Monkey Warfare

I for one, see nothing wrong with what is often called "dirty fighting." Detractors, whom use this and similar terms are implying that fighting is not already a dirty, and sometimes (actually most of the time) a barbaric action. To distinguish from "normal" fighting, tactics include biting, kicking your opponent intensely and squarely in the nads, hitting them with a foreign object (of course non deadly when confronted with non-deadly force, and deadly when confronted with deadly force, as standard self-defense rules teach), amongst several others. The detractors to such styles of fighting apparently feel that this causes a disadvantage. But, what they really mean is "how dare you use tactics to defeat me outside of the usual ways in which I can be victorious?!" Of course, they frown upon biting (of course it is also disgusting) because it HURTS or being kicked right in the pills, because that KILLS (as of course all males find out at some, unfortunate point in their life). Well, getting punched in the face and chest is no walk in the park my friends. There are always disadvantages in fights that go unnoticed (to a certain extent) such as strength, muscles, weight, height, etc. Why don’t we ask a fighter to chop off some of his muscles, so he is equally proportioned with his opponent, but no we don’t approve of that. We do however see kicking the opponent in the balls as “cowardly” and “dirty.” Well, these are simply means of self-defense, just like punching and kicking (which can and should be utilized as well). Means that some of us, weaker (in terms of strength, psychologically we’re like those bad asses in 300) brothers and sisters need to use to meet the opponent’s violence, and successfully inflict enough pain to win, or get out of the situation. And, isn’t that the point anyway, to hurt your foe and win? THERE SHOULD BE NO OTHER CRITERIA. And of course the oppressors’ arguments flesh out to the big world as well: “Look, at those savage Iraqis, protecting their homes with their guns and pipe bombs (I don’t even know if they use these!); we use more rational, aerial bombing, but don’t worry it’s not like there’s innocent kids down there, we checked from miles and miles above…..” Well, now you know that “dirty fighting” is a means of self-defense, which hopefully YOU NEVER HAVE TO USE! Peace. - Prankster Propaganda

What's In A Greater Society?

I'm not going to bash liberal politics à la Ann Coulter. That's just stupid and gives a bad name to neoconservatives (if they didn't already deserve such). I'm probably repeating what's already been repeated, but I feel now more than ever is perfect to bring up the idealistic policies of the left. First, we are all people. We all basically want the same things: happiness, success, and good health. As individuals of the greater society, we must call to attention our brothers and sisters' needs. Liberals like the government, which is merely a collaborative confluence of elitist thought, to address society's needs. There is no need to have such a body to make decisions for the people. For the most part, we all are equipped with a brain and the ability to reason what is right and what is wrong. Giving government oversight of such issues like climate change, taxes, and education only creates a mess. By letting the government (again just a bunch of people like you and me) get involved, we are entrusting it with way too much power and affluence than it really deserves. What can it do that you and I can't do? Liberals today, much like their conservative counterparts, want to accomplish some kind of agenda. That agenda doesn't reflect what the majority wants. Thus, I propose that the individual, without any legislative body, make his own laws as he sees fit as long as nobody is emotionally, physically, or intangibly hurt. Man's law may come from a higher power like God or nature. That way, no man may exercise more "legitimate" power over another man. We are therefore all inheritantly equal. Poverty musn't be cleansed via government programs (foodstamps, welfare, etc), but rather by the generous nature of man working towards the common good. Irresponsible businesses, for example, will fail naturally because man, using his good social sense, refuses to patronize. I'm not proposing an anarchy. I'm just proposing a greater society. Man must first examine his conscience and realize that he must make decisions for himself that extend to the macrocosm of humanity, which, in turn, promotes the betterment of everyone. Being religious, I tend to believe that this is fulfilling the new law. I haven't worked out all the kinks and surely I admit that this is merely a scribbling, not a manifesto. A lot of my ideas, at least to the sociologist, might sound familiar. That's because I haven't come up with a revolutionary proposal by any means --- just a vision. And remember, most everything starts out as a vision.

Quick Reminder For Christmas Music Stations

Advent begins on Sunday, November 30. Kthxbye.

A New Point of View

When I started to write in my English and History classes, I recognized that I was writing a mediocre and very confusing paper. Mr. Metropolis encouraged me to write very straight forward and simple essay. I will try to do that from now on.
The reason why I am writing this post is to make everyone alert about the fact that even if your essays and papers look very sophisticated, it does not mean it is "A" quality. The main "theme" of a "A" quality paper is wealth of knowledge and the understanding of the materials learned in class. That does not mean you have to include words that require a dictionary to understand.
What I have learned from my high school learning is that the more straight forward and cleaner it is, the better the essay. This is not always the case, but generally, it is the best way to write one.
Although I do have a handicap of some sort (because English is not my first language), I still try to get rid of that handicap to be treated like everyone else in the school, grade-wise.
You can probably consider this a informative rant. I am trying to let everyone in the Etudiant as well as the people who read the Etudiant to understand the true meaning of a well thought out essay.
A paper may contain 40 pages worth of information, but if they are out of order and very hard to read. Such as Walden... (no offense to anyone who enjoyed and understood the book) No one will understand, fully, of the meanings.
Now, if a paper had 20 pages worth of information, and it was well thought out and planned accordingly. The paper will probably be easier to read and much more straight forward. This does not mean it has to so straight forward that it punches you in the face. It means that it has to be clear enough for the reader to get a glimpse of what you are saying without thinking twice.

By the way, if I make any grammatical errors, punctuation errors, or any kind of a English error in any of my writing. Please notify me in the Comments. I will be glad to know what errors I have made and will take no offense to any helpful comments. It is because I am still learning about the English writing style and want to improve. If anyone reading my posts sees any error, please feel free to comment. Thank you :).