i'm asking a big favor in hopes that people out there might know.  has anyone heard of volunteer organizations that are free besides your transportation, or nearly free, that operate outside the US.  if you know cheap ones that would be helpful too. 

i think it is strange that people say michael moore distorts the facts and how obviously liberal he is but explain to me what was liberal about bowling for columbine?  also explain what facts he has distorted.  he doesn't claim anything to be fact that he has distorted.  you just have to be aware enough of the world around you to distort between his opinions and facts.  but then if you aren't good enough to do that with a michael moore film (which is fairly obvious compared to the rest of the world) then you probably don't know the facts anyways.  my last entry was not inspired by any facts or opinions about war.  it was inspired by the way the movie moved me.  i don't think i've ever been aware of the atrocities of war in fullest.  this moviee is the closest i have been.  i have seen footage on the news, saving private ryan and a plethora of other things noting how terrible war is but nothing affected me like this movie.  it is easy for us to say "war is terrible" but like i was trying to say in my last post, unless you have been there you don't know.  i don't know, i merely got a glimpse.  this glimpse has simply been a reconfirming moment in a long road of facts as to why i despise bush.  someone who doesn't know war should not be sending people there to take part in it.  any of you pro-bushies out there are free to comment on this but a little forewarning should be noted.  i will probably completely disregard your comment because i've spent the last four years getting comments as to why bush is not a terrible president and i have yet to run into a true reason.  if everyone would like an extensive list as to why bush is terrible feel free to contact me or just go see the movie. another thing about michael moore.  am i pawn of his game?  let's ask ourselves what he has to gain by who is or isn't president.  i can't thikn of anything, he is not the head of any major corporations, he is not the leader of any foreign nations, his career is basically dependent on bad presidents so why would he want a good president?  now if you look at everything bush and his buds gain from, going to war (twice), tax cuts, changing enviromental laws, etc etc you may just discover he has a helluva a lot to gain (or lose, hopefully in november).  i'd rather be "pawn" for the side whose idea of gain is bettering america than the side whose idea of gain is billions of dollars in their checkbooks.

this is necessary blogging i think and what will drag me back.  i saw fahrenheit 9/11 last night and it wasn't what i expected.  much different.  i expected the movie just to mke me more angry and upset with the bush administration.  that's not what happened, it was much more than that.  i left the movie feeling completely strung out.  i was figuratively exhausted from the intensity of the movie.  it messes with your emotions.  and so after sleeping it off i wake up this morning and read the news yet again.  right now in another country there is a systematic ethnic cleansing going on, classified as the worst human rights crisis in the world right now, and everyone is dilly-dallying about what stopping it.  there is no room for pause when dealing with things like this, something the world should've learned after rwanda.  we elect leaders that can't rise to the occasion, leaders that sit around for 7 minutes thinking who knows what during a terrible crisis.  sigh how we all know kerry won't be great but better yes.  i gained a lot of respect for kerry after seeing the movie.  he has been to war.  he was a courageous man who earned four purple hearts while witnessing the travesty of what war means.  perhaps if bush watched fahrenheit 9/11 he would get an idea of what it meant to send young men over to iraq because he does not know.   that is one thing i can credit kerry with he saw it all and was deeply affected by it.  he sacrificed a great future (graduating from yale from a wealthy family) and took a chance at being killed because he thought it was right then realized exactly what it meant and took part in the ceremonial act of throwing his medals back over the white house fence.  yea he may not be a great president but he will at least think before sacrficing thousands of other people's lives.

i realize now that i'm back i don't miss blogging.... i want to be somewhere in which i don't blog... i blog because there is a void here i'm trying to fill and it's not just time...

life is a screwy thing. and coming back from vacation is fucking depressing. i'm ready to do something new. .... ok fuck this entry.

today is the greatest/ day i've ever known

good song. i'm leaving for spain in 3 days.  we will spend most of our time in Mardrid.  any suggestions as to what i should check out while i'm there? 

so i have had trouble keeping up with this and all the blogs i enjoy reading.  in fact i have forgotten some of them.  i guess it is just as well hmm.  so i've decided that if anyone has my blog on their links i will add them to my links so let me know if you do.

Sleep / Sleep tonight / and may your dreams / be realized

i have had an inner struggle for a long time.  Is it morally ok to take advantage of someone in a relationship?  i believe its not but i can't really justify that.  i believe it's not because it is wrong to take advantage of people.  it happens in realtionships all the time.  almost everyone is exposed to it in their life.  yet it is wrong... or is it... it is not everyone responsibility to look out for everyone else.  we all must be able to look after ouselves.  yet people are incapable of it.  people are taken advantage of all the time.  so, fully knowing that you must watch out for yourself, is the person that takes advantage really at any fault.  i logically can't say that they are.  but yet if we all looked out for everyone else and followed the golden rule the world would be a lot nicer.  so i don't know.  i guess just because everyone else does it doesn't make it "right" (everyone though we can't even define what "right" is).  so i am still stuck at the same conclusion (indecision) with a slight leaning towards not taking advantage of people. 

i dont find getting a paycheck very satisfying.  people say work is better than school cause you get paid but honestly it is not satisfying to get paid, just a necessary evil

i think it is interesting, the idea of facts and opinions.  what is an opinion?  well according to the dictionary: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof:  and a fact is: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.  now what is the purpose of facts?  I would say to draw conclusions about the world around us.  so we try to form opinions with out facts.  so lets say we have the wrong facts -- does that make our opinion wrong?  most people say opinions can't be wrong.  i think that is bullshit.  yes you make think something but that doesn't make it correct.  do we all hold false opinions,  i would say yes.  also we must not forget that opinions can be both true and false.... lots of grey area.  i also find it amusing when people reject facts because they are biased.  i would say almost all facts are biased.  all facts imply other things.  it is impossible to not have biased facts.  i really like what my dad once said "everyone has a right to their opinion, no matter how stupid it may be".  it is silly to think that everyone is right about everything they think so why do we bother doing it with things because they are controversial.  you don't see people saying, "well you should really respect the nazi's opinions" .... that's a negative.  why  should it be any different with things that you know about just as much.  i mean sure we will be wrong sometimes and the real key lies in being able to differentiate between what you know about and what you don't but respecting false opinions just because it is an opinion is silly.  and yes this post seems terribly arrogant.

republicans are not inherently evil but i get the feeling people don't believe me when i suggest reagan may be our worst president  ever. for all of you. http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm  http://members.aol.com/bblum6/afghan.htm   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/timeline/index.html    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/timeline/index.html

aric champions again with the stupid comment, you always did enjoy provoking people though congrats, it is a completely useless skill that people will always hate you for :) true the man is dead.  but those are facts.  if facts are disrespectful so be it.  anyways i wanted to make an entry about this earlier because of a discussion with greg.  it is strange how sex fascinates people in our country. people die everyday in iraq but there isn't a commission to investigate the whole war.  in fact it took over a year (i believe) to investigate 9/11 (thousands of deaths).  Janet Jackson's tits on the other hand almost immediately caused an investigation into the FCC.  kids on average will see 8,000 murders on tv by the time they finish elementary school.  1 tit though (not even a whole tit) will cause an investigation.  sex is intolerable but not murder (let alone alcohol and drug use).   honestly i would much rather our society be obsessed with love than murder.  perhaps everyone needs a little more exposure to love.  after all "make love not war".  sex isn't evil.  murder is.

so let's not gloat over the death of a 93 year old man with alzheimers but let's not forget the real legacy he left.  death, and deficits.  the man illegally funded a war that killed thousands if not millions.  (for you conservatives out there) he didn't intervene when he knew iraq was developing chemical weapons.  he gave weapons to iran (our most dangerous enemy in the middle east).  he helped train muslim extremist in order to shed more blood against the soviets, who now attack us. here is a brief part of the timeline of his presidency compliments of pbs:

November 13: In a nationally televised speech to defend against charges concerning arms sales to Iran, Reagan admits sending some defensive weapons and spare parts to Iran, but denies it was part of an arms for hostages deal. "Our government has a firm policy not to capitulate to terrorist demands.... We did not -- repeat, did not -- trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we." Polls show that the American people do not believe Reagan.
November 22: Meese's office discovers the Iran-Contra connection. When searching North’s office, they found a memo dated 4/4/86 from North to Poindexter, which included an amount that to be sent to the Contras from the profits of the Iran sales. North, who had spent the night shredding papers, later called the diversion of funds, "a neat idea."
February 2: Reagan testifies to the Tower Board for a second time. His testimony is inconsistent and confused. The Board pointed out Reagan hadn’t known about August shipment of anti-tank missiles, but Reagan had said he DID know. When asked for an explanation, Reagan picked up a briefing memo he had been provided and read aloud: "If the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want to say that you were surprised."
February 20: A Reagan memo to the Tower Board reads: "I don’t remember, period." "I’m trying to recall events that happened eighteen months ago, I’m afraid that I let myself be influenced by others’ recollections, not my own.... The only honest answer is to state that try as I might, I cannot recall anything whatsoever about whether I approved an Israeli sale in advance or whether I approved replenishment of Israeli stocks around August of 1985. My answer therefore and the simple truth is, ‘I don’t remember, period.’"
February 27: Although reluctant at first, Reagan yields to pressure from his advisors and Nancy to fire Chief of Staff Donald Regan. Reagan calls Howard Baker to offer him the position of Chief of Staff. Donald Regan finds out through CNN -- only after Baker has accepted. He is furious.
March 4: On national television, Reagan acknowledges mistakes on Iran-Contra. "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower Board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake." Reagan’s approval rating rebounds to 51%.

yea reagan makes me sick.  and it wasn't just foreign policy.  in Dick Cheney's own words "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."  Reagan was responsible for changing the conservatives into worse spend thrifts than the liberls.  Reagan was also responsible for opening politics up to good looking faces with no brains (arnold?).  He graduated from a small christian college with a C average.  he drove up the debt more than any liberals have and claimed to be a republican.  he supported richard nixon (one of the biggest crooks in american history perhaps after reagan himself and bush and his cronies, can we say "enron").  he helped perpetuate a general distrust and disenchantment with american politics that was started by Nixon and perpetuated by Clinton and Bush.  was he the worst president in american history, maybe.  he was responsible for as many deaths as andrew jackson although he didn't wipe out an entire culture.  he drove up the debt more than any president before him and cut taxes and raised spending at the same time.  possibly making in impossible to pay back (who knows).  he was responsible for the biggest recession since the great depression.  he should be the person that real conservatives hate.  so i dont know why every road and airport these days seems to be named after him.  i guess he did have a successful acting career.  perhaps in the future we will all be flying to and from brad pitt and jennifer lopez international.  we'll see....

it seems as if every day the upcoming election becomes more and more important.  it sickens me to look back on last election, the first one that i paid close attention to, and remember how disheartening it was when bush was finally declared the winner (un-democratically).  it sickened me to listen to the people that got interviewed after the debates who were "on-the-fence".  now this year the choice seems even more obvious.  i don't understand why people like bush.  i understand why people don't like kerry, i don't like him either but to like bush more is beyond me.  but i suppose that is all it is, they "like" him more -- he is a good 'ol boy.  he couldn't even pronounce abu ghraib correctly during a major speech.  yet apparently it will still be a close election.  so to all everyone who reads this, damnit, vote kerry.  it is very important.