The Daily Skunk

Authors should not get emails when comments are posted to one of their articles anymore.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” — Bertrand Russell

As I walked through the mall today in a Post-Christmas frenzy, I got extremely worried about the future of art and free thought. To me, creating art (music, poetry, essays, drawing, etc.) is an expression of independent thought. As I stumbled through throngs of teenagers returning various gifts, I wondered how any sort of free thought could exist in this day and age. It was like MTV ate too much Christmas ham and vomited inside of this particular mall. Every kid looked the same, wore the same clothes, had their hair styled in one of 5 various “in” styles, and wore their hats in the same positions. Unfortunately, youth culture is for sale.

I don’t blame the kids of today: God knows things were the same when I was in high school. However, it seems like even the “alternative” styles are all the rage nowadays. My disgust isn’t even with pop music or pop culture. Like I said, the “alternative” is now in style as well. My question is: Why and how did this become the norm?

It seems that MTV has co-opted youth culture. Anything that they say is stylish automatically becomes the thing to be. Maybe thinking for one’s self comes later in life. I pride myself on being part of a culture that rewards those who are unique or who live their lives to create something wonderful.

The underground music scene is a hotbed of free thought and expression. This is where a lot of my values come from. In the underground music scene, do-it-yourself ethics are highly valued. Occasionally, a band will be scooped up from the underground and find its way into the limelight. For every band like Hawthorne Heights, there are a thousand other bands like Circle Takes the Square or Hot Water Music that are working every day to make art in its truest form. It is possible to make a very good living doing music without being on a major label or being on MTV. The sad thing part about all this is that kids who think they are being a rebel by listening to Hawthorne Heights or Avenged Sevenfold are really just buying into the machine. In 5 years, no one will care who these guys are because a new flavor of the month will come along and shove them to the side. The bands that actually make music for music’s sake WILL be remembered.

I guess my wish is for everyone to realize this and not listen to what MTV shoves down our collective throats. No matter what your personal music tastes are, you have to realize that there are 500 bands out there that you may never have heard of because they aren’t on MTV. If you are a fan of light, sweeping rock, a band like Neutral Milk Hotel or The Decemberists may amaze you. If you like country or folk music, there are people like Ramblin’ Jack Elliot, Hank Williams III, or William Elliot Whitmore who are making some very honest, down-to-earth music. If you like hard rock, bands like The Draft or Circle Takes the Square are out there, you just need to look for them.

I am not sure what the point to all this was, maybe just my rambling frustrations from spending 3 hours at the mall. Youth is being bought and sold and it is unfortunate that they can’t stop and listen. I have had people tell me that they don’t listen to independent music because if it was any good, it would be on the radio or MTV. This is sadly not the case. My plea to the readers of the Skunk is to take a serious look at what you listen to and to what you do and try to find the real alternatives. Be a champion for independent thought and be a champion for real art.

So, apparently it’s final.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_s_sentence

Saddam’s a dead man. He’s going to hang within 30 days. Too bad for him and lucky for the middle east he didn’t have OJ’s dream team defending him.

I have many thoughts on this ranging from why the world didn’t step up years ago and bring him to trial for the things he was found guilty of to how much the rope that hangs Saddam would go for on ebay?

I find it very interesting that there were three defense lawyers and a witness murdered during the course of the trials 39 sessions, and I wonder who and what was behind these murders. I guess I would have expected people from the offense to be murdered.

Who was the murdered witness, and what about the lawyers made it worth killing them? It seems to me that Saddam was dead to rights the day he was captured and there was nothing any man could do to save him. Killing the defense lawyers seems pretty pointless. I don’t remember hearing anything about these (I’m not suggesting that it wasn’t in the news, I was just unaware of it).

Anyway, thoughts and comments on this would be appreciated.

William

Disclaimer - warriorzerosix holds no political views to heart, he either agrees or disagrees with whoever runs the country on whatever issues their pimping this week. Furthermore, for the purposes of this article, he acknowledges he is NOT a parent, and that parents are a very special breed of people, one that his high powered mutant ass was never considered for. These social reforms are only ideas rattling around in his head, faithfully submitted to The Skunk for the purpose inciting thought, riots, bowel discomfort, or accordance or laughter or whatever. He doesn’t direct comments toward his critics, but will answer any questions asked. To put it another way, if at any time you, the reader feels offended, or frightened, please, for your own safety and sanity, don’t finish reading. After all, Freedom of Speech is scary stuff…

In American society today, one must possess a documented license or be legally licensed (e.g. by age) for many things and to perform many tasks. Although many people think license such as the age of legal consumption of our last remaining recreational drugs might as well disappear, I propose the addition of a new type of license. A Birth License. Yes, piece of paper allowing a responsible couple to make the most important decision of another being’s life. The reason I make this suggestion is my growing intolerance toward people who irresponsibly procreate and then leave the welfare of the child, and not to mention in many cases, themselves, in the hands of society. Not to mention, the growing population of children who come from broken homes, children who would rather turn to their friends or televisions rather than their parents, and children who must live though a rearing by irresponsible, or worse, uncaring parents.

Why would this be a bad idea? Responsible parents plan to have children, not by spur of the moment, “let’s make a baby” impulse decisions, but though a process of questions. Are we ready? Can we provide a safe, stable environment? Can we provide a child with a chance to grow into someone capable of living the dream of doing whatever they want to do with their lives? Responsible people who can consciously answer these questions shouldn’t have a problem if the powers that be check their answers. All adding a piece of paper to the process would do is give an added, and unneeded, incentive to responsible people for their choice to procreate.

Who would be qualified? Obviously not people living under the label “Welfare Queen”. The true answer to this question would have to, like driver’s licensing, come from a test. Lets get to know people who want children. The fact that they would submit to such a test would at least demonstrate in some way they have a desire have kids, not like it’s a spur of the moment decision. Of course there would have to be some appropriate financial background for the parents, some test of relationship longevity, and perhaps some drug testing, and other tests of stability. In a sense, this test could be similar to combination loan application and life insurance application. Face it, the child is loaning the first 18 years (at least) of his or her life to these people, and the people responsible for the child are responsible for its health and safety.

As in any government program, some cases involving extenuating circumstances should be given some consideration. What about the ordinarily responsible people who forget the birth control for a night of raucous and reckless fun? Of course, an emergency application process should be in line to help this group. At this point, it would be safe to say, that hospitals, clinics, and planned parenthood places would have to actively engage in some third party policing in these situations, but for a few government dollars, it probably wouldn’t be too difficult.

American society could benefit from such a program in multiple ways. One, it could help to weed out unfit parents. Of course I accept the fact that many cases will slip though the cracks in this program as in any other, but when the possibility of help exists, isn’t it worth a try? The right-wing of society would appreciate the fact that in the extenuating circumstance that an unfit couple became pregnant, the mother could be forced to carry to term - safely and securely - under punishment of the law. At the same time the left would be satisfied that in the same cases, a welfare like program would have to be implanted for the unborn, to help assure the safe delivery of a person who didn’t get to choose their path. Both sides would be happy that these children of unfit parents would be given to adoptive parents (those who qualify for license but do not qualify biologically) who can raise the children in a healthy, growth nurturing environment. Furthermore, less children would be forced to live as children of unstable parents, which could have an effect on crime rates, as less children would be raised in an environment prone to crime.

As I said before, this is only an idea - a crazy one at best, with holes in it. But I think that it, along with some other crazy social reforms I plan to relay to The Skunk for scrutiny could benefit our great American society.

If Allan Iverson is the “answer” then the NBA is in trouble. Not sure how many sports finatics we have in this love covenant but I just felt the urge to express my thoughts on an organization that once deemed to be prestine. In my opinion, the National Basketball Association is on the verge of becoming the next NHL in the world of sports. Commish David Stern may have been brilliant by bringing the NBA global but at the same time he is losing interest here in the US, where the games are actually played. Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, said it best that the league is not fairing well this season in the early going in terms of interest in US. When you think about it, you know they must be struggling to get headlines when the only thing you hear about is when Allen Iverson will arrive with his new team. Pretty sure I will have to rinse the vomit out of my mouth if I hear about it anymore. Oh and breaking news, another brawl. Good lord, the players of today are simply egotistical timebombs that only care about their own wellbeing. It’s sad to see to me, a game I once really enjoyed watching falling so far. I may be old school (Jordan era) but, I think i’ll pass on Mr. Stern’s new global game.

The appropriate way to start this article is a quote by Winton Churchill when he said “The farther you look into the past the farther you can see into the future.”  This quote obviously means that he like me and history proves is that history repeats itself and we are not smart enought to realize that.  We meaning the government and the American people.  The American people have had the blinders put on them like horses so they will stay the course and not see what is happenning around them.  The current congress meaning both the House of Reps and the Senate are more worried about linning their pockeckts, pointing fingers, and getting re-elected.  They are not taking care of the country.  Instead of pointing fingers they should sit down like honorable men and women and say how do we fix this problem?  Why is social security going to be obsolete by 2021?  It would not have to be this way is Congress were doing it’s job.

Now to the real point of this posting and that is that America’s middle class is slowly disapperaing and history shows that the best countries as far as economy and prosperity are the ones with the largest middle class. Currently the salaries of the middle class including their “raises” are not keeping up with inflation.  This means that most of the middle class is thinking they are making more money but in actuality they are making less as each year passes. The banks approve loans that they know these people cannot afford but they know that the people will cut other things out of their lives to pay the bank and so the bank owns them.  Another interesting detail is that over the past few years corporation’s taxes have decereased while the American taxpayer (who is making less money each year) have increseased.  What message does this send?  Also Ceo bonuses are at an all time high while the workers are not making enough money to keep up with inflation.  I could write fifteen pages about this but this post has to be limited.  At the current rate of the economy and the fact that the average savings of Americans is in the negative and our national deficit is at an all time high this should alarm everyone.  Yet because of the blinders people don’t see it.  If this trend continues the US will go through a terrible depression in the next five to ten years.  Please prepare yourselves and start saving movey instead of letting the bank own you.  Since the Congrees recently changed the bankrupcy laws those who are owned by the bank will not be able to declare bankrupcy and will lose everything.

In this great country of ours the people think they deserve a higher standard of living than they can afford.  So they go to the bank and the bank knows they can’t afford the loan but they approve so that they own you.  Think about if you really need a new or expensive car or larger honme.  Don’t let the bank own you because when it all goes down you will be left with nothing because the bank will repossess everything.  Do yourself a favor and start saving for the future instead of spending now and living above your means.  What does a new car or a bigger house than you can afford really mean?  Please don’t let the bank own you and start saving.  Also remove your blinders and see that the current government is not for the people they are only for themselves.

You may have heard about it before, but I think it is important so I figured I’d write something about it to try to make it easy to understand.

First, check out this comercial on Net Neutrality from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association

Sounds like net neutrality is gonna cost us a lot more money and big business will get more of that deal. surely that is something we can all get behind, net neutrality is bad. Don’t let this happen to us.

Well the fact is that we do have net neutrality right now, but what exactly is Net Neutrality? When you ask your web browser for a website, that request goes thru computers at your ISP, and then on to other computers where the site actually exists. As you are requesting websites, so are millions of other people, at the very same second that you are. With net neutrality (what we have today) those requests have no priority over other requests. The ISP cannot give bandwidth priority to google over The Daily Skunk, or any other website.

Now assume net neutrality is done away with (like several republican representatives would like). Now your ISP has the right to give priority to requests that go to a Yahoo website over requests that go to a Google website. Why would they want to do that? Maybe Yahoo pays them to do it. Or a likely situation is an ISP may decide that they just don’t want to use the bandwidth for users to watch streaming video, so they block or just severly restrict access to YouTube or other video sharing sites. Basically it lets someone else decide what you see and what you don’t see.

Now check out this video that tries to explain Net Neutrality in a simple way for anyone to understand. Notice the difference, one tries to explain it, one tries to confuse and scare you.

And for more information read the Wikipedia article on Net Neutrality if you want, or Google’s net neutrality guide.

You will hear the argument that doing away with net neutraility will save you some money, and that might be true. Without net neutrality ISP’s could charge content providers for priority, which could potentially lead to them passing on savings to us, the consumers. but why would they lower our prices, really? If I wanted to pay less for a filtered, censored internet, I’d move to china.

Save The Internet

“If your response is indicative of what you have to offer this site, or humanity, I politely suggest that you snack on buckshot, a la Cobain, or simply return to the Star Trek blogs.”

-oddnoteccenteric

That’s all, I just think this is hilarious.  I will repost this many times throughout the skunks existence.

William

After reading the article “Why America Protects Flag Burning” I immediately wrote two comments about my thoughts on the matter. I didn’t even give it much thought, the words just spilled out. I look back at the first one, and after much thought on the matter, I wonder where that really came from.

Why would I take flag burning as an assault on what that flag represents to me? Why should I care if a person wants to express themselves in such a way, that really is causing no harm to me or anyone else? And besides that, what does the flag really mean to me?

I came to the realization that a lot of what I wrote is what I thought I believed. I guess my respect for the flag is a respect that has been handed down and procured from others.

What the flag actually represents to me is a respect for family and friends who have served in the military, those who have died serving (see my exclusions in “why america protects flag burning” comments) our country and the world, and a respect for the actual country itself (not the government) and thats about it.

So, where am I going with this?

These thoughts bring me back to my post on Libertarianism and individual rights, my post on labels like “The Axis of Evil” - that the US political figures make statements like this and act as though the entire population of our country supports them.

As I continued reading about some of these things I stumbled upon anarchy, and I think there is some merit within – when practiced in a peaceful way. Would any reader of the skunk disagree with this quote on the ideals of anarchism? “[A]n anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid and self-governance”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

I know that it sounds really good on paper, and I know that there would most likely be problems within the application – at least by most present day Americans, but what would our world be like today if we were living this way?

P.S. I consider myself a Libertarian in case any of you are wondering.

William