What's Wrong With Calling The President A Dick?

Don't get me wrong, I like President Obama, and I don't think he's a dick. I like his press conferences, especially when he has a little spunk (as he did the other day). Do I agree with all of his policies? No. Most of them? Ehh, I don't know. But I think he does a solid job in the current climate. Frankly, I'm surprised he ever gets anything done, because congress certainly tries their damndest to stop anything resembling progress.

This, of course, warrants the obvious but necessary Philosoraptor reference.

But I really don't understand what the issue here is.

Mark Halperin called the president a dick. He is a journalist. Journalist speak and write, presumably, quite freely. I really don't like that MSNBC has suspended him indefinitely and backed off from his remarks.

Obviously they want to appear fair and balanced, but seriously, he's an analyst. I wouldn't expect Michael Moore to appear as a centrist. Or Matt Taibbi. Sure, Mark Halperin is Time magazine's Editor-At-Large and being in that position and saying what he said is controversial.

But who cares. Everyone has made a big deal out of this. The White House disapproves. MSNBC disapproves. Time disapproves. I bet Fox News disapproves, even though they're saying basically the same thing.

Congress seems to basically agree with Mark Halperin, since they've said the same thing, if not worse, suggesting the president take a Valium and calling his press conference "disgraceful" and disrespecting the office of the presidency. I wonder how Senator Cornyn has disrespected the office of the Senate? I imagine the founding fathers would be pretty pissed off and use words far worse than "dick" (though sounding far more refined) to describe our current political climate.

I understand that calling the president--any president a dick is "inappropriate" but not once did I read or hear anyone say anything in his defense.  But don't worry Mark, I've got your back. I know you don't think the president's a dick. I know your reaction to his conference was reactionary, and that you probably meant that the president was perhaps more combative than you'd like. But you shouldn't have to apologize. Journalists should really never have to apologize for their opinions--so long as they're not purporting them as facts.

How many people have called Dubya stupid? Do I think he's stupid? No, of course not, and I think he'd be pretty amazing to spend a few hours with. He seems like a really charming guy. But as a president I think he did a terrible job. For my interests. But to the people who he "represented," he did an amazing job.

You know the press conference the other day? Yeah, you probably missed it. I don't blame you at all for not watching it. No one watches C-SPAN either. (I do sometimes. For reals.)

Well, President Obama was kind of a dick during it.

But that's okay, because I loved it. The president doesn't have to be a stuffy pushover, or a quiet diplomat. Sometimes, people need a firecracker shoved up their asses and the fuse lit.

Happy Fouth of July, 112^th Congress; you've earned it.

Bill O'Reilly Teaches Kids About Science

I don't know if you heard, but Bill O'Reilly recently suggested that the tides are proof of God's existence. First of all, whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant in this case, so this isn't an anti-God type post. But really, saying that because the tide always goes in and always goes out is hardly proof of God, or anything else, really. One day, maybe it was. But just like wind currents, gravity, and countless other things, science figured out why there are indeed tides. And it's the Moon. All Bill had to do was check Wikipedia.

Afterwards, Bill pretty much got his ass handed to him by the media and academia because his argument was one that one might expect a child to make, not someone who gives news and commentary to millions of people every night. So he fired back.

Sure, maybe the tides are caused by the moon, he argued. But where, pray tell did the moon come from, smart asses. Well, I'm sure it was something like that. In list form, here were his arguments:

- Where did the Moon come from?
- Why doesn't Mars have a moon?
- Why doesn't Venus have a moon?

Naturally, the scientific community took this challenge and ran with it. They ran with it like a Kenyan racing against a crying little fat kid. In this case, the fat kid would be Bill, if you aren't following along.

The Moon did not actually come from God. The moon is the result of a random, but ancient event where a planet hit Earth (barely) and the dust that flew into space coalesced and formed what we today lovingly call "The Moon."

And his argument that Mars doesn't have a moon is kind of laughable considering it actually has two. Although, one might argue that technically he is correct, since Mars does not have one moon, it has two, but that's stretching it.

As for arguing that Venus doesn't have a moon, or that there's no life on other planets (that we know of) that's just silly. Considering a moon forming can be the result of a totally random event like ours, doesn't guarantee that there is a God any more than the sky not being purple or raining
gold bars does.

It's one thing to argue that something exists, we just don't know what it is or can't explain it as being proof of God's existence. But to use a planet's lack of life and satellite as proof that Earth has a God and Venus doesn't is moronic. Maybe dark matter is proof of God's existence, or any number of other phenomena that we cannot yet explain.

Finally, I don't think that God is something you can prove or disprove. Likewise, I don't think you can use the lack of understanding as proof of concept in regards to God. There have been many events attributed to God over the years Man has roamed the planet and many (most?) of them have been explained by science. Like the tides, for instance.

Here is a video from cracked which is kind of a combination of two things I love. Snarky kids are hilarious, especially since they're still untainted by the real world. And Bill O'Reilly saying something dumb.

And I feel bad for him. It's unfortunate that he's wrong and adamant about everything. Truth be told, if he wasn't such a pompous asshole to people, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, how many people really know anything about the tides and astronomy? Of course astronomers and astrophysicists do; it's their job. That combined with his incessant assertions that Fox News is the best in news because they are the most watched is really why I think he deserves getting called out. If you are the most watched news organization, you'd better be damned sure you've got your facts straight.

On Consequences: When What You Do Provokes Death And Crazy People

First and foremost, the fact that this is necessary sucks, but it is. There are crazy people in the world. Lots of them. There are lots of stupid, idiotic, morons out there, who misinterpret, misunderstand, and otherwise just don't get it.

This is about Congresswoman Giffords who, in case you aren't aware, was shot in the head yesterday, along with several others. The congresswoman is alive but a judge who was passing by to say hello is dead, and so is a little girl. There is no denying that the person who did it is imbalanced to say the least, but a small part of me has to believe that this wasn't a totally random act of violence.

Before the election, Sarah Palin famously marked various congressional seats up for election as targets. These were very literal targets, using crosshairs (wouldn't a circle or a square have sufficed?). Naturally Sarah Palin's camp denies that this has anything to do with the shooting, but what are they supposed to say? "Whoops, our bad!" I'm sorry but that's not going to fly, so all they can do is condemn the action, and duck the blame.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't Sarah Palin's fault. Or Republicans fault. There are far too many aspects of the crime to point to any single fault. But it didn't help any by putting a target on her head, and the heads of nineteen others. Remember when the graphic first came out? Remember how bricks were thrown through windows, bullets were shot into offices, and so on? One of those offices was congresswoman Giffords. And now a bullet is in her head (actually, it went straight through her brain).

So rather than be politically correct, why doesn't Sarah Palin and her aides admit that maybe they might have played a minor, inadvertent role in this? I know they didn't intend on anyone shooting anybody, but when you place crosshairs on people, someone is going to take the message the wrong way.

There is no denying that conservatives love guns. That's fine, they are entitled to them. But when conservatives bow to the bastion of gun lobbyists that is the NRA, and the conservative princess paints crosshairs on democratic "targets" can anyone blame someone for getting a mixed message? I'm not surprised this happened, which is what makes this whole scenario so frustrating. A lot of "liberals" saw this coming, or more accurately, were afraid of it occurring. This fear was unnecessary and could have been avoided.

By the way, if Sarah Palin's Take Back The 20 campaign "had nothing to do" with this, then why is it all of a sudden taken down? Sure, the election is over, but it was over two months ago, why now? Palin also argued that the symbols on the map aren't gun sights, but map crosshairs. But she tweeted this:

Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!' Pls see my Facebook page.

and then later congratulated herself on 18 of the 20 on her bulls-eye list being defeated. What kind of message does this send? Reload? Bulls-eyes? Crosshairs? This may not be calling explicitly for violence, but at the very least does so implicitly.

But this isn't Palin's fault. Nor is it the fault of conservatives, republicans, gun owners, or gun rights advocates. This person is imbalanced, and he is to blame. But would he have done it otherwise? We can't be certain, but the rhetoric surrounding the mid term elections cannot have stayed this attack. Journalists are pointing out that he read Karl Marx, and Hitler, and that he wants a return to gold and silver currency. But I don't think that's relevant. Lots of people read Marx, I would read Marx if I read more often. And I remember picking up the biography of Hitler and being earnestly interested in reading it after reading the introduction. But I am the last person who would shoot anybody. And wanting a gold standard? Lots of people want that; Ron Paul for instance.

So if people want to peg his reading material on why he did this, then they should be fair and equate equal blame to the hateful political rhetoric of late. Hate, violence, aggression, these are all things that don't belong in politics. Politics is and should be all about diplomacy, but it's not. Political ads do nothing but attack, attack, attack their opponents. Rarely do these ads talk about the merits of a politician. Instead, we are left with a mentality of "who isn't worse than the other" rather than "who is the best."

The best example of this rhetoric that we need to avoid? Congresswoman Giffords's opponent last election, Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event to supplant her. Actually, the event was more specifically themed with removing her from office. This, from the Arizona Daily Star:

Kelly’s campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.”
The event costs $50.

Yes, a photo of a marine, in uniform, holding his weapon, asking supporters to come fire an M16 for crying out loud, under the guise of removing her from office. Not only is this in extremely poor taste, but this does not strike me as behavior a Marine should exhibit. No one should, but a Marine especially. This is madness (cue 300 references "This. Is. Sparta!) This kind of garbage needs to stop. It shouldn't be tolerated, by anyone regardless of where they stand on issues. And I don't care how badly you disagree with someone, you don't take it into your own hands with a weapon, you do it at the ballot box.


Here's the original graphic, judge for yourself whether or not they are crosshairs or not. I certainly hope those crosshairs were worth a little girls life.

Looking Back: I Am/Was A Snarky Bastard (Old School Papers)

I just discovered a couple of old papers I wrote in college. It's actually kind of fun reading them. It's like looking back and seeing a slice of what I was thinking about at a particular time (even if I was forced to consider thinking it).

And, wow, was I sarcastic. I mean, in high school me and two friends did decide to each come up with five words to make the others use in a paper in Political Science class, after all. (I remember olfactory being one of the words Tim Mierzejewski picked. I also remember I won, because I used all ten of their words.)

Here are some excerpts:

Another fault in Kilbourne’s argument is in declaring that this woman was beaten and given a black eye.  In modern society, where appearance plays an enormous role in how people perceive others, makeup creates an alter ego that can constantly be changed—usually to make a person look prettier, though not always—not a repercussion of a man’s anger and frustration.

This is from a paper I wrote in response to a woman who wrote about how advertisements exploit women and children. I was clearly not amused. And kind of a smart ass. Oh, and I'm pretty certain part of why I was so annoyed in my paper, is because the class was all girls, the professor was a woman, and this was written by a feminist. Someone had to give a differing opinion. That someone was, apparently, me. This is how I began my paper:

Jean Kilbourne is a vehement feminist; that must be said.  Despite her instinctive drive to defend women from the cruelty of everyday life, she poses a clouded argument in “Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt:”

That has a bit of a bit to it, if I may say so. In a way, I think  it is kind of ballsy. Later, I wrote:

Jean Kilbourne contends that advertising is, by her definition, pornographic.  Although advertisers exploit women in their advertisements, Kilbourne’s ardently feministic viewpoint undermines her argument because she presents a one-sidedly biased argument that fails to recognize that women and children are not the only victims of advertising

The point I was making in my paper at the time is that while women may be exploited in advertising (and children, too), advertising as a currency is exploitative. Men are not exempt from this exploitation, and when people choose to be models, they volunteer for said exploitation. Is it actually exploitation if you volunteer? That was my argument. And that the author is a crazy feminist.

Kilbourne then focuses her attention on Victoria’s Secret, a company that constantly undergoes scrutiny for their televised fashion shows by writing that Victoria’s Secret lingerie “will make women irresistible” (42a).  To defend her claim, Kilbourne references a court case in which a woman accused a man of rape but the jury acquitted him.  I am not a criminal justice expert, but I’m sure that the jury’s decision was not based upon the fact that the woman wore Victoria’s Secret underwear.

=)

Ironically, Kilbourne contradicts herself later on in her article when addressing an advertisement in which a woman objectifies a man by saying that he has “nice buns” and that these advertisements are “often funny” (43b).

After this, I mention that a man doing the same to a woman in public could be sued for sexual harassment.

Unfortunately, society functions in this manner; men must always be conscious of the fact that women hold much more power than their delicate forms present—Kilbourne, however, seems to ignore this fact...

And my favorite part:

Clearly, Kilbourne makes many assumptions that cannot be validated; in fact, many are wrong and tendentious.  To defend her claim, Kilbourne writes about the kinds of toys that boys “play with” such as action figures with oversized breasts.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t girls the ones who play with dolls with enormous breasts?  In fact, Barbie now has a whole slew of friends with oversized breasts matching hers.  When I was little, I played with GI-Joe’s, little green army men, wrestling men (and not those silicone-injected female “wrestlers” that wrestle in matches to see who can undress the other first), and a multitude of other masculine, non big-breasted, toys.

Score points for "tendentious," that is one awesome word. And, yes, I totally wrote that whole thing in a paper. Because I am awesome.

I think this is a pretty strong point:

Kilbourne utilizes an eclectic array of advertisements, however, one can’t be sure exactly how old some of these advertisements are and since culture incessantly evolves, an advertisement only a few years old may actually be culturally archaic

Next up is a paper I wrote about violence in video games. I was the only person in my class who thought violence in the media didn't contribute to violence in people. Some of my arguments, in hindsight, weren't the greatest, but my basic thesis and opinions hold. Violent people don't evolve from violent media and entertainment. They are, at their core, disturbed people who, for whatever reasons, take out their aggression on others and don't get help. I use an example from a game developed by the Army and Navy and their statements saying they don't train our military with video games, et cetera. Here are some part I found enjoyable:

But does playing Super Mario make me want to go to Italy?  Perhaps the programmers have found some way to implant subliminal messages into video games, which would explain my sudden urge to become a plumber and to outfit myself in ridiculously bright red overalls while doing so.  Maybe I should start talking like him, too: “It’s a me, Mario!”

 Yup, in a paper. A research paper, if I'm not mistaken. Oh, and for bonus nerd points, I quoted Final Fantasy VII in my paper. Yes, I was (and am) really that big of a nerd.

The mere thought of this is ludicrous because simulating violence neither desensitizes children to violence, not manifests them into a cold-hearted killer.

I think I am wrong there, I think the constant violence surrounding us in the news, video games, television, movies, play, etc does desensitize kids. But, I'm not certain what effect that has on society as a whole, and I believe it still is dependent upon the individual. I've spent my entire life playing violent games, watching violent shows and movies, and I have not once hit anybody or gotten into a fight (despite people trying several times, I might add.) For the record, I don't think I'm desensitized, because I am intelligent, and I can see what violence does to people, to towns. I see how it can tear a community apart and create rifts that turn into wars. Violence begets violence; the real kind, though, not the fantastical kind.

A little fear will control the minds of the common people.  Fear is what I consider the most powerful asset to the government and other people of authority.  Socrates said it best: Question Authority

That's the quote from Final Fantasy VII. The Socrates quote is care of my western civilization teacher, Mr. Steponaitis. I don't remember being so anti-government at the time, but it's kind of true. Fear drives everything. Fear drives the news (on the left and the right, Fox is just far more prominent than any liberal publications). Fear drives politics. We've built many of our beliefs upon this debilitating fear, too. I don't like it.

The sad truth is that the video game industry is being wrongfully pursued, and persecuted by lawmakers; video games do not cause violent behavior—unless of course teenagers run amuck swinging video game controllers at random people—but that would never happen, just as I will never transform into an Italian plumber in red overalls.

A couple really awesome visuals in there, if I do say so myself. Also, look at me bringing the red overalls reference back!

Imagine you are located in unfamiliar, hostile territory; also, you are surrounded by terrorists and have but a small group of allies at your side.  Every polygonal piece of scenery brims with the utmost detail and you are overcome with a feeling of euphoria as you tremble with fear because, for just a moment, you believe you are actually on the front lines in the Middle East.  The name of the game is America’s Army, not as gruesome as Saving Private Ryan, but war is not exactly pretty either.

I approve!

In addition, we routinely made trips to the arcade, where I was able to witness who plays games; astoundingly, children are not the only ones that play games (imagine that).

I sound like kind of an ass with the parentheses there, but sarcasm does means "to tear the flesh."

Oh! And remember that Political Science paper I mentioned earlier? I'm pretty sure another word Tim had on his list for us to use was "Parenthesis" as on, just one parenthesis, not two parentheses. I honestly don't remember how I used that in my paper. I think I used a lot of methaphors.

As I have written, I am a gamer, and have been all my life, so this is a very personal subject to me.  I am not a violent person whatsoever.  When I play a game and win, I do not revel in the thought that I slaughtered hundreds (if not more) of creatures; I revel in the fact that I have won—or if I lost, to have, at the very least, put up a good fight.  In this fashion, gaming is more about the hunt than the result.  Winning the game is all well and nice, but the more cunning one is, the more fun gaming becomes.  If this depiction of millions of triangles can cause such a stir, why then are books not banned?  In my opinion, someone who has to visualize the grotesqueness is in much worse of a state than when the maimed bodies are already presented for you.  What about movies?  Should movies not undergo the same rigorous scrutiny?

I think this sums up my feelings on the subject fairly well.

Studies have shown that Video games cannot be linked to violence, and that keeping children from the human nature of violence and aggression will stump the evolutionary growth of our posterity.  Video games may give people a natural high, or temporarily upset people if they lose, but people get upset when they lose their house keys, that does not mean on Monday when they go to work that they are going to take it out on about a dozen coworkers in the form of a sawed-off shotgun.  What does the game industry have to prove to Joseph Liebermen and the countless other conservative, anti gaming lawmakers?  Is there some sort of middle ground where all can be at peace?  Honestly, I would say the chances are about the same as me developing an Italian accent, grabbing a plunger and strapping on those overalls.

That's how I ended my paper. Yes, with a Mario reference, the way all papers ought to end.

There are a great many papers I wrote that I wish I could go back and read. I'm really glad I was able to find these two to look back on and share some excerpts here. I hope you enjoyed it at least a little.

On Censorship, Specifically Why It's Unnecessary

Recently, the northeast got pounded with snow. From what I understand, most of the country now has gotten at least some snow.

Which leads me to this:



I don't understand. I really, truly don't.

Seriously, I try to understand why some of the most innocuous things offend people the way they do, but I just don't get it. So a couple of kids made a penis snowman.

At the beginning, there is a kid who seems absolutely terrified of having saw it. I feel bad for him, honestly, I do. But I think his parents put him up to it. What does he do every time he needs to pee or take a bath? Does he wallow in his tears, feeling offended that he has to look at a penis? I mean, it's just a penis.

Parents were offended, the town was offended, but it's a penis. Every boy has one. Every mother has seen some. You know what, I'm willing to bet every single person in that town has willingly seen a penis.

Then there is the mother who says her two-year-old doesn't even know what it is. Only, she says it like it's a travesty that her child may now know what it is. I bet her kid doesn't know what mayonnaise is either. Or Wolves. Or Velociraptors. Velociraptors would cause much more harm than a penis.

If you think about it, this town should be celebrating the penises, not crucifying and, more importantly, censoring them.

Why is a penis "obscene" but a foot isn't? There is absolutely nothing in our culture that maintains any sense of purity with that body part. Nor a woman's. I understand there are cultures in other parts of the world where showing a foot is basically a full-on seduction. But here? No. In America, nothing is sacred. And that is kind of the beauty of the USA.

Only, we're not really all that free. America is built on freedom, and any time we fight someone we are told it's for our freedom. But it's bullshit. Because you can't say bullshit on television. You can't create art and put it in your yard if someone else deems it offensive.

Well, actually you can. That, too, is the beauty of America. We actually are free to do whatever we want, with one minor caveat, however: we pay the consequence. Make a penis sculpture? Go to jail. Say "fuck" on television (Cable, I might add), pay an exorbitant fine.

But wait, how exactly is this freedom? This is no different that castrating all the statues in the Vatican city-state. This is no different from any other country in the world. No one can stop you from doing anything, and if you do it, you face the consequences. Spit gum on the streets in Singapore? pay a fine. Steal in Iran? Lose your hands. and so on.

Yes, we have more freedoms than some countries, notably the press, although that point can be seriously argued, especially as of late. But in regards to censorship, we are seriously lacking. And we are seriously lacking because art is disappearing. We pour trillions of dollars into financial firms, billions into sports, and practically nothing (relatively) into art and education. Want an example? Republicans trying to take away funding for the CPB which funds NPR and PBS.

I never took art in school. Well, I did the normal elementary school garbage like cutting and pasting. But once I was in middle school, art was relegated to two two-week sessions. Hardly what I'd consider supportive of the arts. Physical education, too, was equally punished (but that's a whole different blog).

In high school, we were free to make our own choices (except freshman year) which was refreshing, and something I definitely approve of. I don't wish I was forced to take X number of classes in art, though, I do wish I'd taken art. I wish before high school I'd been subjected to art-- to a lot of different subjects to be better prepared for high school and college.

My three biggest interests, photography, art, and baking/cooking were completely inaccessible in school. To say I was initiated to art in school would be laughable. two weeks cannot even be considered an introduction or a survey of a course. Especially in middle school. Cooking is obviously never done in school, at least not any I've been to. And photography was most definitely never offered as a course either. I wish they had been.

So why must we censor everything? Does hiding curse words from children really do them any good? Does the word fuck instantly transform a good kid into a deviant? Does seeing genitals on television, or in art create sexual deviants? No. I'm guessing it's the opposite.

Maybe I am wrong, but what is the difference? Imagine you are a blank slate, like a child. Imagine you don't know what lettuce is. Or what a hand is. Or a breast, yes, a breast is a good example. Now imagine flashcards. On one flashcard is a photo of lettuce and on another is a breast. Is one naughty? Is one bad? Is one of those photos going to do something terrible to your psyche? No, because you don't know the difference.

Imagine, now, flashcards of breasts. One card has male breasts, and one has female breasts. Is one naughtier than the other? Is one more vulgar? Why? What if you are a blank slate? Is it because they are covered up? I don't go shirtless outside, does that make my breasts more vulgar than a guy who live in South Beach? Is a roly poly, hairy man shirtless more vulgar than my shirtless breasts? What about a woman who's had a double mastectomy and doesn't have breasts anymore? Is that no longer obscene? I mean, no longer will she have milk-giving breasts, or anything resembling what a woman's breasts are typically. No, they're much more akin to a man's. But no, that's probably not right either. That's probably more obscene in reality. What parent would show their child a woman's breasts post operation? No only would the child be subjected to breasts, but these are no ordinary breasts. They're different. They'd have scars.

Genitals are utilitarian, just like hands and feet. No more, no less. Hands are used to open doors, cabinets, build things, et cetera. Our feet take us from point A to point B. Genitals expel waste and create life. They are surrounded by our pelvic bones, which support our entire upper body. Butts expel waste, too, and there's nothing obscene about them; they're pretty tame and usually get a laugh.

So maybe instead of condemning penile sculpture, we should be embracing them. They do, after all, create life. What has a snowman ever done for you? Besides, find me a kid who's never drawn a penis and giggled. It's fun because we're told its taboo, for no other reason than it's taboo. That's like saying your morals come from morals, with no other rationale. "Why is murder bad?" "Because it's immoral!"

I'd like to ask those people (and the FCC) why they find these so offensive, and so obscene. I wonder if the woman in the video was disgusted when she was having the sex that gave her her two year old child. Maybe that is the real triumph, and she wants to protect her child from making the same mistake she did: seeing a penis. Pray that baby isn't a boy, though.

And why is it okay to show a naked baby but not an adult?

Some People Say...

The trouble with "some people say" is that there are a great many people in this world, and a great many of them say and believe some pretty stupid things.

"Some people say" is a tactic, merely adding a veil of validity to back up a bogus claim you made up. For example: Some people say Tom Cruise is gay. Is he? Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? How about Obama is a socialist, fascist, Muslim, et cetera et cetera.

Truth be told, there's nothing wrong with the saying, pending certain caveats. You see, "some people say" is appropriate when expressing an opinion. For example, "Some people say Led Zeppelin is the greatest band to ever produce music." This is a valid sentence, and is correct; I am certain some people believe this. Or, "Some people say Stairway To Heaven is the best song ever recorded." Again, very valid. Do I agree? Probably not; I'm not all that familiar with Led Zeppelin but I'm pretty sure whoever I suggest to be the greatest fill in the blank will find some resistance somewhere. For example, George W. Bush was the greatest president in U.S. history. Is it true? That all depends upon what metrics you use to value success and greatness. So, is President Obama the worst thing to ever happen to the United States as some people might have you believe? Probably not.

Credit card reform is not a very bad thing. Sure it may inconvenience some 18-to-21 year olds but for the vast majority it's a good thing. Student loan reform? Saves bundles of money, makes the government money, and while it may be imperfect the reform is certainly an improvement over how student loans were processed before. The Affordable Care Act sounds nice, right? Truth is, it's a pretty disgusting piece of legislation more commonly known as Obamacare. Why should preventative care be free? That only drives up costs in the long run. Children and infants born, regrettably, with medical conditions shouldnt be eligible for health care like regular, non-sick people. This just makes it cost more for the rest of us, and that's not fair. Why should the bulk of people have to foot the bill for a select few people who, through no fault of their own, need a little help.

In case you can't tell, that last paragraph was a wee bit sarcastic, and I'm sure I will develop upon those thoughts at a later date. I'll maybe talk about things like socialism and things of that ilk, but I digress. As I was saying, there are legitimate uses for "some people say" and none of those legitimate uses belong on the news.

Some people say president Obama was born in Kenya; he wasn't he's an American and was born in Hawaii. Some people say he's muslim; he's not. In fact, a lot of people are unsure of the president's birthplace and religion, but why. This may seem a bit antagonistic, but the blame is probably on Fox News. You see, they pretty much invented the whole concept of "some people say" in the context of news, and they utilize the phrase all the time. So why do Americans think Obama is Muslim? Because for awhile several Fox News hosts would ask people who came on their shows. Now this might sound kind of weird, considering that "Do you think Obama is a Muslim" isn't exactly news, it sounds a bit more like opinion, which it is. But what Fox did was actually quite clever because they can (and will) deny any culpability. They never said he's Muslim, nor suggested it, they merely asked others what they thought. The genius in this plan is that when people hear this question regularly, they will doubt the truth. You hear a question over and over again and even if you are (or were) certain you'll begin to doubt yourself, especially if some of the people who are asked are unsure.

Some people say that more people watch Fox News than any other news show, but I call bullshit. Just because any and all Nielsen ratings put CNN viewers at one-tenth of Fox's viewers doesn't make it factually correct, that's just one groups opinion. I say that CNN is more popular. In fact, I say that 10 million people watch Anderson Cooper keep them honest on a nightly basis. And you know what? They all watch him again at ten o'clock. And some people say I'm right.

FYI: Some people say Obama's recent trip to Asia cost $200 million dollars a day. All of those people were Fox News hosts, correspondents, and a very select few republicans in congress. Oh, and one anonymous person in India. Truth is that's more per day than the entire war costs per day, and was readily debunked by every real journalist and the White House. But Fox News carried on the charade. True Story.

"Happy" Thanksgiving

Hello, and happy Thanksgiving. I hope you are enjoying this Thursday and having a happy holiday. I've never much cared for Thanksgiving. I've actually never been a huge fan of the holidays. Maybe it has something to do with the lead up to holidays and people stressing over them. Maybe it has to do with being surrounded by people, having to travel from place to place where ever a new crowd of people await. While I'm sure there are numerous reasons for a dislike of holidays, I think a more appropriate term is distaste. You see, quite literally, I don't like the taste of holidays. Easter brings ham, Christmas brings ham, and Thanksgiving offers a veritable smörgåsbord of foods that, to me, are basically unpalatable. Turkey I have to slather in barbecue sauce to get down, potatoes (of any sort) are a big no-no, yams, sweet potatoes, and stuffing couldn't be more repulsive. I definitely don't eat corn, green beans, or ham (which maybe some people eat on Thanksgiving?). Want to know a secret though? I like cranberry sauce. It's bizarre, I know. Growing up, cranberry sauce is the one think no one could stand and, for some reason, I liked it. I know know why. Cranberry sauce is sweet but tart, and has a weird smooth texture with it's edges ribbed from the inside of the can. Maybe, just maybe, that's all apart of its charm to me; it's the one thing no one else liked, so I gravitated to it. Then there's the other aspect of cranberry sauce I like. Care to take a guess as to what exactly that is? Give up? You open it up backwards. It's the one canned good (to my knowledge, anyway) that you open from the bottom. It's backwards, like me.

The other bad taste I get in my mouth from holidays is probably due to the massive over-commercialization of them due to our capitalist society. It's right there in the name. Capitalize. Where other cultures have centuries of spiritual traditions celebrated from carnivale-like proportions to the most humble ones, ours seem to be indebted to the other almighty: the green back, and as many of them as possible. Even the circumstances under which these holidays are celebrated have been twisted and mutated to fit the ideals of a capitalist society. Let's take a look, shall we?

Thanksgiving, oh a lovely holiday celebrating the pilgrims who sat down to a lovely, peaceful meal with the native Americans giving thanks for all that they had. Like a giant turkey in the middle of the table. Maybe the "indians" were thankful to the pilgrims for bringing their firearms, which undoubtedly made catching and killing the bird that much easier. Or maybe the Quakers brought their guns because they wanted the natives to know who at the table held all the cards, who was boss; the meal was, after all, to establish an alliance. Naturally, women weren't in attendance. Not exactly what I'd call a happy thanksgiving. So how did Thanksgiving become what it is today? The good old-fashioned way: lobbyists.

According to NPR, magazine editor Sarah Joseph Hale petitioned every level of government lobbying governors, every member of congress, and even the president for a national day where she, and the readers of her magazine, Godey's Lady's Book (I know, right?), could slave over an oven and stove for three days making far more food than necessary to give thanks for such a lovely bounty. Oh, and Lady Hale really liked turkeys. With that, Thanksgiving was born some three hundred (or so?) years after the "original" dinner.

And that, my friends, is how you create a holiday, and capitalize upon it.

Seriously though, enjoy the holiday at least for its most basic meaning: to give thanks, for whatever means something to you.

I leave you with this passage from Fox News host, John Stossel:

Had today's political class been in power in 1623, tomorrow's holiday would have been called "Starvation Day" instead of Thanksgiving. Of course, most of us wouldn't be alive to celebrate it.
Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. But the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.
Long before the failure of modern socialism, the earliest European settlers gave us a dramatic demonstration of the fatal flaws of collectivism. Unfortunately, few Americans today know it.
The Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally.
That's why they nearly all starved.

Of course, the truth is a bit different. If there was hardly any food as Mr. Stossel suggests, how and why would the pilgrims have had a three-day-long feast? Truth is, there was plenty of food, and the whole socialism thing? Yeah, not quite, it was more of a co-op which each farmer owning a share of the crops and farms. But to Fox, everything is socialist; and socialism is very, very bad.

The Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear

This will be pretty picture-heavy; be forewarned.

In The Beginning...

This past weekend was Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert's Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear. I suppose you could consider it a parody of Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally, except with less tea bagging and more unadulterated awesome. Let me begin by saying it was a very long, exhausting day of essentially standing still. We got up around three in the morning to leave at four. The bed was pretty stiff which, combined with the fact that we were a bit sick, basically meant that neither of us slept very well; I think I slept for, at most, a few hours. Four a.m. hits, and it's time to hit the road; two and a half hours later and we arrived at the metro station just outside of D.C Thankfully, there are 3,400 parking spaces and we were able to park and wait for the trains to show up at 7:00. I was excited seeing the people around who were headed to the rally; 'twas refreshing seeing older people going and not just young people looking for a free show.


After settling in, we were greeted by various games and videos on the Jumbotron, which made it less painful to wait for the show to start. All in all. waiting went by fairly quicker than I'd have thought. There were all kinds of people with all sorts of signs all similarly excited for whatever it was that we were all about to witness/ It was exhilarating/

Our Surroundings...

Settled in for a long day, we found a place to stand (and stand, and stand...). We were actually surprisingly close. If I had to guess, I'd say we were maybe one hundred feet away or so. Alas, neither Krissy nor myself are very tall, so without the perfect conditions, seeing stages can be tough. The media pit was in front of us and to the left; one of the comedy central cameras was in front of us; and a tent, which I think was another media tent (for viewing and such) was in front of us and to the right.

Some fellow rally goers in our surrounding area


Unfortunately, to say Krissy's view was obstructed would be an understatement


There was an older lady sitting behind us (this was before the rally, some people had brought chairs so they weren't standing for 8+ hours). Personally, I really liked her sign.


This Sikh gentleman was next to me. He was on camera a lot (probably the turban and beard). He was nice. He was pretty patient with a girl who insisted on everyone surrounding him putting towels on their heads in an effort to get on tv.


This guy was to our right.


This one, too.


This girl was to our left


This was our view. You can see the edge of the media pit to the left (note the stairs), the tent to the right, and the cameraman (and his damned ladder!) basically right in front of us.


Even Jeffrey came along for the trip! Here he is in our free noisemaker/megaphone type thing.

The Media Comes Calling...

Here is one of the anchors giving a report during the rally. I'm not sure who he is but hes older and looked distinguished, ergo I liked him.


Then there's these two (from CNN). The woman was taking notes, asking people questions, etc. She seemed so bored and uninterested, though. Then there's the hotshot in the aviators and leather jacket. He seemed pretty happy with himself hopping about; he seems like a douchebag to me.


A cameraman from NBC News


Before the rally began, one of the cameramen (I think) was carrying his son around on his shoulders. I feel weird taking pictures of kids in public sometimes. Not that I don't want to. I always want to. But I know adults, and I don't need some errant parent going apeshit on me because they take offense, so this is the picture I got.


I liked this photographer. In a sea of telephoto lenses and ultramodern digital cameras here he was taking a photo with a panoramic camera. It looks like his other camera might be a Leica, too, but I can't tell (and, truth be told, have never seen one in person)

Let The Games Begin...

Jon Stewart singing was an interesting experience. The song was exceptionally funny.


Sheryl Crow performing with Kid Rock backed by The Roots (who are actually kind of awesome)


Mick Foley (who is awesome) accepting his award


The O'Jay's performing Love Train


Papier Mache puppet Steven Colbert: The fear monster


John Oliver (dressed as Peter Pan) coming out to help Jon Stewart slay the fear monster


Tony Bennett performing America, The Beautiful, which was awesome/ The picture is a bit low quality though.


The end performance. Mavis Staples, Tony Bennett, Ozzy, Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam), Jeff Tweedy, Sheryl Crow, The Roots, The Mythbusters, and many more!


I like John Oliver's expression in this picture


A better picture showing more of the people on stage than the previous pictures


Headed home (tired, achy feet)! At this point we still had a two hour drive back to Delaware. I liked these advertisements set out by Media Matters though. Very nice tie-in to the rally. I'm not sure if they were only in the metro or not, since we didn't explore too much of D.C. but there were banners inside the metro stations, too. Very cool. I approve.

These Are Not End Times

The rally was amazing, and awe-inspiring. It's hard to fathom 250,000 people, but one can't help but feel flooded by all sorts of emotions. I can't express how happy I am that we attended the rally; it was amazing feeling a part of something. The experience was absolutely amazing and I hope that people will learn from it, and that the rhetoric in this country can change.

Thumbs up from Tricky Dick

Take It Down A Notch (Or Three)

A bit of a departure today...

People are needlessly crazy. Perhaps it's a poor choice of words, since name calling tends to just feed the fires of crazy, but crazy is the best way to describe what surrounds us every day.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand. 

I feel that Yeats' Second Coming perfectly describes today. Nowadays we are complacent; we just don't care enough. Or is it simply that we've given up? Unfortunately, in today's media the more controversial, or extreme a person's view, the more attention they get. Really, when's the last time you read an AP or Reuters report and thought, "Wow! That was interesting!" Yeah, it's probably never happened. Take in your surroundings, and think; look at things objectively and think to yourself, "What is this doing for humanity?" What is more important: The real Housewives of [fill in the blank] or the actual housewives everywhere trying to make a go at this thing called life?

I feel like the media has a certain job to do and for the most part, they do a good job. No one wants to pay for their news anymore; once one gets something for free it's hard to justify paying for that same information (sometimes). There are a lot of people who argue that the media is unabashedly liberal, as if it is some giant conspiracy. To these people, Fox News is a breath of fresh air—the lone David struggling against the Goliath that is, well, everything else. But Fox News is also the most popular, and as a result, the most influential news organization as such I feel they have a certain responsibility to the American people. Lately, Fox News' latest crusade is against NPR, that is, National Public Radio, and therein lies the problem. Fox News is conservative; no one denies that (except for the latter half of their Fair and Balanced slogan). Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Wall Street Journal and basically everything else in the media, but that's neither here nor there. Republicans don't like NPR; and lately that anger has boiled over and is crackling and steaming on the burner. Every few years, Republicans try and pass some sort of bill killing public financing of NPR, PBS, and the like. It doesn't work though, because people like NPR and PBS; I mean, who wants to kill Big Bird, Elmo, and Oscar the Grouch? (I won't even mention Cookie Monster.) NPR is incredibly important as a news (and entertainment) organization, as is PBS. The problem, for some, is that NPR recently fired Juan Williams for his rather unnecessary remarks about his fear of muslims. which leads me to this quote from Karl Rove:

45 percent of NPR listeners were Saddam Hussein.

I don't even know what that means. It doesn't make sense, neither logically or grammatically. Let's begin by attacking this from a mathematical standpoint. Let's assume Saddam Hussein did listen to NPR  (I know, I know) For the former dictator to make up nearly one-half of NPR's listeners would suggest no one even listens to NPR. Anyway, to suggest that half of the people who listen to NPR are dictators (dictators in training mayhaps?) is completely asinine. To even make a comparison bewilders me. But then again, Fox seems to like comparing everything to dictators.

To be fair, crazy isn't limited to conservatives and Fox News. Who cares that Linda McMahon kicked a guy in the nuts on the WWE, or that Christine O'Donnell dabbled in witchcraft as a teenager. Isn't there a maxim about people not throwing stones and glass houses? Yeah, that. Why not instead focus on their platforms (or in their cases the complete lack thereof). Christine O'Donnell wants to bring God and Jesus to public schools, convinced the Constitution makes no mention of the separation of church and state. Or, there's Linda McMahon who has slammed all of Connecticut in ads belittling and attacking Richard Blumenthal. But what are her plans? I've seen an awful lot of her commercials pleading to mothers to vote for her, but why? I've not seen a single ad of hers suggesting why I should give her my vote. So far, I've seen that she can afford nicely produced ads, she can get her friends to say what a wonderful person she is, and that Richard Blumenthal has slipped up a couple times. Oh, and that she has no experience, but Blumenthal has been in government for too long.


[As it happens, I wrote this post before Election Day. I'm glad Richard Blumenthal won Connecticut; truth be told, it's nice to be rid of her ads as well]


I feel like this video from Crossfire sums up the premise of this blog: