It seems as if this blog has more become a dumping ground for issues on my mind, and at the moment, I'm totally cool with that.
I've been meaning to write this specific blog for the longest time, and now that I'm actually writing it, I have WAY more to say then what most people are going to want to read. So I shall make this a special 3 for one blog.
Wednesday, December 1
Wednesday, August 4
Prop 8 Overturned? Time to Party!
In case you didn't know... Proposition 8, the ban on previously legal gay marriage in California, has been overturned! Today is another good day in American history, a group of people finally getting the rights they deserve under the constitution.
I seriously never understood the ban on it in the first place, I mean who were they hurting? No one, no one at all was being hurt by allowing these gay couples to get married. The whole "Sanctity of Marriage" argument was a load of bull, and anyone with half of a brain realizes this.
I do want to review a few points the anti-gay-marriage team brought up though, as some people may think they are quite decent thoughts.
Consider this an open note to the United States and all of it's citizens, gay marriage in no way is wrong nor does it infringe upon anyone's rights. The only rights being infringed upon are the rights of couples who want to marry, but are not allowed. Homosexual couples leave heterosexual couples alone (for the most part), and the opposite should be true as well.
Think about it, and then get back to me,
I seriously never understood the ban on it in the first place, I mean who were they hurting? No one, no one at all was being hurt by allowing these gay couples to get married. The whole "Sanctity of Marriage" argument was a load of bull, and anyone with half of a brain realizes this.
I do want to review a few points the anti-gay-marriage team brought up though, as some people may think they are quite decent thoughts.
- Allowing gay marriage is an untested "Social Experiment."
- No actually, it is not. the following countries all allow gay marriage: Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, and Argentina. In the Netherlands, gay marriage has been legal since April 1st, 2001, and the protests against it have almost died down completely. Point here is that it isn't untested, and the countries that allow gay marriage don't dislike their decision.
- Gay marriage undermines "Traditional Marriage," in kindergartens they now have to teach that marriage is between any two people.
- Ooookay? In the future your kid will learn that people don't always fall in love with someone of the opposite gender, this is honestly just teaching it ahead of what was previously normal. In addition, the previous definition of marriage (A legal binding between man and woman) was totally unfair for kids adopted by LGBT families. I mean really, is it fair to teach these kids that there parents are not technically married because they are both the same gender? Or that the love between there parents is wrong, or less good than the love between a heterosexual couple? A lot to think about there...
- Allowing gay marriage forces people to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.
- We do the same with religion don't we? You might not agree with religions, but you have to be tolerant of them, and you have to accept the fact that they are there and nothing you can do will change that.
- Allowing gay marriage will open up the doors to bestiality and children marriages.
- You are totally correct, marriage between two consenting adults is going to open the door to one consenting adult with a horse; and to one consenting adult with a minor. *Sarcasm*
Consider this an open note to the United States and all of it's citizens, gay marriage in no way is wrong nor does it infringe upon anyone's rights. The only rights being infringed upon are the rights of couples who want to marry, but are not allowed. Homosexual couples leave heterosexual couples alone (for the most part), and the opposite should be true as well.
Think about it, and then get back to me,
~Kegan
Saturday, July 17
For you my anonymous readers.
I don't know why I am so comfortable with pouring out my feelings in a blog, but totally unable to do the same in real life. Seriously, it makes absolutely no sense at all, and I'm getting a bit tired of it. Maybe it's because I can edit my feelings here before they go out, whereas when I'm talking or IMing with someone, it's live. No editing, no nit-picking details, nothing. When you say something, it's final, but if you type something up here, you can always press backspace. Even if I were to release something I didn't like, I could take it back, edit it, add to it. The possibilities with a blog are endless, but in life, you say it and it's done.
What I want to say here is, "Thank You" for being here to read my blog (or not). It's the only way I really express myself, my raw unbridled feelings towards life in general. Thank you for being there to vent to, and for the most part thank you for not often times being to rude about how our feelings surely differ on certain subjects. Thank you for being here, even if I'm not, and if you've been here since the beginning you know that is more often than not.
I'd like to promise more things are coming soon, but my blog is riddled with those "New Post Tomorrow" moments, and normally they don't come true. So instead I say: Stay on the lookout for me.
~Kegan
What I want to say here is, "Thank You" for being here to read my blog (or not). It's the only way I really express myself, my raw unbridled feelings towards life in general. Thank you for being there to vent to, and for the most part thank you for not often times being to rude about how our feelings surely differ on certain subjects. Thank you for being here, even if I'm not, and if you've been here since the beginning you know that is more often than not.
I'd like to promise more things are coming soon, but my blog is riddled with those "New Post Tomorrow" moments, and normally they don't come true. So instead I say: Stay on the lookout for me.
~Kegan
Wednesday, April 14
Racial Equality is so 1968
Few things piss me off as much as Racial Equality. Admit it America, we are not at all equal, and pretending that as a nation we ignore skin tone or sexuality is just stupid. Now don't get the point of what I'm about say wrong, I am totally glad we all have rights and freedom under the constitution, and in no way would I ever take that away from us. What I am tired of is being put down for my skin tone, because believe it or not it's all around me.
The question here is this: "Should I be denied scholarships and services because I am Caucasian rather than African-American, Hispanic, or anything else?"
This is America, and in case you don't remember, here we believe we were all created equally (or so we say). Do we act on this equality notion though? In my opinion no we do not... "But Kegan, why would you say something terrible like that? We have a black President, and a female-hispanic Supreme Court Justice" and to that I say WHOOPEE-FRIGGING-DO.
I really do wish both of them much success, as their decisions effect me, but what I do wish is that they were: hermaphroditic, a-sexual, and clear. It really shouldn't matter that President Obama is African-American, and it shouldn't matter that Sonia Sotomayor is Hispanic nor should it matter that she is female. Does it matter though? In the eyes of many Americans, yes it does.
What made me start this rant was this, organizations such as the NAACP will award scholarships to many students, but ONLY if they are "Colored" (Their word not mine). The NAACP isn't at all rare though, as there is: UNCF (United Negro College Fund), The Ron Brown Scholarships, and over 200 others (http://www.blackexcel.org/200-Scholarships.html).
Not only do scholarships look at it, but it seems that colleges do as well. Being a white male, if I wanted to go to Harvard University, and there was a Middle-Eastern girl with a slightly lower GPA and all around slightly worse stats (not because she's middle eastern, but because I maybe tried harder) you know as well as I do that she would be the one to make it in. This is not fair, in modern day United States we all have the option of attending the same schools, and if she has a lower GPA then me, goddamnit I earned it.
As Martin Luther King Jr. stated...
It seems the leader we so strongly quote will never receive his wish, we are still judged by the colors of our skin. We are still judged by race, and it seems to only be getting worse as we go.
I'm not saying at all that I am like those before me, and I am being attacked for my very race, but I am not receiving a fair bargain either. I was cursed to be a white male it seems, a fact that society will sure as hell remind me of.
The question here is this: "Should I be denied scholarships and services because I am Caucasian rather than African-American, Hispanic, or anything else?"
This is America, and in case you don't remember, here we believe we were all created equally (or so we say). Do we act on this equality notion though? In my opinion no we do not... "But Kegan, why would you say something terrible like that? We have a black President, and a female-hispanic Supreme Court Justice" and to that I say WHOOPEE-FRIGGING-DO.
I really do wish both of them much success, as their decisions effect me, but what I do wish is that they were: hermaphroditic, a-sexual, and clear. It really shouldn't matter that President Obama is African-American, and it shouldn't matter that Sonia Sotomayor is Hispanic nor should it matter that she is female. Does it matter though? In the eyes of many Americans, yes it does.
What made me start this rant was this, organizations such as the NAACP will award scholarships to many students, but ONLY if they are "Colored" (Their word not mine). The NAACP isn't at all rare though, as there is: UNCF (United Negro College Fund), The Ron Brown Scholarships, and over 200 others (http://www.blackexcel.org/200-Scholarships.html).
Not only do scholarships look at it, but it seems that colleges do as well. Being a white male, if I wanted to go to Harvard University, and there was a Middle-Eastern girl with a slightly lower GPA and all around slightly worse stats (not because she's middle eastern, but because I maybe tried harder) you know as well as I do that she would be the one to make it in. This is not fair, in modern day United States we all have the option of attending the same schools, and if she has a lower GPA then me, goddamnit I earned it.
As Martin Luther King Jr. stated...
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
...
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
It seems the leader we so strongly quote will never receive his wish, we are still judged by the colors of our skin. We are still judged by race, and it seems to only be getting worse as we go.
I'm not saying at all that I am like those before me, and I am being attacked for my very race, but I am not receiving a fair bargain either. I was cursed to be a white male it seems, a fact that society will sure as hell remind me of.
Wednesday, March 24
Ways to Beat a Dead Horse
This is a sorta continuation/correction of my last blog, so read it before this one please. Now on to business...
In my last blog I talked about my absolute hatred of the 2nd Amendment. It's out of date, and so far beyond use that it should be destroyed. I then went on to outline my new gun laws, basically stating that hand guns were the only things to be allowed in a residential area (Properly registered handguns while we are on the subject). I continued on to the subject of hunting, and created a storage system for rifles and hunting equipment that was to be run by the government. I'm not going to retread all of my steps here, so if you want details just hop down a level.
What I would like to do is formally recant my statement on rifles and non handguns. I wrote that section of article as if I were for the sport of hunting, but surprise surprise, I'm not.
Hunting should not be a sport in my opinion. Many many years ago hunting was the only way to receive food, but we don't need to hunt for our food any more. Thanks to large farms, we now have all the meat we need at our finger tips, and no longer need to go hunt for animals for dinner. Hunting is just putting an unnecessary end to the lives of more animals, for the enjoyment of it.
Hunters argue that hunting keeps the population of animals down, due to the fact that things like deer have few natural predators any more. The only animals that really hunt deer are the: bear, cougar, and wolf. In most areas of the states none of those animals are prevelant. Why is that one might ask? Over hunting. Over hunting got us into this mess, and now hunters appear to be the only answer... but they are not.
The Darwinian principal of survival of the fittest states that whichever organism is most fit is going to live to produce more offspring. Said offspring will be stronger like their fathers and so on and so forth until you have uber-deer. So let's say we let the deer population go sky rocketing like it initially would without hunting... What happens?
Increased deer population means more deer fighting for the same resources, and sadly many deer will die. For a few years the deer population will be changing like crazy, but alas an equilibrium will be hit at which deer produce fewer offspring, thus fewer deer die.
You might be thinking "Kegan you can't prove this!" but alas poor Watson, I can. The concept of equilibrium within nature isn't hard to grasp. If you travel to any untouched natural area you will quickly notice that animals such as the lion have no natural predators. So what keeps the lion population down? The answer is not hunters, but nature itself. There are few lions because all the lions born in one area have to compete for the same resources, and those that can't get them die.
Yes, lions do in fact eat meat rather than vegetation, but the core concept is the same. Depending on the environment only a certain number of deer can live, and eventually they will figure it out themselves. The thought that we need hunting to solve what hunting caused is preposterous, thus I say down with the sport.
Because of my anti-hunting stance, I now have no reason to keep my non-handgun storage system in play, thus dash the idea now. Rather I recommend all household non-handgun weapons be destroyed, and melted down to make something else. A statue to me is just one idea, but this recycled material can make much much more.
So yes I am anti-gun, and I am anti-hunting... NRA eat your hearts out, because I'm coming after you next.
In my last blog I talked about my absolute hatred of the 2nd Amendment. It's out of date, and so far beyond use that it should be destroyed. I then went on to outline my new gun laws, basically stating that hand guns were the only things to be allowed in a residential area (Properly registered handguns while we are on the subject). I continued on to the subject of hunting, and created a storage system for rifles and hunting equipment that was to be run by the government. I'm not going to retread all of my steps here, so if you want details just hop down a level.
What I would like to do is formally recant my statement on rifles and non handguns. I wrote that section of article as if I were for the sport of hunting, but surprise surprise, I'm not.
Hunting should not be a sport in my opinion. Many many years ago hunting was the only way to receive food, but we don't need to hunt for our food any more. Thanks to large farms, we now have all the meat we need at our finger tips, and no longer need to go hunt for animals for dinner. Hunting is just putting an unnecessary end to the lives of more animals, for the enjoyment of it.
Hunters argue that hunting keeps the population of animals down, due to the fact that things like deer have few natural predators any more. The only animals that really hunt deer are the: bear, cougar, and wolf. In most areas of the states none of those animals are prevelant. Why is that one might ask? Over hunting. Over hunting got us into this mess, and now hunters appear to be the only answer... but they are not.
The Darwinian principal of survival of the fittest states that whichever organism is most fit is going to live to produce more offspring. Said offspring will be stronger like their fathers and so on and so forth until you have uber-deer. So let's say we let the deer population go sky rocketing like it initially would without hunting... What happens?
Increased deer population means more deer fighting for the same resources, and sadly many deer will die. For a few years the deer population will be changing like crazy, but alas an equilibrium will be hit at which deer produce fewer offspring, thus fewer deer die.
You might be thinking "Kegan you can't prove this!" but alas poor Watson, I can. The concept of equilibrium within nature isn't hard to grasp. If you travel to any untouched natural area you will quickly notice that animals such as the lion have no natural predators. So what keeps the lion population down? The answer is not hunters, but nature itself. There are few lions because all the lions born in one area have to compete for the same resources, and those that can't get them die.
Yes, lions do in fact eat meat rather than vegetation, but the core concept is the same. Depending on the environment only a certain number of deer can live, and eventually they will figure it out themselves. The thought that we need hunting to solve what hunting caused is preposterous, thus I say down with the sport.
Because of my anti-hunting stance, I now have no reason to keep my non-handgun storage system in play, thus dash the idea now. Rather I recommend all household non-handgun weapons be destroyed, and melted down to make something else. A statue to me is just one idea, but this recycled material can make much much more.
So yes I am anti-gun, and I am anti-hunting... NRA eat your hearts out, because I'm coming after you next.
Tuesday, March 23
The 2nd Amendment and You
Random fact, I do not like the 2nd Amendment. For those of you who somehow forgot what your amendments where, don't worry. The 2nd Amendment states:
Now let me preface this entire rant by saying that I do in fact understand why we have this right, I just think it is out dated and has no place in the US Constitution. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a sort of security measure. Having the right to bear arms meant that if your government became tyrannical, you had the tools to overthrow it. It also meant that if you wanted to build a personal army just in case, well then there was no problem. During 1791 when this was created, America had just escaped the British, and having the ability to overthrow a government was pretty important to everyone.
Fast forward 219 years, and well this amendment is riddled with problems. The first thought that comes into my head is this: There are now so many restrictions on guns, that the average person can no longer beat out a military man in terms of fire power. That fire power could be a bigger gun, a tank, a nuclear heat-seeking missile, the options are nearly endless, and quite frankly your gun ain't gunna save you from any of it.
So since the thought of overthrowing said government is ridiculous, what exactly can guns do?
1: Personal Protection. Now I do know the stats on this, 2 million people protect themselves with a gun every single year. That is five times more than they are used for committing crime, and much more than any other bad stat. So I'll give up on hand guns, if a family wants to keep one hand gun in there house, let them. If they do opt to have a gun though, the gun has to be registered, and they have to go through a full screening to get it (This includes waiting three days or whatever the wait is now). Said gun also has to be out of reach of children. What a house does not need is things such as: shotguns, machine guns, etc.
2. Crime. Yes earlier I did say guns were used more frequently for protection than crime, but 2,000,000 divided by 5 is still 400,000 crimes a year, a number that is not only growing, but unacceptable. Stricter control of guns, and harsher punishments for any gun based offence would solve this well enough for me to give up the point though.
Obviously the gun has more uses such as hunting, but these are the big two for me. Right now my gun toting friends are yelling "HOW CAN I HUNT," and the answer is surprisingly simple.
Gun Storage. The basic concept is easy to grasp, and while I'm obviously going to let a few things fall through the cracks, the point is solid. Any non-handgun weapon will be confiscated by the county or state, and be indefinitely held in gun storage.. Now these guns will still belong to you in name, but they will be modified just a little, and the rules to get them will be very strict.
If you plan on going hunting any time soon, you will fill out a little paperwork, namely where you are hunting, and what gun you plan to hunt with. The gun clerk will check your hunting ID, and compare it to your gun id, and when the time is right (and nothing bad happens to your paper work), he will give you your hunting weapons. These weapons will have a tracker on them though, and if you enter a residential area BOOM the alarm goes off, and you are swarmed by police. If you tamper with the tracker BOOM there goes the alarm, etc etc ad nasuem.
Now do not for a second think that breaking into my gun storage facility will work. There will be enough in play to make sure that doesn't happen. Point here though is that you can't possibly argue that this would infringe on your safety in any way, and in theory it would make the people at large more secure.
Let me summarise this all for you in a few quick sentences. Guns are not inherently evil, but if we follow the spirit of the constitution we really have no pressing need for them. I suggest we find a way to super-secure hunting guns, and severely tighten our handgun standards, lest we end up hurting ourselves.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now let me preface this entire rant by saying that I do in fact understand why we have this right, I just think it is out dated and has no place in the US Constitution. The 2nd Amendment was put in place as a sort of security measure. Having the right to bear arms meant that if your government became tyrannical, you had the tools to overthrow it. It also meant that if you wanted to build a personal army just in case, well then there was no problem. During 1791 when this was created, America had just escaped the British, and having the ability to overthrow a government was pretty important to everyone.
Fast forward 219 years, and well this amendment is riddled with problems. The first thought that comes into my head is this: There are now so many restrictions on guns, that the average person can no longer beat out a military man in terms of fire power. That fire power could be a bigger gun, a tank, a nuclear heat-seeking missile, the options are nearly endless, and quite frankly your gun ain't gunna save you from any of it.
So since the thought of overthrowing said government is ridiculous, what exactly can guns do?
1: Personal Protection. Now I do know the stats on this, 2 million people protect themselves with a gun every single year. That is five times more than they are used for committing crime, and much more than any other bad stat. So I'll give up on hand guns, if a family wants to keep one hand gun in there house, let them. If they do opt to have a gun though, the gun has to be registered, and they have to go through a full screening to get it (This includes waiting three days or whatever the wait is now). Said gun also has to be out of reach of children. What a house does not need is things such as: shotguns, machine guns, etc.
2. Crime. Yes earlier I did say guns were used more frequently for protection than crime, but 2,000,000 divided by 5 is still 400,000 crimes a year, a number that is not only growing, but unacceptable. Stricter control of guns, and harsher punishments for any gun based offence would solve this well enough for me to give up the point though.
Obviously the gun has more uses such as hunting, but these are the big two for me. Right now my gun toting friends are yelling "HOW CAN I HUNT," and the answer is surprisingly simple.
Gun Storage. The basic concept is easy to grasp, and while I'm obviously going to let a few things fall through the cracks, the point is solid. Any non-handgun weapon will be confiscated by the county or state, and be indefinitely held in gun storage.. Now these guns will still belong to you in name, but they will be modified just a little, and the rules to get them will be very strict.
If you plan on going hunting any time soon, you will fill out a little paperwork, namely where you are hunting, and what gun you plan to hunt with. The gun clerk will check your hunting ID, and compare it to your gun id, and when the time is right (and nothing bad happens to your paper work), he will give you your hunting weapons. These weapons will have a tracker on them though, and if you enter a residential area BOOM the alarm goes off, and you are swarmed by police. If you tamper with the tracker BOOM there goes the alarm, etc etc ad nasuem.
Now do not for a second think that breaking into my gun storage facility will work. There will be enough in play to make sure that doesn't happen. Point here though is that you can't possibly argue that this would infringe on your safety in any way, and in theory it would make the people at large more secure.
Let me summarise this all for you in a few quick sentences. Guns are not inherently evil, but if we follow the spirit of the constitution we really have no pressing need for them. I suggest we find a way to super-secure hunting guns, and severely tighten our handgun standards, lest we end up hurting ourselves.
Monday, March 22
Guess Who is Back..
I will probably write tomorrow/tonight.
Upcoming Topics (might) include...
Peace be with you,
~Kegan
Upcoming Topics (might) include...
- Westboro Baptist Church
- Gay Marriage
- etc.
Peace be with you,
~Kegan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
