Volpex

It's actually photoshopped - the guy is an actual Muslim protestor, but his sign said "Behead those who insult Islam"; not far off, regardless.

Religion of "Peace" Burns Neutral, Liberal Nation's Embassy "Hundreds of Syrian demonstrators stormed the Danish Embassy in Damascus Saturday and set fire to the building," Yes, apparently Allah the "Merciful" has demanded that the members of his "peaceful" religion commit arson in the name of god. Listen; you want to play with the big boys? You want to be a global power? Don't go to war over cartoons. Children fight over comics and drawings and inane, fanciful beliefs - not adults. Yes, that means I am saying that every Islamic zealot is essentially a child. Not far behind is the Catholic Church, it seems... "In its first official comments on the caricatures, the Vatican... said certain forms of criticism represent an 'unacceptable provocation.' Obviously wanting to garner some PR with the Islamic world, new Pope Benedict got down on his knees to slobber a good-will hummer on fascist anti-semitic terrorists in the Middle East instead of condemning violent criminal acts against a peaceful nation's embassy; an entity not even remotely responsible for the acts being "protested." "The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers," the Vatican said in a statement. Get this, Vatican -Yes, it does. The right to freedom of thought and expression explicitly entails the right to offend whoever the hell you wish. You have to be "tolerant" of other beliefs and people - you don't have to like it, let alone respect it. I have to "tolerate" religious extremists - in the same manner and for the same reasons as having to "tolerate" someones belief that their spouse is attractive and their children are smart. I don't have to agree, like it, respect it, or even keep quiet about it. I don't care if Mohammed's golden shit is the cure for cancer, I'll defend to the death the right of any person to draw him in any fashion they wish without fear of death threats. If I have to "tolerate" Muslims and Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses proselytizing their archaic snake-oil, they have to "tolerate" having the very cores of their ideology questioned, prodded, poked, analyzed, caricatured and mocked, in the same manner as any other belief, creed or lifestyle is so viewed. Being a religion don't make you right, nor does it give you carte blanche to demand acceptance from anyone. If Islam and Christianity and Judaism won't accept, say, homosexuals for instance, what in the hell makes them think society has to accept them? As I said, we must certainly tolerate their existence and adherents, but in no way must they be accepted, or for that matter, adhered to by anyone else. A leader of the Islamic militant Hamas group, which recently swept Palestinian parliamentary elections, told an Italian newspaper on Saturday that the cartoons were an "unforgivable insult" that should be punished by death. "We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully," Mahmoud Zahar said." "We should have killed them," he repeated. Guess what, Mahmoud my man? We should have killed you. You want recognition and power? Learn to play in the sandbox with the other kids. You don't burn down embassies for cartoons. You don't threaten death to comics for jokes you didn't like. These incidents are not just anti-social behaviors, these are contrary to society period. These are anti-life doctrines, with a magnitude of hate that cannot be fathomed by rational men. If religions cannot recognize the value of life in this earthly plane, if they must devalue and degrade life as they do, they cannot be accepted as guides in morals, ethics or values. If they insist on such anti-life doctrines, they must be condemned wherever they are encountered. Feminists, rise up to the challenge that Islam represents to every right women have - gays, rise up to the challenge of Islams lynch-mob homophobia - free lovers, rise up to the challenge of Islams right-of-Dobson Puritanical dogma - free thinkers, rise to the challenge of Islams suicide-inducing blinders. It's time to think. Are intolerably ignorant, racist, anti-Semitic, fascist, Puritanical chauvinist pigs allowed to burn down buildings, threaten lives and demand sympathy because a comic strip offended them? No. You know it, I know it, the whole rational world knows it. No one else in the world would ever get away with this kind of behavior. You know the last time fascist, racist, ignorant anti-Semites made such egregious violations of human rights? European powers and the Vatican tried to appease those ones too. And the whole world suffered the consequences. Just be glad the cartoonists didn't display Mohammed in a more fitting outfit - like a Nazi uniform. -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x- You thought Pat Robertson was an idiot? -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

Adolescents shouldn't be using drugs in the first place, be they cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana or others. Using any substance while the body and mind are still growing is dangerous, no one has ever contended that.

This is an essay I concocted one morning recently after a very infamous anniversary. Having posted it elsewhere, I'm quite prepared for the fiery backlash I may recieve. Flame on. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fight Terrorism. How? Free the weed. There. I said it. Recently, America had it's 68th anniversary of the prohibition against marijuana. It was only after a conscious, decade long drive to convince Americans that crazed immigrants and minorities were pushing jazz and reefer on good clean youth, turning them into raving murderers, that the government decided to act... The U.S. Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act. Growing and selling marijuana were still legal, but only if you bought a $1 government stamp. And that stamp was not for sale. On the day the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act was enacted -- Oct. 2, 1937 -- the FBI and Denver, Colo., police raided the Lexington Hotel and arrested Samuel R. Caldwell, 58, an unemployed laborer and Moses Baca, 26. On Oct. 5, Caldwell went into the history trivia books as the first marijuana seller convicted under U.S. federal law. His customer, Baca, was found guilty of possession. Caldwell's wares, two marijuana cigarettes, deeply offended Judge Foster Symes, who said: "I consider marijuana the worst of all narcotics, far worse than the use of morphine or cocaine. Under its influence men become beasts. Marijuana destroys life itself. I have no sympathy with those who sell this weed. The government is going to enforce this new law to the letter." Caldwell was sentenced to four years of hard labor in Leavenworth Penitentiary, plus a $1,000 fine. Baca received 18 months incarceration. Both men served every day of their sentence. A year after Caldwell was released from prison, he died. Have conditions improved? Hardly. People get arrested by the federal government for growing marijuana at the request of their city and/or state for medical use or research. We have, with the conjunction of the Raich and Kelo rulings, created a police state that would make conspiracy junkies cream themselves. In February of 2003, a California jury convicted marijuana activist Ed Rosenthal of growing marijuana, in violation of federal law. They were never told that Mr. Rosenthal had been given permission to do so by the city of Oakland to supply patients whose doctors had written them a prescription for it. So, despite the State of California's overwhelming approval of legalized medicinal marijuana, and a license to grow from the city of Oakland, Ed Rosenthal was sentenced to prison. For doing just as his state and city government approved him to do. Forty-six year old paraplegic Richard Paey is serving a 25-year prison sentence in Florida for possessing an illegal amount of prescription pain medication. He had been crippled in a near-fatal car accident, and a failed surgery left him more damaged than before. The amount of pain medication needed to relieve his torment could not legally be prescribed to him. The prosecution had the jury charge him with felony distribution. They never contended the fact that he never, ever gave any medication to anyone else, let alone for money. But the state of Florida, like many others, mandates that once a person has in their possession a certain amount of a specific drug, they are automatically "distributing", whether or not anyone else ever touches the drug. The jury was never told that they could still send a "not-guilty" verdict in, and accordingly announced him guilty. Now, don't get testy with me. I'm still the lovable right-leaning moderate you all know and love. But we as Americans have become so inundated by propaganda, junk science and spin that it seems simply a foregone conclusion that if the government says something is bad, it certainly must be just that. Well, it's not. It's not even really that the government is wrong; it has become an imminent danger to the very society it was created to protect. To understand the issue of marijuana as a recreational drug, you must understand its history before it was so controversial, and therefore, subject to heated and biased viewpoints. Marijuana laws (and similarly, laws for most other drugs) were nonexistent until the early 20th century. The United States (and most other countries) existed sans any laws regulating drug use for hundreds of years. You don't go through history and see wars, crisis or controversy regarding drugs - almost at all. This is all very, very recent. There was no actual prohibition on marijuana up until around sixty years ago. So what happened? Well, after six decades of conscious, Judeo-Christian conservative warfare on all recreational drugs, marijuana included, we find ourselves at an impasse. People don't like to see it, but this crisis is alive and well. Looked at from a global perspective, after the prohibition of marijuana, America's jailed swelled to overflowing. Vast portions of a huge spike in the percentage of Americans incarcerated is due to an inhaled use of an aromatic herb widely originating in central Asia and now in many portions of the world, one used for this purpose for thousands of years, dating back to suspected use by the Christian figurehead, Jesus Christ. $7.5 billion dollars, payed by all working citizens of the country, are used in the enforcement of this prohibition, with billions more spent prosecuting offenders in the courts. Additional untold monies are payed in trade favors, treaties and foreign policies to promote and entice prohibition enforcement in numerous other countries. As a result, law enforcement agencies at the city, state and federal level are approaching a critical mass that might not be far off. Taxed to the brink in two foreign wars and not making any headway whatsoever into the preclusion of marijuana's use, how could we not expect intelligence failings? Not to mention that millions and millions of people, who would otherwise be working citizens paying into the tax burden, are imprisoned and not able to provide any input of any kind whatsoever to the economy. The prohibition of marijuana, much like its failed predecessor heralded by the Temperance movement, has driven those who still choose to consume it into black markets; associated with the harder drugs and illicit lifestyle that critics say marijuana "causes" as a "gateway." This is based on animal studies alleging that marijuana "primed" the brain for other drug-taking behavior; these have not been replicated, nor are they supported by epidemiological human data. Statistically, for every 104 Americans who have tried marijuana, there is only one regular user of cocaine, and less than one user of heroin. Marijuana is clearly a "terminus" rather than a gateway for the overwhelming majority of marijuana smokers. The reason that harder drugs are brought into a cannabis users' perimeter is because the social elements associated with hard drugs is now the only available market for marijuana. Do you understand what this means? In addition to bringing otherwise solely cannabis users (nearly as common and normal as alcohol and nicotine users) in proximity to hard drugs, the prohibition of marijuana enables parasitic social elements to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars by providing the only marijuana in the nation. These elements are often linked, by marijuana opponents no less, with terrorist activity and governmental oppression all over the world. In a new century where majorities of global leaders agree terrorism to be the greatest threat to peace, why is this topic never discussed in a serious manner by our leaders? It garners barely passing notice by the most important political figures in the nation. And that needs to end. Marijuana first earned recognition as an intoxicant in the 1920s and 1930s. During this time, exaggerated accounts of violent crimes allegedly committed by immigrants intoxicated by marijuana became popularized by tabloid newspapers and the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Congress approved the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937" based almost entirely on this propaganda and misinformation. Despite 60 years of criminal prohibition, nearly 70 million Americans have smoked marijuana at some time in their lives. Of these, 18 million have smoked marijuana within the last year, and ten million are regular marijuana smokers. Presently, law enforcement arrests a marijuana smoker every 45 seconds. Your tax dollars at work. Because of harsh federal and state penalties, marijuana offenders today may be sentenced to lengthy jail terms. In some instances (growing in frequency) possessors of certain amounts of marijuana receive longer, harsher penalties than those convicted of homicide, rape, assault and other violent crimes. When did the impetus of drug laws go from serving as deterrent to users to prevention of freedom to do so? Even those who avoid incarceration are subject to an array of additional punishments, including loss of driver's license (even where the offense is not driving related), loss of occupational license, loss of child custody, loss of federal benefits, and removal from public housing. Under state and federal forfeiture laws, many suspected marijuana offenders lose their cars, cash, boats, land, business equipment, and houses. Eighty percent of the individuals whose assets are seized are never charged with a crime. In addition, most Americans do not want to spend scarce public funds incarcerating nonviolent marijuana offenders, at a cost of $23,000 per year per person. Politicians must reconsider our country's priorities and attach more importance to combating violent crime and terrorism than targeting marijuana smokers. And why don't hear about this from civil liberties groups? Marijuana prohibition disproportionately impacts minorities. Blacks and Hispanics are over-represented both in the numbers of arrests and in the numbers of marijuana offenders incarcerated. Blacks and Hispanics make up 20 percent of the marijuana smokers in the United States, but comprise 58 percent of the marijuana offenders sentenced under federal law last year. Paging Reverend Sharpton. But what about the public health risk, right? Wrong. Show me the proof. It doesn't exist. Some of the founding scientific "assumptions" about marijuana's danger to health stem from the belief that it causes cells to die. This is an outright lie. These beliefs are founded on unreplicated, dated tests performed in the mid '80s, where mice brains were exposed to large amounts of marijuana smoke. The tests were concluded as showing cell change in the mice brains. No actual cell death was recorded. Yet this is the kind science used to fuel this prohibition. No one here is advocating increased use of marijuana, merely the termination of outright hostility towards those who do. Feminists wrap themselves in the battle flag of "my body, my choice", but ask them sometime about drug laws. It's time for the War on Drugs to end - we've got more important ones to fight. In the end, marijuana prohibition burdens the American populace with unknown billions to hunt, capture, convict and imprison the millions of otherwise taxpaying American citizens. By doing so, it drives what would otherwise be a marginally profitable legal market to criminal social elements, who are known funnel money to the very terrorists that we are spending additional billions to combat, doing exactly what we're trying to do to marijuana users - hunt, capture, convict and imprison. One of these threats presents a clear and present danger to the lives and livelihoods of the whole world - the other possesses a threat only to the sensibilities of a minority of Americans. You do the math. Billions of dollars wasted by us. Billions of dollars given to terrorists. Hundreds of thousands of manhours spent hunting marijuana and not hunting terrorists. I think it's a rather simple equation, don't you? Or, in the words of Justice Thomas, "...the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. ... allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general "police power" over the Nation. ... If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption ... then Congress' Article I powers ... have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropriate state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

Now that's what I like to hear.

I won't inundate you with a long post of all my unimpressive works, but for those with the inclination to read them, I will direct you to the proper location. Mostly short short stories and the bane of the internet, poetry. http://www.livejournal.com/users/volpex/74260.html

Anti-romance novelists need not continue. Sherrilyn Kenyon's Dark Hunter series of romance/action novels is, insofar as I have read, superbly put together with reference to story arcs, concept and scope. While admittedly, in individual moments they can be bogged down by the typical romance novel fluff - and plentiful hot, steamy sex which I of course, don't have any interest in... Revolving around a group of specially selected warriors from various cultures in the past, these "Dark-Hunters" are servants of the goddess Artemis, who uses them to control (i.e., eliminate) "Daimons" who are corrupted anti-humans of her brother, Apollo. They seem to have everything - god endowed powers, money, servants, and of course, the inhuman sexual allure of a deity. But each and every one has recieved these gifts only after losing their human lives in most cruel, torturous events; enough to attract the attention of the aforementioned goddess to offer them vengeance for their soul. Each set of gifts is unique to the Dark-Hunter who wields them. And there are many other creatures and pantheons explored in the stories as a whole - Celtic, Norse, Greek and Roman deities, the were-wolf like Katagaria, the myths of Atlantis and so on. So for those of you who don't mind breezing through some dirrrrty scenes, you might find it an enjoyable collection. My recommendation for an individual book in the series is Night Embrace. The series has a very loyal following, with some e-books, forums, and conventions outlined on the series' Web site, http://www.dark-hunter.com

Thank you. That's what Featherfall tells me, at least - that he'll have corrupted me into an Objectivist within 3 years.

Well, reason I can deal with... Tact? ...I'm not sure I know what you mean.

Well well, Mr. Zeise - we meet again. Greetings, Objectivism Online. My name is Anthony, age 20; unlike Jacob not so nonchalant about my last name. But from the time I've known him in Green Bay, he's alright - you two will be very happy, I'm sure. While not an Objectivist per se (I prefer Constitutional Capitalist) I no doubt enjoy a good steel to steel debate - hopefully his challenging me to this place will result in a many a fine tet-a-tet with him. I trust he wouldn't have led me here if someone as caustic, abrasive and bullheaded as I would be a problem -- right Jake?