Act Like You care...

A few days ago, Stephen Colbert's guest, David Brooks, described elected officials as actors playing a role.  He was referring to their cordial actions and 'discussion' of bipartisanship during the healthcare summit, but I think that representatives are just actors.

Elected officials have to act likeable.  They have to act like they believe that everything they are doing is in the interest of the 'people.'  Is there really a difference between a speech and a scene?

Then, what came to mind were all the actors-cum-elected officials.  Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan being the most notable.

The people who win elections are rarely the most qualified or the ones with the best fiscal plans, they are the ones that people hear and trust.  Hilary Clinton didn't play the part of the woman of the house well enough and it cost her dearly. Sarah Palin played the role of housewife too much and didn't play the part of intellectual enough.  I am not saying that it is a positive attribute of our democracy, but most political analysts will say the same thing about actors and representatives.

What are the implications of a government that is run by people pretending to care about what they are doing?  Personally, I like to think that our government is made up of people who genuinely want to be there, but I don't really know.

E Plurubus Unum

Our national Motto.

I wonder, out of many, what?

We weren't the first modern democracy.  We weren't (by a long way) the first nation to see how backwards slavery was.  We weren't (by a long way) the first to see how backwards racism was.  We were certainely not the first country to invade others.

What makes us so special.  I think it is the working attitude to make life easier that set America apart at its founding.  It was built by pioneers who went to the new world to find a better life.  Then it grew and immigrants came who looked for streets paved with gold.  Now, people are willing to work in slave-like conditions to be in this country illegaly.

I think the problem is, we have made life too easy.  Indicators? For one Baconnaise.  Also, we have forgotten how hard working to keep our dream alive is.  I'm not just talking about people of the North Shore, I'm talking everyone.  During WWII, people brought their coins to be melted down to be made into bullets.  There was such a sense of working to keep the American dream alive. 

Now, the only way that we can think to keep our dream alive is to keep new citizens out.  We enforce immigration laws so strongly, yet forget that these immigrants are our forefathers.  We have been given to much in our Bacon-Mayonnaise  covered youth.

The Enquirer... Wins?

We were talking in class about the problem facing the members of the Pullitzer committee.  On the one, as Doc Oc said, they uncovered an important story.  On the other hand, they are kind of... what is the word I'm looking for... trashy.

I agree that the Enquier is trashy, but I don't think that the story that they uncovered is all that important.  Before you accuse me of being partisan and only taking John Edwards' side because I tend to allign myself with liberals, let me say this. 1) He is a democrat from North Carolina, which is like a Republican from the North.  2) I have the same views on Mark Sanford's scandal.

The reason that I don't care about these stories is that they are totally irrelevant to the (in Edwards's place former) representative's credentials.  If the story were considering a person who was trading sex with a corporate sponsor, I would definately consider it relevant.  This story, however, is no different than what the Enquier usually publishes.  After all, what is the difference between a Edwards' infidelities and Brad Pitt's?

I'll use my degree in the bedroom and kitchen...

The clip below is not totally relevant.  Look specifically at the Yaz commercial with the nightclub because something about that rang really true to me.



As we talked about earlier this year, there are many more women than men going to college.  Despite that, women are outnumbered in almost every profression that requires a degree.  Alot of women decide to put their careers on hold, as my mother did, when they have children.

I don't know if this is wrong, but the thing that prompted this was a mixture of our conversation about the usefulness of college degrees in class and the way that women (apparently) don't use them.  After one girl uses her medical license for all that a woman with a medical license could do, Sarah uses her "useless" degree in English to talk about the Great Gatsby.  Let's be honest, what else would women use a degree for. 

I understand that I combined two subjects, so if this is confusing, just ask for clarification.

You Crazy Kids

I was talking to my coteacher at sunday school and we got into a discussion about the way that children of today act compared with those of the past.

She said that her niece was incredibly disrespectful to her parents and never did what she was told.  My Co-teacher blamed the informal style of the modern world.  In school, teachers are constantly referred to as just Bolos instead of Mr. Bolos (and some teachers are referred to by only their first name.  My grandpa, for years a member of The Standard Club in Chicago, left because they no longer require a suit and tie in lieu of just a sport jacket (they also now let women into many of the rooms that they weren't before).  Our world is undoubtedly getting more informal.

I have a pretty informal relationship with my mother, but I'm not sure if this has had an adverse effect on me.  I would like to think that I am a relatively good kid.  I don't know if I am the exception or this woman's niece is the exception.

Is modern informality degrading children? Were you raised formally or informally and (as objectively as possible) how good of a kid are you?

Fighting For Something... Finally.

In two recent posts (click here or here) I commented on the way that America had ignored human rights violations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  A few weeks ago, something was finally done in Iraq that seems to be with America's values.

Candidates with ties to the Ba'th Party, the party of Saddam Hussein, were for a long time not allowed to run.  The government recently published a list of Ba'th Party members who would be allowed to run.  Some candidates are still not allowed to run, but I think that this is a step in the right direction.

People had criticized the ban on Ba'th party members and those with connections running, calling it a ploy to remove unwanted candidates from office.  Indeed, most people could find a link to the Ba'th party, which was for years the dominant part in Iraq.  Even if it was only Ba'th party members who were banned, I wouldn't see the justification.  People claim it is to remove the threat of another dictator, but isn't that the cost of democracy.  You have to let anyone run, and hope that the people choose the right way.

America's Next Top Republican Woman

Doesn't this just sum up most of my problems with conservative America.  I have NEVER seen a similar photo comparing the physical attributes of democrat and republican men.  This makes me really angry.

Assumably, this photo came out before the Palin dynasty, as she isn't on it.  That makes this picture all the more ironic.  First, you spend years complaining that Hilary Clinton doesn't cry, and putting out trash like this that is somehow meant to claim that republicans are better because they only hire bimbos, then you claim that Palin has been subject to a ridiculous amount of sexism.

Anyone who has ever watched Fox News will understand what I am saying.  Not only are all the women ridiculously beautiful, but they are also given the most ridiculous fluff stories.  Gretchen Carlson (a former pageant girl) always gets stories about hair care while her co-hosts get real stories.

I understand the reason that republicans do this; if you need to get some women to prove that you aren't sexist, why not get some arm candy?

Evolution Vs Revolution

At the CPAC convention, Glenn Beck gave a speech where he argued that the only difference between revolution and evolution is the amount of time it takes.  You know what, the grown man who cries and makes animated voices is right.  He may have been part of the liberal elite until Fox News offered him a paycheck that was bigger than CNN's, but he knows what he is talking about.

That was sarcasm. I disagree wildly with Beck.  Progression is what keeps our nation 'moving forward.'  Let's take a look at countries that aren't as progressed as the US.  Iran, beating your wife is legal, racism is sanctioned.  It looks like what conservatives want for America is to make a mini Iran.

OK, that was unfair, maybe conservatives want monetary conservatism.  Lets look at countries that have little restrictions on the way that companies do buisness.  China (ignore their communist title, they have one of the most 'free' markets in the world) or India should be good examples.  Sure, they may be getting all of our jobs, but what are they losing.  Child labor is legal.  There is an elite of far less that a half a percent surrounded by immense poverty.  So, what republicans want is feudalism and child labor.  I'm learning a lot.

Obviously this may appear unfair to say that republicans want all the things that as a nation we claim to abhor, but I don't know about that.  I don't understand why republicans can't seem to notice that practical applications of total market freedom don't work and that what we really need is a balance of socialist (I intentionally didn't use a euphemism) and free market principles.

As for social reforms, Republicans, who count on votes from say women (and employ tokens like Palin) and blacks (and employ tokens like steele) can't say that they want to go back on those reforms, but they gotta keep as many as possible from getting through.

Unfair, probably, but I can't see any other explanation.  Please, help me see.

Learn to conform

According to a study referenced on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, Babies who are afraid of loud noises tend to be less likely to commit a crime than those who aren't afraid of the loud noises.  It seems to me that because of this, we can reasonably come to the conclusion that people don't do what is 'right' because it is inherently right but because they are afraid of the repercussions of what is wrong.

What does this say about morals.  I would say that most people believe that killing is inherently wrong.  What if it isn't? What if the only reason that we don't kill is to remain safe from the "loud noises."

I have, for a long time, believed that there was something a little off kilter about our system of morals and the way that it varies from person to person.  What if we are just wrong about morals.  People claim that empathy is an important human emotion that allows social functions.  Have you ever spent time with a "socialite."  Not much empathy.  Yet a socialite is able to very cunningly get friendships.

I guess, I don't know if there is anything that makes our morals inherently right.  There have been a series of psychopaths who live 'fruitful' and 'social' lives.  What if we aren't afraid to kill out of empathy but out of fear?  What does this say about our society.