I am not, in most aspects, a political animal. Were I to be completely honest, I'd admit that I'm rather apathetic about it all, but I'm not going to be completely honest. I, like most of our glorious citizenry, am painfully undereducated when it comes to the actual nuance of political realms. As such, I suffer from the same "oh, that's such a simple fix, why don't they just (insert idea that won't work here)" type of opinions that most of our glorious citizenry suffers from (I love that term... glorious citizenry... it just sounds cool).
But, that doesn't stop me from ranting now, does it? Of course not. As with other things found in Irrewinds, keep in mind that my opinions on these matters are likely to have changed (you'll also find that a lot of these have been made completely irrelevant through current events... irrelevance, however, is what I do). But don't let that stop you from cussing me out.
"An Agnostic Form of Government"
Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, was sworn in yesterday. As a Muslim, he chose not to swear in on the Bible, but on the Qur'an. And not just any Qur'an, mind you, but Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of it. Of course, now that this has happened... Read More
"America's White Elephants: China and Islam"
America, since the turn of the 20th Century, has inarguably been THE world power. Our involvement practically dictated the outcome of two world wars, drew the lines (and fought over a few) in the Cold War, and created an economic disparity that the rest of the world... Read More
"Political Incorrectness That Is"
For years now, people have been complaining about the American political system and how completely distasteful and unprofessional its campaigns have become. And now McCain, one of the more vocal proponents of taste and professionalism, has now been caught in his own... Read More
"The Contractor Problem"
In this case, it is known as the military-industrial complex. A complex, somewhat ironically, that we were warned against embracing by a former 5-star general and President, good ol' Ike. Unfortunately for Ike's successors, there were no laws governing the limitations of such a... Read More
"In Defense of... Obama?"
Anybody who knows me knows that I'm no big fan of Barack Obama. I didn't vote last year (due to circumstances sort of beyond my control... long story), but even if I had, I wouldn't have voted for him. Neither would I have voted for McCain (I'm really not a Sarah Palin fan)... Read More
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The Creative Conspiracy Conspiracy
Most conspiracy theorists crack me up. Not because they believe in a conspiracy (there are actually a few conspiracies that I subscribe to), but because they typically claim they're so "open-minded" and "informed" that they discount blunt evidence if it's widely reported and/or supported by government sources. Of course, this is to be expected, since government is usually the culprit in grand conspiracy theories.
I often work in the art industries. Believe me, those industries are inundated with conspiracy theorists. In my experience, conspiracy theorists tend to not only be (at least) fairly-well-educated people, they tend to be creatives. It may seem obvious (and should be) that creative types often push conspiracies in the absence of 100% transparency concerning a given topic. After all, filling in the blanks, be it in a piece of art, music, or writing, is their job. And, just as fanboys touting their favorite stories refuse to accept obvious plot holes pointed out by critics and create "fan-wank" to explain such plot holes, creative conspiracy theorists do the same with their favorite conspiracies.
This is not to say that they're wrong. They could very well be right, but the simple fact that they provide "proof" that is anything but is cause enough for skepticism (ironic, then, that many conspiracy theorists label themselves as skeptical). They persecute the so-called mainstream because they believe the mainstream to be a tool with which conspirators brainwash the masses (in this, they certainly have a point... but, again, that doesn't mean they're right). As a result, they're persecuted in return by the mainstream. And, in serious jumps of logic, instead of indisputably pointing out such persecution as simple reaction from their own finger-pointing, conspiracy theorists use it as further "proof" that they are, in fact, correct. Which, any reasonable mind will admit, is disputable.
Where I defend conspiracy theorists is in the accusation that they're somehow "anti-American" or otherwise unpatriotic. I would actually posit that most conspiracy theorists are as patriotic as people get. Misguided, in a sense, but many of these conspiracies originate from the perspective that "this is America, and shit like that can't happen here." That this perspective can be a gross underestimation of our political and religious enemies is beside the point. For this belief to prosper among conspiracy theorists, most of them have to believe that America is the greatest country on the planet and nearly immune to external influence. Sure, there are even more plot holes involved with such an explanation, but since they ignore those themselves (not being conducive to their theories and all), there's really no need to go into further detail. It sort of explains itself, doesn't it?
All that stated, who really knows? Perhaps they're right. Perhaps there's a conspiracy to create conspiracy theories (don't laugh, I heard that one from a member of the John Birch Society). Perhaps creatives are just trying to fill in obvious blanks the only way they know how... by being creative. Perhaps they're wrong. One thing's for sure, you'll rarely (if ever) see a conspiracy theorist admit any of the latter three. And that's why their rhetoric fails.
Sure makes for good movies, though.
I often work in the art industries. Believe me, those industries are inundated with conspiracy theorists. In my experience, conspiracy theorists tend to not only be (at least) fairly-well-educated people, they tend to be creatives. It may seem obvious (and should be) that creative types often push conspiracies in the absence of 100% transparency concerning a given topic. After all, filling in the blanks, be it in a piece of art, music, or writing, is their job. And, just as fanboys touting their favorite stories refuse to accept obvious plot holes pointed out by critics and create "fan-wank" to explain such plot holes, creative conspiracy theorists do the same with their favorite conspiracies.
This is not to say that they're wrong. They could very well be right, but the simple fact that they provide "proof" that is anything but is cause enough for skepticism (ironic, then, that many conspiracy theorists label themselves as skeptical). They persecute the so-called mainstream because they believe the mainstream to be a tool with which conspirators brainwash the masses (in this, they certainly have a point... but, again, that doesn't mean they're right). As a result, they're persecuted in return by the mainstream. And, in serious jumps of logic, instead of indisputably pointing out such persecution as simple reaction from their own finger-pointing, conspiracy theorists use it as further "proof" that they are, in fact, correct. Which, any reasonable mind will admit, is disputable.
Where I defend conspiracy theorists is in the accusation that they're somehow "anti-American" or otherwise unpatriotic. I would actually posit that most conspiracy theorists are as patriotic as people get. Misguided, in a sense, but many of these conspiracies originate from the perspective that "this is America, and shit like that can't happen here." That this perspective can be a gross underestimation of our political and religious enemies is beside the point. For this belief to prosper among conspiracy theorists, most of them have to believe that America is the greatest country on the planet and nearly immune to external influence. Sure, there are even more plot holes involved with such an explanation, but since they ignore those themselves (not being conducive to their theories and all), there's really no need to go into further detail. It sort of explains itself, doesn't it?
All that stated, who really knows? Perhaps they're right. Perhaps there's a conspiracy to create conspiracy theories (don't laugh, I heard that one from a member of the John Birch Society). Perhaps creatives are just trying to fill in obvious blanks the only way they know how... by being creative. Perhaps they're wrong. One thing's for sure, you'll rarely (if ever) see a conspiracy theorist admit any of the latter three. And that's why their rhetoric fails.
Sure makes for good movies, though.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Marijuana versus Tobacco: A Great Irony
I fully believe that smoking cigarettes is bad for you. I fully believe that smoking marijuana is bad for you. And I fully believe that both should be legal, regulated as little as possible, and available on the open market to be enjoyed wherever someone (someone being an individual or a business) provides a spot for them to be enjoyed.
In a reverse of how I usually conduct myself in rants, I'll start with the conclusion: legalize marijuana and back the fuck off from tobacco. I mean, can society possibly be any more contradictory when it comes to these two topics? Given that there's currently a very strong push to legalize marijuana, and another very strong push to put the tobacco companies out of business, why aren't these two "industries" (that's in quotes because, well, marijuana isn't technically a legal industry quite yet) banding together and calling everyone (individuals and government) out on the obvious irony.
Note: I am now in pure rant mode and no longer feel it necessary to make logical transitional sense.
Here's where I'm at. I smoke cigarettes, somewhat reluctantly. I am addicted and am working on rectifying that particular shortcoming. I don't smoke marijuana and have no desire to. Not because I feel morally superior to anybody (I honestly couldn't care less), but because I'm attempting to 1) eliminate everything that I shouldn't ingest (be it tobacco or hard liquor or transfats) and 2) shift to a good, clean, wholesome, natural diet. That and, unlike most, I can't stand the smell of weed... particularly out of bongs.
Anyway, there are only two non-bullshit ways for myself to come to terms with this ironic substance-based political football: make both tobacco and marijuana completely illegal (which I don't personally support, but at least it obviates the contradiction), or make/keep them legal and allow people to fuck themselves up the way they want to fuck themselves up.
Honestly, it is far more difficult to me to name 10 people I know who don't smoke marijuana than it is for me to name 10 people who do. In fact, I can probably name 100 I know personally who smoke weed before I can name 10 friends who don't. And, you know, none of those people are criminals, drug addicts, or otherwise bad people (some are assholes, yeah, and others are idiots, but that's beside my point). They're more-or-less law-abiding, friendly, and hard-working folks.
And, no, I don't feel that marijuana is some dangerous "gateway drug" (no more so than cigarettes, beer, or... say... fetish pornography) that will lead to hardcore use of cocaine and/or heroin. And, no, I don't feel that all drugs should be legalized, either.
All that stated, I will only support the pro-weed movement if the pro-weed movement supports the pro-tobacco movement. Quid pro quo is the way to go! Not really, but you (hopefully) get my point: how the Hell can a society or counter-culture (counter-culture... love that term) support one, but not the other? It's all propaganda. We already know that both are bad for you, medicinal uses notwithstanding. But who gives a shit? Neither in-and-of-themselves leads to any sort of deviance or delinquency. And, really, they're both cheap and easy to enjoy. So who cares? Tax 'em!
Anyway, there's no real point to this other than pointing out the obvious irony. Legalize one; keep the other legal. Everyone's too uptight these days, anyway.
In a reverse of how I usually conduct myself in rants, I'll start with the conclusion: legalize marijuana and back the fuck off from tobacco. I mean, can society possibly be any more contradictory when it comes to these two topics? Given that there's currently a very strong push to legalize marijuana, and another very strong push to put the tobacco companies out of business, why aren't these two "industries" (that's in quotes because, well, marijuana isn't technically a legal industry quite yet) banding together and calling everyone (individuals and government) out on the obvious irony.
Note: I am now in pure rant mode and no longer feel it necessary to make logical transitional sense.
Here's where I'm at. I smoke cigarettes, somewhat reluctantly. I am addicted and am working on rectifying that particular shortcoming. I don't smoke marijuana and have no desire to. Not because I feel morally superior to anybody (I honestly couldn't care less), but because I'm attempting to 1) eliminate everything that I shouldn't ingest (be it tobacco or hard liquor or transfats) and 2) shift to a good, clean, wholesome, natural diet. That and, unlike most, I can't stand the smell of weed... particularly out of bongs.
Anyway, there are only two non-bullshit ways for myself to come to terms with this ironic substance-based political football: make both tobacco and marijuana completely illegal (which I don't personally support, but at least it obviates the contradiction), or make/keep them legal and allow people to fuck themselves up the way they want to fuck themselves up.
Honestly, it is far more difficult to me to name 10 people I know who don't smoke marijuana than it is for me to name 10 people who do. In fact, I can probably name 100 I know personally who smoke weed before I can name 10 friends who don't. And, you know, none of those people are criminals, drug addicts, or otherwise bad people (some are assholes, yeah, and others are idiots, but that's beside my point). They're more-or-less law-abiding, friendly, and hard-working folks.
And, no, I don't feel that marijuana is some dangerous "gateway drug" (no more so than cigarettes, beer, or... say... fetish pornography) that will lead to hardcore use of cocaine and/or heroin. And, no, I don't feel that all drugs should be legalized, either.
All that stated, I will only support the pro-weed movement if the pro-weed movement supports the pro-tobacco movement. Quid pro quo is the way to go! Not really, but you (hopefully) get my point: how the Hell can a society or counter-culture (counter-culture... love that term) support one, but not the other? It's all propaganda. We already know that both are bad for you, medicinal uses notwithstanding. But who gives a shit? Neither in-and-of-themselves leads to any sort of deviance or delinquency. And, really, they're both cheap and easy to enjoy. So who cares? Tax 'em!
Anyway, there's no real point to this other than pointing out the obvious irony. Legalize one; keep the other legal. Everyone's too uptight these days, anyway.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Flag Waving
*Sober warning: What you're about to read is, indeed, drunk rambling (I went through a phase a little while ago... sue me) and makes little sense, even to me. That stated, I left what was originally written (while editing typos and misspellings, of course) because it's kinda funny. Politics and religion should be avoided at all costs, right? And especially so when drinking.
By now most of you have heard about the ridiculous thing that happened at a California high school this past Cinco de Mayo. But, if you haven't, here's the gist: some teenagers got sent home for sporting clothing with the American flag on a day in which the student body was encouraged to sport clothing with the Mexican flag.
Yes, it was a ridiculous action for the Vice Principal of the school to take, but like all things controversial, there are two sides to every story. Please keep in mind that I'm drunk as I write this, don't really care what happened, and am merely musing on the topic. There will be jumps in logic here (as is standard for alcohol-influenced writing), but hopefully you can follow where I'm going with this.
1) Sending the kids home was stupid. Ridiculously so (yes, I realize I've already stated this). This does happen to be the United States of America and nobody, EVER, should be "punished" for displaying the flag (punished is in quotes because I don't particularly view being sent home from school as a punishment).
2) Encouraging American students (regardless of ethnicity) to wear foreign flags in celebration of a holiday that isn't actually a real holiday is pretty stupid in and of itself.
Okay, that's out of the way, and you can probably infer the problem I have with what happened. HOWEVER, it is important to discern why those students who wore the American flag did so. Again, nobody should ever be punished for doing so, but that doesn't mean we can't mock them. So... if these kids who were sent home happened to wear the American flag often, then there really was no reason to send them home. But... if these kids who were sent home happened to only wear the flag on Cinco de Mayo, then, well, there are questions that need to be asked. If the latter is the case (which I believe it to be), then they were clearly being defiant amid a celebration that they felt like being racist about. But, again, nobody should ever be punished for waving the American flag in the United States... ever.
I'm rambling. And I'm afraid my point will get lost amid the fog of Merlot. But I'll try anyway... Hell, this might be good for a laugh when I sober up.
And now I'm soliloquizing. I'm gonna have to do this point by point.
Despite everything I've already stated, there is no reason to deny a people the celebration of their heritage. None. Pride comes in strange forms, and while George Carlin had a point when he said that (and I'm paraphrasing) "there's no reason to be proud of what you were born into," people have a right to honor what they're proud of however they want to.
*Sober interjection: Okay, so the above sort of has some logic to it... loose, but understandable. What follows makes NO sense.
So where am I going with this? Flags, that's where. The problem with the Mexican flag is that it's the flag of Mexico. The nation. Not the people. And the problem with that is that we identify our ethnicities with the flags of our governments. And that IS the problem. I happen to be half-Japanese, but you'll be damned to ever see me waving a Japanese flag in the United States (and, by contrast, I wouldn't sport an American flag in Japan, either... unless I'm in uniform, of course).
So I propose that everyone create a flag for their ethnicity. Create a Mexican flag that is devoid of symbolism for Mexico. Do the same for America. Kazakhstan. Armenia. Germany. Where-the-fuck-ever. Fly that flag with pride. But if you're going to live in a sovereign nation, have some respect for that nation and realize that you are a citizen there.
I'm sure I haven't made any sense. But I'm gonna laugh about this when I read it again.
*Sober conclusion: Even I can't really determine what the last part is supposed to accomplish. Something about flags replacing flags in order to have flags that aren't real flags to prevent flag-tricide. Yeah... that's about as much sense as I can make of it. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time of inebriation. Perhaps I'll read this at an AA meeting in a dozen years or so.
By now most of you have heard about the ridiculous thing that happened at a California high school this past Cinco de Mayo. But, if you haven't, here's the gist: some teenagers got sent home for sporting clothing with the American flag on a day in which the student body was encouraged to sport clothing with the Mexican flag.
Yes, it was a ridiculous action for the Vice Principal of the school to take, but like all things controversial, there are two sides to every story. Please keep in mind that I'm drunk as I write this, don't really care what happened, and am merely musing on the topic. There will be jumps in logic here (as is standard for alcohol-influenced writing), but hopefully you can follow where I'm going with this.
1) Sending the kids home was stupid. Ridiculously so (yes, I realize I've already stated this). This does happen to be the United States of America and nobody, EVER, should be "punished" for displaying the flag (punished is in quotes because I don't particularly view being sent home from school as a punishment).
2) Encouraging American students (regardless of ethnicity) to wear foreign flags in celebration of a holiday that isn't actually a real holiday is pretty stupid in and of itself.
Okay, that's out of the way, and you can probably infer the problem I have with what happened. HOWEVER, it is important to discern why those students who wore the American flag did so. Again, nobody should ever be punished for doing so, but that doesn't mean we can't mock them. So... if these kids who were sent home happened to wear the American flag often, then there really was no reason to send them home. But... if these kids who were sent home happened to only wear the flag on Cinco de Mayo, then, well, there are questions that need to be asked. If the latter is the case (which I believe it to be), then they were clearly being defiant amid a celebration that they felt like being racist about. But, again, nobody should ever be punished for waving the American flag in the United States... ever.
I'm rambling. And I'm afraid my point will get lost amid the fog of Merlot. But I'll try anyway... Hell, this might be good for a laugh when I sober up.
And now I'm soliloquizing. I'm gonna have to do this point by point.
Despite everything I've already stated, there is no reason to deny a people the celebration of their heritage. None. Pride comes in strange forms, and while George Carlin had a point when he said that (and I'm paraphrasing) "there's no reason to be proud of what you were born into," people have a right to honor what they're proud of however they want to.
*Sober interjection: Okay, so the above sort of has some logic to it... loose, but understandable. What follows makes NO sense.
So where am I going with this? Flags, that's where. The problem with the Mexican flag is that it's the flag of Mexico. The nation. Not the people. And the problem with that is that we identify our ethnicities with the flags of our governments. And that IS the problem. I happen to be half-Japanese, but you'll be damned to ever see me waving a Japanese flag in the United States (and, by contrast, I wouldn't sport an American flag in Japan, either... unless I'm in uniform, of course).
So I propose that everyone create a flag for their ethnicity. Create a Mexican flag that is devoid of symbolism for Mexico. Do the same for America. Kazakhstan. Armenia. Germany. Where-the-fuck-ever. Fly that flag with pride. But if you're going to live in a sovereign nation, have some respect for that nation and realize that you are a citizen there.
I'm sure I haven't made any sense. But I'm gonna laugh about this when I read it again.
*Sober conclusion: Even I can't really determine what the last part is supposed to accomplish. Something about flags replacing flags in order to have flags that aren't real flags to prevent flag-tricide. Yeah... that's about as much sense as I can make of it. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time of inebriation. Perhaps I'll read this at an AA meeting in a dozen years or so.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Alas, You Once-Beautiful Water
*Yep, it's Friday, which means something's on my mind and it can't wait to get off...
A few days ago I posted a piece called "Beautiful Water," ostensibly about a woman but subliminally about the oceans. And, quite honestly, it is definitely about both. Water and woman are wondrously beautiful.
There is irony in the piece, however. I was rather drunk when I wrote it (and can't recall the exact day of its writing... certainly a few days before it posted) and while I was well-aware of this disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, I am forced to admit that it was only marginally on my mind as the piece was being composed. I did recognize its potential resonance, however, and am finding it increasingly difficult to remain calm (in a manner of speaking) regarding the subject matter of "Beautiful Water."
Within the past few hours (of this writing) I watched a video of Jacques Cousteau's grandson, Philippe Cousteau, Jr., examining how both the oil exploding into the Gulf of Mexico and the oil dispersant (known as Corexit) being sprayed by BP are affecting the ecosystem. It made me sick to my stomach. Horrendously so.
Within the past few minutes (just prior to starting this writing) I read a quote from Barack Obama in which he states, "This notion that somehow the federal government is sitting on the sidelines and for the last three or four or five weeks we've just been letting BP make a whole bunch of decisions is simply not true," among a plethora of similar statements.
To that, I say, bullshit. As I write this, it has been 36 days since the oil drill broke. 36 motherfucking days. Patriotic sentiment or no, this is the United States of America, a wealthy country (no China jokes, please) that is the home to some of the best - if not the best - engineers in the world. This oil problem is one that is to be solved by engineers... engineers who should've had a solution in 36 motherfucking hours, not days.
Anybody remember winning World War II? Getting to the moon? Sending satellites and probes to other planets and out of our Solar System? Reaching the bottom of the Marianas Trench (a nod to the Swiss engineers, Italian builders, and American divers)?
And this is why I don't believe Obama. Engineers (be they BP's, the US Navy's, NASA's, the Sierra Club's, Jiffy Lube's, who-the-fuck-ever's) could have solved this problem weeks ago had there been more pro-action by the United States government.
To his credit, Obama is publicly assuming responsibility ("My job is to get this fixed. And in case anybody wonders -- in any of your reporting, in case you're wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down."), but he's also being superfluously childish in reminding everyone where the blame should go.
We get it. BP is to blame. There is no doubt in this and your saber-rattling, Mr. President, isn't convincing anyone that you actually give a shit.
The blame is obvious and we don't need your mouth to remind us of it. Just shut up and fix the problem. Punishment can come after we save the Gulf. Or, at least, save what's left of her.
A few days ago I posted a piece called "Beautiful Water," ostensibly about a woman but subliminally about the oceans. And, quite honestly, it is definitely about both. Water and woman are wondrously beautiful.
There is irony in the piece, however. I was rather drunk when I wrote it (and can't recall the exact day of its writing... certainly a few days before it posted) and while I was well-aware of this disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, I am forced to admit that it was only marginally on my mind as the piece was being composed. I did recognize its potential resonance, however, and am finding it increasingly difficult to remain calm (in a manner of speaking) regarding the subject matter of "Beautiful Water."
Within the past few hours (of this writing) I watched a video of Jacques Cousteau's grandson, Philippe Cousteau, Jr., examining how both the oil exploding into the Gulf of Mexico and the oil dispersant (known as Corexit) being sprayed by BP are affecting the ecosystem. It made me sick to my stomach. Horrendously so.
Within the past few minutes (just prior to starting this writing) I read a quote from Barack Obama in which he states, "This notion that somehow the federal government is sitting on the sidelines and for the last three or four or five weeks we've just been letting BP make a whole bunch of decisions is simply not true," among a plethora of similar statements.
To that, I say, bullshit. As I write this, it has been 36 days since the oil drill broke. 36 motherfucking days. Patriotic sentiment or no, this is the United States of America, a wealthy country (no China jokes, please) that is the home to some of the best - if not the best - engineers in the world. This oil problem is one that is to be solved by engineers... engineers who should've had a solution in 36 motherfucking hours, not days.
Anybody remember winning World War II? Getting to the moon? Sending satellites and probes to other planets and out of our Solar System? Reaching the bottom of the Marianas Trench (a nod to the Swiss engineers, Italian builders, and American divers)?
And this is why I don't believe Obama. Engineers (be they BP's, the US Navy's, NASA's, the Sierra Club's, Jiffy Lube's, who-the-fuck-ever's) could have solved this problem weeks ago had there been more pro-action by the United States government.
To his credit, Obama is publicly assuming responsibility ("My job is to get this fixed. And in case anybody wonders -- in any of your reporting, in case you're wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down."), but he's also being superfluously childish in reminding everyone where the blame should go.
We get it. BP is to blame. There is no doubt in this and your saber-rattling, Mr. President, isn't convincing anyone that you actually give a shit.
The blame is obvious and we don't need your mouth to remind us of it. Just shut up and fix the problem. Punishment can come after we save the Gulf. Or, at least, save what's left of her.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
In Defense of... Obama?
Anybody who knows me knows that I'm no big fan of Barack Obama. I didn't vote last year (due to circumstances sort of beyond my control... long story), but even if I had, I wouldn't have voted for him. Neither would I have voted for McCain (I'm really not a Sarah Palin fan), but that's not the point.
So what is the point? Well, I'll get there in a minute, but let's get some ranting out of the way first.
Obama, for the most part, hasn't done anything that has really pissed me off yet. Sure, he hasn't done anything that has made me jump for joy, but the only thing I'm vehemently against him on is that ridiculous proposal that we should renew diplomatic relations with the Taliban. Bad idea. Iran? Yes. Cuba? Yes. The Taliban? Um... no.
And, yeah, I'm a bit upset about his campaign promises that he will increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps, seeing as how "his" proposed increases were already passed and were scheduled to be completed in 2010 (they're, in fact, almost completed now). Anyway, not a big deal, but I feel this particular issue was handled a bit disengenously.
Anyway, on to the point.
This past week, Obama has come under fire for something he said during an appearance on Jay Leno, as well as his demeanor during an interview on 60 Minutes. You all probably know this by now, but while on Leno, Obama compared his bowling ability to that of bowlers in the Special Olympics. In other words, he sucks. And while on 60 Minutes, Obama seemed to have a lackadaisical, even humorous, attitude towards the current shit state of the US economy.
I happened to have watched both appearances by our President, and you know what? Neither incident was anything to get all uppity over (I was going to write "form a lynch-party over," but given how a certain group of cry-babies likes to play the race card over said statement, despite the fact that almost everybody these days uses it as a mere synonym for "get pissed at," I'll avoid the term).
We've all used the comparison to retards (oops, sorry... "special people") to describe a lack of proficiency or aptitude in something, and it was easy to see that Obama was merely being genuine in implying that he sucked at bowling. Or, at the very least, acknowledging that Leno was implying that he sucked. There was no offense behind his words, and I'm glad he used the term... it helps "de-roboticize" the image he's formed (either purposefully or inadvertently) for himself over the past few months.
And then there was 60 Minutes. You could tell he was a bit nervous, and it's not too far a stretch to assume that he's a person who likes keeping tense atmospheres as light as possible (maybe he is and maybe he isn't, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). I get that way sometimes, and most people who aren't pious zealots or recluses get that way sometimes. He very well may have been "punch drunk" (kudos for Steve Kroft for calling him out on it, regardless of the incident's purported "controversy"), but who gives a shit? How is laughing at an economic crisis any different than a cop laughing about a mutilated body at a crime scene? It's not, and both are undoubtedly necessary forms of stress relief.
Look, I'm of the opinion that Obama will probably not go down in history as one of our truly great Presidents, but he's (so far) doing just fine. I'll rag on him when he gets some intern fellatio, but not for speaking like an everyday person. And neither should you.
You want something to be hot and bothered about? Try those assholes in Oakland who were reportedly taunting cops as another cop lay dying.
So what is the point? Well, I'll get there in a minute, but let's get some ranting out of the way first.
Obama, for the most part, hasn't done anything that has really pissed me off yet. Sure, he hasn't done anything that has made me jump for joy, but the only thing I'm vehemently against him on is that ridiculous proposal that we should renew diplomatic relations with the Taliban. Bad idea. Iran? Yes. Cuba? Yes. The Taliban? Um... no.
And, yeah, I'm a bit upset about his campaign promises that he will increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps, seeing as how "his" proposed increases were already passed and were scheduled to be completed in 2010 (they're, in fact, almost completed now). Anyway, not a big deal, but I feel this particular issue was handled a bit disengenously.
Anyway, on to the point.
This past week, Obama has come under fire for something he said during an appearance on Jay Leno, as well as his demeanor during an interview on 60 Minutes. You all probably know this by now, but while on Leno, Obama compared his bowling ability to that of bowlers in the Special Olympics. In other words, he sucks. And while on 60 Minutes, Obama seemed to have a lackadaisical, even humorous, attitude towards the current shit state of the US economy.
I happened to have watched both appearances by our President, and you know what? Neither incident was anything to get all uppity over (I was going to write "form a lynch-party over," but given how a certain group of cry-babies likes to play the race card over said statement, despite the fact that almost everybody these days uses it as a mere synonym for "get pissed at," I'll avoid the term).
We've all used the comparison to retards (oops, sorry... "special people") to describe a lack of proficiency or aptitude in something, and it was easy to see that Obama was merely being genuine in implying that he sucked at bowling. Or, at the very least, acknowledging that Leno was implying that he sucked. There was no offense behind his words, and I'm glad he used the term... it helps "de-roboticize" the image he's formed (either purposefully or inadvertently) for himself over the past few months.
And then there was 60 Minutes. You could tell he was a bit nervous, and it's not too far a stretch to assume that he's a person who likes keeping tense atmospheres as light as possible (maybe he is and maybe he isn't, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). I get that way sometimes, and most people who aren't pious zealots or recluses get that way sometimes. He very well may have been "punch drunk" (kudos for Steve Kroft for calling him out on it, regardless of the incident's purported "controversy"), but who gives a shit? How is laughing at an economic crisis any different than a cop laughing about a mutilated body at a crime scene? It's not, and both are undoubtedly necessary forms of stress relief.
Look, I'm of the opinion that Obama will probably not go down in history as one of our truly great Presidents, but he's (so far) doing just fine. I'll rag on him when he gets some intern fellatio, but not for speaking like an everyday person. And neither should you.
You want something to be hot and bothered about? Try those assholes in Oakland who were reportedly taunting cops as another cop lay dying.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Organized Musings
Introduction
I have decided to organize my random musings. So there.
Television
NBC moving giving Leno their M-F 10 PM slot is going to be A) the end of NBC, or B) the end of network television. Option A will happen if the move is unsuccessful, forcing NBC to revert to "traditional" 10 PM shows, putting the network in a "catch up" position with ABC, CBS, and Fox. Option B will happen if the move is successful, and the rest of the Big Four nets follow suit, forcing audiences to cable channels in order to find quality scripted television.
Prison Break is going bye-bye, which is no surprise. Fox could've turned that show into something great, but instead decided to make it a reverse 24 of sorts, rather than the Kung Fu, The Fugitive, and The A-Team homage that it should've been.
Related to the NBC-Leno thing: Life and (likely) Chuck are screwed.
Battlestar Galactica is beginning its final run. Here's hoping that the nerd-critics finally realize what crap the show's been since part-way through its second season.
Sports
LaDanian Tomlinson is crying about taking a smaller role in the offense. Dude, I thought you were about "being classy." Support your team, take the role, extend your career, and shut the fuck up. All that stated, the mere fact that the Chargers are considering dumping him is ludicrous. That's the face of your team, you idiots.
The Padres allowed Trevor Hoffman to go to the Brewers. That was the face of your team, you idiots.
Speaking of the Brewers, will somebody PLEASE put them back in the American League? And get rid of interleague play while you're at it.
Politics
Obama's taking over soon. Meet the new boss, not much different than the old boss. Hah! Seriously, though, he's no fool... change will come slowly, yet steadily, but this overnight shit just ain't going to happen.
Supposedly the government has identified Mexico (along with Pakistan) as the state most likely to collapse within the next decade or so. I say we annex.
Music
Listen to Fascinoma (she's awesome).
U2's new album comes out shortly... here's hoping it's a great one.
Hollywood
Despite numbers showing otherwise, Hollywood is running around pretending it's in some sort of financial crisis, which is putting it in a financial crisis. How fucking stupid is that?
SAG is not going to strike. If it does, we will definitely see the ascension of AFTRA as the power actor's union in Hollywood. I'm going to assume that even SAG isn't dumb enough to let that happen, but nothing will surprise me.
Heath Ledger does not deserve an Academy Award. Yeah, it sucks he's dead, and I was certainly a fan, but his Joker (while excellent... outstandingly excellent) does not deserve an Academy Award.
Animals
One of my dogs has figured out how to circumvent an electric fence. I am very, very afraid.
So, the Bush Administration lifted some protections from certain groups of Grey Wolves. Almost immediately, Idaho and Montana started organizing wolf hunts. Does that seem ridiculous to anyone else?
MySpace
I'm glad to see that MySpace has finally fixed the blog clock. Seriously, why was that a problem in the first place?
Conclusion
'Til next time...
I have decided to organize my random musings. So there.
Television
NBC moving giving Leno their M-F 10 PM slot is going to be A) the end of NBC, or B) the end of network television. Option A will happen if the move is unsuccessful, forcing NBC to revert to "traditional" 10 PM shows, putting the network in a "catch up" position with ABC, CBS, and Fox. Option B will happen if the move is successful, and the rest of the Big Four nets follow suit, forcing audiences to cable channels in order to find quality scripted television.
Prison Break is going bye-bye, which is no surprise. Fox could've turned that show into something great, but instead decided to make it a reverse 24 of sorts, rather than the Kung Fu, The Fugitive, and The A-Team homage that it should've been.
Related to the NBC-Leno thing: Life and (likely) Chuck are screwed.
Battlestar Galactica is beginning its final run. Here's hoping that the nerd-critics finally realize what crap the show's been since part-way through its second season.
Sports
LaDanian Tomlinson is crying about taking a smaller role in the offense. Dude, I thought you were about "being classy." Support your team, take the role, extend your career, and shut the fuck up. All that stated, the mere fact that the Chargers are considering dumping him is ludicrous. That's the face of your team, you idiots.
The Padres allowed Trevor Hoffman to go to the Brewers. That was the face of your team, you idiots.
Speaking of the Brewers, will somebody PLEASE put them back in the American League? And get rid of interleague play while you're at it.
Politics
Obama's taking over soon. Meet the new boss, not much different than the old boss. Hah! Seriously, though, he's no fool... change will come slowly, yet steadily, but this overnight shit just ain't going to happen.
Supposedly the government has identified Mexico (along with Pakistan) as the state most likely to collapse within the next decade or so. I say we annex.
Music
Listen to Fascinoma (she's awesome).
U2's new album comes out shortly... here's hoping it's a great one.
Hollywood
Despite numbers showing otherwise, Hollywood is running around pretending it's in some sort of financial crisis, which is putting it in a financial crisis. How fucking stupid is that?
SAG is not going to strike. If it does, we will definitely see the ascension of AFTRA as the power actor's union in Hollywood. I'm going to assume that even SAG isn't dumb enough to let that happen, but nothing will surprise me.
Heath Ledger does not deserve an Academy Award. Yeah, it sucks he's dead, and I was certainly a fan, but his Joker (while excellent... outstandingly excellent) does not deserve an Academy Award.
Animals
One of my dogs has figured out how to circumvent an electric fence. I am very, very afraid.
So, the Bush Administration lifted some protections from certain groups of Grey Wolves. Almost immediately, Idaho and Montana started organizing wolf hunts. Does that seem ridiculous to anyone else?
MySpace
I'm glad to see that MySpace has finally fixed the blog clock. Seriously, why was that a problem in the first place?
Conclusion
'Til next time...
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
It's the End of the World As We Know It
... and I feel fine.
So, Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States. Good for him, and good for everyone who voted for him. Did I? In a rare case of revealing my political cards: no. But neither did I vote for McCain. To be honest, I didn't vote... I tried to, but between forgetting where I'm registered (I found multiple voter registration cards), then figuring it out only to realize my truck isn't running, I, well... no excuses.
I wasn't going to vote for President this year, anyway. I did have a vote for my state's governor and senator, but whatever.
Anyway, Obama's going to be sworn in next January. He is going to try to "change" a helluva a lot of things. But, make no mistake, most of those changes don't stand a chance in Hades of happening. In fact, outside of his economic plan, I really doubt we'll see much real change at all. Ironically, it will be his own party that prevents it.
Seriously, hear me out. Right or wrong, Obama will be put under the most powerful microscope ever put on a President simply because he is black. As a result, he will have to run a near-perfect ship. And that means not only keeping the people who voted for him happy, but making as many of the people who didn't at least not unhappy. I do not envy that man and the tightrope he will be walking.
No, I'm not really worried for this country as far as the election goes. Not yet, anyway. Guns will not be outlawed, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will not come to sudden stops, and corporations will still run rampant.
I am, however, worried for this country as far as Obama's military and paramilitary ideas go. He wants to shrink DoD's budget. Bad idea. The way he wants to do it will unavoidably result in a smaller military. Bad idea. And I'm still rather concerned over the comments he made earlier this year regarding a gendarme of the United States. Ridiculously foolish idea.
He may be better for the economy, but he is not better for the security of this country.
But, he won. Fair and square. I anxiously await to see how he does his job, as, I'm sure, you do. Maybe he'll be a great President, maybe he'll suck. I figure he'll be at least fairly competent, but will not enter the history books as one of America's great Presidents such as Washington, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts. He will only enter the history books as being the one to break the race barrier in American politics. And, presidential effectiveness aside, that's a good thing.
Do your job, sir. That's all anyone can ask. Except, of course, for the wholly un-American people who will no doubt claim they want to leave this country now that Obama is President. Funny how those wholly un-American people who claimed they were going to leave under Bush are now shouting out that they're some sort of patriots. Bullshit... real American patriots tough out the times they hate as much as they enjoy the times the love, and that includes tolerating the leaders they don't much care for.
It is definitely the end of the world as we know it, and, yes, I feel just fine.
So, Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States. Good for him, and good for everyone who voted for him. Did I? In a rare case of revealing my political cards: no. But neither did I vote for McCain. To be honest, I didn't vote... I tried to, but between forgetting where I'm registered (I found multiple voter registration cards), then figuring it out only to realize my truck isn't running, I, well... no excuses.
I wasn't going to vote for President this year, anyway. I did have a vote for my state's governor and senator, but whatever.
Anyway, Obama's going to be sworn in next January. He is going to try to "change" a helluva a lot of things. But, make no mistake, most of those changes don't stand a chance in Hades of happening. In fact, outside of his economic plan, I really doubt we'll see much real change at all. Ironically, it will be his own party that prevents it.
Seriously, hear me out. Right or wrong, Obama will be put under the most powerful microscope ever put on a President simply because he is black. As a result, he will have to run a near-perfect ship. And that means not only keeping the people who voted for him happy, but making as many of the people who didn't at least not unhappy. I do not envy that man and the tightrope he will be walking.
No, I'm not really worried for this country as far as the election goes. Not yet, anyway. Guns will not be outlawed, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will not come to sudden stops, and corporations will still run rampant.
I am, however, worried for this country as far as Obama's military and paramilitary ideas go. He wants to shrink DoD's budget. Bad idea. The way he wants to do it will unavoidably result in a smaller military. Bad idea. And I'm still rather concerned over the comments he made earlier this year regarding a gendarme of the United States. Ridiculously foolish idea.
He may be better for the economy, but he is not better for the security of this country.
But, he won. Fair and square. I anxiously await to see how he does his job, as, I'm sure, you do. Maybe he'll be a great President, maybe he'll suck. I figure he'll be at least fairly competent, but will not enter the history books as one of America's great Presidents such as Washington, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts. He will only enter the history books as being the one to break the race barrier in American politics. And, presidential effectiveness aside, that's a good thing.
Do your job, sir. That's all anyone can ask. Except, of course, for the wholly un-American people who will no doubt claim they want to leave this country now that Obama is President. Funny how those wholly un-American people who claimed they were going to leave under Bush are now shouting out that they're some sort of patriots. Bullshit... real American patriots tough out the times they hate as much as they enjoy the times the love, and that includes tolerating the leaders they don't much care for.
It is definitely the end of the world as we know it, and, yes, I feel just fine.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
A Vice Presidential Ballot
The way we pick a Vice President is the dumbest way one can think of. No, really. It's stupid. And not just because it's non-existent, but because it's stupid. Yes, I realize that makes little sense.
Look at who our VP candidates are at the moment:
1) Joe Biden, the "safe" white guy chosen primarily to alleviate the "fear" of older white voters who might have otherwise been scared off by a black nominee for President.
2) Sarah Palin, the token girl chosen primarily to "steal" Hillary-loyalists and to show the Democrats that the Republicans, too, can play a "minority" card.
As you can probably infer, I don't much care for either one of them. In fact, I really dislike both of them. So much so, I'm not voting for President this election. I was already unimpressed by either Presidential candidate (though I was leaning one way or the other), but now... well, let's just say the VP choices have turned me off to politics this election season.
Makes me long for the days in which the VP was simply the runner-up in the race for President.
No, really.
Of course, in today's political climate, such a method would almost undoubtedly result in our political system shooting itself in the foot. Deadlock, gridlock, and filibustering would not only become the absolute norm, passing a law would probably become so rare, we'd start having National Holidays when one did actually pass.
So I'm offering a simple solution:
Directly elect the Office of the Vice President.
We love to believe we live in a true democracy, no? Well, this would help the People maintain that illusion. It would also require specific individuals to declare themselves as VP candidates extremely early on, and provide a better opportunity for the public to research those individuals. Not only that, it would prevent Presidential candidates from picking a VP simply for "added demographics."
In short, America would not only get the President that it wants, it would get the Vice President that it wants, as well.
Look at who our VP candidates are at the moment:
1) Joe Biden, the "safe" white guy chosen primarily to alleviate the "fear" of older white voters who might have otherwise been scared off by a black nominee for President.
2) Sarah Palin, the token girl chosen primarily to "steal" Hillary-loyalists and to show the Democrats that the Republicans, too, can play a "minority" card.
As you can probably infer, I don't much care for either one of them. In fact, I really dislike both of them. So much so, I'm not voting for President this election. I was already unimpressed by either Presidential candidate (though I was leaning one way or the other), but now... well, let's just say the VP choices have turned me off to politics this election season.
Makes me long for the days in which the VP was simply the runner-up in the race for President.
No, really.
Of course, in today's political climate, such a method would almost undoubtedly result in our political system shooting itself in the foot. Deadlock, gridlock, and filibustering would not only become the absolute norm, passing a law would probably become so rare, we'd start having National Holidays when one did actually pass.
So I'm offering a simple solution:
Directly elect the Office of the Vice President.
We love to believe we live in a true democracy, no? Well, this would help the People maintain that illusion. It would also require specific individuals to declare themselves as VP candidates extremely early on, and provide a better opportunity for the public to research those individuals. Not only that, it would prevent Presidential candidates from picking a VP simply for "added demographics."
In short, America would not only get the President that it wants, it would get the Vice President that it wants, as well.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Contractor Problem
Blackwater. Halliburton. Blah dee blah. We all know who (or at least what) they are; most of us know what they do. But what we don't know is why they are even here.
The short answer is the one answer most of us turn to, since we lack the knowledge and interest to be able to answer the question in detail: corrupt government.
Unfortunately, this is not the accurate answer, nor is it even a relevant one (despite some truth behind it). Contractors exist because of the American way of life. And that is, for lack of better term, one of capitalism. For those of you who didn't know, our country runs on a business model in which any industry or service can be turned into a lucrative venture with which a clever entrepreneur can exploit.
In this case, it is known as the military-industrial complex. A complex, somewhat ironically, that we were warned against embracing by a former 5-star general and President, good ol' Ike. Unfortunately for Ike's successors, there were no laws governing the limitations of such a complex and now our military is paying the price.
Let me back up for a moment and posit a thesis: any military that is not entirely self-sufficient is doomed to fail.
And therein lies the problem.
We all know (or at least should) that our military is currently far too small. The Navy is comparitively small for our needs and continues to shed its logistical duties to (gasp) civilian contractors. The Army is undeniably tiny and is at its breaking point, and also continues to shed logistical duties in favor of civilian support. Additionally, however, the Army is even losing some of its tactical duties to civilian contractors. I know this is a few years late, but... what?
Obvious problems aside, private armies such as Blackwater look great on paper (at least in the pamphlets), but in practice are a horrific waste of money and a terrifying transfer of what used to be typical military duties. This entry is not the place to get into the minutae, but, in essence, taxpayers are getting screwed. For a job that a standard, disciplined soldier would have done 30 years ago, we are paying exhorbitant salaries for civilian contractors who, by the way, don't have the same accountability as a servicemember. $60,000 a year for an unaccountable "bodyguard" versus maybe $30,000 a year for someone who answers to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice? That's like firing your child who lives with you for mere room and board and hiring a replacement for room, board, and a $30,000 per year allowance. Oh, yeah, and a replacement who doesn't necessarily have to do what you tell him or her to do.
I don't know in what world the theater oversights are doing business, but that arrangement can't possibly sound good under any amount of propaganda.
Not only that, these very same private armies are recruiting our best and brightest soldiers and sailors out of our armed forces. In other words, the government is paying these companies to compete with itself. Which, as everyone should be able to figure out, drives up costs continuously and astronomically.
I could keep going, but the bottom line is: we're fucking ourselves.
I'll return to this subject again in the future, but on a closing note, I do need to point out that this phenomenon is not only the fault of the government and these greedy corporations, it's also the fault of the American people. It's no secret that finding people who actually want to serve is becoming harder and harder every day. Kids these days feel like they're owed something, and that's bullshit. Disagree? Then why are all these self-serving punks whining about not having free college?
JFK said it best: "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Well, you know the rest. And if you don't, you obviously don't give a shit anyway.
The short answer is the one answer most of us turn to, since we lack the knowledge and interest to be able to answer the question in detail: corrupt government.
Unfortunately, this is not the accurate answer, nor is it even a relevant one (despite some truth behind it). Contractors exist because of the American way of life. And that is, for lack of better term, one of capitalism. For those of you who didn't know, our country runs on a business model in which any industry or service can be turned into a lucrative venture with which a clever entrepreneur can exploit.
In this case, it is known as the military-industrial complex. A complex, somewhat ironically, that we were warned against embracing by a former 5-star general and President, good ol' Ike. Unfortunately for Ike's successors, there were no laws governing the limitations of such a complex and now our military is paying the price.
Let me back up for a moment and posit a thesis: any military that is not entirely self-sufficient is doomed to fail.
And therein lies the problem.
We all know (or at least should) that our military is currently far too small. The Navy is comparitively small for our needs and continues to shed its logistical duties to (gasp) civilian contractors. The Army is undeniably tiny and is at its breaking point, and also continues to shed logistical duties in favor of civilian support. Additionally, however, the Army is even losing some of its tactical duties to civilian contractors. I know this is a few years late, but... what?
Obvious problems aside, private armies such as Blackwater look great on paper (at least in the pamphlets), but in practice are a horrific waste of money and a terrifying transfer of what used to be typical military duties. This entry is not the place to get into the minutae, but, in essence, taxpayers are getting screwed. For a job that a standard, disciplined soldier would have done 30 years ago, we are paying exhorbitant salaries for civilian contractors who, by the way, don't have the same accountability as a servicemember. $60,000 a year for an unaccountable "bodyguard" versus maybe $30,000 a year for someone who answers to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice? That's like firing your child who lives with you for mere room and board and hiring a replacement for room, board, and a $30,000 per year allowance. Oh, yeah, and a replacement who doesn't necessarily have to do what you tell him or her to do.
I don't know in what world the theater oversights are doing business, but that arrangement can't possibly sound good under any amount of propaganda.
Not only that, these very same private armies are recruiting our best and brightest soldiers and sailors out of our armed forces. In other words, the government is paying these companies to compete with itself. Which, as everyone should be able to figure out, drives up costs continuously and astronomically.
I could keep going, but the bottom line is: we're fucking ourselves.
I'll return to this subject again in the future, but on a closing note, I do need to point out that this phenomenon is not only the fault of the government and these greedy corporations, it's also the fault of the American people. It's no secret that finding people who actually want to serve is becoming harder and harder every day. Kids these days feel like they're owed something, and that's bullshit. Disagree? Then why are all these self-serving punks whining about not having free college?
JFK said it best: "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Well, you know the rest. And if you don't, you obviously don't give a shit anyway.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Political Incorrectness that Is
I suppose in my last entry I should have put something to effect of "it's acceptable to call your girl friends bitches," or maybe not.
For those of you who follow the soap opera that is the Presidential campaign, you probably saw or heard of the woman who asked Senator John McCain "How do we beat the bitch?" She was, obviously, referencing Senatory Hillary Clinton.
Yes, it was funny in that sort of way. Yes, it was a legitimate political question (well, in essence). And, yes, it was entirely inappropriate and more of a slight to McCain's supporters than to Clinton herself.
For years now, people have been complaining about the American political system and how completely distasteful and unprofessional its campaigns have become. And now McCain, one of the more vocal proponents of taste and professionalism, has now been caught in his own net. Yeah, that's a broad statement, but you get the drift.
Regardless of whether Hillary Clinton is a bitch or not, regardless of whether she's Presidential material or not, such labels do not belong in the (public) realm of our national politics. The woman who asked that question, clearly a bitch herself, should be ashamed she asked it, and on camera no less. She must have thought she was "standing up" and "dishing a blow" for her world view in an honorable, noticeable sort of way. She got the noticeable part right. Perhaps she's just a jealous old hag, or a mindless bimbo married to a dictatorial man who forces his political opinions on her, or perhaps not. Either way, she's an idiot.
I'm not voting for Clinton, nor do I even like her, but she is a studied, worldly, and intelligent woman. She is also Senator McCain's peer and colleague. McCain, politics aside, should have stood up for that fact more forcibly than he did. And though it was "an excellent question" pertaining to the campaign race, he should not have acknowledged that in public. I understand he was caught off guard and scrambling for a response, but he is a politician, and politicians are supposed to be masters in situations like that.
Keep in mind, in a country where most of its eligible citizens don't "waste their time" to vote, that woman is of the type of people that does vote. Whether you like Clinton or not, McCain or not, this is who you're up against.
And I guarantee you that bitch will fill out a ballot.
Vote Eastwood. And keep the name-calling in the locker room.
For those of you who follow the soap opera that is the Presidential campaign, you probably saw or heard of the woman who asked Senator John McCain "How do we beat the bitch?" She was, obviously, referencing Senatory Hillary Clinton.
Yes, it was funny in that sort of way. Yes, it was a legitimate political question (well, in essence). And, yes, it was entirely inappropriate and more of a slight to McCain's supporters than to Clinton herself.
For years now, people have been complaining about the American political system and how completely distasteful and unprofessional its campaigns have become. And now McCain, one of the more vocal proponents of taste and professionalism, has now been caught in his own net. Yeah, that's a broad statement, but you get the drift.
Regardless of whether Hillary Clinton is a bitch or not, regardless of whether she's Presidential material or not, such labels do not belong in the (public) realm of our national politics. The woman who asked that question, clearly a bitch herself, should be ashamed she asked it, and on camera no less. She must have thought she was "standing up" and "dishing a blow" for her world view in an honorable, noticeable sort of way. She got the noticeable part right. Perhaps she's just a jealous old hag, or a mindless bimbo married to a dictatorial man who forces his political opinions on her, or perhaps not. Either way, she's an idiot.
I'm not voting for Clinton, nor do I even like her, but she is a studied, worldly, and intelligent woman. She is also Senator McCain's peer and colleague. McCain, politics aside, should have stood up for that fact more forcibly than he did. And though it was "an excellent question" pertaining to the campaign race, he should not have acknowledged that in public. I understand he was caught off guard and scrambling for a response, but he is a politician, and politicians are supposed to be masters in situations like that.
Keep in mind, in a country where most of its eligible citizens don't "waste their time" to vote, that woman is of the type of people that does vote. Whether you like Clinton or not, McCain or not, this is who you're up against.
And I guarantee you that bitch will fill out a ballot.
Vote Eastwood. And keep the name-calling in the locker room.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Political Incorrectness that Isn’t
Over the years, in my own experience of course, I have discovered a few things:
Telling a deploying soldier "kick some ass" is perfectly acceptable.
Calling gay friends "faggots" and black friends "niggers" is also acceptable. Naturally, what they usually call me back is not printable.
Posting a "That Includes Bible-Thumbing" sign underneath a "No Soliciting" sign on your door saves everyone involved a ton of grief.
Fist fights resulting from left versus right political arguments can acceptably and peacefully be resolved with free alcohol.
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a debatable Commandment.
Neo-Nazis are people, too. Stupid people, but people nonetheless.
The cuter an animal is, the better it usually tastes. Which leads to...
Dogs and cats can be eaten.
My incorrect opinion is still better than your correct one.
Kids who think they're cool because they dress in black and listen to punk or emo either A) continue to listen to punk or emo and fail in life or B) change their loser ways and wind up classic rock fans.
Stereotypes are surprisingly accurate, even if not absolute truths.
A single American hostage is reason enough to go to war. Conversely, for other countries, a single hostage of their citizenry is reason enough for them to go to war.
Men and women are not mental and physical equals. They are, however, social equals, and should be treated as such.
Having retarded (for lack of better term) children in our school systems increases the amount of tax dollars we put in to pay for said school systems. Tax dollars better spent elsewhere.
Many of you are referring to me with despicable words right now, and that's your right. Humor me and post some of them. I'm curious.
Clint Eastwood isn't running for President, but I'm voting for him anyway.
Telling a deploying soldier "kick some ass" is perfectly acceptable.
Calling gay friends "faggots" and black friends "niggers" is also acceptable. Naturally, what they usually call me back is not printable.
Posting a "That Includes Bible-Thumbing" sign underneath a "No Soliciting" sign on your door saves everyone involved a ton of grief.
Fist fights resulting from left versus right political arguments can acceptably and peacefully be resolved with free alcohol.
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a debatable Commandment.
Neo-Nazis are people, too. Stupid people, but people nonetheless.
The cuter an animal is, the better it usually tastes. Which leads to...
Dogs and cats can be eaten.
My incorrect opinion is still better than your correct one.
Kids who think they're cool because they dress in black and listen to punk or emo either A) continue to listen to punk or emo and fail in life or B) change their loser ways and wind up classic rock fans.
Stereotypes are surprisingly accurate, even if not absolute truths.
A single American hostage is reason enough to go to war. Conversely, for other countries, a single hostage of their citizenry is reason enough for them to go to war.
Men and women are not mental and physical equals. They are, however, social equals, and should be treated as such.
Having retarded (for lack of better term) children in our school systems increases the amount of tax dollars we put in to pay for said school systems. Tax dollars better spent elsewhere.
Many of you are referring to me with despicable words right now, and that's your right. Humor me and post some of them. I'm curious.
Clint Eastwood isn't running for President, but I'm voting for him anyway.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Screwing Up the Middle East
There is little doubt in anyone's mind that our current administration is screwing up overall relations with the nations of the Middle East. We are, after all, engaged in two wars there (one popularly supported, one not), are threatening another, and pretending to ignore the calls of several other regional states to mind our own business.
There is also little doubt that these operations are less the result of "spreading freedom" than they are of spreading American capitalism. Of course, while I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of spreading American capitalism (hey, I'm a capitalist), I do disagree with the idea of trying to do it under false pretense.
All of the problems and issues implied above can easily be blamed on our so-called "conservatives" in government, a debated fact our so-called "liberals" in government do not hesitate to point out during the current campaign season. But do the liberals have the answer to the problems in/with the Middle East? Hardly. In fact, I'd say they could only make matters worse.
Now, before you start labeling me a neo-con asshole, keep in mind that I'm not a huge fan of current foreign policy either... I'm just trying to point out some glaring probabilities that everyone seems to want to ignore.
First, the Democrats (a.k.a. the liberals) want to pull out of Iraq. Dumb idea. Yes, going in was a stupid idea in the first place and should have been done (if at all) immediately after the first Gulf War. But pulling out now? Well, despite trying to tout "save our soldiers," such an action will merely create a power vacuum that will undoubtedly cause short-term chaos in an already chaotic region. And guess what short-term chaos always leads to in that part of the world? That's right, long-term chaos.
Second, in a thinly-veiled attempt to force the Bush administration to pull out of Iraq, the liberals went ahead and declared the Turkish government (one of our main allies over there) as genocidal. For what, you might ask? Well, for actions that occurred nearly a century ago in World War I. Not only that, they were actions committed by Turkey when Turkey was controlled by a completely different government. This would be like China blaming the United States for actions that occurred in America prior to 1776. Fair? Hardly. In fact, it's morally, politically, and futilely stupid. But, hey, the Democrats are trying to make a point.
So I pose this question: is this really the direction we want to go? I would hope you say no, but given the relative uneducated political viewpoints of America en masse, you're probably jumping all over that bandwagon.
With certainty, I can say the Democrats are wrong in how they want to approach the Middle East. With equal certainty, I can say the Republicans are wrong with how they are currently approaching the Middle East. So what do we do?
One option is to leave it all alone. Sure, we can do that, but that only contributes to the aforementioned power vacuum, and for "leaving it alone" to be successful, other world powers such as Russia would have to "leave it alone" as well. Will that happen? Um, no.
Another option is to reopen relations with Iran. Iran, a surprisingly stable government enjoying said stability more or less since they overthrew the US-friendly government back in the late-Carter, early-Reagan days. Yet that appears to not be a possiblity, what with Iran being a member of the "Axis of Evil." Don't get me started on that...
I don't pretend to know the answers, but I do think I know what isn't going to work, and just about everything I've heard or read from both sides of our government isn't going to work. And until we realize that Arab Muslims don't want a government that separates church from state, nothing we come up with is going to work at all.
Until then, we're just going to keep screwing things up.
There is also little doubt that these operations are less the result of "spreading freedom" than they are of spreading American capitalism. Of course, while I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of spreading American capitalism (hey, I'm a capitalist), I do disagree with the idea of trying to do it under false pretense.
All of the problems and issues implied above can easily be blamed on our so-called "conservatives" in government, a debated fact our so-called "liberals" in government do not hesitate to point out during the current campaign season. But do the liberals have the answer to the problems in/with the Middle East? Hardly. In fact, I'd say they could only make matters worse.
Now, before you start labeling me a neo-con asshole, keep in mind that I'm not a huge fan of current foreign policy either... I'm just trying to point out some glaring probabilities that everyone seems to want to ignore.
First, the Democrats (a.k.a. the liberals) want to pull out of Iraq. Dumb idea. Yes, going in was a stupid idea in the first place and should have been done (if at all) immediately after the first Gulf War. But pulling out now? Well, despite trying to tout "save our soldiers," such an action will merely create a power vacuum that will undoubtedly cause short-term chaos in an already chaotic region. And guess what short-term chaos always leads to in that part of the world? That's right, long-term chaos.
Second, in a thinly-veiled attempt to force the Bush administration to pull out of Iraq, the liberals went ahead and declared the Turkish government (one of our main allies over there) as genocidal. For what, you might ask? Well, for actions that occurred nearly a century ago in World War I. Not only that, they were actions committed by Turkey when Turkey was controlled by a completely different government. This would be like China blaming the United States for actions that occurred in America prior to 1776. Fair? Hardly. In fact, it's morally, politically, and futilely stupid. But, hey, the Democrats are trying to make a point.
So I pose this question: is this really the direction we want to go? I would hope you say no, but given the relative uneducated political viewpoints of America en masse, you're probably jumping all over that bandwagon.
With certainty, I can say the Democrats are wrong in how they want to approach the Middle East. With equal certainty, I can say the Republicans are wrong with how they are currently approaching the Middle East. So what do we do?
One option is to leave it all alone. Sure, we can do that, but that only contributes to the aforementioned power vacuum, and for "leaving it alone" to be successful, other world powers such as Russia would have to "leave it alone" as well. Will that happen? Um, no.
Another option is to reopen relations with Iran. Iran, a surprisingly stable government enjoying said stability more or less since they overthrew the US-friendly government back in the late-Carter, early-Reagan days. Yet that appears to not be a possiblity, what with Iran being a member of the "Axis of Evil." Don't get me started on that...
I don't pretend to know the answers, but I do think I know what isn't going to work, and just about everything I've heard or read from both sides of our government isn't going to work. And until we realize that Arab Muslims don't want a government that separates church from state, nothing we come up with is going to work at all.
Until then, we're just going to keep screwing things up.
Friday, September 14, 2007
America’s White Elephants: China and Islam
America. Arguably the greatest country with the greatest political system on Earth. Arguably the proud owners of the most powerful military on Earth. Arguably the world's economic leader. Arguably... well, arguable.
America, since the turn of the 20th Century, has inarguably been THE world power. Our involvement practically dictated the outcome of two world wars, drew the lines (and fought over a few) in the Cold War, and created an economic disparity that the rest of the world envied. For better or worse, this is the legacy of our country.
Until fairly recently, one thing America lacked was fear. We weren't really afraid of the great Red Soviet world takeover (sure, enough to cause some personal bomb shelters to be built, but that's another story). We weren't afraid to travel to remote and near-alien parts of the world. We spout religious freedom, and weren't afraid to experience the religions of others. We were, after all, on top of the world in every way, shape, or idea imaginable.
That was then; this is now.
Not only do we now live with the subtle fear of being victims of terrorism, our spot on the top of the world is in grave danger of being usurped. The game of king-of-the-mountain we have been playing since the Great Depression may truly be lost to a former enemy and former ally.
We all know who I'm referring to when discussing the fear of terrorism: Muslim extremists. Due to our good fortune this past 100 years (cause of jealousy), our place as the sole remaining super power (cause of jealousy), and our innate and government-granted right of freedom of speech, religion, and dress (cause of anger), we have been targeted by a group of people (the worldly "have-nots") who, with no other enemy to fight, feels like fighting us.
And we're afraid. They destroyed two American icons, as well as several smaller American properties and symbols.
Did we react angrily and whoop some ass? Yes, we did. But, again, all that is changing. We have become afraid, and, as with most American wars, we have become tired.
We have become so afraid that most of the American press refused to print those European "Mohammed" cartoons that incited several riots in the Muslim world. Freedom of press? Right... more like fear of Islam. More specifically: fear of Islam in America.
You see, most Muslims here in the USA would definitely have complained about Mohammed being depicted as such (and rightly so... it is, after all, their religious belief). The problem I have with that is not their reaction, but the inarguable fact that they have chosen to live in this country. The USA. The one country on the face of the planet where anyone can SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY and poke fun at anything they want to poke fun at.
Maybe it wouldn't bother me so much if the Muslims of the United States were as vocal when the press or the entertainment industy pokes fun at, say, Jesus or Buddha. But they largely remain quiet, only defending their own so-called right to defend their Prophet.
To that I say: fuck off. Deal with our country or leave. And before any Muslims reading this get too offended, I say that with ANYBODY who feels they have some sort of privileged right over anybody else's political or religious leanings (which includes Christians who rally against Jesus cartoons, but remain quiet and/or supportive of Mohammed cartoons). Again: fuck off.
And then there's China. The largest country, population-wise, in the world. Nearly 1 in 6 people on this planet is a Chinese citizen. 1 in 6. That's quite a ratio. Over 1 billion Chinese to barely 250 million Americans.
And they are primed to take over the world.
China, despite being officially communist, is quite possibly the most successful capitalist country in this young century. Their GNP has skyrocketed. Their industrial output has skyrocketed. And, even more fearfully, their military is modernizing at a rapid rate.
It appears, in my eyes, that China wants a fight with the United States. Maybe not an overt military fight, but definitely an economic one. And, if they can figure out a way to keep their growing-too-fast economy from collapsing from underneath them, they will win.
We turned our back on Taiwan when Nixon went to China and formally recognized them as the official Chinese government. If we turn our back on China now and allow them to outpace us militarily and economically, we will no longer be king of the mountain.
But, somehow, I fear that most of you reading this don't really give a damn because you're too worried that your shoes don't match your belt or that you're running out of money for college (and won't consider a stint in the military to both help pay for school and serve your country) or that your favorite sports team or celebrity just ran into a bit of bad luck.
After all, those Great White Elephants snuck into the room somehow.
America, since the turn of the 20th Century, has inarguably been THE world power. Our involvement practically dictated the outcome of two world wars, drew the lines (and fought over a few) in the Cold War, and created an economic disparity that the rest of the world envied. For better or worse, this is the legacy of our country.
Until fairly recently, one thing America lacked was fear. We weren't really afraid of the great Red Soviet world takeover (sure, enough to cause some personal bomb shelters to be built, but that's another story). We weren't afraid to travel to remote and near-alien parts of the world. We spout religious freedom, and weren't afraid to experience the religions of others. We were, after all, on top of the world in every way, shape, or idea imaginable.
That was then; this is now.
Not only do we now live with the subtle fear of being victims of terrorism, our spot on the top of the world is in grave danger of being usurped. The game of king-of-the-mountain we have been playing since the Great Depression may truly be lost to a former enemy and former ally.
We all know who I'm referring to when discussing the fear of terrorism: Muslim extremists. Due to our good fortune this past 100 years (cause of jealousy), our place as the sole remaining super power (cause of jealousy), and our innate and government-granted right of freedom of speech, religion, and dress (cause of anger), we have been targeted by a group of people (the worldly "have-nots") who, with no other enemy to fight, feels like fighting us.
And we're afraid. They destroyed two American icons, as well as several smaller American properties and symbols.
Did we react angrily and whoop some ass? Yes, we did. But, again, all that is changing. We have become afraid, and, as with most American wars, we have become tired.
We have become so afraid that most of the American press refused to print those European "Mohammed" cartoons that incited several riots in the Muslim world. Freedom of press? Right... more like fear of Islam. More specifically: fear of Islam in America.
You see, most Muslims here in the USA would definitely have complained about Mohammed being depicted as such (and rightly so... it is, after all, their religious belief). The problem I have with that is not their reaction, but the inarguable fact that they have chosen to live in this country. The USA. The one country on the face of the planet where anyone can SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY and poke fun at anything they want to poke fun at.
Maybe it wouldn't bother me so much if the Muslims of the United States were as vocal when the press or the entertainment industy pokes fun at, say, Jesus or Buddha. But they largely remain quiet, only defending their own so-called right to defend their Prophet.
To that I say: fuck off. Deal with our country or leave. And before any Muslims reading this get too offended, I say that with ANYBODY who feels they have some sort of privileged right over anybody else's political or religious leanings (which includes Christians who rally against Jesus cartoons, but remain quiet and/or supportive of Mohammed cartoons). Again: fuck off.
And then there's China. The largest country, population-wise, in the world. Nearly 1 in 6 people on this planet is a Chinese citizen. 1 in 6. That's quite a ratio. Over 1 billion Chinese to barely 250 million Americans.
And they are primed to take over the world.
China, despite being officially communist, is quite possibly the most successful capitalist country in this young century. Their GNP has skyrocketed. Their industrial output has skyrocketed. And, even more fearfully, their military is modernizing at a rapid rate.
It appears, in my eyes, that China wants a fight with the United States. Maybe not an overt military fight, but definitely an economic one. And, if they can figure out a way to keep their growing-too-fast economy from collapsing from underneath them, they will win.
We turned our back on Taiwan when Nixon went to China and formally recognized them as the official Chinese government. If we turn our back on China now and allow them to outpace us militarily and economically, we will no longer be king of the mountain.
But, somehow, I fear that most of you reading this don't really give a damn because you're too worried that your shoes don't match your belt or that you're running out of money for college (and won't consider a stint in the military to both help pay for school and serve your country) or that your favorite sports team or celebrity just ran into a bit of bad luck.
After all, those Great White Elephants snuck into the room somehow.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Clint Eastwood for President
Okay, given that the "blogosphere" is rife with a bunch of morons touting political omniscience, I figured I'd add my two worthless cents.
Yes, you read the title of the blog correctly: I nominate Clint Eastwood for President.
Seriously, think about it. He's been a Mayor, so he has some political experience. He owns or partially-owns several businesses (many non-film-related), so he has corporate experience. He's been in the Army (as an E-6, I believe), so he has military experience. He's a self-proclaimed "libertarian," but acts more as either a moderate conservative or a moderate liberal, depending on the issue at hand. He even speaks Italian, and is certainly more knowledgeable about the rest of the world than our current President was when he first took office.
And besides, what ignorant anti-American terrorist would even think once about attacking us if Dirty Harry was our leader?
Hmm...
Yes, you read the title of the blog correctly: I nominate Clint Eastwood for President.
Seriously, think about it. He's been a Mayor, so he has some political experience. He owns or partially-owns several businesses (many non-film-related), so he has corporate experience. He's been in the Army (as an E-6, I believe), so he has military experience. He's a self-proclaimed "libertarian," but acts more as either a moderate conservative or a moderate liberal, depending on the issue at hand. He even speaks Italian, and is certainly more knowledgeable about the rest of the world than our current President was when he first took office.
And besides, what ignorant anti-American terrorist would even think once about attacking us if Dirty Harry was our leader?
Hmm...
Monday, March 19, 2007
A Profoundness in Film
Prior to September 11th, 2001, there was always that occasional film that critics would proclaim as an insight into the world, into humanity. Usually, these films would be nominated for an Academy Award or twelve, and they would fade away into the obscurity of a small box office followed by a resurrection of sorts into curricula the world over for film students. But, at least for the moments that belonged to them, those films would make an impact. Maybe lasting, maybe not. Regardless, someone would probably shout out that this film would change the world. Ultimately, however, it wouldn't, but its lingering frames of celluloid relevant vision would remain in the thoughts and imaginations of the next generation of filmmakers, resulting in yet another "temporarily profound" film venture.
After that infamous date, however, it seems that more and more of these films are making their way into the consciousness of the various pop cultures of the world, and, for better or worse, staying there. It has long been held by the intellectual elite of this world that we are mortal. We live, we die, and with the exception of a few great or heinous people, we are forgotten. Lately, though, this mortal perspective has been passed on to our entire planet, our very species. We are dying as an element of the universe; we are killing ourselves.
Terrorism and the environment lead our headlines. We are in a constant situation of, no matter what we do as individuals, our fates lie in the hands of others. As a result, our art, specifically our film, is beginning to reflect that reluctant nihilism that we are all a part of. We can be killed walking down our own streets, working in our own offices. Indeed, we will be killed walking down streets of foreign lands; breathing the air and drinking the water of our future. Our existence is coming to a head and, for whatever reason, be it profit or a genuine sense of love, Hollywood is trying to warn us.
Take a mere slice of the recent films that have graced the silver screen: Babel, Children of Men, even Al Gore's foray into film, An Inconvenient Truth. Warnings all. They make no effort to disguise their intents. We need to change, and change now, or we're all fucked.
It's almost irony that in a world where people are living longer, our lives can change in less time than ever before. In one second, a building can fall. In one second, a species can be erased from history. In one second, a life can begin and end.
Art has long held the key with which people react to their environments. Almost anybody with half an education can name a painting whose inspiration was death and destruction. Monkeys can probably spout the titles of no less than a dozen so-called war songs. Even the theatre has lent its hand, withered hand it is. But politics? How many people know the history of politics? The great decisions in the last century that led us to where we are today? Not many. Pop culture, it seems, is far more important to most citizens, especially of this country, than any other subject. And finally, Hollywood has taken notice.
There was once a time that supposedly incendiary films were squashed, or relegated to the art house circuit. It wasn't too long ago that the original Manchurian Candidate was finally released after being hidden from public view since JFK's assassination. It wasn't too long ago that the filmmakers behind movies such as Brokeback Mountain would have been admonished. But now, there is an overwhelming sense that humanity is running out of time, and every topic the world over is being brought to the forefront, perhaps in vain attempts at vanity, but perhaps due to the necessity that we need to figure out what's really important right now.
We truly are in a strange new world. China is once again, after centuries of absence, a world power. America is no longer the moral leader and savior of the world. The Middle East, thanks to the proliferation of nuclear technology, is no longer a footprint in Imperial plans. Make no mistake, the power struggle for tomorrow's world is more volatile than it has ever been before. Unfortunately, the average yahoo on the street isn't capable of understanding the minutiae involved in running societies, despite the fact that every yahoo has a definitive opinion, however uneducated, of how such actions should be done.
Which leaves us with film. The ultimate art form. No other art form in the world has the ability to be as affective, nor as pervasive, as film. And, thankfully, we're starting to use it as such. A few years ago, nobody, save naturalists, probably even gave a damn about penguins, then March of the Penguins arrives. The drug trade was seen as black and white, then Traffic. Even television shows like Battlestar Galactica are joining the fray, portraying several sides of several arguments in dramatic ways that laymen can comprehend.
I usually hate it when Hollywood decides to rear its head into the political world, primarily because there was always an overt agenda. But, now I see the necessity of it all. The powerful will continue to maintain and gain power; the stupid will continue to become even more stupid. Hollywood can educate, should it want to. And I think it finally wants to.
Let's hope for the best. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of time.
After that infamous date, however, it seems that more and more of these films are making their way into the consciousness of the various pop cultures of the world, and, for better or worse, staying there. It has long been held by the intellectual elite of this world that we are mortal. We live, we die, and with the exception of a few great or heinous people, we are forgotten. Lately, though, this mortal perspective has been passed on to our entire planet, our very species. We are dying as an element of the universe; we are killing ourselves.
Terrorism and the environment lead our headlines. We are in a constant situation of, no matter what we do as individuals, our fates lie in the hands of others. As a result, our art, specifically our film, is beginning to reflect that reluctant nihilism that we are all a part of. We can be killed walking down our own streets, working in our own offices. Indeed, we will be killed walking down streets of foreign lands; breathing the air and drinking the water of our future. Our existence is coming to a head and, for whatever reason, be it profit or a genuine sense of love, Hollywood is trying to warn us.
Take a mere slice of the recent films that have graced the silver screen: Babel, Children of Men, even Al Gore's foray into film, An Inconvenient Truth. Warnings all. They make no effort to disguise their intents. We need to change, and change now, or we're all fucked.
It's almost irony that in a world where people are living longer, our lives can change in less time than ever before. In one second, a building can fall. In one second, a species can be erased from history. In one second, a life can begin and end.
Art has long held the key with which people react to their environments. Almost anybody with half an education can name a painting whose inspiration was death and destruction. Monkeys can probably spout the titles of no less than a dozen so-called war songs. Even the theatre has lent its hand, withered hand it is. But politics? How many people know the history of politics? The great decisions in the last century that led us to where we are today? Not many. Pop culture, it seems, is far more important to most citizens, especially of this country, than any other subject. And finally, Hollywood has taken notice.
There was once a time that supposedly incendiary films were squashed, or relegated to the art house circuit. It wasn't too long ago that the original Manchurian Candidate was finally released after being hidden from public view since JFK's assassination. It wasn't too long ago that the filmmakers behind movies such as Brokeback Mountain would have been admonished. But now, there is an overwhelming sense that humanity is running out of time, and every topic the world over is being brought to the forefront, perhaps in vain attempts at vanity, but perhaps due to the necessity that we need to figure out what's really important right now.
We truly are in a strange new world. China is once again, after centuries of absence, a world power. America is no longer the moral leader and savior of the world. The Middle East, thanks to the proliferation of nuclear technology, is no longer a footprint in Imperial plans. Make no mistake, the power struggle for tomorrow's world is more volatile than it has ever been before. Unfortunately, the average yahoo on the street isn't capable of understanding the minutiae involved in running societies, despite the fact that every yahoo has a definitive opinion, however uneducated, of how such actions should be done.
Which leaves us with film. The ultimate art form. No other art form in the world has the ability to be as affective, nor as pervasive, as film. And, thankfully, we're starting to use it as such. A few years ago, nobody, save naturalists, probably even gave a damn about penguins, then March of the Penguins arrives. The drug trade was seen as black and white, then Traffic. Even television shows like Battlestar Galactica are joining the fray, portraying several sides of several arguments in dramatic ways that laymen can comprehend.
I usually hate it when Hollywood decides to rear its head into the political world, primarily because there was always an overt agenda. But, now I see the necessity of it all. The powerful will continue to maintain and gain power; the stupid will continue to become even more stupid. Hollywood can educate, should it want to. And I think it finally wants to.
Let's hope for the best. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of time.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Nicotine-Withdrawal-Induced Musings
I chewed the last piece of Nicorette I had yesterday. Today, I am going through regular gum like it's heroin. An entire bag of blow pops, two 60-piece cans of Eclipse gum, and a pack of Dentyne Ice have all met their demise. I'd chew on my fingers, but you can't blow bubbles with flesh... or can you? Hmm...
Scooby Doo was invented by a Japanese guy. Who'd have thought? Two things can be deciphered from this fact. One, he almost made up for the Japanese social debacle that is known as karaoke. Two, the Japanese, realizing their attempt to corrupt American culture via automobiles and electronics had failed, were trying to screw us up on cartoons. Given the proliferation of manga and anime, I'd say they're well on their way to success.
If I'm not making any sense, blame it on the lack of nicotine.
There's a pizza chain accepting pesos now. Good customer service? Maybe. Or maybe it's time we pulled a European Union and forced Canada and Mexico to adopt the US dollar. Or maybe it's time we just shut up and let a business do what it wants to do. It's called freedom. So be it.
The NFL playoffs heat up this weekend with the divisional games. The rub? My sister is throwing my niece's birthday party this weekend, even though she was born on December 30th. The rub's rub? Out of the four playoff games, my sister scheduled my niece's birthday party at 2 PM Pacific Time on Sunday. Right smack dab in the middle of the Chargers-Patriots game. Guess which uncle isn't going to the birthday party?
If I seem like a dick, blame it on the lack of nicotine. Okay, fine, I'm always like this.
I love politics. Democrats, who are supposedly for cloning, specifically in terms of research and development, are suddenly against cloned food. For R&D, they claim that what we discover can only help, not hurt our civilization. For food, it's the opposite. I'm sorry, I was under the impression that John Kerry was no longer the face of the Democratic Party. Oh, well... they'll change their mind next month, anyway.
On the other hand, the Republicans actually seem to think that adding 20,000 troops is going to help the situation in Iraq. I agree, it's going to help the insurgents find more targets. There is a solution to the Iraq problem, but I highly doubt we're going to figure it out. Neither major political party is in any position to dictate how another country rebuilds itself.
Michael Moore is an ass, albeit an intelligent and talented one. Case in point, he not-too-long ago published a piece concerning the "fact" that we have been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. Basically, he's trying to equate that it took us less time to "defeat the Nips and the Nazis" in less time than it's taking us to "tame the Hajjis." And, once again, he's attempting to confuse his followers and the public-at-large with apples and oranges. Mr. Moore, if you want to make a real comparison, please add the amount of time we stayed in Germany and Japan as "occupational forces," which, whether you agree or not, is what we technically are in Iraq right now. Hmm... I guess we're still ahead of the timetable, aren't we? What a dickhead.
An Air Force vet was relieved of duty due to her appearance in Playboy. The Air Force claims that she violated some sort of "honor code." How? By appearing nude in a magazine that is readily recognized as an American institution? By appearing nude in the only erotic magazine that is allowed to be sold on military bases? By appearing nude? You fucking censors need to get lives.
Speaking of censors, how is Irreversible, the French film with the most disturbing rape scene in motion picture history, allowed to be shown uncut in the United States, but Malena, one of the most unassuming erotic and sadly romantic films in history, can only be shown after 17 minutes of the original version are cut out? We Americans are a strange and contradictory culture, aren't we?
Let me clarify Irreversible... it's not just the most disturbing rape scene in motion picture history, it's the most disturbing scene in motion picture history, period. No horror or slasher movie you can think of has a scene anywhere near as disturbing and disconcerting as that one.
Let me clarify Irreversible and Malena... I don't think either film should be censored. In America, we're accused of fearing sex but accepting violence. Progressives cite Europe as the "more mature" society, because they fear violence and accept sex. Personally, I think we're both idiots. In art, there's nothing wrong with sex nor violence. I'd say we should all turn Japanese, whose art is rife with hardcore sex and hardcore violence... but those assholes invented karaoke, and I'm having a hard time accepting that.
I'm getting irritable. Would anybody care if I have a cigarette? Just kidding. Although, I am about to start chewing my fingers.
Go Chargers!
Scooby Doo was invented by a Japanese guy. Who'd have thought? Two things can be deciphered from this fact. One, he almost made up for the Japanese social debacle that is known as karaoke. Two, the Japanese, realizing their attempt to corrupt American culture via automobiles and electronics had failed, were trying to screw us up on cartoons. Given the proliferation of manga and anime, I'd say they're well on their way to success.
If I'm not making any sense, blame it on the lack of nicotine.
There's a pizza chain accepting pesos now. Good customer service? Maybe. Or maybe it's time we pulled a European Union and forced Canada and Mexico to adopt the US dollar. Or maybe it's time we just shut up and let a business do what it wants to do. It's called freedom. So be it.
The NFL playoffs heat up this weekend with the divisional games. The rub? My sister is throwing my niece's birthday party this weekend, even though she was born on December 30th. The rub's rub? Out of the four playoff games, my sister scheduled my niece's birthday party at 2 PM Pacific Time on Sunday. Right smack dab in the middle of the Chargers-Patriots game. Guess which uncle isn't going to the birthday party?
If I seem like a dick, blame it on the lack of nicotine. Okay, fine, I'm always like this.
I love politics. Democrats, who are supposedly for cloning, specifically in terms of research and development, are suddenly against cloned food. For R&D, they claim that what we discover can only help, not hurt our civilization. For food, it's the opposite. I'm sorry, I was under the impression that John Kerry was no longer the face of the Democratic Party. Oh, well... they'll change their mind next month, anyway.
On the other hand, the Republicans actually seem to think that adding 20,000 troops is going to help the situation in Iraq. I agree, it's going to help the insurgents find more targets. There is a solution to the Iraq problem, but I highly doubt we're going to figure it out. Neither major political party is in any position to dictate how another country rebuilds itself.
Michael Moore is an ass, albeit an intelligent and talented one. Case in point, he not-too-long ago published a piece concerning the "fact" that we have been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. Basically, he's trying to equate that it took us less time to "defeat the Nips and the Nazis" in less time than it's taking us to "tame the Hajjis." And, once again, he's attempting to confuse his followers and the public-at-large with apples and oranges. Mr. Moore, if you want to make a real comparison, please add the amount of time we stayed in Germany and Japan as "occupational forces," which, whether you agree or not, is what we technically are in Iraq right now. Hmm... I guess we're still ahead of the timetable, aren't we? What a dickhead.
An Air Force vet was relieved of duty due to her appearance in Playboy. The Air Force claims that she violated some sort of "honor code." How? By appearing nude in a magazine that is readily recognized as an American institution? By appearing nude in the only erotic magazine that is allowed to be sold on military bases? By appearing nude? You fucking censors need to get lives.
Speaking of censors, how is Irreversible, the French film with the most disturbing rape scene in motion picture history, allowed to be shown uncut in the United States, but Malena, one of the most unassuming erotic and sadly romantic films in history, can only be shown after 17 minutes of the original version are cut out? We Americans are a strange and contradictory culture, aren't we?
Let me clarify Irreversible... it's not just the most disturbing rape scene in motion picture history, it's the most disturbing scene in motion picture history, period. No horror or slasher movie you can think of has a scene anywhere near as disturbing and disconcerting as that one.
Let me clarify Irreversible and Malena... I don't think either film should be censored. In America, we're accused of fearing sex but accepting violence. Progressives cite Europe as the "more mature" society, because they fear violence and accept sex. Personally, I think we're both idiots. In art, there's nothing wrong with sex nor violence. I'd say we should all turn Japanese, whose art is rife with hardcore sex and hardcore violence... but those assholes invented karaoke, and I'm having a hard time accepting that.
I'm getting irritable. Would anybody care if I have a cigarette? Just kidding. Although, I am about to start chewing my fingers.
Go Chargers!
Friday, January 5, 2007
An Agnostic Form of Government
Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, was sworn in yesterday. As a Muslim, he chose not to swear in on the Bible, but on the Qur'an. And not just any Qur'an, mind you, but Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of it. Of course, now that this has happened, Virgil Goode is probably going to convince his constituents that Thomas Jefferson should be dug up and impeached.
The fact that there was even a controversy as to what book an elected representative could or could not swear in upon is not a good sign of the times. We are a country founded on religious freedom. Founded. This was not some post-modern semi-liberal concept that came from the struggle for civil rights or from a pot-smoking sax-playing former President. We were founded on the concept. Freedom for all, regardless of religious persuasion.
Given that, what difference does it make if Mr. Ellison swore in on the Qur'an, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, or, why not, the Kama Sutra? Given that, it shouldn't make any difference. Why would you want a public servant to swear on a book that represents something other than his or her beliefs, anyway? Doesn't that sort of negate the whole concept of swearing?
Still, there are those, including myself, that feel that we shouldn't use any type of holy scripture as a pretext to government service. I understand the traditions behind it, and I have no fundamental problem with it, but we are, or should be, an agnostic form of government, and should operate as such.
There's an easy solution, I think, to the holy book problem. One that is as nationalistic as it is appropriate. Why don't we swear our public officials in on a copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Our public officials are not elected to serve any one god, or gods, they are elected to serve us, the people, this country. We have two documents that represent the very fabric of this nation. Two documents that are, fundamentally and philosophically, the very fabric of this nation. By swearing our officials in on those two documents, we ensure that they are swearing in to serve us, to serve the United States of America. Not the Christian States of America, not the Islamic States of America, not the Taoist States of America, but the UNITED States of America. And if there were ever an elected official that refused to swear in on those two documents, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be many people opposed to taking their office away from them.
And, while we're at it, what's wrong with taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance? It really doesn't bother me that those words are in it, but come on, now. "One Nation, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All" sounds just fine to me.
We are, or should be, an agnostic form of government.
Pointless Musings
What would we make toilet paper out of if there weren't any trees?
The O.C. has been cancelled. There are brains in Hollywood. Now if only we could get rid of One Tree Hill.
A 12-year-old special education student was charged with disorderly conduct after wetting her pants. Wow. I'd be serving a life sentence if I were charged every time I pissed myself. Okay, that's not true... it'd be a double.
I just saw a question on the Internet. Basically, who would you rather invite to a party: Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, or Lindsay Lohan? I'd have to say Paris Hilton, because she looks the easiest to knock out when she gets annoying.
Eli Manning's team record in the regular season since he joined the NFL is now a whopping 25-23. The Chargers? A measly 35-13.
The fact that there was even a controversy as to what book an elected representative could or could not swear in upon is not a good sign of the times. We are a country founded on religious freedom. Founded. This was not some post-modern semi-liberal concept that came from the struggle for civil rights or from a pot-smoking sax-playing former President. We were founded on the concept. Freedom for all, regardless of religious persuasion.
Given that, what difference does it make if Mr. Ellison swore in on the Qur'an, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, or, why not, the Kama Sutra? Given that, it shouldn't make any difference. Why would you want a public servant to swear on a book that represents something other than his or her beliefs, anyway? Doesn't that sort of negate the whole concept of swearing?
Still, there are those, including myself, that feel that we shouldn't use any type of holy scripture as a pretext to government service. I understand the traditions behind it, and I have no fundamental problem with it, but we are, or should be, an agnostic form of government, and should operate as such.
There's an easy solution, I think, to the holy book problem. One that is as nationalistic as it is appropriate. Why don't we swear our public officials in on a copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Our public officials are not elected to serve any one god, or gods, they are elected to serve us, the people, this country. We have two documents that represent the very fabric of this nation. Two documents that are, fundamentally and philosophically, the very fabric of this nation. By swearing our officials in on those two documents, we ensure that they are swearing in to serve us, to serve the United States of America. Not the Christian States of America, not the Islamic States of America, not the Taoist States of America, but the UNITED States of America. And if there were ever an elected official that refused to swear in on those two documents, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be many people opposed to taking their office away from them.
And, while we're at it, what's wrong with taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance? It really doesn't bother me that those words are in it, but come on, now. "One Nation, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All" sounds just fine to me.
We are, or should be, an agnostic form of government.
Pointless Musings
What would we make toilet paper out of if there weren't any trees?
The O.C. has been cancelled. There are brains in Hollywood. Now if only we could get rid of One Tree Hill.
A 12-year-old special education student was charged with disorderly conduct after wetting her pants. Wow. I'd be serving a life sentence if I were charged every time I pissed myself. Okay, that's not true... it'd be a double.
I just saw a question on the Internet. Basically, who would you rather invite to a party: Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, or Lindsay Lohan? I'd have to say Paris Hilton, because she looks the easiest to knock out when she gets annoying.
Eli Manning's team record in the regular season since he joined the NFL is now a whopping 25-23. The Chargers? A measly 35-13.
Saturday, October 7, 2006
Battlestar Galactica, Season 3: A Bad Start
I'm a science fiction nerd. I love the stuff. Can't get enough of it. One of my favorite shows is the SciFi channel's Battlestar Galactica. Two seasons ago, it was my number one favorite show. However, as an observant MySpacer might have noticed, it's not listed in my TV favorites on my front page.
That's because, dear reader, Season Two was a disappointment. The season itself was adequate, with about a 50:50 ratio of good and bad episodes. The kicker, though, was the absolutely horrifyingly horrible season finale. In it, one of the cardinal rules of good television writing (and good writing altogether) was broken: following a nice set up, the show jumped "one year later" in order to shock us... to "grab our attention" for more, as it were.
Well, that it did. Shock us, anyway. What the flying fuck were the writers thinking?
Now, as I recall the horrible Season 3 premiere, I'm left with all of the silly questions the writers no doubt intended for me to have, such as:
"What happened in that lost year?"
"Why are the Cylons on New Caprica anyway?"
"What's going on back on old Caprica?"
To make matters worse, the writers decided to put another four month gap of between between the Season 2 finale and the Season 3 premiere, which essentially left us with 16 months of "what the fuck?"
The error of this, quite obviously, lies in characterization. Suddenly, because we are expected to acknowledge that 16 months of change just occured, characters are acting what seems to be "out of character." Starbuck, in what was the single most stupid subplot of the premiere, is now acting like a mother to her supposed half-Cylon child. Lee Adama, in what was another stupid subplot, is now grotesquely fat. Yes, it served up one good line of dialogue from Edward James Olmos, but otherwise seemed unnecessary. I could go on, but I won't spoil anything for those few Battlestar Galactica viewers that haven't seen it yet.
Another problem exhibited by the premiere is the rather glaring shift from being politically ambiguous to being clearly anti-George Bush. I understand that being relevant is an important aspect of art, but the show was much more relevant when both sides could be interpreted. Once, a couple of seasons ago, the creators and writers of Battlestar Galactica claimed that the Cylon similarities to radical Islam were "coincidental." As of the Season 3 premiere, despite the attribution of terrorist aspects to both the humans and the Cylons, this is obviously no longer the case.
As the season progresses, I'm hoping that the writers return to the original point of the show: a long lost colony on its way to find Earth. This was hinted at in the premiere, but it's been hinted at for three seasons now, and we're not getting very far. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that we're going to be subjected to another cardinal sin of writing, the flashback. Only one show I can think of does flashbacks well, it's called Lost. With Battlestar Galactica, I fear that the flashback will be used for what bad writers always use flashbacks for: to fix continuity errors and to avoid revealing lack of skill in writing "real time" plot and character development.
I'm not even going to mention that Mars is a Roman god. And yet the humans in the show were quite obviously intended to have worshipped the Greek pantheon.
Ugh.
That's because, dear reader, Season Two was a disappointment. The season itself was adequate, with about a 50:50 ratio of good and bad episodes. The kicker, though, was the absolutely horrifyingly horrible season finale. In it, one of the cardinal rules of good television writing (and good writing altogether) was broken: following a nice set up, the show jumped "one year later" in order to shock us... to "grab our attention" for more, as it were.
Well, that it did. Shock us, anyway. What the flying fuck were the writers thinking?
Now, as I recall the horrible Season 3 premiere, I'm left with all of the silly questions the writers no doubt intended for me to have, such as:
"What happened in that lost year?"
"Why are the Cylons on New Caprica anyway?"
"What's going on back on old Caprica?"
To make matters worse, the writers decided to put another four month gap of between between the Season 2 finale and the Season 3 premiere, which essentially left us with 16 months of "what the fuck?"
The error of this, quite obviously, lies in characterization. Suddenly, because we are expected to acknowledge that 16 months of change just occured, characters are acting what seems to be "out of character." Starbuck, in what was the single most stupid subplot of the premiere, is now acting like a mother to her supposed half-Cylon child. Lee Adama, in what was another stupid subplot, is now grotesquely fat. Yes, it served up one good line of dialogue from Edward James Olmos, but otherwise seemed unnecessary. I could go on, but I won't spoil anything for those few Battlestar Galactica viewers that haven't seen it yet.
Another problem exhibited by the premiere is the rather glaring shift from being politically ambiguous to being clearly anti-George Bush. I understand that being relevant is an important aspect of art, but the show was much more relevant when both sides could be interpreted. Once, a couple of seasons ago, the creators and writers of Battlestar Galactica claimed that the Cylon similarities to radical Islam were "coincidental." As of the Season 3 premiere, despite the attribution of terrorist aspects to both the humans and the Cylons, this is obviously no longer the case.
As the season progresses, I'm hoping that the writers return to the original point of the show: a long lost colony on its way to find Earth. This was hinted at in the premiere, but it's been hinted at for three seasons now, and we're not getting very far. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that we're going to be subjected to another cardinal sin of writing, the flashback. Only one show I can think of does flashbacks well, it's called Lost. With Battlestar Galactica, I fear that the flashback will be used for what bad writers always use flashbacks for: to fix continuity errors and to avoid revealing lack of skill in writing "real time" plot and character development.
I'm not even going to mention that Mars is a Roman god. And yet the humans in the show were quite obviously intended to have worshipped the Greek pantheon.
Ugh.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
"Life is Perception" and Other Pointless Musings
Life is perception. That's as probably as vague and cliché a statement as can be made. But, everyone knows it's true.
Take what's going on in current events right now. The whole Pope debacle. Perception in the Muslim world suggests that the Pope is the religious leader of the West. Reality is that he, while certainly powerful, is not. Only the Roman Catholics view him as their sacred pontiff. Other sects of Catholicism have their own popes, and most Christian denominations don't recognize the pope as their religious figurehead at all (they're called Protestants, people). But... the Muslims tend to think that the Pope speaks for the Western world, so now we're in a state of anxiety waiting for something bad to happen somewhere. Perception.
Here's a more personal example. I wrote a nice, heartfelt letter to a girl that I've liked for quite some time. Unfortunately, she doesn't know me all that well, and as such, thinks I'm quite perverted. Hell, she's probably filling out the paperwork for a restraining order. Perception. Somehow I knew that was going to happen, so I let a close friend read the letter. She said it was one of the sweetest things she'd ever read, but was quick to point out that she knew me well enough that she knew where I was coming from. So, I'm perceived by my friend as a sweetheart, while the girl I want perceives me as a psycho. Perception.
Other Pointless Musings:
The San Diego Padres dropped a thriller last night. Somehow they allowed the Dodgers to hit four back-to-back homeruns in the ninth inning.
If Ford and GM merge, all those idiots with the pissing Calvin stickers are going to be upset.
It's important to recognize that both Christianity and Islam started off as very violent religious philosophies. I think that Christianity has the benefit of being tempered by more "protestant" denominations, allowing moderate Christian beliefs to proliferate. We're seeing some of this "protestant" moderation in Islam (think Indonesia, etc.), but nowhere near enough for the two to truly co-exist peacefully yet.
The Army destroys pride in itself every time they authorize a new award. It's called "elitism," and the military needs it. Egalitarianism in the military leads to complacency.
The San Diego Chargers will take the AFC West, convincingly, this year.
The Marine Corps should be a part of the Army, not the Navy. The Air Force should not exist.
Liberals and conservatives are important forces in evolving governments. However, moderates should run government, as liberals and conservatives in power tend to be dangerous.
Watching movies in a movie theater is better than watching in a home theater. Yes, there are pros and cons to both, but movies are movies, and the screen should be measured in feet, not inches.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is turning out to be a pretty good governor. Donald Rumsfeld, whatever you think of him, needs to go away. John Kerry would have sucked just as bad as Bush.
Wilmington, North Carolina, is a nice place to live. Too bad the film industry sucks ass there.
Revenge is not necessarily a bad thing, although it usually is.
Cheerleaders have the best stomachs known to mankind.
China is either about to take over the world, or send the world spiraling into another global depression.
Perception is subjective. Communication is propaganda. Education is disinformation. Experience is everything.
Take what's going on in current events right now. The whole Pope debacle. Perception in the Muslim world suggests that the Pope is the religious leader of the West. Reality is that he, while certainly powerful, is not. Only the Roman Catholics view him as their sacred pontiff. Other sects of Catholicism have their own popes, and most Christian denominations don't recognize the pope as their religious figurehead at all (they're called Protestants, people). But... the Muslims tend to think that the Pope speaks for the Western world, so now we're in a state of anxiety waiting for something bad to happen somewhere. Perception.
Here's a more personal example. I wrote a nice, heartfelt letter to a girl that I've liked for quite some time. Unfortunately, she doesn't know me all that well, and as such, thinks I'm quite perverted. Hell, she's probably filling out the paperwork for a restraining order. Perception. Somehow I knew that was going to happen, so I let a close friend read the letter. She said it was one of the sweetest things she'd ever read, but was quick to point out that she knew me well enough that she knew where I was coming from. So, I'm perceived by my friend as a sweetheart, while the girl I want perceives me as a psycho. Perception.
Other Pointless Musings:
The San Diego Padres dropped a thriller last night. Somehow they allowed the Dodgers to hit four back-to-back homeruns in the ninth inning.
If Ford and GM merge, all those idiots with the pissing Calvin stickers are going to be upset.
It's important to recognize that both Christianity and Islam started off as very violent religious philosophies. I think that Christianity has the benefit of being tempered by more "protestant" denominations, allowing moderate Christian beliefs to proliferate. We're seeing some of this "protestant" moderation in Islam (think Indonesia, etc.), but nowhere near enough for the two to truly co-exist peacefully yet.
The Army destroys pride in itself every time they authorize a new award. It's called "elitism," and the military needs it. Egalitarianism in the military leads to complacency.
The San Diego Chargers will take the AFC West, convincingly, this year.
The Marine Corps should be a part of the Army, not the Navy. The Air Force should not exist.
Liberals and conservatives are important forces in evolving governments. However, moderates should run government, as liberals and conservatives in power tend to be dangerous.
Watching movies in a movie theater is better than watching in a home theater. Yes, there are pros and cons to both, but movies are movies, and the screen should be measured in feet, not inches.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is turning out to be a pretty good governor. Donald Rumsfeld, whatever you think of him, needs to go away. John Kerry would have sucked just as bad as Bush.
Wilmington, North Carolina, is a nice place to live. Too bad the film industry sucks ass there.
Revenge is not necessarily a bad thing, although it usually is.
Cheerleaders have the best stomachs known to mankind.
China is either about to take over the world, or send the world spiraling into another global depression.
Perception is subjective. Communication is propaganda. Education is disinformation. Experience is everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
