SOPA/PIPA

Sure it's a day late,

Socially Awkward Penguin is Awkward

but as a denizen of the Internet, I need to put in this word, addressing the bill SOPA.

It is [redacted].

See? My long-winded speech was destroyed. Which is of course legitimate evidence against SOPA.

On a more serious note, SOPA is a serious threat to the Internet and business alike, a shortsighted abomination. Do what you can to defeat it- e-mail your representatives, do something like this on your blogs, A quick infographic:

While I'm here, I'll officially mention that I own approximately none of the media I reference on the blog, but I likewise don't know their author. Either way, it's not mine, I do not claim ownership, etc.

Unless I say it's mine, of course.

Governmares

A low-res test of Paint.NET. From left to right, Manearchy, Skytrot (Trotsky's name is clearly just a humanized pony name), and the Invisible Hoof.

Sept-Oct 2010 LD Topic

The September October topic isn't going to be debated again, so I don't need to be paranoid about posting my cases on the Internet. This case went 2-2 at the first tournament of the year. I could go into a rant about the 2 I lost, but I won't even though I really should have won one of them.
AFF

“Today every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or madness.”

-John F. Kennedy

“If the Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows.” -Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten Of Burma

Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

Definitions from the Random House Dictionary 2010

States: a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.

Ought: used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like

Possess: to have as belonging to one; have as property; own

Nuclear weapon: an explosive device whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei.

Value: Humanity, as in the human race and its values.

Criterion: Cosmopolitanism, as in, we need to rise above the needs of one nation and look at what is best for the world and its various civilizations.

Contention 1

One Leader, One Apocalypse

With the existence of nuclear weapons, world safety dramatically decreases. No matter how rational world leaders are, it takes only one with nuclear weapons to cause a nuclear apocalypse. Even if 99% of nuke possessing countries are trustworthy, it takes only 1% of nuclear countries to destroy human civilization. Whether they actually do all the destroying or they simply start a chain reaction, it is irrelevant. Statistically, this is going to happen eventually unless nuclear disarmament occurs. This principle applies to my entire case. We only need to have one nuclear war to end the world, one nuclear bomb to start a chain reaction, and only one lax guard or corrupt official to lose a bomb. It is far too perilous, and while it might not happen in our lifetime, it will doom our descendants and humanity.

Contention 2

Rogue Nuclear Weapons

Subpoint

a)      Terrorism-Not only can rogue leaders destroy civilization, but any random group that gets its hands on a nuke. While it might not end the world, these rogue organizations could destroy cities and kill millions. There are many terrorist organizations that would love to do so, as well as many unsecure or missing nuclear material, such as in the former Soviet Union. Corruption or lax security could put a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, extremists, or a random insane person. “It took only two nuclear bombs to get Japan to surrender-- and the Japanese of that era were far tougher than most Americans today. Just one bomb-- dropped on New York, Chicago or Los Angeles-- might be enough to get us to surrender."- economist and prolific author Thomas Sowell  Known nuclear missile break-ins have occurred in both South Africa and Belgium.

b)      Defense Unreliability- Our defense systems are highly unreliable. Both ICBM defenses and dirty bomb detectors lack high reliability. On our ICBM missile defenses, “The failure of the latest test in July suggests that any NMD umbrella will have gaping holes - assuming the umbrella can be made to open at all. Where nuclear weapons are concerned, 70 or 80 per cent protection is not enough. If the shield is not 100 per cent effective, forget it. Add to this Russian and Chinese threats of a massive new arms build-up if NMD goes ahead, and the drawbacks of the scheme would seem to outweigh any conceivable advantage.”- The Independent (08). The dirty bomb detectors around our borders aren’t much better, having a measly 17-53 percent.

c)      Hackers-Another danger is hackers. Internet warfare is along these same lines, and hackers have previously broken into critical government systems. If an unstable, suicidal or criminally insane individual were to hack into the nuclear launch protocol, they could remotely trigger multiple nuclear launches and destroy humanity. “A computer worm called Stuxnet has crippled parts of the Iran nuclear programme. DNA : Daily News & Analysis. Mumbai: Oct 05, 2010.

Contention 3

Nuclear Volatility

Nuclear weapons are volatile and cruel weapons. They desolate an entire landscape, from buildings to the smallest of rodents. Any area that is exposed to a nuclear blast becomes unsafe for any life except for radioresistant extremophiles. Nuclear blasts release electro-magnetic pulses that if released in midair, could destroy technology across the globe, and on ground, damage electronics for shorter ranges. They also kill mostly civilian targets along with the military targets because of the scale of these weapons. Those who survive the blast can suffer from mutations, cancer, and birth defects. These weapons are inhumane. This is clearly in violation of everyone’s inalienable rights against cruel and unusual punishment.

For this multitude of reasons, I can only see an affirmative ballot, supporting nuclear disarmament, for the sake of ours and future generations.

Neg

“So in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation blithely to declare yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil.”

-Ronald Reagan

‘The emotional security and political stability in this country entitle us to be a nuclear power.”

-Sir Ronald Mason

Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

Definitions from the Random House Dictionary 2010

States: a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.

Ought: used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like

Possess: to have as belonging to one; have as property; own

Nuclear weapon: an explosive device whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei.

Value: Safety, as in overall wellbeing for people.

Criterion: Realism, as in viewing the world as things really are, not through an idealist view, and through realism, we can see that greater safety will be achieved by the possession of nuclear weapons.

Contention 1

Nuclear Deterrence

The possession of nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent against those who would otherwise attack or use nuclear weapons on countries that possess them. It was the 2-sided nuclear deterrence between the USSR and the US that prevented the Cold War, which rivalry would have occurred with or without nuclear weapons, from becoming the hottest war in history. In the end, it serves a peacekeeping purpose in the same way building a fortress or possessing military weapons discourages attack (as long as significant provocation doesn’t occur). For safety to be maintained, we cannot become a red-painted target for nuclear weapons by not being able to threaten nuclear retaliation. Whether we would actually do it is unimportant, because it simply prevents them from being used in the first place. Other countries depend on the U.S. nuclear deterrence as well, such as Japan.

Contention 2

Nuclear Weapons Can Save Lives

While this may sound singularly irregular, nuclear weapons actually have the power to save lives in some circumstances. 100% of all nuclear weapon use in war has saved lives. While everyone remembers Nagasaki and Hiroshima as an atrocity, the alternative was infinitely worse. The casualty projections for the United States alone were 1 million. The majority of Japan’s population was expected to fight and die against the Americans. These losses would have been colossal, even compared to the high amount deaths from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. While about 300,000 died from nuclear weapons, that is nothing compared to the death of the population of Japan and at least one million Americans. In this case, nuclear weapons served as an alternative to a much more threatening scenario.

Contention 3

Other Uses

Everyone likes to recycle. Even if they’re not into the green movement, recycling is undeniably a good thing. There are other things nuclear weapons are good for. One example is shown in astronomy. The doomsday scenario of a meteor or comet is one of these. According to some scientists, nuclear weapons would be the best way to stop a NEO or a Near-Earth Object. NEOs can cause significant devastation but are very difficult to detect or stop. Nuclear weapons are a faster method of destroying these monstrosities than any other known method. In addition, it is the only option close to modern technology.

Because of these cumulative reasons, namely, nuclear deterrence, its power as an alternative to worse things, and the scientific potential, you must see that the Negative is right and should thus be voted for. Based on a realistic view of the world, safety is best preserved by the existence of nuclear weapons.

That Arizona Law

That's right, I'm talking about THAT Arizona law. Yea, that one. Not that one.

Being unspecific aside, I'm talking about that Arizona Immigration Law.

For one, everyone seems to think it's ridiculous and unjust. Well, it's not.

For one, you have to already been guilty of another crime to have your identity checked. As in, if you don't commit another crime, the law doesn't affect you. Don't commit any crime in the first place and you're good.
Since when was crime so expected?

Two, boo hoo, you have to have another tiny slip of paper in your wallet. Big deal. Carrying your papers around is not a big deal. You already have to carry your ID and your driver's licence. Police can already ask for your ID with due cause, so this is really no big deal.

Making illegal immigration illegal. This is such a bad thing for a law to do (roll eyes 1080 degrees with disgusted look). Doing the obvious. It's about time police can check if you're here illegally. How else are people supposed to find illegal immigrants if they're not allowed to ask if they're illegal?

Finally, of course this ought to be treated more like a crime than the current administration would like it. It's a crime not to have health care, but not to cross the border and steal a Social Security number to work? Drop dead no!

As a side note, I find it funny how Obama condones Arizona for this law when he has done nothing concerning illegal immigration except propose that they get off scotch-free. It does not matter what the doubters, the critics, the press, the people say when they have never done it themselves. The do-er is the one acting, don't criticize when you won't act yourself!

So, good job Arizona for finally doing something!

As a last side note, the whole amnesty for illegals thing is dumb. While being an illegal immigrant isn't a crime in most places (illogically), it ought to be. So, following this obvious train of thought, amnesty for illegals is a clear violation of the Rule of Law. For those of you who don't know what it is (which I am severely disappointed in you for, as it's and American principle and is critical for the survival of society, as well as boringly easy to understand), the Rule of Law simply means, no one is above the law. The law applies to everyone. That is why people like the President and Michael Jackson (Spew Policy-Style) are able to be taken into court, unlike the kings of old, exempt from every crime. So, if all of the people who illegally enter the US are cleared of their crime, that means they will never be punished for the crimes they have committed. They have been placed above the law. Why not give amnesty to murderers, thieves, and so on?

As a final note ,no, I don't have anything against Mexicans. I have something against the corrupt Mexican government, but I simply hate corruption in general. As a matter of fact, my dad served his LDS mission there. Le gusta mucho hablar espanol. (Con un tilde encima de n). I have even taken Spanish classes! It is simply that there is an illegal immigration problem that needs fixing.

A Very Good Question

Why is the conservation movement not conservative?

There's a 2-letter difference. It's weird. No real significance, but it doesn't make sense.

Socialists

Digression of society is rampant. Society is decaying, especially with the help of the media. Here is a quote from a CNN article that took up the greater part of the website's headlines.

"Not all socialists, though, want to confiscate personal property. Democratic Socialists are more interested in protecting ordinary people from unregulated capitalism through regulation and progressive taxation."

It would be fine if they were simply representing the views of socialists (freedom of speech- even if their ideas don't deserve it), but the language does not indicate that. It states it like it's a fact. It should be phrased more like this:

Democratic Socialists believe that the government should protect ordinary people from what they call unrestrained capitalism through progressive taxation and regulation.

They do it with religion (which is far more accurate) but not a political view. Quite hypocritical.

"protecting ordinary people from unregulated capitalism." Capitalism is unregulated by nature. It's called free market for a reason.
Since when was taking money and prohibiting non-dangerous acts protection? Let alone from a mythical threat like unregulated capitalism (meaning it is not a threat), how does this protect in any way?

And so, society crumbles.

Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/14/Obama.socialist/index.html?hpt=C1

Socialist Health Care- The United States Suicide Pact

The new health care bill passed in the House about five minutes ago (when I started writing) is a literal suicide pact for many political careers (fortunately) and the entire United States.



To start my voluminous entry of well-reasoned malcontent, I'll start with a joke.



When Obama plays Call of Duty, he uses the noob tube.



(I don't actually play any rated M games like CoD, but I still know a bit of the lingo)



This joke is a reference to Obama's utter lack of experience which gives him no right to be determining issues like this.



He is utterly inexperienced, as before becoming Senator from Illinois (a very inattentive one who rarely showed up for anything), he was a simple community organizer and a law school professor who largely skipped any actual practice. He has had utterly no experience in anything relevant to health care, economics, defence, and anything that would give him any skills as President. Not only is he unqualified to understand health care, he is absolutely unsuitable as a President, having little relevant skill from being a lax politician, a lawyer in theory, and a community organizer.



Adressing the suicide pact of political careers, this (if the public remembers this by November, people in America have short political memories) will most likely eliminate most Democrats' chances of reelection, at least the ones who voted for health care. It is quite obvious that the public is not especially fond of this bill, anyone who says otherwise ought to watch something other than CNN (or Communist News Network as some of my family says, and is much more accurate than Cable News Network). Their support of this demonic bill will likely cause massive public outrage that will leave these Democrats devoid of office. This optimistically will lead to a Republican government by December.



Hopefully, not all of these Democrats were actually corrupt enough as to vote for this bill, as Obama used a bit of threatening that hasn't received much attention. Obama, being the head of the Democratic Party, threatened any Democrat that votes no would receive no funding, support, etcetera from the Democratic Party in November. If my last paragraph is right however, they'll lose anyway. Obama wants compliments for his persistence, but compared to presidents like Reagan, who stuck to their guns to win respect, Obama drew his guns and cocked them.



Moving on to the actual bill, this is an insult and a power play.



One of the provisions that takes effect within 6 monthes is an outright attack on marriage. It states that any child can stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 when unemployed. However, if I have this right, this does not extend to anyone who is married, since they are no longer a child and actually have a family and are the parents now. That means, if you're married and jobless, you can't get insurance where singles can. This will lead to people not marrying at all, or even living with each other before marriage, a barbaric act of primitive cultures.



There is also a provision in the bill that has nothing to do with health care but is included anyway. It gives the government the power to control student loans. This, as will be explained, allows Obama and his government to control what universities teach. All he has to do is minimize student loans allowed to a university he doesn't like and they'll run out of students. So, if they don't teach what he wants, he prevents student loans from getting to the university's students, and the university succumbs to his wishes or dies.



This is also a destruction of liberty. Every working American is required to buy health care, or they pay a fine. They can't choose. Or, this can be abused. They, if they choose the fine, which is cheaper than the coverage, still go to the hospital for injuries, sickness, etcetera. But the procedures still have to be paid for, and who pays for it? Those who actually pay their taxes and sign up for the health care.



It pays for the lazy with the funds of the hard-working. Those who get a higher education and thus receive more money in life now have to pay more for those who didn't work for a higher education. So, if you spend 8 years in law school to become a rich lawyer, you now get to pay for high-school dropouts who didn't care at all about their future and have been mooching off of welfare.



This also has devastating effects on seniors and disabled people, basically those who need health care most. To pay for the plan, Medicare and Medicaid are receiving cuts, that which pays for the 2 groups of people who need it most. This is pure folly.



Our taxpayers' dollars are now going to abortion now as well. Sure, Obama imposed an executive order to ban abortion funding in the bill, but there is a thing about executive orders that make this worthless. Executive orders only apply as long as the president wants them, so all Obama has to do now is wave his hand, and we'll pay for the abortion of an irresponsible teenager who won't take responsibility for their actions and kill an innocent child who hasn't even gotten a single breath of air or a glimpse of happiness, an entire life of potential wasted.



It isn't rightfully in the government's power, either.

The Tenth Ammendment states that any power not given to the government by the Constitution are to be delegated by the state. If a state wanted socialist health care, they would have voted on it themselves and it would only effect the one state that wanted it, not every single state. Massachussetts has done this already, so if the state wants it enough, they'll do it.

It is democratic only in the legal sense, not a realistic sense.

Only one political mindset voted for it, namely Liberals. Every other political mindset which make up at least 50%, namely Conservatism and such, didn't vote for the bill. 50% and quite possibly, probably in my opinion, more of the American public are not represented in this bill.

I would like to continue, but there is too much to remember and I lost the list I made of problems I knew about (there being surely more that I didn't know about, it is a 3,000 page bill, after all), so I am going to end right about now.

Not really. I have this left to say: Democrats=Bad^Manipulation+Nastiness(Communism)-thePeople(TheConstitution+CommonSense+Sanity), and don't vote for them in November.