Defenestration

If throwing someone out the window gets its own special word then throwing someone out the door, or out of a plane, etc. should also get its own special word.

Make it happen, Merriam and Webster

I'm back

So I had this crazy idea to start a satirical online newspaper, which is currently in the works. I thought that while I was in the process of writing for it, I would have to stop using this altogether. But my ideas are often fickle so I figured that now isn't the time to give up on it. Not a lot has happened to me recently. I celebrated Christmas to receive gifts. I haven't gone to church in five years. I'm pretty agnostic as far as religion goes. I avoided my annual family reunion so that I could sit at home and watch my new House, MD season 3, which I'm 4/5ths of the way done right now. I also got a new guitar which I have no idea how to play. But I make my fun anyway.

I seem to have run out of political ideals at the moment. Maybe its the holidays in which family and friends play a big role. I'm not really in the mood to wax philosophically in my utterly pundit fashion. I haven't even looked at a news article since my Christmas break started a few days ago.

I should probably stop this before I think anymore about whether or not its possible to have day/night based depression.

Good Will Hunting

This is one of my favorite movie monologues ever...

video:


Sean: Thought about what you said to me the other day, about my painting. Stayed up half the night thinking about it. Something occurred to me... fell into a deep peaceful sleep, and haven't thought about you since. Do you know what occurred to me?

Will: No.

Sean: You're just a kid, you don't have the faintest idea what you're talkin' about.

Will: Why thank you.

Sean: It's all right. You've never been out of Boston.

Will: Nope.

Sean: So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientations, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling; seen that. If I ask you about women, you'd probably give me a syllabus about your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy. You're a tough kid. And I'd ask you about war, you'd probably throw Shakespeare at me, right, "once more unto the breach dear friends." But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap, watch him gasp his last breath looking to you for help. I'd ask you about love, you'd probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on earth just for you. Who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever, through anything, through cancer. And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in the hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes, that the terms "visiting hours" don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss, 'cause it only occurs when you've loved something more than you love yourself. And I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much. And look at you... I don't see an intelligent, confident man... I see a cocky, scared shitless kid. But you're a genius Will. No one denies that. No one could possibly understand the depths of you. But you presume to know everything about me because you saw a painting of mine, and you ripped my fucking life apart. You're an orphan right?

[Will nods]

Sean: You think I know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are, because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you? Personally... I don't give a shit about all that, because you know what, I can't learn anything from you, I can't read in some fuckin' book. Unless you want to talk about you, who you are. Then I'm fascinated. I'm in. But you don't want to do that do you sport? You're terrified of what you might say. Your move, chief.

Top Ten iTunes Playlist

Just for fun.

1. One Week - Barenaked Ladies -- 96 Plays
2. Harder to Breathe - Maroon 5 -- 83
3. A Pirate Looks at 40 - Jimmy Buffett -- 80
4. The Anthem - Good Charlotte -- 69
5. Bob Robert's Society Band - Jimmy Buffett -- 68
6. Thanks for the Memories - Fall Out Boy -- 62
7. Numb - Linkin Park -- 59
8. Falling for the First Time - Barenaked Ladies -- 56
9. He Went to Paris - Jimmy Buffett -- 56
10. A little Love and Luck - Jimmy Buffett -- 56

Can't make the scene, if you ain't got that green

Doesn't that often seem like the case? As Chris Rock said once, "Americans worship money. And we all go to the same church. The Church of ATM." And it's true. Money makes the world go around. Those who don't have it, want it; those who can manage it, spend it; and those who have it, keep it. An interesting economic system we have here. Now, this should be a tight squeeze as I segue our worship of money to our government, so I'll make it blunt.

If I were to label our political paradigm like I'll label this post, it would look like this "Democracy. Incompetent. Aristocratic." Now, hopefully you'll see that my big sell for this post is the last one. Aristocratic. An Aristocracy is a form of government that is ruled by the wealthy class. Now, I know when you think of Aristocracy, you think of nobles and peasants and the middle ages, so don't withdraw and don't become nervous or confused. All it takes is logic. Excluding money gained through fundraising, Barack Obama spent $30 million on his campaign, John McCain spent $33 million, Mitt Romney, who you forgot was running, spent over $800,000, Ralph Nader, for whatever reason that he's still running, spent $300,000.

Now, for the land of opportunity, I don't see much opportunity in a middle class American running for President or even coming close. Note, for all intents and purposes, I know Obama was born into the middle class, and I give him kudos for raising himself to the level that he is today. So, instead, let's treat Obama as the wealthy politician he is, instead of his roots. Let's focus on McCain as the politician he is, and not his nepotismic rise to political power. And let's not focus on Nader, because... well that should be self-explanatory.

So, let's back away from the American Dream and from nepotism. Don't you find it disengenuous to have anyone with a trust fund to comprehend what a middle class or lower class is going through? And you think they do? Then why is the division in classes growing more every year. Politicians have pollsters crunch numbers to find out what us folk are all about. Do they do anything about it? I heard that Dick Cheney uses approval rating polls to wipe his ass.

I'm the average American. I don't know anything about political process. I skim CNN or Fox News and I hear that a bill that I don't understand because of the legal jargon is making its wayward journey through Congress and when it passes it'll do something that I won't hear about. I hear politicians say that they understand what the middle and lower class goes through. Do they pay mortgage? If John McCain's toilet clugs up, he'll pick his second favorite. And if that's being renovated, he'll just go to his third. Why not? He's got seven more if anything goes wrong.

Realistically speaking, I want something to be done about the election process. I want caps on fundraising and out of pocket spending. I want a middle class citizen, making $45,000 a year to be able to run for Congress without having to put his house on another mortgage or have to moonlight at a bar while passing bills during the day.

Right.

Okay, so over the first week or so of this blog being published I seemed to have over extended myself. Apparently you're not supposed to go twice a day. For one, you'll run out of topics. And two, people don't check blogs that often. I would still like this to be a popular blog for people to read when they're bored or want to be informed, so I will continue to post entries that entertain and inform you. Though, I will try to avoid becoming a news blog and just posting links and summaries of news headlines. So stick with me, those of you that actually read this, and comment!

The BCS

The Bowl Championship Series will see its 10 year this upcoming January. In its short history it has provided a wealth of drama, controversial, and good old fun for those who watch. The worst controversy we saw came in 2002 with Nebraska jumping Colorado and Oregon to get destroyed by Miami in the National Championship (Also note Colorado's stampede over Nebraska earlier in the season 62-36). Other than that, I feel that the BCS has provided a fair system in a sport that has 119 teams anyway. I like the BCS. The bowl games are a fun tradition that have provided a very unique post season. But, onto this year.

The Rose Bowl
This year the Rose Bowl will be played in by the 11-1 Big 10 Champions Penn State Nittany Lions and the 11-1 Pac 10 Champions USC Trojans. This will be one of the more exciting BCS games because 1) I'm a PSU fan, and 2) PSU has been a just short of Cinderella Story on the heels of an ugly few years in which PSU fans have turned on their (relatively) stout leader, JoePa Paterno. Also, the Trojans are on the end of another fantastic season in which they have stayed comfortable in the top 10, and see, in my opinion, the best defense in the nation.
My prediction: PSU 14 - 10 USC

The FedEx Orange Bowl
This year the Orange Bowl will be played in by the 11-2 Big East Champions Cincinatti Bearcats and the 9-4 ACC Champions Virginia Tech Hokies. Every year there is one BCS bowl that is weaker than the rest, and this year, this is the bowl. (It usually happens to be between the Big East and ACC). Though I'll give credit to Cincinatti, while not being considerably formidable, they are about to take their show to the big stage for the first time in a long time. VaTech, on the other hand, has not had a strong showing this year (as none of the ACC teams have).
My prediction: VaTech 28 - 21 Cincinatti

The AllState Sugar Bowl
This year the Sugar Bowl will be played in by the 12-1 SEC West Champions Alabama Crimson Tide and the 12-0 Mountain West Campions Utah Utes. This game is Alabama's unfortunate consolation game. They were one win away from going the distance and doing what none of the NC contenders had done, win them all. Granted, Alabama had not had a terrifying schedule as the Big 12 Southies had, they were still able to stage off the upsets suffered by USC, Florida, and PSU. The Utes, on the other hand, come in as the highest ranking undefeated team. It takes a lot for a non-Notre Dame/non-BCS conference school to get into the big show, but Boise State and Utah have, in recent years, been the exception. You can look for a strong offensive game here as both Utah and 'Bama have formidable QBs.
My Prediction: Bama 42 - 31 Utah

The Tostitos Fiesta Bowl
This year the Fiesta Bowl will be played in by the 11-1 Big 12 At-Large Texas Longhorns and the 10-2 Big 10 At-Large Ohio State Buckeyes. This game sees a Texas team that is as strong as ever behind QB Colt McCoy and a relatively struggling Buckeyes team led by Freshmen QB Terrelle Pryor. Its hard to keep OSU out of a BCS game it seems these days, and I think this time Tressel may not have wanted to come. Texas, having only suffered a heartbreaker against Texas Tech, is good enough to play in and win the NC, but is still only one of the many teams in the BCS who have the unsightly 1-loss stamp.
My prediction: Texas 45 - 24 OSU

The 2009 FedEx BCS National Championship
This year, the Big Game will be played in by the 12-1 Nationally Ranked #1 SEC Champions Florida Gators and the 12-1 Nationally Ranked #2 Big 12 Champions Oklahoma Sooners. This game is the proverbial clash of the titans of the titans. The SEC had not had as strong of a showing as before but provided for the most anticipated game of the season next to this game here with Bama vs UF. And the Big-12 South had seen a dominating performance in the Top 5 with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State cycling through. However, after all was said and done, Oklahoma broke the tie-breaker and leaped over the small stepping stone that was the Big 12 Championship game.

This game will not disappoint. On January 9th, you will not hear shouts of "Shenanigans!" because you will see why each team deserved to be there. Oklahoma's offense beat up on everyone like you would expect a veteran gamer to beat up on D1-AA schools on Easy in NCAA 2009. They put up an average of 50 points a game. Yeah. Florida is no school to let down, either. They have a Heisman playmaker in Tim Tebow on offense, and shut down defense that is up to par with past SEC national title winners. Not to mention that Florida is THE hottest team heading into the bowl season this year.

My prediction: Oklahoma 38 - 35 Florida

An informal discussion of Socialism vs Capitalism

This is something that was discussed via an MSN IM discussion. I'll leave the two involved anonymous


Socialism says:
People are against it because they don't understand what it means. They simply believe what their government has told them about it.

Capitalism says:
yeah, well socialism is something that never really got into the press cycle until these past few months. the fact is that nobody wants to give money to something that doesn't directly influence themselves, especially in the wake of our economic struggles. and there's no such thing as altruism in our society

Socialism says:
That's because we live in a capitalist society. It's based upon self-interest. You have to look at it from a point that, if we had a bit of socialism, we probably wouldn't have been in this economic crisis in the first place. Allowing banks to self-regulate and basically allowing a bit of unregulated capitalism is a danger to everyone. That's a part of this war we're having. While we're sitting here paying tax dollars to fuel it, the government is dishing out contracts to private companies to destroy and rebuild Iraq. Bechtel makes bombs to destroy and rebuild. Our tax dollars go to these companies. And what we're seeing is the transfer of the wealth of the middle class to the upper class because of this. And when we're in an economic crisis and don't help each other by using a bit of socialism, people become homeless and poor. Homelessness and poverty will increase the crime rate. In that way, it direct effects you. Capitalism is at fault for our current economic crisis. It creates its own problems and destroys itself. We need to cast off our societies Friedmanite vision. Solely driving for ourselves alone is destructive and evil. It can be changed.

Capitalism says:
i think we do have a slightly socialistic society anyway. After all we do pay taxes that pay for government programs. The fact that we pay taxes at all shows that we don't have a solely capitalistic society. i agree with your view of the self-regulating banks. We are having a seperation of middle and upper classes but that's lent to an inability to regulate taxes and allow upper class... citizens to by-pass the tax laws we have in place. Homelessness and poverty are not something that can be realistically fixed by socialism. What socialism would do is supposedly redistribute the wealth, but you have to look at the source of poverty in itself. We don't need to give people the money, we need to hire contracters to fix the ghetto. That one does lend itself to socialism, the... only problem is that you actually need a competant government to get that done, and based on every country ever, no government has been able to rid itself of poverty and homelessness. And the full circle leading from raising taxes to crime rate semantically speaking is definitely not a direct effect. Crime rate can otherwise be regulated. We've lived in a capitalistic country for 200 years and only 3 times in our history has there been economic struggle. the current problem is not capitalism, its incompetence in our government

Socialism says:
We have a slightly socialistic society, but only because it's necessary. The government could never get away without having social programs. But it isn't an efficient socialistic society. We pay taxes, but our taxes go towards the wrong things. And as for our companies paying taxes, those in Iraq don't. There's a bit of unregulated capitalism there, as we can't do that here. The existence of poverty is due to wealth inequality. There is no poverty if everyone makes the same wage. Homelessness can be aided with tax dollars. If we were to hire contractors to fix the ghetto, it would have to be an extremely regulated process. The rebuilding of New Orleans is an example of this situation, and it is by no means a success. Three times in our history have we had an economic struggle, because we've always had other people to exploit in order to make our own economy prosper.

Capitalism says:
"We pay taxes, but our taxes go towards the wrong things." That statement is a pro-socialist fundamental point as to why we can't have a socialistic government. Our taxes will ALWAYS be spent improperly. Because poor want it to go to rebuilding the ghettos, the middle class want it to go towards something that they actually care about, and the upper class will still find a way to not pay taxes.

Socialism says:
That's the point of wealth redistribution. To end class struggle.

Capitalism says:
"There is no poverty if everyone makes the same wage." That is a very idealistic statement. And it will never happen. A bagger won't earn the same as a garbageman who won't earn the same as a clerk, who won't earn the same as a systems analyst who won't earn the same as a doctor who won't earn the same as a CEO because it requires skill, and skill has to be rewarded
otherwise no one will take the necessary prerequisites to having the skill. another thing that crumbles the foundation of socialism is the fact that people are greedy. if they do more than another, they want more. and i maintain that the incompetence of our government makes socialism an implausible ideal

House, M.D.

For those less familiar

I've been a fan of this show since its conception. I've watched Cameron, Foreman, Chase, and even House grow up with the help of the Wilson and Cuddy. I was continually enamored with the quality of the show and its ability to join nonsensical medical jargon with psychological drama.

With this show having a surprisingly low number of followers, I feel I have to defend it from when true fans of the show tell friends about it, but when the friends see it, they are subjected to the latest two seasons. But I don't want to get ahead of myself. For those who have never seen an episode of this show, let me quickly give you an overview. Dr. House is an anomaly of a medical mind. He takes cases from all over the country (and some from outside) that no one else can solve, and with his team of fellowships, he diagnoses the problem. In most given episodes, a common infrastructure will appear where he will have a few wrong guesses and then within the last 10-15 minutes, something completely unrelated will spark something in his mind that helps him solve the case.

Some people look at this infrastructure as a flaw, and say that it makes the show boring, but some people have no peripheral vision when it comes to being entertained. The human body is a common infrastructure but no two people are a like. Get the idea? Now, back to the show. What compels me most about the show is not the consistently unique string of cases that the doctors solve, its the underlying personalities and interactions that give this show the novelty. Dr. House is a sarcastic, narcissistic, vindictive ass, and also the main character in this show. He is surrounded by Dr. Foreman, a strong willed moral opposition to House; there is Dr. Cameron, who is an enamored enabler of House; Dr. Chase, a bright but complacent lapdog (in the first 3 seasons, at least) of House; Dr. Wilson, the Watson to House's Holmes; and Dr. Cuddy, who until recently, had been in an enigmatic, supposedly platonic female employer of House (and very beautiful). Each of these characters bring a clear focused and entertaining complementary personality to the main character.

Also, what gets me into this show is its deconstruction of human will, morality, and motive. My favorite, and I think one of the best examples of this is the episode No Reason (watch it if you ever have the chance). In each of these episodes, the writers find a new way to sketch a more clearly defined portrait of the main character through the various tools that are the other characters. Also, what I found that this show did great was almost never let the focus of the plot derail from the medical mystery. Each sub-focus of the human psyche happens within the parameter of the case.

However, with the show ending the third season, what we found was that the three fellowships of Cameron, Foreman, and Chase are fired or have quit. This leaves the show to take up a pseudo-reality show of a first half of the season in which House must choose a new team from 40 or so applicants. This, I think, greatly took away from the subtle of the show that I admired, and left only a few redeeming episodes, including the last two, and the episode "Frozen". After the selection of 3 new fellowships, at the 2/3rds point of the season we are returned to a similar format of show.

The show introduces Kutner, Taub, and 13 (later identified as Hadley). Kutner (played entertainably by Kal Penn) is the young, new doctor who likes to take risks. Taub is an older doctor, Foreman-like in his moral opposition to House's tactics but more of an enabler still. And then there's 13, who is a bi-sexual (with an episode dedicated to that) and is probably going to be killed off because she has Huntington's, an uncurable disease. Now, I don't know if you have picked up the tone in my text, but I don't like the new team.

What I found was that the writers tried to maintain the original cast's variety of personalities and fit the new three into small gabs that have not been previously covered. Though, the didn't do it overly well. Kutner is really the only new personality seen on the show. What's worse is that they're giving the ever uninteresting 13 her own plot line on this show. She has a fatal disease, she's sad, experimental, and vulnerable, okay. I would be ever grateful if something killed her off now and we could focus on any sub-plot involving the other two, who are more interesting.

Now, I'm almost done. But I feel I should address the newest sub-plot in this show. That is the bubbling relationship of Dr. Cuddy (the dean of medicine) and Dr. House. Now what I've loved about this relationship is that in 4 and a half seasons, this sub-plot has poked its head out a handfull of times and not very far ahead. There has not been 5 minutes in any given episode dedicated to it. Though now, we see that a few episodes ago, these two kissed. It's been in the back of the cupboard for seasons, and now its getting daylight. They did a good job of deflecting the topic for one episode, but each ensuing episode has been too much about the relationship. Will they? Won't they? Let's not recreate the classic Friends relationship.

In the latest episode, while starting to dominate screen time, this relationship has become unfortunately ambiguous. *SPOILER ALERT* What we found was that House had brought a priceless gift (anonymously) into Cuddy's office. As the episode ends though, Cuddy is walking to thank House (probably with a little more than a "thank you") but instead she sees him talking to another woman (who, if you watch the episode is very unimportant to the episode and even less important to the show). So she turns around disappointed and walks away. Can this medically unrelated case be solved before this show becomes worse than anything on MTV?

In conclusion, I know that i've been long winded. But this show is near and dear to my heart because I love the characters and I love the psychological drama that unfolds in many of the episodes. I just hope it doesn't go to the dogs.

Also note that I will, from time to time, call on House, MD for a character study if I'm bored.

problems with the electoral college

So, lets do a little intro here, I'm Ali G and I'll be doing some guest posts here every now and again. Today I'm going to discuss something near and dear to my heart, my supreme dislike and disapproval of the electoral college.
Now I know it's popular, especially among those who share my somewhat liberal political views to bash the electoral college just because they can. However, I take serious issue with its existence for several reasons. Number one, it's unnecessary. The electoral college was only established in order to convince the smaller colonies to join the union. It contributes nothing to the democratic process, and in many cases it proves a hindrance to the electoral process. The electoral college actually removes power from the hands of each individual voter and gives it to the bureaucratic machine of the college instead. If a candidate wins a given state's popular vote even by a 1 or 2 percent, the candidate wins ALL of the electoral votes for that state. The populace is misrepresented and their voice mangled.
Think I'm being overly dramatic? Well then, lets look at the most infamous example of the electoral college malfunctioning, the first election one George Walker Bush. In this case, it is widely accepted that Gore won the popular vote, but Bush, as we know, won the election. Now all the blame cannot be laid upon the electoral college, the Supreme Court's poor decision making deserves its share of the blame. However, it is hard to argue that, had we only counted the popular vote and not used the electoral college, George W. Bush would be President.
So the electoral college still isn't a big deal?
Don't worry I'm not ready to shut up yet.
My next issue with the electoral college is that it contributes to the disenfranchisement of American voters. Don't get me wrong, American voters disenfranchise themselves perfectly well without the aid of an outside agency, but the electoral college multiplies that disenfranchisement tenfold. Citizens in "very red" or "very blue" states are less likely to vote since they think their vote won't count since their state's electoral vote has already been decided. Additionally, national candidates, like those for Presidents, don't devote as much time to states whose electoral votes are already virtually decided, devoting all of their time instead to several swing states.
My final point is that the electoral college's winner-takes-all attitude makes it very difficult for third parties to enter government. And, as Jason previously posted on this blog, third parties are often the ones with the most innovative ideas and proposals for governance, and the electoral college provides them with yet another hurdle to jump over in order to gain what every American should have in this country, a political voice.

A Common Sense Appeal to Why the Bail-Out is a Bad Idea

For those who do not know about this bail-out, or for those who need a little refresher, the U.S. Government allocated $700 billion to be spent by the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson however he wanted. I have a problem with this. First, I don't know who Henry Paulson is, and by the media's reaction, they didn't even really know who he was. That's like the President saying, "Trust me, I know a guy". Ideally speaking, we should have faith in our government to choose who does what because they have to know it better than we do. Oh wait, this is a government who hasn't really done a great job for us or themselves anyway.

Also, according to this bailout, "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency". Why do they get away with this? Its the kind of thing that makes me want to go on a Lewis Black-esque rant. I'll ask, where's the accountability if this fails? If the economy continues to fail, will we see $700 billion out the window and have to hold our tongue from asking "where'd it go?"

Now, besides the whole Henry Paulson thing, I have another big problem with this. The key term in this bail-out is that the money was ALLOCATED by the government to many national corporations that are struggling. The problem with allocating is that the people who you give the money to have no accountability towards it. If the money dries out and the businesses and banks are still failing, who do they answer to? The people who gave them the money? Who, then, will the government answer to? Nobody. The government hasn't had to answer to anyone but their tri-fecta of similar interests for decades. (But thats for another day).

However, what you find is this: $32.4 million of the $159 billion of the money given to the banks is being re-invested by the banks to lobby in Washington. Now, logistically speaking, that is a very small percentage, but when you take into account where that $32.4 million can go instead of back to the government, it is just plain disappointing. And it really goes to show you the priorities of these companies. And maybe, just maybe you get a hint of how they got into this trouble to begin with. You can't blame it on the recession. The economy is not a mystical force. It goes up and down because of businesses and consumers. Recessions come about because one of the two previously mentioned aren't holding up their end of the bargain.

I suppose it would be fair to give my own option instead of just bashing the occurring one. What I believe they should have done was loan the money out. First, this forces the businesses to actually own up to their problems and work to solve it so that they pay the money back. And second, the money will be spent concisely to fit the businesses needs. Also, and pretty importantly, this will give the money back to the government with interest. And a business or bank fails again, then maybe it was just its time. Companies go out of business, new ones arise, its a free market, those things are bound to happen.

Why I DON'T hate Michael Bay

Any avid movie fan will look at this title in shock. How can one who cares enough to speak of him not hate him? He's directed such movies as Bad Boys (I & II), The Rock, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, The Island, and Transformers. He is notorious for having plots as thin as thin ice, characters that lack development, quick cutting action scenes, and lots of explosions. Cinematically (that may or may not be a word) speaking, he is certainly a poor director. And when you add on his further notoriety of being an asshole, then you have a wide base of people who hate him.

This is where my disconnect from the avid movie fan begins. First, I don't care about a director's, actor's, producer's personality. Russell Crowe throws phones, I don't care. I loved him in Gladiator and 3:10 to Yuma. Michael Bay is an arrogant prick, i don't care. Michael Douglas eats babies, i don't care. He was a great in Wall Street. I watch these movies to be entertained by the characters. If you watch Ocean's 11 and all you think about is why Brad Pitt left Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie then you need ADD meds, or something.

Secondly, I haven't seen Pearl Harbor, which I hear is his worst movie.

THIRDLY, when I watch Michael Bay movies I am at a state of mind in which I do not want to think intensely, I don't care about character development, and, I'll be honest, I just want to see shit blown up. For those who are starting to withdraw from me, PAY ATTENTION. Not every movie ever made was intended to be the next Godfather. Sure, Michael Bay may make his movies to solely earn profit, but it works! He makes entertaining movies, so they make money. People need to stop taking him so seriously.

I say this because I am a huge fan of at least 3 of his movies, the first Bad Boys, Armageddon, and Transformers. I laugh at the one-liners, I sit wide-eyed at the shots of a 2-story machine throwing another 2-story machine through a building, and I'm intrigued when Steve Buschemi is sitting on the back of a nuclear weapon riding it like a cowboy

For the record, my favorite movies are Ghostbusters, The Usual Suspects, the Shawshank Redemption, and the Birdcage. So don't doubt my taste.

The Two Party System

So first it must be said that, in my opinion, our federal government needs fundamental reform. This goes beyond any squabbling over the divisive issues of today such as taxes, immigration, or any issue that stakes the Christian Church vs everyone else. Those, I think are actual issues between liberal ideas and conservative ideas. The biggest problem I see with the current government is the two-party system. The only solution, therefore, is to completely abolish it; to see an election where we have more than two people in which half the country has to choose the lesser of two evils.

The problem I have with the two party system is that it creates a vacuum of individual ideals and pigeon-holes not only politicians, but also Americans. For politicians, who knows how many are lost or cut off the national stage because they aren't marketable. If you have a Republican with liberal economic ideas, but conservative social ideas, you aren't going to be funded. The Republican Party isn't going to support putting you on the ticket because you don't fully represent the party. And you're not going to get the same lobby support from oil companies if you have a liberal economic plan.

Furthermore, the American people should be spared the unrelenting duality of the system. At one point throughout the primaries in this past election, I'm sure that the American public would have been sufficiently divided between McCain, Obama, or Clinton. And I may even go as far as to put Romney in there assuming he had more time and assuming Palin stuck on with McCain. We have four candidates here who would've put up a better election than the two we had. Mostly because the general election solidly consisted of McCain contradicting himself and actually wearing down his own buzz words, and all Obama had to do was deflect the questions will holding out his Shield of Hope (that might actually be in D&D).

But that was just a recent example. Theoretically speaking, though, don't you find it logical that the more candidates you have the better chance of you being properly represented. After all, we have become a cynical nation. One in the ever widening middle of the road who has broken away from party loyalty anyway. The Average American falls well within the interquartile range (for those who took Stat in high school or college) in terms of political preference. As Chris Rock once said, "America is a nation in the middle". Though its not really our fault. We live in a society that judges wrong answers harshly, and therefore stifles opinion. Therefore, 1) People are afraid of being wrong, that's why Agnosticism is on the rise, and people aren't willing to become radical about ideas (which is good, anyway), and 2) The American People don't like those who are radical anyway. Look at Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson and anyone at the Democratic Underground. So why should a person step up to the polling booth on November 4th, and decide on a person who's too liberal or too conservative (Note: This is for all elections, not just the Presidential one).

For me, it doesn't make any sense. We've done it since the founding of our nation, even though it isn't even in the Consitutition. We've gone through Federalists, Democratic-Republicans (really?), Whigs, Democrats, Republicans, and yes i'll say it, Greens. The only President to not serve under a political party was George Washington. He was smart, wasn't he?

Masters of War

I learned of this song when I was doing some extra research on Bob Dylan for my American Studies Class, and I absolutely love it. Bob Dylan is a master lyricist and probably the best American Lyricist ever. Here's the song:

Come you masters of war, You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes, You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls, You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know, I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin', But build to destroy
You play with my world, Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand, And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther, When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old, You lie and deceive
A world war can be won, You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes, And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water, That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers, For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch, When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion, As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies, And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear, That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children, Into the world
For threatening my baby, Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood, That runs in your veins

How much do I know, To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young, You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know, Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never, Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question, Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness, Do you think that it could
I think you will find, When your death takes its toll
All the money you made, Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die, And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket, In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered, Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave, 'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

What I like most about this song is the almost universal context that its delivered. It was obviously written on the brink of the Vietnam War. However, the lyrics can be compared to any war that we've ever had (give or take technological differences). And this is especially relevant to our current situation.

Unfortunately, Bob Dylan isn't really a good singer, and in my opinion his voice doesn't do justice to his lyrics. So I would highly recommend listening to Pearl Jam's version.

Why I'm doing this

So I've avoided getting a blog ever since this fad struck. I've gotten a xanga, which is basically the same thing. I didn't get a myspace because I wasn't really emo and I didn't have a band, nor am I an online stalker. I got a facebook because it was more exclusive, but now its not so it doesn't really matter. Before facebook, though, I did notice many blogs catching attention. It was supposedly the new way of the smaller people getting their say in the world. A lot of people even used it to spout their political ideologies.

Now that I actually have my own, I figure that I'll use this to rant about my political ideals. Sometimes I'll use this to discuss movies that I like (for the record, I LOVE movies and i'll probably make many references to them), also bands that I like. I hope that people have an interest in things I say. Maybe i'll be the next blog hit and some CNN or Fox News anchor will be reading it off like I'm some asshole hiding under anonymity.

But anyway, I plan to go into further detail of my findings eventually using this blog. I have a lot to say, and unfortunately I'm not afraid to say it. Trust me, I know I'll be wrong about A LOT of things, but I'll say it anyway in hopes of learning the truth (as long as its not an anonymous commenter saying 'fuck u u faget ur wrong').