michboy10 on Xanga

Friday, 29 October 2010

Encouraged American Stupidity

So I'm watching Logo right now and I just saw a new Ragú commercial promoting that the amount of servings of daily vegetables in each bottle or whatever. I couldn't really focus on what was being said because the way they represented "twice the servings" or something to that effect was to use two tomatoes that come out of the bottle, go around the house and "sneakily" plop into a child's pasta bowl without her knowledge. I cannot find this commercial online as of yet, but will edit this post if I am able to find it.

Now for those of you reading who haven't figured out the tragic fail of the representation in the commercial, tomatoes are fruits. Now one could argue they were being ironic, but that is patently false. No one in advertising would use irony in that type of advertisement. The reason to use irony in most commercials is so that it is humorous. This commercial lacked any comedic quality.

So why am I taking the time to write about some stupid tomato sauce commercial? Because it relates to the current events in our country. We have all taken note of the Tea Party movement, whether for want. ( Video Here ) Lawrence O'Donnell met with a random selection of representatives of groups associated the Tea Party (FedUp USA, Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Express, Freedom Works). When O'Donnell points out the fact that Medicare and Social Security are both socialist programs the panel is silent apparently disagreeing with that assessment. Medicare and Social Security are VERY MUCH socialist. In pure capitalism there is no "social net" (i.e. medicare and social security) to catch you when you fall; you simply fall. This is rationalized in a capitalist society by saying that the person could've "pulled himself up by his bootstraps". Question: Have you ever tried to pull yourself up by your bootstraps? I wouldn't recommend it.

O'Donnell then asks each of them what government program that is more socialistic than medicare would s/he like to see cut immediately. The chairwoman of the Tea Party Express was unable to answer the question. Yes it is true he was interrupting her, but if you were listening to the way in which she was trying to "answer", she was dodging the question and trying to speak generally. (I am not necessarily condoning O'Donnell talking over her to point that fact out--I'm not condemning it either.) He then moves to the representative for the Tea Party Nation. He says that he believes the Department of Education's budget should be cut to zero.

I have heard suggestions of cutting the Department of Education from several Tea Partiers. I will admit that they don't necessarily have any authority, but as O'Donnell points out early in the video... no really has control of the umbrella term Tea Party. The representative from the Tea Party Nation states that he believes education should be controlled from the state level. This, to me, is plainly idiotic. Having 50 different basic requirements for education will greatly disadvantage people in states that are already disadvantaged. I feel there's no need to point out the fact that the Northeast coast does exceptionally well on standardized tests such as the SAT. (Some studies point out that this is partially due to the fact it is written by people from that region making it easier for the test taker to understand, blah blah blah.) If a state decides that it is not necessary to learn algebra perhaps because they don't have the money for the teachers or because the students are doing very well with it or even just because they feel it unnecessary, a student is automatically disadvantaged from pursuing some other life advancement outside of the state he is in. Not to mention the businesses in that state who remain there (I assume some would leave) would rather hire people from out-of-state that have more education.

I am not saying that the Department of Education's budget is perfect, and perhaps it may need to be cut or more defined as to what the money is for. What I do know is that the notion of cutting it all together will only further impoverish the limited knowledge that a lot of Americans seem to have.

We like to think so highly of ourselves and say we're the best in the world. In some ways we are. However we are by no means perfect. We are not all super models. We all don't have perfect teeth. We haven't all been to college. It must be noted that there are some Americans that, by no fault of their own, did not receive the quality education we would expect for any citizen of the "best country in the world".

Perhaps I am being highfalutin (isn't it funny how you're immediately being pompous by saying that word, ha!). Perhaps I want too much for this country. Perhaps I think too highly of humanity's capacity for empathy. However, I must say that I am very disappointed with a lot of the American public right now. There are many who are easily led to have the wool thrown over their eyes and let themselves be fooled to destroy their own self-interest and the interests of the whole for a select few.

Tuesday is Election Day. I implore all of you to go and voice your preferably educated opinion. And Tuesday night I might be surprised to be reinvigorated by hope instead of repressed by stupidity.

|~}{~|

Tuesday, 07 September 2010

Koran Burning... REALLY?!

There is nothing that I feel I should have to explain about this. There has been encouragement by Pastor Terry Jones to honor/remember the events of 9/11 by burning the Koran. For those of you who do not know what the Koran is, it is the the equivalent of the Bible in Christianity or the Torah in Judaism. This is the holy text of Islam, and the idea to burn it is horridly offensive. This is yet another attack on the Muslim community based on a fringe group of terrorist extremists. Not to mention the how detrimental this will be for America's public image and our efforts in Afghanistan. Get ready for more "Death to America" chants. This also provides new vigor to the extremists to recruit new members and attempt more terrorists attack on our nation. This is by far one of the most ridiculous things that has been proposed by the right wing extremists. This is absolutely detestable and needs to receive the public outrage it deserves. Do not punish the whole because of a few. While you're at it maybe you [the right wing religious fundamentalists] can remember that this country was founded on the ideals of freedom of religion and we ought cling to this essential right to equality and respect for the great diversity we have in this country. (I could go into my spiel about the fact that this country was NOT founded on Christian values as a lot of the leaders of the revolution--Jefferson included--tended to be more transcendentalist/universalist than straight up Christianity. Not to mention the Quakers that have always--at least in my knowledge of American history--felt the need to attack and demean people of another faith and instead encourage respect and acceptance. But that will take too long and I have homework to do so...)

If you would like to read more about the stupidity of this situation, you can read more at: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-29/us/florida.burn.quran.day_1_american-muslims-religion-cair-spokesman-ibrahim-hooper?_s=PM:US.

Oh Islamophobia...

|~}{~|

Tuesday, 03 August 2010

Ground Zero Islamic Community Center

Ok. So first of all, this Islamic Community Center is a Community Center, not a mosque. Secondly, it is not AT ground zero, it is 1/2 city block down and 2 city blocks around the corner away from ground zero. The fact that the right wing nuts are associating an entire religion with the few religious extremist. This is comparable to blaming all Germans for the actions of a few who used authority to exert control (Milgram's experiment proves this) over others even though they may have known it was wrong to do. Of course there were some who did want to do it, and who did feel superior, but it was not the entire German population. It was a minority that controlled the majority. Here we don't even have a control factor. It is simply a number of radical Muslims who are against America and the West mostly do to some of the things the West did throughout the colonial, World Wars, and Cold War period... yeah we fucked them up for a long time. (Also the full support of Israel--which was put there by the Allies after WWII--despite evidence of some culpability in current tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.) But back to the issue at hand, it is completely ridiculous to say to the Islamic community that they cannot build a community center a few blocks away from ground zero 9 years after 9/11. I by no means mean to be insensitive to the feeling of New Yorkers, and of course they are much closer to the situation. However, sometimes it takes a person with a little more distance to do what is reasonable. You cannot discriminate against this religious community center. If this were going to be a Christian or Jewish community center, hell even a GLBT community center, there would not be these demonstrations, and this call against Muslims specifically is absolutely detestable. In order to heal, we must return to what is normal. The Islamic community of this country and of the World in general did not participate in the terrorist acts, nor condone such acts. And if we're going to get this mad over Muslims building some where near ground zero, perhaps white people shouldn't be allowed to build or own buildings around the Oklahoma City Bombing area--obviously ludicrous. So get over yourselves. Muslims have just as many rights as anyone else to build and renovate an area that was devastated to something that can serve the diverse community of New York City.

|~}{~|

Tuesday, 15 June 2010

"Needs"

While talking to a friend about "needs" vs. wants I came to an interesting revelation: there is no such thing as a need.

I know you're already saying, "No! There are totally needs to survive." However there lies the problem. But I'll slowly introduce to you why that is.

We live in the self-defined year of 2010 CE, and as such we have certain "needs." We "need" to have cellular phones. Well before said invention there was the telephone. While there is much to be said about what cellular phones have done for human interaction, it is still not a need. If you desire to be able to communicate with more convenience; yes you "need" a cellular phone. But that doesn't really, truly make it a need. Before the invention of the answering machine, people continued to live there lives. As such, there is no need for an answering machine or voicemail. Before the introduction of private phone lines, there was the party line. People were still able to communicate. Before the invention of the telephone there was (and is) the postal service. While it was not immediately gratifying, people were once again still able to communicate. Yes, the telephone did a lot to improve how we function of society. In the American Civil War, even after the treaty was signed, there were battles that took place because it took longer for the news of the end of the war to reach outlying forces. With the telephone, several of lives could have been saved, but it still is not a need.

It continues to extend from there. Before the intervention of Western culture, the Native Americans had no concept of land ownership. They lived on the land and moved as necessary to survive (we'll address that later). That being said, there is no need to own land. If you wanted to (assuming no interference of our societal invention of land ownership), you could live anywhere. You don't need to be with someone; you desire to be around other people. If you are to shed this desire, you could live off of the land by yourself. Would you live long? Probably not, which brings us to the biggest issue: your "need" to survive.

If we look at it plainly, there is no need for you to survive. The world may be a lesser place without you, but "time" will still pass. There is no need for the human race to exist, so if we decided to end our species in some cataclysmic war (probably taking out most of the rest of life on the planet with us), the universe will continue to spin and expand. Even then, if the universe were to suddenly vanish at the thought of some higher power and our concept of time were to vanish, what would that truly effect? Obviously we don't know. I feel however, if there is some other world beyond our reckoning, it would continue.

This is not to say that I think all existence is futile and irrelevant. This is simply to point out that there is no true "need." Everything that is a "need" is based on some desire. I desire to prolong my life, so I need other people to help me produce food, shelter, protection. I desire to have a family, so I need to communicate with people (and procreate for children). I desire to spend my time doing something I love to do, so I need an education, experience, and a job. I desire to live in a "nice" community and to feel safe. I desire to provide equal opportunity to all persons. I desire to change the world! All of this informs what I call "needs."

The invention of "civilization" is due to a desire to live in a more stable and safe environment. Before societies (whatever the size) and governments (whatever the form), there was anarchy. As Darwin put it, the fittest would survive. I am not advocating anarchy or a return to extreme self-dependence. I am simply pointing out that "needs" are simply the result of desires.

Some would argue why is it that our bodies have reflexes to survive. That is because our bodies desire to survive; however, there is no need for survival. Our contemporary society is driven by conveniences that become "needs" because of a saturation of the population. Do we need to keep in contact with people that are not with our immediate presence? No. The invention of language and writing and eventually the postal service, telephones, cellular phones, the internet, smart phones, etc. It becomes a "necessity" in order to effectively operate in our invention of society. It becomes a "necessity" to survive, which again is not a necessity.

Do not mistake me for advocating suicide or anything of that nature. I am simply pointing out the flaw in what we define as "needs." I have every intention to prolong my life and to make it as comfortable as possible. The only reason I do, however, is because of the environment that I developed in. It is evident that anyone who actually lives by this philosophy--if you will--would not survive long and more than likely not have children that would be raised to believe as he/she does.

The human invention of collective groups that grew to societies is what has led us as a species to flourish despite the many obstacles that could have easily destroyed us. I am thankful for so much, and I hope to improve upon our current societal structure so that it is easier for anyone regardless of race, gender, sexuality, and so on to do as much as they want and can. Still there is no true need. Everything is simply based on desire.

|~}{~|

Monday, 24 May 2010

Katrina and BP
First off I would like to address some comments that I feel "let down" by Obama. No, I don't feel let down. I am vehemently disappointed in Obama. Being let down is Obama failing to finish promises on his own planned timeline. This is Obama continuing several of Bush's policies... honestly there hasn't been much change from bush's policies. I feel like a parent whose child just beat up some defensless geek. I most certainly have not raised my child to act in such a manner. This does not mean I will disown my child (and I will not do so with Obama) but I am most certainly not proud at the moment and it will take time and action on the part of the guilty to earn back my trust. That's right: I no longer trust Obama.

But now to the main event... We all remember Katrina well. There was a natural disaster that devastated the Gulf coast and the president was hesitant to have FEMA help with the situation. Even when FEMA did get involved, it was not very effective. We are in a very similar situation. The victim and perpetrator have switched (humans devastating the environment) but it's still the Gulf Coast with a president (switch in party but not in policy) hesitant to use the departments made available to him to handle this emergency (EPA). Not to mention the lack of pressure put on BP. Obama makes dealines and demands, but when these deadlines pass and it is clear that BP has no intention on following these procedural demands, the White House simply tries to compromise. The White House (if I'm not mistaken Obama himself) stated that in the event that it is clear that BP is not handling this crisis effectively, we will take over. How many days; how many lies and misrepresentations; how much evidence of insubordination and possible crimes will it take for this administration to DO SOMETHING?!?!?!

"Let down" does not express my anger. "Let down" does not express my disgust. I am livid. I feel betrayed.

And before you say this is one issue, think about these broken promises:
- Guantanamo (or Obama's Guantanamo 2.0: Begram in Afghanistan)
- DADT
- No further expansion of drilling (way to go, genius)
- Pulling out of Iraq (we should have worn a condom)
- Public Option (woops, but don't worry you'll be taxed if you can't afford Health Insurance)
- Deflating the military budget (hard to do that when you are still in 2 wars)
- And a litany of other issues that are conveniently no longer listed under the "issues" tab on whitehouse.gov
So Obama, what do you have to say for yourself? Do you feel that you've acted with the fierce urgency of now? Or should we wait until the pelicans are put back on the endangered species list? You may be a good orator, but this is one person you can not persuade with your sweet nothings. So stop talking, and start doing.

|~}{~|