The Agrinautica

And They're Off!
   We already have postings by xiositecte, ironlioninzion, bartgroks, beastmario, eazyt, and (sort of) pavel_lishin. Additionally, forrest441, alonemirage2see, witless_nerd, abunchofcrap and the uncorruptable blueliquid13 (and of course add emosnail to the list) have pledged, implied, or drunkenly cursed themselves to participate. And you should too!


   And now its time for a game of...
Guess My Political Affilitiation!!
   Once upon a time, the minutes from an ASUCD Internal Affairs Commission meeting were submitted as evidence for a (ASUCD) court case I was presiding over. While looking over the minutes I was rather shocked to see that also included in that section of the minutes was a discussion among all the commissioners as to whether or not I was a Republican.
   A few weeks later ASUCD President Sara Henry tried to get me recused from a court case based on, as she told the Aggie reporter, the fact that she believed I belonged to the Green Party (the case involved something the Davis Greens had been behind). I subsequently recused myself from the case because regaradless of whether or not the charge had grounds, I didn't want even the perception of shadiness.
   Aggie writer Ian Watson once wrote an entire article about how I'm a horrible Communist ... and was subsequently fired for plagiarism.
   And somewhere in the mean time I ran into then-Senator (ASUCD) Cohen-Cutler who casually started a conversation with me saying that he didn't agree with my politics. When asked what politics of mine he was referring to he responded confidently that he was referring to Libertarians.

   Obviously there is some prominant confusion on the subject of my political views. Confusion that is interesting enough to be discussed in meetings and newspapers. To help figure it out lets review some of the controversial political statements I've made.

1. Down with Farm Subsidies! Gov't should buy the surplus and ship it to starving people in Africa.
2. Up with Estate Tax!
3. Outlaw smoking (Gradually)!
4. IF one is concerned about the "sanctity of marriage," isn't DIVORCE a graver concern than same-sex marriage? I say let them get their divorces ... but no second marriages!
5. Progressive taxation for corporations!! The entry that single handedly caused roter_terror to add me to the "enemies of communism" list I think.
6. Military recruiters: what better place to have them than on college campuses? Also don't join up and then whine about having to actually fulfil your military duty.
7. November 2006 Election Issues: (7A) No unnecessary government seizures of private property -- even if the private property belongs to a big and probably-evil corporation. (7B) More cigarettes taxes! (to use market forces to compel the gradual elimination thereof) (7C) More gas taxes! (to use market forces to compel reduction of gas consumption) (7D) Environmental Protection (in some obscure way I didn't really understand, see entry)! (via "no" on Prop 90)

   Also I thought I'd note that for several months on Nationstates.net I ran the Dominion of Blehtahepdakorum as a "Psychotic Dictatorship," with no human rights, no civil rights, and the most stringent environmental protection possible. This of course is not necessarily how I'd run a real country ;)

[Poll #995568]

Related
   Entry 1 of 30 in 30 I   - I Discover 30 in 30 - and "megabloggery / underbloggery," on the 16th of June. I immediately embark on 30 in 15 to catch up.
   Entry 1 of 30 in 30 II  - "The Blogging Begins" - Season two begins with 17 posts by 9:30pm on the 1st. Five more would join the second day
   Entry 1 of 30 in 30 III - Real World Happenings - Party at blueliquid13's, and circular arguments in the internal affairs commission.


   In unrelated news, ASUCD Commissioners were apparently recently awarded the "Paul Harms Commissioner of Freedom Award" for excellent commissionerhood or something. IMHO, this reflects rather crassly on the primate.. especially considering I don't think he finished more than half a term as commissioner before getting fired from that position.
   Note that I'm still planning on naming the most infamous and most excellent ASUCD politicians later on here. I may even award some particularly heroic individuals The Order of Trogdor or some such.

   I still have way more than enough ideas for entries, but once again I lack the time. Which is unfortunate because some of the ones I have planned I really can't wait to get to. Anyway I'll have to make up for it this time by being even more controversial. Which is also in keeping with tradition since I did two political posts last year.


   So here's the thought. IF one were concerned about "the sanctity of marriage," it seems to me that divorce is much more of an abomination to the sanctity of marriage than say gay marriage. So people make dumb decisions and rashly get married to people they don't like early on, well then if one is going to allow them to divorce, don't let them get remarried. They can get a "registered domestic partnership" or whatever if they want the second time around, but they've blown their chance to have a divinely ordained marriage. Discuss.



Picture of the Day

This is a picture I took of my friend Oluwaseun Okusanya the other day, acting like a typical Davis student...

   So I woke up this morning filled with regret over somethign I'd done the night before. Filled with regrets and second-thoughts. And my internet access was down so I couldn't see how bad it was, but I had a feeling that I'd written a rash and overly saucy theological rant the night before. Anyway I finally got around to looking it (in the computer lab) and its not as bad as I'd feared, so I'm going to go ahead and make some more saucy comments.

   But first to reemphasize from last night, and on further contemplation since then, I think the single most underrated misunderstanding in the history of theology is whether or not it sounds like it would be a pleasant arrangement has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is theologically true.


   But now to cause controversy in another area. Military recruitment at universities. For the past two weeks or more the letters to the editor in the California Aggie have been filled with arguments back and forth on this subject. In particular I'd like to single todays letter by one Leah Sicat out for ridicule. Her thesis statement: "alternative information about the military is rarely provided to students. Usually the good side about the military, rather than its connection to war, is presented.   So, what does she want, a warning label similarly to the "caution: hot" found on coffee cups? Caution: military duty may involve war? I mean I try to think of the alternatives when someone argues against something and two occur to me on this subject: (1) as Sicat advocates, have them deliver a stern disclaimer to potential recruits, or (2) the more commonly advocated removal of them from universities. As to point one, I can hardly imagine it being anything other than just that, a stern warning that joining the military isn't a decision to be taken lightly and may bring the participant under hostile fire in a foreign war. I must say however, that I think they should already know that and it seems like a silly solution, though easily implemented if one feels its really prudent.
   And as to point two, this implies there are better places for recruiters to hang out ... like high schools?? If one's believes, as Licat and many others seem to, that military recruiters exploit those who don't see any other opportunities for themselves, it seems like this solution would have the opposite of the intended affect. In conclusion on this point, I think university students are probably much better prepared to intelligently consider the offers of military recruiters than potential other audiences, and more likely to have other opportunities and thus not be compelled to join through "lack of other opportunities."
   And for a grande finale of ruining my sensitivity credentials, two more bonus points. Firstly I'd like to note that Licat refers to herself and others as "students of colour" throughout her article, a term which I personally find racist as it describes persons of european descent as being "colourless" and inherently different from everyone else. But moreover, I'd like to mention the perpetual argument that people join the military for the "opportunities" and are then exploited when they are sent into military operations. There is one reason and one reason only people are paid to be in the military: to fight, or to be prepared to fight. During peace time, military personnel are maintained and paid beyond their necessity because they are being paid to be PREPARED to fight when needed. If one joins the military for the opportunities, but is not prepared to fight, one is being paid for something they are representing to have but in fact do not -- they are committing nothing short of fraud. The military is not a welfare organization whose purpose is simply to provide jobs.

   In other news, my little brother is currently on his second tour of duty in Iraq. Apparently he'd injured his hand before heading out there again, but didn't tell anyone lest it cause him not to be sent to Iraq. I must say that his courage and honest desire to fulfill his duties makes me very proud.

   I have just minutes to go before being shipped off to my least favourite place ever - the beach. ::shudder:: So my planned expose on why nibot (pictured here) is so very evil (as he bursts in here to sing "fruzly... fruzly...") will have to be put on hold momentarily.

   Instead I think I'll take up the political controversy mongering which has been a recent theme for many of the other participants in the 30 entries in 30 days thing. Again this is probably an even more exciting thing for this journal, as statements regarding American politics are NEVER made, nor does our protagonist ever express views in person on American politics.

   If I ever finish this what with nibot randomly bursting in every thirty seconds.


( CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS!! )