the formation of damnation

I picked up the new Testament album yesterday. Before yesterday, I didn't own any Testament albums past 'the ritual' and wasn't all that interested either. However, I saw that Alex Skolnick is now back in the band and I previewed some songs at my friend Timm's place. This band sounds like they haven't missed a beat. I've listened to this four times already and I'll go ahead and say 'henchman ride' is one the strongest tracks on here.

If I had long hair, I'd whip some serious circles.

Labels:
metal

Posted: Tuesday 05-13-2008

over 6 years ago

On New Year's eve 2001, I moved to Birmingham, AL from Florence, AL, where I grew up. It wasn't a hard move, because it was only 2 hours away and I had friends in Birmingham already. So my first full day living there was January 1st, 2008. I moved into one side of a duplex that had been fashioned out of an old shitty house. On our side, I lived with Clay and Allen. This guy named Stuart lived on the other side. He was a cool dude and hardly ever around. We collectively shared a cat that we named Boner, because her tail had been cut off about halfway down. It looked like a little hairy hard-on. She was awesome cat that mostly lived outside, but we kept food and water out for her. I remember one time Clay and I were riding in my truck, going back to the house and we saw her 2 blocks away by the Western grocery. Then we park and walk up to the porch and she's sitting there waiting for us. Fastest cat ever.

One time I was playing Final Fantasy X in my room. I usually kept my door open, until I was ready to go to sleep. Well, Clay just pissed all over my floor while I was playing video games. That was sick, but he just laughed his ass off.

Allen would get upset when we'd have the air conditioner on for too long. We saw Andrew WK for the first time, on our free cable one night. We laughed so hard that we woke up Clay. One night, Clay and I came home from doing something and Allen was in his room with the door shut. Clay yelled at me to come into the bathroom. I go in there and the tub is full of water, with about 30 bags of tea and 2 pairs of jeans floating in it. It looked like nasty shit water, but apparently Allen was trying to stain his jeans brown. I don't even know.

They would always crack on me for eating vegan hot-dogs, 3 at a time, every day in my bedroom while watching Clerks.

Labels:
life

Posted: Wednesday 05-07-2008

there is an article

There is an article on cnn.com that I read and it represents some of what I feel is wrong with the religious collective of this country. I say some, because I feel the author of the article makes some good points. I'll note these first.

1. Most, if not all, predominantly African-American church doors are open to all, not just to blacks, but to anyone who is seeking a spiritual home, guidance, support, direction, faith and a feeding of the soul in the purest sense. Many of us have worked with other organizations, different cultures and denominations believing that there is more to unite us than there is to divide us.

The African-American church I know is filled with programs designed to address the many ills that inflict our society: HIV/AIDS, homelessness, reducing the rate of recidivism, assisting with employment and job training, economic development and financial management classes, home buying seminars, food banks to feed the hungry, schools to educate and an active plan to guide our youth. Those outreaches have been colorblind, passionate depictions of Christ's love for all humanity!

The church the author knows sounds great. He seems to be referring to a general community of churches. If he's telling the truth, then that is great.

2. Gradually race fades into the fabric of faith and becomes less central to the overarching core of human needs in general. Is it a perfect union? Of course not. Is there work to do? Absolutely! But the core message is not one that enrages, but one that encourages people to change and grow, and any other depiction is distorted and inaccurate.

Again, if this is true (although I have my doubts), then great.

3. I am wondering who will get the message that our nation's citizens are by and large looking for a voice that will unite us, clothe our naked, feed the poor and help our diminishing middle class before we self-destruct like many great empires of the past. Who cares what color they are, what banner they fly, what gender they are, or how they pronounce their names? This is a defining moment in our history, and we are about to destroy greatness with petty self- aggrandizing egotism!

I agree with this and I would say that faith/religion need not be involved.


However...


I think we, as a nation, walk a dangerous line when articles such as these proclaim that the church needs to "step up" (my words). I'd like to counter a couple of things.


1. Today as the church moves from its introspective posture to a broader role in politics, business, media and impacting societal ills, it has the dubious and daunting task of doing so without losing its core function. Like all such organizations that cease to be intrinsically focused, it runs the risk of being totally misunderstood and misaligned.

First of all, the church should NOT move into a broader role. It should NOT move into politics. This author should realize that because he seems like a smart man. If you care about your religion (and I'm sure every religious person does), then this type of shit should be throwing up red flags all over the place. You want your religion/faith/denomination to influence policy and politicians? Then you sure as shit better brace yourself for when policy and politicians want to influence your religion/faith/denomination right back.

2. As an American I plead with you that we are running out of time. It is critical that we dislodge ourselves from political distractions. We must return to the task of looking for the right man or woman who can answer the bloodcurdling cry of a nation that is in search of a leader with a courageous effective plan for the war in Iraq, and the medical, moral, economic and security issues that are being ignored by these distractions. If we do not, we will have done a terrible disservice to our coming generations.

This could be a contradiction to the author's previous statement. However, I'm going to look at it with a more positive spin, because it could also reinforce what I just said, from the other side. I think this country could be a slightly better place, if people didn't vote from the pew. Sure, if you're religious, then your faith will influence things you do. However, I would like to think people could be clever enough to look past their religions and vote in a way that benefits the greater good.

Unfortunately, I don't think that will ever happen. Imagine what would happen to a candidate that proclaimed to be an atheist. Even if they had a platform that could make this country better in every way possible...they would be shunned. How much sense would that make?


read the full article yourself


I recommend:
The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State


Labels:
politics, religious lunacy

Posted: Monday 05-05-2008

vote or die

Here is another piece by Roger:


P Diddy said "vote or die"...2008 seems like a good time to die

P. Diddy, being the intelligent man he is, sure does know a lot about voting! or is he just the right marketing tool for who may benefit? and by the way...in the words of the creators of south park..."what the hell does that(vote or die) even mean!"

Being a person that is very interested/active in politics, i used to take a different tone about people who didn't vote. Now, don't get me wrong, its one thing to not know anything about politics or to not care, but its another to understand this capitalistic system and to totally lose faith in it. People have been shocked by my answers to them about my decision not to vote in the 2008 national election. I am doing this for a number of reasons and i will outline them below. First off...i do believe in voting on the more local level. For instance, here in Seattle we have programs and resolutions that are being passed continuously that will affect the local population, one of them being the smoking ban in all public buildings which took place (i see that as awesome for obvious reasons, others might not like it, oh well), that was a democratic process that the peoples vote actually did add up, there was no campaigning or lobbying by any big corporation, if that had been so, big tobacco probably would have won that one, but they did not, because they weren't involved. Same goes for the building of our mono-rail system there have been many options presented for this and some of them completely undermine the lower-class citizens of this city and would have pushed lower income tenants off their property...the people voted it down. There is, however, a new mono-rail system being built, but my point is the populace voted and directly decided it once again, without major building contractors or corporations stepping in the way. Its also important to vote locally for representatives, because they will be the ones that represent you nationally, in fact your electoral votes come from these representatives, and this brings me to my main point on why I will not be voting on the national level in 2008.

1. I have lost complete faith in any of the candidates that I have seen presented to me. No real change or initiative is being stated, in fact if you look, they all run the fence on most issues and some of the issues that have been named are situations that won't likely come to a positive end i.e. the war in Iraq, or health care, etc. etc. Why will none of these promises be made? well...they might to a minor degree, but simply put, the forces that run our nation won't let that happen. For instance, the military industry, oil industry, and infrastructure contracting companies would never let their endeavors fail in the middle east...likewise...the Pharmaceutical industry would never let a politician deliver a detrimental blow to their trillion dollar industry. The 'no real change' i speak of also goes to show that the fact that we have a two party system, with no real diversity of opinion or anything ground breaking to put on the table, any third party person running will certainly be marginal, and from my perspective, if i were to vote for them, it'd more than likely take away a vote for a candidate that is running against someone i am even more opposed to.

2. The "popular vote" does not matter as much as the American public would like to think. Someone telling me that my vote would help sway an election is fooling themselves, no election in our history has come down to a "one man vote" decision. In fact its usually wide gaps of 500 or more, even in the 2000 election where Gore won the popular vote in Florida, but was beaten out be deceit and the supreme justices who were predominantly from the opposing party. Most of us don't even have to worry about the problem of the popular vote anyway, because 75% of our population lives in the "safe states." Ever wonder why politicians pay special attention to states such as Iowa, Florida, Penn., New Mexico, etc and not your particular state?? its because these are swing states in the electorate and the electoral college is whats being fought over in these places which brings me to my third and final reason for not participating in the 2008 election.

3 THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

I have the most grievance with this third option and i'll give you detailed reasons why a majority of the time, your vote really doesn't mean a thing.
The mechanics of the electoral college are as thus:

the election of the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States is indirect. Presidential electors are selected on a state by state basis as determined by the laws of each state. Currently each state uses the popular vote on Election Day to elect electors. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and the District of Columbia are actually choosing Electors from their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These Presidential Electors in turn cast the official (electoral) votes for those two offices. Although the nationwide popular vote is calculated by official and media organizations, it does not determine the winner of the election.
The Presidential Electors meet in their respective state capitals in December, 41 days following the election, at which time they cast their electoral votes. Thus the "electoral college" never meets as one national body. They ballot for President, then ballot for vice president. Afterward, the Electors sign a document called the Certificate of Vote which sets forth the number of votes cast for these two offices and is signed by all Electors. Multiple copies of the Certificate of Vote are signed, in order to provide multiple originals in case one is lost. One copy is sent to president of the Senate (the sitting Vice President of the United States). The certificates are placed in two special mahogany boxes where they await a joint session of the new Congress where they are opened and counted in alphabetical order by state by the president of the Senate. Candidates must receive a majority of the electoral vote to be declared the president-elect or vice-president-elect.

The problems created by the electoral college are numerous: First of all, the popular vote does not ensure a president being elected. A presidential candidate with fewer votes can win: The Electoral College violates the principle of one-person-one-vote. That is why a candidate with fewer popular votes can sometimes win in the Electoral College. The most recent example of this occurred in 2000 when Democratic candidate Al Gore received half a million more votes than Republican candidate George Bush. By narrowly winning a few key states, such as Florida and New Hampshire, Bush ended up with more electoral votes than Gore and became President. Research the elections of 1824,1876,1888, and 2000 for more info on popular vote not winning the election.
Secondly, Many voters are ignored: To win the presidency in the Electoral College, the major party candidates focus all their efforts on the "battleground" states and ignore the majority of Americans who live in the other states.

One person, three votes: The Electoral College gives the residents of a small state a much more powerful vote than the residents of a large state. Why? Each state has one Electoral College vote for each of its representatives in Congress. So even the smallest state gets three electoral votes (for its two Senators and one Representative).Let's compare the small state of New Hampshire with the large state of California. About 1.28 million people live in New Hampshire and the state has four electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 320,000 people. The 34 million Californians have 55 electoral votes, or one per 618,000 people. In other words, a New Hampshire resident's vote for President counts about twice as much in the Electoral College as a Californian's vote.

Complexity: Few Americans are aware of how complex presidential elections are. We vote in November for electors to the Electoral College. The state Boards of Election certify the election results and the electors meet in each state capitol in December. If a majority of the electors vote for a single candidate, then that person becomes the President. If no candidate gets a majority, then the House of Representatives takes over. In the House, each state casts one vote for one of the top three contenders and an absolute majority is required to elect the President. The process is somewhat different for the Vice President.

If you live in a "battleground" state or "swing state", then yes, it may be important to have your voice heard. I happen to live in a state that will more than likely go "blue" even though we have very conservative fundamentalist population on the eastern side of the state of Washington, the overwhelming majority lives on the Western part of the state and just so happen to be very liberal. Same goes for states such as New York, which predominantly votes blue and Mass. Two other states I lived in were overwhelmingly "red" states of Alabama and Tennessee (despite the fact that Al Gore was from there, it is the bible belt you know!). In the upcoming election, all of these states will be unlikely to swing in a different direction. For those of you living in a "swing" area, it might be important to look into it and see who your local delegates are and make your decision off of that.

As a final statement, I'd like to reiterate that voting locally is an important task to take up, especially for representatives that will be representing you nationally, but my complete lack of faith in any of the candidates, my lack of faith in any real diversity other than the two party system that will remain intact in congress and in the executive branch, and the sheer absurdity of the electoral college prevent me from really seeing any reason to vote on a national level. Also, knowing that, once again, the politicians are always working in the interests of those that will directly profit them and not those of the people. Those that started the electoral system in the 1700s had a reason for doing so, and that was to push out unwanted third parties and "radical" people with "radical" ideas. This was put well by an observation that Chomsky made about the beginnings of the electoral college and those wishing to have it instituted to regulate power.

The constitutional system was originally designed "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," in the words of the leading framer, James Madison. Political power, he explained, must be in the hands of "the wealth of the nation," men who can be trusted to "secure the permanent interests of the country"—the rights of the propertied—and to defend these interests against the "leveling spirit" of the general public. If the public were allowed to participate freely in elections, Madison warned his colleagues, their "leveling spirit" might lead to measures to improve the conditions of those who "labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings." Agrarian reform was the primary threat that Madison perceived; by now, it is much broader.In a modern version, the general public are considered "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders" who should be mere "spectators of action," not participants (Walter Lippmann); their role is only periodic choice among the "responsible men," who are to function in "technocratic insulation," in World Bank lingo, "securing the permanent interests." The doctrine, labeled "polyarchy" by democratic political theorist Robert Dahl, is given firmer institutional grounds by the reduction of the public arena under the "reforms."Democracy is to be construed as the right to choose among commodities. Business leaders explain the need to impose on the population a "philosophy of futility" and "lack of purpose in life," to "concentrate human attention on the more superficial things that comprise much of fashionable consumption." People may then accept and even welcome their meaningless and subordinate lives, and forget ridiculous ideas about managing their own affairs. They will abandon their fate to the responsible people, the self-described "intelligent minorities" who serve and administer power —which of course lies elsewhere, a hidden but crucial premise.

From this perspective the latest elections do not reveal a flaw of "American democracy", but rather its triumph, for the conventional elite that is. There are many different ways of organizing elections throughout the world. The electoral system in the United States has been shaped to both reduce popular participation and advance business interests. The impulse to create third party oppositional politics is natural, positive, and will persist until space for oppositional politics is created. However, to assume that our system is democratic and that the creation of oppositional politics turns only on a matter of will as opposed to a reform of our institutions is to advocate moral victory and political failure.None of our rights have been handed down; they have all been won through resistance. Dump the electoral college, push for proportional representation and adopt majority elections, already in practice around the country at the local level, for federal office. Then maybe I'll poke my head back in again.

Labels:
Roger, politics

Posted: Sunday 05-04-2008

please god

I don't even know.

Pray-in at S.F. gas station asks God to lower prices


Rocky Twyman has a radical solution for surging gasoline prices: prayer.

Twyman - a community organizer, church choir director and public relations consultant from the Washington, D.C., suburbs - staged a pray-in at a San Francisco Chevron station on Friday, asking God for cheaper gas. He did the same thing in the nation's Capitol on Wednesday, with volunteers from a soup kitchen joining in. Today he will lead members of an Oakland church in prayer.

Yes, it's come to that.

"God is the only one we can turn to at this point," said Twyman, 59. "Our leaders don't seem to be able to do anything about it. The prices keep soaring and soaring."


Let's see how this works out.

Labels:
religious lunacy

Posted: Tuesday 04-29-2008