Suspension of Disbelief

So I was editing Wikipedia articles today and of course after a few corrections it begins asking you for proof that you're not spamming the server by inputing selected words, similar to youtube... I'm sure you know what I mean. The first one I got I figured should be preserved for posterity.  But you be the judge...

I have decided to move things around again and try out some new formats and so on. Internet technology is constantly on the move and I intend to keep things interesting. The former format was very unappealing and really had only been a stopgap format that I used in lieu of format that I actually liked. I was very busy and unable for quite some time to fix this site's formatting adequately, therefore I deemed it prudent to have something online in a format I didn't care for versus having nothing online in a format that did not work. Point of note: The "Rantings of a Mad Man" and "Highlighted Topics" sidebars will be making a return in the near future. Cheers! FlyFreeForever

Something is wrong in our world when the interests of the few outweigh the interests of the many.  Not unlike feudal Europe with lords and peasants, today is ever increasingly divided by wealth.  Corporatism has overtaken this nation and indeed this world in the past thirty years or so.  Corporations, granted the rights of people, with the wealth and influence that no one person could wield, have broken down wall after wall of protections set up to limit their influence on the political sphere, the economic market, and labor. What can we say of a nation which decides it is legal for businesses, whose wealth is not in question, to play any role in setting the rules which restrict them?  In what just world is it ok for those who are looking out for themselves to decide how this game we call society will be undertaken.  In the end corporations are our lords and we are their peasants.  They own us.  From the clothes we wear to the food we eat.  Lead...

There are two clear groups forming in this nation currently and while political, they are not divided between Democrats and Republicans.  Rather, on the surface they are played as radicals and centrists.  That is radical Republicans and radical Democrats.  Anyone who does not adhere to the status quo is a radical.  Granted that is the definition of radical for some, granted in political circles, traditionally it isn't.  In politics, "radical" used to be fringe.  Indeed that is how radical is being painted today by those who support the status quo-- the centrists.  However, these are labels by the status quo and are useful for several reasons, however primarily because in labeling their opposition "radicals" through the political model currently in practice, we have radical Democrats and radical Republicans.  Therefore, radicals are divided amongst themselves as well as divided against the status quo. In actuality the goals of both groups of radi...

What a boring winter break!  I'm almost glad, scratch that, I'm very glad that it's almost over.  I don't have that much to say though, so I'm not going to try to force something.  I'll get back to my blog when I'm more stimulated to say something.  Hopefully everyone else has had a good break and I hope 2010 is less busy than 2009. Peace, FlyFreeForever

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/index.php