Monthly Archives: April 2014

Thank You Napolitano!


Are politicians evil? Or are you just stupid?

The notion that politicians are evil is a notion I hate.

Politicians only tell you what you want to hear.

I pretty much try to remain as secular as possible on this blog because I know how it feels to be preached at. This topic however clearly demands for a definition of right and wrong.

First off, there is no such thing as right and wrong unless you can accept the existence of a higher power.

If you are willing to do so then okay, maybe there is an argument to be made for the corruption and the lying that goes on in politics. That is an absolutely pointless and ignorant conversation to have though.

The fact is that corruption and deceit exist, and they aren’t going anywhere any time soon.

So the next time you get it rammed up your ass by a politician, take a step back and think, “Why didn’t I see this coming?”


This means how they vote, who they talk to, who donates to them, and what their proposed policies are.


We have to critically analyze not only who are candidates are as people, but also the things they propose we do. Politicians want to be elected, so all of the things they say are going to be things that sound nice. Your job is to decide if the things they say make sense.

And when you fail to do so, you deserve the consequences.

Realize that all the warm and fuzzy lies they tell us, are a direct result of our ignorance and selfishness.

Tell me in the comments if you believe it is more complicated than that.

Problems of Diversion

I would like to say that this is a disease exclusive to those of the left wing mindset, but unfortunately, that isn’t so.

More often than not people fall for “problems of diversion” (as I call them).

Problems of diversion are provided by conservatives and liberals alike. Some with malicious motives, while others with good intentions, spread their ignorance.

This is something I battle in the classroom daily. During my years as an underclassman I had many teachers that maliciously tried to lead students astray from the truth by subliminally implanting things in their heads.

These days, to my relief (though only a slight relief), it seems to be done more often out of ignorance rather than malice.

When a debate strikes up in the classroom that involves the teacher, it pretty much all looks the same to the kids. Often they will make comments to me throughout the day such as “You kicked his ass man, good job!” and “Way to not let him push you around dude! He was totally wrong!”

When they say these things, what they don’t understand is that I don’t always disagree with what the teacher is saying, in fact more and more these days I don’t disagree with what the teacher is saying, but rather how he is saying it.

A perfect example of this came out of my economics class the just the other day.

My econ teacher is a pretty conservative dude (excluding his feelings about the Koch brothers). He is a capitalist and while he would never admit to it, he hates liberalism and the mentality that it creates when fully implemented in our schools (as it has been).

However, sometimes I believe he says things out of “emotionally motivated premature response”

What the hell is that you ask? I’ll give you an example.

Just last week our class somehow go onto the topic of pharmaceuticals (there is a whole lot of discussion in his  class, that’s how you know he is good). During this discussion the outrageous price of drugs got brought up.

Naturally, everybody in the room starts to think this thought, whether they are willing to admit it or not – “Big, evil, capitalist pharmaceutical companies don’t care about my family”

This thought is a bad thing for prosperity…

So naturally I saw where this was going quick. Before the kids even knew that’s what they were thinking I had constructed a plan to reverse their mindset.

I asked out loud “Yes, drugs and healthcare in general is in fact outrageously expensive… but why?”

My teacher, (being a man whose mother, at some point in her life, was in fact at the mercy a cancer drug that he claimed cost upwards of 60k per shot) immediately spoke one word


Eerr! wrong answer son!

I told him he was one hundred percent incorrect. He responded “Oh yea RJ because I don’t know anything, right?”

This statement illustrated just how emotionally driven he was at the time that he spoke it. He later agreed with me, but out of pride, and embarrassment at his half thought out response, told me that I was only partially correct.

Basically I went on to explain that the reason that our drugs cost so much lies in government regulation, while greed (though a bad word for the motive) is irrelevant.

I could write a whole post on this itself, and I just might, but for the sake of time, I’ll move on…

As you can see, I don’t disagree with the fact that greed is there. I will even say that morally according to my God it MIGHT be a problem in some industries. However him saying that evil 5 letter word at that particular time was the worst possible thing he could have done for my cause… which just so happens to be his cause too…

I don’t blame him for this, we all make mistakes and struggle with our emotions affecting our actions. He steered kids in the wrong direction, towards death and misery, though ignorant to it at the time. And so I pointed out to him his non intentional “Problem of Diversion” and he at least half admitted that’s what it was.

But there are others out there with a more insidious approach…

Let me start by explaining to those of you who don’t know, what modern day language arts classes are about. Literature class in public school, literally has nothing to do with art. It is there with the sole purpose of indoctrinating kids with a code of ethics defined by progressive, academia loving, liberal, teachers.

So in my English class this week we were assigned a group assignment entitled “People Problems”. This is an assignment that coincides with the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley that we are currently reading.

The assignment was to as a group, come up with a general consensus as to how we define a “Person”

Luckily for me I was put in a group consisting of all boys, who also happened to all be Christians.

We decided all human beings are persons according to God, and human beings can currently be distinguished in biological terms.

The next part of the assignment was to read through a list of court cases provided by the teacher and to determine, based on our definition of a person, how the court case should be settled…

This is a picture of the front side of the handout for the assignment. The backside only contained additional stories, no more direction.

This is a picture of the front side of the handout for the assignment. The backside only contained additional stories, no more direction.

As you can see in part “c” we are “encouraged to revise your definition (of a person), Explain your revisions and why your revisions where necessary”

Now, if this doesn’t unsettle you, then you are a strange individual.

Case number one describes a situation in which a father decided to make the oh so difficult decision to pull the plug on his daughter who had been in a coma for three years after being in an automobile accident.

The family had to sell their house and a good deal of their other positions in order to pay the bills to keep their daughter/sister alive.



I don’t know the specifics of this case, but my teacher assured us all that it was in fact a real case and the first of it’s kind.

He maintains the opinion that legislators need to continue to redefine what a person is through “verbiage” in order to avoid problems like this.

This is a matter of right and wrong. There are no two ways around it. My teacher says that the legal definition of murder is “The pre thought-out taking of a persons life” and he assured me that he knew more on this topic because he went to law school. I am sure he is right, but for the record I have not checked on this.

I was called upon to present on this topic in class. I maintain that the question of whether someone is a person or not is completely invalid and does not matter. The state does not get to determine right from wrong (separation of church and state), only what is legal and what is not (based on our vote), therefore if murder is illegal, and pulling the plug is equivalent to murder, based on our definition of murder, then guess whose family is losing everything in order to pay for their daughter/sister.

He said I was sidestepping the issue, and belittled me by saying I just didn’t like to face reality and wanted to “skirt” the issue over and over and over again.

See the problem is we cannot define what a person is. The notion that legislators need to blur the line on what a person is for every unique case that arises is ludicrous and indeed EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

That kind of talk stinks of eugenics…

I maintained the opinion that either his definition of murder was incorrect, the situation could not be related to murder, or if in fact everything he said was true, that the family needed to pay, as we all do, in order to see the error in our ways of legislation.

I later found out from my father who is an LA County FireMAN that I was correct. The court currently does not look at such a situation as murder, due to various reasons.

My teacher lied, and he did it in order push his own agenda.

He either was so emotionally attached to the concept that he was teaching us that he couldn’t admit he was wrong (this happens to many literature teachers because in order to be happy they have to try and justify their own existence to themselves, when in reality they serve no purpose, excluding indoctrination, and are a waste of money in the school system), or he is a progressive who wishes to blur the line when it comes to the value of life (many examples he gave when he talked about defining a person were pathetic attempts to say that we are not really that different from other animals… I mean it was truly an embarrassingly, pathetic attempt when you consider how we humans have conquered not only the entire globe, but have survived also in F****** outer space!!!)

I call these cases “Problems of Diversion” because they are methods of taking your eyes off the root of the problem, and in turn aid those with selfish intentions in getting what they want.

We see this daily in matters such as that of gun control. Piers Morgan would say that Britain has fewer gun crimes every year than the United States and Britain has heavy gun control, so it must be the lack there of in the U.S. that causes so much gun violence.

When in reality  the problem really stems from immigration. In the U.S. we have ghetto gang bangers that take pop shots at folks like my dad on a daily basis. We also have a much larger population in general. We also have a lot of conflicting ideologies struggling to live side by side in one country.

But by presenting you with the argument stated above, he is able to divert the public from the root of the problem.

Problems of  Diversion

don’t fall for it…