Citizen Field'sPolitical Cookies
CitizenField
read my profile
sign my guestbook

Visit CitizenField's Xanga Site!

Name: Citizen
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
Gender: Male


Interests: Politics
Expertise: Global Politics
Occupation: Other


Message: message me


Member Since: 2/6/2005

SubscriptionsSites I Read

Groups Blogrings
Aspiring Young Entrepreneurs
previous - random - next

Young Professionals
previous - random - next

A Liberal Voice
previous - random - next

Politics, Religion, and Philosophy
previous - random - next

! Support Our Troops !
previous - random - next

Feminism Is The Radical Idea That Women Are People
previous - random - next

College Republicans
previous - random - next

Democrat's Den
previous - random - next


Posting Calendar

|<< oldest | newest >>|
view all weblog archives

Get Involved!

Suggest a link

Recommend to friend

Create a site


Monday, July 31, 2006

Welcome to another Politics Season and another Citizen Field season!

CITIZEN FIELD's  Political Cookies!

New Topic:  "Why I Defend America" is pretty active and getting some good conversation!

Visit.  Now!  (No passwords or registration required!  Just good debate! =)

[Field]


Monday, December 26, 2005


Happy Holidays and Merry New Year, folks!

Big News:  Citizen Field's Political Cookies is Back Online.  =]

.. This time in a xanga-based FORUM format!  Join here:

CITIZEN FIELD's  Political Cookies!

Come join the debate, live, with your fellow xangans!

At first you think "No! I am watching my intake of current events calories!" But then.. THEN the aroma of freshly baked ideas draws you in.. you are strangely compelled. Finally, you can't resist

This is on-going and permanent folks.  Because a Forum is sustained by YOU, the users, and not me alone, this is the BEST way for us Xangans to keep in debate or kindly present our views!  *Edit:  About 10 members already, and we've just started!  Awesome.  (Register with your Xanga Name =).

Field  o<I=o{D>


Monday, February 28, 2005


In Your Words: "I think of socialism as a forced charity, which may be unfair to the rich, but helps the greater good." -- ahobonamedsid


Topic 9:  Homer Sexuals!

      

"IMMORAL SCENES"

TEHRAN (Feb. 28) - Outraged by scenes of young boys and girls using Shi'ite Islam's most sacred mourning day as an opportunity to flirt in public, Iran's religious hardliners are calling on authorities to stamp out such "vulgar displays."

Failure to do so, some newspaper commentators said, would force pious citizens to take matters into their own hands.

"Let the officials realize that the heroic and passionate people of Iran can easily deal with a handful of hoodlums and promiscuous elements that ridicule our sanctities," the hardline Jomhuri-ye Eslami daily said in an editorial last week.

The main focus of hardline anger was a gathering of several hundred youngsters at Mohseni square in affluent northern Tehran earlier this month on the night of Ashura.

Ashura is the day Shi'ites commemorate the death of Imam Hossein in a 680 AD battle which cemented the schism between Sunni and Shi'ite Islam. In Iran, where Shi'ite Islam is the official religion, it is supposed to be marked by mourning.

"In the sunset of Ashura, women and girls in tight clothes and transparent scarves and guys dressed in Western fashion lit candles while laughing their hearts out," said the Ya Lesarat weekly, mouthpiece of the feared Ansar-e Hizbollah hardline vigilante group, members of whom later dispersed the crowds.

Other newspapers printed pictures from the Mohseni square gathering, focusing on young girls wearing make-up, laughing and mingling freely with the opposite sex.

"In this disgraceful event which was like a large street party, women and girls ... as well as boys ... mocked Muslims' beliefs and sanctities in the most shameless manner," Jomhuri-ye Eslami said.

Public displays of affection between unrelated men and women are banned in Iran. Western dress, make-up and pop music are also frowned on by hardliners upon as signs of moral turpitude.......  ---- Associated Press

My Two Cents:  Does any of this sound familiar?  I posted this because it reminds me of the current (and ongoing) levels of anti-Homosexuality that occurs in the US.  My friend, John, who was a roommate of mine my freshman year of college was the greatest guy in the world.  Just a powerhouse of optimistism and charm, ready to love, forgive and cherish almost anything.  But his one negative side?  He was blatantly disgusted to the point of near outrage at the idea that a person's personal sin might be homosexuality -- even though he always recognized himself as a sinner (in general), as well.

President Bush, in secret tapes that were just released, has been quoted to say something along the lines of "I refuse to hate (or play hatred against) homosexuals.  I am a sinner and have no right to judge the sins of others."  WOW.  That was a paraphrase, but that is the exact meaning he conveyed, i assure (look up "secret tapes Bush friend" on google's news section, you will probably find what im talking about).  This is why Bush does not condemn homosexuality, he merely wishes to preserve marriage.  He does not hate or wish to seek violence or imprison homosexuals.

And yet, there is a facet of our society which does harbor ENOURMOUS hatred against people who have never done anything to them.  I mean that literally and factually, i am not juding here -- homosexuals (in general) have not done anything to those who harbor so much outrage these days and flap their mouths to the wind.

My Question:  Am i wrong?  Is not what is occuring in Iran very similar to the attitudes and ideas of those who persecute, harrass, or otherwise make the lives of homosexuals difficult in the United States?  If you can judge the Iranians to be "monsters" or "immoral" or "having poor judgement" or whatever in this regard, what does that say of that VERY LARGE portion of the US population which has similar to the same attitudes regarding homosexuals?  Do you remember the homosexual who was murdered because he was seen kissing in public?

Take care,

Field


Friday, February 25, 2005

Woohoo!  Thanks to Takuonishi, an easy topic:

Topic 8:  Socialism!

(It probably is best to talk about these basic things first, anyway.  So we can draw lines in the sand better, ready for good fights.  )

Questions:  So what do you think about Governments interfering in the private section, even (*gasp*) taking over control over large aspects of society?  What are your thoughts on Socialism?  Its critical to Law Enforcement and Military, but how far should it extend beyond that?  Are there other essential and moral uses of Socialism, such that not only tax moneys, but human capital and land, etc, etc, etc, can be taken, seized, demanded and used by the government?

In Your Words: "True, as years go on, there has been major technological advancement, but the idea of robots protecting you seems sketchy. Sure they can make robots with the ability to make life/death decisions, but can you really trust it?" -- ShweeDizzle

Field


Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Pre-Note: Alright guys, i really have been busy.  So listen up.. if anybody has a topic/post they would LIKE to be posted, please email it to me (side panel).  Your contributions will make this a much, much more interesting place!  I want -- no, i need -- your suggestions!  Thanks! 

Topic 7:  Rise of the Machines

The U.S. has authorized the building of a Robotic Army.  (diff. pics/article)

"Pentagon prepares to build £70bn robot army..  known as Future Combat Systems, is the largest military contract in American history and will help to drive the defence budget up by almost 20 per cent"
 
'More advanced machines which can decide whether to kill would also be legal, said Mr Johnson.  "The lawyers tell me there are no prohibitions against robots making life-or-death decisions," he said.'

'Gordon Johnson, of the US joint forces research centre, told the New York Times: "The American military will have these kinds of robots. It's not a question of 'if', it's a question of 'when'." The American military is already planning units of about 2,000 men and 150 robots, among them land-based "infantry" devices and drone aircraft.  In the far future it is hoped that the miniaturised robots will walk like humans, or hover like some birds. Others may look like insects.' 
 
'Once robotic technology is developed, the Americans say, the cost of a robot soldier might be only 10 per cent that of its human counterpart.'

The Questions:  Does taking humanity out of warfare on one side, make war more likely or less likely?  Does this cross the line into "unfair" or is it merely an extension of superior forces and technology?  What might the foreign relations problems be in developing a robotic army?  Is it right to allow these machines, and the next generation of them, to select -- on their own, using A.I. (artificial intelligence) -- targets to kill..?  What are your thoughts about this as the next step in human warfare?  Should such things be used to guard other aspects of the nation?  (border, banks, homes, etc)  Is there something to worry about in using these things and more advanced versions more and more?  Should/shouldn't the only concern be the safety of the troops?

In Your Words:  "uncriminalize it... but good luck with bush in office and his psuedo-christrian crusaders... but really, de-criminalize it. It's less dangerous than alcohol, and better for you than cigarettes, especially if it's from a bong where it is "filtered". -- dicepshon 

Field



Next 5 >>