Laissez Faire attitude + modernism= Libertarianism

Well hello there fellow human being. *folds hands and crosses left leg over in her comfortable computer chair*. How do you do? How do I do? What do we both do with what we do on this fine dandy day? well right now what I am doing is telling you the fellow reader a story or rather rant based on an article found on some google searched news:

kudos for whoever made this lol

1,200 people paid close to 20 dollars to attend a "rally" at Webster Hall, a place here in NY where people usually go to for concerts, just to support a politician named Ron Paul. Now who is Ron Paul, you may ask, well he is a Republican politician running for president but is quite criticized to be a libertarian. Now why, you may ask again, well apparently he is all old school "constitutionalism" (woah now we are getting all Dr. Seuss-y here) meaning he wants the government to lay off and give the individual the right to defend itself. Sounds nice and dandy right. But wait...wouldn't that mean that in the situation that occurs in which somebody is lying on the floor dying, they don't have health insurance, the person has the "right" to die because he or she just doesn't have health insurance? Yes sir/madam, that is exactly an example of what libertarianism is really walking towards. Its not the rights of man entirely, its the rights of man for responsibility of thyself. Eff you if you just couldn't afford a health insurance package. Eff you if you couldn't get your job to pay you enough for the rent of that measly apartment that the government could easily help you pay so you can BUY other consumer products so the economy can grow a little bit. Yeah, we should really be basing our legislatures and laws on some straight up Darwinism, that we are just all animals striving for a rat race called survival of the fittest. Of course, when it comes down to it we cannot negate the obvious scientific body of our social anatomy: we are human beings, animals with reason, so yes we shall have responsibility for our actions but is it OK to deny a person the right to accept help? Shall we deny reaching out to grab that hand because we should "perfectly" know all the time to act in accordance with the "freedom" the government expects us to carry.
I honestly cannot say I would stand against or with this man. But I do know I honestly can't stand for libertarianism. I don't agree with the concept of not supplying government programs to people who are sadly are at the end of the stick but I don't agree either to baby a country that can gain the resources to pull themselves up from the gutter from their own home. It's been quite a bit of a hub-bub among those who watch these presidential political campaigns because of course, every politician has something to say in how they "think" or "believe" is correct for this country. Often, they contradict or make fools of themselves on a podium in front of thousands of people. And in turn, they become ridiculed by tv personnel like Jon Stewart. (Which for the record, I recommend watching the episode in which Jon Stewart interviews Ron Paul.). Now what can be my point is this rant besides not agreeing with what libertarianism might represent in this country, well I am looking to incite somebody to really get to know every politician in these presidential campaigns. PLEASE KNOW WHO YOU ARE VOTING FOR TO THE VERY BEST OF YOUR ABILITY. Please DON'T be lazy and not watch these debates because next thing you know, we might just have another loop of just crazy regretted negative concequences such as the ones supplied by the Bush administration.

Til next blog post folks,
Miss Bobo

To Death Penalty or No Death Penalty

(First of all I want to apologize for the irregularity of my blog posts. Of course, as many of you who are reading, I myself have a lot on my plate but nothing that can prevent me from writing to you. So onward with the show.)
Things nowadays are getting intense that right now I can't even start this blog post with something random/funny. I don't know if this is all over the news but recently a man by the name Troy Davis was executed after an intervention and what seems to me, a few hold ups in the case where he supposedly was accused of a crime he really didn't commit. Reading this article, I had so much in my head that I am going to share it with you here.

Troy and his mother

First of all, let me just say that I find the concept of the death penalty to be quite a contradiction in itself especially when it is bound by such important documents as The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that emphasize ideas like the right to "the pursuit of happiness" or the right to believe and say whatever you deem fit. People get trialed for committing murders but then get sentenced to be done the same act they are being punished for. To me that already sounds like a hypocritical concept. Why should a man or a woman get "executed" like an insect or an object for something they are already paying time for behind bars?

 What is even more bothersome to me is the fact that Troy Davis, a human being just like the rest of us was "executed" for a crime that was later found to NOT be his responsibility. I am not imagining this: the article says it:

          "Davis was executed for the 1989 murder of Mark MacPhail, who was working off duty as a security guard when he intervened to help a homeless person being attacked. Davis was implicated by another man, Sylvester Coles, present at the time. But since the trial seven of the key witnesses have come forward to say their evidence was wrong, and others have testified under oath that Coles was the killer."

 With such words as this, I come up with so many questions. Why do we allow things like this to happen? Why do people justify killing another person who very well might be like Travis: innocent?

I don't comprehend why people vote for politicians who support such hypocritical and destructive legislatures that in the end break apart families. It bothers me that many people read this and go along with their day not bothering to weigh in the fact that consequences to actions such as these can in turn affect their lives. Who knows, their brother, their mother, or even them can get caught in something that might not be exactly their fault. Unfortunately, they could be there at the wrong time and at the wrong moment and before you know it their life would be one step from being "executed." At the end of the day, it is you who decides whether the death penalty is correct, we both know what side I stand anyway. 

Til next blog post,

Miss Bobo

The Controversy Of A Little Ol' Plant

*bows and backflips* This week, or rather today, I chose to talk about weed. Yes, the famous plant that has created a bit controversy for inducing intoxication and all sorts of "fun" stuff that has placed it under the label of drugs. I googled weed just to see what would come up and I found this article/ piece of writing written by  Professor Arthur C. Gibson, sort of going a little deeper into the history and controversy of the plant. (If you are interested, check it out on this link. Although I do warn you its quite lengthy so prepare those eyes!). Either way it is interesting to know that not only is this plant called Cannabis sativa, but it was also used to make clothing in China back in B.C era. It was used to make fish nets, shoes, and even "writing materials." Reading this I can hardly believe it. And to top it all off the "hemp cloth" (cloth made by Cannabis sativa) was used for religious ceremonies. I am not kidding you, that is part of what I just read. There is also India with its god Siva, "Lord of Bhang" who according to the story, drank a concoction boiled with the leaves of the famous weed and mix it up with some " almonds, eight spices, rosebuds, milk, poppy seeds, and sugar." To sum it all up this plant has globally been a part of history and religion continuing to have a great part in the human existence. The problem surrounding this plant is that here in the USA, there is still quite a debate whether to legalize it or not. As many of you have heard, this plant is able to help cancer patients with things such as pain. However, there is also the situation of it being sold, mass produced, and consumed by the younger generation inducing the risk of opening a whole can of worms. There is this common fear that this plant will lead to a greater addiction to drugs and escape to life in general within not only in youth but in the rest of the people who consume it. But the way I see it the more you call on a fear the more it comes to you, eventually having to face that fear at some point. People have to realize if we are animals of reason, surely we can make better choices. Even if death is inevitable we still are allowed the strong will to face our secrets, fears, skeletons, and of course addictions. What can possibly make this plant worse than the pain killers/other pharmaceuticals that have in turn become someone's addiction? And I am sorry to say this, but I find it not too different from when prohibition was on and alcohol was banned, raising up the making of underground alcohol. Lets face it, legalized or not, this plant will continue to be cultivated, sold, and consumed some way or another.What do you think?