Let's talk about prostitutes!

I believe that everyone should be free to make their own choices. Whether those choices are about one's career path, what to wear or what to poison their body with, there should never be anything standing in the way of someone's personal freedom to live as they please. It is my personal feeling that if two men want to sell weed, shoot some heroin, have sex and get married, it should be their choice if they do not cause any direct harm to another. Which brings me to prostitutes. Why is the "world's oldest profession" illegal in our nation? That's a VERY SIMPLE question with a couple simple answers: Jealousy of spouses and prudish Christian values. One of the main forces in criminalizing prostitutes was the lobbying of angry women who found that their husbands enjoyed hanging out at the brothel/saloon more than at home.


Now some people claim that prostution is still illegal in this country because it protects women from having to be forced into that life and it keeps STDs from spreading. First off, what is so bad about being a prostitute? If I could have sex 2-3 times a week and make the same as I do now, why wouldn't I want to do that? Just like a shop owner, you have the right to refuse service to anyone, so you aren't being forced into doing anything. Imagine if you could make $150 for 10 minutes of work whenever you felt like it. You could work your ass off for a week and not have to do any work for months. If I was a prostitute, I'd be much happier than what I am now: a whore for the financial industry. A whore is someone who gets paid to do something that any human can do. Processing paperwork for a financial corporation is the same thing, except I don't get pleasure out of opening IRA accounts and I am a prisoner at my desk for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.


As for safety, having prostitution criminalized directly causes harm to those who have no other choice other than prostitution. They are forced to have pimps to protect themselves from rape and robbery and end up as indentured servants to sadistic slave-drivers. They also are subject to rapes and there is no regulation that ensures that prostitutes are regularly screened for STDs. So by making prostitution illegal, the government is in essence helping the spread of STDs and violence. How can forcing women (and some men) to prostitute themselves without any legal protection be safe? If prostitution was legal, it would be regulated, and like everything else that should be legalized, it could be taxed to provide for protection and education. If prostitution were regulated, we could profit from it and use the tax money to provide testing and start the "Department of Sexual Services" to regulate the industry.


Prostitution is never going to go away, but where do you draw the line? How is dating any different? Dating is prostitution, only you don't always get what you pay for. How is meeting a girl at a bar and buying her $40 worth of drinks to get her home any different than ordering an escort out of the yellow pages? Simple, the girl at the bar might just be using you to get her drunk so she can go home with someone else...and if she goes home with you, she's just a really cheap prostitute because it's just one night of pleasure and goodbye. Marriage is prostitution if one of the couple is a homemaker. They get a house, car, financial security in exhange for companionship and the sexual benefits. To me, a prostitute is like a professional athlete, they do something everyone else enjoys, but they get paid to do it, and they're experts at it.


I am not one to pay for sex, it just seems pointless, because I can always find some if I try hard enough. But why deny people who don't have that luxury the pleasure simply because of antiquated moral beliefs. Make no mistake about it, prostitution is illegal simply because of the conservative values held in this country. In Hamburg Germany, the prostitutes line up next to the Police station and they are very safe because of that. The cops protect them, and they are required to be safe and of age. Amsterdam is famous for its prostitution, and there it is a major draw for the city and a stimulant for the economy. This country is wasting money and time arresting and incarcerating prostitutes and their customers when we could be profiting from it. Like drugs, making it illegal hasn't done anything to diminish the supply, look under "entertainment" or "escort" in your yellow pages and tell me how many more numbers you see there than for basically any other profession. I just don't believe anything should be prohibited when it is a natural thing...but maybe I just want to be a prostitute and get paid to sleep with women.

Lou Dobbs, Daniel Schorr and Senator Joseph McCarthy

So is Lou Dobbs Tonight (on CNN) a show about immigration? Because that's his only topic every day and it's just starting to get sad. Don't people realize that he's just an old kook who is far too racist to be on television? At least Bill O'Reilly (of FOX NEWS) has other points, even if they are all Bush-esque, and he actually reads contrary opinions on his show. When Dobbs reads his letters, they are always somehow highly supportive of whatever point he is making. Now I'm always critical of American cable news networks for their utter lack of NEWS, but Dobbs and Abrams (of MSNBC) are even more painful because of their utter lack of attention to actual issues. The Abrams report is (thankfully) no longer on the air, but not because Abrams was fired for having Natalee Holloway stories for a year, but because he was PROMOTED!


The media has lost touch with why it exists. The news media is NOT for profit, it is for information and to serve as a major line of defense for the people. We need the media to inform us and to keep the government honest. I watched Helen Thomas on The Daily Show this morning and realized that she's the last of a dying breed. The reporter who isn't afraid of stepping on toes or saying the wrong thing is the only kind of reporter we should have. I believe that a lot of these right-wing broadcast journalists (like Dobbs and O'Reilly) are just placating to the current administration like Tony Snow was. FOX News is nothing but a propaganda station, MSNBC is sensationalistic and CNN is just getting worse with each passing year. NPR is great, but it has such minimal influence over the American public that most of its listeners and viewers are the intellectual types who would already be far more informed than the public. I believe that it is the obligation of the media to keep us informed, and profit and ratings should have nothing to do with the broadcasting.


So how can I, a 24 year old liberal (though staunchly anti-Democratic party), be more of a fan of 86 year-old Helen Thomas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas ) and 89 year-old Daniel Schorr ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Schorr ) than of the young and hip Dan Abrams or the young and nerdy Tucker Carlson? Simple, they actually use their considerable experience to analyze the issues and put them in an historical perspective. While Abrams, O'Reilly and Carlson have plenty of experience, it's all come after McCarthyism (hell, only O'Reilly was even alive during that time), the Cold War, and the Nixon Administration. I bring those three up because we're back in them. Tell me that this current administration isn't highly reminiscent of Nixon's and you're blind. Tell me that the "war on terror" isn't another Cold War and I will just laugh. Tell me that we're not seeing a reincarnation of McCarthyistic policies and I will show you domestic spying and innocent men being arrested and held without trial for being "suspected Al-Qaeda"...hmm, weren't people locked up or blackballed for being "suspected Communists" only to have many of them emerge as innocent?


So what makes Helen Thomas and Daniel Schorr so much better than the rest might actually be their 80+ years on the planet. They lived through the Great Depression, WWII, Korea, McCarthyism, The Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, Nixon, The falling of the Soviet Union and the Reagan Years, the first Iraq war, the Clinton Impeachment and the Bush debacle. But Lou Dobbs is also an old kook, so shouldn't he be better? To me, it's almost more about the station of CNN itself. They obviously have enough people who have the same xenophobic beliefs as Dobbs. I know for a fact that Dobbs isn't personally affected by illegal immigrants, he didn't lose his job as a day laborer or cleaning lady. Plus, I can't imagine he lives in a place that has a more active border than where I live, and I happen to think that the illegals help those of us who are young urban professionals. When I eat my Mexican meal, I am filled up by $3.33 worth of food. At the white-owned places I am always paying $6.50 or more. Not only that, but those avocados and other fresh produce are far cheaper due to the migrant labor.


So what is the future of television news? The Daily show is quickly becoming the most honest news source (other than NPR and maybe the BBC) in the US, and that's quite sad. I actually get more news from a half hour of Jon Stewart making fun of our press and government than I do from an entire day staring at MSNBC. I don't need to hear about Natalee Holloway every 15 minutes, ditto for Anna Nicole Smith (even if she does look fantastic when going to court, why doesn't she dress and do her makeup like that more often?), I need to hear about the stuff I cannot get by changing the channel to one of the other 5 stations showing the same thing. What about Africa? When our oil prices were going up we saw EVERY news station showing gas prices at local stations and maybe mentioning the war in Iraq, but what about the turmoil in Nigeria? Many people didn''t know that when oil hit its peak, there had been attacks on pipelines in Africa, causing prices to spike. So instead of focusing on the stupid "problems" that bring ratings (gas prices, illegal immigration, terrorism, missing white girls, global warming, bird flu), why not focus on tangible problems and issues facing the world as a whole? Poverty, horrendous ignorance throughout the world (especially in the "red states"), actual epidemics (like Malaria, famine and sleeping sickness to name a few), genocide and what appears to be a rising influence of radical religion. The people are stupid on average (a 100 IQ is quite low in comparison to the average college grad) and they need others to tell them what to "think" about and what to believe. As long as we continue letting people like Dobbs and Abrams give us the news, we're going to continue to see more and more reaching for power by the government...just you watch.

A Gates Foundation Buffet

With the recent announcement of Warren G Buffett backing off of his pledge to give all of his money to the Buffett foundation and giving $30+ billion to Bill Gates, we've got one of the most powerful organizations the world has ever seen. A while ago, I had blasted Buffett for his relative lack of charity, but this move might solidify his legacy as Mellon or Carnegie did when they gave their money to the people. Gates and Buffett are two of the most wealthy and powerful men in the world and their conglomeration might be the biggest merger of the 21st century. This isn't JP Morgan Chase Bank One, BP Amoco Arco or even the European Union. This is a charitable foundation with over $60 billion in assets with the power to far eclipse the WHO's yearly budget of $1.6 billion, supposedly being able to afford over $3.5 billion a year. This could be a major development in the world, as a new chapter in civilized society where the wealthiest dedicate themselves to the aid of the poor.


However, this could also be something more sinister. The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation operates under a tax shelter, making their assets far safer than Microsoft. They also have no shareholders and very little public influence. So what would happen if Gates and Buffett had negotiated a secret pact to control the world. The combined fortune of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with this donation by Buffett gives them more PPP than almost 100 countries and with Buffett's investment skills, they could easily grow to eclipse an additional 10-15 conutries. With their tax advantages, the wealth will only grow. Imagine if Gates is actually as evil as a lot of people wish he was. We could have this megalomaniac with $60 billion in assets ready to exert his influence on the world. Hell, he could even take over the US with that kind of money by buying a mercenary army.


I don't believe that Gates is going to take over the world, but I sure am thinking it loudly. Gates and Buffett aren't exactly known for being warm and fuzzy in their business dealings, so how or why will they be different as full-time philanthropists? Maybe it will be the new title that will cause them to do business based on something other than the bottom line. But I think that it might just be pride that will motivate them to make this foundation change the world for the better. But they could just as easily change the world for the worse if they wanted. Even if they do dedicate the foundation to curing the world's worst diseases, that could still end up making the world worse and not better. Imagine if population growth doubled in Africa and India due to the elimination of AIDS and Malaria, wouldn't that make Africa much worse off? They've already got heavily strained resources and significant problems due to overpopulation, curing the diseases would only enhance those problems.


I think that we should ignore the diseases until we've done a little more for socio-economic parity. What about doing what the Robber Barons did for the US and modernize the frontier? My belief is that if Africa had a mass transit system covering the whole continent like European transit (but even more modern due to the late start and technological advances) many of the problems would fall by the wayside. The trade would increase, which would add jobs. The added jobs would create an incentive for peace, utilizing those abundant natural resources that have been exploited for more than a century by the white oppressors. Nigeria has tons of Oil, Botswana has Diamonds, there's plenty of uranium and other rare and strategic resources throughout. Imagine if there was a maglev connecting Cadiz (the Spanish side of Gibralter) to Cape Town; Africans could control their own resources and export them to Europe directly.


I'm taking this merger with a grain of salt. It could be the start of something new. As Jimmy James (fictional billionaire of the fantastic 90s show NewsRadio) said: peer pressure amongst billionaires is a bitch. Maybe we'll see all kinds of mergers between the elder statesmen of the Forbes 400 to create their own mega-charities. Gates-Buffett might cure disease, but maybe Phil Knight and Steve Jobs could get together and build up the infrastructure of an impoverished nation. I don't think curing disease is enough, we need to cure ignorance, poverty and the cult mentailty that has been brought to Africa via Islamic and Christian missionaries. We need to modernize the governments and schools, bring the third world into the first world and create One World of prosperous, healthy and harmonious people.

The Value of a HS Diploma

Back when I went to Burlingame, there was no such thing as an "exit Exam", you just exited school by not dropping out after 4 years. It didn't matter if you were a 4.0 or a 2.0 student, or even if you could read at a HS level, all that mattered was if you showed up some of the time for 4 consecutive years. So to improve our pathetic education system, they implemented Recently the new California HS exit exam has come under scrutiny for being unfair to students. But how unfair is it really? The most recent exam saw 7000 students take it, only 198 failed that's ~1.4% of a failure rate. Maybe it's just me, but that seems WAY TOO LOW considering the illiterates who are allowed to graduate and even go to college.


If the exam were truly a measure of someone's capabilities to succeed in the real world, the passing rate would be far less than 98.6%. It is simply not difficult enough, just as our public schools aren't difficult enough. I know this from experience because I attended prestigious private schools, a locally shunned public school and a poor public high school in a rich area. I started at Nueva, a "school for gifted children", where we'd learn geometry or complex creative writing if that's where we excelled. I was writing short stories that were bound and read aloud to my class once a week as a 4th grader while also learning about the angles of a triangle and how to figure out complex mathematical sequences. This education was actually good and has served me quite well as I've gotten older. Most public schools aren't like this, the kids sit in desks, have lots of busy work and only the motivated ones really learn anything. Nueva didn't assign homework until 4th or 5th grade (maybe 3rd, but it wasn't much), and while it may have contributed to my inability to do busywork without losing my mind, I think it gave me the ability to think critically instead of being taught to think like everyone else.


So I'm off topic now...not really mentioning the exit exam anymore, but don't worry, I'll get back to that soon enough. :-)


The next step I took was to be with "normal kids" after I grew tired of being surrounded by geniuses and nerds, so I enrolled at Borel Middle School, a slightly ghetto (for Bay Area standards) public school in San Mateo. While at Borel I learned what the average American gets out of education: Nothing. Despite my complete lack of effort, I still made principal's list and even got 112% in my math class in 8th grade (that's the whole year, not just 1 test). I was stuck in these classes with 30 other kids who were nowhere near the academic level of my former classmates at Nueva. The only kids who didn't pass were guys like Ricardo Vulteo, who only showed up about 6 or 7 times all year and was 16 and DROVE TO MIDDLE SCHOOL every time he actually showed. Why he hadn't dropped out altogether was beyond me. However, I saw a lot of people who shouldn't have even been C students graduate the 8th grade and move on to HS.


So I went to Burlingame for 2 years and had a pretty good time. The girls were stunning, especially those gorgeous cheerleaders, and I had a good amount of friends and didn't really get into fights anymore like I did in Middle School. But the academics were a joke! I had about a 3.8 and I literally did only 45 minutes of homework in my 2 years there - that's 45 minutes over two years, not per night. Not only that, but I slept in class a lot of the time and even told my Geometry teacher that he was stupid and that's why I never found his class challenging. I still got an A+ despite my horrible attitude. I never deserved any A's while in public high school, I simply didn't try hard enough; but because I actually had a fully functional brain I was GIVEN A's in every class except Drama and Band (seriously, I think I had those two Cs in drama and band, and maybe one or two B+'s while at B-Game.) So I made the decision to transfer to Phillips Exeter Academy, a prestigious prep school in New Hampshire so I could be challenged.


So I sought out a challenge, but most people do the opposite, they run from them. The average person can just coast through the first 18 years of their life with schools that expect nothing from their students and parents who don't care. Then they graduate; the ones with money go to state schools and the ones without go to JCs or get dead-end jobs. The HS diploma isn't something you're proud of on a job app, it's just a requirement. The diploma means nothing if you went to a public school in Cali, Texas, Louisiana or another non northern state. In England, they have an incredibly difficult exit exam from high school and it's proved to be a success. There, graduating from school and passing the exams actually says something about one's intellect instead of their ability to enroll from year to year. So I say that if 98%, 88% or even 75% of the people pass that exam on the first try, it's just too easy. Let's make the HS diploma worth something, because these days, I feel like a BA is about the equivalent of a HS diploma...an AA is like passing 8th grade. I don't want to have to go to grad school simply because everyone else has. More school isn't the answer, BETTER SCHOOL IS.

The US Goes Down Again...

With today's 2-1 loss to the Black Stars of Ghana, the United States came up short in their bid to gain international football (soccer) respect. Coming into the World Cup ranked 5th in the world (somehow), the US was placed in the "Group of Death" and lost games to Ghana and the Czech Republic while playing to a draw against Italy. This year saw massive increases in the coverage and excitement over the Cup in our nation, but it was not nearly enough to keep from another embarassing showing on the international stage. Soccer is unique as there are many more superstars playing in European leagues than anywhere else, and the best American players strive to join a European level-A team. Unlike the other sports we've been humiliated in on the recent international stage, our Soccer team lacked that superstar mentality and egotism that cost us other international championships. So what's the deal? Why can't we win anything on the international stage anymore?


The World Baseball Classic was designed for the US to play in the Finals. They stacked the brackets so we wouldn't have to face the favored Dominican team until the finals, but it didn't matter once we lost to Canada, South Korea and Mexico. In fact, we ended up in 8th place, finishing behind such baseball superpowers as South Korea, Mexico, Puerto Rico and Venezuela. This in a sport we invented, in a tournament we created, playing our games in stadiums we've built. Think we would have lost this tournament in 1920 when only white Europeans were allowed to play?


Basketball is another sport we've invented only to give up our dominance to other nations. In 1992, the "Dream Team" changed basketball forever, putting together 12 professional superstars (well, 11 pros and a graduating senior named Christian Laettner, who was a god while at Duke) and utterly dominating international competition. It took only a decade for our pros to lose their dominance, as the international athletic community had learned how great of a game basketball is. We not only lost to Argentina and Yugoslavia, but Spain as well and finished in 6th place tied with Puerto Rico. But it was fitting to be just next to PR in the standings, because in our next international game we lost 92-73 to them. We also lost to Lithuania and Argentina, placing 3rd behind Italy and Argentina. Isn't it sad that we can't even win at our own sports?


How about the sport that the Canadians made famous, the Russians dominated and we profited off of? Despite the fact that we had one of the most professional rosters, we still couldn't advance beyond the first round of the tournament. You'd think that since all of the best players in the world come to the US to play, that we'd have a dominant team, but that's just not the case. But there's no reason that a team of professionals should ever lose to one filled with amateurs who aren't good enough or experienced enough to play with those very pros they are beating. We lost to Khazakhstan and tied Latvia, both of which were countries that weren't considered contenders and their performance proved that. Latvia tied us 3-3, yet they were outscored 29-11 in their 5 games (giving up 5.8 goals a game, horrendous). Our only victory was against Khazakhstan , a team we beat 2-1, but who got outscored 18-9 and found their only victory against Latvia. Simply pathetic...


So we officially suck at Soccer, Basketball, Hockey and Baseball. We're generally one of the largest nations competing (we're the largest at the World Cup, and are always the richest) and we're obsessed with sports, so why do we keep losing? Maybe it's because we're not good at being team players anymore, but I think it's more about the rest of the world surpassing us. As we grew complacent with our dominance, we allowed many nations to catch up with us. Think if we were in 1950 South Korea would have been able to beat the major league all-stars? But we're just too focused on too many sports, we don't have a national obsession anymore. Baseball has fallen off the map, and hockey never really made the map outside of New England and Minnesota/Michigan, basketball is the game of individuals (team play is rare nowadays, even the NBA champs rely on one star - Wade), so what do we have left? Golf isn't for teams and the world is already competitive with the US in the Ryder cup, ditto for Tennis and the Davis cup. Maybe we should start an international American Football Championships, competing against teams from Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. That way we could introduce another sport to the world so they can take it from us and continue our international athletic embarrassment. Or maybe we should just compete in international Dodgeball competitions...

Happy Hemp-day

Lately there has been a movement in the United States Farming communities to legalize the growth and sale of industrial hemp. This cannot be confused with the Marijuana legalization efforts, as hemp and Mary Jane are distinctly different cousins. But Hemp is a very valuable material, and could be even more valuable if legalized for massive commercial and industrial production. For some reason, the government has vilified hemp so much, thanks to the MORONIC DEA, that it is illegal to grow despite the fact that it's legal to import and sell industrial hemp. So basically the government is saying that their illogical and ignorant prohibition on hemp should only be used to hurt our economy and help out those in Eastern Europe, Canada and elsewhere. Why else would we allow it to be imported and sold while it's illegal to produce within our borders?


When I went to Canna-Trade in Switzerland in 2004 I learned about all kinds of uses for hemp that have been relatively unknown. Did you know that there's actually a hemp plastic? Imagine if we could produce our own plastic on a farm in North Dakota instead of using oil. Hemp can also be used to make cloth, like the sails of the Santa Maria (you know, that ship that "discovered" America), Mayflower (the one with all those religious zealots) and now they can produce fine clothing with similar quality to that of cotton. How about construction? 70% of the Cannabis plant's total weight is made up of the 'hurd' or woody inner core. This part of the plant is THC free and can be used in housing construction. The silica leached from soil by the plant combined with unslaked lime (calcium oxide) forms a chemical bond similar to cement which is both fire and waterproof. Sounds like a pretty good plant, eh?


That's not it either, there are also nutritional values with the oil being one of the richest sources of Omega fatty acids. Hemp also contains 31% complete and highly-digestible protein, 1/3 as edestin protein and 2/3 as albumin protein. This protein profile is second only to raw uncooked soybeans (35% vs. 31%), and the amino acid profile is superior to soybean, human milk, and cow's milk, and similar to egg whites. Hemp can be used to make paper, being far more effecient than trees in that matter. This list of the uses of hemp goes on too...Woody Harrelson has driven around the country in a van fueled only by bio-fuel made from hemp oil, it has medicinal uses, and is even good for animal feed.


So what is the holdup? The DEA claims that the main reasons why they are opposing the attempts of California and North Dakota farmers to grow hemp is that it's too hard to distinguish between the THC (the psychoactive chemical in Marijuana) laden and non-THC laden strains and that people steal it because "it looks like dope". Seriously, is this their main reason? Isn't it sad that people that dumb are allowed to carry weapons and tap our phones? If that's the only reason to keep industrial hemp illegal, why are Poppies grown for display at county fairs and farms? They are a lot easier to confuse with a much more addictive drugs that are derived from poppies. The television show MythBusters demonstrated that one could test positive for narcotics after consuming 4 poppy seed bagels, so why are we allowed to buy a poppy bagel from Einstein's?


Obviously if we're looking for logic, the US government is not the place to look. But this is a nation based on capitalism, and nothing about the hemp ban seems in line with our capitalistic ways. Accoring to NORML, hemp is in the top 10 of cash crops in basically every state ( http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4525&wtm_view=crop10 ), but since it's illegal, the billions made from hemp are wasted in the black market and abroad. If we just taxed the farmers who wished to grow hemp we could have our own production of this valuable plant. You could even keep marijuana illegal if you wanted to continue this futile prohibition, but keeping hemp illegal is devastating to our economy. Imagine if California could tax the estimated $4,000,000,000 a year earned with marijuana/hemp by just 10% (I'd suggest we'd tax it closer to 50%), that would add $400,000,000 to California's economy alone. Think that could be used to help drug education and treatment? To me, it's just stupidity that is keeping us from joining the EU, Canada and even Mexico in the 21st century.

Don't you judge me!

Yesterday the Supreme Court came very close to overturning the Clean Water Act of 1977 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_water_act), failing to overturn the valuable act by a close 5-4 vote. I previously stated my fears at what might happen with Roberts and Alito being added to the already too-conservative US Supreme Court, but this definitely added to my aprehensions. Our judicial system is set up to be balanced and fair, looking at every issue with an academic and legal mind and without emotion or opinion. However, Alito and Roberts are clearly opinionated as conservatives and they have already shown that they will continually lean towards the right. When George Bush appointed these two men, he knew that they would support his agenda as long as they were in office, and unfortunately the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment and Alito and Roberts have 25+ years ahead of them. How a pair of baby-boomer ivy-leaguers could be so conservative is beyond me.


Alito scares me more than Roberts, as Roberts was basically a young Rehnquist, but Alito is more like Scalia. Anyone who has listened to Scalia's opinions couldn't possibly want another man like him making our judicial decisions, but we're stuck with Scalito (a play on their names...) till his death. So now we have two Scalias, one Clarence Thomas and Roberts to vote on the right. That leaves us with 4 justices who will vote towards the left, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter. Kennedy is basically the only true "swing" voter, though he generally leans more left than right. What I don't understand is why we even bother having 9 justices when we could basically make the same decisions with Kennedy sitting alone on the bench.


The Supreme Court has a lot of power, sometimes more than it was intended to have. Some decisions they make can alter the way our constitution is interpreted and implemented. Some justices can become brokers of power, wielding their influence to change laws to adhere to their judicial ideals. Roger B Taney ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney ) was a great example of this, seeing as his decision in the Dred Scott case was based in racism. I am a believer that dictatorship is the only effecient form of government, but that doesn't mean it's the best. Allowing the president to stack the supreme court with those who share his opinions is basically giving the president judicial power, negating the separation of powers originally intended by the formation of the court.


If we are going to continue letting the president appoint justices, why not just make the president the standing chief justice. After all, he's already the supreme commander of our armed forces (cause W was such a war hero back in Vietnam when he stayed home and didn't fight...), so why not make him chief justice and, while we're at it, surgeon general? While we're gradually eliminating civil rights (like the protection from police searches, privacy rights, right to an abortion, the right to pollute one's own body, etc.) we can obviously blame our judicial review system for allowing this to occur. While the European Union is gradually becoming more socially liberal, allowing legalizations of euthanasia, gay marriage, abortion and marijuana in many EU territories, we're going backwards in time. JP Stevens and Kennedy are both old men, likely to either die or retire relatively soon, and unfortunately, they are the only justices whom you cannot predict their decision 100% of the time (like with Scalia, Alito, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and possibly Roberts). If we have another Bush in office (or if it happens while he's still there), we will see those moderates replaces with right-wingers, men willing to sacrifice the rights of the people in exchange for promoting their judicial ideals.


Like democracy, I believe that our system of judicial review is becoming stale and overgrown. While there are so many cases which should be brought to the Supreme Court, we're seeing Anna Nicole Smith argue over her trophy-wife inheritance. Every case is decided on party lines, and the judges are far too out of touch with society to make truly informed decisions. We have a jury of our "peers" (another flawed system of justice, seeing as how my "peers" are not decided by myself, but by the lawyers in the case) until we reach the supreme court, only to have those peers be replaced with 8 old men and 1 old woman who've never made a mistake in their lives. How can Alito have an opinion on the legalization of marijuana when he was the biggest nerd at Princeton during the height of the counterculture? Douglas Ginsburg( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Ginsburg ) was almost elected to the Supreme Court, but when it was discovered that he'd tried smoking weed as a professor with students at Harvard (while Chief Justice Roberts was a student there...) he was withdrawn from the running. Ginsburg is a highly intellectual man with liberal ideals who is clearly more in touch with the people than Alito or Roberts. We'll never see a man like Ginsburg on the court at this pace, we'll just continue to see the "suits" dominate the bench. So think of where we're headed with our civil rights, imagine what your life will be like without the rights to privacy, abortion, homosexual marriage, and the personal use of light (non-narcotic) drugs. Now would you rather live in a place where you can make your own choices, or a place where 9 people aged 51 and older sit behind closed doors choosing the fate of our nation and the constitution?

The Extinction of Small-Town USA

On Friday I saw the new Pixar Film "Cars" and it brings up something I have mentioned a bit before: the extinction of small-town Americana. The film shows Lightning McQueen, an egotistical racecar who gets stuck in "Radiator Springs" a classic example of the Route 66 ghost towns you'll see if you get off I-40 and go exploring. I've done that drive about a half-dozen times, going back and forth to New Orleans from the Bay Area via the interstates and I always found it so sad to see these adorable little art-deco towns being completely abandoned. There are times when I find myself thinking that we've gone about it all wrong, wasting our resources and energy in building these giant metropolises when we could all be living in friendly little towns where everyone knows each other.


Radiator Springs has a police officer and a judge, but the only action they ever get is from wild visitors to their sleepy town. This parallels the small towns scattered across the American Southwest. The only time serious crime occurs in these little towns is either the result of tourists/transients or insanity. In a small town, everyone knows each other and are therefore less likely to commit any major infraction. Not only that, but they develop a personal relationship with everyone and it's a lot harder to victimize someone you know personally than a stranger. Now that's not to say that Small Town USA is perfect, as it is definitely not, but it's sad when you drive across the country and see all these ghost towns. Especially when the cities that are growing are places like Omaha, Oklahoma City, Phoenix and Albuquerque...not exactly beautiful centers of cultural enlightenment.


Tourism will be one of the most important post-modern industries. A city really does not need to produce anything other than something that makes people want to stop in their neighborhood. Las Vegas does not produce anything, but is one of America's fastest growing cities simply because it's become a major tourist destination. From those tourists, comes the money that brings in new residents, who in turn fuel the need to install supporting businesses to maintain that population base. The larger population base then is able to support a greater number of tourists, causing the economy to grow. This has been the strategy of Las Vegas for the past 50 years: "If you build it, they will come" with the hotels. Sure enough, despite the plethora of newly built mega-resorts, Vegas room occupancy has remained steady at around 89% a night (occupied rooms) for the past 8 years.


Radiator Springs gets revitalized (sorry if you haven't seen Cars yet, but if you don't figure out this is going to happen the moment you're introduced to the town, you're just not that bright) and becomes this darling little town with its 1950s style boulevard for cruising, eating, shopping and socializing. While the cities are seeing their cruising streets become outdoor shopping malls (see Burlingame Avenue, Garnet Avenue, even Haight Street), why not let small town USA re-emerge with their locally owned shops with high prices and unique products? Some of my favorite spots in this country that I've seen in all my travels (I've been to 46 of the 50 states) have been those random little towns with their 1 stoplight, abandoned diners and motels and tumbleweed pedestrians.


I've always wanted to live in an isolated spot without the stresses caused by the metropolitan lifestyle. Imagine never having to sit in traffic, never having to wait in line, and never having to lock your doors. Hell, you could probably even leave the keys in your car and have lunch and not even have to worry about it being stolen. Not only that, but I think it's a healthier place to raise a family and have deep relationships. Without the pressures and stresses of city life, life becomes simpler and more about the little things. Maybe it's idealistic, but I think that we'll be able to revitalize our forgotten Route 66 ghost towns into jewels of Middle America. So the next time you're on a road trip, try to stop off in a random town and avoid the main truck stops...maybe you might discover your own Radiator Springs tucked away in a little corner of the world.

On Healthcare

Before I had my health insurance provided by Commonwealth (gotta love a company that doesn't make you wait 90 days for coverage after being hired full-time) it was costing $150+ a month to keep me insured. The worst part of this was the fact that I NEVER visit the doctor unless I absolutely have to and was basically wasting $150+ a month on insurance that I didn't use. But the moment I'd stop paying for insurance is when something might happen, so I'm forced to maintain that insurance protection. So what makes medical insurance so expensive? Simple: It's the Lawyers and their clients who have continually sued doctors to the point where it's prohibitively expensive to practice medicine.


So you go to have a nose job, a admittedly cosmetic procedure, and the doctor makes a mistake and makes your old schnozz into a ski-jump when you wanted a button, what do you do? If you're American, you sue for $2,500,000 despite the fact that you would've never made that kind of money in your lifetime. Even if your medical mistake was on something more damaging to your lifestyle, you'd still be able to sue for an obscene amount of money far outstretching what you would have without that medical mistake. So in essence, these people benefit from a medical mistake. But the Lawyers are even worse, following ambulances in the off chance that there is a possible lawsuit that they can take their 15% to grow rich off of the physical misery of one and the professional misery of another.


So what's the solution? How about a state health-care system? Make it so if you go to a private doctor, you run the risk of mistakes and cannot sue for malpractice. If mistakes are made in a state-run Dr's office, the person would still not be able to profit financially, but the government would compensate the victim accordingly. Instead of letting juries decide (because juries are a highly flawed way of deciding justice), we should take the power away from the most manipulative of lawyers and give the power to the level-headed bureaucrats. I'm sorry, but I'd much rather have the best and brightest minds going into medicine instead of scaring them away with malpractice insurance and lawsuits.


Fewer and fewer people are going to medical school these days because of the high amount of education requirements (you're over 30 by the time you've become a real doctor) and the shrinking profit margins. It used to be that going to medical school was a ticket to wealth, but not anymore. Most doctors have to struggle to stay afloat if they aren't someone like James Andrews (famous sports surgeon), and that scares a lot of potentially great doctors away from the profession. By making someone spend 4 years as an undergrad, then 5-8 years in med school, internship and residency before becoming an actual doctor, it's really hard to motivate a bio-chemical engineer to pass up $45,000 as a 23 year old college grad when he wouldn't make that until he was over 30 as a doctor. That's not to mention the hundreds of thousands in student loans that most aspiring doctors have to pay back.


So what's the solution? Why not go back to apprenticeships? Let med students begin to practice medicine at an actual doctor's office as a freshman in college. Start them off as an observer, getting hands-on only when there is no serious danger. Let them gradually take over more duties and eventually they will be able to practice more and more. This way the exceptionally gifted can become doctors at a younger age than 30 and they can gain experience while at an age much more open to taking in new information. Let the doctors they work under supervise their advancement, when ready to practice full-time, let the doctor sign off and give them a certification. That doctor would be fully responsible for the student until he became fully licensed by the state. But let them practice while in school, because most med students will admit that the moment they started practicing medicine it was like they had to learn everything they did on the spot. The education is important, but experience is key.


Doogie Howser would be proud. There's actually a couple of Indian doctors who have been licensed as teenagers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrit_Jaswal , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balamurali_Ambati ) In both cases, these were prodigies who were allowed to practice at their own pace, and these are the doctors who will eventually cure AIDS or Cancer. Think having 13 years of experience when you're 30 wouldn't put you head and shoulders above everyone else? So imagine how much better our health would be (not to mention the economy, considering the fact that people are continually getting pay-cuts or layed-off because of high healthcare costs) if we nationalized it. It's only a matter of time before the rising cost of healthcare devastates our economy or even worse, the public health. Our emergency rooms are already over-crowded, and as the baby boomers retire and age we're facing a major crisis. We'll see experienced doctors retire and all kinds of new senior citizens emerge in our understaffed hospitals. Only the rich will receive treatment and the rest will be left out to dry. So we can either face that situation, or we can just raise taxes a little, put restrictions on lawsuits and eliminate the need for doctors to pay for malpractice insurance. If we did the latter, we might be able to avert the coming crisis.

What are they thinking?

That's probably a rhetorical question when asking it about the American voting public. So San Diego's North County elected a man named Brian Bilbray who did not even attend a four year college as their congressman. When Duke Cunningham was convicted of his bribery scandals, it only seemed natural that this district would finally realize that voting Republican was just not working, but then they go and elect a guy like Bilbray. It would be one thing if he was a candidate without a string of failures and controversies in his past, but Bilbray was a failure in Congress already once before. During his first run as a congressman, he wrote letters on behalf of Metabolife (which has been blamed for over 150 deaths) and accepted their money for his campaign. He didn't listen to his own voters and supported legislation that was so hated in his home district that he was voted out in 2000. After his failure in Congress, he moved on to K street as a lobbyist.


Maybe it's just me, but isn't it wrong to elect a lobbyist into congress when your previous representative was put into jail specifically because of his relationships with lobbyists? You would think that the voters in district 50 would consider that fact when choosing their candidates. In the Republican primary I actually found Bilbray to be one of the three (of 13 I think) candidates that I thought would be corrupt and someone that just should not be elected. Somehow he beat out some pretty decent Republican candidates using his ONLY issue: IMMIGRATION. Well, check that, his other issue is saving the Mount Soledad Cross...yeah, that's important.


Immigration is a very visible issue here in San Diego, but a lot of the people we think are immigrants are actually natives. San Diego is also a very transient town and people are constantly moving in and out of neighborhoods. Thing is, our employment rates are better than basically anywhere in the world, and our wages are decent too. Cost of living is expensive here, but we pay for perfect weather and gorgeous locations. Illegal immigrants are prevalent here, but so are the homeless, alcoholics and junkies. Why should my gardener be considered a criminal when he's doing work I wont do for a price that's too low for me to do it? Only criminals should be crminalized...but that's always my point, why should someone get punished when they're yet to harm anyone?


Bilbray worked for an anti-immigration lobbying group, anyone who is that focused on anti-immigration can't possibly be for protecting the rights of Americans. After all, if he was so passioniate about helping his country, why didn't he lobby for schools, police or the disabled? San Diego has a lot of problems and immigrants aren't one of them. But maybe that stupid cross on Mount Soledad is...oh wait, who really cares about that cross? The actual problems San Diego faces are devastating: A bankrupt pension system, horrific traffic, environmental problems, the highest energy costs in the lower 48, an education system in shambles, public works lacking funding...and the military holding San Diego county hostage with their bases. Duke Cunningham let the military contractors own him, and North County is worse off as a result.


Compare Bilbray to his opponent Francine Busby. Busby was the president of the school board, so obviously she cares about children and education. She spoke of the environment and a resolution to the Iraq war and was willing to speak out about issues other than immigration. I am NOT A DEMOCRAT, I generally hate Democrats as much as Republicans, but socially I cannot understand why anyone would side with a man who says that Bush isn't conservative enough. The more people like Bilbray we elect over those like Busby, the more our nation will be willing to pass acts like THE PATRIOT ACT to curb civil rights in the face of unwarranted fear.


Doesn't the public get that Republican control of the government is not good for us. Not for the economy, not for international relations, not for civil rights. The whole purpose of democracy is to protect civil rights, not to curb them. I believe EVERYONE is entitled to civil rights, not just "citizens". Just because someone is an illegal immigrant doesn't mean they'll be worse for society than some white boy born in Santee. In fact, most immigrants are far more hard-working than those born in our nation, and illegals work extra hard because of their lack of rights and safety net. The 50th congressional seat SHOULD HAVE GONE DEMOCRAT after the Cunningham scandal. If any district should shift, it should be the one that housed the most corrupt politician caught in recent memory. But instead we're stuck with one more district filled by a closed-minded moron (trust me on this one, I heard him speak on NPR before I knew he was running for congress and kept saying out loud "What an idiot" and "How can this guy be so dumb?") who will clearly vote in the opposite way that any intelligent and educated person would.


I'm just surprised they didn't just re-elect Duke Cunningham...

Martyr or Scapegoat?

With the recent death (supposed) of Abu Musab al Zarqawi we have the most significant development in the Iraq war since the fall of Saddam Hussein. The man who had become the face of the insurgency was finally eliminated by coalition forces, but what is going to be the result of his death? Will the insurgency begin to falter under the tattered leadership? Or will Al-Zarqawi's death be used as a rallying call for the rest of the insurgents? I think the latter is the only likely possiblity, but I also see some other sides that could exist. Conspiracy theorists would suggest that the Iraqis were known for having doubles, Saddam Hussein had a team of clones working to protect his true identity, so how do we know that Zarqawi didn't have his own team of doppelgangers? Since we didn't capture him alive, this man could be an actor who just happened to look like Al-Zarqawi and the real man might be sitting in his control room in Kentucky sending missions to suicide bombers in Iraq. The other curious thing about this situation is the fact that Al-Zarqawi was killed in the time leading up to an important mid-term election.


I am not one to suggest that the government is masterminding all kinds of conspiracies. I don't think our government would be capable of hiding the truth from enterprising journalists, and therefore I actually believe that Zarqawi (or a clone) was killed in that bombing. However, I definitely see this as a sign that Osama Bin-Laden is off the radar. We barely hear from the man who was originally the main reason for the wars in Afghanistan and (not including the Bush hatred for all that is Hussein) Iraq, and it's clear that the focus has shifted from finding Osama to ending the insurgency. But it is hard to ignore the timing of this occurrence, especially since we had been hearing all the stories about the massacre(s) committed by the Marines in Iraq. It's just a typical "wag-the-dog" type of moment, when a devastating story comes out that can threaten everything the administration is working for (the Haditha situation), it's only natural for that administration to do what it can to distract the public.


So what about the insurgents? How will this development affect their actions? Will we see the attacks begin to subside? Probably not, considering the fact that insurgent activity has continued uninterrupted since Zarqawi's death. Unlike top-heavy organizations that rely on a strict chain-of-command and a top-down structure of power, the insurgency is fragmented and many of the groups have no idea what their "colleagues" are up to. This isn't the Viet Cong we're fighting, it's not an organized nationalist group with the backing of powerful nations, it's just an internal insurgency and that dilutes the influence of leadership.


Since most of the insurgents are highly religious types, isn't it only natural that they will take Zarqawi's death as a martyr? He was their leader, and from those videos seemed to be portrayed as a heroic figure to the insurgency. Isn't it funny that after that film of Zarqawi misfiring his gun preceded his death by only a number of weeks? Maybe his image as the unflappable leader of the fight was tarnished and he was betrayed by his own people in order to eliminate any chance of his further damaging their illusion of competence. After all, we were only able to find his "safe-house" because of a tip, who's to say that the tip wasn't for the benefit of the insurgency.


The rallying call will be "The American infidels killed our fearless leader, they must pay for their evil deeds." And we will not see this fight end any time soon. However, the Republican party can use it as a major victory to show "progress" in the "war against terror (or 'global extremism' as it's been dubbed at times)". And come election time in November, Al-Zarqawi will fade in the memories of Americans like Khalid Sheik Mohammed or whatshisname the terrorist. Unfortunately, the fading memory of Zarqawi will not coincide with the fading memory of the Iraqi Insurgency, as that fight will still be very much alive. Only time will tell if Zarqawi's death meant anything in the big picture of the Republican fight against Islam.

Dan's Travel Guide!

In honor of my first real vacation in over a year, I decided to do something different for my last pre-vacation blog: A little guide to some of my favorite spots I've visited that are slightly off the beaten path.


I have traveled a ton and been to most of the major cities in Europe, in addition to a few non-European destinations as well. I've been to most everywhere in the United States too, though most of my favorite spots in the US are geographical/geological phenomena and not the mostly un-original cities. After all, how can someone be excited by visiting Omaha, New Haven, Des Moines and Amarillo when we have so many ecological sites available to us in this vast land? So while there are some great cities in the US (San Francisco, New York, San Diego, DC, Boston) most American cities are basically indistinguishable from each other thanks to chains like McDonalds, Chevron and The Gap. So here's my (long) list:


In the USA:
Death Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_valley) - Go there in the heart of the summer to get the full experience. From the time you enter Death Valley, it is obvious that you are somewhere that is unique to this world. The land formations are completely alien to anything you've ever seen before and the sun is stronger and hotter than you can imagine. If you live in California, you MUST check this amazing place out at least once.


Great Smokey Mountains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smokey_Mountains) - In Tennessee this national park is basically the only geological tourist destination east of the Mississippi that can compete with the west. As the name suggests, the mountains are eerily covered in mist most of the time and that creates this serene atmosphere. It's just really pretty, but can be quite crowded.


Mono Lake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_Lake)- Like Death Valley, this is just an alien geographical destination. Mono Lake has these salt pillars and alkali bugs that just make you feel like you're on some distant planet. It's really close to Yosemite and Death Valley/Mt Whitney so it's a convenient location.


Yellowstone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/yellowstone)- Why mention Yellowstone? It's just too amazing to ignore. Everyone needs to visit this place...plus you can take a drive up north to Montana to see the big sky (that picture in my pics on the road is from Montana).


Santa Fe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe%2C_New_Mexico)- Beautiful little town with a culture unlike anywhere else in the US. Has all kinds of galleries, theater and amazing architecture and scenery and spectacular New Mexican food!


Tahoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Tahoe)- Anyone who hasn't been here is missing out. Definitely one of the top 5 most beautiful places in the world. Summer or winter, it's an active person's paradise.


In Europe:
So I could go the easy route and suggest Amsterdam, Florence, Vienna, London, Copenhagen, Prague or even Salzburg or anywhere in Switzerland, but there are so many places in Europe that are even more inspiring and less overrun by tourists.


Dubrovnik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubrovnik)- Those two amazing pictures of the islands in the water are from this divine city. Shelled by Milosevic during the Bosnian War, Dubrovnik shows no signs of the devastation to its midieval walled city that hangs over the Adriatic Sea. The abundance of islands makes it possible to have a completely isolated picnic on the water, but the old town is also happening and full of food, clubs, hidden bars and shops. This is where I hope to have my honeymoon if I ever settle down and get married


Antwerp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerp)- This should be every woman's dream destination, especially if going with her sweetie. The city is known throughout Europe as a culinary capital, so the food is phenomenal, but that's not what makes this the place. Chocolate, diamonds and sweet (but highly alcoholic) beers are the staples of Belgium and it's cultural capital. Antwerp has a beautiful old town that contrasts nicely with its modern waterfront. But the main draw for me are the Belgian Waffles (you've NEVER had a Belgian Waffle till you've had the glazed ones with ice cream and chocolate that they serve in Antwerp), the beer (basically the only place where I crave beer is Belgium) and the Pralinee Chocolates (not to be confused with Pralines, Pralinee is similar to Nutella, but better).


Napoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoli)- Most people come to this city to visit Capri or Pompeii and avoid Napoli completely because of the history of organized crime and poverty. But Napoli is actually a gorgeous city with the best food (and Gelato) in the world (assuming you like Italian food) and the best shopping Italy has to offer. Milano might be the fashion center of Italy, but Napoli is where it's all sold wholesale. I got a Canali dress shirt that sells for $300 in the US for just $80 there. And forget about the fine silk ties, they all sell for less than $25 there. The best Gnocchi ala Sorrentina I've ever had was from a little cafe tucked away in a dirty little neighborhood in Napoli. Plus, you can always take a little boat trip to Capri or a bus ride to see the ruins at Pompeii, just don't neglect Via Roma and the Castel Duomo in beautiful Napoli.


Lago Di Como (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_di_Como) - If you saw that scene in Star Wars Episode II where Anakin and Padme get married, you've seen Lago Di Como. Similar to Tahoe in geography, Como is made even more gorgeous by the Italian estates on the mountainsides that just rise straight from the water. This is the most beautiful spot I saw in all of my European travels, even eclipsing Lucerne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lucerne) and Salzburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/salzburg). Another spot I'd consider honeymooning in.


Innsbruck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innsbruck)- The sun setting over the river in my pics is from this gorgeous Austrian town. Classic Austrian architecture and the river running alongside the Alps makes this place too beautiful to seem real. It's hard to believe that real people live in a place like this. Not that much to do there, but it's too gorgeous to pass up.


Nuremburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg) And a picture in my pics as well - Historically known more for Nazi-ism than tourism, Nuremburg has used it's history to educate the people, with museums on the origins of the Nazi movement. In fact, even the amazing (best in Europe I think, and I went to about a dozen) toy museum has a section on how the Nazi party used toys to influence children. But this city isn't all about Nazi-ism, it's also quite gorgeous and serene. It's famous for its gingerbread and the old town smells like it...yummy. Also known for toys, beer and its museums, Nuremburg was a pleasant surprise when I visited.


Dresden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dresden) - Bombed to hell during WWII, this city is just now undergoing reconstruction after 40 years of Soviet neglect. Bombed out shells of buildings can still be seen alongside fully reconstructed palaces. Everything is just much bigger here, from the sidewalks, to the squares to the giant gold statue right over the bridge that spans the Elbe. A really neat city to visit that doesn't really have a huge amount of tourism yet.


Hamburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hamburg)- This city is known for being bombed in WWII (and being a scenario in the first Sim City game), but it's also famous for a different reason: Women. The most gorgeous women in Europe live here (as opposed to Stockholm, where most people think), ever see a bottle of (or add for) St Pauli Girl? Well, St Pauli is a neighborhood in Hamburg where every woman basically looks like her...a blonde haired, blue-eyed work of art. Take a stroll along the bars on the Reeperbahn if you don't believe me. The city is also a very old and wealthy city that has a lot of great museums and cultural sites.



The rest of the world:
Again, there are plenty of awesome spots I've been to that I would suggest, but so would everyone else. The Great Barrier Reef, Sydney, The Bahamas and Jamaica are all frequent destinations, but there are some fantastic places that are a little less known vacation destinations.


Grand Cayman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Cayman)- Water so clear you can see straight to the bottom without goggles. Sand so fine it feels like velvet, and the sun shines down through pollution-free skies. Best beach I've ever been to is the 7-mile beach there.


Curacao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curacao)- This Dutch-Caribbean island has it's own little unique flair that most other caribbean islands don't. The buidings are all colorful and look very Dutch, but the beaches and caribbean flavor makes this place just a little cooler than the rest.


Mazatlan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazatlan)- Fantastic food, great beaches, warm water and cheap prices. It's my favorite Mexican city I've been to, beating Cabo, TJ, Cozumel, Guadalajarra, Ixtapa/Zihuatinejo and Puerto Vallarta.


PLACES TO AVOID!!!


This is the most important section...these are the places that were just so horrible that I don't understand why anyone would want to visit.


Marseille - Dirty, streets covered in dog crap, and full of french port-town people. The Chateu D'If of "The Count of Monte Cristo" is the only redeeming feature. Also keep in mind that most of France SUCKS. Even Paris is full of flaws, but avoid Marseille, Lyon, and Bordeaux if you like cities that aren't covered in dog crap, neon signs and graffiti.


Athens - I compare this horrible city to Tijuana. It's dirty, smells, overcrowded, and very little respect for historical monuments. Incredibly pushy shopkeepers and horrendous food don't help either.


Venice - There are so many cities in Europe with canals, I just don't get why the dirty, stinky (notice a theme here?) and CROWDED Venice is considered so romantic. Amsterdam has prettier and cleaner canals, so does Copenhagen. If you're going to go to Venice, why not just go accross the Adriatic to Dubrovnik (or Split) and see a truly gorgeous city.


So this ended up a lot longer than I expected, but I hope it helps some of y'all. If any of you visit these places, let me know your opinions!

Homeland Stupidity

So I personally believe that the war on terror is moronic. Americans somehow didn't realize that terrorism existed long before 9-11 and will exist long after W is finally out of office. I remember McVeigh bombing the OK City Federal building and killing innocent women and children; hell, I remember that the World Trade Center was attacked in 1994 by terrorists. So I never thought that this added security would accomplish anything other than wasting more money on futile wars against things that can't be beaten in a fight. However, we shouldn't just fall asleep and forget that terrorism exists, we just need to take the necessary steps to ensure we're prepared when it happens again.


San Diego is the largest border town in the US, and has the busiest crossing. It is also the 7th most populated city in the United States. So how come San Diego was REMOVED from the list of 35 cities vulnerable to terrorism? Did they forget to look at a map to see that we're the only real California city on the Mexican border? Maybe they just thought that San Diego was in Mexico...it's not like Bush (or the rest of the Republican party) is known for being perceptive. To me, this is basically the same thing as the border fence being built on the Mexican border but not the Canadian border. It's not going to help protect us if we leave 5000 miles of the other border unprotected. Mexico is a source for illegal drugs (you all know my feeling on prohibition of drugs), but every stoner knows that Canadian weed flows over the CANADIAN border.


On that list of 35 metropolitan areas set to receive funding from the US government from which San Diego was inexplicably absent included Indianapolis, Memphis, Columbus, Orlando and Fort Lauderdale. So the city which is home to a major biotech industry, the 7 largest urban population in the US, the largest border crossing in the US, the US Navy's west coast operations, and is one of the busiest tourist destinations in the US is somehow removed from the list while Memphis and Orlando were added. So lets look at why some of those cities are on the list instead of SD.


Indianapolis: Has the Brickyard 400 and Indy 500 races and is nowhere near an international border, so obviously it's a major target. It also has no nationally known landmarks other than the RCA Dome. It's America's 12th largest city with a small metropolitan area outside of city limits.


Memphis: The home of Elvis might be the claim to fame, but Memphis also has a large oil reserve on John Calipari's head. A relatively poor city with 2 fortune 500 HQs (FedEx and AutoZone), Memphis doesn't really have anything that makes it attractive for terrorism...looked at a map recently? I see no borders anywhere near Memphis. It's the 17th largest city and also has a small metropolitan area.


Fort Lauderdale: It's included with Miami in its metropolitan area, so I guess that's justified. But what are the terrorists going to to there? Take out a senior community? Come on!


Simply put, the government doesn't make decisions based on thought, research or logic. We invaded Iraq when North Korea and Iran were trying really hard to show us how much they wanted to fight. While Iraq allowed UN Weapons inspectors, North Korea refused. While Iran threatened Israel and thumbed its nose at the UN, we invaded Iraq. So while bankrupt San Diego sits here without federal funds to protect itself, the terrorists have spotted their next target. It's only a matter of time.