Random Poem

Just came to me as I was reading a book tonight, guess it's not really a poem but rather a "lyric"

"And he will build a palace the likes of which has never been known, but what good is a castle without a queen to share the throne?"

How soon is too soon?

How soon is "too soon" to fall for someone? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? Years?

Asked on my twitter page a day or two ago and got a few interesting answers. Pretty much the vast majority said anything less than 3 months is too soon. Though i did hear a couple convincing arguments about a couple weeks being more than sufficient.

Here is what I heard, ya'll take it for what you want comment, do whatever. Take a second and see what some others think of this argument.

ROC - "I almost feel like it has to be some months, because you realistically can't like somebody you don't know enough"

Christie - "hmm....well it can be days but definitely NOT months or years... :) for years it would be them growing on you..LOL"

KJB - "Mannn, if its less than like 2 months, I would say that's too soon to have "fallen" for someone. Gotta put in more work."

KJB - "You can have a crush at first sight, but not love. Too much time and work gotta be put in. #rns"

Cakin Jeff - "three months. That give u enough time to see the good and the bad"

Steph - "depends on how long u knew them before thinkin bout a relationship. Either way I think it shouldn't be shorter than weeks"

KJB - "yes. I'm actually considering a 4 month clause just to be safe/sure. But its a case by case basis.love in itself is unconditional. And mutual or not you can't possibly have known someone in less than 2 months.not enough to love them and vice versa. Its just not likely."

I won't give my opinion just would love for you to comment and give your "2 cents". Even if you don't comment just take a second to think and see where you fall in this argument.

Arizona SUCKS

Well I take that title back, they don't suck, they BLOW. I have never been to the state of Arizona, but with their recent legislations I will definitely be as far as possible. I say this because the next thing on their agenda is probably the legalization of Jim Cow again. Who knows they may even decide to legalize slavery. Well, this is one darky that won't be caught up in that!

Ok, snap back to reality. Arizona does really bite though. I guess I should address the reasons why I feel this way. Well to start off, have you ever seen the weather? I like many other busy Americans spend time watching the weather channel (Not really but it does help me sleep sometimes). And it's about as hot as a Witch's Tit during the Salem Trials (There were actually no burnings during the Trials though). But I digress there are some real serious issues in Arizona that I need to give my take on.

Like the Bible says the last shall be first so to will I deal with the issues. The most recent of which is the banning of Ethnic Studies in the public school system. Arizona’s State School Superintendent Tom Horne has got his wish and finally saw a legislation that will ban ethnics studies in all Arizona public schools starting December 31st. However, this shit won't last, pardon my French. For starters, the wording of the new law is Unconstitutional. The law orders the cessation of all ethnic studies classes, EXCEPT "Courses or classes for Native American pupils that are required to comply with federal law". I would love to argue a 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause for this situation. But I'm not a lawyer so let's not even go that route. Let's just talk about the legislation's purpose as defined by Tom Horne.

Mr. Horne says:

And one of our important functions is to teach kids, kids from different backgrounds, to treat each other as individuals, and not to — not to infuse them with ethnic chauvinism about a particular race, and teach them narrowly just about the background and culture of the race that they happened to have been born into, but to teach them about all different cultures and different races and different traditions, and not divide them up by race.

Now here's the problem with what he's talking about. No one is advocating anything for kids to be narrowly taught just about their race. As Professor Michael Eric Dyson from Georgetown puts it, the majority of the people in his experience who take these classes are not of the race or ethnic group being taught about. They are the White/Caucasian students who are interested in these classes. Everyone wants the vision that Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of and Mr. Horne so adamantly repeats. "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" That isn't going to happen over night and their must be measures taken to get to that point. I understand that people want everything included in one full length history class but the classes taught do not and will not soon have the information that is already there for the Anglo-Saxon European history. So these studies are there to help balance the scales and help everyone to learn about the different cultures that make up our great nation. As far as militancy being taught in these classes, well I'm not sure if that's the case or not, but I damn near would advise it. Because with the recent laws, banning of the ethnic studies (which mostly effects the "Chicano" studies programs) and the new immigration laws, I'm not quite sure the AZ government is really "for the people". Oh yeah let's not forget the state had also mandated that English teachers can not have "thick" or "heavy" accents. In a state where a vast number of the teachers are bilingual and were native Spanish speakers first. I don't even know what to say about it other than it is vague, who determines how heavy someone's accent is.

Now it's time for me to discuss the second recent piece of legislation that really started this whole debacle in Arizona. The new immigration laws that the state have enacted pretty much advocate racial profiling. It's so simple I won't even go into as much detail. Pretty much you know how cops can pull you over if they are suspicious of you committing a crime? Well that's the same thing here. They can pull you over with the suspicion of you being an illegal alien. Problem is who are they pulling over because of it. Most people if there are any at all know how to look past race to decide immigrant status. Who are the illegal immigrants that Arizona is trying to keep out? Those of Mexican or South American descent trying to illegally cross the border. So what will happen? Police will stop those people that look like they are from that descent (racial profiling) and will make them prove their legality/residency. Now, the "Toughest Sheriff in America" Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County is trying to sell it as something wholly different. He claims that the law allows for police to make people prove residency after they have been arrested for a crime. HELLO!!! There are already laws for that federally and locally. What the heck are you talking about? Police can already inquire into your residency after you have been arrested for a crime. Only thing this does now is allow for them to disseminate without there being a crime committed. And the major problem is that dissemination ends up being discrimination. It's just racial profiling and it's hard to argue that it is not with the other legislations being put in place i.e. the ethnic studies I just spoke about. And also, let's not forget that Arizona was one of the main opponents of the MLK Jr. Holiday. The area has a history of being on the opposite side of anything associated with minorities. Until, they give me a reason not to believe so, ARIZONA SUCKS. And I'll be staying as far away as possible.

Quick Disclaimer

I am not, I repeat I am not affliated with either of the two of the bipartisan groups. I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I am an Independent by most people's understanding. But rather than Issuer in my own estimation. Because putting people as Independents today can still align them politically with a "party" but no one party has a voice that speaks for me and my views.
Also if the situation comes up, I am Christian. Not really big on denominations but I do identify as Christian. Though I have alot of respect for all religions and looked at a few different ones on my way to my current beliefs.
And there's my disclaimer where I lie in the political and religious spectrum.

What happened to the Republicans?

The Republicans seem to have lost their base in the political world. I know every major political analyst has been talking about it, but what happened? I guess this has been a long time in the making. The last time the Republican party was united was under Ronald Reagan. I know you probably say, but Will what about former President George W. Bush, how did he get elected? Well along with some voter fraud and a loss in the popular vote. He won the hearts of alot of the Independents and Democrats at the time. Well, I'm being too fair to him. It was more of a situation of "best of 2 evils". I don't think anyone would go against me in saying that Al Gore, and John Kerry weren't good candidates. Al Gore who seemed like he had no voice except for Global Warming (which is an important and admirable cause) was about as exciting as a colonoscopy. Democrats were already hurting after the continuous scandals with President Clinton, and having a weak forerunner wasn't going to get it done. And John Kerry is the President of the FlipFlop Association and I'm not speaking of the sandals on your feet. This guy offered no idea of his "policies" and even when he did, you could easy catch him a couple days latter offering something totally conflicting. He may be the worst political figure in awhile after Richard Nixon, which I have a "whole nother" post which I will dedicate to him. Ok, back to the issue at hand the Republican party and where it went. So, we have Reagan who would be classified somewhere around moderate Republican. His principles were pretty short simple and well supported by the party. Of course, anti-communism (the Cold War was still going on not as prevalent but there), free market supporter, lowering taxes, and Laissez-Fare (I think that's spelled right) government. Problem is his own views were flawed. Standing against unions and firing the air traffic controller in that debacle is in itself a crash against the free market. Unions are a product of that market and level the playing field for workers. But that's a totally different story. Then comes Daddy President George H.W. Bush who stands on a totem not really trademark of Republicans. He takes stances on political issues that would be considered government intervention. Pushing the ideas Pledge of Allegiance, prayer in schools, capital punishment, gun rights, and his opposition to abortion. This whole state pushed alot of what would be considered liberal Republicans out of there. Then comes the Clinton years which though marked by economic growth were overshadowed by the scandals at the beginning and end of his Presidency. (Yeah he had one at the beginning too look it up if you don't believe me.) Already briefly discussed this part. Well then comes Son President George W. Bush, and he screws the party up more. 9/11 and the War on Terror, WMDs, Economic woes, and nothing is looking better. The party is now pissed. Strong national defense has turned into meddling in other people's affairs mainly the Iraq War. The no taxes stance holds very little weight when people don't have jobs. So that view lost alot of weight too. Well now we have lost most of our "original" Republican tenets, so what's left to go on? With no major issues that they come out on top on, most politicians are left silent unless it's one of the "lesser" issues abortions, gun rights etc. Step in radical right wing! So with McCain having little or no voice and not really stirring the party for the 2008 elections, it's time for some Palin Power. Sarah Palin was just the doctor's orders. She was fired up about her radical right views and could get the party out and voting. Problem is the party isn't made up of those radicals, so now you have a spokewoman who doesn't speak for the people whom she is representing. Now, as the debates go on we see McCain trying to draw off of this energy that Palin brings and shows himself to be more of a radical right wing than most originally saw. But he failed to realize that the side he was not aligning himself with the majority rather the minority of radicals in the party. That's because radicals are the most outspoken and feel the strongest about their views, and this is why a vast majority of them are considered religious nuts or racists. They are against the "Power of No" that has become synomous with the Republican Party but is not their tenet but rather the tenet of conservatism in general.(Quick side note: There are conservatives on both sides of the bipartisan system, those that are happy with the status quote and rather than vote to change sit back and vote no. Special Thanks to Drew Boardman for this point) These radicals make themselves know, by speaking up and acting out! Recap time: The presidential candidate is slowly moving towards a extreme right view that doesn't hold for the majority of his party, thanks to his vice-president who is at best estimation an invalid. The extreme right are being shown to be the heart beat of the party, which at times has huge racist undertones. So what happened the party split! Thus resulting in the Tea Baggers, Tea Partiers whatever you want to call them. So who or what will reunite them that's another issue for another day. I have a final exam in an hour so til next time!