Fair warning: what is about to follow is little more than an unsubstantiated and undirected discourse, fueled by unabashed partisanship and proliferous naivety.
We won.
But hold on, I'm not talking about the presidency. The victories I'm talking about are in the margins; behind the scenes, where they can easily be missed. The election is a giant box of circuitry, a complex interactions of millions of parts, which at the end of the first Tuesday in November every four years outputs a "0" or a "1". A "D" or an "R". But I'm more interested in what's going on inside.
The first game changer that this election brought about was Nate Silver. For those who don't know, Nate Silver is a statistician, New York Times columnist, and speculatively a witch who has been forecasting elections with frightening accuracy. But despite the jokes about sorcery, what Nate Silver is doing is actually removing the smoke and mirrors from politics. In predicting the election almost perfectly, he dispelled the myth that elections are governed by some indefinable "will of the people" or the mysterious power of "momentum." Elections all boil down to numbers that we can study and understand. I'm hoping that (and here's where the naivety comes in) we are going to see this sports-style punditry fall away, and replace it with a new kind of political commentary. One that focuses on facts.
The second thing is diversity. We are finally, finally, in the year 2012, starting to see the house and the senate get just a teensy bit more diverse. Wisconsin elected the nation's first openly gay senator. Hawaii brought in the nation's first Asian American woman. On top of that, this senate session will have a record number (20) of women serving.
And then the last thing, and this is really where the naivety comes in, is a demographic shift the nature of which has never been seen before. Mitt Romney won seniors. All of them, everywhere. And whites. And men. But we're finally getting to the point where the woman vote is just as important as the man vote; where the black vote is just as important as the white vote; and where the young vote will be the deciding factor of the future of our country.
In Colorado, they voted to legalize marijuana. Seniors opposed the measure by a 2-to-1 margin, but it still passed. The same happened in Washington. Maine and Maryland voted to legalize gay marriage. And many of these measures had been attempted before in these same states. The fact of the matter is that the median voter is not the same person that he or she was 10 or even 4 years ago. The millenium generation has arrived, and they are socially liberal. If I'm right about this, then this trend (despite fluctuations) will continue to develop for the rest of our lifetimes.
Maybe I'm still just high on the knowledge that my candidate won; but I'm excited about the future.
-Nick.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Robert - Picking Teams
I'm sitting at the kitchen table. Across the great room my family is having friends over. My dad sits on one side of the bar. On the other side is a thin well-dressed woman with short old hair that is silver, not gray. She and her husband appear to be rich, and they have a rich car sitting outside in the driveway. Around the bar are crowding a few other people, but my dad and the silver-haired woman are catalyzing the conversation.
The people have been drinking, and talk at the bar begins to shift dangerously toward politics. It is the silver-haired woman's fault. "I'm obsessed with The Daily Show. I would have Jon Stewart's children," she begins. To that my dad loudly rolls his eyes. He knows he's lighting a gas station cigarette, but he takes issue and expresses his disgust with the program. "I have never been able to watch that show."
The silver-haired woman continues briefly to shower the show and Jon Stewart in sexual accolades, and my dad continues to raise opposition and in turn the coming tension. "I don't think it's credible to get your news source from a comedian." The woman asks where he gets his news. He gets his from Fox News. My dad concedes that it is right-biased, and the woman agrees that it is abominable and worthless. "I think news should be completely objective and unbiased," the woman's husband says, wishing either for the moon or to be lied to. He is not a catalyst, so he fades away.
"Jon Stewart is the most fair and balanced person out there. He's brilliant," asserts the silver-haired woman, to which my dad responds bull crap. He is always leaning far to the left. Of course he is. Well there you go. But he is fair; he attacks Obama all the time. I know. Well there you go. "So what do you guys think of that Carell guy? Colbert, I mean," my dad asks. "Colbert is even more to the left than Jon Stewart!" No way. He is a character! So is Jon Stewart. No he's not. He's a comedian; what's the difference? He's making fun of his own character. I know.
Brashness on one side of the bar and lack of information on the other follows to further deteriorate the conversation into a deeper political grapple. "This is why we've never argued politics." On TV in the other corner of the great room is Sportscenter highlights. My brother is watching, and he can sense something happening around the wall. I'm sitting at the kitchen table still.
"I'll never be the way you are," my dad eventually says of the silver-haired woman's politics. There is clatter by now among the people, but the silver-haired woman is paying attention. "What am I?" she asks, quietly anticipating. My dad says nothing, but it is too late and the silver-haired woman persists. "What am I, Randy?" "You're...well, you're pretty far to the left," he says and shrugs. "I am not!" the woman says, refusing to lose any part of this conversation. Yes you are. I am not that far left. I think you are. No, even Rose is farther left than I am. Then what are you? I'm moderate to the left.
The silver-haired woman doesn't like any of the Republican candidates, from what she has learned on The Daily Show. She is dissatisfied with Obama. She does not want to vote for anyone in the coming election, and her husband agrees. You have to vote, my dad says. You only have two options. That's not true, says the silver-haired woman's husband, but my dad has a point to make. He timidly introduces, with much disclaimer, that he used to...used to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day. The woman rolls her eyes loudly and the force of the new information shuts her down for a few moments. "Rush made one good point about voting, though, that always sticks with me. He said—" "Rush didn't say anything useful ever. He was a complete waste."
It takes a few minutes for the Rush Limbaugh asteroid to settle down and move into the past. My dad also doesn't like any of the Republican candidates — "No one who is sane would" — but admits to a lack of a wealth of information on them. "Wait, so what are you?" the silver-haired woman finally asks. "I'm socially liberal and economically conservative." "Well, so you're not one of those crazy Fox News idiots, then?" "No."
Lines of demarcation were drawn. No politics were argued.
The people have been drinking, and talk at the bar begins to shift dangerously toward politics. It is the silver-haired woman's fault. "I'm obsessed with The Daily Show. I would have Jon Stewart's children," she begins. To that my dad loudly rolls his eyes. He knows he's lighting a gas station cigarette, but he takes issue and expresses his disgust with the program. "I have never been able to watch that show."
The silver-haired woman continues briefly to shower the show and Jon Stewart in sexual accolades, and my dad continues to raise opposition and in turn the coming tension. "I don't think it's credible to get your news source from a comedian." The woman asks where he gets his news. He gets his from Fox News. My dad concedes that it is right-biased, and the woman agrees that it is abominable and worthless. "I think news should be completely objective and unbiased," the woman's husband says, wishing either for the moon or to be lied to. He is not a catalyst, so he fades away.
"Jon Stewart is the most fair and balanced person out there. He's brilliant," asserts the silver-haired woman, to which my dad responds bull crap. He is always leaning far to the left. Of course he is. Well there you go. But he is fair; he attacks Obama all the time. I know. Well there you go. "So what do you guys think of that Carell guy? Colbert, I mean," my dad asks. "Colbert is even more to the left than Jon Stewart!" No way. He is a character! So is Jon Stewart. No he's not. He's a comedian; what's the difference? He's making fun of his own character. I know.
Brashness on one side of the bar and lack of information on the other follows to further deteriorate the conversation into a deeper political grapple. "This is why we've never argued politics." On TV in the other corner of the great room is Sportscenter highlights. My brother is watching, and he can sense something happening around the wall. I'm sitting at the kitchen table still.
"I'll never be the way you are," my dad eventually says of the silver-haired woman's politics. There is clatter by now among the people, but the silver-haired woman is paying attention. "What am I?" she asks, quietly anticipating. My dad says nothing, but it is too late and the silver-haired woman persists. "What am I, Randy?" "You're...well, you're pretty far to the left," he says and shrugs. "I am not!" the woman says, refusing to lose any part of this conversation. Yes you are. I am not that far left. I think you are. No, even Rose is farther left than I am. Then what are you? I'm moderate to the left.
The silver-haired woman doesn't like any of the Republican candidates, from what she has learned on The Daily Show. She is dissatisfied with Obama. She does not want to vote for anyone in the coming election, and her husband agrees. You have to vote, my dad says. You only have two options. That's not true, says the silver-haired woman's husband, but my dad has a point to make. He timidly introduces, with much disclaimer, that he used to...used to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day. The woman rolls her eyes loudly and the force of the new information shuts her down for a few moments. "Rush made one good point about voting, though, that always sticks with me. He said—" "Rush didn't say anything useful ever. He was a complete waste."
It takes a few minutes for the Rush Limbaugh asteroid to settle down and move into the past. My dad also doesn't like any of the Republican candidates — "No one who is sane would" — but admits to a lack of a wealth of information on them. "Wait, so what are you?" the silver-haired woman finally asks. "I'm socially liberal and economically conservative." "Well, so you're not one of those crazy Fox News idiots, then?" "No."
Lines of demarcation were drawn. No politics were argued.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Nick - The Misadventures Of Mitt Romney
The best costumes are ones that involve acting. That is why this year I dressed as Mitt Romney for Halloween. That and because I'm not black enough to dress as Herman Cain.
By "dressed," I of course mean that I put on a suit and used an excessive, disgusting amount of hair gel, because that is what Mitt Romney does. Then I proceeded to introduce myself to people and shake their hands, all presidential like, and drop subtle and annoying political references.
Really the only thing better than making a reference that somebody catches is making a reference that nobody catches. For example, when the subject of Native Americans came up, I put on my best Mitt Romney smile and laughed sociably, and then said, "We should ship them all back to Mexico," very politely, as if it's a completely reasonable thing to say.
I had many such moments this weekend, and the response was always the same. People would turn and look at me as if I was about to realize my mistake, and then they would nervously try to act like nothing had happened at all. I managed to make such tasteless statements on the subjects of race, homosexuality, religion, and various other topics, all without being called out / people realizing it was part of my costume.
Just imagine what I could have done if I were Herman Cain.
-Nick.
By "dressed," I of course mean that I put on a suit and used an excessive, disgusting amount of hair gel, because that is what Mitt Romney does. Then I proceeded to introduce myself to people and shake their hands, all presidential like, and drop subtle and annoying political references.
Really the only thing better than making a reference that somebody catches is making a reference that nobody catches. For example, when the subject of Native Americans came up, I put on my best Mitt Romney smile and laughed sociably, and then said, "We should ship them all back to Mexico," very politely, as if it's a completely reasonable thing to say.
I had many such moments this weekend, and the response was always the same. People would turn and look at me as if I was about to realize my mistake, and then they would nervously try to act like nothing had happened at all. I managed to make such tasteless statements on the subjects of race, homosexuality, religion, and various other topics, all without being called out / people realizing it was part of my costume.
Just imagine what I could have done if I were Herman Cain.
-Nick.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Nick - Facts vs. Ideologies
Last year I learned things.
I learned how certain chemical compounds react; at what rate, and forming what products. I learned how cells operate inside my very own body. I learned how dendrites and axons, working together, allow your brain to function.
I didn't like learning about any of those things. And that's why, this year, I'm learning very different things.
I'm learning about when it is and isn't morally acceptable to kill people. I'm learning about what is a good basis for policy in domestic terms and in international terms. I'm learning about what motivates people.
And, truth be told, I don't really like learning about that stuff either. And the reason for that is very simple: it's so subjective. It isn't even 'learning' so much as 'discussing.'
But let me tell you what I do like.
I like that moment where we can look at two policies, and say, "this one is the better policy." I like looking at statistics of countries going to war, and saying, "this factor increases the probability of an armed dispute between nations."
I like when we can apply facts to social situations. I like solving real, lasting problems. I like when we can sift through the grey areas to find the truth.
Oftentimes political science is a petty squabble over opinions; there is no invalid opinion as long as one can argue in support of it. This is the part of political science I hate. The part where we distance ourselves from reality in an effort to remain politically unbiased.
But it all becomes worth it in that moment where the numbers are sitting in front of me, and I can see that factor x increases probably of result y. That moment where we can cross a policy off the board, casting it down as ineffectual. That moment where the professor tells someone he's incorrect, and illustrates a real-world example to show us why.
I love facts, and I love using facts. I love applying facts. Because once that barrier between facts and ideologies is broken, the true state of things can be discerned.
Only by being completely open-minded, and completely dedicated to evidence, can we determined the correct path.
-Nick.
I learned how certain chemical compounds react; at what rate, and forming what products. I learned how cells operate inside my very own body. I learned how dendrites and axons, working together, allow your brain to function.
I didn't like learning about any of those things. And that's why, this year, I'm learning very different things.
I'm learning about when it is and isn't morally acceptable to kill people. I'm learning about what is a good basis for policy in domestic terms and in international terms. I'm learning about what motivates people.
And, truth be told, I don't really like learning about that stuff either. And the reason for that is very simple: it's so subjective. It isn't even 'learning' so much as 'discussing.'
But let me tell you what I do like.
I like that moment where we can look at two policies, and say, "this one is the better policy." I like looking at statistics of countries going to war, and saying, "this factor increases the probability of an armed dispute between nations."
I like when we can apply facts to social situations. I like solving real, lasting problems. I like when we can sift through the grey areas to find the truth.
Oftentimes political science is a petty squabble over opinions; there is no invalid opinion as long as one can argue in support of it. This is the part of political science I hate. The part where we distance ourselves from reality in an effort to remain politically unbiased.
But it all becomes worth it in that moment where the numbers are sitting in front of me, and I can see that factor x increases probably of result y. That moment where we can cross a policy off the board, casting it down as ineffectual. That moment where the professor tells someone he's incorrect, and illustrates a real-world example to show us why.
I love facts, and I love using facts. I love applying facts. Because once that barrier between facts and ideologies is broken, the true state of things can be discerned.
Only by being completely open-minded, and completely dedicated to evidence, can we determined the correct path.
-Nick.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Robert - Congress on the Go
Across the country dirty, unemployed and uninformed 20-somethings have lined up with protest signs and vague slogans about corporate greed. The media has shot them one laughing glance, declared them anti-capitalist 60s flashbacks and moved on to bigger and more newsworthy things.
But if I could defend Occupy Wall Street for a second here...
The biggest problem, I think, is the word "protest." When people line up with picket signs and march through New York streets, the world expects them to have an specific issue and an established goal they're trying to achieve. To raise minimum wage, to end the war, etc. Occupy Wall Street's grievances range from animal rights to war funding to student loans. That's pretty vague. Their point that many of America's problems right now are caused by unregulated corporate greed is a valid one, but what do they propose to do about it? Well, nothing really yet.
Nothing yet, but that seems to be, from what I've seen, what Occupy Wall Street is determined to find out. In probably the best piece of writing on the protests I've read so far, Douglas Rushkoff defines and separates what he calls "20th century protesting" and "21st century protesting." The difference, according to him, is that this new social media-age movement is less designed to achieve a preset goal than it is to create a national discussion. As he later said in an interview, Congress' job is to argue and debate issues, come up with solutions, and come to agreements on them, and since Congress has elected to withhold from all that stuff to make way for party posturing, the "99%" decided to take it upon themselves to do that for them. Yeah, they came up with the lame catchphrase, "We are the 99%," but I can forgive that in the name of protest.
The media's been pretty unkind to OWS. It paints them as wildly idealistic, which they pretty much are, and it paints them as kind of stinky, which I'm sure they also are, and it paints them as angry, but that's also about where they stop with the painting. Here's the thing about journalists, of which I am kind of one: they like to take the most extreme, most colorful, most newsable corners of any event, and then turn them into obscene caricatures to be whipped out at the public in soundbites before deadline. Because that's marketable. But I seriously doubt that these guys are accurate representations of the protests.
The way I see it, these protesters have reasons to be angry. The middle class is dying. Banks are committing housing fraud and being punished with bailouts while enjoying tax cuts. Okay, the US saw a profit after banks repaid bailout money, but let's say mom bakes me and my brothers cookies. My older brother punches me right in the mortgage and eats my cookie. I'm not going to feel that much better when mom bakes us all new cookies. As Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laurette in economics, put it at the site of OWS, "We are bearing the costs of their misdeeds. There’s a system where we socialize losses and privatize gains. That’s not capitalism. That’s not a market economy." And what else— Corporations have influential grips on both the media and our politicians. America has seen a debacle of an administration followed by one that hasn't followed through on the fantasies that it promised and that voters bought into. We're still funding shitty wars.
Congress has transformed from law-making body into Obama-blocker, so in light of the many valid issues that OWS brings into play, I think this national discussion that it's trying to bring forward is a pretty good idea right now. Now, whether you call this a "protest" or a "movement" or whatever you will, what I've seen is a massive self-teaching. What I've seen is a bunch of mostly confused, fully frustrated, kind of dirty, young and old people gathering into a forum and educating themselves on American economics, on their government, and on the way corporations function. On the barest of margins, even if no saving legislation is passed and no Wall Street revolution occurs, I consider that a success of American assembly.
But if I could defend Occupy Wall Street for a second here...
The biggest problem, I think, is the word "protest." When people line up with picket signs and march through New York streets, the world expects them to have an specific issue and an established goal they're trying to achieve. To raise minimum wage, to end the war, etc. Occupy Wall Street's grievances range from animal rights to war funding to student loans. That's pretty vague. Their point that many of America's problems right now are caused by unregulated corporate greed is a valid one, but what do they propose to do about it? Well, nothing really yet.
Nothing yet, but that seems to be, from what I've seen, what Occupy Wall Street is determined to find out. In probably the best piece of writing on the protests I've read so far, Douglas Rushkoff defines and separates what he calls "20th century protesting" and "21st century protesting." The difference, according to him, is that this new social media-age movement is less designed to achieve a preset goal than it is to create a national discussion. As he later said in an interview, Congress' job is to argue and debate issues, come up with solutions, and come to agreements on them, and since Congress has elected to withhold from all that stuff to make way for party posturing, the "99%" decided to take it upon themselves to do that for them. Yeah, they came up with the lame catchphrase, "We are the 99%," but I can forgive that in the name of protest.
The media's been pretty unkind to OWS. It paints them as wildly idealistic, which they pretty much are, and it paints them as kind of stinky, which I'm sure they also are, and it paints them as angry, but that's also about where they stop with the painting. Here's the thing about journalists, of which I am kind of one: they like to take the most extreme, most colorful, most newsable corners of any event, and then turn them into obscene caricatures to be whipped out at the public in soundbites before deadline. Because that's marketable. But I seriously doubt that these guys are accurate representations of the protests.
The way I see it, these protesters have reasons to be angry. The middle class is dying. Banks are committing housing fraud and being punished with bailouts while enjoying tax cuts. Okay, the US saw a profit after banks repaid bailout money, but let's say mom bakes me and my brothers cookies. My older brother punches me right in the mortgage and eats my cookie. I'm not going to feel that much better when mom bakes us all new cookies. As Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laurette in economics, put it at the site of OWS, "We are bearing the costs of their misdeeds. There’s a system where we socialize losses and privatize gains. That’s not capitalism. That’s not a market economy." And what else— Corporations have influential grips on both the media and our politicians. America has seen a debacle of an administration followed by one that hasn't followed through on the fantasies that it promised and that voters bought into. We're still funding shitty wars.
Congress has transformed from law-making body into Obama-blocker, so in light of the many valid issues that OWS brings into play, I think this national discussion that it's trying to bring forward is a pretty good idea right now. Now, whether you call this a "protest" or a "movement" or whatever you will, what I've seen is a massive self-teaching. What I've seen is a bunch of mostly confused, fully frustrated, kind of dirty, young and old people gathering into a forum and educating themselves on American economics, on their government, and on the way corporations function. On the barest of margins, even if no saving legislation is passed and no Wall Street revolution occurs, I consider that a success of American assembly.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Pinch Hitter
[Editor's Note: Hey all, I was tired of thinking of things to say and shit so Zane Thompson is filling in for me today on Classic Brian. I don't know what we'll get and he probably doesn't either.]
Note: This is NOT supposed to be a religious or political rant…we’ll see*
When I was in 6th grade at the wonderful Franklin Middle School, my World History teacher (the wonderfully creepy track coach) Mr. Flohr made us turn in current events every Friday. At the time I blew them off and always made everything up, but looking back this class marked the first time that I had ever really cared about the world around me.
These days I make it a habit to at least read the cover articles of the New York Times and USA Today every morning. I find it extremely important to know what’s going on with my fellow citizens of the world. I want to make it clear that the word “fellow” is very important in that sentence. Regardless of religious beliefs, race, gender, or any of that other shit you have to answer for a census, we have all been put on this Earth TOGETHER. Why would your religion condone killing another human being because of their own different beliefs? How does this make sense in context with any other doctrine, and I am in no way singling out Islam right now, although they seem to be the most noticeably hostile religion at the moment. For thousands of years people have enslaved and killed other people on behalf of their religion, whether it be the Egyptians enslaving the Jews, the Spanish Inquisition, or the jihad taking place around the world today. Why????? What happened to the human brain that makes us forget how we all really got here in the first place? Whether you believe in evolution or creation or reincarnation it does not change the fact that we are all brothers and sisters. Nothing, NOTHING changes that fact. We are all born on the same level, we all are given a piece of paper and told to fill our life out on it however we so choose. So why is it that not every person chooses to live in peace, to respect all other citizens of the world just how they would respect their mom. Every human life is as valuable as the next, so why do so many people make it their goal to make others’ life so damn difficult? Life is a blank slate, there are no rules or creeds that any person is required to live by, and no one ever has the right to try and choose the RIGHT path.
I asked Eliot to let me write this in light of the recent uprisings in the Middle East, namely Libya. It just astounds me that a leader of a country can possibly use violence on his own people in order to keep meaningless power. Even more troubling for me is the fact that there are people working under him that are willing to look their fellow countrymen in the eyes and then proceed to spray a machine gun into their crowd. Sure, this sort of violence is nothing new and in a historical context is mild, but it just makes no fucking sense. Why did Gadhafi ever CHOOSE to rule with such an iron fist? Why did he not choose to allow his people to live freely. As Kanye said, “No one man should have all that power.” No one, even an elected official, should have the right to tell me that I need to live a less pleasant life just because they say so. Where do the Chinese get off setting a limit on the amount of children a family is allowed to have. Doing so is suggesting that those at the top of the government making the decisions were given some sort of innate power to limit the freedom of fellow human beings. More importantly, why do these leaders make these decisions? When did a lack of compassion for another’s well-being become such a chronic problem?
Unfortunately, no country is more to blame in my mind than the United States of America. The political battles these days are always advertised as good vs. bad battles between the Democrats and Republicans, depending on what side you’re on. Yet take a closer look and the misuse of power is astonishing. Several of the prominent issues these days should not only be non-issues by now, but they should have never been issues in the first place. Who are any of us to tell any homosexual that they aren’t allowed to marry? How can any man or woman who claims to have any resemblance of a heart and soul deny another man or woman the right to be happy. People this is the 21st century, science has all but proved that being gay is not a choice. Gay is not a choice just like being born with one leg is not a choice, but a one legged straight man is still able to marry and enjoy all the financial safeties that come with it. If California allows its citizens to vote down gay marriage, can they also vote away all Hispanics? Republicans take such an unconstitutional stance on the matter that it’s a joke. The Constitution explicitly states that Church and State must be separated. So then how can Republicans rightfully defend the ban of gay marriage, when their only defense is based on the fact that they believe the Bible outlaws homosexuality. That in itself is combining Church and State. Every politician needs to think about what is best for the citizens of their nation, and in many cases citizens of the world, before they make any decisions. Political stances should not and cannot be based off of religious beliefs. Simple, as clear cut as something can possibly be.
Same thing with abortion. Until an argument can be made that doesn’t involve religious beliefs, than abortion NEEDS to be legal. No old Southern Republican should be against a 15 year old girl who made a mistake one night, having an abortion. Every one has the right to choose, because without this right we are all slaves to man made rules and religions. Holding political power does not give a person the power to choose the way another person has to live their life. Once again they need to all just stop and think, is this what is best for my people, the human being. Republicans seem to be very out of touch with this doctrine these days, and it’s sad because it’s leading to even greater threats like the Tea Party and others on the far left are not excluded from this as well.
I hate the fact that every person has to be a part of a group. I hate that as someone who was born in the United States without any choice in the matter, I am expected to be blindly patriotic and continuously affirm and prove my belief that USA is number one. Sure, I root for the United States to do well in the World Cup and whatnot, but I was born on planet Earth. I fully consider myself a citizen of the world first, and my theory is that if everyone felt this way the world would be a much safer and enjoyable place to live. When I’m at an airport and see that there are four men with turbans boarding my plane I can honestly say it has no effect on me. America probably has more people willing to hijack a plane and fly it into a Middle-Eastern building than the other way around.
“We’re all out here trying to make a living, sometimes we get in each other’s way.” John C. Reilly dropped this wonderful line at the end of a horrific movie named The Promotion. It’s a terrific line, because conflict does happen. Sometimes you do get beat out by someone else for a job or a spot on a team. If we all just stopped and realized that that guy who just beat you out for the job is just trying to make a living the same as any of us are, then a lot of harsh feelings and ill will can be avoided. Apply this to a bigger stage and it still works. Every country need to supply their citizens with oil. If the leaders of these countries were to step back and realize that the worse solution to this problem would be greed and loss of life, then we would no longer be fighting wars over oil. Every human life is as valuable as the next, no man or woman is more important than another, and no one has the right to live otherwise.
--Zane Thompson
*-[Editor's Note: That is exactly what this was.]
Note: This is NOT supposed to be a religious or political rant…we’ll see*
When I was in 6th grade at the wonderful Franklin Middle School, my World History teacher (the wonderfully creepy track coach) Mr. Flohr made us turn in current events every Friday. At the time I blew them off and always made everything up, but looking back this class marked the first time that I had ever really cared about the world around me.
These days I make it a habit to at least read the cover articles of the New York Times and USA Today every morning. I find it extremely important to know what’s going on with my fellow citizens of the world. I want to make it clear that the word “fellow” is very important in that sentence. Regardless of religious beliefs, race, gender, or any of that other shit you have to answer for a census, we have all been put on this Earth TOGETHER. Why would your religion condone killing another human being because of their own different beliefs? How does this make sense in context with any other doctrine, and I am in no way singling out Islam right now, although they seem to be the most noticeably hostile religion at the moment. For thousands of years people have enslaved and killed other people on behalf of their religion, whether it be the Egyptians enslaving the Jews, the Spanish Inquisition, or the jihad taking place around the world today. Why????? What happened to the human brain that makes us forget how we all really got here in the first place? Whether you believe in evolution or creation or reincarnation it does not change the fact that we are all brothers and sisters. Nothing, NOTHING changes that fact. We are all born on the same level, we all are given a piece of paper and told to fill our life out on it however we so choose. So why is it that not every person chooses to live in peace, to respect all other citizens of the world just how they would respect their mom. Every human life is as valuable as the next, so why do so many people make it their goal to make others’ life so damn difficult? Life is a blank slate, there are no rules or creeds that any person is required to live by, and no one ever has the right to try and choose the RIGHT path.
I asked Eliot to let me write this in light of the recent uprisings in the Middle East, namely Libya. It just astounds me that a leader of a country can possibly use violence on his own people in order to keep meaningless power. Even more troubling for me is the fact that there are people working under him that are willing to look their fellow countrymen in the eyes and then proceed to spray a machine gun into their crowd. Sure, this sort of violence is nothing new and in a historical context is mild, but it just makes no fucking sense. Why did Gadhafi ever CHOOSE to rule with such an iron fist? Why did he not choose to allow his people to live freely. As Kanye said, “No one man should have all that power.” No one, even an elected official, should have the right to tell me that I need to live a less pleasant life just because they say so. Where do the Chinese get off setting a limit on the amount of children a family is allowed to have. Doing so is suggesting that those at the top of the government making the decisions were given some sort of innate power to limit the freedom of fellow human beings. More importantly, why do these leaders make these decisions? When did a lack of compassion for another’s well-being become such a chronic problem?
Unfortunately, no country is more to blame in my mind than the United States of America. The political battles these days are always advertised as good vs. bad battles between the Democrats and Republicans, depending on what side you’re on. Yet take a closer look and the misuse of power is astonishing. Several of the prominent issues these days should not only be non-issues by now, but they should have never been issues in the first place. Who are any of us to tell any homosexual that they aren’t allowed to marry? How can any man or woman who claims to have any resemblance of a heart and soul deny another man or woman the right to be happy. People this is the 21st century, science has all but proved that being gay is not a choice. Gay is not a choice just like being born with one leg is not a choice, but a one legged straight man is still able to marry and enjoy all the financial safeties that come with it. If California allows its citizens to vote down gay marriage, can they also vote away all Hispanics? Republicans take such an unconstitutional stance on the matter that it’s a joke. The Constitution explicitly states that Church and State must be separated. So then how can Republicans rightfully defend the ban of gay marriage, when their only defense is based on the fact that they believe the Bible outlaws homosexuality. That in itself is combining Church and State. Every politician needs to think about what is best for the citizens of their nation, and in many cases citizens of the world, before they make any decisions. Political stances should not and cannot be based off of religious beliefs. Simple, as clear cut as something can possibly be.
Same thing with abortion. Until an argument can be made that doesn’t involve religious beliefs, than abortion NEEDS to be legal. No old Southern Republican should be against a 15 year old girl who made a mistake one night, having an abortion. Every one has the right to choose, because without this right we are all slaves to man made rules and religions. Holding political power does not give a person the power to choose the way another person has to live their life. Once again they need to all just stop and think, is this what is best for my people, the human being. Republicans seem to be very out of touch with this doctrine these days, and it’s sad because it’s leading to even greater threats like the Tea Party and others on the far left are not excluded from this as well.
I hate the fact that every person has to be a part of a group. I hate that as someone who was born in the United States without any choice in the matter, I am expected to be blindly patriotic and continuously affirm and prove my belief that USA is number one. Sure, I root for the United States to do well in the World Cup and whatnot, but I was born on planet Earth. I fully consider myself a citizen of the world first, and my theory is that if everyone felt this way the world would be a much safer and enjoyable place to live. When I’m at an airport and see that there are four men with turbans boarding my plane I can honestly say it has no effect on me. America probably has more people willing to hijack a plane and fly it into a Middle-Eastern building than the other way around.
“We’re all out here trying to make a living, sometimes we get in each other’s way.” John C. Reilly dropped this wonderful line at the end of a horrific movie named The Promotion. It’s a terrific line, because conflict does happen. Sometimes you do get beat out by someone else for a job or a spot on a team. If we all just stopped and realized that that guy who just beat you out for the job is just trying to make a living the same as any of us are, then a lot of harsh feelings and ill will can be avoided. Apply this to a bigger stage and it still works. Every country need to supply their citizens with oil. If the leaders of these countries were to step back and realize that the worse solution to this problem would be greed and loss of life, then we would no longer be fighting wars over oil. Every human life is as valuable as the next, no man or woman is more important than another, and no one has the right to live otherwise.
--Zane Thompson
*-[Editor's Note: That is exactly what this was.]
Monday, December 13, 2010
Nick - Who's to Blame?
Bad things happen. All the time. As in, large scale bad things. Things like the BP oil spill happen, and then other bad things happen, like BP wriggling out of responsibility. People get hurt helping clean the spill and then their claims get shot down in court. And then BP gets fantastic profits and everybody forgets about everything. Then these profits get funneled to politicians in exchange for more favorable policies for the oil industry.
Even though the bad thing that happened here was the oil spill, really a million littler bad things happen. The oil was spilled because the ship was using unsafe practices. The ship was taking unsafe practices because their bosses were putting profits above safety. They were allowed to do that because regulation on the oil industry is extremely lax. Regulation is so lax because politicians get paid by the oil industry to keep them that way.
See what I've done here? Whether we go backwards or forwards in time, the worst is never over because it's a chain of events.
And even though I'm get into the politics of the event a little bit, this shouldn't be controversial at all; nobody wants the oil industry to control our politicians. Not liberals, conservatives, independents, libertarians, anarchists, you name it. Anybody could tell you what a bad idea it is. So why does it keep happening?
If you've been keeping an eye on the news at all, you've probably seen that there's a big fight about tax cuts. Republicans want to keep the tax cuts where they are, and Democrats do too; except for the the richest 2% of Americans.
Here's the interesting part of that debate: while politicians are split on the issue, most people aren't. Over 70% of the country agrees that taxes for the super rich shouldn't be lowered anymore. Warren Buffet (Third wealthiest person in the world) has famously pointed out that he pays a far smaller percentage in taxes than his secretary.
Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but when 70% of people can say that this is obviously a bad idea, it seems like that side should prevail, right? So why is it looking like the Republican politicians are winning this fight? Even a good deal of their own supporters are against it. Anybody could tell you what a bad idea it is, so why does it keep happening?
I could give you a hundred political answers as to why it keeps happening. I could talk about Obama's leadership, I could talk about the interests of the politicians themselves, I could talk about how the lobbying system is set up, and all of those would be correct answers. But the real problem is so much deeper.
If the majority of the people are on the side of the argument that ends up losing, something is probably wrong. So how does the majority lose?
And the answer is that the majority doesn't know. They know, when given a concrete issue, what side they are on. But then there's all these partisan politics. Accusations are thrown around. Other issues are brought in. And, worst of all, the people that report the news stop doing their jobs.
Whenever I watch television politics news, it's so bogged down that I can't really tell what's going on. And I do know this stuff. So for someone who isn't so dedicated to politics, it can be confusing.
And at the root of all this, we find a twofold problem: News organizations aren't giving clear, unbiased news; everything has to be shown as a Republican or Democratic issue instead of examining the policy on its own.
And the second part of the problem is that people who aren't getting the straight story from the news don't have the knowledge or the concern to look it up themselves. People just don't care that much. They get angry for a second, but they don't get really angry.
And when the people let the politicians and the media get away with this stuff, it just happens again and again. It's a cyclical problem, and the cycle isn't going to be broken for a long time, because right now we don't have any politicians trying to get the people involved.
But take a moment to think about a world where everybody pays close attention to all of the policies being considered. Where everybody tries really hard to understand what's going on and to take a firm stance. The world could be so much better if there were more people fighting for these kinds of things.
So I guess my point is, pay attention. Pay attention to this stuff, because it's important. And it can be frustrating to watch bad things happen, but it's better to be angry than to be ignorant.
-Nick.
Even though the bad thing that happened here was the oil spill, really a million littler bad things happen. The oil was spilled because the ship was using unsafe practices. The ship was taking unsafe practices because their bosses were putting profits above safety. They were allowed to do that because regulation on the oil industry is extremely lax. Regulation is so lax because politicians get paid by the oil industry to keep them that way.
See what I've done here? Whether we go backwards or forwards in time, the worst is never over because it's a chain of events.
And even though I'm get into the politics of the event a little bit, this shouldn't be controversial at all; nobody wants the oil industry to control our politicians. Not liberals, conservatives, independents, libertarians, anarchists, you name it. Anybody could tell you what a bad idea it is. So why does it keep happening?
If you've been keeping an eye on the news at all, you've probably seen that there's a big fight about tax cuts. Republicans want to keep the tax cuts where they are, and Democrats do too; except for the the richest 2% of Americans.
Here's the interesting part of that debate: while politicians are split on the issue, most people aren't. Over 70% of the country agrees that taxes for the super rich shouldn't be lowered anymore. Warren Buffet (Third wealthiest person in the world) has famously pointed out that he pays a far smaller percentage in taxes than his secretary.
Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but when 70% of people can say that this is obviously a bad idea, it seems like that side should prevail, right? So why is it looking like the Republican politicians are winning this fight? Even a good deal of their own supporters are against it. Anybody could tell you what a bad idea it is, so why does it keep happening?
I could give you a hundred political answers as to why it keeps happening. I could talk about Obama's leadership, I could talk about the interests of the politicians themselves, I could talk about how the lobbying system is set up, and all of those would be correct answers. But the real problem is so much deeper.
If the majority of the people are on the side of the argument that ends up losing, something is probably wrong. So how does the majority lose?
And the answer is that the majority doesn't know. They know, when given a concrete issue, what side they are on. But then there's all these partisan politics. Accusations are thrown around. Other issues are brought in. And, worst of all, the people that report the news stop doing their jobs.
Whenever I watch television politics news, it's so bogged down that I can't really tell what's going on. And I do know this stuff. So for someone who isn't so dedicated to politics, it can be confusing.
And at the root of all this, we find a twofold problem: News organizations aren't giving clear, unbiased news; everything has to be shown as a Republican or Democratic issue instead of examining the policy on its own.
And the second part of the problem is that people who aren't getting the straight story from the news don't have the knowledge or the concern to look it up themselves. People just don't care that much. They get angry for a second, but they don't get really angry.
And when the people let the politicians and the media get away with this stuff, it just happens again and again. It's a cyclical problem, and the cycle isn't going to be broken for a long time, because right now we don't have any politicians trying to get the people involved.
But take a moment to think about a world where everybody pays close attention to all of the policies being considered. Where everybody tries really hard to understand what's going on and to take a firm stance. The world could be so much better if there were more people fighting for these kinds of things.
So I guess my point is, pay attention. Pay attention to this stuff, because it's important. And it can be frustrating to watch bad things happen, but it's better to be angry than to be ignorant.
-Nick.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Nick - Make It A Priority To Learn
There's a lot of sentimentality going on in these posts this week; I want to take the focus off of the sadness of leaving behind the people you know, and try to look to the future and new opportunities. Today I want to talk about a couple of qualities that are instrumental to the success of our college careers.
Priority and learning.
My name is Nicholas Dietrich, but you can call me Nick. I know nothing about pop culture, but I read about politics and science every day. But more on that later. Let me introduce myself.
I grew up in private schools from kindergarten to freshmen year of high school, when I made the decision to stay at home and homeschool. And I'm not talking about the wacko Glen Beck-style "your kids are being indoctrinated" homeschooling. I wanted to quit being taught and start learning.
It was the best decision I ever made.
All of a sudden, I could tell you exactly what I've learned this year. I could explain all about the behavior of fish in an aquarium and the nesting habits of wasps; I took two math courses my first year so that I could get to calculus before going off to college. I was reading books every day, solely because I wanted to and had the time to. Freshman year I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life; this year I went and saw an autopsy at a hospital, and next year I'm going to be starting pre-med at University of Illinois in Champaign. You have undoubtedly heard that homeschooled kids are awkward and lack social skills, and I'm here to tell you that you heard wrong. I'm part of an improvised comedy troupe which I love, and I have friends and a girlfriend (!) despite deciding to stay home.
The reason I'm telling you this isn't to try and brag. I certainly don't think I'm smarter than the average person; I just have more time and I'm willing to put in an effort. The reason I'm telling you this is so that you think about these things, and maybe consider homeschooling when you have kids. It can be awesome when done right.
Now, back to the overarching theme here; priority.
When I say "overarching," I'm sure that I raise a few eyebrows. "You only mentioned priority in the first paragraph," you think to yourself. The point I'm getting at here is making it a priority to learn; don't waste your time when you could be learning. Use your common sense, and instead of finding out who is in what movie or what funny groups you can join on Facebook, go learn something real.
I'm challenging you all to pursue your interests, or find some if you don't have any you want to read about. You could go read up on the science behind climate change or the BP oil spill, you could study the anatomy of insects and witness the balance of an entire ecosystem by simply starting a freshwater aquarium. The only way you're going to make a difference in your life is if you know what you want to change and make it a priority to do something about it. And to do that you need to start learning as much as you can right now, because life is short.
Prioritize. Get out there and learn while you're still young. I'll even throw you some links to get you started.
News and Politics:
Politico
Think Progress
The Young Turks
Huffington Post
Al Jazeera
Animal Behavior, Anatomy, and Psychology:
Fabre's Book of Insects - edited by Rodolph Stawell
King Solomon's Ring - by Konrad Lorenz
All Creatures Great and Small - James Herriot
All Sorts of Science:
A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson
Reddit Science
That's just the most interesting and fun entry-level stuff I can think of off the top of my head, in case you don't know where to start. But go to wikipedia and look up something you're interested in. There's a whole world of material out there you haven't even heard of yet.
-Nick.
Priority and learning.
My name is Nicholas Dietrich, but you can call me Nick. I know nothing about pop culture, but I read about politics and science every day. But more on that later. Let me introduce myself.
I grew up in private schools from kindergarten to freshmen year of high school, when I made the decision to stay at home and homeschool. And I'm not talking about the wacko Glen Beck-style "your kids are being indoctrinated" homeschooling. I wanted to quit being taught and start learning.
It was the best decision I ever made.
All of a sudden, I could tell you exactly what I've learned this year. I could explain all about the behavior of fish in an aquarium and the nesting habits of wasps; I took two math courses my first year so that I could get to calculus before going off to college. I was reading books every day, solely because I wanted to and had the time to. Freshman year I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life; this year I went and saw an autopsy at a hospital, and next year I'm going to be starting pre-med at University of Illinois in Champaign. You have undoubtedly heard that homeschooled kids are awkward and lack social skills, and I'm here to tell you that you heard wrong. I'm part of an improvised comedy troupe which I love, and I have friends and a girlfriend (!) despite deciding to stay home.
The reason I'm telling you this isn't to try and brag. I certainly don't think I'm smarter than the average person; I just have more time and I'm willing to put in an effort. The reason I'm telling you this is so that you think about these things, and maybe consider homeschooling when you have kids. It can be awesome when done right.
Now, back to the overarching theme here; priority.
When I say "overarching," I'm sure that I raise a few eyebrows. "You only mentioned priority in the first paragraph," you think to yourself. The point I'm getting at here is making it a priority to learn; don't waste your time when you could be learning. Use your common sense, and instead of finding out who is in what movie or what funny groups you can join on Facebook, go learn something real.
I'm challenging you all to pursue your interests, or find some if you don't have any you want to read about. You could go read up on the science behind climate change or the BP oil spill, you could study the anatomy of insects and witness the balance of an entire ecosystem by simply starting a freshwater aquarium. The only way you're going to make a difference in your life is if you know what you want to change and make it a priority to do something about it. And to do that you need to start learning as much as you can right now, because life is short.
Prioritize. Get out there and learn while you're still young. I'll even throw you some links to get you started.
News and Politics:
Politico
Think Progress
The Young Turks
Huffington Post
Al Jazeera
Animal Behavior, Anatomy, and Psychology:
Fabre's Book of Insects - edited by Rodolph Stawell
King Solomon's Ring - by Konrad Lorenz
All Creatures Great and Small - James Herriot
All Sorts of Science:
A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson
Reddit Science
That's just the most interesting and fun entry-level stuff I can think of off the top of my head, in case you don't know where to start. But go to wikipedia and look up something you're interested in. There's a whole world of material out there you haven't even heard of yet.
-Nick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)