Preview

With the summer comes more time for me to write new posts. Here is a preview of what to expect (no particular order):

(large) The Ineffectualness of the Modern Media and the Death of Investigative Reporting

(large) The Danger Monopolization Poses to the Modern Media

(large) The Myth of the Death of the English Language

(small) How Computers are Damaging English Grammar

(small) The Return of "The Though Series" Posts

(large) The Trade Deficeit and the Collapse of the US Economy

(large) Liberalism in the Modern Media

For those of you who say i could have used the time to took to make this post to write one of the posts i previewed, your absolutely right.

Truth

I just want to know one thing that's true. One thing that's a proven fact. I want to hear one little something come out of D.C. that isn't Spin/BS/Hipocracy. It's frustrating for me.

Is there a vast right-wing conspiracy?
Is there a vast left-wing conspiracy?

Unfortunately, neither is the case. There are no conspiracies at all, because conspiracy involves the kind of organization, intelligence, and secret-keeping that humanity is uniquely unsuited for. Instead there is a jumble of people, all moved by different motives, trying to work in some kind of cohesive body, and sometimes suceeding.

People always say that they want politicians to tell the truth, but the plain simple fact of the matter is that openness is not very conducive to governing. People do not have the time or intellectual resources to govern and therefore they elect leaders to govern for them. The people, then, should not try to second guess their choices by demanding things of politicians that they have little understanding of, and they should stay out of political business as much as possible. If the general public could see the debates going on between senators, congressmen, etc, not a single of them would be re-elected. The public at large simply cannot handle the truth.

This being said, I am appalled by the way both parties attempt to spin the truth to their own advantage through ad campaigns, blogs (irony, my friends, irony), speechs, et cetera. There is soooo much of it. Both sides have such a stark, unweilding view of the way things are, and believe the other side is purposly spreading lies. A lot of people on both sides believe some pretty amazing accusations that they themselves are making. There is a right and there is a wrong. The other side is trying to destroy the country!

Look at the politicians. Look at the lawmakers. Ask them whether they think their opponents are the anti-christ. They don't think that. They realize what is at stake and they realize what the other side actually wants. Congressmen respect their collegues on the other side of the isle. There is a lot of bickering, but none of them think the world is about to end. Unfortunately, 'the world is going to end' rhetoric is what fires people up, and people vote in elections. This was precisely why our Founders gave so few powers directly to the people. They are so easily manipulated by rhetoric.

This post, while lenghtly and spirited, lacked focus and cohesion. However, out of laziness, I refuse to rewrite it.

Filibuster

The filibuster, of course, is not mentioned in the Constitution, but that is a shaky argument for getting rid of it. Slavery was mentioned in the Constitution, direct election of senators wasn't. The Constitution is the main source of our rules for governing, but it is not the only one. The traditions that have grown up over the centuries in American governance ought not to be discarded so loosely.

The filibuster is one such tradition. For two centuries it as been a tool of the minority to stop action in the senate as a last resort. Thus the filibuster is, in a sense, undemocratic. However, that does not necessarily mean it is bad. Indeed, the Founders intended to limit the democracy of American government. The chose a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy and created the senate, with its equal representation, to limit democracy and prevent "the tyranny of the majority". The filibuster is simply a 200 year old tradition that extends that principle.

The Republicans claim that they only wish to get rid of the filibuster of judicial nominees, an "unprecedented" practice. First of all, the practice is not "unprecedented". It was used as recently as... the Clinton administration when the Republicans filibustered some of Clinton's nominees!!! And of course, what are the chances that they will only get rid of the filibuster of judicial nominees?

No, the Republicans have no right to get rid of the filibuster, especially when they lack a supermajority in the senate. They certainly enjoyed the filibuster a lot in the 50s and 60s when they were blocking civil rights legislation, but now they wish to get rid of it to get 7 eXtreme judicial nominees appointed to the federal judiciary. Democrats have already approved 95% of Bush's nominees, and are even willing to approve 5 of the 7 remaining, but Republicans want every last one. Having control of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the Presidency apparently isn't enough for them.

Save the filibuster!

KoL

Somewhere in the vast stretches of cyberspace is a game. An rpg adventuring game so badly animated thats its funny. A game with jokes more cheesy than a world ruled by mice (if you don't know what a cheesy joke is, re-read the preceding sentance). This game is KoL.

KoL is a strange phenomenon because it seems improbable that a game like it would become at all popular (there isn't any animation even!). Yet tens of thousands of people log on to it every day, and click on buttons to move their character around and 'adventure' in the world of Loathing. Why a game like this would have appeal to anyone is beyond me. If you know the answer, please comment on this post.

(Axertz: lvl 11 accordian thief)

Something Completely Different

I don't take care of my yard very well. The person who owned the house before my mom took very good care of her yard. She planted a lot of flowers that grow back year after year and she kept the ivy in check. Now the yard is definitely jungle-like. Ivy is slowly climbing up the walls, unpeturbed by my constant attempts to cut it down. The flowers that die aren't replaced, and weeds and crabgrass have grown quickly. But this spring a rose bush grew in my front yard. The roses are the reddest red I've seen in a long time, and they are large too. I can see them from where I'm sitting typing this, and its nice to have that kind of view.

There is so much beauty in the world, and there is so much more beauty than there is ugliness. For every dark, bad thing in the world today, think of one simple, beautiful thing close to you. Conscious thought leads to conscious action. When we believe that there is more good than bad, there is.

End of an Era

As I type these words the season finale of "Everybody Loves Raymond" is being broadcast across America (don't worry, I'm taping it). It must have been less than a year ago that Frasier ended. After a really long time (longer than a lot of fans thought was reasonable) Friends also ended. Seinfeld... um, that ended a long time ago, but thats not the point. The point is that these (and others) were very funny sitcoms that I mostly missed out on during their original airing. I was too young (or not yet born). Now I must content myself with the dreaded repeats that are sometimes out of order. I missed an era. An era of good, substantial comedy that made people laugh.

What are they being replaced by? Mostly by reality TV, but also by a string of bad shows on Fox that have difficulty lasting more than one season. What is on now is a cruder, stupider humor. The writing is worse (not soap opera bad, but it's getting there) and the plots are thin. Life is no longer depicted realistically, but surrealistically (that better be a word). The generation watching these shows now is being exposed to really substandard comedy.

That is why I say, "Thank God for the re-runs!" They may not have exactly the same certain something as does a running show, but at least these great classics are still on the air for future generations. So I encourage you, go watch a re-run of MASH (all my friends reading this just let out a groan), or of Frasier. See what comedy should be... what it used to be (o.k., its a really bad sign for a 15 year-old to be talking about the 'good ol days', there's got to be something wrong with me).

The Thought Series, Post Two

Someone said hi to me. I had no clue who that person was. Why?

Star Wars Rumors

Well, I was watching the news (it happened to be Fox), and I heard something very interesting about the new Star Wars movie. Was it about the number of fanatics camping outside movie theatres? No. Was it about the significance of the final installment of the 6 movie hexlogy (like trilogy, only with 6!)? No. Was it about the accusation that Star Wars Episode 3: Return of the Sith might secretly be an anti-bush propoganda film? ... Yes.

Apparently some of the events of the movie mirror those in the real world. Specifically how the evil Sith chancellor tries to convince the Senate to grant him greater powers because of the war. This, I was told, would correlate to Bush getting the Patriot Act passed. And then there is the Aniken (don't get mad that I mispelled (for you English majors, yes, I do realize i didn't spell mispelled right) his name Star Wars fans, instead: get a life) quote: "If you are not with me, you are my enemy" which is similar to Bush's "Either you're with us, or your against us".

First let me start out by saying that the idea that George Lucas is trying to subliminally spread anti-Bush propoganda is upsurd (damn, I really need to spell check). George Lucas has been making these films for decades. Would it really make sense for him to mess around with the last one just because of politics? He's a movie director, not a politician. Also, as far as the broad theme of the movie is concerned, anyone who saw Episode II could tell that the Sith-Lord-trying-to-take-over-the galaxy-thing was coming. I mean, what else would a Sith Lord do?

I think the real thing that needs to be examined here, is why George Bush is so readily compared to an evil Sith Lord in the first place! Besides the Patriot Act being flagrantly unconstitutional, George Bush's good-guy bad-guy rhetoric and his declaration of an endless 'War on Terror' are quite disturbing. The fact that his Administration unapologetically disguises propaganda as 'news reports' and pays off people to vouch for its programs raises serious doubts as to whether they can be trusted. No, the fantasy of Star Wars was not made to be like the reality of the Bush administration, but the reality of the Bush administration is becoming a lot like the fantasy of Star Wars. And that's scarier than any Sith Lord.

The Thought Series, Post One

A bird flew into the window of my house. A heard the loud bang. Later, when I went outside, I saw the bird was dead.

Irony

Older generations love to point out disturbing trends among Americans youth. "We certainly didn't do things like that in my day," they say. I would like to point out a disturbing trend in American youth that doesn't get a lot of attention: Irony/Sarcasm.

First, for all the English Majors reading this blog (which is none because no one even knows this blog exists which really sucks) I know that there is a very important difference between Irony and Sarcasm and that mixing the two up will ultimately lead to the death of the English language yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah. For the rest of you, I would like to explain the increasing prevelance of sarcasm in our youth today (being one of them, I'm speaking from a first-hand account). The sarcastic statements that teenagers today make are made with much less emphasis and said much more subtly than was once the case (of course, not being alive in any other generation, i can't actually verify what I just said, but its probably true). Sarcastic statements are thrown around like rice at a wedding in the daily back and forth between teenagers. It has become a much overused literary device that has outlived its charm and now defines a generation.

The problem with all of this sarcasm is its depressing. Sarcastic statements have the effect of making a person less happy than they were before they made the statement. Oh, sure, it might get a cheap laugh, but underneath that cheap laught is permanent mental damage. That's what makes this recent trend so disturbing.

Bolton

I agree that the UN needs reform. The Oil-for-Food scandal was appalling. However, I fail to see how someone like Bolton could reform it. Bolton doesn't have the power to just go in their and change things, that would require the consent of (key word here) other countries. In order to obtain this consent he would have to use (another key word) diplomacy. The Tenth Edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines diplomacy as: "skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility". John Bolton once said that if you took the top ten stories off the UN building it wouldn't make a bit of difference. How is someone like that not going to arouse hostility?

I know that Bolton is most likely to be nominated at this point, despite the fact that the Senate committee that reviewed his nomination failed to endorse him. But I wonder what kind of message nominating Bolton sends to the rest of the world, who already think we are arrogant imperialists. Western Europe is still our ally, but there will come a time when we say: "we saved your @$$es in WWII" and they'll stop listening.

Stress Tests

When I started writing this post I couldn't decide whether to talk about the No Child Left Behind Act or the stupidity of standardized tests in general. But administrations come and go and standarized tests are a constant. So here goes:

Standarized tests, standarized tests, and... more standarized tests. They have become the single most important method of judging school preformance and getting into college. More and more of the time teachers spend in the classroom is given over to "standarized test prep" and a whole industry has popped up making books for these tests.

I think we need to go back and look at what the purpose of public education is. It is (I swear I'm not making this up) to educate. To teach our kids so that they will be better prepared to compete in a global economy. And what are we teaching them? How to fill in little bubbles with a #2 pencil (if your pencil is not #2, please raise your hand and i will provide you with one). This is hurting our children and our future. Stop the tests and stop the stress.

Summer Haiku

White picket fence stands
I see it... and my own yard...
My yard is a mess

The Fall of the Democratic Party

It was a sad day, that day in November. 8 years after the debacle in Florida there was no state so contested. The rain drizzled down on the roof in the same lethargic way I slouched down on the couch watching the election results. It must have been around midnight as Nevada starting coming in. It was made all the more depressing because this was the first election I could vote in. But the signs were clear. We couldn't even get 49% of the popular vote this time. I wondered if the Democratic party would ever recover. I tried to remember how this had all started, but I hadn't been born at the time...

The modern Democratic party rose to power by constructing the New Deal coalition, a group of voters who voted their pocket books to get us out of the Great Depression. It was the destruction of this coalition, then, that brought the downfall of the Democratic party. When the Culture War started in the 60s there was no turning back. The Civil Rights movement caused white southerners to abandon the Democratic party, and over the next forty years their voting patterns and party registration changed to favor the Republicans. Poor, rural voters, who would have been (and had been) helped the by Democrats economic policy began supporting Republicans because of social and religious issues. It got to the point where the term 'liberal' was a four letter word, one that the Republicans loved calling Democrats. When the Republicans seized all three branches of government in 2000, it might have just been a temporary swing of power. After all, in a two-party system, sometimes one party is in control, then the other. But when the Republicans retained their control (and picked up seats in the House and the Senate) in 2008, the indication was clear. The Dems were dead.