Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Time for a change?

Making the rounds on Facebook yesterday was this picture:



There were comments like this:

Do you see what we are buying from the corporate elite? They will provide numerous distractions, all at a price. We need to see our own place in the world and make our own decisions.

And this:

Who says the government controls the media? Maybe those magazine covers illustrate that? No there is freedom of speech here, the government would never regulate that, would they?

And this:

World revolution makes US consumers nervous. "Will I be able to get my stuff?"


Yes, the paranoid, conspiratorial, anti-corporation, left-wing was out and about voicing their concerns about corporate censorship, the loss of the First Amendment, and how we're all a bunch of stupid sheeple that need to be sheltered from bad things or else we won't buy useless crap and blah blah blah.

Apparently there is never a non-sinister explanation behind anything anymore.

However, ONE person still has a strong head on his shoulders and made this comment:

This doesn't appear to be censorship, just Time's view of what the U.S. population wants. If you review their previous issues, the cover is often different for the U.S. issue. Sometimes it's different for all four regions. Only occasionally is it the same for all regions: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601111031,00.html

In my opinion, it speaks to the US-centric focus of the American people more than it speaks to censorship. Time magazine aims to make money, and if Americans will buy more magazines if they use a different cover, they'll use the other cover.

There was not one thing said in that post that I didn’t agree with. That was spot on. I don't think I could have said it better myself. Look through the archives. The cover varies from region to region. Why? Because each region may have a different interest. Tintin is not popular in the United States, but he is popular elsewhere. Why cover that here in the states? Vol. 128 No. 20 almost has a different cover per region. When it does differ, sometimes it is because the cover story was already used a few weeks prior. Sometimes, they are all the same.

What the covers do bring up is that the average American citizen does not care for the world beyond our shores. I think that is disappointing as this nation does play a huge role in the world and we should be more aware of what is going on. The world is interconnected, with events in one corner influencing another. I do think Afghanistan is important for us to read about. You know, with that war thing going on. And a greater understanding of Islam is sorely needed in this country. But hey, that’s the free market; they are going to sell what is in demand. However, as a news source, it is their responsibility to inform the citizens, even if it isn’t popular. But what can you do? Have the government tell them what to publish? That’s not very free and democratic.

The people at Time aren’t evil villains getting a hard-on knowing that they are trying to keep us sheltered. They are just business people who probably need to do a little more to educate the American people on foreign issues.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Thanksgiving: The Return of Columbus


I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving. Who doesn’t love being with family and eating dinner at two o’clock in the afternoon? I’m sorry this wasn’t posted sooner, but I was out of town and didn’t have the time to write this up before I left and when I was away.

I was thinking of doing another “Myths about [Holiday]” entry, but I frankly don’t feel as passionate about correcting the wrongs of the holiday of Thanksgiving. There is a difference between Separatists, Pilgrims, and Puritans. The First Thanksgiving wasn’t really the first one in North America. The one we have memorized in our heads most likely didn’t have turkey, potatoes, and pumpkin pies. And it wasn’t in November.

Okay, we are all caught up. The one thing that bothers me about this holiday is the same thing that bothers me about Columbus Day; the incessant whining and complaining about the treatment of Native Americans. I already talked about why I can’t stand this in a previous post. Please go there for my opinions on the subject for I am not repeating them here. But there is one thing about this holiday that I don’t understand that I could understand about the other; why is this considered a bad day?

As much as I complained about Columbus Day haters, I can at least understand why people dislike the day. His discovery led to the oppression of the Native Americans. He wasn’t directly responsible for every death, but his exploration and discoveries greatly changed the world, mostly for the worst for the Americans. But why does Thanksgiving get such a bad rep?

The bare basics for the holiday is this; settlers in 1621 Massachusetts were thankful for surviving their first winter in the New World, thanks in large part to the Wampanoag tribe giving the settlers food for the winter, and for teaching them how to catch and grow their own food. 53 settlers and 90 natives joined the feast.

What is wrong with this? It shows that settlers and natives could work together peacefully and benefit mutually (and by “benefit mutually”, I mean the settlers needed help not starving and the natives could have lived their lives without ever having contact with Europeans). This should be remembered as a bittersweet “could have been” moment, in which the following massacres, theft, and destruction could have been avoided. I could understand Native Americans being upset at Americans for celebrating the Wounded Knee Massacre with a big feast every year, but Thanksgiving? (Hell, Canada celebrates their Thanksgiving on our Columbus Day!) If the south can turn losing the Civil War into a fond memory, why should Thanksgiving be a bad memory? Tim Giago thinks Native Americans can turn Thanksgiving into a positive day.

I think Native Americans should have a lot to be thankful for. They are full citizens of the US (although my mothers’ parents were born before all Natives were given this right) and they have their own land and Tribal Sovereignty. Sure, the US Government only did this after years of fighting and killing them and making their lives a living Hell, but there has been some progress made. I can understand not seeing anything to be thankful for in 1900, but I think by the year 2000, there should be something.

One step forward, another step back...

If you honestly want to turn Thanksgiving into a Day of Mourning, you better put some effort into it. If you don’t, you’ll get the sad excuse of “Sorry Day” in Australia, the official way the government has tried to right the wrongs of a policy of kidnapping Aboriginal children from parents and hospitals that lasted until the 1970s.

I honestly can’t wrap my head around this. Maybe it’s because I can’t stand people who won’t let the past be the past and want to spend the rest of their lives pissed off over something they can’t control. Columbus Day, I can kind of get (although I won’t agree with it). Thanksgiving, I’ll never get. Thanksgiving should be remembered as the day in which peaceful coexistence between Native Americans and European Settlers was possible, but sadly, it didn't happen. Coming together peacefully and celebrating existence is a bad thing? I'm sure there are people out there who have had life take a nasty dump on them, and yet they can still find something to be thankful for. But some people will not rest until everyone is as miserable as they are. If I keep talking, I’ll just be repeating myself from my Columbus Day Clarification post.

I hope you had a good day. I hope you could spend it with people you love and could enjoy some good food.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

The Antietam Stimulus


A few weeks ago, I went to Antietam National Battlefield in Sharpsburg, MD. Of all the Civil War Battlefields in this country (that I have seen), this is the best. There is no encroaching development destroying the surrounding landscape or the battlefield itself. The town is still small and not overflowing with the commercialism and tourist trap feel of Gettysburg. I don’t know if it’s in that book of places telling you what to see before you die, but it definitely is in MY book!

The Battle of Antietam (known as the Battle of Sharpsburg in the south) occurred on September 17th, 1862. It was the bloodiest single-day battle in US history with 23,000 casualties. Although the battle was tactically a draw, it was a strategic victory for the Union as they had stopped Robert E. Lee’s first invasion of the North. The “victory” empowered Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, helping to prevent France and the UK from recognizing the Confederate Government. It was a very important battle to say the least. So important, it was in the ten-part miniseries 10 Days That Unexpectedly Changed America. The battle is on par with Shay’s Rebellion, McKinley’s Assassination, and Elvis’ first Appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show. I'm not sure if they are ALL on the same level as each other. I guess I should have watched the series.

 I really wish this picture didn’t come from “freerepublic.com”

At the battlefield, I saw two signs that have popped up since 2009.


These signs are a bit of a “controversy”, mostly among the “We hate the government and taxes” GOP. Many Conservatives complain about the high cost of the signs, like a $10,000 sign en route to Dulles Airport here in Virginia. "Oh no, less than .02% of the stimulus money was wasted on signs!" You have this one person complaining that the signs are “taking credit for extreme traffic backups” and are making Americans angrier at Democrats. Yes, because we all know that road construction and expansion is never a hassle and can always be done without inconveniencing anyone, ever. The end result may lead to a quicker commute and less congestion, but if we ever have to experience any kind of inconvenience to get there, it’s not worth it. Oh, and the reason why you don’t see people working during rush hour commutes is that they don’t work during rush hour commutes! They either work at night or during the midday, as I saw the day I was fired and found myself unexpectedly on the road at 11 o’clock in the morning. They DO work, just not when you are around! Out of sight, out of mind, eh?

Of course I understand that maybe we don't need so many signs advertising the stimulus. Some see it as propaganda, such as Rep. Darrell Issa from California, who's criticisms helped to get the recovery sign numbers out in the open. This is coming from a man who saw no real reason why tax payers needed to help pay for the recovery of New York City in the aftermath of 9/11, and is in the hot seat for having connections with several industry's that could benefit from his investigations when he was head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sounds like the guy to talk to about spending money to help America and ethical behavior for a government official.

Regardless of the signs, the stimulus has been attacked as a waste of money. Critics will always point out things like “$15 million to create 17 jobs”, and many, many, many more examples of failure from clearly non-politically motivated sources.

Funny. The rich like to claim that they create jobs when they spend money on luxury items, “Those five people wouldn’t have had a job if I didn’t buy that yacht!”, but when the government spends two million dollars to keep five people employed, it’s regarded as a failure. So, trickle-down economics doesn’t apply to government spending, but it does for private businesses? Well, it’s not the same really. The government is spending money; the rich just get more of theirs to keep and will hopefully spend that money to create jobs. Gotcha.

Looking at everything at the battlefield, I don’t see wasted money.

What I saw:

New paths that are easier to walk on and are handicap accessible.
Historical markers being added, cleaned, or replaced.
Trees being planted to restore the battlefield to its 1862 look.
Security to stop vandalism or help someone.

I’m sure there are more things going on that I don’t even know about. This money is helping to make this national park and historic site even better. It’s helping to preserve a piece of our history that is sadly being destroyed by over development elsewhere. I frankly don’t care if my money went to make some of this possible. And really, how do I know where my money is really going? I probably helped a third-world dictator.

I just can’t understand this selfishness and greed that people have. Well, maybe I do. I believe it is part of human nature to be selfish. But this recent irrational paranoid hatred and distrust of government is absurd. I find it amazing that millionaires and billionaires are getting the lower classes up in arms simply because the government taxes them to provide for the rest of the people. Taxes aren’t theft, they are essential to the workings of this nation. I never liked seeing money taken out of my paycheck but A) I never saw it so I didn’t care if I “lost” it; I lived within my means and I was able to save a lot of money in a year. B) I didn’t care if it was going to provide a service that I needed or will need sometime in the future (unemployment). C) Taxes are inevitable. Suck it up and deal with it you big cry baby. Go enjoy the national park that you paid for.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Quick Thoughts on a Rick Perry Article.

Just thought I would share some quick thoughts on Rick Perry I had from this CNN article

“Perry pledged to appoint anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court in hopes of overturning Roe vs. Wade…”

I just hate Activist Judges! You know, the ones that make decisions based on their beliefs, disregard judicial precedent, and make and overturn laws? The only way to combat these Activists is to appoint Judges who will make decisions based on their beliefs, disregard judicial precedent, and make and overturn laws!


“- Repeating a proposal first introduced in his book Fed Up, Perry said he would install term limits on ‘unelected activist judges.’”

That would mean your Activist Judges will also have limits. Which means a Democrat could be in power when the judge finishes their term, and you will still get Activist Judges being appointed. I mean, “Bad” Activist Judges will still be appointed.


“…[Perry] explained that states should be allowed to make their own decisions on [abortion] until a constitutional amendment banning the practice is passed.”

So, is this an issue for the States or the Federal government, Perry? The States should have the final word on whether or not they want abortion until the Federal Government says otherwise? You can't have your cake and eat it too, Perry. Either claim it is an issue for the States, or call for an Amendment. You can't do both.


“- Pointing to the part-time legislature in Texas, he proposed creating a ‘part-time Congress’ by drastically slashing legislative salaries and reducing the amount of time members of the House and Senate are required to spend in Washington.”

I partially agree with cutting salaries, but how will FORCING members of our government to stay away from the government going to help? I understand that if you stay in D.C. too long you will lose touch with the people, but is that something that needs to be legislated? I want the members of Congress to work MORE, not LESS! How are you putting “people first” when you aren’t allowing them to work for the people? It sounds like you are just going to create a bunch of elitist snobs out of Congress if they don’t have to work, still get paid more than the common man, and just spend time hanging out with supporters in their districts. Progress!

Is that part-time Texas Legislature responsible for that $25 Billion budget shortfall you had earlier this year? Oh, and it’s nice to know that you spent the Stimulus to cover most of the 2009 deficit

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

The Joss Whedon Feminism Problem.

A few weeks ago, someone on Facebook posted the well known response Joss Whedon gave to the question, “Why do you keep writing strong female characters?”

His response: “Because you keep asking me that question”.

For those of you who don’t know, Joss Whedon is the creator of the television series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Dollhouse. He is well known for the strong female characters he creates in his shows. Everywhere you go, you see high praise for his strong, feminist characters.

Except on Cracked.com. Apparently, they are not too fond of him or his “strong female characters”. I have come across three articles from the comedy site that attacks him and his “progressive” writing.


Joss shoots his actresses most lovingly when they're wet and crying and curled up in the fetal position, pressed up against a wall, broken, mascara running, bleeding, and reaching out. And what are they typically reaching out for? Some dude (or vampire or werewolf) and the dick he's attached to.



Despite River's inherent ass-kicking abilities, she rarely uses them to the benefit of the crew. The character has been driven insane by her experiences, and therefore she spends most of her time saying crazy things and throwing up in her brother's bed.

In fact, protecting River forms the backbone of no less than five out of thirteen episodes, plus the theatrical movie. That's an awful lot of rescuing for a feminist hero.



Joss Whedon can pretend like the ass-kicking supermodels were created as a reaction to the helpless victims, but he's just substituting one weird male fantasy with another. It's as if there's nothing in between "beautiful victimized woman crying while splattered in blood" and "beautiful invincible woman kicking people while wearing skintight fetish gear."


Not seeing any of his shows or movies, I can’t judge them for myself (although that hasn’t stopped me in the past…) I have nothing against Joss Whedon. I don't know him or his work. But that won’t be the point of this article. I will not be trying to figure out if he really does write well for women.


I am so confused as to what a “strong female character” actually is. This is why I was partially confused with this comic book article. "A women is having sex on her own terms? Yay! A women is having sex on her own terms? Boo!" I might see a half naked woman and say “I don’t think a women should dress that way” and I’m chewed out and told that “I can’t handle a woman expressing herself as a sexual being”. But then I see another woman dressed the same way and I’m told that it is “sexist and degrading”. So, what's the difference? What is and is not sexist?

I understand context plays a huge role. Why a character is doing what she is doing is vital. Why the character was written that way, the intention of the writers. If you set up a back story and really develop a character, it's a lot better than introducing a woman and having her make out and have sex within a few seconds with anything that moves. Context, context, context!  But can we always know the context behind everything? Even in something that is considered degrading, a woman must have been comfortable enough with herself and her body to do that. (i.e. this controversial Miller Lite ad) Why do the women have no problems being in this ad? Why do they think this is acceptable? Was their participation even consensual? Were they forced? Etc.

And is context always necessary? I'm sure Joss Whedon has the best of intentions when writing, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. A comic is obviously different because there is no consenting woman, but who is to say that the writers/artists aren't trying? Or won't set up context in the future? Obviously, a back story should take place in the first issue of a reboot...

 One is Empowering. One is Sexist. Without context, what’s the difference?

This is my, and possibly many others, problem with feminism and political correction; there is no generally accepted list of rules or guidelines of what is and is not considered appropriate. I think there is a very general sense, but 90% of questionable material is thrown into a grey zone. It’s like the definition of pornography as outlined by Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it".

I think we can all agree that the Miller Lite ad was sexist, even though it tried (poorly) to make it about stupid sexist advertising at the end, kind of. But I found a JCPenny ad that was taken down due to One Million Moms insistence. I actually thought it was funny and did a better job making fun of blatantly sexist advertising. However, it only works as a onetime ad, maybe during the Super Bowl. The more they use it, the more they are trying to use sexist advertising and thus, the joke is ruined. I did have someone tell me that they thought it was sexist. Well, I have my opinion, and she has hers.

 In case the links don't work:

Miller Lite Ad

 JCPenny Ad
(I have no idea why the video is running really fast. The images are all you really need and there is enough of the dialogue to get the point across)

And that’s it; it’s an opinion. One person will see something as progressive, another will see it as a step backwards. Many think Crash is a groundbreaking movie about race relations, some think it’s actually a very racist movie. The same goes for The Help. Brilliant insight into the Civil Rights Movement or another Affluent White Person’s view without input from the African-American Maids? I didn’t see racism in The Phantom Menace, others did. The unscientific CNN poll (that is no longer up and I can’t find, so you’ll have to take my word on it) said 50% of people thought “Schweddy Balls” from Ben and Jerry’s was offensive, while 50% didn’t. Some claimed The Daily Show was sexist. Some said that they weren't. It’s all an opinion. Most of this is debatable!

Until there is a consensus to what is and is not acceptable, do not be offended by ignorance, because education is not as easy as it looks. I understand that women are sexual creatures, but I can’t tell when it crosses the line of empowerment to sexism. I should note that I have this ultra-prudish creature within me that I try to keep under control, but I think he comes out too often. When he is under control, I try to be more open-minded.

Do you think Babs Bunny from Tiny Toons is a strong female character? Or Elaine Benes from Seinfeld? They are developed individuals and are more than just a female/woman.

Maybe this will help.

Well, I frankly don't know what I'm talking about anymore. Here's this, just for the Hell of it:

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Hush, Hush, Hush, Here Comes the Bogeyman.

The Electoral College seems to be a bit of a bogeyman among Democrats and more specifically, Liberals. A question on Facebook asks whether or not we should abandon the Electoral College. Another more recent one asked if repealing it should be included in the “Occupy Wall Street” list of demands (I think). If this is being considered for OWS, let me get this out of my system,

FOCUS ON WALL STREET!!! PUT IT ASIDE FOR NOW!!! PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, FOCUS!!!

Anyway…

Of course, both “polls” indicate great support for ending the Electoral College. I was in the minority to say “NO” or at least “We need to discuss this more”. I personally don’t have a problem with the Electoral College. I think the system is fine the way it is. There is one particular argument against the Electoral College that I don’t like that I’ll try to counter.

The Electoral College is not representative of the popular will! It has failed four times to elect the winner of the Popular Vote!

So many things to discuss, where to start?

The Electoral College is not designed to represent the popular will. There is something that people do not understand about our Founding Fathers; they feared direct democracy. It’s called “Tyranny of the Majority”, that is, the majority can use their political power to undermine the minority. It was warned against in Federalist No. 10. It is why we have checks and balances as advocated in Federalist No. 51. That is why I hate seeing things go to popular vote, like Greece’s debt plan and Gay Marriage in a number of States. People are selfish and will look out for their own self-interest, not always for the common good, even if it hurts you in the long run. This too has a name, “The Tragedy of the Commons”. The people are often too uneducated on important political matters to let them make the decisions themselves. That is why we have a Congress filled with people chosen by the people (The Senate was elected by state legislature until the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Personally, I could go either way with this.) Do you really think Americans are any more educated on current affairs than we were in the late eighteenth century? This is why we allow Electors to make the choices for us, as a kind of counter to the people. If anything, the Electoral College is more representative of the people than before. Most states didn’t even have a popular vote at first and the Electors were not responsible at all to the people. South Carolina had its state legislature choose the Electors until 1868. The Electors are mostly loyal to the voters, only occasionally becoming a “Faithless Elector” and choosing someone else (most recently, an Elector from Minnesota voted for John Edwards in 2004).

Most (48) states have a “winner take all” system in which the winner of the state wins all of the states’ Electoral Votes. Nebraska and Maine have a different system. You win one vote for each congressional district won and two if you win the state overall in the popular vote. I have gone on record stating that I like this method, but now I have some doubts. One criticism is that the Electoral College makes candidates focus on a few “swing states” while ignoring most others. If we divided the Electoral Votes, wouldn’t that force the candidates to focus their attentions on only a few districts? Looking at the recent midterm election, about 100 districts were “tossups” out of 435. In the 2008 Presidential Election, the candidates visited about 37 states, 74%. If the candidates instead focused on “tossup/undecided” districts (counting those that three or more polling analysts considered a “tossup” for Members of Congress in the 2010 midterms), they would need to go to about 22 states, or 44%. Candidates will visit LESS states under a popular vote system. (To be fair, candidates only visited 23 states in the 2004 election, on par with a popular vote system. Either way, it won't get a candidate to campaign nationally).

States visited by candidates in 2008

 States with "competitive" districts (based on 2010 Congressional Elections)


The Electoral College has “failed” four times, meaning it didn’t select the winner of the popular vote. That means it has “failed” ~7% of the time. If I got four answers wrong on a test out of fifty-six questions, I would still have an 'A-minus'. It also went 112 years before “failing” again. If the rate was higher, then I would see why people were upset. But as I stated before, the Electoral College is designed to stop the popular will.

I think I know why Liberals, but specifically, Democrats hate the Electoral College.

They have been screwed every single time. Every. Single. Time. Every time it has “failed”, it screwed the Democrats.

(Andrew Jackson was not a Democrat in 1824, but he would found the modern Democratic party in 1828. Although winning a plurality in both the Popular and Electoral Votes, Jackson did not win a majority as required by the Constitution. The House of Representatives gave the election to John Quincy Adams.)








Also, it put George W. Bush into the White House, so maybe it is more about being a sore loser than just the system itself.


I think one of the actual failures of the system came in 1800. Because I can’t word it myself because I frankly find it a little confusing, I’ll quote directly from Wikipedia,

The election exposed one of the flaws in the original Constitution. Members of the Electoral College could only vote for president; each elector could vote for two candidates, and the person who received the second largest number of votes during the balloting became vice-president. The Republicans had planned for one of the electors to abstain from casting his second vote for Aaron Burr which would have led to Jefferson receiving one electoral vote more than Burr. The plan, however, was bungled, resulting in a tied electoral vote between Jefferson and Burr. The election was then put into the hands of the outgoing House of Representatives, which elected Jefferson.

I don’t know why this didn’t happen in 1796, but the flaw was fixed in the 12th Amendment.

I frankly do not think that the Electoral College is that bad. It’s not representative of the people, but it’s not supposed to be. The reason for its original implementation (i.e. human nature) still applies. It isn’t a massive failure as Liberals believe. One reason why I think the left and Democrats particularly hate it is because it has screwed them over the most in history. Getting rid of the Electoral College won’t make a candidate campaign nationally. It will only make them focus their attention on a smaller target.

If you want to read more on the Positives and Negatives of the Electoral, please go here or here and decide for yourself.

Note: For a Christmas present in 2005, I made my sister a “History of Failures” Calendar. It included the Electoral College. It was only a joke but, I kind of regret putting it on there now.