December 1, 2006

Kim's University of divine struggle for crapulence

Kim is a truely remarkable leader. Embracing the concept of "distance learning," has established the Kim Il Sung Open University Web site,, aimed at educating the world on North Korea's philosophy of "juche" or self-reliance. He has set up a system that allows only students and researchers at universities along with a selct few to have access to computers. This is made odd due to constant intranet surveilence on a nationwide scale. A handful of the elite have access to the wider Web, via a pipeline through China, but this is almost certainly filtered, monitored and logged. No one knows what is going on besides the high ranking officials, so it is quite difficult to grasp what information is being collected and distributed in that isolated region of the world we call North Korea. Is this how Kim is going to develop his weapons even further, or train his army a poutier and stylistic goosewalk? Perhaps they are coming up with new ideas to broadcast on Kim's show or invent a hairstyle that doesn't resemble cotton candy.

Adouches Claptrap

Complications Upon Complications

Japan's new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, on a visit to Seoul, South Korea, said "the development and possession of nuclear weapons by North Korea will in a major way transform the security environment in North Asia and we will be entering a new, dangerous nuclear age," Even with South Korea on our side, the situation may be out of control. While South Korea is building a military arsenal to form a resistance to Kim's plan, many think they are conspiring with the United States, as North Korea claims. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get accurate information from news coverage in North Korea, as the government is extremely restrictive in what is released to the press and shown to the populace. Even with foreign journalists about in the country, many have been sent to concentration camps for leaking information to the public and foreign associates. We can't even get a cellphone signal because they were banned in 2004. This has left us with very little knowledge about what Kim is really planning and how this will affect not only the Korean, but the Asian nations surrounding NK as well.

Sincerely Japanese Man Hanzo

November 30, 2006

For the record

Because the debate is pretty much over, I was just curious how or why China and Russia decided to turn a blind eye to their once oh so amazing communist partner-in-crime North Korea. I mean, really; China was my ace in the hole.

I had to play Kim Jong-Il in a fantasy land. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to make the real decisions. I think he is a lunatic. It's tough to get into the head of a lunatic.

Kimmy my boy, WTF

This whole situation with our Nuclear weapons testing has been a complete disaster for me, my family and my community. For the past ten years we have been struggling dearly to find enough food to eat even with the aid from the U.N.. Kim has made this situation worse by banning any private market exchanges of grain. I don't have much money, I can barely support my family as it is. Even the rich families are struggling to barter enough goods to find enough food. With this whole import ban thing in effect stimulated by the Nuke testing, we can't get enough supplies to grow our crops, leaving many of us to flee illegally to China or South Korea. China, please help us and allow us to enter your country as refugees.

Sincerely, Korean Man Toso

Do you feel lucky punk? (North Korea)

Its now or never. China is prepared to par-take in a military push provided all parties and UN back the proposal. The more time that this is allowed to continue the further along the North Korean nuclear program developes. We have to make some sort of threat to North Korea now. In waiting we might as well accept the fact that North Korea is going to be a nuclear nation. This might set off the arms race with countries like Iran. So China is saying now or never America.Lets Roll.

US Ambassador Bell (China)

Senator Martins reactions on the “Compromise�

I must praise Chairman Ill, I didn’t think he had it in him to be so utopian. This compromise I must admit sounds good on paper, and I’m pretty sure everyone wouldn’t oppose living in a non-nuclear world. But to possibly think the world is willing or even capable to do it just because some rogue leader calls for disarmament is beyond ludicrous.

The main problem with this compromise is, it would compromise the national security of the US, its allies, and not to mention the world. The more scrupulous of the nuclear nation; the US France, Britain, and Russia would most likely disarm is there was a UN resolution to do so. However I can’t say the same for China, India, Pakistan, North Korea or Israel, who or what would stop them from partially disarming and then rearm a year later. I can just hear someone saying “the UN could�, but realistically the UN couldn’t even stop one country from pursuing a nuclear program. The second scenario that is troublesome is this: countries such as Iran who don’t have nuclear weapons but have nuclear programs and could develop weapons, and then you’d have an unstable nation being the only nuclear power in the world with no one to challenge them.

Personally, I think the only reason North Korea is issuing this compromise is there running out of options. Their ports and lands are blockaded, their closest allies have turned against them, and they have no where to go. North Korea is in a long slow battle of attrition, that there slowing losing. If Chairman Ill doesn’t want to talk sensibly its his loss, all we have to do is wait and he’ll bleed him self out.

North Korea Challenges UN

It has come to the attention of the United Nations that North Korea is quite displeased with the response to its proposed compromise between itsel fand the rest of the world. I, the Chief Administrator, received the following via telegraph in the early morning of 30 November 2006.

"It cannot be in the best interests of member nations not to look into this proposal."

I believe I have firmly outlined the reasoning behind each nations' disapproval of the compromise.

"... it is YOUR job, not mine, to make the international community see the value in this project."

My job is to ensure the maintainence of outright peace and stability throughout the international community...that is the UN's job. I am unsure as to why you've delegated the responsibility of enforcement of YOUR plan toward the UN, especially a plan aimed at destabilizing the status quo. I also lack the knowledge as to why debate continues on this is dead in the UN, the US, and China.

"Sadly, your stance, and that of member nations, reveals something shocking: The refusal to relinquish absolute power over the world."

I think you are forgetting that the United Nations IS the world. Our 192 member states make up the majority of the populations of the international community. The sort of cooperation constructed against your idea is actually quite remarkable. Where is the absolute power if all are in agreement?

The following message was telegraphed to my office on 25 November 2006 from Chairman Il:

"You ask where the threat is, Mr. Siegel? The United States certainly found a way to make Iraq a threat, did it not? How many nuclear weapons have they found there Mr. Administrator? We have plenty to fear, Mr. Siegel, this I can assure you. If the United States can simply decide when and under what circumstances it conducts a war, then it must be in the best interests of the Democratic Republic of North Korea that we do all in our power to make sure we are not next in the list of "Rouge States" that the United States plans to conquer and then abandon. If we do not develop the weapons to protect our land, then we are most certainly next. President Bush has in fact issued a pseudo declaration of war in his previous speech, outlining the "Axis of Evil" that needs to be dealt with. In fact, Mr. Administrator, we have much to fear."

Memo of 30 November 2006:

"It cannot be in the best interests of member nations not to look into this proposal. You, sir, could not be more wrong in one of your arguments. The money SAVED from this endevour would reach untold billions. The United States, as I'm sure you are well aware, spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year maintaining its missile fields in the Dakotas and the 7 billion dollar ballistic missle submarines it has prowling around our waters."

This continuous dumping of responsibility onto the shoulders of the United Nations is ill-founded. I fear that you have brought your broken bicycle to a piano repair shop. It is not the UN who blockades your waters this evening. It is not the UN who is constructing trade barriers. No UN resolution was passed to direct men or machine against the Democratic Republic of North Korea. Your chief interests are expressed toward the actions of the United States. Why, then, are you pulling the UN to fix your relationshipial troubles with the US? For the time being, I feel that the outward discrepancies can best be handled within your two nation states. You both must work together to come about a solution. No matter what the international community contributes, you continuously rebuttle with negativity dealing with the United States, not the UN. It seems you are not willing to actively participate until the US meets your needs, something only workable through the US. The UN is, of course, genuinely concerned with the situation, however the continuous assault of UN values through citation of US efforts alone is frustrating and unconstructive. We hope for positive developments in the future so that we can once again work as a whole and push forward.


UN Chief Administrator Siegel

The World needs to join together, not send America alone

Dear Readers,

As the Chief Administrator of the European Union I would like to wish everyone well for the upcoming elections tomorrow. The past few weeks have been a great opportunity for the world to converge on such an important issue in our world today. I have learned a lot from the citizens of the United States to Kim Jong-Il himself about the contrasting opinions on this issue. As we head into the elections tomorrow, I would like to address everyone with the European Unions final stance on the issue of the United States involvement in North Korea in this memo.

The European Union believes that it is in the best interest of the United States and the world if they did not enter this conflict under their name alone. An issue involving nuclear weapons involves the global community since the safety of the global population would be at risk. It would be wise for the United States to push its efforts to actually supporting the United Nations in all of its potential. The European Union is growing bored with the lack of negotiations coming from North Korea despite all of our efforts so we have weakened our connections. Action needs to take place, but at the correct time and with support of the global community.

The European Union plans to continue the humanitarian assistance that we offer to the citizens of North Korea currently. For those who are unaware the EU has been providing assistance ever since 1995 when devastating floods struck the country. We provide the citizens with medicines, water, food, and we provide a better option for sanitation, winter clothes and hygiene. It is in the best interest of the world to support the people of North Korea but oppose the regime in power. We must look out for the millions of people who are actually suffering under the regime and will be affected by any actions we decide to take.

I hope the European Union will be supported by others reading this memo. With your support we are already a step closer to global cooperation. I thank you all and I bid you a pleasant evening and a good nights rest for the elections tomorrow morning.

Thank you,

Diane Galatowitsch, The Chief Administrator of the European Union

A Senator's View

In response to Kim Jong-Il's "compromise," I do not think that a proposition like this will ever work. In an ideal world, this would be a great solution and promote only peace. However, we don't live in a perfect world and it is necessary for nations to have means of protection. The United States of America will not disarm and other nations will likely follow. Why would the U.S. or any other nation give up its power to defend itself to a nation that has threatened the world? Sure, we all want world peace, but I don't see that ever being a realistic situation. Peace can only be minimized.

The fact still stands that North Korea has nuclear weapons and is not exhibiting the ability to control them or remain in a peaceful state. It is clear how the UN and various other countries feel about North Korea and this blockade will remain until North Korea decides to be realistic. We need to continue working with the UN and other nations to resolve this issue as peacefully as possible. In the coming months, a timetable should be set up for North Korea. If this is still unable to persuade Mr. Il, military force will be used. The United States will stand with this issue and not give up because of Mr. Il's inability to work with everyone else in the world. The U.S. will not be disarming its nuclear weapons and will continue to work to rid North Korea of its nuclear plans.

Senator Austin


The United States does not agree to the compromise brought forth by Chairman Il regarding a complete nuclear disarmament because nothing will be gained of it. The United States relies not on nuclear weaponry and hasn't since 1953 nor do ANY of our ready-planned offensive military scenarios in the Marine Corps and Army contain anything about using nuclear weaponry solely because they will never be used in an offensive situation; also see the unilateral non-proliferation cooperation movement between Russia and the United States with removing all nuclear artillery shells in 1991-2003. Our position as a "sole super power" is merely relative and is in no way proportional to our quantity nor quality of nuclear weaponry but is more a function of our technology and versatile abilties. However the light on our status with relation with the rest of the world is entirely irrelevant as well as this silly "compromise". That is all the United States will share on the issue at this time.

Secretary of State Mark DIlle

China is all like What? What?

China feels this disarming is a ludacris idea. Its in total agreement with UN. After what the nations went through to secure nuclear weapons it would be a huge waste of their money to simply throw it all away. On top of that this would almost surely cause the US's title of the so called "super power" to diminish in some way. China can't seriously believe that the US would let that happen or consider this. It also needs to be brought up that North Korea proposed this. North Korea is an unstable country and isnt in any positions to be making such requests. China will put away its nuclear weapons when everybody else does first, and their positive everyone else feels the same way.

US Ambassador Bell (China)

Eremita for Senator

In the upcoming election an important decision regarding our nation's young people will take place. Vote for myself, Senator Victor Eremita, for the protection of our children. My oppoents, Senator Hauko and the owner of "Beer-a-licious" Parag Shah want to irrationally and irresponcibily create a federal drinking age of 18. (There is no federal drinking age as of yet, but the federal government keeps state government's drinking age at 21 with financial incentives.)
Sen. Hauko asserts that, "I feel that like most things, people only want what they cannot have. If we make alcohol legal, teens will not feel the strong notions to drink excessively." but has no facts or studies to support his "feeling." Further he says: "However, if the drinking age was moved to 18, don't you think more children would not have to lie to their parents about where they are and what they are doing?" Adolecence who drink will still make poor choices whether their parents know or not because their judgement is impaired.

Senator Hauko has come out in support of Parag Shah, who also wants to lower the drinking age. Parag Shah owns a beer production company. He says: "I have seen to many kids drinking beer just to get drunk and not for the taste. I believe my beer will allow young adults to responsibly drink alcohal because they want to enjoy it, but not do it just to get drunk, similar to a glass of wine." I fail to see the logic of this argument, as I'm sure, the people, can too. By making the taste better, wouldn't young people have just another insentive to consume more? Also, he openly acknowledges that he has "seen to[o] many kids drinking beer just to get drunk and not for the taste." Finally, in another statement, he says "I ask all of you who support a more responsible youth to lead our country, you vote for me, Parag Shah for Senate." How can his words be taken seriously when he previously contradicted himself about the responsibility of youth in the previous example? The best way to truely support youth in this election is to allow the drinking age to be raised, thus preventing alochol-related death, developmental impedment, and alcohol-related violence around our children.

This election is not about who trusts youth more or less, it's not about trust at all. Take into consideration the recent adolecence alcohol-related deaths, including the death of the President's daughter. Please weigh the facts and vote responsibly. My oppents have provided no concrete arguments or information to support their claims other then "feelings" that, contrary to years of behavior, significantly reduce their alcohol intake, and yet one of them owns a beer company. I have a daughter, and seek to gain the Congressional seat soley to prevent the lowering of the drinking age, unlike my oppoent, who would see his profits dramatically increase. Please vote for myself, I won't let you and our children down.
Thank you,
Senator Victor Eremita

*P.S. If you're still not convinced, I encourage you to watch my campaign video:

*Campaign Poster:

Raising the Drinking Age

I had an entry on tuesday that I think this blog deleted because I can't find it anywhere. What a wonderful gift technology is!

I had announced on Tuesday my legislation to create a federal drinking age of 25. Right now, there is no federal drinking age, financial incentives by the federal government to the state governments keep state's drinking age at 21 nationally. Contrary to popular belief, few states specifically prohibit minors' consumption of alcohol in private settings (an exception includes Connecticut), and in some cases or states, alcohol permits can be purchased at a cost to the parent or legal guardian. The legislation I'm purposing will not only do away with those exceptions, while still allowing exceptions in regards to religious, medical and family exceptions, and raise the drinking age to 25. There are several reasons for this, but primarily it's to keep college kids away from alcohol. In our universities across the country, minors and those of age to consume alcohol are classmates and regularly attend the same parties and frequent the same social circles. In these situations, those over 21 purchase alcohol for who can't purchase it legally. It makes little sense to allow this failure of logical thinking to continue. If we raise the restriction age, we will seriously impede the ability of teenagers to acquire alcohol by classmates over 21. And in light of the President's recent tragedy we can all see how relevant and necessary this kind of restriction is.

My second reason for restricting young adults from access to alcohol has to do with the development of young people. A person's brain continues to develop into their early twenties. Exposure to alcohol can have profound and irreversible effects on the structure and function of the adolescent brain. Heavy drinking has been shown to affect the neuropsychological performance (“neuropsychological performance� refers to various memory skills.) of young people and may impair the growth and integrity of certain brain structures and restrict blood flow in certain brain regions and electrical brain activities, and severly impair the ablility of brain neurons to make new connections. Chemical and electrical processes are also impared. Other brain functions that alcohol consumption negatively effects are memory function, attention, visuospatial skills (which is the perception of the spatial relationships among objects within the field of vision), and executive functioning ( which is planning, abstract reasoning, and goal-directed behavior). Structures of the brain effected include the Cortex, the Corpus callosum, the Amygdala, the Hippocampus, and the Cerebellum. The Hippocampus, for example, plays an important role in learning and memory function, and adolescent drinking can lead to a decrease in volume of the Hippocampus. Furthermore, imaging studies indicate that adolecent drinkers exhibit abnormalities in some brain areas that are particularly sensitive, such as the hippocampus, and in the chemical and electrical processes that occur during brain activity.

Besides harmful neurological effects, underage drinking also has profound social and psychological effects which can have long-term effects on both physical and psychological well-being and may have long term implications. Adolescence is a period marked by the formation of identity and the establishment of more mature interpersonal and intimate relationships and a transition into adult roles. Social control lessens during this period, and people become freer to choose unconstrained behaviors and lifestyles. Constructing a stable identity can be confusing and difficult, and some teenagers use substances to relieve their identity confusion. Further, this stage of life is also marked with acquiring skills in order to function in an adult society and failure to master them can result in frustration and stress, which can lead to a variety of unhealthy behaviors, including increased alcohol use. Paradoxically, alcohol makes the successful mastery of these developmental tasks harder and may makes failures more severe and increase stress . Numerous studies have identified problems related to alcohol use, including fatal and nonfatal injuries and overdoses, academic/vocational failures, violence and other crime, unintended pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases. Every year approximately 2000 people under the age of 21 die in car accidents involving underage drinking. Among college students under the age of 21 alone, 50,000 experience alcohol-related date rape, and 430,000 have been asaulted by another student who has been drinking.

One of the strongest influences that lead teens to drinking at college is that many college students may drink more because of their misperceptions about the norms of drinking on their campuses. They may think campus attitudes are much more tolerant toward drinking than they are and believe other students drink much more than they actually do. By not allowing college-age people to purchase alcohol, this influence is significantly reduced and would save lives, grief and development of countless teenagers. College students should have the basic creativity to find alternative outlets for stress and for recreation that doesn't involve endangering oneself. Please vote wisely for the sake of the future of our children.

Special thanks to Dr.Kinduva B. Deale, M.D., and

-Senator Victor Eremita

Justice for Senate

Justice for Senate! It would be foolish to jeopardize the future of our high school students by lowering the drinking age to 18 years of age. Not only would it bring an explosion of alcohol into our schools, but the age at which people begin to drink illegally will also drop. Many more 14-16 year old children know students who are 18 than those who are 21. The accessibility will be greatly increased, and the number of underage drunk drivers will increase. We need to protect our kids and vote NO to lowering the drink age!
Principal Justice

Running for Senate

As you all know there are elections coming up for Senator. I want to announce today that I will be running for that position. I have been a strong supporter of Senator Haukos and I agree with many of the same issues he does, especially on the drinking age. I want to teach responsibility to the youth of this country as they receive new freedoms. When kids become young adults when they turn 18 years of age, they are given many new responsibilities that will design the future of our country. Beyond drinking, they need to learn how to handle this responsiblity. I believe alcohal can be a teacher of responsibility and if kids are able to drink at 18, they will learn more responsibility at an earlier age. Along with lowering the drinking age, I plan to implement various programs to teach responsibliity with alcohal and also other freedoms that will be granted to them. I am not saying this will be an immediate change but I promise you after some time you will see dramatic improvements. I ask all of you who support a more responsible youth to lead our country, you vote for me, Parag Shah for Senate.