On The Mishaps and Misadventures of One Brandon Myhre

This fishing season may in all likelihood be called, the most fouled up of any I've previously experienced. Though I'm not superstitious by any large extent and only pay attention to them, or rather, am only aware of superstitions due to their influence in both popular culture and American folklore, an attempt to completely ignore the frequency of an almost immediate subsequent mishap after the resolution of a previous, is an impossibility for it seems continuous. One cannot help being aware of the particular folklore concerning the number 13 and how it may suggest a relationship between these annoying happenstances and the current year of 2013.

Again, I'm not the superstitious sort. In fact, setbacks have occurred for the last forty years my family has been in the fishing industry. I myself have had much worse years than this one in my personal life, but in light of the folklorist influence, I find this connexion made regardless. Rationally, it doesn't follow, in my mind, that the universe be governed by such superficial and superfluous incidents the likes of a broken mirror or stepping on a crack in the sidewalk (Did this superstition exist before the invention of concrete? Furthermore, once concrete was invented, did the universe shift in order to accommodate this superstitious effect?). Though they may be subject to inclusion in the, "principle of sufficient reason ," or causation, to imply that a concept so obscure as luck may be affected is absurd. Simply, what I mean is that though one may certainly break a mirror from some means (cause) and shatter the surface of the glass (effect), how the mere fact that a person has caused a looking glass to fragment and that it somehow negatively reverberates within the cosmos to affect the self for a specific period of time, thus producing bad luck, is preposterous.

I wouldn't just be myself if I didn't visit this topic a little more in depth at a later time, but first I would like to describe a couple of things which may suggest to those who believe in the high governing concept of luck, that I may have indeed drawn the shortest lot. A seafaring custom, by the way, in those horrible instances and examples of that which is the greatest of taboos as a means of survival upon the high seas (See the wreck of the Medusa, or of the Mignonette and the ill-fated Richard Parker for some chilling tales).

"The Raft of The Medusa," by Théodore Géricault, c. 1818-1819

In my personal accounts, there is not much to blame except chance, and when I say, "chance," I will henceforth mean chance in regards and adhering to the conception of low probability, not a chaos which comes to or expresses an order through a surreal association of particulars. This former chance, of course, isn't independent or distant of a true relation between objects in close proximity to each other. In fact, quite the contrary. In my instance, the objects were placed in close proximity according to will. What makes this first instance striking is the probability of it actually occurring. It wasn't a near impossible occurrence, but the chances of it coming to pass were very low, to say the least. Yet, the other, or second incident I will address, I can attribute to a greater probability, relative to the chances of the former, and to this I do have an object of blame and one whom I will regard as responsible. That is the Kellogg's corporation. 

The first instance I will recount is the one of the least likelihood. One night while traveling to get a load of "humpy" salmon (or pink salmon for those of you who are scrupulous about using proper names concerning your seafood) we got caught in a gale. We made sure to secure any object that could be flung about on deck, and retreated to the safe and dry quarters of the ship. I took off my "XTRATUF" boots and set them side-by-side on the floor under several hooks, upon which we hang our gear. I took off my knife belt, and hung it from the hook above my boots with my knife snugly tucked away in its sheath. This I've done from habit for quite some time, but by now, dear reader, you may see what is going to transpire.

The next morning while tucked away in the safety of Prince William Sound, we suddenly got a boat that needed to deliver its fish to us. Such unannounced visits are commonplace and in such circumstances the crew, which includes myself, are in quite the frenzied hurry to prepare the deck and take the fish of any given boat. This process we try and get done as quickly as possible and any delays are rare if not nonexistent. Its something we healthily pride ourselves in. So, I found myself immediately rolling out of my bunk, still in a sickening daze due to not having the chance to properly wake up, or have my customary cup of equally sickening thick coffee, which, on average, is strong enough to give a pack mule tremors.

I immediately grabbed my boots and scrambled into the galley and sat down on the end of the bench seat which parallels our galley table at the appropriate right angles to provide for both space and luxury. I put one boot on with no problem, and when applying the other boot onto my foot I let out a yelping obscenity which even the ocean-going, soon to be seafood, probably detected from the oceans great propensity to carry sound waves along with the cresting waves themselves. A sharp pain was being experienced in the right side of my starboard foot and I instinctively tried to retract it, only to find the pain was neither lessening or disappearing altogether. Furthermore, whatever had bit into my foot was still there. Stuck. I shook my foot wildly and reached down to try and remove the boot, only adding to the pain. So I continued shaking and even contemplated screaming for help, but knowing there was now a boat alongside I wanted to save myself the embarrassment of everyone knowing I had some deficiency in practical and basic problem solving, or the pain threshold below that of a young prepubescent girl.

I shook whatever it was loose and eventually got my neoprene "XTRATUF" boot off my non-tough self. I quickly examined my foot which seeped blood. This was of no major consequence however, and a few bandages took care of the issue, but it could have been much worse than it was. In my boot I saw my knife, a serrated Victorinox utility knife, or a "Vicky" as we refer to them,  standing vertical with the blade standing straight up. I had nearly ran it clear through my foot. I got to work shortly after that and inquired of my coworkers, what the odds would be of such a thing occurring. They all seemed to agree that to anyone else it would be an astronomical probability, but since it had happened to me, it wasn't at all surprising. This my friends, may give you some insight into the nature of those incidents which befall me.

It was merely a few days later, when what I will refer to as the infamous, "cereal incident of 2013," occurred. I awoke in the morning experiencing the sensation of hunger and decided that since we had just acquired fresh milk to partake in the consuming of a bowl of Kellogg's, "Raisin Bran Crunch." Well, I was mid-bowl when I felt an odd sensation in my upper starboard molar. I spat out a good chunk of tooth, apparently swallowing a lot as well, and I suddenly lost my appetite. Of course, I immediately began to explore that region of my mouth with my tongue, only to discover I had, more or less, given myself a root canal, for a price much cheaper than your local dentist. The very same professional I will still have to visit when I get home from Alaska, that he might prepare the tooth, or lack of it, for its royal cresting.

Was bad luck to blame? I don't think so. In fact, I think it is a conspiracy between the cereal manufacturer and dentists. This is much greater a threat than the, "pencil conspiracy," that I mentioned in my previous article, due to the fact this one causes personal injury. Furthermore, it could be the case that popcorn manufactures are in on it too. These companies produce products to further the field of dentistry, so it could easily be concluded that the conspirators exchange money and goods to benefit each other at the expense of the public's oral pain and anguish.

Yet, we find in many such conspiracies there is an element of symbolism that identifies the conspiracy or conspirators, as Dan Brown can both attest and make up as he goes along. Yet, where would I find this Brown-ish symbolism? Where was the raisin bran symbols equivalent to the marks left by the Knights Templar? It took me some time, but after examining the box of "Raisin Bran Crunch," I saw it was gleefully staring at me in plain sight. The image is an obvious one. A bright yellow gleaming sun. The bran sun is not without emotion, for it is given a human resemblance, though certainly cartoonish. What do we notice about its grinning gaping maw? It's completely toothless! This suggests the true purpose of the, "crunch." The cereal has less bran and more crunch to render one completely toothless or in sore need of a dentist. Furthermore, "crunch," may indeed reference the audible sound of one's tooth breaking off, rather than the sound the cereal gives off upon consuming. Moreover, the, "two scoops," look suspiciously alike with those dental tools they use to spread a patients cheeks apart. In addition, because the, "scoop," is in no way a real standard unit of measurement, both standard and metric, it could only refer to the method employed by dentists to scoop out the remaining bit of tooth from under the gum line. My friends, be warned, this is the dark Kellogg secret truth. If anything henceforth happens to me . . . Well, you get the idea.

So how do we account for such events occurring in so close a duration? Was it indeed negative luck concerning both the short separating interval of time as well as the events themselves? Though I certainly was victim to the conspiracy, not everyone is. It is here we get into our discourse concerning the nature of luck and of superstition. I had thought the discourse would be a concise one, but to my dismay I did what I always tend to do and wrote too much. So, assuming anyone has reached this point, to avoid the loss of interest, I suggest an intermission before we continue and my following post will be on the underlying natures of luck and superstition. Yet, during this intermission I would encourage all not to have a bowl of cereal. Until next time.

On Why I Hate Pencils

Let us for a moment reflect on that curious writing utensil which is the pencil. I'll get straight to the point (pun intended) and share that the pencil is an instrument of writ which I completely despise. Though there may be the occasional circumstance that necessitates the need of a pencil, this fact alone doesn't reflect in an equitable manner from which one could respectfully declare that the micro-wooden obelisk is the best of all writing tools. Likewise, the spork may come in handy in some given circumstance, but otherwise it is pretty much a useless particular to a person's silverware collection. However, I must say I have a lot more affection towards the spork than I do the pencil.

Surely, let us assume such a situation does arise demanding the need of non-inked writing. Even given this fact, one need not stock up on four-hundred of them in order to meet the demand, outside the classroom that is. The classrooms and schools throughout the globe are the most common places to find pencils and demand their use. This is understandable, for the pencil is usually accompanied by a small pink eraser opposite the end employed for writing. Due to it's ability to erase, we find that the pencil does appear to serve its place in the classroom as the spork may in the lunchroom. This is one possible attribute which can save the pencil from being discarded completely as a ridiculous, clutter-some, and environmentally wasteful product. However, I would suggest that we not only focus on new forms of energy and move away from fossil fuels, but we move away from pencils as well, which greedily utilize a valuable natural resource.

When we conceptualize a pencil, we always tend to add the eraser as a necessary attribute which distinguishes this classification and definition. This being the case, one is completely duped as to why it is that some pencils lack an eraser at all. Realize that because the eraser, or ability to erase written text provided by the lead enclosed in the center of the wooden shaft, is the only saving attribute of the pencil, to negate it in it's production is beyond absurd. You could always have a double-ended pencil of course, but this is essentially multiplying the ridiculousness of the whole conception of a pencil. 

Not only is this archaic looking writing tool loathsome in these ways, also it apparently is masked in a clothing of simplicity, which may not be the case at all. In fact, there may be much secrecy in the nature of the pencil akin to certain Masonic rituals practiced in their believed locations of renown. When we see a pencil, it is generally going to be a number-two pencil. To me this suggests many other types which are hidden from the general public and this gives the pencil a menacing mystique in my mind suggesting that it cannot be trusted. Perhaps, in fact, it has been made as such to promote the governments influence and power over the people. This would explain why it is so demanded in classrooms across the nation, and perhaps the world.

When a student sits down readying himself for the GED, SAT or any other like test in terms of, "instruction," given in the answer form, he/she knows that a number-two pencil will be required to fill out the little circles (completely) which will indicate their answer. Thereby, the student looks down at the number-two pencil and has the subconscious thought planted in his/her head that he/she will never achieve excellence, but always come second. This devastates the mental capacity of the student and as such the individual will cease to be a threat to the, "man," or localized or federal government. The injustice committed by either will henceforth go largely ignored by the student as he/she proceeds from out of that era in their lives and moves on, though not by necessity forward. To fix this we only need to raise up, write up petitions, in pen or by the use of word processing, and gather signatures. If one who signs does so in pencil, it is already too late for them and we need move on.

Another problem with pencils is the pencil to sharpener ratio which has always plagued mankind from its invention. If pencils weren't a example or worthless trash enough, surely the sharpener, in addition to the pencil, adds to my arguments validity and soundness. It is very often the case that in the household, though many pencils may be present, there is scarcely a sharpener. One may have a whole drawer full of the yellow number-two's, but have not one sharpener in the house. If one does exist in the immediate temporal space of the household, it is often misplaced or lost, much like the cliche lost sock in the laundry. Thereby, the household is littered with the remnants of dulled or broken pencils, which will never fulfill their purposed purpose and again are only a means of wasting natural resources. 

In the classroom a student scarcely has a sharpener of his own, though one may be supplied by the school or teacher for the whole classes use. In this case, the classroom is always disrupted by people getting up to sharpen their writing edifices and making a constant ruckus which disturbs others just as much as a certain particular student who thinks he is funny, has a big loud mouth, practices no self-control, respect or discipline might. It may also be the case that an electric sharpener isn't available and in these instances, one circa 1950 may be hanging on the wall with a turn crank utilized to sharpen the pencil. These latter examples are even more annoying, though not as much as the particular student, in that they don't have grease fittings or WD40 applied to them. Hence, when a student goes to sharpen his pencil, a terrible screeching and metallic wailing fills the classrooms firmament in a audible fashion alike to biting down on tinfoil, if one could hear such a sensation. Lastly, these sharpening devices are far from perfect, which is a money making scheme by the pencil making corporations. You can't put a pencil in a sharpener and get an exact point, or perfect point, every time despite our advanced technology. This is because those pencil creating powers that be want to waste your pencil so that you need buy more. It would be safe to assume that money exchanges hands between pencil and sharpener conglomerates. 

It usually happens that one side be not sharpened or tilled of the wooden enclosure, while the other will. Thereby, one needs to develop strategies in order to perfectly sharpen a particular pencil. Including manual rotating, applied pressure, incline, leaning, and all variations of deviation on both the X and Y axes (the plural of axis, not the tree cutting instrument). If these means aren’t available, then we employ things like knives to get an edge on the pencil. While it may work to a degree in creating a point, the overall shape is abstract and reminiscent of Richard Dreyfuss’ clay model mountains in Spielberg’s, “Close Encounters of The Third Kind,” and doesn’t last long, though pencils aren’t made to last to begin with. 

There is no way to escape the necessary inclusion of the sharpener when one considers the pencil. Thus, it is really a compound conception which we need to recognize. The need of a sharpener is an implication of my next point which is that pencils break. It is not an infrequent occurrence that when one is done sharpening their pencil that the very tip may break off. Though still looking useable, when applied to paper, it displays not a singular, sharp, and linear line, but a dual line which one will immediately find displeasing and try and fix, usually without the sharpener. We employ the scuffing method, where we try and scuff the dual tip off to mold into a singular which we can use. This is hardly successful and the surfaces on which this method is tried is scarcely appropriate. Examples include walls, desks and chairs. Therefore, most often we resort to square one, and are back at the sharpener to try once again.

So, both the conceptual particulars of the pencil and the sharpener applied as a whole give me further evidence of my rationality of my distaste for pencils. Speaking of distaste, this perfect transition leads me to my next point, the unsanitary nature of pencils. One need only look at a person deep in thought, destined to be number two, to understand. Often, we find such people lost in thought to be doing all sorts of things with pencils. These include, but aren't limited to, chewing on the pencil, putting the eraser in their ear, chewing on the eraser, or scratching with it. It's often you find pencils with teeth marks in them, making the tool look more like an orthodontist's mold, than anything else. Therefore, to borrow a pencil is like asking to lick the inside of someone's hat. It's foul and gross. 

Pencil companies have tried to impress us with various statistics and claims of reusable resources in their production, but we see right through their claims. One example is how one with a pencil can draw a strait line for a whole mile before running out. Or something like that. Yeah, great. What kind of a surface? Flat surface? Asphalt? Furthermore, what number of pencil? How long? Is there a standard length woth pencils? So as you can see we aren't given this information. Thus, it is kind of useless unless all particulars of the example are known. I am not impressed. Guess what? I can take a ten gallon jug, put a hole in it, and with a small drip carry it farther than a mile. So what? Absurd.     They’ve tried to embrace technology by giving us the, “mechanical pencil,” a device that breaks the lead more often due to its brittle nature. This is to such a degree, that its not uncommon to see these mechanical pencils with many lead fragments within the containing cylinder. In this state it is more prone to jammin than Bob Marley was. 

Methods of lead extraction are utilized here in an effort to load the pencil's, "cartridge." One includes a slight shake or vibration in both a horizontal and vertical fashion. The cruelty of this device is made evident in the fact that if one's pencil is loaded with a lead segment of too short a length, than the mechanical pencil will cease to perform the task for which they tell us it was designed. We find when we put this lead to paper, it retreats back into the recesses of the cartridge, and in effort to be restored to somewhat functional use, needs to be manually removed. A couple clicks will reveal the end of the lead outside the cartridge and an individual must pull on the lead to fix the heinous device, as well as shake in another larger lead segment. This is quite ingenious for those devious scoundrel designers who made the mechanical pencil, made it so the shaking method of loading the cartridge, is a necessary part of the mechanics, but also is directly responsible for the fragmentation of the leads within the cylinder. The lead, once removed, then has no use other than to be committed to the refuse receptacle. This is wasting precious materials which are saturating or polluting our landfills, oceans, wetlands, and homes. The deception of the pencil is, in short, a danger for us all.

It will take a lot more to pull the wool over my eyes. In addition friends, likewise I hope it will for you.

On a Charge of Anti-Semitism in a Text Book

I am convinced that in today's colleges, universities, and even high schools, radicalism is certainly alive and well, being openly taught by teachers or text books that promote not just the ideas behind the radical, but also encourage these to be practiced to the extreme. These ideas are at times caught by students who make the schools aware of the dangerous views endorsed. In other circumstances, parents may be made aware of these outrageous teachings and alert those in charge or share their concerns. In rare instances, these concerns can actually get out to the media and become the antagonist for debate and discussion. There are a number of ways this radicalism can be shared, but the most often ones are, editorials by the author of a text book, leading questions, which suggest a radical answer, in class lectures, and of course, grading. The foremost two and last have been experienced by yours truly.


In any case, currently there is one such text book in Tennessee that has come under fire and there are those who want it pulled from the curriculum. Their argument states that a particular question in, "The Cultural Landscape: An Introduction to Human Geography," by James M. Rubenstein, a book used for advanced placement, is "blatantly" anti-Semitic. If true obviously it would reflect poorly, not only on the author and publisher, Prentice Hall, but anyone who employs the use of the book in any way. Though certainly not a large issue when we consider current events and the news media at large, there's been a little net hubbub concerning it, which I will now add to. The question that's raising some eyebrows reads:

“If a Palestinian suicide bomber kills several dozen Israeli teenagers in a Jerusalem restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against Israeli government policies and army actions?”

Now the question that has arose is if this question is, as stated by Laurie Cardoza-Moore, the head of a pro-Israel group, "blatantly anti-Semitic?" Mrs. Cardoza-Moore is indeed the very same person who expressed her concerns about the text and apparently feels the question is leading in that it takes a pro-Palestinian position. Yet, does it really?

To clear up a few things, I myself am far from being anti-Semitic, quite the contrary. I would classify myself as being completely pro-Israel and believe Palestine uses detestable means to spread terror in the Holy Land (I wrote about this more extensively when addressing Hamas. See my article, and please note the sarcasm: "On The Genius of Hamas"). This being the case, I feel I would be discerning concerning any anti-Semitism this text would contain, if any at all. However, I respectfully disagree with Mrs. Cardoza-Moore, and those who have raised issue with the question across the net or media. My conclusion is that the question has no anti-Semitism and the inclusion of the question in the text book serves another purpose altogether, which may objectively benefit the student, rather than serve to degrade a whole people.


Rather than provide just a brief opinion, I will attempt to show exactly why the initial text is free from anti-Semitism. At least according to my reasoning. First off, let us consider the first word of the text, that is, "if." Whenever and wherever one sees this word, they can be reasonably sure they're being introduced to a hypothetical situation. The hypothetical situation being introduced here, which certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility, is the suicide bombing of a restaurant, in which several teens are killed. Then, we're asked to ponder a question of terrorism or wartime retaliation, and the motives behind the attack. Let's look at it in a more simplistic logical view. We will label the the suicide bombing as, "S," for sake of argument. In addition, we will label the possibility of the terrorist act as "T," and the prospect of it being a wartime retaliation we will simplify as, "R."

Thus, we get to the heart of the question, which can be formulated as:

S ) T v R

The precursor to the ) symbol represents the hypothetical or, "if/then," and the "v" symbol, or wedge, represents a disjunctive syllogism, that is an either/or. After this quick simplification, in a grammatical sense, not in a logistical one, we get rid of all extraneous particulars, rather present or imagined, which may distract from the text. It can be read as thus:

"If a suicide bomber kills several teens in a Jerusalem restaurant, then it is either a terrorist act or one of wartime retaliation."

I don't include the Israeli government or army actions in my simplification of the question, because I believe those are implicitly implied by the word, "wartime." I go into a little more detail on my article, "On The Tragedy in Boston, Media, and a Terrorism Definition." Enough intrusions and shameless plugs though (for now). With the simplification we see that this either/or element is pretty evenly distributed, and the rest of the pondering and discussion is on the part of the student, rather than stated in the text.


The point of such questions isn't to lead students to a inevitable conclusion, like some profess this one does, and I couldn't disagree with more, it's to encourage critical thinking or analytical skills. Unfortunately in today's world not all issues are as "simple" as math, that is that only one steadfast conclusion can be reached. Thus, though I certainly would strongly disagree with those who took the wartime stance, the point is to have students reason for themselves and in an effective, objective manner, along with analyzing all different aspects of a issue.


The author or publishers must've foresaw the difficulty that such a question presents in the mind of many. Indeed, it is a very divisional topic and people have their own conclusions on this topic before many others, excluding their own countries, well being, etc, etc. The "controversy" this issue provides and the questions that arise may very well have been the reasoning for putting the question in the text book in the first place. I would like to think that we would want students who were able to think for themselves in an objective fashion.


So why is this such an issue? It's nothing new, it has always been a large source of controversy, even preceding our current age. However, I feel concerning this particular subject of the text book, there is a bit of ultra-sensitivity happening, which is somewhat understandable considering what is happening in the world. With the threats, whether they be valid or dangerous enough, of nukes from North Korea, or our own threats of terrorism at home, we've been able to start identifying with life in the Holy Land, that a daily outing might turn and end in violence. We see people doing innocent normal everyday activities in Israel, and suddenly becoming a target. It's getting to be like that in our own neighborhoods. As we've seen, many people have went to work, to enjoy leisure activities, or run in a world wide celebrated race, and never came back. If they do, they never come back the same. Thereby some of these folks, understandably, become hypersensitive and we find issues like this popping up, where people's fear dictates their perceptions, observations, and ideas.


Another aspect of the question that we shouldn't ignore is that it provides a challenge to students to define what war and terrorism are, which is an interesting question. The terrorism definition I reached in "On The Tragedy in Boston, Media, and a Terrorism," I believe holds true. I believe there is a difference and its these differences that are alluded to by the text. This is obviously another great source of debate, which I have no problem with students pondering such questions. Isn't that one of the main purposes of schooling in the first place, to produce qualified graduates who can think for themselves, observe data effectively, objectively and arise at a conclusion?


If one were to draw such a conclusion from the text, that it is leading in someway, then I feel one would have to reach the opposite answer. That is, the unjust act on the part of the suicide bomber. This is due to a few things:

A: The Israeli teenagers age suggests an innocence attributed with youth.
B: A restaurant, suggesting a peaceful, neutral, or innocent atmosphere.
C: The bombers complete disregard for human life including his own.

With the implications these components suggest, one could argue that the question was blatantly on the side of Israel. Yet, again, I don't think that was the point of the text, nor the whole exercise. It was to encourage debate and internal dialogue concerning the nature of war, terrorism, and even when, where, or by what means, such actions are or are not warranted. In concluding, all this hubbub is simply due to a hypersensitivity, which I dislike saying saying because it alludes to the fact the term "hypersensitivity" can denote fault or an unreasonable reaction. I don't feel it is unreasonable, nor do I feel it's silly. We are beginning and have already begun to see terrorism and threats of war on our very doorstep. Thereby, it is no wonder some keep on guard concerning radicalism, terrorism, and the controversies that arise from it.


Yet, finally, if there is any doubt concerning my conclusions from the cited text, perhaps we can look at it in context by taking the whole paragraph into account. I think its clearer and puts this whole argument to bed. In my mind anyway.

“Distinguishing terrorism from other acts of political violence can be difficult. For example, if a Palestinian suicide bomber kills several dozen Israeli teenagers in a Jerusalem restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against Israeli government policies and army actions? Competing arguments are made: Israel’s sympathizers denounce the act as a terrorist threat to the country’s existence, whereas advocates of the Palestinian cause argue that long-standing injustices and Israeli army attacks on ordinary Palestinian civilians provoked the act.”

To their credit the director of schools has looked into the issue and has found that no other complaints were filed prior to Mrs. Cardoza-Moore's.

On The Atari Government, Violence and Grass

Again, in case anyone missed it, I am currently in Alaska, and this being the case it can be rather difficult to keep up on the news, though I get brief updates. However, I did listen to the news a bit today thanks to our XM radio. Of course, much of the news is still centered upon the bombing in Boston, and more specifically the backgrounds of those who are responsible. Chechnya is just north of the Caucasus and has a violent history. In the 90's, Chechnya, as I gather, tried to separate itself from its mother Russia, with violent results. Apparently Russia attacked, decimating the capital city of Chechnya. When Chechnya was finally granted independence this wasn't enough to stop the violence, and essentially two governments were formed, leading to more violence. As we have seen all over the world at various times and places, when a country is in such a divided state, factions can arise that may use terrorist tactics to wreak havoc on the public and those in power alike. It seems to be a common theme among separatist states. Such tactics aren't usually successful. In addition to being completely misguided, they can, in fact, backfire, causing these terrorists to become the villains themselves, even though they might seek to be heroes, patriots or revolutionaries in the public eye. This is obviously due to their complete disregard for human life. Indeed, the line of the innocent and whom they regard as guilty parties, or the enemy, becomes so blurred that it doesn't matter. Their cause is one that is sought by complete anarchy. There are many names such people or groups go by, like rebels, or separatists. In the case of the Boston bombers they have been labeled, "Islamic Separatists," a blend of both religious philosophy and political idealism. Such separatism is generally localized, where it is thought it will have the greatest effect. This violent faction doesn't go outside its boarders or apart from whom they have conflict with, and don't concern themselves with countries or people far removed internationally. Yet, there is another faction that seems to believe their cause has greater impact or chance of success when taken on a global scale, as might be the case with the Boston bombers. So even in cases of, "Islamic Separatists," you may very well have at least two different factions, one focused on immediate territory, while another is focused on the international community.In addition to all this it should be mentioned that after the 90's conflict, Chechnya became somewhat of a hub for Islam. Advisor Stephen Yates, said on Fox News, they had an influx of Islam and extremism after Russia's initial smothering of Chechnya's move to break off. I recall his words from memory, so my facts or quotes might be subject to a little error, but regardless it is interesting that such places in the world, those that are immersed in turmoil, often become centers for extremism. I find that it may be the case that such influx of extremism can be equated or illustrated in a smaller scale, like those of riots, or demonstrations which erupt into anarchy.In many of these, there are those individuals that use such gatherings as an excuse for violence, they themselves being prone to it. In fact, there are those when questioned about their motives during a hostile demonstration which have no idea what the underlying cause or motivations are, only that they can use it to enact and indulge in their own violent desires, while still being covered in the veil of some greater cause.This being said, and this obviously is just a hypothesis, perhaps these countries of turmoil attract such extremists, just in the same way demonstrations do, because it offers an excuse to display acts of violence, which they secretly desire. Thereby, instead of being a lone nutcase at least they can be seen by their cohorts as martyrs or hero's of the ideal with the violent acts they profess, carry out, and make evident in death or destruction.There is another distinction that I would like to make concerning those extremists who employ these acts of destruction and terror overseas. The reason why will become apparent. You've got ones who are lone, whom plan and carry out these acts of their own accord or volition, convinced that in some way progress is being made in the name of the cause. Then you have those who remain in contact with their leaders and planners who may fund and help organize an assault. According to the intelligence community within the government, many of these latter extremists communicate via the Internet.Yates stated that the internet has great power and is, "sovereign," and hinted at the dangers it poses to national security. Such talk I've learned to be weary of and in my mind it sets up a red flag, one which may precede a government "power grab." When we look at what the government is doing today, and has been doing, we see that they've been slowly taking away our rights as granted by our constitution. In fact, if our freedoms were represented by yellow pills, the government would be as Pac Man. All I hear lately when politicians speak is, "waga-waga-waga-waga-waga."Our rights have already been infringed upon post 9/11, and indeed before. Our privacy has been trespassed by our leaders who "represent" us, as well has our right to bear arms, and these have all been taken by means of utilizing fear and outrage the public justly feels after a terrible event. I am far from saying, of course, that a conspiracy is taking place, or that the government has a hand in all these disasters, I am only stating that the government uses these events as the means to their end, to gain more power over the people. This seems to be the case on both the right and the left and is not limited to just the USA.By Yates saying such things, I began to see a future a message out of Washington D.C., that they must monitor our Internet use for the sake of our protection. Many might respond to this with, "As long as we're safer," or, "I have nothing to hide." That may be so and I hope it is the case, but this would undermine what this fabulous country was founded upon, the right to be free. I would feel my freedoms slipping away even more then I already can, if my e-mail was read by a Washington think tank, or if they tracked my movements to such a degree they knew every little outfit I purchase for my cat, "Chief Tuckapaw." It's unfortunate but such concessions of freely handing our rights away is equitable to handing away our very country. On this point, let me just say that concerning these terrible events, I am very sorrowful and feel great compassion towards the victims and those who have lost loved ones. Furthermore, I in no way intend this entry to be a condemnation of people who are sympathetic and have heart felt emotions concerning such things and are willing to do anything to see that they don't happen again. I can both understand and relate to it. Yet, I pose the question, why should we let violent morons who don't give a damn about people's rights, even the most basic human right, the right to live, be the very reason we give up our rights? Why is it always seem to be the case that the victims and innocent have their rights revoked while they are passed on abundantly to the guilty? Maybe it's true. Maybe we have buckled under these sadistic losers and in the end gave them a power that even they couldn't have scarcely imagined.Such violent people(s) are of course not always backed by or take up some cause or goal, some just commit random acts of violence, which have no rhyme or reason, as most violence doesn't. It is only in the self delusion that violence leads to some goal, but again, there are those that need none. Two days ago on 4/20, the pot smokers holiday, there was a gathering in Colorado to celebrate. This gathering was estimated as possibly being attended by as many as 80,000 people. I don't know what the finally talley was, but this is beside the point. During sometime in the evening someone opened fire, shooting off a handgun. Nobody was hit, but panic soon erupted among the crowd. The suspect was allegedly caught on camera and the Colorado police are now searching for the perpetrator. Now I'm not a pot smoker and haven't been for a long, long time. Personally, I just don't like the feeling it gives me and I stay away from it. Yet, when it comes to pot legalization, I am for it. I am sick of my tax payer dollars going to incarcerating, in the grand scheme of things, small time "criminals," who just happened to be caught with a dime bag. Also, having done it myself, I feel it's not that bad, and there is a contradiction between allowing alcohol to be legal and making pot illegal. To me it doesn't make sense, but I will quickly state I'm not for drug legalization across the board. At any rate, this moron, instead of partaking in a celebration, which must have included plenty of candy, chips, ice cream, and soda, decided to ruin everyone's hazy gleeful time, by shooting a gun off. The backlash could be that the voters of Colorado might regret their decision. Assuming that this person smokes grass, weed, pot, herb, whatever, he is perhaps the biggest idiot in all the state of Colorado. Moron! What was the purpose, to see people panic? What if people were crushed in a horrible stampede? It takes a sick mind to get off on such things, and he should be nabbed immediately and investigated, for such minds are not usually content with one riotous act, and he may have committed crimes in his past. Of course, this will probably be on the news making it an argument for gun control as well as the revoking of the legalization of marijuana cigarettes and all forms it can take. Who would've though pot smokers could be so violent when you have shows like "Archer," to occupy their time.Another fascinating thing on the news is the charge that the FBI and law enforcement took too long in tracking down the Boston bombers. Here we go again with misdirected blame. You've got to wonder why people still get involved in law enforcement for they're more frequently blamed than the criminals, especially when it comes to high publicity, atrocious crimes like what happened in Boston. Even inanimate objects come into blame, like guns, or video games. It seems as though both the public and media has a need for the blame to be equivalent to the tragedy. That is, in short, the outrage at what occurred in Boston is too massive to project upon one individual, or a couple as the case may be, and in addition someone else needs to answer for the abomination. Many point to the fact that at least one of the brothers was investigated in 2011, and here it is nearly two years removed and people are pondering why anything wasn't done then, despite it being way prior to the actual bombing. In actuality, I can kind of understand it, but we forget that law enforcement is entangled in bureaucracy. This is why those people who commit the most heinous of crimes, at times, get off on a measly technicality, which is outrageous. This is a further example of how rights are taken from the victim or innocent and given unto the guilty. Thereby, it is no wonder that in such investigations no actions can be taken, especially when no crime has been committed. What kind of country would we live in when people are arrested just because they're suspected of being capable of some future crime, the nature of which would have to be theorized?I, in fact, applaud not only the people of Boston, but also law enforcement who was able to track these horrible people down in a matter of a few days. They even went as far as to shut down a whole city to get the perps, and the character and diligence of the people of Boston helped lead to the apprehension, especially concerning the individual who was observant enough to discover where the remaining suspect was hiding out. Since they don't hear it enough, I say good job Boston, and a great job to FBI and law enforcement. Despite all the critics and yes, there have been mistakes in the past, the law enforcement community did an amazing job in Boston, followed all leads, and communicated efficiently with the public and media to track the suspects. An example of how things need be handled indeed. Way to go. With the kind of people they apparently have in Boston, I just may need to move there or at the very least visit.