I Am Damage Mitigation

i haven't blogged in what we're going to call exactly one year. But now that I have absolutely no time to, i'm going to start again. Indeed, i already have. But not here. Out with the old, in with the new. http://xxfluffybunnyxx.blogspot.com is the address of my new blogging venture, which I'm calling "I Am Damage Mitigation". So, this blog i'm going to keep around just cause i don't want to worry about moving all the posts, but i won't be posting here anymore. Except right now

Some Changes

I've added a link to the website for my film studio. The webiste is awful, but the films we make aren't that great either, so I thought it made sense. I promise that this is the last time I will mention Copyright Infringement Films.

Scary

There is a blog called "Libelous Claims About Large Corporations" which is exactly what it sounds like. Statements about corporations that obviously aren't true (Gatorade puts urine in their drinks, Tom Cruise Inc. is a person, etc), but can be quite humorous. I've got it bookmarked, but the reason I bring it up is a specific entry of there's that i've re-read recently. Keep in mind that this was posted in 2005, before we knew about illegal wire-tapping. Also keep in mind that this was posted as something utterly ridiculous and fantastical just for a quick laugh:

"AT&T has listened to every phone conversation you've ever had."

In other words, this is Bush's promise to the nation: Any crazy, stupid, couldn't-happen-in-a-million-years thing that you want to put out there for us, we'll gladly do.

I'm beginning to wonder if kittens aren't on the White House menu...

A Generation's Attack on Intellectual Property

Each generation is accused, and sometimes rightly, of its own special moral decline, and I wish to be the first to accuse my generation of its signature failing.  Perhaps this is because I wish to achieve, with this attack, some temporary feeling of moral superiority.  Perhaps it results from sincere feelings of anger, grief, and disappointment.  Perhaps I want to start blogging again, and this was the first thing I could think of.  I am not the first, nor will I be the last to make this specific argument, but here it is.

Human creativity is one of the most mysterious, powerful, and truly wonderful divine gifts.  We are endowed with the ability to create something from nothing.  This should not be considered lightly, because the only other example of such spontaneous creation at this scale was the birth of the universe.

Obviously human creativity also creates something from something else, and when someone creates something tangible it becomes their physical property.  But the other property that is created, using the aforementioned method is equally, if not more, important.  Intellectual property is…

“Hey, wait a sec… I see where you’re going with this!  You’re going to rant about the evils of illegal music downloading”

“Well, yes, but…”

“Man is that old.  Come on, don’t you realize how rich musicians are!  Besides, the music industry loses more money through burned CDs than downloads.”

“Yes, but both methods are wrong.  And not all musicians are rich.  All producers are rich, but not all musicians are rich.  Do you know why bands constantly tour?”

“’Cause that’s what bands do, they go and play their music.  They’re musicians, they like that.”

“Well, that’s mostly true, but it’s also true that a lot of bands are forced to tour to make enough money.”

“Oh, you probably just made that up.”

“Why don’t you ask some artists?  These people are artists.  You’ve got to look at them like you look at Picasso or… well, some other painter.”

“Hmm… someone did their research *cough*”

“Picasso’s paintings are his property, you wouldn’t steal his paintings, would you?  But you’d steal Green Day’s music… ok, bad example, a lot of people wouldn’t steal Green Day’s music (I mean, they’re not that bad, are they?)”

“Their earlier stuff is a lot better.  They suck now.”

“Anyway, this isn’t supposed to be about whether Green Day still makes good music.  My point is that making an illegal copy of a song is theft.  It is a crime, just like any other crime.”

“Hmm… I was wondering when you were going to start equating music downloading with murder…”

“You bloody well know what I mean!  Would you walk up to Kurt Cobain and grab his wallet?”

“He’s dead.  And when he was alive he had security.”

“Alright, would you hack into Jack White’s bank account and withdraw some of his money?”

“No! The White Stripes are awesome!”

“And yet, you’d download their music.”

“It’s really good music, but I’m only 16, I can’t afford to buy the CDs for all the music I want to listen to!”

“There are other ways to listen to songs without buying them.”

“Now we’re talking”

“Television, radio, check the band’s website.”

“Oh, you mean, legal ways.  Ways that don’t let you listen to the song anytime you want to.”

“That’s not necessarily a bad thing.  You don’t need to listen to the same song over and over and over again.  And if it’s so good that you want to do that, buy the album.”

“But I just want to be able to listen to it when I want to.”

“Uh-huh, yeah, sacrificing your morals for convenience, that certainly makes a lot of sense.  Hmm… these native peoples are in my way, it would be so much more convenient if they were all dead…”

“Oh, wonderful, now you’ve gone and compared music downloading to the Trail of Tears.  Which I find particularly ironic considering: YOU’RE RELATED TO THE MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT SPECIFIC TRAGEDY”

“Don’t you go and bring my long dead ancestors into this, and don’t get off topic.  The problem with your generation is that you fail to see intellectual property crimes as morally wrong.  You’ve grown up with web 2.0, where everything is share and share alike, and since you’re all kids, with no or minimal financial responsibility, you forget that adults still have to make money to live.  You record some song just for fun and let people listen to it for free and don’t understand why the Strokes or Rolling Stones don’t let you do the same thing.

I won’t argue against open source (especially considering that I argued for it a few posts ago), but just because some things on the internet are free doesn’t mean that everything should be.  There always should and will be a place for ‘closed-source’ programming, just as there will always be a place for music THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR.  We live in a capitalist society, and you must learn that sometime, and you must learn to respect that, because there are certain advantages to living in that type of society.  The most noticeable one is that the salespeople are a lot nicer.  They may call you at all hours of the day, but they are nicer because they know that you can always do business with their competitors.  This actually has almost nothing to do with illegally downloading music, but I just wanted to point out why capitalism works real quick.

Ultimately it comes down to a judgment call on your part, kids.  Is it wrong to steal?  Or whatever euphemism you want to use there (“I’m just sampling their songs”).  Just because you don’t feel wrong doing something, just because you don’t feel that twinge of guilt, doesn’t make it right.  Keep in mind that the internet, and computers in general, function in such a way as to create a wholly other world that you may not feel entirely exists, which explains the lack of guilt you feel.  And don’t say that isn’t true unless you’ve got a degree in psychology and can prove me wrong.”

“Oh, yeah, that makes since, ‘cause you have a degree in psychology.”

“… just… just shut up!  I thought I got rid of you, but you just screwed up my conclusion.”

“Oh, did I tamper with your ‘intellectual property’?  Are you going to have me arrested for digital arson?”

“This isn’t funny, that’s my point.  Musicians put tons of work into what they do, but don’t even get respect from their fans.  I mean, their fans must not respect them if they steal from them.  Can you respect someone you steal from?”

“I download their songs because I respect them.”

“Well, theft is a funny way of showing respect.”

“You’re pretty long-winded aren’t you?”

“Yeah, this is getting pretty long.  Call it quits for now?”

“Heck, why not.  We’ll agree to disagree.”

“Plus, I know where you live.”

“Hmmm”

Power is his only principle

Someone once asked me, doesn’t it seem odd to have agreements about how to fight wars (like the Geneva conventions, etc).  They pointed out, correctly, that war involves simply a lot of killing, and the idea of killing ‘in an orderly manner, according to the rules’ is ludicrous.

Well, mostly they’re (Technically, for all you English teachers out there, it should read ‘mostly he/she is’, but I’m not changing it.  This issue was addressed in a previous post.) right.  War is a horrible activity that the world could do without.  But having certain rules for war is not hypocritical.  These rules are agreements made by civilized nations to prevent needless excesses.  McArthur was relieved of command when he approached Truman with a plan to hit China with thirty nuclear bombs.  “There is no substitute for victory.”  Modern nations tend to disagree with that statement, since the devastation of a nuclear war is something that no one wants.

Similarly, the Geneva conventions laid out important ground rules for treatment of prisoners and banned the use of chemical weapons.  It is extremely important that prisoners be treated humanely.  Not to convince the other side to treat our prisoners better, but simply because any civilized nation should hold themselves up to some standards.

Bush’s war on terror doesn’t involve standards.  He has repeatedly proven that no rules apply when he charges off to battle (or rather, sends brave men and women off to battle for him).  Thank God Almighty the terrorists don’t have a base large enough to nuke, that’s probably the only thing stopping him.  He has thrown out the Geneva Conventions, moving us backwards.  Of course, his argument centers around the fact that the terrorists aren’t using the Conventions either, and that they aren’t really soldiers anyway, but terrorists.  Not soldiers, eh?  Let’s see… they’ve got guns, training, commanders, tactics, and most importantly, YOU DECLARED WAR ON THEM you idiot!  Maybe it’s just me, but my view is that if you declare war on someone, that makes their fighting force soldiers.

So, Bush, make up your bloody mind.  You can either declare war on them and then use that never-ending, unwinnable war as an excuse to steadily increase executive power or you can call your campaigns ‘special ops’ and torture the terrorists to your hearts content.  But you CANNOT DO BOTH.  And, you ought to do neither.  Why?  Because as commander-in-chief (and I use that term very lightly) you should project to the world the image of a principled country.  If you try to defeat the terrorists by becoming them, you’ve already lost.  Just a little FYI, there for ya, Dubya.

Adios cobarde! (btw Bush, that’s Spanish for “bye, Great Leader)

"yeah, gimme a fabrication with a side of spin, oh, and hold the truth"

“The truth?  You want the truth?  You can’t handle the truth!”

That timeless quote is the theory behind dictatorship and the battle cry of enlightened despots everywhere.  It doesn’t hold the common man in high regard, since it posits that only a minority of the population has the capacity for governance.

The real challenge to this belief in a caste system came in Europe during the Enlightenment and then developed and evolved into a host of political philosophies that, though they differed in their solutions and specificities, all argued that greater power be given to “the people.”  This ambiguously defined group seemed to posses all the good qualities of man.  They were hard-working and intelligent, resolute, but prudent.  Indeed, ‘the people’ seemed to be the perfect person.  And the monarchy or tyranny was the corrupter of society, the source of inequality and suffering.

Marx wished the elimination of classes to create a working class utopia.  The revolutionaries wanted liberty, equality, fraternity, and bread.  Both ultimately failed in their venture and their ideals were corrupted and twisted into dictatorial regimes.  Yet America succeeded.  And it was perhaps because, despite our dearly beloved values of liberty and equality of opportunity, our founders had the intelligence and foresight to moderate the extremist trends of the Enlightenment and create a representative democracy.

Our founders didn’t want a democracy, for if they did they would have given it to us.  They gave us a republic, concentrating power in the hands of wealthy elite.  It was an oligarchy in many ways, but the first presidents of America and their counterparts in the Congress were patriots, and upheld the values of liberty and equality and worked to the betterment of the state.  By no means was it perfect, it was simply the most democratic government of its time.  The capitalist system was perhaps the real source of democracy, because it allowed freedom of movement in economic position.  But a new American aristocracy, built of inherited wealth, quickly grew.  And it is also to be remembered that about ¼ of the population of southern states did not have this capitalist freedom, or any freedom for that matter.

It was not until 1824 that ‘the common man’ was really campaigned to in America.  Even then no radical changes came to America’s political order.  A large public party in which cheese is served is a lovely gesture (especially for those of us who like cheese), but did not immediately imbue the ‘common man’ with political power.  It was simply another strategy used in competition between the moneyed elite.

Meanwhile, the Congress and government in general eventually began to resemble 17th or 18th century Italian politics.  The capitalist system allowed fresh blood to enter into governance, but transformismo made certain that radical changes were prevented.

I’ve just realized that I got off on a tangent.  I was supposed to talk about truth, not the best form of government.  Sorry about that.  Right, well, the point I was going to make was that people don’t want the truth.  The average person any given person (there is no average person) is not strongly motivated by a desire “to seek out the truth no matter how grim!”.  They have their own goals and interests and their politics will be determined by two things.  

The first is their current state.  If they have been directly affected by the government, then that can strongly motivate them (unfortunately for incumbents, a person will rarely celebrate the government just because they got a job, but is more likely blame an administration if they are laid off).

The second, and infinitely more important are the varying views and positions that the politicians present to them.  In ‘the good ‘ol days’ (an imaginary time usually resembling the fifties only without polio) politicians campaigned by presenting different views on an issue and attacking their opponents credibility in weird and wondrous ways.  Modern politicians have a new approach.  Instead of offering different opinions, they’ve started offering different facts.  They are so good at it, in fact, that in the political realm there is no real difference between fact and opinion.

Any voter who now wants to make an informed decision must consider this: facts that cannot be physically touched can no longer be trusted.  A different approach to choosing a candidate must be invented where facts do not factor into the equation.  What are they now, but a ‘set of lies agreed upon.’

note 2

hey, what happened to those notes? you ask ('you' being Rob). Well, two reasons.

One, it has nothing to do with the blog

Two, the formatting got really screwed when i posted it from Word, so i thought it was to confusing

By the way, i would never have put up notes he hadn't checked yet

So... back to what this blog is supposed to be about

The Three Branches of Government

     Below is the un-revised version of an essay that I wrote for a school assignment.  I decided to include it in the blog since it is similar to the kind of stuff I write about here.  Enjoy:

Three, as a number, probably holds more significance in all fields and institutions (from religion to screen writing) than any other number.  It is thus altogether fitting that our Founders created a government with three branches.  One to legislate the laws, one to execute the laws, and just as an added bonus, one to interpret the laws.  This three branch system was the first of its kind to be attempted on Earth (Mars had tried it hundreds of thousands of years before, but a corrupt administration that ignored signs of global warming caused the death of all life on the planet, and the evaporation of most of the water) and led to the longest lasting democratic nation-state on the same.
     Having more branches on our metaphorical governmental tree wasn’t the only reason for our success, however.  Those branches intertwined in ways that balanced the system, preventing the entire structure from falling over (oh, you better believe I can talk in extended metaphor, wootness!).  The test of our nation is whether we can sustain that delicate balance and thus preserve for our posterity the gift of liberty.
Gradually, the legislature, which was intended by our Founders to be the first branch of government, has declined in power in comparison with the other two branches of government.  The executive branch’s powers have been expanded through strong-willed presidents and perhaps the amendment to the Constitution allowing the direct election of presidential electors.  The power of the executive branch also temporarily increases during war time (So, in the laughable event that a president declares a never-ending war on a noun, he could steadily increase his power to the point where he would be even above the Constitution.  But that, of course, will never happen.).  The Judiciary’s role has also increased over the years, as the Supreme Court began to take a more immediate role in governing, will such decisions as Marbury v Madison and Brown v Board of Education.
     However, the separation between the powers remained largely intact.  Although it may be frustrating for presidents when their Supreme Court nominees don’t turn out exactly as they would wish, it does demonstrate to the public that we still have an independent judiciary.  And it is an extension of our Founders’ foresight rather than an inherent flaw in our system that even when the president and the majority of Congress our of the same political party, they still find it difficult to get along.  The threat to American Democracy is not that Congress can’t get anything done, we’ve survived that for 200 years; it is rather that the system becomes more efficient, thus allowing the majority party undue control over the country.
     The first signs of trouble may already be appearing on the horizon.  Speeches by politicians stressing unity and the end of “partisan politics” are as un-American as they are dangerous.  We need not be of the same mind to be of the same country.  Our unity is inherent and unbreakable.  And partisan politics and bickering on not enemies to democracy, but a sign of strength!  Our country was founded on partisan politics.  Nominations to the Supreme Court have always been motivated by political issues.  No liberal president has purposely nominated a conservative judge, and vice-versa.  To say that Supreme Court nominees should be considered only by their experience is a slap on the face to our system.  Presidents do not nominate stupid people.
     And this new wave of ideology, this new stress on monism, is reflected by the decline in the most pluralist branch of government, the legislature.  The Congress is beginning to take a back seat to the much more publicized executive branch.  Presidential vetoes have risen steadily since 1787, and the executive branch has become an integral part in law-making, coordinating the drafting of legislation with members of Congress on many issues.  Congress has lost one of its most important abilities, that to declare war.  America has not declared war since 1941, and likely never will again as long as presidents frame conflicts as “police-actions” and find ways around the War Powers Act.
     As the Congress has declined, the Presidency has enjoyed more control and power than ever before.  This can be seen in the explosive increase of the number of staff employed in the executive branch and the equally stunning rise of the bureaucracy, which some have labeled “the fourth branch of government”.  It is a misnomer, however, because the bureaucracy is the arm of the executive branch, dutifully helping it to execute the laws and federal mandates.  The latter have increased of late in proportion with the increasing power of the executive branch.  These mandates along with executive privilege could theoretically allow the president to secretly authorize an illegal wire-tapping program used to spy on American citizens (rofl + lmao, like that would ever happen).  The growing influence of the Fourth Estate (the media) on American’s life has given the president increasing ability to use his position as the most public figure on Earth to campaign for causes that he supports.  Because no single legislator gets as much media coverage as the president (unless they’re under indictment for ethics violations, *cough* *cough*), he (or she… lol rofl j/k) has the media advantage.
     Thusly have the checks and balances in our Constitution declined.  Congress’s ability to declare war reduced to rubber-stamping police actions, their role in approving judicial nominees reduced to a several day long speechification process where the nominees spend most of their time declining to answer questions in case they (god forbid) reveal an opinion.  And the separation of powers built into our system has began to fall away, as the Supreme Court gets more and more politicized.
     I believe in the American system.  I have faith that the Founders created a system so strife with conflict, a government that played on the very vices of men, that not even the most determined political force could destroy it.  And I can only hope that the cycles of our political system that mean no party is in control for a very long time will prevent a party from piercing the Constitution’s defenses.

quote

I can’t remember where I read this, but I love this quote:

“The media is only as liberal as its Corporate owners”

Just felt like throwing that in there

hope

     I was listening to him speak on CNN today, and it really gave me hope.  From a political point of view, he speaks clearly, stays on message, appeals to voters, he’s young, and he might be able to win Democrats the black vote back (I don’t blame their dwindling support in recent years, btw.  I think Democrats have sort of failed their constituents by not getting elected).  From an ideological point of view, he’s perfectly satisfactory.  This young charismatic figure is just what the Democrats need to reenergize them, and I’ll be watching his career with interest.
     That being said, I hope no one tries to pressure him into running too soon.  I was relieved when I heard him say that he will not be running in ’08 and that he will complete his full six year senate term.  Once he has some experience behind him he’ll be perfect for a presidential run.  In the mean time, I’d like to see the Governor of Virginia run for president in ’08, but I would hope that Gore and Kerry stay out of it, as they are not… exactly… how should I say this… inspiring.

Its the policy, stupid

“Should I feel happy that their hypocrisy and culture of corruption will continue to give fuel to attacks by democrats?”

I re-read this sentence in my last post, and thought to myself, that’s not something to be happy about.

Usually when I hear Republican attacks along these lines: ‘they don’t have a plan so all they can do is attack’, I tend to dismiss them out of hand.  “We do too have a plan,” I’ll say, or “Well, its easy for you to say, you guys are in charge, so you have to form a plan, otherwise the country will stop running!” (which, by the way, would almost be a better alternative).  But lately I have gotten a little frustrated with my fellow Democrats, because they aren’t articulating a clear message.  Of course, one reason is that Democrats tend to put together more complicated talking points than “FREEDOM GOOD, ugha ugha”, but that still doesn’t excuse us.  We have a lot of differing opinions within our party, for instance people of different faiths (‘ooh,’ gasp the Republicans, ‘how exotic!’) and different ethnicities (‘oh,’ says the CEO, ‘like those guys that mow my lawn?’), and sometimes all this intra-party democracy can lead to a slightly jumbled message, but again, that’s no excuse.

Democrats need to start formulating a more concise message, and laying out plans for various issues.  Yes, there are many things that Republicans are doing that can be attacked, but the primary focus needs to shift to coming up with alternative policies for foreign and domestic policies, and GETTING THOSE POLICIES OUT THERE in the public sphere.  Jon Steward (oh, man, I wish that guy was running for president) came up with a neat idea.  That the Democratic National Committee create a shadow government of sorts that, for every action taken or legislation passed by the Republicans, outline what the Democrats would have done in their place.

The Republicans will always be better at raising money and campaigning than we will (which I think says a lot about their character), but if we present policies that are good for the American people, all the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth groups in the world won’t be able to stop us.

Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

replacing DeLay and 2006

How should I feel about the Republicans who are trying to replace Delay, all of whom have been involved with similar unethical activities?  Should I feel happy that their hypocrisy and culture of corruption will continue to give fuel to attacks by democrats?  Should I feel amazed that they would have the gall to try and get away with this?  Or perhaps I should just feel amazingly tired and collapse onto the couch and give up on it all.

The worst part of it all, though, is the Democrats.  I can always trust us to lose an election; it’s what we have consistently proven to be good at.  I can see myself sitting there, in November 2006, watching with horror as Democrats lose more Senate and House seats and Republicans wax poetic about how Americans “voted for freedom” and “stopped the un-American liberal agenda” and “made our nation safe again”.

Well, I guess I’ll go get a paper bag for my vomit…

Chicken Hawks and Nukes

     Bush invaded Iraq because he said that they had nukes.  Well, that wasn’t exactly true… but that debate is getting pretty tired.  North Korea has nukes.  Not only do they have nukes, they refuse to get rid of them (May I remind you that Saddam not only didn’t have nukes, he was willing to get rid of the nukes he didn’t have!  But we invaded without giving the weapons inspectors time to finish their job).  Yet Bush has no intention of invading North Korea, or even pressuring them with the threat of military action.  He calls it a “diplomatic” problem even though we have about as much chance of solving North Korea diplomatically as a turtle has of climbing Mount Everest.
     So why doesn’t Bush pressure them?  Because for all his big talk about strength and fighting for freedom, Bush is a coward.  He’s a chicken-hawk, urging others on to war while he sits in the White House on a comfy leather couch calling up his Saudi friends.  In Vietnam, Bush “served” his country by staying as far away from the fighting as possible, and as close as he could be to good suthern cookin’.
     Bush can’t even stand up to Kim Jong Il, a guy probably half his height, and a softy dictator who spends most of his time enjoying luxurious living and forcing his citizens to change their hair cuts.  But though Kim might not be very threatening personally, his nuclear program is.  It is a matter of years before they have nukes that can strike U.S. targets, if they don’t already.  We need a more hard-lined approach to this problem.  If Kim is not in constant fear of his life, we’re not doing our job (I’ll bet you’ve never expected a liberal to say that, eh?).
     And as with North Korea, so Iran.  The rulers there might not be so unreasonable, but they have the same objective, and they need something sterner than talks with Britain and Germany to stop them.  When’s the last time Germany won a war?  What kind of threat is Britain to Iran’s national security?  All their troops are stuck in Iraq.  I strongly want this to be an international effort, but that means that our people have to be part of the negotiations.
     The problem with Iraq wasn’t that we shouldn’t have threatened Saddam, the problem was invading the country after threatening it had given us the results we wanted.  But the failed Texan oil-man G. W. Bush couldn’t stand to lose the opportunity to bring in all that ‘Texas Tea’ and take revenge for his father on the man who “tried to kill my daddy”.

wire taps

     There are some things for which debate is not a good idea.  I’m sure no one would agree to a debate about whether the holocaust existed because that would only lend credibility to neo-Nazis and those few who deny that is happened.  In the same way (and please forgive me for the ubiquitous Nazi metaphor, I’ll try to be less cliché later) I don’t think that it is appropriate to raise this wire-tapping issue to the level of debate.  There is no debate.  There were searches conducted without a warrant.  That is not only illegal, it is unconstitutional:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” – 4th Amendment to the Constitution

I’m I missing something here?  How does Karl Rove, in his twisted mind, reason that wire-tapping without a warrant is ok?  How can Republicans elevate this to the level of debate, how can the media allow them to do so?  I really feel like I’ve stumbled into a parallel dimension!  Now let’s have a debate about whether Watergate was illegal!  I don’t think is illegal because they breaking into a hotel for freedom’s sake!  Violating the constitution is the only way to defend the American people!!!  This is war!!!  The same rules don’t apply!!!  Plus Bush has been so honest with the American people so far, we owe him this one!!!  Just look at his face, how can you not trust him?  Doesn’t that condescending laugh always make you feel better?  The Orwellian backdrops he employs?

God Bless America, ‘cause we’re gonna need it

Why Block?

First, I would like to thank you for considering my argument. I have decided to format this post at a serious of points rather than an easy because I think that that will make it easier to read. I might add a bit of analysis after the end of each point, but I’m going to try to keep this as concise as possible.

I’m not sure if this is being discussed, but I would hope that is would be realized that it would be impossible to institute block as early as next year. A shift that sudden would unfortunately prevent some rising seniors from graduating on time (. The reason is that those who left off their foreign language requirements to their senior year would have literally no way of completing two courses in the same foreign language.

As to the reasons why Block should stay forever:

Many students at Page carry there books around in their book bags, sometimes avoiding lockers all together. It’s simply a matter of convenience. Often times peoples lockers are too far away from their other classes to use without being late or having to rush (run) to class. Not using a locker also prevents students from accidentally leaving there books in their lockers, which no matter how organized you are will always happen to you at least once. However, it is extremely difficult to fit all of one’s books in a single book bag. If we went to a standard 6 class schedule it would be more than difficult, it would be impossible. I simply cannot fit 6 notebooks and 6 textbooks in my book bag. And so with more people using lockers tardies would invariably increase, which is the last thing we want.

Probably the most important aspect of block is the eight extra classes. A student at Page is in the unique position to take as many classes in four years as a student at another school would spend over five years to complete. This certainly gives a Page student an advantage in college admissions, especially because those extra eight classes can be geared toward AP classes that would raise the student’s GPA. I will admit that not all student’s choose this path, but it is a much-appreciated gift by those who do.

Another aspect of block that is beneficial is the semester system. This gives students the unique opportunity to take two classes in the same year that build on each other (i.e. taking Spanish 2 second semester and Spanish 1 first semester). In fact, without this schedule in place, I see no way for a student to take Spanish 5 and AP Spanish, since they could at most take 4 years of the same language.

I’ll add more to this list as I think of other reasons, suggestions are most welcome

To vote or not to vote

Two things about voting I have issue with (or, at least, two that I’m going to write about today).  First, that greater voter turn out is a noble goal that should be an end we strive for.  Second, that greater voter turn out will help get Democratic candidates elected.  Neither premise I agree with.

I do not believe that our founding fathers wanted every American to vote (which is why, for instance, the people of this country were constitutionally denied the direct election of the president, and I am not referring to our current system, but if you would remember, the electors of the president were originally chosen by state legislators).  However, I will not use that as a reason to support my argument (did you see what I just did there? Pretty clever, huh?) because I do not agree with all of the founding fathers’ intentions (examples: writing slavery into the Constitution, being racist against blacks and Indians in general, giving states as much authority as they had back then, etc).  I believe most about what I want to say about the Founding Fathers should go into a separate post where I can go into more detail about their successes, failures, and flaws (The intro to America: The Book makes a few very good points).  I just wanted to mention them in passing.

Now, to the voting.  The running of a country is a very important job, and if that country is a global superpower with enough nukes to destroy the entire world (see End of the World) than that job is slightly more important.  That’s not to say that electing the wrong guy is unduly costly.  States, Countries, Empires, can usually survive even with phsyco-maniacs in place (Think Byzantine Empire, descendents of Justinian) and America, with all its wonderful checks and balances, can withstand quite a bit.  But before I get distracted again, let me try to come to my point.  Better not risk it, eh?  The issues that this nation now faces are myriad and complicated, and while some political parties (*cough* republicans *cough*) would have you believe that any issue is simple enough to be expressed in a 10 second sound byte, that is simply not true (and also, it really ticks me off when Bush talks in that condescending voice and dumbing everything down with that classic “in other words…”, but that is neither here nor there and that is certainly not the main reason why I am against the guy).  The truth is that most of the issues that are regularly discussed are not understood well enough by most Americans to make those decisions.  This is of course, why we have a representative democracy in the first place.  Not everyone has enough time to learn about all these issues, so we elect other people to.  And this is a good system, I’m not saying it isn’t, it would be insane for us to expect everyone to know everything.  That being said, it is important to realize the key point that you don’t understand the issues well enough.  That is very important.  Whenever the media is discussing an issue and trying to “educate” the public about it, trust me, they are not doing a very good job.  For example, the economy.  Unless you have an advanced degree in economics from a prestigious university, you don’t know the issue well enough.  That doesn’t mean you’re not smart, very few people have advanced economics degrees.  But don’t believe, or let the media convince you, that you understand the issue well enough.

However, you may be smart enough to select the guy who can understand the issue, and that’s where voting comes in.  Don’t vote for a guy who made D’s in college (in other words, all two major candidates in the last election).  Don’t vote if you don’t want to.  This is key.  Our system works when people who want to vote (because they feel strongly about an issue) vote and people who don’t care (and therefore didn’t bother to find out the issues) don’t vote.  Two key concepts here.  One, it is OK to not vote.  Making everyone vote means that each vote means less, and more votes will be made for frivolous reasons.  If you try to get everyone to vote, your going to have people voting based on hair color and beer choice (this is already done, but to a very very very small degree).  The second concept is that, while I said your too dumb to understand the issues, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try.  If you want to vote, it wouldn’t kill you to find out a little something.  The more you know about the issues, the better choice you can make, the important thing is to stay to facts.  Don’t listen to “expert opinion” or at least don’t take it as truth.  Being extremely cynical when it comes to what you hear about politics.  Our founding fathers warned against the power of demagogues and those who with words would seek to win favor.

To vote or not to vote.  I think our system (of voting) is fine the way it is.  Don’t, I beg, DON”T bemoan a fifty percent turn out rate.  Ask yourself if you truly want the other fifty percent voting.  And let me stress I’m not doing the typical liberal elitist: “those ppl are 2 stupid 2 vote.”  I’m saying leave them alone already.  They’ve got jobs and a life, and if they don’t want to vote then they shouldn’t have to.

Now, to the second part, hopefully a lot short.  There is some talk, or was, among either the media or the left or both that increased voter turnout tends to favor democrats.  That is an interesting statement as, if one reads it carefully, it doesn’t make any sense.  The first example of why this is not true is the 2004 election, where increased voter turnout led to a Bush victory.  Why? Because of who that increase represented: evangelical Christians.  I don’t think increasing voter turn out should be the goal a political party (although it does make for good PR).  The goal of a political party should be to increase votes for their candidate.  That is the purpose of a political party.  Perhaps, democrats, if you would spend less time “Getting out the Vote” or “Rocking the Vote”, and more time “Campaigning” you might start to win some elections.  Your starting to lose your base.  Your not organized enough, but again, that is a discussion for another post.

So I think ill finish here.  I’ll probably have to come back to this post to correct a few things to make sure my arguments aren’t misconstrued. Until next time…

Manifesto

Ok, right here right now is my desperate plea for open source. When Microsoft Word (not excel or powerpoint or anything fancy like that) crashes on you three times in a row!!! That, that my friend, is when you plead for open source. When your entire heart is united, not in love, but hatred of the despised Microsoft. Oh Woeful irony, tearing at my soul! Oh Linus, save me! Save me from man’s greed, his ignorance, his lack of foresight! Save me from Gate’s tyrannical entrapment! Thus I am confounded! Without thee, I am nothing, with, I am in torture.

Man’s rights are here disclaimed by those who have no right of authoritative rhetoric! Oh, my government, let at least a tyranny be that elected, and not that seized by tyrants of fortune. Know that now I am against thee! Hated villain, wretched, bloated, monopoly! Here I forget all loyalties, and fly towards virtue! I cast down the mantle of servitude! I plead for what is right and natural! When all those who have obtained a knowledge of the skill to program, when this Great Host is let work, perfection cannot fail to arise! When the Source is hidden, it fades in the dark, and begins to unravel. When those whose craft it is to craft code, when they are shut up under artificial light, and what’s more, artificial rules! Oh, they moan, they are beset by demons, and the suffering is felt even to the last user whose work they are forced to use! Oh, blame not those beset within, besieged, enslaved, blame the might Bill, the Gate, and others of his manner.

Without freedom, man’s life is but a play, to be acted not to perfection, but tainted by the fear of the stage, and the whips of his master! Oh, Source be open, be true, be all-encompassing delight! Be Linux!

clarification

I think some of you got confused with the 'death of a blog' post. I wasn't talking about this blog. Also, to clarify, "The Left versus the Right" is dead, but the 'death of the blog' post wasn't about it either. Confused yet? Anyway, i'm updating this blog again, as can be see with the two new posts below...

Current Events

I suppose I should talk about all the recent (and shocking) political news.

No one smiles on their mug shot, its just not done. Delay, sir, you are indicted on money laundering charges, this is not something to be happy about. I only wish all this stuff (Delay, Rove, etc) had come out before the '04 election. Its too late now, we're stuck with Bush and his buddies in Congress for three more years. Of course, I've heard that Bush doesn't get along with Congress that well any more, especially after the Miers nomination. Idk how Bush came up with that one, but a common theme among his appointies seems to be that his known them for about a decade (that's right, i watch the DS). Oh, i just think its so interesting for the Republicans to be bickering with themselves for a change, I had been led to believe that Democrats were the party that had difficult staying on message. Maybe, gasp, some democracy is creeping into the Rep. party. Maybe some decent Republicans who believe in sound fiscal policy will start getting elected. I remember when the Republicans used to be about not running up deficeits, and i'm not against that. Especially now. I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize for making this all one paragraph, i'm not perfect.

Anyway, 2006 is rapidly approaching and i think the congressional elections will be very interesting next november. Where I live we recently had some type of local election and i heard from a friend that: more people watched a rerun of the Jeffersons than voted (thats just a random thing i thought was neat and has nothing to do with anything else. I'm not using that to go into a "voting is important" speech because i don't think people who aren't interested in voting should vote, but thats for another time.)

you get what you ask for

When a company or industry is in the business of performing, people want a good performance, and therefore only good performers are hired. Indeed, in any job that requires impressing the general public, for example the PR person of a major corporation, the person hired for that job will portray the image that both the company and the public want to see.

Perhaps this is why the founders of the United States didn’t want the president to be directly elected by the people. Now, of course, that’s a horrible thing to say, but I sometimes wonder, I really do.

George Bush, who is a miserable failure of a president (and if you need proof of this, I’ll make a list at the end of the post*), is very appealing, the kind of person you could sit and have a drink with at a bar. He is not, however, the best choice for president. John F. Kennedy was one of the few Senators to be elected president, and (I think) the only Catholic. How did he manage this? Just look at the guy’s face! No wonder he scored so many chicks in the Oval Office.

Now, JFK wasn’t a bad president, and America has more that its share of great leaders. We’re the longest lasting modern democracy on Earth, after all. So good looks and competent governing aren’t mutually exclusive, but the emphasis on looks and personality has increased tremendously in the last half century, and this is a disturbing phenomenon.

Look at pictures (or portraits) of our early presidents. Look at Lincoln! He was ugly! Washington had wooden teeth (although I think I read somewhere that this wasn’t actually true) and he got a city and a state named after him! You’ve got to say that they were pretty good presidents. In fact, you’ve got to say they were some of the best presidents we ever had! But they wouldn’t stand a chance of getting elected nowadays. Not one damn chance.

Now, I refuse to make the media take all the blame, because a free press is necessary for a democracy to function (whether modern media is still free or not as been discussed before on this blog, but any media is better than no media). The American people are responsible for our democracy (Yes, you!). Thus when our democracy prospered (for instance, the post-war 50’s), the leaders of the country certainly helped, but the people were ultimately responsible, both for electing said leaders and for doing what Americans do best, work on tails off! But when our country suffers, it will only recover when Americans do something about. Turn off the TV. Don’t watch the presidential debate. Try the radio, or better yet, read about their positions. Vote not on how they look, or how they talk, or how religious they say they are (Mark 10:25, and all of ‘em are rich), or how great they say America is, or they’re speeches (because they don’t write their own speeches), but vote on their positions and their experience/qualifications.

Elections aren’t a reality TV show! It affects the entire world! Get out and vote, and make a bloody informed decision. And if things go bad you may only complain if you voted for the other guy! So I’m bloody well complaining!
(*Iraq: thousands of Americans dead on false premises, plus hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, the New Orleans tragedy and the slow response, tax cuts for the rich, CAFTA, lost jobs, Karl Rove is revealed to be the dirty politico he is, George Bush eats kittens, and soo much more)


Kudos to whoever originally made this pict

The Death of a Blog

It will not be much mourned, but it is gone and will not return. It wasn't very good, but it was there and is no longer. So i must remove it from my links, good bye blog.

Hard Work for Nothing

This is the year 2005 A.D. 5,000 years ago our ancestors began the "o'l nine-to-five" and we have continued every since. Why? Why must we work so hard?

So much progress has been made that has radically increased the standard of living, but has led to almost no decrease in the time spent working by all classes of society. This does not seem right. Surely we should be resting on our laurels. Surely we should all go into semi-retirement and slow progress so we can be lazy for a while. Why all this hard work?

But human society has developed around progress and striving for exellence. Unfortunately, it lookes like it'll stay that way. The major problem is that humans don't know what to do with free time. Even though we've become so intelligent and elightened, we just can't handle free time. That's why Rome collapsed. The slaves were doing all the work and the upper classes got lazy and pleasure seeking. Since humans can't control our base instincts, we have to work hard to prevent them from having the chance to appear.

So our standard of living will increase, but what good it the good life if you can't enjoy it?

Philosophy or die!

The Split

I'm dividing this blog into two, sort of. The political aspect of the blog is being moved here

Now in this blog i'm going to try to live up to the blog's name somehow, plus the occasionally post about the english language.

test 2

…

a stream of consciousness

Andy: i stil need an idea for a post, something original
Ben: umm
hm original... how about on the effect of a belief of a fake liberal media bias on politically middle americans
Andy: you know, sometimes i don't know whats true anymore
cause now its seems like people can get away with out right lies
it used to be you had to bend the truth
that you could have statistics that were correct, but...
and now it seems like anything goes
and both sides say the other is lying all the time, and there's never any proof because the worlds so complicated
but both sides see proof everywhere
and they both say their hypocrites
Ben: i don´t think there is bias either way
for the most part
some papers or new channels obviously lean one way or another
but i think reporting has gotten lazy
Andy: did you just ignore my entire speech?
Ben: and is thus more prone to show these
no im not
Andy: yeah, i agree rpeorters arelazyier
Ben: i know people are gonna say oh its liberal or oh its conservative but also you have to remember thats how papers were to began
papers began as insturments to get certain beliefs spread
it wasn´t until recently that we demaned non biased news
Andy: well, what it was was the invention of investigative reporting, which is now dead
i the main reason is because of corporate pressure and the consolidation of the media
Ben: no way!!! it is not dead why just yesterday I saw ¨Thirty things in your kitchen that could kill you, and the one you would NEVER guess!!!¨
Andy: i think what i'll do is just copy this convo and post it as a post in my blog
which one?
Ben: haha
the plastic spoon
Andy: if you burn plastic it releases fumes that people can get high off of
so it is very dangerous, yes
Ben: hahaha
Andy: and the spoon, truly an instrument of destruction... copy.... paste... woot

their

This post is similar to the 'a lot' post in that i'm arguing for breaking a grammar rule in the English language in order to make it more user-friendly. In this case, I feel that a writer should be able to substitute the word 'their' for 'his/her' because it looks better and is faster to type. Saying and writing his/her all the time, in my opinion, weakens the writing and distracts from the point.

Now, understand that I'm only refering to a very specific case here. It usually occurs when one is trying to say "A person should such and such and such..." and then one needs a possesive pronoun. You can't just say 'his' because then your politically incorret, so you either have to say 'his/her', or break the grammatical rules and go with 'their'. It also makes sense in the sense that one is usually refering to 'a person' in the sense of one out of many (e pluribus unum) so there is a connotation of it being plural.

For those who would insist that a plural matches up with a plural, I would point out one glaring example of an instance where we always match a plural with a singular. Are is quite clearly a plural verb, we use it for 'we', 'they', 'many,' etc. But we also use it for 'you', which is equally clearly a singular pronoun. You are only one person. Thus, from the point of view of grammatical consistancy, "you is," is more correct than "you are,". I'm not suggesting we change 'you are', I'm just suggesting we let me use 'their' instead of 'his/her'.

Leviticus

When it comes to religion, there is a lot of fiery rhetoric. Apparently a lot of people have very strong opinions about religion. And they have every right to, since religion concerns the salvation of the soul. But even in religion there is room for debate that doesn't involve mutual excommunication. And so I humbly submit this argument (I still think its weird that there isn't an e in argument).

Leviticus 18:22. There's been a lot of talk about that particular verse in the Bible, especially from the televangelists who are involved in politics. "It's in the Bible," they say, "and the Bible is the word of God." But few of them discuss Leviticus 19:19 with equal fervor. But there they are. Both of those verses are in the book of Leviticus, and nowhere in Leviticus is it said that one of the verses is more important than the other. May I venture to say that it would be hypocritical to so boldly preach one and violate the other. I ask this, how many televangelists have worn polyester or another synthetic fiber?

I'm not going to come to a conclusion now, but only put that out there and let you draw your own conclusions. If you want more information, consult the Bible.

Mark 10:25

Bush

To the theme to M*A*S*H, which seems so appropriate

Through bullet-proof car glass I see
A Gold Star mom protesting me
In my own ranch! Just let me be
I'll just ignore her desperate plee!

Because vacation's painless
it brings on many changes
and i'll take just one more now if I please

Cliche

It is something that all serious writers despise and condemn. It is something you are taught not to use in creative writing class. It is the great evil. The temptation of the dark side. The easy way out. The cliche.

So I am about to say something very unpopular. Cliches aren't bad... if. Yes, that's right, I said it.

A cliche is defined as an overused phrase. Something that was once original, but isn't anymore. So your teacher tells you to come up with something more original. But there are times when a cliche is appropriate. After all, cliches have stood the test of time (test of time, I'm pretty sure that's a cliche). They work, so it would be a shame to waste them. And the problem with originality is that it doesn't always work. How many sayings were discarded and never became cliches? If you're trying to express a point and won't to drive it through, risking originality could risk the loss of the entire piece.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be original. That should be the goal of all writing. But writers should use the cliche as they would any other literary tool. It has its place.

War-torn Afghanistan

So, i was working on my required summer reading and one book on the list was "My Forbidden Face" which is a book written by an afghan girl who grew up under Taliban rule. It's a really good book that was probably even better in its original language and it really makes you think about US foreign policy, because you get the chance to look at it from another person's point of view.

Bush has said that his goal in foreign policy is to spread freedom and democracy across the globe. Surely, no one could have a problem with a goal like that, since democracy is widely considered a very good thing. I will discuss whether or not he has been doing anything remotely close to spreading democracy a little later, but first i want to relate the story of US foreign policy in Afghanistan.

It is a story of selfish interests and pretended ignorance, of catastrophic nearsightedness and reckless abandonment.

WWII. The Western Democracies mobilized against the threat of fascism. When Hitler made the poor desicion to invade Russia (probably because he was taking so many drugs at the time) the USSR entered the war and expanded west. Thus the Cold War was born.

The Cold War. Named partially for the fact that it wasn't officially a war and partially because it was fought in Russia, which is really cold. In order to realize the USSR's imperialistic dreams (the very dreams that they preached against when fighting the fascists, but what can you do when you're a superpower), the Great Communist State invaded Afghanistan to bring Great Reforms and Modern Freedoms to that country. Thus our story begins.

America immediantly responded by helping the mujahadeen (apology for the spelling errors) fight the Soviets. America did this to stop the 'spread of godless communism' (they really loved that phrase in the 50's. Ever wonder why 'under god' is in the pledge of allegiance? 50's!)
Of course, America wasn't concerned with what would replace the communists, and so we quickly abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew.

Thus eventually the (Pakistan-supported) Taliban invaded. Most were probably not educated enough to read, which made it quite easy for them to horribly mistranslate the Koran (I use the term 'mistranslate' losely, 'make up stuff' might be slightly more appropriate). For many years rockets had daily pounded into Kabul, but the author of "My Forbidden Face" says that the oppressive silence of the Taliban was worse.

Little by little the Taliban took away every right the Afghan women had. Since women were not allowed to go outside without a male escort, widows and other women without families were forced to starve to death in their own homes. Thus it was that the Taliban finally took away the right of Afghan women to live. To live.

But the Taliban were not communists, so the U.S. didn't care much. We had won the fight against the godless communists! Oh glorious day! With the fall of communism every single last threat to world peace had been removed.

But then, what's this? September 11th? Are you telling me that if we ignore dictatorial regimes that oppress their people it could someday come back to haunt us?

Bush was right to invade Afghanistan and kick out the Taliban. The act of removing Saddam Hussein itself is not bad (though the manner in which it was done was a horrible bungle).

But Bush is no hero. He is good friends with the Saudis who also oppress their people and don't do much to stop terrorism (how many 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? A lot). And of course. In the modern Crusade against the middle east most people have forgotten about the crises in Africa. Dictators abound there, and it is only a matter of time before they realize the power of nukes.

Oh, and North Korea has nukes and is led by a psycho for a leader. It is not what i would consider a "diplomatic problem".

End.