largest one of the year, not counting Jonas Brothers concerts.

Starting from the top: the protest of the Obama Administration's actions. What are they protesting? The increase in scientific funding, or perhaps the fact that detainees that had previously been determined to be held without trial for life will now get the chance to challenge their sentence, or maybe the significant steps that he has taken towards saving our economy from crumbling to the ground.

Ah, I remember now, many of them said that they are protesting the large amount of government funding. I remember hearing an interview with one teenager who said something along the lines of "You only have a successful economy if you are taking in more than you are spending."

Now, by the time Bush left office, we had a national deficit. If I'm not mistaken, that means that you have spent more than you were taking in. Where were these protesters then? I know that people were protesting Bush's actions, but it was not these people. The majority of these protesters were okay with Bush spending enormous amounts of money on useless wars, but are somehow against Obama doing it in order to stabilize our country's economy.

Want another interesting fact? Do you know what causes a recession? **looks both ways** People not spending enough money. That's right. All of you who heard about the failing economy and so decided to stash your money underneath your mattress (I am not using this as a figure of speech; people actually did this) worsened our economy. The only way to get us out of this problem is to stimulate the economy. You know how we do that? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't involve a French Tickler. You spend money.

Something else that no one really mentions: the major items that Obama has spent money on have not resulted in a single death. No innocents were killed when he increased funding to our economy; no American soldiers had to go fight and die in order to stimulate our economy.

Now, some more issues with this little protest: the signs. A number of the signs included the "TEA Party" thing, which some people say stands for "Taxed Enough Already". I want to know how many of these people are in the upper 5% of the economic ladder. Because 95% of Americans have lower taxes, but most don't notice. Unlike previous attempts, it didn't come in the form of a single lump sum, but rather small increases on paychecks. Now, why did Obama do it this way? Well, when you hand someone a $5,000 check, a lot of people will go out and buy a flat-screen TV or a car, which is great. But when people get an additional $10 a week or month, even if they don't notice it, it lets them pay for their groceries, put some more away for a child's college fund, and pay for health insurance. This is the smart way to help people sort out their lives.

Another issue I have with the "TEA Party" slogan is the reference to the Boston Tea Party, which was due to the fact that the people were taxed without representation. However, the American people (with one small exception) have representation. We elect the state and national levels of Congress, and the president. Simply because the person you like didn't win does not mean you don't have representation. So, unless these people live in Washington, DC, their claim is bunk.

This does not even begin to scratch the surface as to why these people fail, but it is the most my heart can take right now. If I offended you, good. Write back with a well thought out reply, and see if you can avoid insults any stronger than the one I used, which, unless I am mistaken, was limited to saying that these people 'fail'.

General Statements and Goals

Thank you, whoever you are, for reading this. Herein lies my warnings about what this blog will be:

  1. Offensive to someone
  2. Thoughtful
  3. Equal Opportunity
  4. Encouraging of intelligent conversation
  5. Uncensored (by which I mean cursing is allowed)
  6. At times will include random acts of stupidity, both on my part and on that of others
  7. An area for creative expression, including short stories and poetry
  8. Intolerant of useless hatred of people, due to their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Please, if you're going to insult some one, do it creatively: "You son of a motherless goat", for example.
This list, naturally, does not include everything that I intend for this blog to be. Upon first starting, it will mostly be about my views on politics, people, and life, however, if all goes according to plan, it will eventually become more about you, the participant.

I have very few requests of those who wish to respond to my blogs and the comments left therein, but here is one that I do have: please avoid text message style acronyms, by which I mean 'lol', 'omg', 'g2g', etc. May I suggest an alternative to the all too common 'lol' with a substitution of 'hahaha'. It's more honest, after all.

If you post on this blog with an obviously thoughtless post, or useless in terms of the conversation ("You're wrong"), do not be surprised if I do something about this.

Anyway, welcome to All The Foolish People. I am one of them, and so are you.