I haven't posted anything in a LOOOOONG time because honestly, I felt no one read this and I really jsut got sick of politics.  But the day before the election seems like it needed an entry.  Here's what I have to say.  When you go to vote (I say when because if you don't vote, you'll go to Hell for being a Bad American), consider that this is not a battle of two evils.  It's actually a battle of two evils and a few other candidates who may have a better answer.  As for me, I'm probably going for Michael Badnarik.  I have for a while ascribed to the Libertarian ideals, and I think it's now time to make it official.  Sure, some may say he's not fit because he's never held a political office except in college, but I see this as a strength.  We know his record is clean!  Plus, it may be due tot he fact that Libertarians often are ledft off the ballots for lesser elections.  THere are exceptions such as Jesse Ventura winning for GOvernor of Minnesota, but that was due to his alreayd well-known status as an actor, lobbyist, and uhhh...professional wrestler.  You see, I view the situation of indepoendent or third-party candidates as the proverbial "Belling of the Cat."  The story goes that all the mice in a house wanted a bell to be put around the neck of the housecat so they could know when he was coming.  All of the mice agreed that this was what needed to be done, but none wanted to be the one to put the bell on the cat.  So many people wish we could break away fromthis perpetual cycle induced by the prominent two-party system, yet few vote for an Independent or Libertarian candidate because they are told that this would be "throwing their vote away."  Well, call it what you want, I'm belling the cats!  The problem is there's more than one cat that needs to be belled and we need a hell of a lot of bells put on them.  So please join me in my crusade to break the cycle.  Oh and go here fro more info on Badnarik: http://badnarik.org

Okay, so I know you have been itching for an update to this page for awhile.  The truth is, I have no new politcal crap to spew.  Not even witht he Republican National Convention underway.  I ahven't had a lot of time to watch the news or get updated on much.  Instead, I offer you the door to even more pathetic politcal arguments than Fox News or MSNBC could ever churn out.  I give you....THE COLUMNS SECTION OF THE SEVEN PROJECT!!!  

BEHOLD AS IGNORANT TEENS BATTLE ABOUT ISSUES THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!

Okay, first off, I don't want anyone to get the idea that I in anyway support gay marriage or gambling but the following is my take on why the results fo the Amendments 1&2 have ticked me off. 

I consider myself to be a very moral person and I have strong beliefs and values, yet there are certain thigns that happened this past Tuesday which equated to the state shooting itself in the foot.  There were two Amendments that were proposed for the primary election this year in Missouri. 

Amendment 1 was to amend the state constitution to allow Rockaway BEach, a small community inthe nearby area of Branson to open a riverboat casino.  Up until now, only Kansas City and St. Louis have had this luxury since the state constitution has worded the regualtions on gambling such that only cities that are on a river can have casinos and they must be on the water.  However, Rockaway beach is on a lake.  And their proposed idea--an idea that would boost the economy of the town and was imagined by the people of the town, not the local government--was to open a riverboat casino on the lake by the town.  Now honestly folks, water is water in my opinion.  The only REAL reason why KC and St. Louis get their fun is because they are border towns.  It doesn't say this in the constitution of course, but it's just a fact.  Apparently, the MO government is only interested in a gambling revenue that will be embraced by two states at a time.  Therefore, no fun for Rockaway Beach, a town that all but shuts down inthe winter, which is the off-season for Branson.  By allowing a casino on the lake and using the proceeds or paret of them to fund better education, they would save their economy and wouldn't have to bust their tails all summer to support themselves in the winter.   Withthe addition of the Casino, they could have steady revenue all year round and also Branson wouldhave steady revenue from casino-goers visiting and goignt o shows while not gambling.  Now, I don't gamble, I dont' necessarily agree with gambling, however I do agree with better funding for schools and finding a win-win solution to stimulating the economy.  So, I wouldhave voted yes on Amendment 1 if I was registered in MO.  However, the staunch and ignorant conserviative that saturate this crap factory state thought otherwise or at least voted otherwise.  The Amendment tanked and the peopel of Rockaway Beach have to face yet another year of slow winter business and poor funding for schools. 

On to Amendment 2.  This Amendment was supposed to be a small-scale version of the President's wishes to amend the constitution by defining marriage as the union between a man and woman, a completely ridiculous and unnecessary action.  The very idea that we would need to do this sickens me.  Why do we need to have it in our Constitution that gay marriage is unpermissible?  I mean in the Bible Belt buckle state of Missourah, they are so afraid that the militant homosexuals are going to rise up and attack and they will have no choice but to bedn to their sinful ways that they feelthe need to propose an Amendment to nip it inthe bud by clearly stating that fromthis day forth, marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman.  Now before you get your cross and nails out, understand that I do not support gay marriage, I am very much opposed to it, just as I am opposed to heterosexual couples who are co-habitaitng.  I honestly just see this as a very dumb idea.  One reason is that there just doesn't seem to be much of a threat of gay marriage being lobbied so strongly in this state.  And even if there was, it's not really any threat tot he church because as a pastor-in-training, I know that a pastor can never be forced to marry a couple he doesn't feel comfortable performing the ceremony for.  And honestly, most gay couples aren't seekign marriage to "strengthen the bonds of their relationship", it's more for bragging rights or legal ramifications.  And if they want to jump all over thr sanctity of marriage by boiling it down to "look what I can do" or a legal technicality, let them.  Only if they were to violte the true scared nature of marriage would I be upset, but that would rest onthe hands of the clergy who agreed to allow them to pervert the sacred nature of true marriage.  Honestly, I say let them have their marriage, but make it more difficult to get a divorce so they can't jsut use it as a legal ramification.  Then let's see how many want the gay marriage that is offered.  While we're at it, let's make divorce more difficult alltogether.  Let's go back to marital infeidelity or spousal abuse as the only out for marriage, because hey, crap happens in a marriage and you need to deal with it.  I know!  I'm married and I've had my share already of struggles.  BE A MAN!  STICK IT OUT!!!  Unless you are personally or morally endangered by the relationship, you have no right to walk out.  You said forever, now put your words into action.  Anyway, the superfluous Amendment that clearly defined marriage passed. 

So I read the article in EW interviewing Michael Moore about his new movie.  He boasted and gloated about his ability to access the footage of Bush reading My Pet Goat to the first graders and went on and on about the lady from Flint who lost her son in Iraq.  He smirked and brayed about how he didn't even tell the Marines who he was, but they just ignorantly gave him the footage he wanted from them.  Honestly, I don't give a rip if Moore wants to make his cock-up movies.  It's jsut when he sets out to upset an election by presenting it as Gospel Truth. 

Sure, maybe Bush sat down and read a story to some first graders after hearing that the second plane had crashed, but honestly, Moore, look at it from the kids point of view.  Here is the President in your classroom.  He said he's gonna read you a story.  Then he hears some very bad news and instantly jets out of there.  Your heart is crushed because he broke his promise to you.  Not only that but now you're crapping your Underoos because the world you know as being safe and good is under attack and the one man who is supposed to make it all better is freaking out.  No, Bush did right.  He was right to stay calm and allow those kids to feel that everything was okay for the moment.  Maybe he was waiting to see what else might happen.  Because the shock would have been greater had he rushed out, then have to rush off again, and again.  No, he held back because he was assessing what needed to be done.  He wasnt' ignoring the issue.  He was obviously concerned, but he needed to be sure and stay calm for the kids sake. 

Another thing that Moore makes look very bad is the whole "golf swing" speech.  Now if this was delivered by FDR, Kennedy, or even Reagan, people would have reacted saying, "Oh, look at the President!  He's so calm and he's not getting shaken up by this crisis."  But no, with Bush, it is spun so that it seems like he's paying more attention to his golf swing than the issue.  Thanks to Michael Moore, everyone will now think that Bush cares nothing about the issues and would rather play golf. 

Honestly, I could construct a documentary which would depict a viewpoint completely the opposite of Moore's.  I could interview soldiers in Iraq who are proud to serve their country and are glad to be making a difference.  I could talk to Iraqis who would rave over how much better their lives are because of the intervention of the States.  And most of all, I could get footage of the French defending Saddam and show the documentation of their long time contracts with Iraq and the support they gave to Iraq while we were fighting them.  All these things could be used to construe a viewpoint that would stand in direct opposition to Moore's film.  However, it would be slanted and edited and chopped so as to only show my view.  This is exactly how Moore has done his film.  If he wanted to show us the real truth, he wouldn't have edited and clipped his feature but shown us everything he saw and everythign he heard from everyone he talked to.  So, Moore, screw you and your Communist movie.  I'll go see White Chicks!

So finally Kerry has decided to pick a running mate in John Edwards.  Great, maybe HE can tell Kerry what he believes.  I heard two incredibly intelligent things from Kerry this weekend.  The first was "I beLIEve that birth begins at conception.  I personally think that abortion is wrong.  However, I'm not gogn to impose those beLIEfs on a Jew or an athiest."  Okay, so what you are saying is that even though you willbe in charge of our country and you are trying to bank your support on your moral stance on issues, you will turn your back on your morals jsut to appease the country?  Brilliant!  Next, you're goign to say that morals and religious beliefs and really an irrelavent issue.  Oh wait, I think I heard on NPR the other day, "I feel that we need to show an indifference towards religion inthis country."  Well, that rips it.  Honestly, even if Bush is doing things that we may not approve of, he still stand behind his choices.  He has the guts to follow through and not contradict his choice.  Actually, maybe we should vote for Kerry.  It may bring about the persecution of the church and usher in the end of the age.  Once this country is convinced that Chrisitan morals are irrelavant and that we should be indifferent towards moral issues, we'll all be painted as dangerous radicals and treated like the blacks in the '60s.  We'll be branded haters and intolerants when all we want to do is stand up for the truth.  Interesting how we've become enslaved by our freedom.  Well, that's all the ranting I can stand for one day.   Just remember, a vote for Kerry is a vote for the Return of Christ!

Okay, so Saddam has arrived for his trial in IRaq.  And they done made him all purdy.  He introduced himself as the President of Iraq showing his defiance, insanity, or just plain inability to quit.  But the thing about the whole trial that has really made me contemplate changing my name is that THE FRENCH ARE DEFENDING SADDAM IN COURT!!!!!  Finally, we know why Chiraque has had a stick up his butt about our activity in Iraq.  The reason why he wouldn't support us is because HE'S BEEN SUPPORTING THEM!!!!   Chriaque has been funding and supporting Saddam's government since the early 90s!   So, now his people are going to defend Saddam in court using such wonderful defenses such as, "he made the rules, so how could he break them" and "It wasnt' him..."  Sure, go ahead. If the Iraqi government lets this slip through, I'm gonna push the button myself!!!  It's time to bomb France!!!

Here's the real kicker for me though.  I'm not jsut French, I'm French Canadian.  I'm not one of those Quebec bastards or anything, thank God, but at this juncture in history, I feel like a German Jew in the 1940's.  So yeah!  Blame Canada!  I'm sick of this!!!  From Now on, I'm David White.  No more Leblanc for me. 

So, finally, after all the liberals complaining and saying that nothing is being done and that we are wasting valuable money on reforming Iraq, they have a government in place.  Many are still doubtful, watching the pot, hoping it will boil.  However, I have had faith in this endeavor since the beginning.  I think it's funny how we keep interviewing American troops and hear them complainign about how they have no clue what they're doing and the feel they are over there for no purpose, but how many of the IRaqi citizens have we asked about it?  Most who are approached, other than the religious radicals, were very frateful for our country's intervention.  Honestly, what do you expect them to say?  "How dare you Americans come over here and free us from the oppression of a dictator who kills so many of our people and forces us to live a life of squalor!  Things were jsut fine unitl you showed up and forced your democracy on us!"  Yeah right.  Come on.  Anyway, I watch Bush's speech in TUrkey yesterday morning on Fox News.  He hactually had a lot of great things to say.  I think it's so juvenile how often people will point out tiny mistakes that he has made in speaking over the years, but how many speeches and words of encouragement have they glossed over in their trivial pursuit of paintuing him as an incompetant and illiterate leader?  It seems that some have inthe words of my friend Jon Scruggs, "Missed the forest for the clear cuts."  They're too busy hacking stuff down to see what they are destroying.  Anyway, it reminds me of how Paul spoke of his inability to speak well in I Corinthians, yet he was used by God in the most amazing ways.  I think it's time we stop trivializing our leader's ability to lead based upon his speaking skills.  I mean sure, he has to be able to address the public and look sure of his decisions, but I think he has other traits we can't see.  I honestly think he has reasons for what he does that can't be explained to the public.  In fact, I'm under the suspicion that the government does a LOT of things for reasons that the American public cannot understand or accept, so therefore they are never told of them.  So, there you have it.  I'm sure this oughta stir up some conversation.  Please tell me I'm way off base or tell me how right I am.  Silence is my only enemy.

So recently, I have had no political quandries or anything.  I saw this really funny sketch on Vh1's Ill-Ustrated about John Kerry and his attempts to look cool tot he younger voters.  It had him infront of a podium saying, "Hi, I'm Sen. John Kerry, and when I'm not fiercely debating for my political campaign..."  Then it swoops out and he's standing up on a mountain in snow gear and says, "I'm hittin' the kill-pow-pow up in Tahoe!  Shaka, bra!"  It was hilarious.  THere was also a segment with Bill CLinton now going back in time six years to when the whole Lewinsky thing happened and trying to stop it, but it still happens, only this time it's worse.  I've noticed that there's not much activity here.  I wonder if it's because no one's viewed it or that I just haven't posted anythign of interest that anyone would comment on.  However, I feel that if everyone had read my poetry,t hey'd have their say about it.  So maybe I'll jsut throw out some loaded words in order to stimulate some debate. 

Bush is a Communist!!!

Abortion is MUrder!!!

All Drugs Should Be Legalized!!!

Pot is Less Damaging Than Alcohol and CIgarettes!!!

That ought top stir the pot a bit...  heh heh heh...

I decided that since I have written some political poems inthe past that I'd post a few up here and let everyone give their opinions.

This first one I wrote this morning at about 2:00 am.

"The Moral Minority"

It seems my beliefs have been put on the shelf
When I'm told to tolerate everyone else but myself

Okay so yesterday, I didn't have much time to talk about more of the stuff I liked about Lewis Black's stand up.  Another thing he touched on is how we know nothing about health.  You know how I know that we know nothing about health?  Is milk good or bad?  I rest my case.  When I was growing up we were told to drink three glasses of milk a day. And it was Moo Cow Good Milk.  Nowadays, you ahve 2%, 1%, 1/2%, Skim milk, Acidophilus milk.  Acidoplilus milk?  GIVE ME A BREAK!  Milk doesn't need any friends.  Go put that int he yogurt section where it belongs.  Get it away from my milk!  Soy...milk?  Kiss my butt!  There is NO SUCH THING AS SOY MILK!  There's no such thing as soy milk becasue there are no soy teats!  What it really is is soy JUICE!  But they couldn't call it soy juice, becasue no one wants to drink soy JUICE.  In fact, it makes you sick in your throat just SAYING soy juice.  You almost throw up a little.  Lactose Intolerant Milk?  You have GOT to be kidding me!  IF YOU ARE LACTOSE INTOLERANT, YOU CAN'T DRINK MILK!!!  What's in that carton? GET IT AWAY FROM MY MILK!!! 

But you know what's worse now than milk?  We, in this country, have destroyed good, pure, clean water.  HOW IN THE WORLD HAVE WE DESTROYED THE MOST ABUNDANT RESOURCE ONTHE PLANET?!  When I was a kid, I could get good clean water from 4 or 5 locations in my house whenever I was thirsty.  That's the key, there.  Thirsty, not hydrate.  They made up that word!  So, one day we all decided that we just wouldnt' clean the water up quite as much and instead use the money we saved to go buy water at the grocery store and have it made and bottled by Coke and Pepsi.  Becasue when you think of clean water, you automatically think Coke or Pepsi as the pinnacle.  Now we have five hundred different types of drinking water.  Aquafina?  That sounds to me like "The end of water as we know it!"  Then there's spring water.  What IS this stuff.  There are no springs.  No one has ever seen them.  You know what spring water is?  There' a couple sitting in a bathtub in Pittsburgh filling up bottles.  That's your spring water.  And I guess since they figure we're all dumb enough to think that this "spring" water is from some actual source, then why not go all the way and print on the label the "nutritional facts" abotu our water.  We have to know what's in the water.  These peopel obviously assume that we have fried our brains on a nuclear reactor and all that is left are the zombified remains.  They tell you how much carbs are inyour water, the FAT content.  Oh that's what I need.  Water with fat floating in it.  I need to get some of that, CUZ THAT'S THE REALLY GOOD, TASTY WATER!  Then after listing all these facts, they put the zeros next to each one!  YOU ARE DRINKING NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Before they bottled water, they never told you how much water you're supposed to drink.  I knew I was supposed to have three glasses of milk every day,b ut there were no guidelines for water.  But once they started bottling it, you need EIGHT BOTTLES A DAY!!!  THat's 56 a week!  You need a pack animal just to haul that home!!!!  So doctor's have been studying how much we drink water and you know what they have figured out?  We're probably drinking TOO MUCH WATER!!!  "But look," you say, "My pee has no color!"  That's cuz you've pissed out all the minerals in your brain.  It's a wonder your head doesn't just cave in!

So it's clear that we know nothing about health.  And here the greatest example.  Not long ago, the oldest man in New York died.  He was 115 years old.  Do you know what he ate?  At age 90, he changed his diet to bread fried in back fat and two gallons of Thunderbird wine every week.  People asked him why he didn't use bacon to fry the bread, and he said that bacon was too lean!  TOO LEAN!  And he lived for another 25 years!  If he went to a doctor about his health, the doctor would have said, "What the crap are you doing?  You need to be on a diet of fruit and vegetables and lower fats"  And if he went to the doctor, of course, he would have listened to him, AND HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DEAD WITHIN A WEEK!!!  YOu see there are no general gudielines for health.  Everyone's health is different, we are all like snowflakes. 

So that's his take on health in the U.S. of Effin A.  Brilliant.  Seriously, we need to fire all of our governmental staff and have the comedians run the show.  It will be just like the Reagan days.   At least soem of these comics would take soem responsibility.  If they screwed up, they'd be honest about it.  Black said, "THe way our government is working would be like me coming out and saying, 'I'm not really a comedian, I'm a Magician!  Watch me make this rabbit disappear!"  Then jsut rippign the skin off of it and saying 'Oh well, close enough'"  Honestly, he says that it wasn't that Bush told us that there were weapons of mass destruction that bothered him.  He jsut wanted to know why they stopped lying.  He can handle the government lying to him, he's comfortable with that.  After all, they'd been doing it to him since he was a kid and told him he could avoid being incinerated by a nuclear fireball by hiding under wood.  So all Bush had to do was send two kids to Kinkos and tell them to make a picture of a camel with a nuclear weaponon it's back and that would have been fine.  He also is very secure about our homeland security.  He thinks it's great.  What he thinks is wrong is that TOM RIDGE IS IN CHARGE OF IT!  And he doesn't understadn why they need a colorcoded system either.  Are we in Kindergarten?  THe problem with color coding the security is that every tiem they show you the color, THEY HAVE TO SPEND FIVE MINUTES EXPLAINING WHAT IT MEANS!!!  They just need three levels of security and they wouldn't need any explanation.  They should just be Holy Crap, Dear God, and Just Kill Me Now!  (I paraphrased that last part for content.  In fact a lot of this has been reworded cuz Black has a pottymouth).  Anyway, I have to see the validity in his arguments.  Of course, anyone can sit and complain about what's wrong.  It's totally differetn when you are inthe position of cleaning up the mess that has been made.

Cuz you see, honestly, I like Bush.  I just can't defend him anymore.  I'm not going to say that he's a great leader, because I agree with Black that if someone said that to me, I'd inquire about where I can get soem drugs that make me that delusional (He feels the same about peopel who say it about Clinton, just to be fair).  I feel Dubya was better than the alternative, I feel he's a man of action, a man of character, and a man who probably has amuch different perspective than the political gadflies who constantly ridicule him and ignore how many in Iraq are eternally grateful for our support.  I support Bush for one reason.  He's the leader of this country.  He is there for a reason.  I beleive that it was definately an act of God that he was in office.  How do I know this?  Only divine intervention can allow a person who lost the election to still take office.  But I believe that God has a purpose for every leader who's in office (yes, even that mouthbreather Frog, Chiraque).  SO if Kerry does win, I'll accept it as the will of God and the people of course.  Either that or I'll move to Canada.

We'll find out.