The "War" on Terror

A war is a violent struggle between two opposing empires, nations, or cultures. Terrorism is a tactic used by a small but determined group to weaken resistance by striking fear, usually by killing civilians. Terrorism, by its very nature, is used by those who cannot make war. And war, by is nature, is fought against a specific target, be it empire, nation, or culture. Wars are fought by armies, and armies must fight other armies.

Thus a "war on terror" is ludicrous, for the reason(s) above and one other. Terrorism has been around forever. Since the dawn of civilization terrorism has existed, and throughout American history there have been countless acts of terrorism and groups associated with it. Thus if Bush truly wishes to fight a 'war on terror' he will be fighting it for the rest of his life, because a war on terrorism cannot be won. A war on a noun cannot be won.

Thus our "war on terror cannot be one, for the reason(s) above and one other. We our not fighting this war in the manner that would bring victory. Just as the commanders in the Civil War applied 18th century tactics to a 19th century battlefield (causing thousands of needless casualties), so our Commander-in-Chief applies 20th century tactics to a 21st century battlefield. Terror cannot be fought using conventional means or conventional forces. Our army and our navy, mighty though they be, are not equipped to fight this war. Since we are seeking out small groups in different areas, we ourselves must send out small groups of special forces to find and hunt down the terrorists. Not only this, but we must weaken the terrorists abillity to recruit. We must inspire trust with the people of the middle east, we must condemn state sponsored terrorism and seek those states to stop those actions, and we must freeze the terrorists funds.

This post is not yet complete, it will be done by 10:12 am, june 21st

Note

I usually don't proof read my posts before i post them, so feel free to comment about any errors. This post is going to always be at the top of the site, which will probably get annoying after a while.

If i could make a quick suggestion as to reading my blog: I don't post consistently everyday, but will often post 4 or 5 times when I do post, so pace yourself. Read one post every two days and you should keep up. Or don't. But sometimes I don't post for weeks.

Also, I would like more ppl to read my blog, but i don't actually want to spend money on advertising, if anyone has an idea how i can get my blog out there, comment here. Or, if you don't know me, comment here so i know that my blog is being read by complete strangers. It would be such a comfort to me :)

The Thought Series, Post Four

Looking out the window, I have no idea where i am. This backyard looks like any other backyard, I could be anywhere in America. It seems that all neighborhoods look the same now-a-days. I took the train to Alexandria (near D.C.), but for all i knew i could've been in Texas (the summer heat didn't help much either).

CAFTA...

... will increase corporate profit and power, super-improverish the lower classes of those countries the trade policy involves, drain money out of the U.S. economy, and cause massive U.S. job losses. That's all I have to say about it. Oh... and it will easily be passed by the Congress.

Profit, Corporate Leaders, and Bankruptcy

The profit motive is what drives our capitalist society. It provides an incentive to produce goods and services in the most efficient way possible, thus leading to innovation and invention. Alot (or a lot) of the time it is a force for good, or at least progress, in our country, but sometimes greed can be a very harmful thing.

Corporate leaders become corporate leaders to make money... for themselves. This should mean that they have an incentive to make the business they chair make money. It would logically hold that the more money a company makes, the more money the CEO and other higher level executives make. Unfortunately, this isn't the case, and here we see the flaw in the profit motive theory. The CEO's pay (and multitude of bonuses and special pention plans) is determined by the board of directors. The people on the board also like to make money, and they're very good at it. They're favorite activity is giving each other pats on the back, followed by raises. "Our stock is plumeting? Well at least you tried, here's a multi-million dollar bonus." "The company's in bankruptcy and we have to cut employee pentions? Oh well, have another bonus." This viscious cycle of bonuses means that CEO's have much less of an incentive to make the company turn a profit. Indeed, bankruptcy is very appealing to corporations because it allows them to take certain 'cost-cutting' measures, such as getting rid of employee pentions, slashing employee pay, laying off hundreds of workers, and... most importantly... give the CEO a raise.

If there is to be any reform of America's bankruptcy laws, it should start at the corporate level to prevent execs from robbing their company while it sinks into the abyss, with thousands of American jobs sinking with it. Reform is the patriotic thing to do.

Albeit and Alot

Another post about English! Why? Because I can!

When I first saw this word (this word refering to the title of this post), I refused to attempt to pronounce it. I just did what I did with all the words (usually names) that I can't pronounce when I'm reading a book. I figured out what it meant and then just pretended with myself that I knew how to say it. No point actually learning how to say it right, not worth the energy (and yet, somehow writing about the experience is? wtf?).

And then I learned it was simply a shortening of "all be it". Well, said I, I must admit that in the grand scheme of things its a good idea. Saves space, albeit just a little, and that's how we say it aloud anywho (anywho is my way of saying anyway, I try to be creative). And then I though a lot. Or, more accurately, I thought about the two words "a" and "lot" and specifically the confusion that derives from writing them.

Alot, as any decent English teacher will tell you, is quite simply not a word. "You wouldn't spell 'a little' as one word, would you?" they say. It is a good point, however, arguing about anything in English from the point of view of consistency is probably not a very good idea. And in this case, I seriously doubt they will win the fight. Alot, like albeit, is just too useful a phrase not to be condensed to one word. I'm sure there was a day when albeit was attacked as a slander of the English Language. In the end, nothing stops progress, grammatical or otherwise.

(This post was posted at 4:15, June 11, but was originally written at the time dated)

Talk is Cheap

Everyone agrees on this age old cynicism (in this case I'm using cynicism as an objective noun instead of a nominative noun, which is the intended use for this word. If that didn't make since to you and your an English major, then I'll admit I'm making up this English jargon as I go along), but I'm not quite sure everyone takes it to heart. You'd think that when a politician makes a speech, his promise and spin would be given as much credibility as... well... a politician. Yet I think another reminder is required.

If a politician says he has an energy policy that will move American to "energy independence," it should be taken with a gross-pound of salt (a gross-pound, by the way, is an imaginary unit of measure equal to 144 pounds, which truly is a gross amount of salt). One should carefully examine the politician's record first. For instance, did he recently invade an oil-rich nation on false premises? (did i spell premises wrong?) If so, I would begin to doubt his claim he's trying to move to cleaner fuels. Has he himself been either in charge or on the board of directors of several (unsuccesful) oil companies? Is there enough footage of him (and/or his father) shaking hands with Saudi princes to pass the time while your geeky friend watches the entire Star Wars triology (digitally enhanced)? Have Saudis give billions of dollars to him, his friends and family, and their related businesses over a period of some years?

An oil tycoon, son of an oil tycoon is not the person who's going to lead America to engergy independence.

(This post was posted at 4:00, June 11, but was originally composed at the time dated)

Liberalism in the Modern Media

Is the media liberal? Quite a few people seem to think so. I, however, am not one of them. Now, of course, this blog is part of the massive catch-all word 'media', and this blog is certainly liberal, but thats beyond the point. The point is that the 'mainstream media' (i.e. newspapers, TV news channels, radio) does not have a secret liberal bias that they won't admit to.

As a first example I will examine TV. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc, etc. Many charge these channels with being liberal. I will readily admit that a great percentage of the reporters probably are liberal. However, the owners of these companies, being CEOs, are much more likely to be conservative, and it is ultimately their desicion what kind of content is shone.

As far as radio, the largest radio station is probably NPR, which is public radio. Public radio relies on "listener support" to keep broadcasting, and unless liberals are the only people who listen to radio (which isn't beyond the relm of possibility, but which would be really sad if it were the case), the owners of NPR aren't going to create a liberally biased broadcast.

I'm using the same sort of argument with newpapers as I did with TV, that corporations own a lot of these newspapers.

Also, with the death of investigative reporting, i don't think the media is doing enough to look into whether what the administration is saying is true or not. I think the media is trying too hard to not appear liberal.

(this post was composed and posted at 5:46, June 11, but i played around with the time stamp)

New

After what was looking like it would be a two-week wait, I've finally go some new posts! More when i wake up (if you look at the timestamp, this will make sense)

(edited 4:59, June 11)

The Split Infinitive

"i'll surely be" is considered to be grammatically correct (the 'i' in 'i'll' should be capitalized, but thats neither here nor there). I will surely be, by the same token, is also correct. Yet the simple 'to surely be' is attacked by some to be an awful grammaticaly mistake. Why? Because it is a split-infinitive. The dread split-infinitive.

The history of the split-infinitive is quite simple. We can the Romans credit for this one. You see, in Latin (and all other Romance languages) the infinitive form of a verb is one word instead of two. But English, not being a Romance language is different, and so when some 'brilliant' grammar stuck Latin grammar onto the English language, we were left with a dilemma. To split or not to split.

One of English's endearing and advantageous traits is its remarkable versatility, the ability to put words in a sentance in almost any order we please, which is not the case in most other languages. One would think that the infinitive would be no different. It is, afterall, two words (after all is as well). But for some reason, the split-infinitive was given special persecution by the powers that be.

Now-a-days, most respectable grammarians say that it is perfectly alright to split an infinitive. One even says that it isn't technically possible to split an infinitve anyway (you wouldn't say that 'the blue box' was a split nominative). The people that do hold on to this arcane belief are the sort of people that, in their own words, are 'always right'. However, I really am always right, which makes them wrong. And that will surely be proven correct.

The Thought Series, Post Three

Pocket sixes, chip lead, amazing comback. Ace and six on the flop, heads up and the other goes all in. Call, and two more cards. Two Aces is the best hand a desperate man can wish for, but three sixes does wonders against it. Rack in the chips. Winner, what joy. Another slice of pizza.

The Myth of the Death of the English Language

What with slang, and the so-called 'dumbing-down' of literacy, many (grammarians/english majors) have bemoaned the 'Death' of the English Language. That people are speaking and writing more casually, and important grammar rules that have been around for hundreds of years are being ignored.

This, however, is all a myth. The English Language is about as dead as Reagan's legacy. More people are speaking English than every before, in more countries than ever before. It has become the language of business, science, trade, international affairs, etc, replacing French in those catorgies. As America is a global super power, it seems unlikely that English will suddenly 'die'.

As far as the increased casuality with which it is spoken and written, this is simply because more English speakers are literate before. One can hardly say that that is a bad thing. 'dumbing-down' literacy? That started with the publishing of the Gutenburg Bible (when the Bible was first written in a language other than Latin, thus preventing the church from saying 'oh well the bible says this', whithout anyone being able to refute them, and i'm not saying they did this a lot, i'm just saying that the new translation was very freeing for the middle class literate of the time, but i'd better stop because this is a run-on sentance in a parenthesis!).

And many of the grammatically rules we have should be thrown out. For instance, 'are' is a plural form of the verb 'to be', and yet we use it with the singular pronoun 'you'. This makes absolutely no sense at all, and yet people who say 'you is' are attacked as ignorant. It was a big mistake in the first place attaching Latin grammar rules to a Germanic language. The only reason this was done was because Latin was considered a 'pure' language, but one wonders whether the Aristocracy did this just to prevent the lower classes from ever being able to speak proper English. Of course, the upper class English of the time were French, so this is really getting confusing.

English has never been a static language. That is why it has survived so long. It has changed over the centuries and shown an amazing ability to outlast and adapt. Other languages just as ancient have bitten the dust long ago or descended into obscurity, but English has grown and triumphed. It is not dead.

The Death of Investigative Reporting

The media has always played a vital, if changing, role in American democracy. Ever since the early days of our country, the media (which back then was chiefly black-and-white newspapers, color had yet to be invented) has had a strong impact on politics. Up through the Loss of American Innocence with the 70's Watergate/Vietnam/MASH the media has played the rule of guardian, insuring that, while politicians may occassionly deceive, they at least never commit actual crimes.

A key component of this guardian role of the media was investigative reporting, aka 'muckraking'. This involved reporters actively seeking to find condemning, or at least embarrasing, information about politicians, thus insuring that those who serve the public give up any chance of a private life. While this practice was attacked by some, it did at least make it harder for politicians to do anything horrible, and i would argue that the only people we want running the country are those willing to have semi-transparent lives anyway. If our leaders aren't willing to make that simple sacrifice... anyway, investigative reporting became a key in the modern media's role of guardian.

Then came corporations. The became buying up individual newspapers and TV stations, thus taking away the individuals' voice. This is a process known as media consolidation. While a reporter was usually interested in the truth (because those were the types of people that became reporters) their now corporate masters were only interested in profit. Thus the individual media companies and family businesses were one-by-one bought up by corporations much in the same way corporations bought up farms, toy companies, railroads, shipping, movie studios, etc, etc. The corporate leaders were interested in increasing readership/veiwership, and so looked for stories that people found intereting (if it bleeds it leads), and avoided other stories that, though probably important, tended to bore/turn-off/confuse readers/viewers.

Thus presently, investigative reporting is dying, and very quickly. Five (or is it four now?) huge corporations own all of the major broadcasting companies (TV), radio is no better off, and no one reads the newspaper anymore anyway (but even if they did, there are few nationally read newspapers left). Now many of these corporations are donating money to politicians, creating a very troubling conflict of interest. Of course, the most troubling thing is, many of these corporations have stopped even pretending to be 'truth-seekers', saying simply, "we are a company trying to sell a product" (paraphrasing, but just barely because i don't have the quote in front of me). Ironically, blogs, which have been attacked by the mainstream media for not being legitimate, are doing more truth-telling than a lot of the corporate 'news' shows.