The Legalization of Drugs

With all the talk in politics about medical marijuana and the talk in social circles about the outright legalization of marijuana, I thought I would come out and talk about the issue from my perspective. However, I am not going to limit the discussion to just marijuana simply because it would not be appropriate. You'll find out why if you read on...

First off, let me say that I applaud states like Ohio which in recent years have made changes to become "decriminalized" states. Basically what this means is that, although it is illegal to possess small amounts of marijuana, enforcement for users is extremely low priority. In Ohio, possession of small amounts of marijuana is a 4th degree misdemeanor (the same charge that I faced when going 26 mph over the speed limit). To me, this is a step in the right direction, however not for the reasons that most people believe, nor for the reasons usually assumed.

I'm going to come right out and say it. I believe that all drugs should be legal. In the following premises, I will build a case for the legalization of ALL drugs, based on facts.

1.) Illegal drugs are no more harmful to individuals than legal ones.
-The only difference between morphine and heroin is that one is used in hospitals, and one is shot by junkies with a dirty needle in an abandoned shack occupied by other junkies.
-Heroin and morphine literally are from the exact same opioid family. (hint: the chemical name for heroin is diacetylmorphine.

2.) Chemical addiction is a health issue, not a legal one.
-Now, by no means am I making excuses for addicts; They have made their own decisions and they are facing the reality of addiction and the consequences. However, once someone has an addiction problem they become largely incapable of making rational decisions for themselves. This does not excuse crimes that they commit while under the influence of drugs; They should be held wholly accountable. However, to pigeonhole these individuals and criminalize them only contributes to their matrix of deviance. Once you label someone a deviant, the person (usually) becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and will continue to be a deviant.
-By caring for our addicts and removing the social stigma that is placed upon them by society we are not only contributing to the improvement of their lives, but also our own. We must acknowledge that much random street (violent) crime is a result of an addict behaving irrationally in order to obtain the means to obtain the drugs he/she desires. By not ostracizing these people, we maintain the social connection of society and increase the chances that the person can be brought back.

3.) The war on drugs is ineffective and inefficient
-Since the early 1980s when the war on drugs began, billions of dollars have been funneled from YOUR pocket to fund the war on drugs. This "war" has been going on for over 20 years and has resulted in nothing more than increasing the number of US citizens that are in jail, and thereby spending even more of our tax dollars to keep them and take care of them in jail. $22,600 of our tax money each year goes to sustain ONE person in jail. Keeping in mind that from 1990 to 2000, the US prison population DOUBLED. This is not taking into account the 8 or so years in the 80s and the 8 or so years in the 2000s; At which some statistics have shown that that figure is actually tripled. This is wasted money and wasted lives, much of is as a result of punishing non-violent addicts.

4.) America is highly medicated with drugs that (can be) mind-altering and dangerous already
-While the drugs are prescribed and legal, the number of Americans that are taking at least one prescription drug is around 50%. Now, these are a variety of different medications for a variety of reasons. However, the statistics for anti-depressants (to deal with reality) are around 10% for women and 5% for men.
-The companies that make these prescription drugs contribute massive amounts of money to politicians (namely congresspeople) in order to advance their agenda, enable themselves to keep selling these drugs and stifle competition from both legal (competing pharmaceutical companies) and illegal sources (street dealers). This includes keeping drugs that are LESS harmful than cigarettes and alcohol illegal. In short, one major reason the war on drugs exists is to line the pockets of both high-powered politicians and corporations. This is the reason that the taxpayer is paying billions of dollars and the reason that millions of Americans are being imprisoned.


OK. So, if all of my previous statements are true, then that means that the decision to make a drug illegal is arbitrary since there are drugs that are legal that are harmful and addictive. It also means that that arbitrary decision is in large part made by people whose decision-making process is compromised by corruption. It ALSO means that we are wasting billions of dollars while accomplishing nothing more than turning a nation of deviants into a nation of prisoners, thereby enhancing their deviance. Finally it also means that we are hypocrites because we will caution others against the dangers of drugs like ecstasy, lsd and marijuana while throwing a shot of alcohol down our throat and popping a pill.

POST COMMENTS: It is important to keep in mind that all drugs have the potential to be hazardous and should not be taken lightly, legal or illegal. Personal responsibility is the best weapon against addiction. You cannot go through life expecting the government to force you to not do things that are bad for you. YOU have to make those decisions for yourself. Forcing the government to make those decisions for you results in a loss of liberty for yourself and bureaucratic "one-size fits all decisions" from the government.

Take responsibility for yourself and make good decisions because you only have one body and one life to live.

Economy Relief Package

Ok, so let's be honest. I'm a little burned up about the fact that the "Bush tax cuts" only benefit in any way shape or form, people that make over $100,000/year. However, getting a six-hundred dollar check from Uncle Sam while every day we go into more and more debt to foreign nations is not a reasonable solution in my mind.

Would I like to have six-hundred dollars? sure.

Did I do anything to earn it? nope.

Unfortunately it is a universal truth that it is the tendency of government to perpetually increase in size (exponentially over time); Never to decrease. However, this administration is setting up this country to experience a very very very hard fall in the next decade or so. To all the people that are saying that we are in a recession now, you haven't seen anything yet! You don't need an economics degree to realize that there is a breaking point where you borrow too much money to even pay back the interest where you are absolutely fucked.

So President Bush, first of all take the billions of dollars that you saved the American wealthy over the course of the past several years with your tax cuts; Combine that with the BILLIONS of dollars you have basically GIVEN away to your business associates and friends through no-bid contracts, back door dealings or outright theft; Combine THAT with the $600 that you want to give to me, and shove it straight up your fucking ass, you fink.

Put it back in the treasury, balance the budget (or at least make an EFFORT), and do some real work to lessen the shock that this country is about to experience.

Fifty Atheist Slogans

Pretty funny stuff. I took out the ones that I personally believe are mean-spirited or wouldn't endorse myself. If you want to see the full list, go to

Original Link

Top Fifty Atheist T-Shirt and Bumper Sticker Aphorisms

1. Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers


2. Honk If Your Religious Beliefs Make You An Asshole


3. Intelligent Design Makes My Monkey Cry


4. Too Stupid to Understand Science? Try Religion.


5. There's A REASON Why Atheists Don't Fly Planes Into Buildings


6. "Worship Me or I Will Torture You Forever. Have a Nice Day."­ God.


7. God Doesn't Kill People. People Who Believe in God Kill People.


8. If There is No God, Then What Makes the Next Kleenex Pop Up?


9. He's Dead.
   It's Been 2,000 years.
   He's Not Coming Back.
   Get OVER It Already!


10. All religion is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry. Edgar Allen Poe.


11. Viva La Evolución!


12. Actually, If You Look It Up, The Winter Solstice Is The Reason For The Season


13. I Wouldn't Trust Your God Even If He Did Exist


14. Cheeses Is Lard. Argue With THAT If You Can.


15. People Who Don't Want Their Beliefs Laughed at Shouldn't Have Such Funny Beliefs


16. Jesus is Coming? Don't Swallow That.


17. Threatening Children With Hell Is FUN!


18. GOD - APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD!


19. God + Whacky Tobacky = Platypus


20. God Doesn't Exist. So, I Guess That Means No One Loves You.


21. When the Rapture Comes, We'll Get Our Country Back!


22. Q. How Do We Know the Holy Ghost Was Catholic?
    A. He Used the Rhythm Method Instead of a Condom.


23. You Say "Heretic" Like It Was a BAD Thing


24. Science: It Works, Bitches.


25. "Intelligent Design" Helping Stupid People Feel Smart Since 1987


26. I Found God Between The Sheets


27. I Gave Up Superstitious Mumbo Jumbo For Lent


28. My Flying Monkey Can Beat Up Your Guardian Angel


29. Every Time You Play With Yourself, God Kills a Kitten


30. If God Wanted People to Believe in Him, Then Why Did He Invent Logic?


31. Praying Is Politically Correct Schizophrenia


32. ALL Americans Are African Americans


33. I Forget - Which Day Did God Make All The Fossils?


34. I Was An Atheist Until The Hindus Convinced Me That I Was God


35. The Spanish Inquisition: The Original Faith-based Initiative


36. If we were made in his image, when why aren't humans invisible too?


37. JESUS SAVES....You From Thinking For Yourself


38. How Can You Disbelieve in Evolution If You Can't Even Define It?


39. Q. How Can You Tell That Your God is Man-made?
    A. If He Hates All the Same People You Do.


40. Every Time You See a Rainbow, God is Having Gay Sex


41. I Went to Public School in Kansas and All I Got Was This Lousy T-shirt and a Poor Understanding of the Scientific Method.


42. The Family That Prays Together is Brainwashing the Children


43. Oh, Look, Honey Another Pro-lifer For War


44. Another Godless Atheist for Peace and World Harmony


45. God is Unavailable Right Now. Can I Help You?


46. When Lip Service to Some Mysterious Deity Permits Bestiality on
    Wednesday and Absolution on Sundays, Cash Me Out. -Frank Sinatra


47. No Gods. No Mullets.

Iran IS a Threat After All!

Ok, I take everything back, I was complet..... wait, wait, what is this?

US Navy withdraws claims against Iran
Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:01:50
The US Navy withdraws the allegation that Iranian patrol boats had threatened to blow up a three-ship US convoy in the Hormuz Strait.

"It could have been a threat aimed at some other nation or a myriad of other things," The Washington Post quoted US Navy spokesman Rear Admiral Frank Thorp IV as saying on Friday.

This is while senior US Navy sources have told the BBC that an alleged threat to blow up the US warships 'may not have come' from Iranian boats in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Pentagon alleged five Iranian boats belonging to the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) had harassed three US Navy warships by threatening to 'blow them up' on Sunday.

"No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.

However, President Bush characterized the incident as 'provocative' and 'dangerous', warning Iran of serious consequences if it happens again.

Iranian officials have dismissed the allegation saying the incident was a routine maritime identification check, which is common between vessels in the Persian Gulf.
(end of article)

Honestly, the only thing that I am surprised about here is that the truth seems to be shaking our regarding this matter. You are being played American citizens. The government and the media just put you to the test to see if you are still as bloodthirsty and unquestioning as you were in 2003 when we went into Iraq, and you failed the test, albeit not as badly as you did in '03.

Things like this make me honestly, sick to my stomach.

Note, this IS from an Iranian website, so it no doubt has their own spin to it, but realize that there are two sides to the story... personally I put equal stock into each side because I have no reason to believe one over the other.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=38370&sectionid=351020101

Ron Paul on Iraq - 2002

	Wisdom on Iraq in 2002

by Rep Ron Paul

Speech before the US House of Representatives, October 8, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.

As James Madison wrote in 1798, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

Some - even some in this body - have claimed that this Constitutional requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I could not disagree more.

Mr. Speaker, for the more than one dozen years I have spent as a federal legislator I have taken a particular interest in foreign affairs and especially the politics of the Middle East. From my seat on the international relations committee I have had the opportunity to review dozens of documents and to sit through numerous hearings and mark-up sessions regarding the issues of both Iraq and international terrorism.

Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and immanent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the necessary funding to fight the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, consider some of the following claims presented by supporters of this resolution, and contrast them with the following facts:

Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use force against the US through its firing on our planes patrolling the UN-established "no-fly zones."

Reality: The "no-fly zones" were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq's repression of the Kurds and Shi'ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for "no-fly zones," much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to "contribute to humanitarian relief" in the Kurd and Shi'ite areas. Yet the US and British have been bombing Iraq in the "no-fly zones" for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn't the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq.

Claim: Iraq is an international sponsor of terrorism.

Reality: According to the latest edition of the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993 - the alleged attempt against former President Bush.

Claim: Iraq tried to assassinate President Bush in 1993.

Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq was behind the attack. News reports at the time were skeptical about Kuwaiti assertions that the attack was planned by Iraq against former President Bush. Following is an interesting quote from Seymore Hersh's article from Nov. 1993:

Three years ago, during Iraq's six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. (Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush.) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn't. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.

This establishes that on several occasions Kuwait has lied about the threat from Iraq. Hersh goes on to point out in the article numerous other times the Kuwaitis lied to the US and the UN about Iraq. Here is another good quote from Hersh:

The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. "The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case," a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, a month after the bombs were dropped on Baghdad...Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.'s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have "cooked the books" on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf. Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been driven by their sources to the other side of the debate.

At the very least, the case against Iraq for the alleged bomb threat is not conclusive.

Claim: Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against us - he has already used them against his own people (the Kurds in 1988 in the village of Halabja).

Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are the two gassing incidents as described in the report:

In September 1988, however - a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended - the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq's relations with the Kurds...throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies - Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation - according to the U.S. State Department - gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights.

Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with, there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds - in Turkey where they had gone for asylum - failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee...

It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.

Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action.

Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions - these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force.

Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.

Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents.

Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM's chief weapons inspector 90-95 percent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated:

One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three...

The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid - used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin - directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.

These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us - and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States.

Claim: The president claimed last night that: "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."

Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles just makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to defend our own country.

Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds - who are our allies - and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries - including Iran and the United States - are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Of the other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.

Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: " Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem..."

Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack?

Please check out the original article at http://www.populistamerica.com/wisdom_on_iraq_in_2002

Obama Wins in Iowa

Now admittedly, I try to not pay attention to polls as little as possible, and let's face it; Iowa is really all in all, just a big poll. However, I believe that an Obama win of any type is very encouraging for the future of this country. While not being an optimal candidate (no one is), he is the best mainstream candidate by far. He is not connected to the political/corporate quagmire of muck and sleeze that exists in Washington today as some other candidates are (Clinton and Guiliani come to mind), and he has a positive message of change and taking steps toward repairing (some of) the things that are wrong with this country.

Ah, the life of an independent is quite confusing indeed. A fiscal conservative and social liberal (if we must put labels on such things) sits with several *decent* candidates that will lead us in a positive social direction, but virtually none that will lead us in a fiscally positive direction; The only one of note being Ron Paul.

Thus, we (and I mean, I) have no choice but to thrust my weight behind a candidate that satisfies one but not the other. Let me put it this way; If I had a choice of the top 3 *ELECTABLE* candidates to support they would be the following, in the following order...

1) Barak Obama
2) John Edwards
3) Hilary Clinton

I put Clinton on here, only because there are no other good *ELECTABLE* candidates, and I believe a lot of the shit that she is saying that i disagree with is a facade to appear tough to counter-act the fact that she is a girl.... she doesn't want to appear soft. As unappealing as the thought of having over 2 decades of Clintons and Bushs in office is, I am trying to polish this turd in hopes that it won't work out as bad as I am thinking it might.

So... does the fact that my top 3 cross-party candidates are all democrats make me a democrat?... no.

The fact is, that I cannot in good conscience put my desire for less taxes and more money in my paycheck ahead of the principles that this country are founded on; namely, due process and not torturing our war detainees (just to name a couple). Unfortunately all of the Republican candidates except for one and a half have ruled themselves out in this regard because all but Ron Paul and McCain (with a wishy-washy answer) believe that our AMERICAN policy should be torturing people if it helps to stop a terror situation. Disgraceful, Un-American and Treasonous in my mind.

So, in NO particular order, forgetting electability here are my top 3 candidates...

1) Dennis Kucinich
2) Ron Paul
3) Barak Obama

Since Obama made both lists, I guess that makes it a no-brainer.

The Sopranos

Sometimes Tony Soprano is the bad guy, sometimes he's the good guy.

Well, I mean... he's always the bad guy, right? But from time to time, his character and circumstance makes us forget about all of the horrifying things that he does for a living and we decide that he is a sympathetic, nice or even (gasp) honorable character. We place our long term feelings of right and wrong on the back burner, because there are more pressing issues; Circumstances that must be overcome, and ends that don't quite justify the means, but are close enough to give him a break.

Here's the thing though... we don't believe that Tony is inherently evil because there is no such thing. We see the good in Tony because we are given a chance to see that side of him through the magic of television (and our addiction to it). If you had only ever seen one episode of the Sopranos, you may come to the conclusion that Tony is an evil guy and that's it. However, although familiarity breeds contempt with people where the expectation is for them to be good; the opposite is true for those that the expectation is to be evil. What does this all mean? Well, in the end it means that after spending 6 seasons (over 85 hours!) with Tony Soprano, we get to know him on a less superficial level and realize that in the end, he is just a person like you or I and has the same weaknesses, prejudices and viewpoints.

So ok, so what. Well, tuck all that away in the back of your head for the moment.

Tony Soprano knows that enemies come in all shapes and sizes. They can be big and well defined enemies (like the FBI), or they can be smaller and not so well-defined depending on the situation (New York). Tony is smart though. He knows that the most dangerous enemy of all is the one that resides within the ranks. The Adrianna's, the Christopher's, the Jimmy's the Big Pussy's, the Paulie's (close on many occasions to betrayal); They all were on the inside and had the potential to cause the most damage to Tony and his crew at any time because they had the information on how to manipulate the system, they had trust and they had the element of surprise. Because they had the benefit of the doubt and Tony would think that any action by them would have benevolent motives they are clearly the greatest threat to Tony's way of life. They could manipulate him in order to advance their agenda as well as turning on him completely.

One person that Tony was not worried about was Little Carmine. Tony knew that Carmine was too far removed to pose any significant risk. His respect within the community was low, and did not have the time invested into the organization to have enough knowledge to be powerful. He was not a threat, so he was not thought about too much until he was useful to Tony.

In case you haven't picked up on this yet, there is a point to all of this.

In the first statement I made about Tony being perceived as evil, Tony is the outside world. Tony is Iran, Tony is Iraq, Tony is communism and Tony is Mexico. We perceive these things to be evil because we expect them to be evil, but if we push away the dirt and start to understand the reason why Tony is the way he is we can not only start to fix the problems that exist, but also achieve a greater understanding of others and hence, ourselves as well. If we take the time to understand something rather than demonize it, we can see it for what it is, the good and the bad, weigh those 2 factors and make a decision on it based on a complete picture.

Now with the second spiel, Tony is America. Tony has all kinds of different friends, enemies and some enemies that masquerade as friends. Sometimes we become so consumed with what is covered in the media, we forget about the big picture. We see brown people on the television, or talking heads referring to the "terrorists in Iran" and we not only take it to be fact, but we start to form opinions in our head of who "our" enemies are. Iran is Carmine, not a threat and by giving them the attention that we do, we create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Chaos is New York, encompassing terrorism, economic uncertainty and aggressive foreign relations. New York is against us, but the line is blurred between when we advocate them and are against them, depending on our viewpoint at the time.

Lastly, as you would suspect, our own people; politicians, media, and US citizens are the Adrianna's, the Big Pussy's and the Jimmy's. They are the most dangerous enemy because they have the ability to manipulate us in intricate or overt ways and never be recognized for what they are until its too late. So, to you who would say that Iran or Al Qaeda is our biggest concern, think again.

In short, we need to check ourselves before we wreck ourselves.