Today’s Movie Culture not Up to Par

Going to the movies in the present day is a sad conclusion of the romantic earlier days: the ‘20s, ‘30s, and ‘40s were the peak of cinematic perfection. Since then, movies have decayed to become nothing more than two hours of crude sex jokes, hackneyed love stories, and a chance for new bands to become mildly famous.

If you’ve ever watched a silent movie, which I doubt anyone from my ADD positive generation has, you’d notice the raw talent that the actors possessed. Eyes, hands, and movement told the story, not trite dialogue or heated sex scenes. Gloria Swanson and Rudolph Valentino fluttered hearts while completely clothed. Charlie Chaplain had Roaring Twenties audiences, well, roaring, without smoking pot or getting completely drunk. Dark hair and white bodies created a sense of being transported to another place– a fairytale or another dimension– rather than the uninspiring reality of 3D and sharper-than-life HD color.

The ‘30s and ‘40s were the time of ‘Classic’ Hollywood. Never again will you find another Ginger Rogers, Marilyn Monroe, or Bette Davis. Never again will you find another Clark Gable, suave enough to make any heart melt, or another Cary Grant, dashing and charming enough to leave girls starry-eyed long after a movie was over. Sex back then was implied: Scarlett O’ Hara stretching leisurely and humming in the morning, or seeing the Walls of Jericho come tumbling down in It Happened One Night. Onscreen married couples, such as the dynamic Myrna Loy and William Powell, didn’t actually sleep in the same bed back then: Twin beds in the same room were separated chastely by a small dresser. Hard as it is to imagine, people didn’t go to the movies back then to see naked women or half-naked men. They didn’t go to see pregnant women get it “doggy style” or to see a horny woman lurk in the men’s bathroom to have a “quickie” with her husband’s step-brother. They went to see couples like Fred and Ginger fall in love while smiling and dancing. They went to see heartrending, but not overdone, dramas such as Of Human Bondage or A Streetcar Named Desire.

That was back when the movies were as good as, or even better than, the book.

If you’ve ever watched a typical classic movie, say, something with Irene Dunne or Bogey, and compared it with your typical Will Farrell or Paul Rudd movie, you’d be just as angry as I am about the quality of films my generation is producing. Farrell or Rudd can hardly even be considered actors. Their “acting” is limited to the repulsive dialogue that’s shoved down their throats by directors and to the childish pervertedness that their constituency demands. Dunne and Bogey, though, tell storylines through facial expressions, actions, and beautiful dialogue. Whole scenes of “old” movies can go by without a word; Yet, nothing is lost. Words were measured, weighed, and polished by screenwriters back then, not thrown around haphazardly until they evoke a laugh, like today.

Maybe some of it’s in the lack of color of old movies. There’s something about black and white that’s magical and surreal; There’s something about live color (and I don’t mean Technicolor) that makes movies no better than a trip to the mall or a day at school: it’s too real.

Silent movies used to come along with a live band. Yes, a live band- not a DJ. Bands back then were  groups of musicians with real talent and instruments that weren’t warped or accompanied by electric beats, sounds, or singers. Then, in the budding era of talkies, music was limited to instrumental songs– unless the actors were the ones singing. There were no Cobra Starship-style breakthroughs “bringing it.” Nor were there whole movies dedicated to unknown Indie bands: Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist. Back then, movies were dedicated to actors and movie plots, not high-paced action scenes that have explosions in time to drum beats and electric guitar riffs.

So, instead of seeing Dear John, which apparently was a real disappointer anyhow, go rent The Seven Year Itch or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Culture yourself a bit.

The Abortion Argument

It came to me suddenly, the simplicity of the seemingly intricate and emotional matter of abortion. I have always been pro-choice and will always be. I’ve had numerous people try to sway my opinion, and even more try to lambaste and deprecate me for it. I never could come up with a solid answer for why I believe what I do. I always knew I believed a woman should be able to have control over her own body, not the state or the fed. But it’s simpler than that– oh, so much simpler.

It’s simply not in the government’s power to outlaw abortion. The whole issue surrounding abortion is whether or not a fetus is a human being when in the womb. The thing is, that’s a purely religious issue. The state has no power whatsoever to determine that. Many people believe a human is only a human when it comes out of the womb, not at conception or the three month mark or the six or the nine month mark. It’s exclusively a moral thing.

The government only exists to create order in society. People say, “Well we outlaw murder, so why do we allow abortion? It’s murder, too.” Murder is a detriment to society. We can’t let murder go unpunished, just as we can’t let robbers and drunk drivers go unpunished: it upsets the delicate balance of an orderly society. If we hadn’t a jail system, there would be no order and therefore no way or even reason for a government to exist. One murder would lead to two, and those murders will lead to more and more murders, more robberies, etc. Our society would be in chaos. Abortion does not fall under that category. If a woman decides to have an abortion, it doesn’t disrupt society. There is no lawlessness involved, no disturbance of the lives of American citizens. Society will go on.

One might argue that “the person can better our society– it can be the next Martin Luther King.” Again, I jump back to my point about the state’s religious indifference: it’s not up to the state to decide whether or not the fetus is a human being, nor to impose that upon others. Whether or not to abort that “next Martin Luther King” is purely subjective. If the woman believes she might be carrying the next MLK, she’ll probably decide to have the child. If she believes she has simply a dividing mass of cells in her womb, she would have fewer qualms about aborting it.

Go ahead, give women all the help you can give them. Encourage them to have the child, and run organizations that adopt babies out to barren or gay couples. That’s one way you can counter our apparently immoral pro-choice laws. But it’s impossible and unconstitutional to impose your views upon society as a whole: We all are guaranteed freedom of religion.

It’s a Tetherball, not a Pendulum: Brown, Healthcare, and the Voters

 

It isn’t a pendulum- no, it can’t be. You see, a pendulum is moved by gravity, something we obviously have no control over. It’s more like a tetherball: the American people smack the ball to the left, it winds up and up and up the pole and strangles itself until it slowly unwinds itself and the American people decide it’s time to smack it to the right.
The American people have just used the most powerful thing they have- the vote- to snatch that left-swinging ball right out of the air and to a grinding, hand-reddening halt. That ball would’ve kept swinging around, too. But it got spinning too fast. It used up too much of its cord too soon. It whipped by the people’s faces. It made their eyes hurt and their heads feel a bit dizzy. The Democrats became too caught up in the upward climb to Healthcare. They forgot about the little schoolchildren, who need things a bit simpler sometimes: They forgot about their constituents.
Had the Democrats taken the time to explain what they were doing behind those big closed doors, maybe the public would’ve relaxed a bit. If Pelosi or Obama had taken the time two, three times a week to say, “During the last few days we have decided to put this, that, who, and what in your Healthcare Bill,” the people would’ve wound up to catch the ball on the rebound, and to give that ball another smack leftward. If someone had stepped up and said every so often, “This, that, who, and what will benefit you in some way, one way, and how way in your Healthcare Bill, America,” maybe their eyes would’ve adjusted a bit to the sight.
But there was no communication. The only communication was fed to them through an angry-at-being-snubbed media and an ever-bitter Republican party. Instead of getting the people excited, the Democrats practically fed the people’s fears by their silence.
Yes, Mr. Obama, this Massachusetts election was about Healthcare. Mr. Brown ran his whole campaign on one thing and one thing only: stopping that tetherball. That was a short game, huh? Recess is over, buddy. It’s back to class. Learn from this, Dems. You’ve got Midterms coming soon.

Healthcare Reform: Debunking the lies, offering a solution

I can’t procrastinate any longer: I didn’t want to blog about healthcare because I was afraid of offending or riling up my readership. But H.R. 3692 is now on the House floor and can’t be ignored any longer. I’ve been listening to C-Span for about four days straight. I’m fuming at some of the things representatives are saying. I’m fuming at citizens for believing them. I’m fuming at Democrats and Republicans alike for spewing out the same speeches over and over again, for their lack of originality. I’m fuming at myself for not immersing myself in this debate long ago. My beliefs have been clouded for quite some time; I’ve been waffling between the black-and-white answers of “yes” or “no.” I’ve done my research and have heard both sides of the argument extensively. Here goes nothing…

I was never excited to jump on the Healthcare-Reform train. I hate our national debt and am not very excited to increase it. But America is aging (26% of America is on the brink of retirement, and will leave the 33% of America that is in the workforce to shoulder its loads). We absolutely can’t sit around and do nothing. We have more immigrants tapping into Medicare and Medicaid, draining money from the funds issued to our grandparents and to people with disabilities and such. We have lines out the wazoo in emergency rooms because people without insurance need to see some kind of a doctor. We don’t need to model ourselves after Britian or Canada- no, we’re better than that. We just need to do something. I know the Republicans don’t want to do anything about Healthcare. Their version of “reform” pretty much stops at making it harder to sue for medical malpractice, because apparently that’s the only thing that is crippling our broken system. But no; Our whole system is outdated and ineffective. We need to do something and we need to do it now.
I know that the House Bill isn’t very ideal. It’s got a good amount of crap in it that we really don’t need, and it’s rather lacking in some areas altogether. If (or rather, when) it passes and goes to the Senate, I’m sure it’ll get clipped and pinched quite a bit before it goes to vote. And it needs to be. Nancy Pelosi scares the crap out of me, and is a bit too liberal for my taste, but the core of what she believes is still parallel to what I believe: We need Healthcare. I don’t understand why people are so against it. The Republicans are hailing Social Security, yet that has the damn word “Social” already in it- but the Republicans aren’t querulous about that.

Some Republican Rhetoric:
1. It advocates abortion.
-Page 1359 Line 16, specifically states, and I quote, “DOES NOT PERFORM ABORTION SERVICES.”
-Page 109 Lines 7-8 specifically state, “ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.”
-Page 246 Lines 11-12 specifically state, “PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION COVERAGE: An affordability credit for payment for services described in Section 222.”
Want to read it for yourself? Go online and search the HR 3962 bill; You can type in the word “abortion” and search it in the bill- you’ll see I’m quoting verbatim.

2. It will provide health care for illegal immigrants.
-Page 228 Lines 17-24 specifically state, “REQUIREMENT.—No individual shall be an affordable credit eligible individual as defined in section 342(a)(1) unless the individual is a citizen or national of the United States or is lawfully present in a State in the United States.”
-Page 229 Lines 3-10 specifically state, “DECLARATION OF CITIZENSHIP OR LAWFUL IMMIGRATION STATUS.—No individual shall be an affordable credit eligible individual unless there has been a declaration made, in a form and manner specified by the Health Choices Commissioner similar to the manner required under section 1137(d)(1) of the Social Security Act.”

3. It will impose taxes on Americans.

-Yes, actually it will. The taxes are there to ensure that people get insured. And yes, there are some taxes that actually are proposed to pay for the plan: taxes on extraordinarily high income Americans.

-Page 196 Lines 1-2 specifically state, “TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS NOT OBTAINING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.”

-Page 196 Lines 7-8 specifically state, “EMPLOYMENT TAXES ON EMPLOYERS NOT PROVIDING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.”

-Page 196 Lines 13-15 specifically state, “EXCISE TAX ON FAILURES TO MEET CERTAIN HEALTH COVERAGE REQUIRMENTS.”

-Page 337 Lines 1-6 specifically state, “ SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS. GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.”

My Ideal Healthcare Bill:
1. Yes, I believe we need a public option. What on earth is the purpose of Healthcare reform if we don’t regulate the root of the problem- Insurance companies? It’s not socialized medicine. It’s competition. The American Way. It’s not telling the insurance companies what to do; Rather, it’s acting as a catalyst to initiate a race for the most cost-effective insurance company.
2. We need to eliminate anything controversial concerning social issues.
Anything that could even imply that abortion might be administered under this Healthcare Bill should be eliminated. We don’t need to give anyone another reason to bitch. There are plenty of clinics and private companies to go get an abortion at. The Democrats have no reason to give Catholics and the Republicans more of a reason to hate them. I agree that it blatantly violates our “separation of church-and-state” policy of government. This explicitly imposes Christian views upon our population. But I also believe in compromise, and if that’s what it takes to pass this damn bill, I say take it.
3. We need to do something about illegal immigrants.
There needs to be a specific clause that strictly prohibits illegal immigrants from tapping into our healthcare. Lawmakers also should think about a way to eliminate backup in emergency rooms- some clause that specifies under what conditions a person may be admitted into the emergency room. Granted, I believe that if a person gets into a car crash and is bleeding to death, or is severely injured in some other way, that person should immediately receive medical attention- even at the expense of taxpayers. But our emergency rooms shouldn’t be crowded with people that have bee stings and sprained arms; Those types of injuries should be attended to by a physician, not an emergency room paramedic.
4. Healthcare should definitely be streamlined. We need to stretch the little money we have to cover as much as possible. If the Democratic projections are somewhat true (I’m not naive enough to state their projections as pure, unbiased fact), then the bill will be putting down a huge down-payment on slowly reducing our nation’s healthcare costs. Sure, getting the whole system started is going to be a bitch, but once it’s up-and-running, I’m quite positive our nation will be much better off (not that my economic opinion has any gravity whatsoever).
5. I don’t think we should force the private insurers to accept people with disabilities or “preexisting” conditions. Why? Because that would probably end up squeezing cash out of the insurers’ pockets and causing insurers to cover less for healthier people. Rather, we should just let the disabilities and preexisting people funnel into the public option, unless insurers see that there might be in their best interests to accept a few risks now and then, to increase their competition with the public option. But I really don’t believe we should force any business into accepting people. Force threatens the core of capitalism.

Did you root for the Phillies or the Yankees? I rooted for the Phillies (I despise the Yankees). They lost. But you know what? They’ll be back again next year, and so will we, the Health Care reformers. Yup. If it doesn’t go through this time, we’ll be back again.

Completely Random Fact: Tasmanian Devils have the strongest bite of all mammals for their body size.

Yeah, I’m a Liberal; Yeah, sometimes I’m a Republican

Just about everyone I meet instantly knows I’m a liberal. Yes, I’m a product of my generation, the “progressive” era. For some reason, it’s “cool” to be liberal. During the 2008 election, teenagers flocked to buy Obama shirts and buttons, yet they didn’t even know any of his policies. Conservatives are “out” I guess. I know as we head into college, the liberals will be even more abundant- for some reason college seems to spur liberalist thinking. I’m certainly not complaining. But I have a problem with people thinking I’m one of those blind party followers who, when asked about some political issue, instantly recites the mantras of the Democratic party. I’m a skeptic of all political activities. Sure, politicians might start out with the right intent, but once they start playing with the “big boys” in Washington, if they don’t change their ways fast, they’ll fall by the wayside.
Take Obama, for instance: He hasn’t delivered on many of his campaign promises. When I supported him, starting early in the summer of 2008, I knew he wouldn’t deliver on any more than half of them. He’s a politician- he now has the obligation to cater to many more people than just his base supporters. He has lobbyists to cope with, Republicans, moderate Democrats, global affairs, etc. When he promised the gay community that he would “push for federal recognition of same-sex couples,” he secured himself a huge voter base. When I went to an Obama rally at the Bank Atlantic Center, I stood in line for about two or three hours behind a gay man from Aventura. He and I struck up a conversation, naturally about Obama, and he could hardly contain his excitement about the prospect of getting legally married to his partner. They’d been together for over five years, he told me. I wonder what he’d say now about Obama, though? Would he really vote for Obama again? Would he attend another rally and listen, practically in rapture, to Obama’s every word? I’m pretty sure the extent of Obama’s deliverance to the gay community will be to repeal the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” act. If I’m correct, I think Obama has actually outright said he doesn’t support gay marriage. Now the question arises: Did the gay community expect too much of him? If he outright said that he doesn’t support gay marriage, why did most of the gay community mobilize around him? The answer is: He’s a politician. His message of HOPE and CHANGE excited the gay community and led them to believe in something that wasn’t actually there. If you’ve ever heard Obama speak- I’ve seen him live twice now- you’d probably understand. The guy has a way with words. If you listened to John McCain speak, you’d probably yawn within two minutes of his mouth opening; Obama, on the other hand, knows how to get your attention. If you just let yourself listen to the flow of his words, the cadence to his speaking, the repetition, you’d see why he enamored so many voters. I like to believe I was a bit more sharp than the general listener- I listened to the lyrics, not only the melody. I knew what he was saying, and I knew the reality of his delivering on all of it was slim to none. I knew once he was voted into office, he’d need to water down anything he wanted to get passed, so as to appease congress and all the others demanding to be remembered in the legislation.
So what’s my point? My point is, I’m not stupid. I don’t just watch MSNBC and brainwash myself with strictly liberal politics. I read the newspaper for straight facts; I watch FOX to get the “other side” of the argument. I realize that Obama is just as slimy as the rest of Washington. I realize our deficit is growing and that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t improving. I realize that if Obama doesn’t get Healthcare passed, then the Democratic party will once again be dismissed as “soft” and will probably fall into oblivion. I realize that, as a nation, we’re really not doing so hot. I realize that the Democrat “stimulus package” hasn’t really stimulated anything, and that the Bush-pushed “bailout” actually did help something. I realize that Obama won’t be able to pass the Healthcare he wants without adding more than “a dime” to our federal deficit. But hey, this is politics. This is an institution that has been plagued by sex scandals, lies, and self-interest since our nationhood some two hundred years ago. Sure, right now I think the Republican party takes the cake on sex scandals– John Ensign and Mark Sanford were two of the biggest stories this year– but Democrats don’t always keep their pants up, either. Take Spitzer, former New York governor and ethics advocate, who was involved in a rather racy “prostitution and money laundering ring.” Another tally for Democrats, eh? It’s all part of politics.
And please don’t get me started on Blagojevich. I followed that story like a hawk- first and foremost because I found the guy hilarious (and rather akin to a chipmunk), and secondly because I knew Republicans would probably hold it against Democrats for a long time. I don’t really care one way or another that he was a Democrat. Not every Democrat is going to be perfect, just as not every Republican will be. I don’t hold things like that against either party. Imagine you had a group of friends, and one of the group goes out one night and does something stupid and gets arrested. Does that reflect the whole group? Nah. That’s how I look at politics, almost, except I know that politicians are much more devious than teenagers (though both groups are pretty bad). Politicians are all pretty much dirty little bastards and every once in awhile one of ’em is bound to get caught.
So please don’t tell me I’m a blind Liberal-Democrat and that I really need to “get my facts straight.” My party is just as dumb as the Republican party, and I’m not averse to sometimes thinking the Republicans as a bit less-incorrect on an issue than the Democrats. Three cheers for political incompetence?

RANDOM FACT: Moldova has a literacy rate of 99.1%; The United States has a literacy rate of 99%. Way to go, Moldova– nice to know you’d kick the U.S.’s ass in a country vs. country spelling bee.

The Future Of Media: A People Without News

I’m not sure where my generation, the ”new” generation, stands on the issue, but I’m certain that the future of media is headed in a direction I’m not comfortable with. The United States of America was practically founded because of media. Newspapers, pamphlets, and letters circulated throughout the disgruntled populations of the colonies, propagandizing and stirring up animosities. Common Sense and the Federalist Papers had huge impacts on turning public opinion in favor of overthrowing the British. Federalist-dominated newspapers spread just the right news to representatives as well as the hoi polloi, and instilled a sense of unity and common anger.

As the country grew, so did media. Media has changed with both demographics and with technology. The media has to cater to public interests, whether those interests be Hollywood stars, wars, or the outcomes of elections. The media has always connected laypeople to government, science, and the “outside” world. It’s always played a role in swaying public opinion, simply by dictating which news the public sees. Think about how we view Arabians and Muslims; We’ve had almost no exposure to them in the U.S. and our only connection to them is really through media, yet all we really hear about them is negative. This has been going on for hundreds of years- it’s nothing new. Not to say, however, that media is all bad. They certainly have the power to filter news, but media prints what is considered newsworthy: deaths, bombings, and attacks. Is a-day-in-the-life-of-a-Muslim-woman really that interesting to us? We don’t want to hear it, so the media doesn’t print it.

When television came about, the media expanded and the news casting sect was born. When computers came about, the media eagerly tossed their typewriters out the window. When the internet came about, it took some time, but newspapers finally started to establish themselves on the web as well as in print. There are now a few solely-internet newspapers. We expect to see more. Broadcast news and the internet are quickly usurping all print-journalism jobs. Because of blogs and other internet sources, more and more journalists are receiving pay cuts or are being forced to virtually prostitute themselves and their work to other newspapers and news sources. It’s not uncommon to see a journalist writing a print-news story, then writing the same story as a broadcast-news story, then cutting or editing it to suit the online template. This leaves less time for in-depth research, long interviews, and extensive fact-checking. So where are we headed, exactly?

Well, there’s a few theories floating around. The first theory, and the one I’m most inclined to believe as a potential reality, is that there will be a completely free-lance media funded by non-profit organizations or specific companies or communities. The journalist would be paid to do in-depth reporting on whatever topic he or she takes on, and would be paid work-by-work and not a set salary. The only flaw I can really see in this form of media is the very real potential for bias. If a corporation or a “non-profit organization” funded by a corporation as a dummy, pays a journalist to write a story that undermines its competition, or bolsters its own position, print media’s reliability will virtually disappear.

Another theory predicts the eventual dissolution of all daily newspapers, which would lead to weekly magazines such as Time and Newsweek picking up the slack. This would bring about a completely biased view of news: strictly commentary.

Still another predicts a dissolution of all print media and a complete takeover of broadcast and internet-based news. That’s a really scary thought. I don’t know about you, but I lose my patience really quickly with broadcast news, listening to the same piece of news over and over again for days straight, until the hype dies down. Haven’t you ever flipped through news channels, hoping to hear something new, but instead seeing the same person interviewed over and over again by different people? I guess it’s all a matter of preference. I prefer to read the news and glean the facts there, then like to turn on the tube and listen to a few different sides if the topic interests me.

I cannot see our society functioning without a regular print media. Print media balances the more unsubtle flaws of broadcast media. Unlike broadcast, print is so much more straightforward. The information is all right there in front of you on a page- it doesn’t go on commercial breaks or hold you on cliffhangers.

If there’s a bias or a fact error in print, someone’s bound to catch it. Not many people can catch things like that when a person is just simply saying it. A simple grimace or triumphant smile can be bias on news programs. If you take a look at FOX news or MSNBC, you’ll easily see a bias. If you look at the language the newscasters use, you’ll begin to see a cavernous rift between the language of the broadcast sect and the print sect. Newscasters use a more flowery speech, as to draw a viewer in- more viewers equal more money from advertisers- whereas print journalists use a more austere language. Broadcast news covers the things “everyone” wants to see, and can continue covering the same story from hour to hour, updating viewers on the latest news. Print journalists cover the whole spectrum of news every day, from business news to world to local news- it’s mandatory. Nothing gets left out or overlooked, everything is given its due space, because unlike broadcast media, print journalism is directed at every single person, instead of the “everyone” generalization that broadcast news programs use. We need a print media to balance out other (in my opinion, inferior) forms of media.

But who has the time to read a newspaper? Who has the time to read all those words when you could hear them while you multitask? Who wants to read a whole article to absorb something when you could just look up a quick summary of it online? The ADD of my generation is sometimes frustrating. Can people really afford not to know what’s going on around them? Don’t people want to be informed? Is it ennui that is changing our media? I don’t know what you do in the mornings, but I always need to sit down at the kitchen table with a cup of coffee and the morning paper. I’m hoping to someday work for that paper- if it’s still around.

 

MEMORABLE QUOTE: “For Conan, that means dancing around the stage and making lame jokes about my pantsuits. And Conan, please don’t bother me again.” –Hilary Clinton on the “Tonight Show”.

Palin Resigns: Are we REALLY better off?

Sarah Palin has a motive. She’s a politician, and politicians always have motives, don’t they? They have teams of people to advise them what to do, and when and how to do it. Like chess, politicians’ moves are carefully calculated. Offense or defense, to use Palin’s sports metaphor, Palin’s going somewhere. I honestly don’t care whether or not she’s Alaska’s governor. I’m not an Alaskan citizen, therefore her politics don’t concern me.
I am, however, concerned about her motive behind this resignation. If she’s resigning to work on her 2012 campaign, not only is it a very audacious move, but a rather stupid one, I’d think. Abandoning one’s own people for bigger and better things isn’t exactly a great sign of leadership, don’t you think? And if you can actually fathom making the argument that her move is, “for the greater good”, that her becoming president would actually benefit not only Alaska, but the whole of the U.S., you’re as moronic as she. I am fine with Mrs. Palin keeping watch over Russia for us. So far, I’d say she’s done a good job. But let’s keep it that way, okay? Sure, I get a bit annoyed with her hogging up airtime on news programs, but I’d rather her be everywhere and doing nothing, than nowhere and doing something.
Now, if Palin is retreating from her governorship because of some political scandal, I just say, “WHATEVER”. Again, none of it will affect me in any way, so why on earth should I care? Sure, if you live in Alaska, I can understand your being upset. So Palin spent $5000.00 of Alaskan money buying clothes or something. Whatever. Something along the lines of blackmail or nepotism I find a tad more entertaining, but certainly not enough to make me go insane-o mad or make me want to listen to 24/7 news coverage of it.
If Sarah Palin is resigning because of family problems, though, I blame the media. The media shouldn’t butt into politicians’ lives as much as they do. I’m not exactly pals with Sarah Palin, but I do have a bit of mercy in my heart for her family (they, after all, have to put up with her). Bristol’s having a child has nothing to do with Palin or her politics. A mother can say “No sex before marriage” and her child may very well disobey her. As for the father of Bristol’s child, once again, I say, “WHATEVER”. What teen kid likes to be thrown in the media for fathering a child, forced into marrying the girl, and into dealing with the girl’s mother? None, I assure you. The little kids have no real idea what’s going on, so why have a million cameras flashing in their faces? Leave them alone, media. And those emails? Oy vey. Who cares if she fought with staff members? Who doesn’t? Hasn’t anyone ever fought with co-workers before? It’s certainly not a reason to resign, I’d imagine. If it were, I’m sure there has to be more to it. Time will tell, I guess.

IN CLOSING: “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” —President George W. Bush, Aug. 5, 2004

*Note: I actually respect Bush a bit as of now. He’s stayed out of the media and faded nicely into the background. He’s not trying to stir up unnecessary trouble, like Cheney. I say, “kudos” to Mr. Bush for that.

Madoff: Yeah, I’m a victim.

Bernard Madoff is finally getting some of what he deserves. Even though he’s already got gray hair, I hope he lives a very, very prolonged and uncomfortable life in a tiny little jail cell. I hope that wherever his money is, it’s found and recompensed to his victims. I am, indirectly, one of his victims. I’m one of the many affected by Mr. and Mrs. Bienes’, a couple who either knowingly or unknowingly aided Madoff, pledge withdrawals. I don’t know how that’ll affect me yet, but it’s sure to come: $2 million isn’t so easily made up for. And if my education is compromised because of Mr. Madoff, I certainly won’t be quiet about the matter. I wonder if the “Bienes Center”, the performing arts center the couple was pledged to fund, will still keep its name, tainted now as it is (though I don’t place any blame on them, per se, because their guilt in the scheme hasn’t been proven).

Unfortunately, Madoff’s making history. I almost wish his name would disappear into oblivion, wiped from this earth. He doesn’t deserve all the attention he’s receiving. Nowadays, $50 billion almost seems like pocket change or allowance money. But I’ll put it into perspective: it’s about 82% of Pennsylvania’s 2009 state budget ($61 billion). Maddoff cheated people out of almost enough money to run a state for a year. Doesn’t that just make you sick? The more of those 150 years Madoff sees, the happier I’ll be.

Idiot America

Young America today doesn’t know what’s going on in the world. The Real Life is about as close to reality as they get. Our schooling is geared toward math, science, and language, which, of course, is important. But they leave out the most important thing: the world. In Europe, the vast majority of people speak two or more languages. Sure, kids “learn” Spanish. They can read it and write it. When it comes to speaking it, however, they’re clueless. Isn’t speaking a language the most important part? America’s schooling is ushering in a period of isolationism. Go up to a teenager and ask a question about stocks, the economy, politics. They can’t even answer questions about their own country; imagine their ignorance about foreign countries!
I’m not even sure many adults know much about the stock market. I’m actually in the middle of reading Understanding Wall Street, which I highly recommend to anyone who’s got any educational ambition whatsoever. It covers everything from what stock is, to reinvestment rates, and even the Japanese market. Why on earth do anybody but the Japanese need to know about the Japanese market? Simple: so you don’t look like a moron in front of educated people. How stupid do you look if one of your co-workers starts mouthing off about how poorly the Japanese market is doing, despite the fact their GDP is rising- and you just sit and nod your head, dumb as a giraffe, because you haven’t understood a word he or she is saying? If you don’t think you would look stupid, you probably have a bad case of narcissism. Wouldn’t you rather be the one to bring up that conversation? Impress people with your knowledge (and if you really want to, make them feel stupid). If you do have that bit of a narcissism problem, at least justify it by giving yourself a reason to be.
If you are a young’un and reading this, my case to you is such: Tomorrow’s world is bigger than today’s. The more you know, the better you’ll do. Pick up that newspaper, Time magazine, and maybe pay attention a bit in your history classes.

Random Fact: Vladimir Voronin is the President of Moldova. If you don’t know where or what Moldova is, it’s a cute little country that broke off Romania after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Something tells me you just learned something. I hope you did.

Politicians, Media, and Lazy Americans

Politicians are dirty, slimy, and usually very sexually frustrated. They control our money and our lives. Everything is done for an ulterior motive, whether that motive be for the good or the bad of they who the person is, at least in theory, representing.

Our government has never been perfect and will never be perfect. Scandals, schemes, and lies are exposed almost daily. And, I think, the media attempts to sway everyone’s opinion on these and other political items this way or that. The media’s a huge part of the greater problem. America doesn’t care about the things it should, and does care about the things it shouldn’t. Why? Media. Why does a politician who has an affair get more attention than a politician that is trying to get an important bill passed? America’s priorities are definitely in the wrong places.

Educate yourself. If you have an opinion about your favorite or least favorite politician, be able to back it up. Don’t just listen to MSNBC or FOX. Read newspapers (which are generally a bit less biased) and expose yourself. Know where your tax money is going. Know what your representatives are voting for. Try to contact him/her if you don’t agree with a vote, or if you just want more information. Don’t be a lazy ass and let other people form opinions for you. Yes, America, I’m telling you to think.

*Note: I frequently generalize. You’ll probably get angry about it at some point.