Stuff to Consider

The Constitution and our Founding Fathers

2009-03-27T07:48:00.001-07:00

I wonder how long people have been making poor arguments for their political ideology by using our national history as a resource. Does this tradition date back nearly as far as the formulation of our country? And how long will this stupidity allow to continue unchecked?

The idea that our founding fathers were wiser than us or that the constitution was/is an infallible document is patently ridiculous. As for the constitution, it was such an imperfect document that the Bill of Rights had to be introduced shortly after. And let us not forget their first failure, the Articles of Confederation. And despite all of that they still fundamentally failed to deal with the issue of slavery, essentially condoning and allowing the barbaric subjugation of free peoples for their own economic gain.

If you study the founding fathers you'll quickly realize they didn't know what THEY believed in many instances. That's why the religious and non-religious are always arguing about their spiritual beliefs. Thomas Jefferson for example, has a handful of quotes supporting religion and a handful denouncing it. A History or English teacher will probably tell you they were Deists, but they certainly didn't live like a Deist. But why be surprised that these people were hypocrites? "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men were created equal. Now, slave, go fetch me my tobacco pipe."

Lets not pretend that our founding fathers were wise, perfect men, or that the constitution is an incredible work of art. It laid down a nice foundation by allowing future generations enough freedom to pursue their success, and they're the people who built this nation. All the founding fathers did was get the hell outta the way so that other people could actually do the work.

Hell House

2009-03-22T07:10:00.000-07:00

I heard about these awhile ago. Haunted Houses full of sinful imagery, hoping to bring fire and brimstone to the fore of your mind with graphic, over-dramatic, and stereotyped scenes. I play violent video games and watch violent television, films, etc. And I have to say that actually seeing documented footage of these events is far more disturbing than anything I've seen in entertainment media. Not only are they full of painful ignorance and stupidity, but they simply aren't appropriate for children to see.

I have to wonder if they were recorded and put in a film what sort of rating it would receive. Would it get a pass and receive a lower rating than it deserves like the Passion of Christ did?

Why are fundamentalists OK with extremes if they're used to promote their message, but they're constantly trying to censor my entertainment? I guess someone needs to remind them that us secular folks are the relativistic ones.

Fair and Balanced, the road to doom

2009-03-06T12:10:00.001-08:00

When things're fine, the constant criticism and hoping-to-predict-the-worst the media does isn't bad. If things get overly speculative it's annoying and can give some stupid, impressionable, and biased people improbable scenarios to base decisions off of. But in the middle of a crisis, the media is essentially fanning the flames of our own destruction by constantly scrutinizing every little thing.

The economy has an undeniable psychological component to it. As long as people are continually fed grim information, sometimes as a counterbalance to a positive story, things will continue to be bad. For example, in January 2009 Consumer Spending went up. Obviously that's good news, but the news outlets had to "balance" it by saying, "But it's unlikely to continue." And then they spent the majority of the rest of the story explaining why things're bad.

If the media isn't going to be optimistic, who will? We receive our information from them, sometimes it's more important to do what's right for the country than it is to produce "balanced" information. Especially in a non-political crisis like an economic meltdown.

Stupidity (Part 1, I'm sure)

2009-03-05T22:07:00.000-08:00

The following is about the "Midge" Barbie doll from Wikipedia:

Midge was sold "pregnant" with Nikki, who was a tiny baby inside Midge's magnetic removable pregnant stomach. This led to some controversy. Many people claimed that the doll was inappropriate for children, or that it promoted teen pregnancy. Another cause for this controversy was that Midge did not initially have a wedding ring, but this was later fixed. She also was packaged without Alan. Customers complaining about the doll led to Wal-Mart pulling the Happy Family line off their shelves.

Now people are complaining about tattoo barbie. Do Parents honestly believe their children are so stupid that if they get a doll to play with when they're 8, the first thing they're going to do when they hit puberty is get knocked up so they can be like the doll they've likely thrown away years ago? Here's an idea, if you don't want your kid to have something; don't let them.

If you can't control your child's behavior or can't be bothered to actually parent instead of having a corporation's toy shelves doing it for you, then your child is probably already in trouble anyway, and I doubt the Trampstamp Barbie is gonna hurt anything. Or maybe it'll encourage her to enclose herself in plastic, it seems about as likely to me.

Analogies

2009-03-05T05:10:00.000-08:00

If religion is a wall...

Fundamentalists have fun-house mirrors for windows.

Atheists bricked themselves in so they wouldn't have to look at their annoying neighbors.

Moderates have doors and windows.

Agnostics haven't built their walls yet; they're too busy observing other people's and deciding what they think would work best.

Political Parties

2009-03-01T10:52:00.000-08:00

Political Parties in the United States today are an absolute joke. They're so far from their original basis and naming scheme that there's little to no sense one can salvage from their existence. For example:

The Democratic Party is labeled as Liberal. Liberal is an adjective meaning, "Pertaining to liberty." Liberty is freedom. Thus they are the party of Freedom. Only, they believe in Government spending and institution as a method to achieve their goals, which is forced confiscation of your dollar to be spent on programs dictated by the majority of the country. Freedom would be letting you choose to spend your dollar where you believe it should be spent. In reality the Democrats believe in restricting freedom for the greater good.

Originally conservatism was about conserving the freedom of individuals. It's a relatively recent party, formed shortly before the Civil War. Their primary platform was the abolishment of slavery. And ironically the first Republican President fought a war to enforce the central authority of the Federal Government. Ever since that little paradox, Conservatives haven't had the slightest clue what they stand for. The second Republican President opposed civil rights legislation and ended a government bureau for freedmen. Today the Republican Party still hasn't managed to reclaim its sanity.

Under Ronald Reagan's administration spending and tax cuts raised the deficit from 700 billion to 3 trillion. The War on Drugs began, resulting in an increased effort to prevent individuals from putting chemicals into their own body. And faith was integrated into politics to a greater degree than ever before. Despite the fact that his administration included irresponsible fiscal policies, errosion of the seperation of church and state, and rejected drug rights, Reagan's ideology has become the official philosophy of the Republican Party.

If you believe that the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility you'll probably be shocked to learn that of the last 5 Presidents (not including Obama) every Republican has increased the debt/GDP, and every Democrat has decreased the debt/GDP.

Something political actually happened in Missouri?

2009-02-27T11:33:00.000-08:00

Too bad it's stupid.

Protesters gathered today outside the Arch on the St Louis Riverfront to show their displeasure with the stimulus package by throwing teabags into the river. Don't get me wrong, being opposed to the stimulus package is reasonable. I can understand why people of a particular economic and political philosophy may feel that the stimulus package will be ineffectual for fixing the current economic crisis. The stupidity comes from the obvious historical ignorance of the group's choice of location and activities.

1) The St. Louis Arch is constructed upon a federal park which came directly from the New Deal stimulus programs, ok'd by FDR himself (which Obama's stimulus is obviously attempting to mirror). The Arch may as well be a monument to government stimulus spending. It would've made sense to choose it as their location if it wasn't well received and integrated into the identity of Missouri as a point of pride. Usually it's a good idea to surround yourself with evidence that supports your point.

2) The Boston Tea Party only worked because the tea dumped into the harbor belonged to the British. It was an economic retaliation for the unfair policies colonists felt were being forced upon them without any say in the matter. Not only do these minority voices dumping the tea into the Missippi have a voice in Congress (the Republicans), but they're dumping their money into the river, not the Democrat's.

I can't believe the media even covered this. I guess pop culture loves hollow, irrational references to important historical events.

Vista Irony

2009-02-23T09:08:00.000-08:00

Advertising

2009-02-22T19:31:00.000-08:00

"Every year thousands of Americans have their house catch on fire while they're away" a television advertisement assures me. I guess the marketing department that wrote that was expecting me to think, "Thousands? Crap I need to buy THAT alarm! It happens to Thousands of Americans!" But instead I thought, "Thousands out of 300 million... And I should care why?"

Lets say it happens to 3000 Americans a year, because I'm lazy and like nice numbers. That means that the average American faces a 3000 in 300,000,000 chance of it happening to them every year. Which results in a yearly .001% chance.

Imagine if the Advertisement said that? They're clearly banking on it having an effect, does this mean they're betting that the average American doesn't have any idea what the population of the United States is?

Sadly as much as I hate advertising, I would bet on that too. I hate finding common ground.