Adam J. Choit

I think a lot of people out there suffer a bit from being a self-hating American — and sadly, I can kind of understand why.

While many Americans really are great people, and as a country we’ve done many wonderful things, often it’s all overshadowed by our flaws.  In addition to our history of questionable foreign policies (understatement) and often lack of respect for human and civil rights, we also have produced Paris Hilton and other embarrassing pop culture-y jokes.

Anyway, despite invading Iraq unnecessarily, and also spawning the Kardashians, I still find it disheartening when Americans root against the United States in International sporting events, such as the World Cup or the Olympics.

You’re an American.  Root for us.  Wtf.  Even if someone thinks they have legitimate reasons to root against the U.S. that go beyond a forced attempt at being provocative, I’m still not going to accept such acts of Benedict Arnoldism.

“Oh, I’m an Italian.  I root for Italy in the World Cup.”  Really, Italian?  You’re family has been in this country for 250 years now.  You can root for Italy, fine.  But if it’s U.S. vs. Italy, you better be rooting for us.

While it really is a wonderful thing that the man (who proudly claimed responsibility for the deaths of nearly 3000 innocent people) has been brought to justice, at the same time, it’s definitely a bittersweet moment as well.

After 11 years and a misguided war in Iraq, what is the appropriate reaction for the American people to have toward this historic event?  Certainly, no one with half a brain would think that capturing and killing Bin Laden is a a bad thing.  The guy was a disgusting coward, who trained people to kill themselves, yet was sure to keep himself out of harm’s way.

At the same, I’ve seen quite a bit of criticism toward those celebrating the death of Bin Laden —- and I think that’s unfair.  Celebrating the death of Bin Laden does not automatically make a person an unrefined classless bloodthirsty insensitive savage.  What is the appropriate reaction then?  Booing the death of Bin Laden?  No reaction at all?  C’mon.  I think instead of criticizing those celebrating Osama’s death, we oughta just look at celebrating as a default reaction, and an understandable one — one that shouldn’t be judged.

With so much division in this country, and with so many different kinds of people from all different backgrounds living here, it’s not every day that we find something that unites people.  While celebrating a man’s death isn’t an ideal “uniter,” we must remember that it’s NOT just his death that people are celebrating — it is also the brave work of our military, and also the work done by President Obama that we’re praising.

While we’ve taken quite the meandering path to capturing Bin Laden, nonetheless the job got done.  Maybe it won’t, but maybe it can send a message to the rest of the world that plots harm against us that if you fuck with us, you will be found, and brought to justice.

Am I supposed to care about this Prince William/Kate what’s-her-name wedding?  I’m sure they’re a lovely young couple, but that still doesn’t mean I care in the least bit about either of them.   I find it amusing (annoying) how much coverage this relatively meaningless event is getting — especially here in the United States.

Um, this wedding is about two Brits getting married, and last time I checked, we declared our Independence from them because that king was being a royal pain the ass.

Thank the lord that our first president George Washington didn’t want to be a king.  I guess the closest thing to a royal family here in the United States would’ve been the Kennedys.

I mean, who else is there?

The Bush family?

The Kardashians?

The other day former governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura appeared on the Howard Stern radio show.  He talked about a lot of different (conspiracy) theories he has.

His theories have varying degrees of plausibility and validity, but nevertheless, he at least backed up his ideas with logical thought and research.  I appreciate him questioning what many people either accept, or don’t even think about at all.

A moment thing that stood out to me during his interview (and this is something I’ve thought of before as well), was when he was talking about how poorly we often treat our military veterans here in the United States.

Many of our soldiers returning from combat come home sick, injured, and/or with major psychological damage.  It’s not uncommon for our country’s veterans to end up as addicts, or homeless.

Our government commits so much sin in terms of wasteful spending, and wasteful military spending specifically.  It’s sad.

We present an image that our government cares.  We hand out medals, introduce soldiers at major sporting events, and we even spend money on flyovers — which is a “a celebratory display or ceremonial flight / an honorific flight of one or more aircraft.”

Wow.  What a complete waste of time, but even worse money.  It’s just one more example of how we attempt to present a glorious image of military service, and continue to ignore the realities of the nature of real combat and what happens during war.

Eliminating flyovers surely won’t ensure that every veteran gets taken care of, but can’t we at least try to get the money to those who need and deserve it the most?

Maybe the government ought to spend less money on TV advertising for recruiting purposes, and put more of that money towards taking care of those who’ve seen action.

Last week in the NHL, Boston Bruins defenseman Zdeno Chara viciously checked (hockey term) Montreal Canadiens left winger Max Pacioretty.

“Pacioretty suffered a severe concussion, and a non-displaced fracture of the fourth vertebra in his neck when his head hit the partition between the benches in the waning seconds of the second period.”

Here’s the hit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdIs-IY2LBI

Chara was penalized for interference and a game misconduct.  While the league has not, and will not suspend or fine him for this, Montreal police actually started a criminal investigation.

Pretty much everyone involved in, or around hockey actually understands that Pacioretty’s injuries were caused by where he was at the time, and the nature of the game of hockey, and not Chara’s viciousness.

To me, this is quite hypocritical given that the Canada’s government’s laws (and our’s too) allow professional hockey to have fighting.  Yes, fighting.  Yes, guys are allowed to punch each other in the face legally, without being prosecuted for it.

For the most part, I don’t like the idea of law enforcement getting involved in anything within a pro sports game, particularly sports like football and hockey, which are constructed to be violent sports.

Listen po-po, unless one guy whacks another guy in the face with his stick 25+ times, stay out of hockey, because otherwise you might as well just ban the sport entirely.

Last week I walked into Barbarella Bar, which is a bar/restaurant in Los Angeles.  It’s a pretty hip place, and I do dig the overall décor there.  However, I noticed on the wall, amongst the other pop-culture-y art (of Jimi Hendrix, JFK, etc.), there was a huge poster of Mao Zedong, the former dictator of China — the former BRUTAL dictator of China.

I started to think about how this is not the first time I’ve seen Mao’s image used in “pop art.” I’m all for art/expression/all that stuff, but why would a business (or anyone) want to hang up an image of Mao Zedong? — a genocidal nut, responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS of people.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html (you can do the further research yourself, confirming whether or not those #’s are accurate)

Anyway, I don’t get it.  The issue I have is not that Mao appears in art, or pop-art, it’s that so much of this art containing Mao’s image does not condemn the man, or even make fun of him.  Merely having Mao replacing Obama’s image in those red/white/blue posters does nothing to criticize Mao’s murderous ways.  I really don’t believe that “art” like this belongs in restaurants or in other businesses.

And why Mao in these posters?  Where are my hip Pol Pot posters? He’s another nice fella, who murdered almost a couple million Cambodians.  And why stop there?  Gimme some trendy/artsy Stalin, and even Hitler posters as well.  I wrote about this years ago, but I’m almost as annoyed by all the Che Guevara images in pop culture as well.  If you’re into his ideology, fine.  But don’t forget, he was a murderer too.

As much as I enjoy glancing at Mao’s image while I eat a gourmet meal, I’d much prefer to look up at posters of people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., the Dalai Lama, or Howard Stern.  You know, people who’ve uplifted our society and made the world a better place.

Well, Election Day is almost here, and I’m sure many of you out there are going to rush out to vote.  For the first time ever, I might actually vote in a non-presidential year, admittedly more motivated this time due to Proposition 19 on the California ballot, which is for the legalization of marijuana for recreational usage.

Anyway, there are also many people out there who don’t vote, or rarely vote, and you know what? — that’s fine, too.  Many “voters” out there will tell you it’s wrong not to vote, or that if one doesn’t vote, he/she doesn’t have the right to complain about politics following an election.  Another popular guilt-trip smuggy voters will lay on you is, “There are people who died so you have the right to vote.”  Maybe so, but lets not forget, Americans in the past also died for you to have the right not to vote.   That’s right, they fought so you have that CHOICE.

Smuggy voters just annoy me.  You could be politically active for 364 days a year, and not vote, and some voters will see you as an asshole and think they’ve done more to contribute to society than you.

All I’m saying is if you wanna vote, vote — and if you don’t, that’s swell with me too.

You know the deal with this country.  When our government gets pissed off at something, and wants to eradicate it, they declare war on it.  War on drugs, war on poverty, war on your mom.  Etc.  Etc.

Considering how obese so many Americans are these days, I think it’s about time we declare a “War on Fat.”  For one thing, I’m pretty sure there are way more fat people in this country than there are drug addicts.   Being fat is a dangerous health risk, so shouldn’t we be aggressive when it comes to getting rid of it?  Yes, a person can still be unhealthy without necessarily being fat, but having less obese people in this country would be a great step towards improving our overall health as a population.

To quickly make a note, there are issues on the opposite end of the spectrum as well.  Diseases like Anorexia and Bulimia are real, and should be taken seriously.   There are people out there legitimately struggling with these illnesses, and given our culture and other factors, it’s quite understandable how people can struggle with body image.  But once again, there are way more obese people than there are Anorexics out there, so I really think it’s time to prioritize.

Sure, often the government/schools/other organizations do run all sorts of health and fitness campaigns.  Pro sports leagues are always encouraging kids to live healthy lives.  Political figures like JFK years ago, and now Michelle Obama also speak often about the importance of health/fitness — but it’s not enough.

I’m ready for the War on Fat.

When I take a look at the failures of the other “wars on stuff,”  I must admit I wouldn’t be optimistic about a War on Fat, either.

At least one thing would be accomplished though — we’d rid ourselves of this soft watered-down sugar-coated language being used, and we’d be consistent with our stupidity and how we approach all of our other policies.  Stupid yes, but at least we’d be direct and more honest with ourselves.

For the most part, I have to say I disagree with seatbelt laws.  I understand the intentions behind them, but fundamentally I believe that we should exist in a free society.  We should not be “told” what to do, and what not to do.  Me not wearing a seatbelt does not infringe on the rights of others.

Having said all that, there are people out there who have such a libertarian mind, that they will go out of their way to express their views that seatbelt laws actual violate our rights as citizens.

I really think that humans like these need to do a better job of picking and choosing their battles.  Seatbelt laws may not be the ideal means to end, but ask yourself, “Are seatbelts laws our government’s biggest flaw that we need to deal with right now?”

You know which mosque I’m referring to here, the one that would actually be built two blocks from Ground Zero.

I just had a couple of follow-up thoughts to my previous post.

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve heard some pundits make some more good points about why this mosque should be built, anywhere in the country really.  Besides obvious Constitutional rights, it’s worth noting that um, there are Muslim-Americans fighting in our military.

You’re telling me that people who fight in our own army don’t have the right to practice their religion freely?  Plus, equating all Muslims to terrorists makes zero sense, especially when we consider that in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, “part” of our “missions” have been to help people who are Muslim (excluding civilian casualties — those don’t really help so much).

Anyway, an argument the other side has been making, is that its “insensitive” to build a mosque so close to wear 9-11 took place.  They say it’s “disrespectful!”

Fine, you tell me where it should be built so that your sensibilities won’t be offended.   Let’s go to ground zero with a fucking really long tape measure.  One person holds one end, and another person starts walking further and further away from where the buildings once stood — holding the other end of the tape measure.   Once the tape measure is extended out the appropriate distance for you not to be offended, let me know.

Do you morons see my point?