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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.