Matt Taibbi’s article this past Friday published on Rolling Stone’s website strikes a resoundingly true note. He comments, not at all briefly, on how it’s quite ridiculous that Mitt Romney ever stood a chance at winning this election. He proposed the idea that the current split of the electorate among the two candidates makes absolutely no sense, given what the two major candidates represent. He also goes on to suggest that any candidate really and truly different from the two from our bipartisan system would clean house, with a true landslide victory. I have to say: I agree with him completely. So then why do we not see this?
For the grand majority of our country’s history, we have seen the federal government run by a bipartisan system that has attempted to maintain its position of power. Referring back to class (or was it recitation?) on the 26th, the system was designed to keep newcomers out of power: and we've seen a huge increase in the size of the obstacle newcomers now face. Candidates like Jill Stein, who truly differs from Mitt Romney in almost all areas of policy, has no real shot at even garnering a small percentage of the popular vote, much less the vote of a single member of the electoral college, and while this might seem like a small problem in the face of our ever-impending economic “apocalypse”, how could it be any less important?
This bipartisan system that’s firmly latched itself to seats of power throughout the 50 states of the union has slowly been sucking the life from this country. We have seen nearly no major differences between the two major party candidates in decades, and without some serious change, we won’t for the foreseeable future. Yet the vast majority of the American populace seems not to care, they seem content to sit back and be ruled by parties who would as soon toss them under the boss as toss them a bone, and this really, truly weakens our democracy.
We were founded as a nation governed “by the people, for the people.” In a true democracy, we could easily kick out these impostors and rid ourselves of this vampiric parasite that is slowly killing our democratic republic. Unfortunately, it will take the actions of a lot of people who cannot seem to agree on the simplest of things to rise up and act, and the dispelling of many of the rumors spread by the stenographic media we now rely on for our information. Make no mistake: this can and will happen… eventually. It simply remains a question of how long, and how much of our freedom will we have to lose before we rebel?
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
How far is too far?
What constitutes copyright infringement these days? It seems that something as simple as downloading a picture from a Google search could end in a lawsuit in the ranges of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands, of dollars. In fact, just recently, without even having downloaded anything, a media company decided to take legal action against our IP address. While this should come as no surprise in such a sue-happy society, it goes beyond what many people, myself included, feel is reasonable. To the point, though, how much is too much? When does ‘borrowing’ go from ‘fair use’ to ‘copyright infringement’? What are we, and are we not, allowed to borrow, re-use and transform?
The First Amendment specifically protects the freedom of speech, but it’s unclear as to exactly how far it protects this vital freedom. Does it also cover the freedom of expression? Many Supreme Court justices have ruled as such, and I feel that that decision very fairly judges the amendment. We have seen that it goes just far enough to protect someone’s freedom of expression, so long as they are not harming another, or hindering any of their freedoms.
So does this cover copyright infringement, and if so, how? Media and Culture ballparks the unreasonable price of $50,000 to simply borrow a few seconds of media from its copyright owners. This puts it well out of reach of most people to use it under the ‘fair rights’ clause that has for so long existed in the United States. Copyright holders can even file a lawsuit for using an extensively modified version of their copyrighted media. With legal costs upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars, it becomes impossible for the average citizen to make use of something catchy that they think they could alter to good effect. This is simply irrational.
Yes, I agree with most everybody that an artist’s work should be protected from being stolen. But when someone else takes their work, credits them for it, and then goes on to modify it so that it hardly resembles their original work, should this not be acceptable, given that the artist gives permission for such a modification? Or are we to suppose that we cannot express ourselves through the use of existing media and art? Personally, I feel that the greed of copyright companies is a gross injustice on our personal freedom of expression and that we ought to be allowed to alter things in such a way that I have described. Unfortunately, a lot needs to change in this country before any such changes can even be put on the table. I certainly hope that these changes happen sooner rather than later, before we become stifled under the very ideas that were invented to protect us.
The First Amendment specifically protects the freedom of speech, but it’s unclear as to exactly how far it protects this vital freedom. Does it also cover the freedom of expression? Many Supreme Court justices have ruled as such, and I feel that that decision very fairly judges the amendment. We have seen that it goes just far enough to protect someone’s freedom of expression, so long as they are not harming another, or hindering any of their freedoms.
So does this cover copyright infringement, and if so, how? Media and Culture ballparks the unreasonable price of $50,000 to simply borrow a few seconds of media from its copyright owners. This puts it well out of reach of most people to use it under the ‘fair rights’ clause that has for so long existed in the United States. Copyright holders can even file a lawsuit for using an extensively modified version of their copyrighted media. With legal costs upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars, it becomes impossible for the average citizen to make use of something catchy that they think they could alter to good effect. This is simply irrational.
Yes, I agree with most everybody that an artist’s work should be protected from being stolen. But when someone else takes their work, credits them for it, and then goes on to modify it so that it hardly resembles their original work, should this not be acceptable, given that the artist gives permission for such a modification? Or are we to suppose that we cannot express ourselves through the use of existing media and art? Personally, I feel that the greed of copyright companies is a gross injustice on our personal freedom of expression and that we ought to be allowed to alter things in such a way that I have described. Unfortunately, a lot needs to change in this country before any such changes can even be put on the table. I certainly hope that these changes happen sooner rather than later, before we become stifled under the very ideas that were invented to protect us.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Political Suicide
Monday night, September 17th, 2012, saw the release of a video which may well put the final nail in the coffin of an already dying campaign. A video of Mitt Romney was released, of the candidate during a private fundraiser, in which he made the (once again untrue) statement 'that 47 percent of households pay no federal income taxes and 53 percent do.' Of course, we see even members of his own party scrambling away from this as fast as they can, in an attempt to save face in light of his incredibly demeaning opinion held by the Republican Candidate for the highest public office in the country. In one fell swoop, he insulted half the country, a large portion of which are Republican constituents, or live in the solid red south, and managed to add to the table one of the most factually flawed talking points of the election. Honestly, I'm not sure he could have done anything more harmful to his chances to be elected.
Disregarding the fact that his entire campaign has regarded the poor, and many racial ethnic groups, as unimportant, or not worthy of Mittens' attention, this callous video will likely end Governor Romney's chance to be elected this year, or any other year for that matter. He has shown that he, more than he claims President Obama does, wants to divide the country, not to mention that his division of the country is quite a bit less one-sided. We see again a candidate that wants to say whatever it takes to get elected, something that seems to be an oft recurring problem in this country: a candidate that does not seem to care about the welfare of the country, only that his or her political party gains power, and to further his or her own goals.
Is it too much to ask that we see a candidate who truly wants to work for this country to get a chance to hold office? Is it too much to ask to want a President who will work for the country, without making every attempt to push a personal agenda? We can make this happen, but we need to take action. We need to stand up for what we believe, take a risk, and band together to cast down the corruption and greed that is rending this nation asunder, and to fulfill our duty to both ourselves, and the constitution of this once great nation. It’s not beyond possibility, we just need to set aside our differences, take one for the team, and do what is right, both for this country, and for its people.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/big-fat-lie-behind-romneys-absurd-47-argument?akid=9420.29753.11WKmy&rd=1&src=newsletter713446&t=5
Disregarding the fact that his entire campaign has regarded the poor, and many racial ethnic groups, as unimportant, or not worthy of Mittens' attention, this callous video will likely end Governor Romney's chance to be elected this year, or any other year for that matter. He has shown that he, more than he claims President Obama does, wants to divide the country, not to mention that his division of the country is quite a bit less one-sided. We see again a candidate that wants to say whatever it takes to get elected, something that seems to be an oft recurring problem in this country: a candidate that does not seem to care about the welfare of the country, only that his or her political party gains power, and to further his or her own goals.
Is it too much to ask that we see a candidate who truly wants to work for this country to get a chance to hold office? Is it too much to ask to want a President who will work for the country, without making every attempt to push a personal agenda? We can make this happen, but we need to take action. We need to stand up for what we believe, take a risk, and band together to cast down the corruption and greed that is rending this nation asunder, and to fulfill our duty to both ourselves, and the constitution of this once great nation. It’s not beyond possibility, we just need to set aside our differences, take one for the team, and do what is right, both for this country, and for its people.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/big-fat-lie-behind-romneys-absurd-47-argument?akid=9420.29753.11WKmy&rd=1&src=newsletter713446&t=5
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Labor isn't a bad thing
This week's reading in Media and Culture contains an interesting case study. The results of this case study have pointed towards media coverage of many labor groups has been at least partially responsible for the drastic decrease in the percentage of American workers who are members of Labor Unions. Today, labor unions have only a shadow of the bargaining power they once held, and are likely to be unable to mount the protests and strikes they were once capable of. The news media outlets that cover these stories seem, according to Campbell, Martin and Fabos, to be reporting the stories as bad for consumers, which aligns quite nicely with what the media corporation's business goals typically are.
I think it's quite obvious that this is no coincidence. Labor unions cause 'trouble' for large corporations, who could otherwise operate mostly without interference. While it's possible to fire single employees, or to reach a small agreement with them to quiet them, or even to bully them into doing what the corporation pleases, these unions were too large to simply bully or fire, and held enough sway to get what they wanted. It's very obvious to see why corporations would want them out of the picture. Without these unions, we would eventually return to the early twentieth century, where men and women performed back breaking labor for 14 hour days with no breaks, for a wage that is now criminal. Labor unions, and by extension their members, have brought about massive social and economic reform, changing the way companies have done business for the better, and hopefully forever.
Without labor unions, corporations could make even further unprecedented profits, further fueling their lobbyists' spending power, and leading us one step closer to a corporate buyout of our democracy. As one of the few powers that has stood up to corporations, losing these unions takes one more obstacle out of the way of a corporate takeover of America as a whole. We can already see the effects they have had on our government officials, swaying national policy by spending millions of dollars a year to buy votes. Can we afford to let them have their way with their workers, too? This, again, highlights the importance of media literacy, and the need for the American people to stand up for their rights, and their freedom, to fight back against those who would rob them, and put into place someone who will fight for them.
I think it's quite obvious that this is no coincidence. Labor unions cause 'trouble' for large corporations, who could otherwise operate mostly without interference. While it's possible to fire single employees, or to reach a small agreement with them to quiet them, or even to bully them into doing what the corporation pleases, these unions were too large to simply bully or fire, and held enough sway to get what they wanted. It's very obvious to see why corporations would want them out of the picture. Without these unions, we would eventually return to the early twentieth century, where men and women performed back breaking labor for 14 hour days with no breaks, for a wage that is now criminal. Labor unions, and by extension their members, have brought about massive social and economic reform, changing the way companies have done business for the better, and hopefully forever.
Without labor unions, corporations could make even further unprecedented profits, further fueling their lobbyists' spending power, and leading us one step closer to a corporate buyout of our democracy. As one of the few powers that has stood up to corporations, losing these unions takes one more obstacle out of the way of a corporate takeover of America as a whole. We can already see the effects they have had on our government officials, swaying national policy by spending millions of dollars a year to buy votes. Can we afford to let them have their way with their workers, too? This, again, highlights the importance of media literacy, and the need for the American people to stand up for their rights, and their freedom, to fight back against those who would rob them, and put into place someone who will fight for them.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Political Selfishness will be our Downfall
I am not entirely sure how I manage this, but it seems that every time I write for this blog, it’s about a frustration, or outright infuriation, with the current state of American politics. It seems that every time we reach the end of a slanderous skirmish between the two major partisan parties that control our government, another one starts up almost immediately. Whereas in the past it may have taken a few days, we now see news sources putting out stories mere minutes after they occur, thanks to new technology. Now I know I seem a bit one sided in this blog, but if I do, it’s only because I’m more frustrated with one side of this civil war. Between voter suppression, the blatant lies which serve only to defame an otherwise average presidency, and the deplorable, dishonest practice of disagreeing with the president, only to then claim credit for his achievements or chiding him for being unable to accomplish anything while simultaneously sabotaging his efforts, it’s easy to see why I might be so frustrated with them. This directly leads to the topic of today’s post: Why do we keep seeing Republicans blame Obama for things that are (at least mostly) out of his control?
The somewhat recent incident in Benghazi, where the US consulate was attacked by a mob of protesters killing 4 Americans, including the ambassador to Libya, and a large number of Libyan citizens, was a tragedy. Not only was it a tragedy, it marked the start of an international crisis. With a very serious, sensitive situation on his hands, what President Obama needed least of all was an attack on his method of dealing with international politics. So of course the Republican Candidate Mitt Romney would launch his attack mere hours after the news of the attack was initially reported, before the American populace had even become aware of the situation. During a time of international crisis, the first thing a possible future President of the United States of America could think to do was to insult his opponent. He “fire[d] his gun without aiming”, to quote Mr. Obama.
Of course, in true Mitt Romney fashion, his statement had to be edited, and re-edited, in order to more accurately represent what actually happened, because as has been the case on numerous occasions, Governor Romney had used information that he could not confirm to be completely true in his attack, and had jumped the gun, eager to mar the President’s reputation as much as possible. He gave no thought to needing to appear like he’s organized, intelligent and trustworthy, to appear nuanced in the handling of foreign policy matters, and instead chose to childishly chide a man who held no responsibility for the incident, and I believe that at least some small part of the American population is getting sick of this crap. We want our leaders to be worried about the safety of Americans abroad, not about their political standing at home. We want them to be respectful, and represent us well abroad, not to paint a picture of juvenile absurdity in throwing blame, rather than working to maintain relations and alliances. We want to see less greed and more selflessness, that we might build a “more perfect union.”
I’m really hoping this drives home points I've made in other posts that we need to stop letting fear-mongers and liars dominate American politics, and concentrate on the important things. As is the Romney standard, his information and arguments against the president were full of logical delusions, and any fact checker worth their weight in coal could invalidate his statements. But that still isn't the problem: the problem is that we let this happen. We let people lie to try to maintain their power, or to become elected to positions of greater power than the ones they’re in now. These people lie to our faces, and actively work to bring down our Commander in Chief, just so that they can put themselves in power. I understand that mudslinging has been and always will be a political past-time, but enough is enough. Sabotaging our country for political gain is unethical, immoral and dishonest, and we cannot sit by and allow it to happen.
I know I am not the only person who is sick of watching the Republican party sow the seeds of discontent with our President among the American populace, and wait to reap the rewards of doing so. We've seen them shoot down numerous attempts to fix the recession the entire world as a whole has fallen into, and propose no real solution to fix it. We need to step up, and stop this madness before it consumes us as a country, and the world as a whole. America is a very large part of the global economy, and losing America could well bring about a global depression worse than that of 4 score years ago. As I keep saying: we must get up and do something to stop this, and to fix ourselves what those we have assigned to fix will not.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/249367-romney-campaign-says-fed-action-reflects-obamas-failure
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/13/foreign-policy-dominates-campaign-for-second-day/comment-page-5/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/13/time-line-of-cairo-events-reveals-romneys-deeply-flawed-rush-to-judgment/2/
The somewhat recent incident in Benghazi, where the US consulate was attacked by a mob of protesters killing 4 Americans, including the ambassador to Libya, and a large number of Libyan citizens, was a tragedy. Not only was it a tragedy, it marked the start of an international crisis. With a very serious, sensitive situation on his hands, what President Obama needed least of all was an attack on his method of dealing with international politics. So of course the Republican Candidate Mitt Romney would launch his attack mere hours after the news of the attack was initially reported, before the American populace had even become aware of the situation. During a time of international crisis, the first thing a possible future President of the United States of America could think to do was to insult his opponent. He “fire[d] his gun without aiming”, to quote Mr. Obama.
Of course, in true Mitt Romney fashion, his statement had to be edited, and re-edited, in order to more accurately represent what actually happened, because as has been the case on numerous occasions, Governor Romney had used information that he could not confirm to be completely true in his attack, and had jumped the gun, eager to mar the President’s reputation as much as possible. He gave no thought to needing to appear like he’s organized, intelligent and trustworthy, to appear nuanced in the handling of foreign policy matters, and instead chose to childishly chide a man who held no responsibility for the incident, and I believe that at least some small part of the American population is getting sick of this crap. We want our leaders to be worried about the safety of Americans abroad, not about their political standing at home. We want them to be respectful, and represent us well abroad, not to paint a picture of juvenile absurdity in throwing blame, rather than working to maintain relations and alliances. We want to see less greed and more selflessness, that we might build a “more perfect union.”
I’m really hoping this drives home points I've made in other posts that we need to stop letting fear-mongers and liars dominate American politics, and concentrate on the important things. As is the Romney standard, his information and arguments against the president were full of logical delusions, and any fact checker worth their weight in coal could invalidate his statements. But that still isn't the problem: the problem is that we let this happen. We let people lie to try to maintain their power, or to become elected to positions of greater power than the ones they’re in now. These people lie to our faces, and actively work to bring down our Commander in Chief, just so that they can put themselves in power. I understand that mudslinging has been and always will be a political past-time, but enough is enough. Sabotaging our country for political gain is unethical, immoral and dishonest, and we cannot sit by and allow it to happen.
I know I am not the only person who is sick of watching the Republican party sow the seeds of discontent with our President among the American populace, and wait to reap the rewards of doing so. We've seen them shoot down numerous attempts to fix the recession the entire world as a whole has fallen into, and propose no real solution to fix it. We need to step up, and stop this madness before it consumes us as a country, and the world as a whole. America is a very large part of the global economy, and losing America could well bring about a global depression worse than that of 4 score years ago. As I keep saying: we must get up and do something to stop this, and to fix ourselves what those we have assigned to fix will not.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/249367-romney-campaign-says-fed-action-reflects-obamas-failure
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/13/foreign-policy-dominates-campaign-for-second-day/comment-page-5/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/13/time-line-of-cairo-events-reveals-romneys-deeply-flawed-rush-to-judgment/2/
Media Bias
Sometimes, finding a new viewpoint on a subject a writer cares about is like a breath of fresh air. Growing up in a conservative household, in a very conservative little town, I would often hear, almost every waking moment, about how the media is just so darned liberally biased. It was as if they couldn't portray a single story without putting a liberal spin on it. Every time my mom or dad turned on the news, I would always hear about how it was “the left media” or “the liberal news”, not just media or news. Every word that came out of the mouths of the anchors was either biased, or an egregious untruth… except for Fox News, of course. Regardless, For most of my early life, I grew up believing that the media had this huge left leaning, hippie loving predisposition towards how they presented the news. And then I went to high school.
It didn't take me long to realize that the news didn't really have that much of a bias. Maybe a little, but nothing like the national conspiracy I had been led to believe it had. So I accepted what I had seen, and moved on. A few years later, I ended up in a discussion about it with my parents, and lo and behold: “What are they teaching you at that high school?” was ol' pop’s first response. So I dropped it, and decided to just not bring it up again. Besides, don’t we all know that we don’t talk about religion or politics around the dinner table? Oops.
So for the last few years of my life at home, I had to deal with the fact that I could never convince my parents that they were wrong, and let it go. Now, though, after reading Chapter 13, a particular bit stuck out to me: the claim that the media doesn't contain this huge liberal bias that so many Americans believe it does. Like a breath of fresh air, I finally feel like someone else realizes the truth for what it is. Of course, this comes recently after I arrive back at college, having had numerous political discussions with my mother over the summer, which inevitably ended in me telling her she needed to make sure that the ‘facts’ she was told were indeed truthful, and not fabricated, and so she needed to make sure she had reliable, unbiased sources. To which she would, obviously, respond about how hard it is with all the liberal bias there is in the media. Which I would always disagree with, and she’d disagree with me, and then we’d drop it. So now, I can finally go back and show her this, and really prove to her that it’s fabricated! And of course she won’t believe it.
But why? Why, when we’re provided incontrovertible proof that something is wrong, do we blindly hold onto such a belief? What purpose does it serve? To make us feel good about ourselves, that we’re right about it? And then a better question rears its head: when did we start ignoring uncomfortable facts in favor of comfortable lies, and why? I think a good answer to this is one that is attempting to be imparted to us in this course: that it comes from a lack of ‘media literacy’ skills, and that warm fuzzy feeling we get when we’re told we’re right, that our beliefs hold true, especially after being subject to a particularly convincing counterargument. We’d rather be coddled and have our hand held than have to accept that we might be wrong.
It’s hard to blame people who want to say this passage is wrong: those are some hard, well cited facts, with a strong interpretation that follows. And what it suggests reflects back to another post I've made: that we’re being told what we want to hear. It again shows us that public officials are telling us what they know we want to hear, in order to garner our favor, and win re-election, so they can continue to hold onto their ever insecure seat of power, subject to the whims of those they represent every few years. Which is why we, now more than ever, need to ensure that young Americans develop good media literacy, and literacy in general, sills: so that we avoid another generation of brainwashed citizens, who never learn to think for themselves. What we, as mostly Juniors, are learning now needs to be introduced much, much earlier in our development. Just as in every scientific field in existence, we need to be able to present our ideas to the world, let them be tested, and be comfortable with the outcome. Anything else serves only to weaken us, not just as a society, but as a race as a whole, and in this day and age, we simply can’t afford that.
It didn't take me long to realize that the news didn't really have that much of a bias. Maybe a little, but nothing like the national conspiracy I had been led to believe it had. So I accepted what I had seen, and moved on. A few years later, I ended up in a discussion about it with my parents, and lo and behold: “What are they teaching you at that high school?” was ol' pop’s first response. So I dropped it, and decided to just not bring it up again. Besides, don’t we all know that we don’t talk about religion or politics around the dinner table? Oops.
So for the last few years of my life at home, I had to deal with the fact that I could never convince my parents that they were wrong, and let it go. Now, though, after reading Chapter 13, a particular bit stuck out to me: the claim that the media doesn't contain this huge liberal bias that so many Americans believe it does. Like a breath of fresh air, I finally feel like someone else realizes the truth for what it is. Of course, this comes recently after I arrive back at college, having had numerous political discussions with my mother over the summer, which inevitably ended in me telling her she needed to make sure that the ‘facts’ she was told were indeed truthful, and not fabricated, and so she needed to make sure she had reliable, unbiased sources. To which she would, obviously, respond about how hard it is with all the liberal bias there is in the media. Which I would always disagree with, and she’d disagree with me, and then we’d drop it. So now, I can finally go back and show her this, and really prove to her that it’s fabricated! And of course she won’t believe it.
But why? Why, when we’re provided incontrovertible proof that something is wrong, do we blindly hold onto such a belief? What purpose does it serve? To make us feel good about ourselves, that we’re right about it? And then a better question rears its head: when did we start ignoring uncomfortable facts in favor of comfortable lies, and why? I think a good answer to this is one that is attempting to be imparted to us in this course: that it comes from a lack of ‘media literacy’ skills, and that warm fuzzy feeling we get when we’re told we’re right, that our beliefs hold true, especially after being subject to a particularly convincing counterargument. We’d rather be coddled and have our hand held than have to accept that we might be wrong.
It’s hard to blame people who want to say this passage is wrong: those are some hard, well cited facts, with a strong interpretation that follows. And what it suggests reflects back to another post I've made: that we’re being told what we want to hear. It again shows us that public officials are telling us what they know we want to hear, in order to garner our favor, and win re-election, so they can continue to hold onto their ever insecure seat of power, subject to the whims of those they represent every few years. Which is why we, now more than ever, need to ensure that young Americans develop good media literacy, and literacy in general, sills: so that we avoid another generation of brainwashed citizens, who never learn to think for themselves. What we, as mostly Juniors, are learning now needs to be introduced much, much earlier in our development. Just as in every scientific field in existence, we need to be able to present our ideas to the world, let them be tested, and be comfortable with the outcome. Anything else serves only to weaken us, not just as a society, but as a race as a whole, and in this day and age, we simply can’t afford that.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Government: for the people?
For as long as I have cared about politics, and even back into recent history, the American people have seen huge ‘debates’ fought tooth and nail, back and forth, over the “inalienable” rights of people. Debates over what they can and cannot do, both to and for themselves and others. We see huge 'debates' about second amendment rights, whether or not people can carry glorified assault grade weapons. We see people decrying, and others defending, the first amendment rights of the hateful Westboro Baptist Church. We see, nay we sit by and watch, people who are only non-violently standing up for what they believe in, being treated like criminals, and then feel good about ourselves for calling them a ‘disturbance’ and telling them to just “go get a job”. We sit by and watch while two people in love are told they cannot have the same rights as any other ‘normal’ couple, simply because of how they were born. Then worst of all, we sit by and watch as our country wages a ‘war against terrorism,’ sending our boys and girls overseas to die, all in the name of ‘freedom.’ Whatever happened to a government by the people, for the people?
What happened to pledging “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” to upholding a government that protects its people, and enables them to make this the greatest country the world has ever seen? We sat by and watched as politicians stopped caring about their constituents, and began to care only about what would get them re-elected, so they could continue to line their pockets with ill-gained money from lobbyists and corporations. We have watched politicians lie through their teeth about their plans, their opponent’s plans, and damn near everything else, so that they could stay in their seat of power for just a few years more. So what have we done about it? We watched. We sat by and watched as the media failed to report their falsehood, failed its duty to truthfully relay the news, failed its one and only job of keeping the American people informed. Even now, we sit by and watch as politicians tell us what we want to hear, mask the truth about their own plans, and then unceremoniously kick the chair out from under their opponents, taking what good they have managed to accomplish in a term beset with challenges and obstacles, and then beat it into the ground, twist and deform it, until it no longer represents what it once did, and present it back to us as a rallying point. Whatever happened to a government by the people, for the people?
We sit by as the charlatan Paul Ryan lies through his teeth, twisting and manipulating what we see and have seen, attempting to use it for his own gain, whilst he skulks around, waiting to finish off what little rights and safeguards we have left. We accept as truths his lies, about how he will ‘save’ Medicare, about how he believes that “the truest measure of a society’s merit is the degree to which the strong protect the weak.” We unflinchingly consume his rhetoric, without a second thought, without any care that it may not be true, despite the number of times we've been lied to. Like a moth to a flame, we reach for that which we desire with no regard to what it may actually be. We believe the wolf in sheep’s clothing, and put ourselves one step closer to the destruction of a great many things we hold dear. We cannot simply let him walk all over us.
We can change all of this. We can cure this diseased, bloated government, remove the cancer that has been the slow death of a once great nation, and breathe life back into its people, its heart and soul. We simply need to act. We need to get off of our couches, stop watching the news, and take action. We need to inform ourselves, without media bias, and we need to encourage those around us to stand up for what is right, for what we believe in. We need to show the world that the American people are strong, that we still have fight left in us, that we support each other, and that we refuse to lie down and die. We have to step up our game, gather together, and take action against those who would watch us squander our lives in poverty. Even just through our right to vote, we can ensure that this nation lives to see better days. We just have to make our voices heard, organize together, and put into place a better system. We can show the world that this government of the people, by the people, and for the people still lives on, and that we are truly a force to be reckoned with.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/30-2
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/30-8
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/30-4
What happened to pledging “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” to upholding a government that protects its people, and enables them to make this the greatest country the world has ever seen? We sat by and watched as politicians stopped caring about their constituents, and began to care only about what would get them re-elected, so they could continue to line their pockets with ill-gained money from lobbyists and corporations. We have watched politicians lie through their teeth about their plans, their opponent’s plans, and damn near everything else, so that they could stay in their seat of power for just a few years more. So what have we done about it? We watched. We sat by and watched as the media failed to report their falsehood, failed its duty to truthfully relay the news, failed its one and only job of keeping the American people informed. Even now, we sit by and watch as politicians tell us what we want to hear, mask the truth about their own plans, and then unceremoniously kick the chair out from under their opponents, taking what good they have managed to accomplish in a term beset with challenges and obstacles, and then beat it into the ground, twist and deform it, until it no longer represents what it once did, and present it back to us as a rallying point. Whatever happened to a government by the people, for the people?
We sit by as the charlatan Paul Ryan lies through his teeth, twisting and manipulating what we see and have seen, attempting to use it for his own gain, whilst he skulks around, waiting to finish off what little rights and safeguards we have left. We accept as truths his lies, about how he will ‘save’ Medicare, about how he believes that “the truest measure of a society’s merit is the degree to which the strong protect the weak.” We unflinchingly consume his rhetoric, without a second thought, without any care that it may not be true, despite the number of times we've been lied to. Like a moth to a flame, we reach for that which we desire with no regard to what it may actually be. We believe the wolf in sheep’s clothing, and put ourselves one step closer to the destruction of a great many things we hold dear. We cannot simply let him walk all over us.
We can change all of this. We can cure this diseased, bloated government, remove the cancer that has been the slow death of a once great nation, and breathe life back into its people, its heart and soul. We simply need to act. We need to get off of our couches, stop watching the news, and take action. We need to inform ourselves, without media bias, and we need to encourage those around us to stand up for what is right, for what we believe in. We need to show the world that the American people are strong, that we still have fight left in us, that we support each other, and that we refuse to lie down and die. We have to step up our game, gather together, and take action against those who would watch us squander our lives in poverty. Even just through our right to vote, we can ensure that this nation lives to see better days. We just have to make our voices heard, organize together, and put into place a better system. We can show the world that this government of the people, by the people, and for the people still lives on, and that we are truly a force to be reckoned with.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/30-2
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/30-8
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/30-4
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Fact Checking and Our Responsibilities
A good man often appears gauche simply because he does not take advantage of the myriad mean little chances of making himself look stylish. Preferring truth to form, he is not constantly at work upon the facade of his appearance. - Alanis Morissette
Let's say we have two candidates who are running for President this year, and instead of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, their names are John Doe and Joe Smith. John Doe tells the American people everything they want to hear, even when he knows it's a little unrealistic. Joe Smith, though, tells it like it is, knowing a lot of what he's saying will upset certain, or even a lot, of people. Despite being honest, we all know that John Doe would be elected in this scenario. We also know, since we're so removed from this imaginary event, that he would have been found, eventually, to have told a number of lies. People would be upset, and he would be a very unpopular president, especially since he deceived his constituents into voting for him. In a perfect world, he'd be thrown out of office and replaced. Well, even in the real, business, world, he'd be fired and replaced. But that's not how America seems to operate these days.
We, the American citizenry, seem to have this problem of wanting to elect someone who tells us what they want to hear, not what we need to hear. We want to elect someone we see as nice, someone we'd call a friend, someone we would be willing to let watch our kids. We want to see someone in the White House we'd accompany to the bar after a hard day's work, and share a cold Bud Light with. We forget that sometimes, these qualities aren't what makes a good president. Many times, public figures will promote some publicity event, to attempt to appear more likable. Why should this be necessary though? It's somewhat dishonest, presenting a facade to the people who place a large amount of trust in them, and someone willing to beguile us to appear this way most certainly doesn't deserve our votes.
This is why we need people to become more aware of the truths, lies, and misleading statements that ALL public officials make. No one is perfect, but we need to guard ourselves from those who lie consistently to us, and from those whose job it is to monitor what public officials say who simply sit back, and allow us to be deceived. There should exist some level of trust between the public, and the elected officials who guide the fate of our nation, but it doesn't always happen, and so we both need to be aware of the situation ourselves, and we sometimes need help deciphering what's being shoved down our throats. This is were fact checkers come in, and why their job is so important.
These men and women spend hours searching through speech transcripts, government databases, and other sources of information for hours on end, something the average American has trouble doing. With this knowledge in hand, we then end up having to trust what these fact checkers tell us, even when the do a terrible job. Take Glenn Kessler. A veteran fact checker, he completely failed the American people when he not only failed to call Congressman Ryan out on the scathing, blatant lies littered throughout his speech at the Republican National Convention, Kessler went on to defend Ryan's remarks, further reinforcing the lies that had been told to us all. He broke the level of trust that should exist between the average American, and those who track lies told to us. It raises suspicion towards his other works, and it seems a very real possibility that he's propagated an untold number of lies, which we simply believed due to his position.
It is for this reason that, while fact checkers are an immense help, we need to learn to check the facts ourselves. We can't let some lying, two-faced fraud to lie to us and get away with it. We need to be able to tell when we've been deceived, and prevent it from happening again. We need to be able to put into place a public official who can be trusted, even if we don't like them as a person. We need a leader who will tell us how it really is, who won't stoop so low as to betray our trust for a little bit of personal gain. We need to be able to pick these people out from the crowd, and throw our support behind them, because we deserve to be told the truth, indeed, everyone does. This person may not always do things we approve of wholeheartedly, but when they say that they have America's best interest at heart, we need to be able to tell whether or not they have been truthful with us, and then do what we can to ensure that we choose only those willing to tell the truth, no matter how hard that might be. We need to shake off the reigns of ignorance, and do our part to create a better society, one where we won't be fooled by false policy claims, or slanderous attacks against another person. We are what makes America great, and we should take responsibility for making it so.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/truth.html#cLWkMYvS8A1hlvzp.99
http://www.thenation.com/article/169751/washington-posts-feckless-fact-check?rel=emailNation
Let's say we have two candidates who are running for President this year, and instead of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, their names are John Doe and Joe Smith. John Doe tells the American people everything they want to hear, even when he knows it's a little unrealistic. Joe Smith, though, tells it like it is, knowing a lot of what he's saying will upset certain, or even a lot, of people. Despite being honest, we all know that John Doe would be elected in this scenario. We also know, since we're so removed from this imaginary event, that he would have been found, eventually, to have told a number of lies. People would be upset, and he would be a very unpopular president, especially since he deceived his constituents into voting for him. In a perfect world, he'd be thrown out of office and replaced. Well, even in the real, business, world, he'd be fired and replaced. But that's not how America seems to operate these days.
We, the American citizenry, seem to have this problem of wanting to elect someone who tells us what they want to hear, not what we need to hear. We want to elect someone we see as nice, someone we'd call a friend, someone we would be willing to let watch our kids. We want to see someone in the White House we'd accompany to the bar after a hard day's work, and share a cold Bud Light with. We forget that sometimes, these qualities aren't what makes a good president. Many times, public figures will promote some publicity event, to attempt to appear more likable. Why should this be necessary though? It's somewhat dishonest, presenting a facade to the people who place a large amount of trust in them, and someone willing to beguile us to appear this way most certainly doesn't deserve our votes.
This is why we need people to become more aware of the truths, lies, and misleading statements that ALL public officials make. No one is perfect, but we need to guard ourselves from those who lie consistently to us, and from those whose job it is to monitor what public officials say who simply sit back, and allow us to be deceived. There should exist some level of trust between the public, and the elected officials who guide the fate of our nation, but it doesn't always happen, and so we both need to be aware of the situation ourselves, and we sometimes need help deciphering what's being shoved down our throats. This is were fact checkers come in, and why their job is so important.
These men and women spend hours searching through speech transcripts, government databases, and other sources of information for hours on end, something the average American has trouble doing. With this knowledge in hand, we then end up having to trust what these fact checkers tell us, even when the do a terrible job. Take Glenn Kessler. A veteran fact checker, he completely failed the American people when he not only failed to call Congressman Ryan out on the scathing, blatant lies littered throughout his speech at the Republican National Convention, Kessler went on to defend Ryan's remarks, further reinforcing the lies that had been told to us all. He broke the level of trust that should exist between the average American, and those who track lies told to us. It raises suspicion towards his other works, and it seems a very real possibility that he's propagated an untold number of lies, which we simply believed due to his position.
It is for this reason that, while fact checkers are an immense help, we need to learn to check the facts ourselves. We can't let some lying, two-faced fraud to lie to us and get away with it. We need to be able to tell when we've been deceived, and prevent it from happening again. We need to be able to put into place a public official who can be trusted, even if we don't like them as a person. We need a leader who will tell us how it really is, who won't stoop so low as to betray our trust for a little bit of personal gain. We need to be able to pick these people out from the crowd, and throw our support behind them, because we deserve to be told the truth, indeed, everyone does. This person may not always do things we approve of wholeheartedly, but when they say that they have America's best interest at heart, we need to be able to tell whether or not they have been truthful with us, and then do what we can to ensure that we choose only those willing to tell the truth, no matter how hard that might be. We need to shake off the reigns of ignorance, and do our part to create a better society, one where we won't be fooled by false policy claims, or slanderous attacks against another person. We are what makes America great, and we should take responsibility for making it so.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/truth.html#cLWkMYvS8A1hlvzp.99
http://www.thenation.com/article/169751/washington-posts-feckless-fact-check?rel=emailNation
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
'High' vs 'Low' Culture: Intellectualism vs Ignorance
Culture is the process by which a person becomes all that they were created capable of being. - Thomas Carlyle
In my freshman year of high school, when my English teacher told me that Shakespeare's work represented some of the best humanity had to offer, I'm pretty sure I just laughed at her in my head, and dismissed that as nonsense. Who could read that dry, dull, drab prose? I swear I wanted to tear my eyes from their sockets rather than have to sit through another class reading of the stuff. It was just so snooty and snobby, so high and mighty, so arrogant and egotistical; as my old history teacher would say, it was "mental masturbation at its best". Looking back now, though, was that really so bad? Forcing ourselves to read such difficult material, to wrap our brains around it and really comprehend what he was telling us?
Back in my hometown, rural ol' Washington, a lot of kids simply didn't care about what they were doing in school. They shrugged off assignments, claiming that they'd "never use this stuff in real life," or "never have to deal with this [insert your favorite descriptive expletive here] stuff again." Of course, then they would go on to talk about something ever so exciting that Snooky did to The Situation, or gossip about Britney Spears' shaved head. I mean, while I really disliked having to sit through the boring stuff we studied in school, I still appreciated it for what it was: an attempt to teach us something, a light in the dark that was our lack of knowledge, our ignorance. It was this stepping stone we could use to achieve something greater, and they were willing to just throw it all away because they thought: "it's hard" or: "I don't like it". I didn't like to admit it, but boring old Shakespeare really was a building block for a large part of culture as it is today, and our society as a whole.
Fast forward half a decade or so, and I'm now sitting at my computer, pondering this idea of 'High' vs 'Low' culture. We always see those rough and tumble characters in movies calling people who listen to Beethoven or read Shakespeare snobs, and we kinda agree with them. But who are we to claim that liking such enduring masterpieces makes someone a 'snob'? After all, there has to be some reason that this 'High' culture is still around, right? Well, let's take a look at some of this 'Low' culture, because lots of people like it, it has to be pretty long standing, too, right? Wheel of Fortune? The show's been around for 37 years now, not bad. Professional Wrestling has been around for a few decades, too. And Jersey Shore's been running since.... well, since it's just been canceled, that makes a few years, and I guess American Idol is pretty dead, too. Maybe this 'Low' culture stuff doesn't really have what it takes to be lasting. Everyone's forgotten about The Hangover: Part II, and mostly about Lindsay Lohan. But then we see Beethoven's music, and Shakespeare's plays, and those plays have been around for the better part of half of a millennium Even The New York Times has been around for a good century and a half or so. But why?
When we look at demographics for these shows, we see that The Jersey Shore, American Idol, and The Real Housewives of New Jersey (which trust me, isn't very much like what housewives are like in Jersey) all pander to the middle class or poor, who just don't want to think about what they're doing, they already have to think too much during the rest of their lives. But in looking who's kept alive Shakespeare and Beethoven, the New York Times and the works of Emily Dickenson, and Jules Verne and Herman Melville, we see lots of intellectuals and those who've received higher education. Snooty folks? Maybe, but then again, who have been the ones to make the biggest contributions to society? Take Bill Gates, who gave us the first personal computer. He is an avid fan of Leonardo Da Vinci, one of the greatest artists and scholars of all time. Even looking at Da Vinci, we can see that he was heavily influenced by his upbringing in Florence, being bombarded by a multitude of classical culture, works that survive to this day. These intellectuals gravitate to this type of culture, and who wouldn't want to be Bill Gates?
After thinking about all of this, I've come to the conclusion that maybe, as a society, we need to get our heads out of this new fad-centered culture, and value things that are lasting and great. While some may think of people who do this as snobs, sometimes it's those 'snobs' who make the greatest contributions to our society, and to humanity as a whole. So maybe it would be good to start kids younger, to help them develop a love for the classics, and the critical thinking they induce. In doing so, maybe we can produce another da Vinci, Shakespeare, or Tesla.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/culture.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Personal_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci#Florence:_Leonardo.27s_artistic_and_social_background
In my freshman year of high school, when my English teacher told me that Shakespeare's work represented some of the best humanity had to offer, I'm pretty sure I just laughed at her in my head, and dismissed that as nonsense. Who could read that dry, dull, drab prose? I swear I wanted to tear my eyes from their sockets rather than have to sit through another class reading of the stuff. It was just so snooty and snobby, so high and mighty, so arrogant and egotistical; as my old history teacher would say, it was "mental masturbation at its best". Looking back now, though, was that really so bad? Forcing ourselves to read such difficult material, to wrap our brains around it and really comprehend what he was telling us?
Back in my hometown, rural ol' Washington, a lot of kids simply didn't care about what they were doing in school. They shrugged off assignments, claiming that they'd "never use this stuff in real life," or "never have to deal with this [insert your favorite descriptive expletive here] stuff again." Of course, then they would go on to talk about something ever so exciting that Snooky did to The Situation, or gossip about Britney Spears' shaved head. I mean, while I really disliked having to sit through the boring stuff we studied in school, I still appreciated it for what it was: an attempt to teach us something, a light in the dark that was our lack of knowledge, our ignorance. It was this stepping stone we could use to achieve something greater, and they were willing to just throw it all away because they thought: "it's hard" or: "I don't like it". I didn't like to admit it, but boring old Shakespeare really was a building block for a large part of culture as it is today, and our society as a whole.
Fast forward half a decade or so, and I'm now sitting at my computer, pondering this idea of 'High' vs 'Low' culture. We always see those rough and tumble characters in movies calling people who listen to Beethoven or read Shakespeare snobs, and we kinda agree with them. But who are we to claim that liking such enduring masterpieces makes someone a 'snob'? After all, there has to be some reason that this 'High' culture is still around, right? Well, let's take a look at some of this 'Low' culture, because lots of people like it, it has to be pretty long standing, too, right? Wheel of Fortune? The show's been around for 37 years now, not bad. Professional Wrestling has been around for a few decades, too. And Jersey Shore's been running since.... well, since it's just been canceled, that makes a few years, and I guess American Idol is pretty dead, too. Maybe this 'Low' culture stuff doesn't really have what it takes to be lasting. Everyone's forgotten about The Hangover: Part II, and mostly about Lindsay Lohan. But then we see Beethoven's music, and Shakespeare's plays, and those plays have been around for the better part of half of a millennium Even The New York Times has been around for a good century and a half or so. But why?
When we look at demographics for these shows, we see that The Jersey Shore, American Idol, and The Real Housewives of New Jersey (which trust me, isn't very much like what housewives are like in Jersey) all pander to the middle class or poor, who just don't want to think about what they're doing, they already have to think too much during the rest of their lives. But in looking who's kept alive Shakespeare and Beethoven, the New York Times and the works of Emily Dickenson, and Jules Verne and Herman Melville, we see lots of intellectuals and those who've received higher education. Snooty folks? Maybe, but then again, who have been the ones to make the biggest contributions to society? Take Bill Gates, who gave us the first personal computer. He is an avid fan of Leonardo Da Vinci, one of the greatest artists and scholars of all time. Even looking at Da Vinci, we can see that he was heavily influenced by his upbringing in Florence, being bombarded by a multitude of classical culture, works that survive to this day. These intellectuals gravitate to this type of culture, and who wouldn't want to be Bill Gates?
After thinking about all of this, I've come to the conclusion that maybe, as a society, we need to get our heads out of this new fad-centered culture, and value things that are lasting and great. While some may think of people who do this as snobs, sometimes it's those 'snobs' who make the greatest contributions to our society, and to humanity as a whole. So maybe it would be good to start kids younger, to help them develop a love for the classics, and the critical thinking they induce. In doing so, maybe we can produce another da Vinci, Shakespeare, or Tesla.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/culture.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Personal_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci#Florence:_Leonardo.27s_artistic_and_social_background
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)