This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
<livejournal>
<entry>
<itemid>22135</itemid>
<eventtime>2007-04-19 13:24:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2007-04-19 17:25:01</logtime>
<subject>Stop The Violence Meme</subject>
<event>
I do not normally encourage this kind of thing, but I felt that this meme was worthy of my time. *************** The Anti Message Meme Don't read any stories or watch any news articles that contain the manifesto of the Virginia Tech shooter. Violence should not be rewarded. At 9:01AM he calmly mailed a video of himself to NBC news, and then for publicity, he killed over 30 people. He knew he would be national news, and prepared for it. He is using them. He is using you if you view his material. Many news organizations have attempted to focus on the lives of the victims. This is a good thing. Making something positive out of something so wrong is always a good idea. However, this effort has not stopped almost all major media outlets from broadcasting the works of this sadly deranged mind. Think about this. By watching the killer's actions, by talking about it to other people, by sending links over the internet, by saying 'hey look at this', you are potentially taking a small part in pushing the next lonely deraged angst ridden young person who feels that no one will listen an avenue of violence for their creed. You are empowering violence. Don't. Don't talk about it. Don't watch it. Don't listen to it when other people talk about it. Let his message die with him. If you agree with the idea that we shouldn't pass on the message of people who use the blood of the innocent to get broadcast time, then pass this on. ********************
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>22288</itemid>
<eventtime>2007-04-21 01:24:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2007-04-21 05:28:51</logtime>
<subject>A quote and a boast</subject>
<event>
"No One Can Terrorize an Entire Nation unless we are his accomplices." - Edward R. Murrow. Boast: I don't know the name of the shooter. Normally, I rail at the willful ignorance of the public, but in this case, I have sufficiently managed to avoid the name of the individual who killed 33 students at Virginia Tech. I am not boastful that I have not learned any of the names of his victims, this is shameful on my part, and I will do what I can to rectify it, but at least I can offer their restless families and spirits the prospect that through careful patience and training, I have avoided as many sordid details as possible about this terrorist. And as much as that word has been watered down due to political machinations that have equated the word "Terrorist" with "Boogie Monster" due to their incincerity, shallowness and self deception, can there be any doubt in anyone's mind that the real monster here is truly a terrorist? I am a voracious reader of the news. I scour the national and international web pages and radio and television for any shred of what is really going on in the world. It has become as compulsive for me as breathing air. I HAVE to know. But I have trained myself to carefully avoid spreading the latest pointless gossip on a celebrity that is hounded by vulgar and hostile paparazzi. These people have no ethics and will do anything to get a photograph. They feel they have any right to cross any bounds simply because someone is famous. I would not wish fame on my worst enemy. To the extent I feel I can, I shall cloak all my creative work in anonymity and psuedonym, simply to avoid harassment by these living testmant to the ghouls of the most charlish B-Movie theater. I understand the natural human impulse to look at the wreck on the highway, or to read all the macbre details about the most recent demon that has escaped from the pits of hell, but please understand that every time you talk to someone about it, you empower them. I am not saying don't talk about dire things if you are emotionally distressed, such as after 9/11 which shook the nation, but I am saying that by equating what the most recent demon did to that on even a small scale is a monstrous miscarriage of justice and honor. Quit talking about it. The next time one of these people does something like this, the next time a Paparazii plasters the news with slime, don't read it. If you want to know what is REALLY going on, there are far more important things in the world to pay attention to than Blood and Slime.
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>22713</itemid>
<eventtime>2007-04-23 11:50:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2007-04-23 16:12:58</logtime>
<subject>I am a P.I.L.L.</subject>
<event>
We all like labels, at least some of us do. Many times in life, it is easier to say, "I'm an X" rather than something that is hard to put into words, especially in certain settings. "P.I.L.L." is a much easier way to set up what I'm trying to say in a small form, though of course one could say it has slightly negative connotations, but then again it could have positive depending on one's point of view. P.I.L.L. stands for Pragmatically Independant Liberal Libertarian, in that order of heirarchy. <lj-cut>Pragmatic: If it won't work, or it won't improve anyone's life, or stands no realistic chance of functioning, then what's the point? Idealism is an excellent thing, and I consider myself both an Optimist and a Pessimist. It is true, I am perceived by most as a pessimistic person, but at the same time I am still highly hopeful for large portions of the future and humanity as a whole, but practical experience has taught me that it is far better to go with something that is actually going to WORK in the real world than pie in the sky blue prints that waste billions of dollars and never go anywhere. Independant: I think parties are anathema. I think the Republicans are, as a party, just one step removed from Fascists right now, and that many of their characteristics pretty much ARE fascism. Democrats are my favored party right now because they aren't republicans, but they're a party that actually tries to WIN and has realistic chances of doing so. The Libertarians have some good ideas, but quite frankly when I look at their performance, I see "LOSER" and not just because they're the little guy. They don't play to win, they play like they're a club for disgruntled republicans or people who want to be in a party but no one else to do (again, speaking for Parties, not individuals). The Greens held my attention until they backed Ralph Nader. Yeah yeah, Ralph had the right to run for president, but again see the first part there..Pragmatism. I would LOVE for a third party president to win an election. THIS election is a great election to do that. LAST election was all about getting the Idiot out. And our best shot for doing that ended up being...John Kerry? Right. Washington had the right idea about parties. We are at our best when we don't have them. But I'm Pragmatic first, independant second, which means if I have to belong to a party to do the most good, I'm not too proud to join a party and run behind it, and that isn't just belonging to the party in name only. If you're going to do something, do it right. That means volunteering time and philosphy, but I'm still independant in that you'll never see me voting for Republicans just because I'm a republican or democrats just because I'm a democrat. Organizational integrety is needed in pratical party politics. If I run for office as a democrat, I'm going to be a democrat and a GOOD one, which means unfortunately occasionally voting along party lines, but don't expect me to vote that way as a citizen. Liberal: The number one reason to be a liberal is to piss off conservatives. I'm sorry, but for the last 10 years I've seen more and more politicians and leaders with the word "Conservative" in their bios who turn out to be jerks. Conservative ideology more and more seems to be "Let children starve", "Let people die from AIDS", "We say we hate big government but we don't mean it". Even conservatives that supposedly are against leadership within their own party that don't like what their leaders are doing seem to have a tepid response. I'm summarily unimpressed. That, and the 'liberal' has two definitions I like. "Classical Liberals" are the guys like Thomas Jefferson who thought things like freedom of speech and the bill of rights was a good idea. Even more classical liberals thought things like democracy was a good idea. I'll throw myself in with those guys. "Modern Liberals" also believe in things like social programs to help the poor, educate people and ensure that the homeless don't needlessly starve to death. I'm PRAGMATIC about these programs, but having seen the consequences first hand of not having them, I'm also pragmatic about not having them (ie not having them is stupid). You want to teach people to work and live for themselves, but that means REALLY funding training programs not throwing a few million dollars at an 18 point "self help course" and then letting them starve to death. My version of 'welfare' does not mean harping on and on about how great my institution's welfare program is, and then, when people actually need it, saying that 'we're sorry but we can't help you.' Libertarian: There are three things I really like about this philosophy, even if it is at the bottom of that heirachy. A)Small Government=Good government. Just because we need certain social programs, doesn't mean we need the <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/Homer_dreamcar.gif">Homermobile</a>. Really. If we don't need it, let people KEEP their money. It IS their money, not YOUR money. B)Rule of Law. If you can't enforce a law, you shouldn't have a law. If you can't enforce prohibition, you shouldn't have prohibition. If you can't enforce the drug laws you shouldn't have the drug laws. If you can't enforce the immigration laws, you shouldn't have the immigration laws. That is not to saw that laws discouraging these things are not necessarily a good thing, but the current laws doing so are completely and totally idiotic. C)Legislated Morality. I am morally opposed to Abortion, Drug Use and a wide range of other things. That doesn't mean I want my government enforcing these things.</lj-cut>
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
<entry>
<itemid>23007</itemid>
<eventtime>2007-04-24 17:06:00</eventtime>
<logtime>2007-04-24 21:10:22</logtime>
<subject>One incident does not a reversal in trend make...</subject>
<event>
But failure to acknowledge it publicly would be innate hypocracy on my part. I wrote a series of letters recently regarding the idiocy that we recently experienced in trying to get needed medication for my wife's condition. For privacy and personal reasons, I'm not going to broadcast it to the world, but what I WILL say is that I got a phone call from Senator Issakson's office that was both personal, concerned and reasonable. Parties change. Eventually I may identify more with the Republicans or the Libertarians or the Greens. I like Ike. I like Abraham Lincoln. I Like John McCain of 2000 (who has since morphed into someone I wouldn't vote for for Dog Catcher). Perhaps a positive effect of the crucible of denial is that the part of Lincoln may in fact hopefully start to understand that truth is not a thing they can only demand from Democrats. I'm not holding my breath, nor does it automatically buy my vote, but one very positive experience with the staffer from a senator at least softens my attitude toward that particular senator.
</event>
<security>public</security>
<allowmask>0</allowmask>
<current_music/>
<current_mood/>
</entry>
</livejournal>
No comments:
Post a Comment