The difficult thing about running a blog, I've found, is that I'm too busy writing in other venues. So it's not that I've been too busy to write, it's that I've just been writing in other places. Right now, I'm writing for the college newspaper. I could post the articles here, but I'm not sure that's fair to the newspaper, and it's not like I get anything from that.
However, I've found a new site that may offer me some compensation for my writing. With some incentive, I will post my writing, which is why you can now find me at http://jaswriter.hubpages.com/
Perhaps one day I'll come back here, but I doubt it. I'm following the money.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Monday, July 1, 2013
I'm Back
I've been doing other things, but I will be getting back to this for at least a while. If you want to know, I've been writing for the Buffalo News, and between that and school, and decided to put this off to the side. But enough about that.
It's summer vacation, and sometimes there's nothing on television. I have a pattern. I check espn, espn 2, then msnbc, then history channel, then discovery channel, then animal planet, then comedy central. If all else fails, I go to Fox News, because they're always guaranteed to have comedy. Except, lately, they haven't been on their game. There were just sort of doing news. I was disappointed. Then, it started yesterday.
They went old school on me. They criticized Obama for using a teleprompter. 2013 and still talking about the teleprompter? I like it. Getting back to their roots. Then they criticized Obama for wanting to address climate change. Nice touch Fox. They said he should be talking about scandals instead actually doing something. You can't beat that. In fifty years, when the planet is left flooded wasteland, I want to know that my president was busy talking about fake scandals that know one will even remember.
But it gets better. They outdid themselves today. It was the day of the Voting Rights Act decision. The Court struck down a provision of it, and Fox said this was a victory for states rights. Obviously referring to the states' right to disenfranchise voters. Yes, victory. I mean, it's not like any of those southern states tried to disenfranchise voters as recently as, say, 2012, using photo I.D. laws. Bravo, Fox News. Then, they went back and criticized Obama for talking about climate change, but...they went one step further and just flat out said that there's not enough evidence to prove climate change. What's the date? No, the year. 2013? Is that CE, or BCE? For real Fox News, drop it, the debate is over. There are island nations that are already preparing to evacuate their entire populations because of rising sea levels. Take any measure--climate, amount of CO2 in ppm, sea levels--they all point towards global warming. The only stat that doesn't point to global warming, is the number on the check that Exxon and BP give to the politicians, and of course, Fox must defend government and corporations at all costs. I just wonder if they truly grasp that the money won't help them if the entire ecosystem is destroyed.
Being serious, it's not what Fox News says that shocks me, it's that there's actually people who watch it seriously. I'll quote Jon Stewart when I say, "We as a nation must stop watching Fox". At this point, all none of the corporate media outlets are trustworthy. CNN literally tells you nothing, and MSNBC still defends the Obama administration from time to time. Just today, they were implying Snowden committed crimes and should be extradited to the US.
It's summer vacation, and sometimes there's nothing on television. I have a pattern. I check espn, espn 2, then msnbc, then history channel, then discovery channel, then animal planet, then comedy central. If all else fails, I go to Fox News, because they're always guaranteed to have comedy. Except, lately, they haven't been on their game. There were just sort of doing news. I was disappointed. Then, it started yesterday.
They went old school on me. They criticized Obama for using a teleprompter. 2013 and still talking about the teleprompter? I like it. Getting back to their roots. Then they criticized Obama for wanting to address climate change. Nice touch Fox. They said he should be talking about scandals instead actually doing something. You can't beat that. In fifty years, when the planet is left flooded wasteland, I want to know that my president was busy talking about fake scandals that know one will even remember.
But it gets better. They outdid themselves today. It was the day of the Voting Rights Act decision. The Court struck down a provision of it, and Fox said this was a victory for states rights. Obviously referring to the states' right to disenfranchise voters. Yes, victory. I mean, it's not like any of those southern states tried to disenfranchise voters as recently as, say, 2012, using photo I.D. laws. Bravo, Fox News. Then, they went back and criticized Obama for talking about climate change, but...they went one step further and just flat out said that there's not enough evidence to prove climate change. What's the date? No, the year. 2013? Is that CE, or BCE? For real Fox News, drop it, the debate is over. There are island nations that are already preparing to evacuate their entire populations because of rising sea levels. Take any measure--climate, amount of CO2 in ppm, sea levels--they all point towards global warming. The only stat that doesn't point to global warming, is the number on the check that Exxon and BP give to the politicians, and of course, Fox must defend government and corporations at all costs. I just wonder if they truly grasp that the money won't help them if the entire ecosystem is destroyed.
Being serious, it's not what Fox News says that shocks me, it's that there's actually people who watch it seriously. I'll quote Jon Stewart when I say, "We as a nation must stop watching Fox". At this point, all none of the corporate media outlets are trustworthy. CNN literally tells you nothing, and MSNBC still defends the Obama administration from time to time. Just today, they were implying Snowden committed crimes and should be extradited to the US.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Finally, the Election is Over
I never thought I'd be so happy to see this election be over. My main problem with it, I think, has been Facebook, but I've had other problems. Between Obama and Romney, I'm glad Obama won, but believe me, now I will be his biggest criticizer. We should have primaried Obama, but it's too late for that now.
So, basically, I've been following politics closely since the early part of Obama's first term. The whole while, I've been criticizing Obama for being too right wing. He was a terrible negotiator, giving Republicans more than they asked for, and going so far, that even Boehner said he gave them 98% of what they want. Oh, and by the way, that grand bargain is coming again early in the second term, but that's a whole separate topic.
So, let me lay out the timeline: For about two years, I was criticizing Obama for being too right wing, not doing enough to help the poor, and doing too much to help wall street. Then, the republican primaries started, and I was laughing at all the candidates. In a time when people were angry at corporations, they were literally worshiping them, and I figured there was no way anyone could take these clowns seriously. Then, slowly but surely, everyone began posting their uninformed opinions on Facebook. You have to see this from my point of view; I had been closely following everything that was going on, then a wave of people who literally just starting learning about current political events started tying to argue with me, and over crazy things. I had expected everyone to have looked at the facts, and come to the same conclusion I did, that Obama was a fake progressive, and had actually put together 3 and a half years of right wing policies (it's funny I would have thought that in hindsight). But, instead, I got people saying Obama was a socialist and an over spender. Huh? The rich had gotten richer, and the poor had gotten poorer. Do these people even know what socialism is? (As it turns out, most of them don't). And Obama had not only decreased the annual deficit for $1.1 trillion to $1 trillion, but he'd overseen the smallest rise in spending since Eisenhower. How ironic then that people would praise Reagan.
It was embarrassing how little people knew, and in my attempt to point out facts, I looked like an Obama supporter.
"Obama's a socialist."
"Actually, he didn't really do that much to..."
"OBAMA SUPPORTER!"
"What?"
But now that the election is over, people will go back to ignoring politics, and I can once again own the monopoly on politic posts on my Facebook community. It's funny, I actually felt guilty when people would complain about all the political posts, and I had to keep reminding myself that I actually wasn't doing anything different, it was everyone else that had changed.
I'm glad I went through this experience. I will continue criticizing Obama, and, on top of that, I will be looking for a third party candidate, just spite those people who think they're savvy for waiting until the month before the election to act like they support Gary Johnson. In all honesty, we won't have a third party candidate until we fix money in politics, which will still be my biggest concern for the foreseeable future.
Obama and Romney are basically the same person, the biggest difference is on social issues and which supreme court justices they'll choose. But they both go where the money is, Romney is just incredibly transparent in his flip-flops, as opposed to Obama, who's good at pretending to fumble the issue.
Over the next four years, expect the grand bargain with 90-99% of what Republicans want in it. Expect the XL pipeline to be finished. Expect few to no wall street bankers to get arrested. Expect the income inequality gap to continue rising. Basically, expect the continuation of slight variations on Bush policies.
So, basically, I've been following politics closely since the early part of Obama's first term. The whole while, I've been criticizing Obama for being too right wing. He was a terrible negotiator, giving Republicans more than they asked for, and going so far, that even Boehner said he gave them 98% of what they want. Oh, and by the way, that grand bargain is coming again early in the second term, but that's a whole separate topic.
So, let me lay out the timeline: For about two years, I was criticizing Obama for being too right wing, not doing enough to help the poor, and doing too much to help wall street. Then, the republican primaries started, and I was laughing at all the candidates. In a time when people were angry at corporations, they were literally worshiping them, and I figured there was no way anyone could take these clowns seriously. Then, slowly but surely, everyone began posting their uninformed opinions on Facebook. You have to see this from my point of view; I had been closely following everything that was going on, then a wave of people who literally just starting learning about current political events started tying to argue with me, and over crazy things. I had expected everyone to have looked at the facts, and come to the same conclusion I did, that Obama was a fake progressive, and had actually put together 3 and a half years of right wing policies (it's funny I would have thought that in hindsight). But, instead, I got people saying Obama was a socialist and an over spender. Huh? The rich had gotten richer, and the poor had gotten poorer. Do these people even know what socialism is? (As it turns out, most of them don't). And Obama had not only decreased the annual deficit for $1.1 trillion to $1 trillion, but he'd overseen the smallest rise in spending since Eisenhower. How ironic then that people would praise Reagan.
It was embarrassing how little people knew, and in my attempt to point out facts, I looked like an Obama supporter.
"Obama's a socialist."
"Actually, he didn't really do that much to..."
"OBAMA SUPPORTER!"
"What?"
But now that the election is over, people will go back to ignoring politics, and I can once again own the monopoly on politic posts on my Facebook community. It's funny, I actually felt guilty when people would complain about all the political posts, and I had to keep reminding myself that I actually wasn't doing anything different, it was everyone else that had changed.
I'm glad I went through this experience. I will continue criticizing Obama, and, on top of that, I will be looking for a third party candidate, just spite those people who think they're savvy for waiting until the month before the election to act like they support Gary Johnson. In all honesty, we won't have a third party candidate until we fix money in politics, which will still be my biggest concern for the foreseeable future.
Obama and Romney are basically the same person, the biggest difference is on social issues and which supreme court justices they'll choose. But they both go where the money is, Romney is just incredibly transparent in his flip-flops, as opposed to Obama, who's good at pretending to fumble the issue.
Over the next four years, expect the grand bargain with 90-99% of what Republicans want in it. Expect the XL pipeline to be finished. Expect few to no wall street bankers to get arrested. Expect the income inequality gap to continue rising. Basically, expect the continuation of slight variations on Bush policies.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
The Problem with Being an Independent
It seems that for several years now, there's been a trend of people declaring themselves independents. The main goal of these people seems to be to make it clear that they've moved on past politics and that they aren't going to vote along party lines. However, there's a problem with this. Although many independents are smart, well meaning people, many use being an independent as an excuse to be uninformed. Or worse, they try to call everything even no matter what, as if that will somehow show that they are above the fray.
It's fine to say that you're an independent, but you should have some idea of what your voting for. By this, I mean you should have some notion of what is good and what is bad. Whether or not you apply these ideas to a political party is a separate issue, but you should still have them. Of course, you could always assume a political party outside the major two (if you still consider democrats and republican all that different), but that won't serve you much good at elections unfortunately.
The main problem I see with independents, is not that they don't support one party or another, it's that they don't oppose bad principles. I strain myself not to simply come out and say that all independents should be anti-republican, for there are some decent republicans (I agree with some ideas from Ron Paul and John Stossel for example, two libertarians in the Republican party). However, republicans haven't changed much since Reagan, and their policies have certainly not favored the majority of Americans. At this point, it is completely undeniable that Republicans exist to serve the rich. Not only has Mitt Romney admitted that his main goal is to assist the "job creators" (which is a code word for the rich and multi-national corporations, whether or not they actually create jobs in America), but the chairman of the House Banking Committee Spencer Bachus just flat out admitted that he believes "the government exists to serve the banks". So this is undeniable.
So how can a supposed independent vote for these types of republicans? Not to say that there aren't bad democrats, let's be honest, the whole system is bought. But anyone who's paying attention knows who's not on their side. Everyone must use an independent perspective to make their decision, i.e. they must not be biased, but once a pattern emerges, there's no reason why an independent can't decide not to vote for one party because of policies. In other words, the political spectrum can shift--in fact, it's moved quite to the right over the years--but an independents ideals don't have to shift along the spectrum.
The problem with being an independent, is that it's too easy to simply say, "I'm an independent," and then use that as an excuse to make an uninformed vote. The equivocation from politicians can be quite convincing to someone who doesn't know better, and I've seen a disturbing trend of far too many so called independents not knowing better. The problem really is independents being independent for the sake of being independent. If they ever took the time to study politics, a majority of Americans, and a majority of independents, would find that they are progressive (at least according to numerous polls) and the democrats at least claim to be progressive, as opposed to the openly regressive republicans. Yet, I hear many independents, when presented with the facts, reveal that they fall in line with democrat's ideals, and then declare that they are independent. Why? Being independent gives you no brownie points, it doesn't make you a more informed voter, so why the stubbornness? I am not a republican or a democrat, I am a progressive, but I realize that the only way to even try get any progressive policies in America right now is to vote for democrats, and at the very least, it will stall regressive policies. At least until the system is changed.
It's fine to say that you're an independent, but you should have some idea of what your voting for. By this, I mean you should have some notion of what is good and what is bad. Whether or not you apply these ideas to a political party is a separate issue, but you should still have them. Of course, you could always assume a political party outside the major two (if you still consider democrats and republican all that different), but that won't serve you much good at elections unfortunately.
The main problem I see with independents, is not that they don't support one party or another, it's that they don't oppose bad principles. I strain myself not to simply come out and say that all independents should be anti-republican, for there are some decent republicans (I agree with some ideas from Ron Paul and John Stossel for example, two libertarians in the Republican party). However, republicans haven't changed much since Reagan, and their policies have certainly not favored the majority of Americans. At this point, it is completely undeniable that Republicans exist to serve the rich. Not only has Mitt Romney admitted that his main goal is to assist the "job creators" (which is a code word for the rich and multi-national corporations, whether or not they actually create jobs in America), but the chairman of the House Banking Committee Spencer Bachus just flat out admitted that he believes "the government exists to serve the banks". So this is undeniable.
So how can a supposed independent vote for these types of republicans? Not to say that there aren't bad democrats, let's be honest, the whole system is bought. But anyone who's paying attention knows who's not on their side. Everyone must use an independent perspective to make their decision, i.e. they must not be biased, but once a pattern emerges, there's no reason why an independent can't decide not to vote for one party because of policies. In other words, the political spectrum can shift--in fact, it's moved quite to the right over the years--but an independents ideals don't have to shift along the spectrum.
The problem with being an independent, is that it's too easy to simply say, "I'm an independent," and then use that as an excuse to make an uninformed vote. The equivocation from politicians can be quite convincing to someone who doesn't know better, and I've seen a disturbing trend of far too many so called independents not knowing better. The problem really is independents being independent for the sake of being independent. If they ever took the time to study politics, a majority of Americans, and a majority of independents, would find that they are progressive (at least according to numerous polls) and the democrats at least claim to be progressive, as opposed to the openly regressive republicans. Yet, I hear many independents, when presented with the facts, reveal that they fall in line with democrat's ideals, and then declare that they are independent. Why? Being independent gives you no brownie points, it doesn't make you a more informed voter, so why the stubbornness? I am not a republican or a democrat, I am a progressive, but I realize that the only way to even try get any progressive policies in America right now is to vote for democrats, and at the very least, it will stall regressive policies. At least until the system is changed.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
The End of an era? A look at the closing of Borders Bookstore
By the end of September,
Borders will officially close all of its bookstores. Over the summer, many books were discounted
50% in an attempt to clear out as many books as possible. Despite being the go to place for books for
many people sometime after it’s opening in 1971, competition from Barnes and
Noble and electronic readers like the kindle and the nook, have forced the
bookstore to file for chapter eleven bankruptcy.
Everyone seems to have a similar reaction to the
closing—at least everyone who’s ever gotten a book from there.
“The closing of Borders…devastates the industry for
hardcover and paperback books,” said Chris Fancher, officer of reading club
last year and occasional Borders shopper.
There’s
a sense of sadness, and a realization that change is coming, followed
immediately by an opposition to that change.
Maybe this suspected change shouldn’t be so
obstinately opposed though. There are
pros and cons to paperbacks, and weighing both sides of the debate between
e-readers and paperbacks will certainly be a good debate going ahead.
“An e book reader…is a great device,” said
Fancher who added, “Don't get me wrong, it's just sometimes it's nice to have a
book with pages.”
Some aspects of the debate to consider are prices,
accessibility, and portability.
E-readers tend to win in all of these categories. However, sometimes it takes longer to take
notes and find notes inside an e-reader, and you have to keep an e-reader
charged in order to use it. But there
are many other aspects to consider, and moving forward, more issues will be both
raised and resolved.
So what does this mean for the future of books? For the near future, it just means you’ll
have to shop at a different bookstore for your paperbacks. But it’s hard to imagine that this won’t have
long term implications as well. If
nothing else, it’s at least a sign of changing times. The current evolution in reading and writing
seems to be one from ink and paper, to one of computers and electronics (except,
of course, for the kindle, which does technically use ink; but that’s arguing
semantics).
In the
end, this change is something that readers of books everywhere will just have
to accept. E-readers offer a great
alternative to books, save paper, and can even be a great money saver when it
comes to things like buying college textbooks.
“I
believe that the time of textbooks is ending and that the time of reading
devices is beginning,” said Fancher referring to the future of books in school.
“Schools will begin to realize that
having e book readers is more convenient and economically sound than hardcover
text books.”
Writers though, may feel this change in a different
way. While this certainly won’t
discourage any novelists or authors, seeing your manuscript go from a computer
screen to an e-reader screen, isn’t as gratifying as seeing your manuscript go
from a computer screen to a paperback.
But the field of writing has constantly been changing—from pen and paper,
to typewriters, to computers—and this change will certainly be as smooth as any
other.
The news that Borders is closing certainly evokes a
feeling of nostalgia. But it also evokes
a sense of uncertainty. No one can know
exactly where the future of books is, but it is clear that paperbacks won’t
play as large of a role as they once did.
N.H.L. Playoffs Review (2012)
By the time anyone reads this,
the playoffs may very well be over.
However, at this point in mid-May, four teams remain. In the Western Conference, the Kings and
Coyotes play in a matchup of goaltenders, and in the Eastern Conference, two
rival cities in the forms of the New York Rangers and the New Jersey Devils
play.
The
team that probably has the least chance to win is the New Jersey Devils. They were a middle-of-the-pack team during
the regular season, and they barely made it out of the first round against the
Florida Panthers who haven’t made the playoffs in years. Granted, they have proven me wrong two rounds
in a row now, but I’m confident that this will be their last series of this
season.
Which
leads me to the next team, the New York Rangers, who I believe will win the
series between themselves and the Devils.
The Rangers are a team that usually doesn’t make it very far in the
playoffs, and it is somewhat surprising to see them in this position, although
they easily could’ve gotten eliminated in either of the first two rounds. They needed seven games to beat both the
eighth seeded Ottawa Senators and the seventh seeded Washington Capitals. However, their strengths do lie in defense—with
both their notable shot blocking from the defensemen, and goaltending from Henrik
Lundqvist—and defense is the most important piece for winning a championship.
Out
in the Western conference are the third seeded Phoenix Coyotes. They had been a favorite to go to, if not
win, the Stanley Cup Finals, until they ran into the freight train known as the
Los Angeles Kings, that is. Led by
sensational goaltender Mike Smith and veteran captain Shane Doan, the Coyotes
were a force to be reckoned with in the first round against the Chicago
Blackhawks, and in the second round against the Nashville Predators. In fact, the Coyotes had been so good, Mike
Smith particularly, that they made Nashville goaltender Pekka Rinne, who had
been having an outstanding postseason, look average. Their only problem, which has now been
magnified, was that their offense wasn’t quite clicking, with their top goal
scorer being Antoinne Vermette, who most would consider a role player, not
necessarily a scorer.
Then
there are the Los Angeles Kings. After
getting some marquee players from the Philadelphia Flyers in the forms of Jeff
Carter and Mike Richards, it seemed the Kings were bound for success, but it
was uncertain if they’d even make the playoffs going into their final games,
and they just barely snuck in as the eighth seed. Their problem had been that there offense
wasn’t up to par, but something connected in the playoffs and the Kings
defeated the top seeded Vancouver Canucks in five games in the first round, and
completed a four game sweep of the St. Louis Blues in the second round. In fact, the Kings were the first eighth seed
in N.H.L. history to beat both the one and two seeds in the same
postseason. For some reason, no one
seems to be able to score on goaltender Jonathan Quick right now, and captain
Dustin Brown has been on a tear.
I
would be lying if I say I’d thought the Kings would be the favorite to win the
Stanley Cup at this point in the playoffs, although I did have a hunch they’d
go far because of certain players on their roster. However, I had thought it would be the St.
Louis Blues who’d win the Stanley Cup this year. Now that I’ve seen them get swept by the
Kings though, I’m more convinced than ever that the Kings will win the Stanley
Cup. If I had to predict, I’d say it
will be the Rangers and the Kings in the finals, and the Kings will win in six
games. If the Devils ended up in the
finals however, I think the Kings would sweep them. On the off chance that the Coyotes made it to
the finals, I think they could also beat either team from the East. The West simply has a stronger conference
this year. The West has sort of been the
antithesis of the Republican primaries: instead of exposing one another and
spurting out a weakened candidate, the Western conference allowed for the just
the right amount of pressure to produce one of the best looking playoffs teams
in recent memory, the Los Angeles Kings.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Society of the Machine
As you may or may not know, I am an author, and my first book just came out. You can get the book here https://www.createspace.com/3646467, or if that doesn't work, here http://www.amazon.com/Society-Machine-Leon-Justin-Smith/dp/1466295597/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323728033&sr=1-4. You can check out a preview for the book here https://www.createspace.com/Preview/1093126 . Thanks to everyone who supported me, and to everyone who continues to support me. I don't like to write about myself on my own blog, but It's not everyday I come out with a book, and I'm really excited to spread the word. Happy Holidays!
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Privatization
Republican Privatization checklist: Health care, Schools, Prisons, Post Office.
Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh on the Republicans, after all, they couldn't take advantage of us so much if the Democrats weren't there to bow down to them. It would seem to me that the Democrats are only there to make it seem like someone is there to help us while they help out the Republicans, but that's a completely different story.
If you don't know about Health Care privatization, you haven't been paying attention. To sum up quickly, they're trying to take away medicare and medicaid, claiming we don't have enough money for them. However, we spend 59% of the federal budget on defense, so I think it's clear what we need to cut. If it isn't clear, also consider that 42% of all money spent on defense in the world is spent by the U.S.A. So who exactly are we defending ourselves against?
Next, they're trying to privatize schools. They're doing this through PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers). It's really a two step plan. The first step is to standardize all testing throughout the country using standardized PARCC tests--which will probably be easy to accommodate everyone. The next step is to take the lowest scoring public schools and convert them into private schools. PARCC, by the way, is also a private company, so you know with so many private companies, at least a couple people are stuffing their pockets in this operation. The travesty in all this is that it's designed to fail. No matter how the schools do, the lowest are going to be converted. It's a guarantee. To make things worse, the highest scoring schools will get money, which will only serve to increase the gap between the best and worst schools. From there it becomes a cycle where they can keep cutting out the lowest performing schools by comparing them to the better schools that they keep pumping money into, and pretending that the worse schools are getting worse when it's really the better schools are getting better. Then, after many years of this, almost all the schools will be private and the lobbyists will be so strong, that the few remaining public schools will have a tough time surviving. The republicans will be eager to kill them, and the democrats will stand there and say, "What could we have done?" "Who could have seen this coming?"
Then they attacked the prisons. It was easy too. Start putting people in jail for everything they can. There are even some stories of kids going to jail because of things they did in school. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWDB5uRW6p8 . (The Young Turks, as always, do a great job covering this.) Then once, they have the jails filled up, they start making the prisoners do work, and take in the profits themselves. They can either do this by making the prisoners work for free, and cashing in on their labor, or by setting up a prison economy, making the prisoners pay for things, and making them get money from relatives when they run out. These are all private prisons doing this too, so the republicans are just once again finding ways to help their constituents.
And finally they're going after the United States Post Office. Sure the Post Office might be outdated, but it still has it's purposes and when you need it, you're glad it's there. But the republicans gave the USPS a strange pension system, essentially forcing the USPS to pay its employees pensions for decades, and bankrupting them. On top of that, companies like UPS will make the USPS deliver the mail in the areas where it isn't profitable to do so, like in small isolated towns. Now the republicans have the nerve to go out and tell you that the USPS is failing and needs to start shutting down. Again, it's all to please the private corporations. After all, they don't care about you, they care about their bosses--the companies that pay them.
Well, so much for the liberal media. Already you can see them presenting the Post Office story from an angle of, "We all loved the USPS, but what could we have done. It's all because of e-mail and that's all there is to it." But no, there's more to it than that. Money has got to come out of politics soon, or the middle class will get crushed, and at this point, I'm not sure anything short of a constitutional amendment will help us.
Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh on the Republicans, after all, they couldn't take advantage of us so much if the Democrats weren't there to bow down to them. It would seem to me that the Democrats are only there to make it seem like someone is there to help us while they help out the Republicans, but that's a completely different story.
If you don't know about Health Care privatization, you haven't been paying attention. To sum up quickly, they're trying to take away medicare and medicaid, claiming we don't have enough money for them. However, we spend 59% of the federal budget on defense, so I think it's clear what we need to cut. If it isn't clear, also consider that 42% of all money spent on defense in the world is spent by the U.S.A. So who exactly are we defending ourselves against?
Next, they're trying to privatize schools. They're doing this through PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers). It's really a two step plan. The first step is to standardize all testing throughout the country using standardized PARCC tests--which will probably be easy to accommodate everyone. The next step is to take the lowest scoring public schools and convert them into private schools. PARCC, by the way, is also a private company, so you know with so many private companies, at least a couple people are stuffing their pockets in this operation. The travesty in all this is that it's designed to fail. No matter how the schools do, the lowest are going to be converted. It's a guarantee. To make things worse, the highest scoring schools will get money, which will only serve to increase the gap between the best and worst schools. From there it becomes a cycle where they can keep cutting out the lowest performing schools by comparing them to the better schools that they keep pumping money into, and pretending that the worse schools are getting worse when it's really the better schools are getting better. Then, after many years of this, almost all the schools will be private and the lobbyists will be so strong, that the few remaining public schools will have a tough time surviving. The republicans will be eager to kill them, and the democrats will stand there and say, "What could we have done?" "Who could have seen this coming?"
Then they attacked the prisons. It was easy too. Start putting people in jail for everything they can. There are even some stories of kids going to jail because of things they did in school. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWDB5uRW6p8 . (The Young Turks, as always, do a great job covering this.) Then once, they have the jails filled up, they start making the prisoners do work, and take in the profits themselves. They can either do this by making the prisoners work for free, and cashing in on their labor, or by setting up a prison economy, making the prisoners pay for things, and making them get money from relatives when they run out. These are all private prisons doing this too, so the republicans are just once again finding ways to help their constituents.
And finally they're going after the United States Post Office. Sure the Post Office might be outdated, but it still has it's purposes and when you need it, you're glad it's there. But the republicans gave the USPS a strange pension system, essentially forcing the USPS to pay its employees pensions for decades, and bankrupting them. On top of that, companies like UPS will make the USPS deliver the mail in the areas where it isn't profitable to do so, like in small isolated towns. Now the republicans have the nerve to go out and tell you that the USPS is failing and needs to start shutting down. Again, it's all to please the private corporations. After all, they don't care about you, they care about their bosses--the companies that pay them.
Well, so much for the liberal media. Already you can see them presenting the Post Office story from an angle of, "We all loved the USPS, but what could we have done. It's all because of e-mail and that's all there is to it." But no, there's more to it than that. Money has got to come out of politics soon, or the middle class will get crushed, and at this point, I'm not sure anything short of a constitutional amendment will help us.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Reconsidering Israeli Relations
Israel is our ally. We're the muscle that stands behind them making sure none of the other kids at the Middle Eastern playground pick on them. But why?
Why do we defend them when Netanyahu keeps building settlements to intentionally encroach on Palestine's territory, and why do we support them when they threaten to ally with terrorists to attack Turkey.iding
It's hard to say.
We should be supporting peace in Israel, not just supporting Israel. I'm not going to talk about the creation of Israel. It already happened, and no one can change that, so why anger people with my opinion on that? Rather. I'll simply propose completely redividing that region.
Divide it so both Palestine and Israel get an equal share of good farmland--for completely secular reasons--and divide Jerusalem between the two states--for completely non-secular reasons.
And even if we don't take action against Israel, let's at least not support them if they threaten to use terrorists, start wars, or threaten to ally with terrorists. What other country do we do that for?
Why do we defend them when Netanyahu keeps building settlements to intentionally encroach on Palestine's territory, and why do we support them when they threaten to ally with terrorists to attack Turkey.iding
It's hard to say.
We should be supporting peace in Israel, not just supporting Israel. I'm not going to talk about the creation of Israel. It already happened, and no one can change that, so why anger people with my opinion on that? Rather. I'll simply propose completely redividing that region.
Divide it so both Palestine and Israel get an equal share of good farmland--for completely secular reasons--and divide Jerusalem between the two states--for completely non-secular reasons.
And even if we don't take action against Israel, let's at least not support them if they threaten to use terrorists, start wars, or threaten to ally with terrorists. What other country do we do that for?
My View: What's Really Going on with Occupy Wall Street
The media seems hell bent on portraying the wall street protesters as unorganized and unfocused, not knowing why they're there or what they want. Do some of the people not know why they're there? As Cenk Uygar would say, "Of course," but a vast majority of people do know why they're there, and the people who started the movement certainly know why they're there. Even the small percentage of people who might not know why they're there, realize the fundamental reason why they're there: Economic inequity and political corruption.
That is the real reason they're there in a nutshell, but I'm not such a hardcore liberal that I won't admit that just knowing the words economic inequity and political corruption doesn't mean that they know why they're there. Maybe most people don't even know why they're there further than that extent, and some people don't even have any demands other than just allowing their "mobocracy" to take control. However, the Occupy Wall Street Movement does have 22 Declarations officially for why they're the there. It can be likened to the Declaration of Independence for our own country; except instead of airing grievances against the king, it states the problems of corporations, banks, and politicians. View their grievances here http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2011/09/29/the-declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/ . Once these problems have been resolved, the movement would end.
These problems will not be solved however, because occupy wall street has been slandered by the media and by pro bank people like Erin Burnette, who seem to think these poor peasants on wall street shouldn't be bothering their rich friends on wall street. Wait, do they think they're bums, or do they think they're rich hypocrites? The media seems to contradict itself on that too.
Occupy Wall Street portrays a fundamental problem with our country, especially when compared to the tea party. Both were grass roots movements against the unfair advantages politicians are giving to the rich, but the tea party was bought and turned Republican, while the wall street movement will not be bought. And since the wall street movement will not be bought, they have no money, and since they have no money, they have no power and no voice.
That is the real reason they're there in a nutshell, but I'm not such a hardcore liberal that I won't admit that just knowing the words economic inequity and political corruption doesn't mean that they know why they're there. Maybe most people don't even know why they're there further than that extent, and some people don't even have any demands other than just allowing their "mobocracy" to take control. However, the Occupy Wall Street Movement does have 22 Declarations officially for why they're the there. It can be likened to the Declaration of Independence for our own country; except instead of airing grievances against the king, it states the problems of corporations, banks, and politicians. View their grievances here http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2011/09/29/the-declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/ . Once these problems have been resolved, the movement would end.
These problems will not be solved however, because occupy wall street has been slandered by the media and by pro bank people like Erin Burnette, who seem to think these poor peasants on wall street shouldn't be bothering their rich friends on wall street. Wait, do they think they're bums, or do they think they're rich hypocrites? The media seems to contradict itself on that too.
Occupy Wall Street portrays a fundamental problem with our country, especially when compared to the tea party. Both were grass roots movements against the unfair advantages politicians are giving to the rich, but the tea party was bought and turned Republican, while the wall street movement will not be bought. And since the wall street movement will not be bought, they have no money, and since they have no money, they have no power and no voice.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Movie Review: Fright Night
An excellent remake of a movie I never saw. Yes, Fright Night, despite not knowing whether or not it was a horror or a comedy, was actual a great movie. And it actually was a horror-comedy, doing a beautiful job of combining both genres.
It's refreshing to see an actually scary vampire a midst all the soft so-called vampire movies coming out now. But not only was it scary, but it was funny, and different from any movie I've ever seen.
Unlike most horror movies, that spend a good forty minutes easing into the fact that the monster is real, this movie started off showing you the monster, and then played off the premise that although people don't necessarily believe in the monster, they don't take nearly an hour to accept it once presented with evidence. Is it realistic? Maybe not. But you shouldn't be going to see a vampire movie looking for realism.
Also, it does an amazing job of going from suspense, to comedy, to suspense, to horror, back to comedy. I can't explain exactly how that's possible, other than to say that it's some excellent writing, combined with excellent acting.
So put it all together--great acting, great writing, and no time wasted on easing into the reveal of the monster--and you end up with an excellent movie. Summer vacation may be over, but don't let that stop you from seeing this movie that's sure to please.
It's refreshing to see an actually scary vampire a midst all the soft so-called vampire movies coming out now. But not only was it scary, but it was funny, and different from any movie I've ever seen.
Unlike most horror movies, that spend a good forty minutes easing into the fact that the monster is real, this movie started off showing you the monster, and then played off the premise that although people don't necessarily believe in the monster, they don't take nearly an hour to accept it once presented with evidence. Is it realistic? Maybe not. But you shouldn't be going to see a vampire movie looking for realism.
Also, it does an amazing job of going from suspense, to comedy, to suspense, to horror, back to comedy. I can't explain exactly how that's possible, other than to say that it's some excellent writing, combined with excellent acting.
So put it all together--great acting, great writing, and no time wasted on easing into the reveal of the monster--and you end up with an excellent movie. Summer vacation may be over, but don't let that stop you from seeing this movie that's sure to please.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Politics Don't "Work", Because People Don't "Work".
It doesn't take a political analyst to tell that government has a problem. The problems often hide, but clearly, they are out in the open now. The reason government dysfunction is because Republicans have admitted that there number one goal is to make sure Obama is a one term president. Their first goal isn't jobs, the economy, foreign affairs, or the environment, it's making sure that Obama is a one term president. That's not even partisan, that's a fact that the Republicans have admitted.
But that's not what this is about.
The question is why doesn't government work. The answer, in my opinion, is because people don't work. Everyone seems to think that Politicians should just, "Go to Washington and do what we elected them to do." And while that sounds good on the surface, when you think about it, what did we elect them to do? Some people elected them to tax and spend, and some people elected them to stay out of our lives. When you think about it, do Americans agree 100% on anything. We disagree about wars, drugs, gun rights, taxing, spending, and just about everything else you could think of. Even if there is general consensus, politicians are people too, and either they'll be loyal to their constituents, or they'll be loyal to their own beliefs. All this disagreement means that sometimes nothing gets done.
Compiled on top of that fundamental problem, is money. Money buys politicians, and money corrupts. When political constituents became corporations and super pacs with unlimited money, that's when government collapses. Because corporations only pay to cause corruption, not to end it.
However, one more aspect makes it so that these two points--money and people--are connected. Legally, corporations are people. So when politicians say they want to make people money, or get people working, sometimes they mean they want to make corporation money, and get corporations working. So in the end, I suppose that means that "people" really do cause a failure in government. Whether it's disagreements from real people, or corruption from corporations acting as people, it is people who cause a failure in politics.
But that's not what this is about.
The question is why doesn't government work. The answer, in my opinion, is because people don't work. Everyone seems to think that Politicians should just, "Go to Washington and do what we elected them to do." And while that sounds good on the surface, when you think about it, what did we elect them to do? Some people elected them to tax and spend, and some people elected them to stay out of our lives. When you think about it, do Americans agree 100% on anything. We disagree about wars, drugs, gun rights, taxing, spending, and just about everything else you could think of. Even if there is general consensus, politicians are people too, and either they'll be loyal to their constituents, or they'll be loyal to their own beliefs. All this disagreement means that sometimes nothing gets done.
Compiled on top of that fundamental problem, is money. Money buys politicians, and money corrupts. When political constituents became corporations and super pacs with unlimited money, that's when government collapses. Because corporations only pay to cause corruption, not to end it.
However, one more aspect makes it so that these two points--money and people--are connected. Legally, corporations are people. So when politicians say they want to make people money, or get people working, sometimes they mean they want to make corporation money, and get corporations working. So in the end, I suppose that means that "people" really do cause a failure in government. Whether it's disagreements from real people, or corruption from corporations acting as people, it is people who cause a failure in politics.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Movie Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes (Spoilers)
Upon first seeing the trailer for this movie, I thought it was going to be terrible. The CGI chimps, the title, and just everything about it made it seem like it was going to be a joke: a mockery to the original film.
But at the same time, there was something to it.
"How the hell did they take over the planet?"
Cenk Uygar, host of The Young Turks (www.theyoungturks.com) said that quote best in his review of the movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBGOQvNz3vA. I mean, that's why I went to see the movie. Because as dumb as I thought it looked originally, I figured it would at least get me thinking. Either it would leave me saying, "And that's why apes will never take over," if it was illogical, or, "Now I see how they could take over," if it made sense.
After seeing the movie, now I see how they could take over.
Alright, maybe it is a bit of a stretch--and I'll get to why in a second--but if you look past a few minor logical fallacies, it makes sense. Since this was a sci-fi, intellectual type movie, I'll stick more towards reviewing the intellectual side of it. I could spend hundreds of words saying that I liked the movie and why I liked the movie, but I think it should suffice if I simply tell you that yes, I recommend you watch this movie, and yes, it was a good movie.
As for the logic of the plot. The first problem the movie had was this, the drug that made the apes smarter, wasn't really a drug designed to make apes smarter. It was designed to cure Alzheimer's disease. So to me, it's a bit of a stretch to then say that it can make people and apes smarter.
The second problem was a bit less forgivable than the first, because the movie brought it upon itself for no reason. The drug (which was really a virus), alz-112, cured Alzheimer's in people, but then the body's immune system would destroy it and the disease would return. Then the movie said that ape's immune systems were even stronger, but for some reason, Caesar--the main ape--never lost any intelligence. Shouldn't have have lost intelligence even quicker? And if the drug was going to kill people anyway, why even bother to say that its effects are temporary?
Another incredibly minor problem was that it is extremely implausible that the drug could work successful on all primates, but then kill humans. Humans and Chimps share around 98% of DNA, and yet the drug had completely different affects on the two species. Then gorillas and orangutans also just happened to react in the exact same way that the chimps did.
Other than that though, it made sense. I could see how if a drug could make monkey's smarter, then they could organize an escape like that, and band together long enough to let most or all of the humans die, and then repopulate the planet. The only question it leaves then is this: How did humans travel forward through time to reach the Planet of the Apes? Weren't all the people dead by then? And if they weren't, wouldn't they have been living in the Planet of the Apes already?
I hate to make it seem like it was a bad movie, because it wasn't, but that's what it left me thinking. And it also left me thinking about a sequel. The end of the movie seemed rather rushed to me with only about a minute's worth of screen time explaining that a pilot caught the virus, and then in the background of the credits it showed the virus spreading around the world. This leaves me wondering if there really will be a sequel. I can't imagine them not doing it, but I also can't imagine it being successful. I think the best chance of a sequel would involve the apes building a time machine as their civilization grows, but I'm not sure what the movie would really be about. Who are the good guys and bad guys then?
Speaking of good guys and bad guys, I'll leave you with one last thought. Who were the good guys and the bad guys in this movie? The antagonist was supposed to be the business man running the gen sys labs, but he didn't really do anything wrong. He didn't torture the apes like the guy at the "Ape jail", and he didn't even release the drug to the public. So in my opinion he didn't do anything wrong. And even the guy at the Ape jail can't really be the antagonist because even though he was a jerk, he was still just doing his job. So in the end who were the good guys and bad guys?
I give the movie a 7.5 out of 10. If you ever need to rent a movie, give this one a shot.
But at the same time, there was something to it.
"How the hell did they take over the planet?"
Cenk Uygar, host of The Young Turks (www.theyoungturks.com) said that quote best in his review of the movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBGOQvNz3vA. I mean, that's why I went to see the movie. Because as dumb as I thought it looked originally, I figured it would at least get me thinking. Either it would leave me saying, "And that's why apes will never take over," if it was illogical, or, "Now I see how they could take over," if it made sense.
After seeing the movie, now I see how they could take over.
Alright, maybe it is a bit of a stretch--and I'll get to why in a second--but if you look past a few minor logical fallacies, it makes sense. Since this was a sci-fi, intellectual type movie, I'll stick more towards reviewing the intellectual side of it. I could spend hundreds of words saying that I liked the movie and why I liked the movie, but I think it should suffice if I simply tell you that yes, I recommend you watch this movie, and yes, it was a good movie.
As for the logic of the plot. The first problem the movie had was this, the drug that made the apes smarter, wasn't really a drug designed to make apes smarter. It was designed to cure Alzheimer's disease. So to me, it's a bit of a stretch to then say that it can make people and apes smarter.
The second problem was a bit less forgivable than the first, because the movie brought it upon itself for no reason. The drug (which was really a virus), alz-112, cured Alzheimer's in people, but then the body's immune system would destroy it and the disease would return. Then the movie said that ape's immune systems were even stronger, but for some reason, Caesar--the main ape--never lost any intelligence. Shouldn't have have lost intelligence even quicker? And if the drug was going to kill people anyway, why even bother to say that its effects are temporary?
Another incredibly minor problem was that it is extremely implausible that the drug could work successful on all primates, but then kill humans. Humans and Chimps share around 98% of DNA, and yet the drug had completely different affects on the two species. Then gorillas and orangutans also just happened to react in the exact same way that the chimps did.
Other than that though, it made sense. I could see how if a drug could make monkey's smarter, then they could organize an escape like that, and band together long enough to let most or all of the humans die, and then repopulate the planet. The only question it leaves then is this: How did humans travel forward through time to reach the Planet of the Apes? Weren't all the people dead by then? And if they weren't, wouldn't they have been living in the Planet of the Apes already?
I hate to make it seem like it was a bad movie, because it wasn't, but that's what it left me thinking. And it also left me thinking about a sequel. The end of the movie seemed rather rushed to me with only about a minute's worth of screen time explaining that a pilot caught the virus, and then in the background of the credits it showed the virus spreading around the world. This leaves me wondering if there really will be a sequel. I can't imagine them not doing it, but I also can't imagine it being successful. I think the best chance of a sequel would involve the apes building a time machine as their civilization grows, but I'm not sure what the movie would really be about. Who are the good guys and bad guys then?
Speaking of good guys and bad guys, I'll leave you with one last thought. Who were the good guys and the bad guys in this movie? The antagonist was supposed to be the business man running the gen sys labs, but he didn't really do anything wrong. He didn't torture the apes like the guy at the "Ape jail", and he didn't even release the drug to the public. So in my opinion he didn't do anything wrong. And even the guy at the Ape jail can't really be the antagonist because even though he was a jerk, he was still just doing his job. So in the end who were the good guys and bad guys?
I give the movie a 7.5 out of 10. If you ever need to rent a movie, give this one a shot.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Don't blame social media.
It's time to face the fact that there is nothing inherently annoying about Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media. What is really annoying are the users.
Just because people might complain that Twitter is stupid because users are just posting what they had for breakfast and taking a picture of it, doesn't mean you should blame Twitter for this. Blame the individual person who is doing that. Just because Twitter allows for that to happen, doesn't mean it's Twitter's fault. The people who are doing that would've done it anyway, now they just have an outlet that allows them to put it in your face more.
The same concept applies for Facebook. Don't blame Facebook because you or someone you know has 1,000 friends and only talks to twenty of them. It's not Facebook's fault, it's the users fault for accepting or sending out so many friend requests. Plus, Facebook has the "unfriend" button for a reason. Regular use should be made of the button as friends and interest change. Out with the old, in with the new.
These forms of social media can be, and are, useful. That's why people all over the world use them. When used correctly, social media can be an efficient way of gaining and giving information.
So how should social media be used? In my opinion, the right way to use social media, is to take the social side out of it. The right way to use social media is to connect to people who can help you in the business world, or in your social world. Don't connect simply because you can. There's nothing wrong with connecting with friends, but there is something wrong with connecting to a person that goes to your school but who you never talk to.
Befriending people who you don't know well is bound to frustrate and annoy you; that's why you don't do it in real life. No one goes out of there way to friend or follow someone who they don't have any interest in talking to.
Do not complain that you are annoyed with someone's post or tweet. If you really don't like how someone behaves, on social media or in real life, and if they are of no benefit to you, consider that the problem may be you for connecting to them, rather than them for annoying you.
Just because people might complain that Twitter is stupid because users are just posting what they had for breakfast and taking a picture of it, doesn't mean you should blame Twitter for this. Blame the individual person who is doing that. Just because Twitter allows for that to happen, doesn't mean it's Twitter's fault. The people who are doing that would've done it anyway, now they just have an outlet that allows them to put it in your face more.
The same concept applies for Facebook. Don't blame Facebook because you or someone you know has 1,000 friends and only talks to twenty of them. It's not Facebook's fault, it's the users fault for accepting or sending out so many friend requests. Plus, Facebook has the "unfriend" button for a reason. Regular use should be made of the button as friends and interest change. Out with the old, in with the new.
These forms of social media can be, and are, useful. That's why people all over the world use them. When used correctly, social media can be an efficient way of gaining and giving information.
So how should social media be used? In my opinion, the right way to use social media, is to take the social side out of it. The right way to use social media is to connect to people who can help you in the business world, or in your social world. Don't connect simply because you can. There's nothing wrong with connecting with friends, but there is something wrong with connecting to a person that goes to your school but who you never talk to.
Befriending people who you don't know well is bound to frustrate and annoy you; that's why you don't do it in real life. No one goes out of there way to friend or follow someone who they don't have any interest in talking to.
Do not complain that you are annoyed with someone's post or tweet. If you really don't like how someone behaves, on social media or in real life, and if they are of no benefit to you, consider that the problem may be you for connecting to them, rather than them for annoying you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)