Poetry Session

I'm only writing this up here so I won't forget it.

The doors are those fiery gates.

The drive-through, the river Styx.

The counters branch before Beelzebub.

The Big Mac, the American Original Sin.

The temptations of capitalism.

The fall from grace.

Feel free to mock. I don't know what brought this on, I was speaking it before I was thinking it. It's not finished or anything. I just don't want to forget them like most of the other words I speak.

Putting Away Those Books and Pens

Happy end of the semester! Today was my last day of classes for the semester and now that I only have a week of final exams and project due dates, now may be the best time for me to reflect on what I've learned this semester to distract me from something with a due date slapped onto it.

So, what classes did I take this semester? Well obviously I took WRIT 101: College Composition, but despite what Prof. Perkins may think, this was not my only class this semester. I also took ENVS 221: Science of the Environment, IDIS 304: Arts and Ideas, COSC 155: Internet Technologies, and COSC 160: Graphics for Game Design. So, what life skills have I developed from these courses? Well, let me tell you!

COSC 155: Internet Technologies

This class was a course on basic web site construction and it was one of the first classes that I have taken that are applicable toward my majors. I learned absolutely nothing. I took an HTML class three years ago in high school taught by the great Mr. Przyborski, now one of the webmasters for NASA's civilian and private sites and learned everything I needed for this class there. However, I did get to make a kick-ass portfolio web site. It's amazing and employs some clever Javascript trickery to make the beauty of my mind come to life. Here's a link, if you're so morbidly interested:

http://student-iat.ubalt.edu/students/warman_c/COSC155/Portfolio/index.html

COSC 160: Graphics for Game Design

Also a class required for one of my majors, this class covered basic Photoshopping and basic texturing of three dimensional models. Once again, I unfortunately learned very little in this class that I didn't already know. Even with the stuff that was brand new to me, I learned on my own playing around with the 3D textures program. However, unlike my other class, this professor was not a boring gray blob that read directly from PowerPoint slides. Prof. Moulthrop is the head of the SDE department at my school and, fortunately, he is a very interesting and affluent person that proves that not everybody in the video game culture are social misfits, as many would be led to believe. He made a class that would have been boring and easy otherwise very interesting and enjoyable. Another web link, if you so choose, to my productions for the class:

http://student-iat.ubalt.edu/students/warman_c/COSC160/

ENVS 221: Science of the Environment

I had Prof. Kemp last semester for another environmental science course called Human Ecology, which focused more on the human impact on the natural processes of the environment. This class was focused more on those natural processes and the means by which scientists observe these phenomena. Admittedly, I didn't learn much here that I didn't already learn from last semester's class, but now I have a much greater appreciation for those scientists that study the environment. To me, it seems like a much more active science than any other I have been accustomed to over the past years of my formal education. Whereas physicists and chemists are in a controlled, sealed lab, environmental scientists are out there, waist deep in the Jones Falls, searching for invertebrates and whatnot in the real world. That's science and I have a profound appreciation for it.

IDIS 304: Arts and Ideas

Here's a class that I really learned a lot in. Despite all my bitching and whining about reading and the ambiguity of conversation in class, I truly have developed as a person as a result of this class. On the surface, all this was was a class about reading literature throughout history, from the Illiad to The Prince to the poetry of Blake. What Prof. Fitz made it into was a class about understanding people. These pieces of literature featured some of the most real depictions of the human process that have ever been written and Prof. Fitz challenged us to recognize that and understand the positions of characters in those stories, whether we agreed with them or not. Through this class, I have developed a skill to look at people, not just what they are now, but where they come from, what experiences they have had, and where they want to go, and develop an understanding of what their perspective is. In regards to life skills, this may have been one of the most important classes that I have ever and will ever take.

WRIT 101: College Composition

Shit, I already knew all of this when I started. HA!

Okay, to be serious, what did I learn from College Composition. It certainly wasn't how to write well because, as far as I can tell, I had it fairly down pat by the time I was in this course. Then why did I find the course so fulfilling? I don't know. It's some sort of personal bullshit again, I guess. I suppose what I learned was to not be afraid of taking risks in this class. Through my writing, Prof. Perkins encouraged me to take risks. She pushed me to embrace intentional fragments, narrative introductions that take up half of the essay, and subjects that I feel passionate about, although maybe not to others, as long as the words carried poetry, meaning, weight. As long as there was something at stake, then I could digress from the written norm as much as I wanted to. Prof. Perkins taught me that. She taught me to be passionate about writing. To be invested in it. To be free in it.

An Obligatory Liberal Blog Post

Alright, I suppose I should let you know what I think of the whole mess in the Gulf of Mexico. So, here it goes.

This whole situation disgusts me. I am ashamed, both for the apathy of my country's government and my fellow citizens. The circumstances seem disastrous and I can't even begin to offer how subdue the impact of this ecological catastrophe on our nation's fragile coastal environments. This whole event has created a void of faith in the possibilities of the American experiment and makes me weary to handle the world that I and my generation have inherited.

That's it. I mean, what more do you want me to say? I can't offer anything new that hasn't already been said elsewhere or even by myself over the past few months. Needing clean energy. Needing regulations on out of control big business. Needing to concern ourselves with welfare of our environment at least on the same level as our economy. Needing to think in the long term instead of what supports our short term excesses. This is what happens when you let the businesses run wild in the hopes that their short-term profits will froth over into the cups of other 98% of the population.

But why do anything about them when they benefit us so much in the short term. Look, derivative spending and junk loan sales has big bank profits skyrocketing, with only 98% of the people of the United States suffering through the recession it's fueled! Look, our country has the highest quality of health care in the world, for those who can afford it! Look, our factory farms and genetically modified crops have created a surplus of food in the United States, even though its made our country into an obese state and created unknown health problems (and potentially crises) for generations to come! Look, our taxes are so low, though our children are some of the dumbest in the developed world! And now look, we get our cheap oil addiction fix domestically, and it will only cost us the health of treasured natural estuaries from Mississippi to God knows where up the East Coast.

Even President Obama, an individual that I have invested no small amount of hope and support for, is indulging in the short-term mentality; he refuses to take off-shore drilling off the Energy Reform Bill table even after this crisis has erupted to proportions where half of the water resources of the United States and millions of people's livelihoods may be destroyed. And Mr. President, you're still seeking political consensus? With all due respect, President Obama, there is a time for concession and there is a time for doing what is right. You gave behemoth banking institutions hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars with absolutely no requirements to break up their trusts, reform their business practices, or even pay back the loan. You let the needs of the American people slide away by letting go of a public option, lifting anti-trust exemptions from the industry, and woman's right to choose on health care reform. You've pushed off real elimination of Don't Ask Don't Tell until 2013 or later. The time for political points is not now; now is the time for real legislative change.

You can see the payback of making concessions to big business right now out in the Gulf of Mexico, and coming soon in the Atlantic Ocean. Is it fucking worth the cost?

The Horrors of a Sandwich with No Bread

Well, chalk this one up in the "completely off-topic" column, because this has nothing to do with American politics or video games. However, it does have everything to do with American culture.

Exhibit A: KFC's Double Down

Yes, I did purchase this thing with my own money from the KFC out on Eastern Avenue (which I'm quickly coming to realize is the shittiest of KFCs.) This picture has not been edited, the sandwich was indeed that grey and sloppy looking. Nonetheless, with a great expense of mental willpower, I forced myself to eat it.

Good lord in Heaven, I almost died halfway through the first bite. It was horrific. The chicken was dry and tasted like old people (for reference, like soap and dust), the cheese was not melted or, I assume, real, and the bacon even failed to pique my eternal love for the pork product of choice. And I don't even know what "Colonel Sauce" is made of, but I know it is nauseating and surprisingly oily. I mean, where did they get the ingredients for this sauce, the Gulf of Mexico? (Bazinga.)

I know, that was a very long walk to a joke that really isn't funny or tasteful, but back on topic, why did I eat this atrocious sandwich. And in case you don't believe me, I did eat the majority of this sandwich.

Why did I eat it? It's not because it seemed remotely appetizing, because this sandwich has disgusted me from the moment I first saw it on the Huffington Post. No, I ate this sandwich because of the idea behind it.

Because in America we don't settle for the minimum or even the perfectly acceptable. As if bacon, cheese, and Thousand Island Dressing (Maybe?) sandwiches were not already enormously unhealthy, one of the greatest American industries saw fit to innovate where others simply accepted the status quo, adding another meat where bread would be the norm. And consider the rest of American wonders from the past century! The Snuggie for example. Because I was truly angry that I couldn't just wear my blanket everywhere. Or the iPod. Because it does freaking everything.

Because in America, excess is the only way. There is no moderation, there is no consideration of consequences, there is no self-respect. We live in a society based on getting everything all at once by any methods possible. That's why our department stores are measured in football fields, our waistlines in feet, and our national debt in trillions. It's easy to blame Wal-Mart commercialism on economic hardship, obesity on fast food companies, and our national debt on nearly a decade of mishandling by a presidential administration that believed two separate wars ,both half a world away, were feasible ideas, but the underlying root of this problem, the real meat of this shit sandwich with Colonel Sauce comes from a deep ingrained idea of entitlement, that the rest of the world is simply hear to serve America's pleasures and our only purpose in life is to consume to our heart's content. There's just this belief that if there is something (aside from useful things like social programs) out there, we must have it, but we must have it to the extreme! And this sense of entitlement will push our great country further and further into a great decline until there is a fundamental cultural shift in the American mentality.

Until we embrace the understanding that we are not the world, that all of the people of the world are in this together, and that the people of the world must all support each other, then our country will be pulled further down by the weight of our ego and our abdomens. One day, in order for the United States to flourish once again, we will have to lose this mentality, the mentality that causes both sandwiches with chicken for bread and wars in countries that we've only partially noticed when looking over the world map. But who knows how long that will take...

Until then though, enjoy a delicious "Pancake Stacker" with cheesecake fillings and candied fruit and sides of hash browns, eggs, and meat; only 1250 calories, only for a limited time, and only at IHOP!

Special Foreign Policy Edition!

Let me begin by saying, as versed as I perceive myself to be in United States domestic issues, I can by no means say that I am well acquainted with the global theater of politics. I know of other countries and places, but I cannot in true confidence say that I know and/or understand the intricacies of international diplomacy or the issues that surround it.

But when did that ever stop an American from speaking obnoxiously before?

So here's the part where I will go through a few hot button issues from the international political community and shoehorn my opinions and ideas onto those global situations. Who knows, I may say something relatively comprehensible?

Mexico's War on Drugs

I don't have too much to say about this. I'm only going to say, if marijuana were legal in the United States, then you can bet your bottom dollar that this conflict would not have gotten as insane as it has become. I'm just saying, it seems like an awful lot of suffering and pain, not only for the people of Mexico, but also for the people of the Southwest United States, over a substance that inhibits human thought just as much as alcohol.

Mexico and Central America's Illegal Emigration Problem

Personally, I think this is a lost cause to fight against. Unless an unreasonable amount of money is spent to build fortifications and fund troops to patrol the border, there is no way to completely protect our country from illegal immigrants. So why are we still playing this game? Open the damn borders! Make the immigration and work visa process more accessible and in return, we get a strong, reliable immigrant work force. Our country is founded on the concept that we accept immigrants with open arms and give them a shot at the American Dream. Why would we be against that very idea being realized by Mexicans and Central Americans?

Allied with Israel

Look, I am all for being allied with Israel. I feel they have every right to exist as a nation and that they are a valuable partner in the Middle East. But the way they act, especially recently with their insistence on establishing settlements in Palestinian land, is downright hostile and is an instigation of conflict. Being allied with states that insight conflict regularly with their neighbor was what dragged the western world into the first World War. And quite frankly, President Obama is letting them walk all over him. We do not depend on Israel, Israel depends on our nuclear umbrella for their protection. Why should we concede to the ridiculous whims of the Israeli leadership? If they would like to incite conflict with the Palestinians over something petty like building settlements, then I say they can fend for themselves. We cannot be asked to protect a nation that has no interest in acting peacefully itself. If we want peace in the Middle East, then the U.S. must play its hand and force Israel into peace discussions if it would like our protection. Additionally, taking a hard line with Israel may increase popularity among the increasingly important Islamic states in the Middle East.

North Korea's Bluff

With all due respect, President Obama, Kim Jong-Il has been playing you. His entire facade of malicious intent and fierceness is a bluff. His country has nothing. His people have nothing. His military is a hollow shell with a scary wrapping around it. North Korea is nothing. They are not a threat to the United States or its allies. If they ever attacked us or one of our allies, they would be crushed. Do not concede to a nation built on indoctrination and tyranny, they have nothing to leverage against us.

The Genocide in Darfur

This is a travesty. I am appalled that it has gone essentially uninhibited for decades. I don't know what can be done short of going to war, but it cannot be permitted to go on.

The War in Afghanistan

This war and the one in Iraq, have been sorely mishandled for nearly a decade. I am happy to see President Obama is winding down U.S. troop presence in Iraq, and I agree that it is only responsible to do so at a reasonable pace so as to not cause distress in Iraq. Afghanistan is also being handled surprisingly well since Obama took office as well, not surprising because Obama is a Democrat, surprising because the war there had so terribly been handled for a decade that its strange to see any progress being made. But what's important about Afghanistan is not the war that will secure the nation, but the endgame of the conflict. The United States has secured Afghanistan before, back when the U.S.S.R. invaded Afghanistan in 1979, it is possible. It's the endgame that our country failed the Afghan people in. The lesson learned in 1989 at the end of the war is that we cannot simply leave after the war is over. If we want Afghanistan to become a productive, U.S. friendly state in the Middle East, we will need to stay after the war and invest in the formation of roads and other infrastructure and support a public education system that includes young girls. If we don't stay after and ensure the new Afghan state forms properly, then the past 10 years and the undetermined expanse of the future will have been for nothing. We must make sure to finish the fight and then finish building the nation.

Alright, there's a little taste of my form of foreign policy. To be blunt, it was less fun than I thought it was going to be. Nonetheless, this has been the special foreign policy edition of the Nothing is fact; Everything is true. The end. :P

A Lion in the Court

John Paul Stevens, you have been a most worthy addition to the Supreme Court. Nominated by Gerald Ford back in 1975, you were selected as a seemingly non-activist addition to the court after the retirement of Justice William Douglas. You turned out to be one of the most staunchly liberal members to ever sit on the court and you have served the country well in your extraordinary 35 years of service on the bench. You have earned you retirement.

And now President Obama, it is time once again to dance this ridiculous dance with Republicans, the Anti-Liberal Activism Rave. I say rave because ultimately it's not about the music, it's about the drug you're on. DO NOT, under any circumstances Mr. President, listen to this, to put it politely, bologna.

Keep in mind that Republicans had absolutely no qualms about confirming a couple of conservative activist judges in the Bush years, most importantly now Chief Justice Roberts, who was only 50 years old at his confirmation (keep in mind, Stevens was 55 when confirmed, and, again, he served for 35 years!) They certainly didn't mind Roberts' extraordinarily conservative jurisprudence and his service specifically in the Reagan and H.W. Bush Administrations, or Samuel Alito's, President Bush's other nominee, consistent rulings on the U.S. Court of Appeals on the Third Circuit in favor extreme gun ownership and against worker's rights.

The court already has a 5-4 majority in favor of conservative judges and at the end of this session of the court, we will be losing the most liberal justice the court has ever seen! Now is not a time to pander to the petty desires of a party that runs on a platform of deceit and hyperbole. Pick somebody liberal! Shoot for the bleachers! We got Sotomayor in there, a she's pretty damn liberal! Granted, we had a supermajority back then in the Senate, by she was still confirmed by a vote of 68-31. We can get another one in there!

Let's pick somebody truly liberal! Get someone like Diane Wood in there. She's ridiculously intelligent when it comes to the law and has been able to hold her own against some seriously influential federal judges on the Seventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. She's a very strong candidate and she could probably get in considering her unanimous consent when she was nominated to the court by President Clinton (after the 1994 Gingrich fueled election catastrophe I might add.)

Or, even better, Pam Karlan, from Stanford! She is ridiculously liberal and has ample experience advocating before the Supreme Court! And she's a lesbian! Imagine the political points if you could get her confirmed... And she'd be a liberal force on the same level as Justice Stevens!

I know, I know. You're probably going to go with Elena Kagan. It's a pretty safe choice. She does lean liberal and she is highly qualified. Plus, she is seen as being "non-activist", which will get her through the Senate much easier. And I know, she is great at drawing people together and convincing people of her side of the argument, which may be all we need if we can just convince Justice Antonin Scalia's parrot (i.e. Justice Thomas) to jump off of his shoulder for a minute and agree with the liberal block every once in a while. And she might even be a lesbian, maybe, which would be good.

But President Obama, with all due respect, do not pussy out on this. If you can get one of the liberal lions into the court, do it. And make sure Hilary Clinton is ready for when that third nomination comes your way. I know you're waiting for it, and I can't wait to see Hilary in the old penguin costume. Make it happen!

Dropping the N-Bomb

Nuclear.

Egads! Nuclear weapons! The Muslims are coming with them, they want to kill all the poor Christian (read: white) people! We need nuclear weapons to deter them.

...

Okay, I'm going to give you one simple reason why the Obama Administration's new nuclear posture is the smartest thing that the president could possibly do with our nuclear arsenal.

We do not live in 1940. Or 1989 for that matter.

On August 6th and 9th, 1945, the people of the world saw the horrors of the use of nuclear weapons. Between the two bombings and the subsequent deaths due to radiation and injury, 410,000 people died with no discretion between citizen and soldier, between guilty and innocent. The world does not need to see that level of inhumanity ever again.

And there's no need for it to. We do not live in the 1930's and 40's; nations do not go to war with each other on the level that was witnessed within the World War conflicts. Very few of today's enemies can be easily recognized as states. I will grant, there are a few "rogue states" that weild an aggressive stance against the United States and the rest of Western culture, nations like Iran and North Korea, that are pursuing nuclear weapons.

However, in today's environment, foes are not defined by borders, but by ideas. While the distinction was one in the same in the 20th century, Nazism in Germany, Totalitarian Communism in the U.S.S.R., today the two groups are distinct. For example, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are based in Afghanistan, however, not all of the people of Afghanistan are part of al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

And likewise in there physical differences, states of government and groups of people brought together by an idea can not be confronted in the same way. While a state can be defeated using force and nuclear weapons, killing the people that live the idea doesn't kill the idea. Take for example, Nazism. Nazi Germany, the nation, was defeated more than 60 years ago; but even today, many people in the Neo-Nazi movement still believe in the tenets of Nazism, anti-sematism, and white supremacy.

Nuclear weapons are completely useless in defeating most of today's foes of ideas. There is no target to aim for; there is no set base to strike. Ideas are preserved not in physical entities and buildings, but in the minds and histories of people. The Obama Administration understands this. While some force may be necessary to calm the more extreme fringes of a movement, ultimately it is education and economic partnership that will defeat ideas that breed violence and threaten global security.

Conservative wingnuts are simply that. To decry the elimination of only one third of the massive U.S. nuclear weapon supply is ridiculous. These levels of weapons served only to further the deterrence of Mutually Assured Destruction in the 1970's and '80s, and today they are a careless conservative's button press away from global overkill. To have these levels of weapons makes no sense today. By eliminating these weapons, it not only improves the security of the world in the event of a computer malfunction, but also shows nuclear states and rogue states that the United States is serious about disarmament, seeks to preserve the world from the horrors of nuclear holocaust, and wants to prove its ability to not just be a nation of war, but an entity of peace and prosperity. And the world, along with the United States, will be better for it.

The Cost of Nothing

Wow, look at how the time has flown! Ah geez, it's been almost three weeks since I posted anything! But fortunately, in that time, so much has come to pass in the world of American politics! Justice John Paul Stevens, the "liberal lion" of the U.S. Supreme Court, is retiring, giving Barrack Obama his second opportunity to select a new justice for the Supreme Court. The Obama Administration announced its new nuclear posture and strategy and held an international conference on the dangers of nuclear weapons in the modern world. And the Wall Street Financial Reform Bill passed out of committee and looks to be headed for floor discussion within the next few weeks. And I'll get to all of these topics in time.

But for now, financial reform. It lacks the glamor of the battle for health care reform, a struggle that had taken a century to find any sort of progress, but in some ways it is more important than any other piece of legislation brought before the 111th Congress.

The idea of this piece of legislature is to restore restrictions on the banking industry to prevent the sort of economic disaster that struck our country more than a year ago. The bill, authored by Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, is a fairly moderate approach to this solution, bringing in some restrictions on the ways banks can handle debt and derivatives, requiring transparency in the business practices of big banks, and creating a fund, which is funded by taxes and fees on banks, not U.S. citizens, that would be used, in the event of a similar failure, to bail out the banks again, this time without citizen tax payer money, and pay back the bailout of 2008.

However, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Minority Leader, has risen vehemently against this bill. Even after a slew of compromises, especially in the field of forming an independent consumer protection agency to oversee the conduct of banking entities, and especially after a private meeting with a couple dozen heads of big banking enterprises, the Minority Leader has demonstrated a complete disdain for the legislature. He claims, and has misinformed, to the public that the bill fuels future tax payer bailouts and does nothing to reign in the practices of these out of control banks. His solution: do nothing. Simply allow banks to do whatever they want and when the consequences catch up with them, allow them to fail. To McConnell, the only service of this bill should be to make bailing out of financial institutions illegal.

This is complete rubbish.

If the American economic system could support simply letting these banks fail, then the government would not have spent $700 billion bailing them out. If these banks were simply allowed the collapse, the financial state of millions of Americans, not to mention nations that depend on these banks for loans, would be jeopardized. The bankruptcy system simply does not support the kind of financial turmoil that would ensue from the collapse of the big banking system.

No, I disagree with good ol' Mitch. We simply cannot afford to do nothing. As an alternative, I say we do everything we can to put the financial industry in check. Independent regulatory agencies and other measures to give the bite back to the regulators is a no brainer. These regulators lacked the force, the will, and the ability to do anything to prevent these corporations from following their destructive paths, our government needs to give them that power.

In my fantasy world where Republicans only control 10 seats in the Senate (yes, even in my fantasies, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Kansas still manage to stay strongly conservative), we would go and nationalize the banking system. There would be no need for toxic loans that cause global collapse, because the pure purpose of these loans is for maximizing profit and a state-run bank would not be interested in profit. And the banks would be mandated not to hoard funds and continue lending money for economic growth. The Bank of North Dakota has proven that such a system works, is stable, and keeps the state's budget in the green and the state's economy growing. But alas, we do not live in this fantasy world of reason. Maybe one day we'll get here.

The single biggest impact this legislation can have on American economics would be taking a page from the great Theodore Roosevelt's book: trust-busting. How do you prevent "too big to fail" financial entities? You make them smaller. A private banking organization should not have the ability to fuel the debt spending of European powers like Greece and Spain! This is a sign of the business being "too big"! Break up these banks, make them compete with each other, and prevent them from conglomorating in the future. Prevent these banks from forming trusts and you will prevent the abuses of the system, the search for endless profits in derivative bundling, and "too big to fail". It's that simple; the government must control the banks, not the other way around.

What McConnell, not to mention the rest of the Republican Party, would like you to forget is that he, and a majority of his party, voted to approve the bailout of the financial industry. They supported the bill as the smartest measure to prevent widespread economic collapse. President Bush signed it within hours of its passage with no winks of thoughts of attempting to veto the bill because of its infringement on the free market.

The word of the Republicans is obviously subject to the political winds of election season and carries as much weight as a promise to completely eliminate taxes. One day the American people will recognize this. Until then, we need to fight forward for real action to be taken on financial reform. Otherwise, we face a leadership that has no qualms in allowing private business to abuse the rights of American citizens.

When Games Became Films

Note: Seeing as the news on Capital Hill has died down for the weekend and I've become a little bored with always tirading on about the same political drama that I consistently obsess over on 24-hour news sites, this post, and others, will be on a subject that I feel I have slightly more authority on than politics: video games.

I remember the first time I ever saw Heavy Rain. Or, more accurately, the tech demonstration for the game that they unveiled at E3 2006. It was so strikingly realistic. As I watched the demonstration unfold, I could not believe that this French studio had so well re-created the human form and, being familiar with their previous work, Indigo Prophecy, I became overwhelmingly excited for the possibilities of their next title.

I waited nearly four years for this game. As Heavy Rain actually became Heavy Rain and not just some tech demo and as more and more information was released to the game news industry, I became more and more insanely ready for this game to arrive. On February 23, 2010, I got my wish. And... well, it truly is impossible to live up to four years of over-zealous hype.

Let me just say, I love Heavy Rain. The story and screenplay are incredibly well written, the graphics are absolutely mind-shattering, and it offers something truly unique. But all those descriptions are missing a key qualifier at the end of each one of them: the term "for a video game". But this piece is the most important step that the video game medium has made toward becoming a legitimate art form.

I will not dog the graphics, they're the most realistic that the world has ever seen in a video game, despite how some complain about some robotic animations and off-looking textures. Yeah, I noticed them too, but there's got to be a point where you look past those couple of missing pieces and accept that this was the most visually stunning video game of all time.

And it truly does offer something unique, at least at this time. Heavy Rain is an adventure game in an industry that has not embraced adventure games since the mid-1990's and a predominant amount of gameplay is spent on character interaction and plot development instead of action scenes. It seems like everything about the game, from the presentation style to the control scheme to the central themes of the narrative is so out of norm with the rest of the industry that it's hard to define it as a game.

But, whoops, there I went and mentioned the plot. Well damn. There is one major problem that I have with Heavy Rain and that is the narrative that ties the beautiful visuals, script, music, and outlandishness together. If there is one part of the game that truly disappointed me, it was the lack of risk-taking that David Cage took when writing this story.

The story is formulaic, blunt, holey, convenient, and, above all, safe for the video game audience. Why did David Cage push this game so far away from the stereotypical video game in every other aspect he could, but ran back so willing when it came to the story? '

Why does the story of the main character have to be so explicitly broken down into five challenges? Does David Cage realize how many games are broken down by fives? It's a very convenient number: introduction, trial, "sudden" surprising midpoint, right hand man, big bad guy. Why does one of the challenges have to focus on driving on the wrong side of the road? I usually drive on the wrong side of the road in any game with driving! Then a maze for the second challenge? Wow David, you've stolen such an original idea that repeatedly appears in Pokemon games and it breaks the pace just as bad in both places. After that, we get into some interesting territory making decisions to kill people, to cut off limbs, to poison, but there's one main problem with this that I promise I'm getting to.

And David, why does this narrative have to be so damn convenient? Why does Nathaniel pull out a cross during the stand-off? It would have reflected the importance of the choice of the player if he pulled out a gun and shot Blake instead of just trying to get a last attempt at exorcising him. Why does Scott Shelby show up right after the suicidal mother cut herself? If he had showed up too late to save the mother, then the baby would have been parentless, and players would have felt some actual remorse for Shelby's homicidal tendencies when they find out the truth about him. And, most importantly, why isn't the poison in the last challenge actually poison? It's so obvious, so expected, it killed me that Ethan didn't fall over dead once he had saved his son. Imagine the impact that would have had for the player, to see a father actually sacrifice himself to save his son. The predictability and convenience of the plot ruin any chance at real themes being expressed.

And finally and most damning of all, the characters have no character! The "characters" that are set up are merely the circumstances that surround the character in the story, none of them really have characteristics of their own. Because the player has so much influence over the decisions made in the game, the characters themselves are really only shells for the player to inhabit. And that is where Heavy Rain's story truly fails on a thematic and/or artistic level. There's no internal conflict, no progression for the characters so the narrative and the themes of the narrative have no weight. The whims of the player, not the will of the characters, decide the fate of the game, the story, the narrative. And since the themes have no weight, the game is completely incapable of enticing players through ideas and can only entertain them through events and that's the same thing that every video game story to this day has done already.

That really made it sound like I hated this game or the story. On the contrary, I found both to be very enjoyable. But I did not find it enjoyable for the reason that David Cage wanted me to enjoy it; I did noy find the human emotion that drives the plots of films like The Hurt Locker, Crazy Horse, and Precious. I found it enjoyable because it was thrilling and had a few surprises along the way, like an Indiana Jones or Star Wars film. The problem is that that has already been achieved many times over in the video game industry and David Cage wanted something trailblazing.

What could I tell him to do? Well, I'm no game designer or screenwriter yet, but I would say take the control away from the player. Don't let the player decide the course of the character's progression, just focus on developing interesting characters and stories for them to live through. And while we're talking about stories and characters, simplify it. You do not need multiple characters or branching paths, take it down a notch, and when you simplify it down to one set character and one set path, then it's easier to create a compelling narrative. And most importantly, David, please, take risks. Give the industry and the players something they really have not ever, ever seen before and take us to plateaus of thought we've never entertained while playing our video games. Just try new things.

That said, Heavy Rain is incredibly enjoyable, it has multiple endings, multiple paths through the main narrative, and interesting plot developments; it's a really enjoyable, pretty, intriguing choose-your-own-adventure novel. But that's all that it is. Unfortunately, though, that's the best we can do for now.

Moving Forward on the Progressive Path

That's it! We won! It's finished!

Last night, the House voted to pass the Senate's version of the Health Care Reform Bill. With the passage of the reconciliation package in the Senate in the next week and President Obama's signature, Americans will finally get health care reform that has been sought by several presidents for nearly 110 years. The battle against hate, fear, and corporate greed was won by compassion, hope, and the will of the American people.

But where will the Progressive movement go from here?

Well, obviously some sort of job legislation. Rah, rah, rah, I know, I know, what a cop out, predicting some sort of economy focused legislation during a time of incredible recession. But it's obviously true, I'm absolutely certain that our Congress' big focus, probably through the 2010 election at least, will be about waking up our economy, probably through some sort of incentivizing manufacturing in the United States through tax breaks or something, hopefully (!) through the development of our 30 year old mass-transit infrastructure. Wouldn't it be great if we developed a high-speed train system, like one every other developed country in the world has? Or just fixing our highways and roads so they don't have giant potholes and gaps in them? And imagine all the jobs we'd make, not just in the short term, but all of the long term jobs at train stations and highway maintenance patrols! I'm just saying, developing the infrastructure would be an excellent job source, boost our economy, and make our country more technologically competitive with other developed nations. And to make it more progressive, maybe a certain percentage of the jobs would need to be completed by organized labor unions? I can't think of a better way to increase the power of labor unions and ensure the quality of the construction of these projects.

But you can't just expect Congress to work on job legislation, that would be too boring. If I could wish upon a star, I would want to see some education and financial reforms! Our education system is one of the poorest in the country, and a lot of it has to do with our set standards and the ways our schools are funded as set by President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. The act actually determines federal funding for schools based on their performance on standardized testing, even though logically the schools that would need the funding the most most likely have the lowest standardized test scores. And even before NCLB, local funding was determined by local property taxes; the schools that need the funding the most, that have the lowest graduation rates and testing scores, are located in poorer urban neighborhoods. The new plan should push an emphasis for magnet schooling, support strong science and liberal arts programs in high schools, reform funding so federal funding is based on population and need and local funding is equally provided and distributed by the state, place restrictions on college business techniques so that overhead administrative costs and tuition rates are lowered and college life is geared more toward academia than partying, and provide more financial aid and scholarships for higher education. To be honest though, I don't expect this reform bill to even touch the American secondary education system. But even if it's just centered on the public K-12 education sector, if it only does one thing, for the love of God, get rid of summer vacation! The United States is no longer an agrarian society, it hasn't been for a while, and this three-month break in school is undermining the very nature of education by allowing students' minds to go unstimulated for months on end. GET RID OF IT!

Financial reform. That's different... If there is one thing I truly do not understand, it is our national financial system. I have no idea how corporations can buy or sell debt or build seperate companies to house crap properties so the parent company looks stronger. It's all so ridiculous to me! Our rampant deregulation of our banking system has led to widespread global economic collapse, with our banks being involved in the hiding of national debt in Europe and causing financial crises to shoot up all over the world. It needs to stop! Put the leash on these dogs! Fold them accountable for what they've done. We need to go back to a time of strict financial reform, where government influence set up by the Roosevelt Administration prevented banking-based recessions from occurring for nearly seventy years. Doesn't anyone notice that the state with lowest unemployment rate at 4.2% and one of the few with a budget surplus, North Dakota, is financed by a state-owned bank? The Congress has made smart first steps with its credit card regulations that were implemented last year. But they can't stop there! Put Wall Street in its place and get our nation's debt crisis under control!

Unfortunately, my wish is only half right... Instead of education reform, we'll be getting immigration reform... Hopefully the legislation will focus on a path to citizenship and amnesty for illegal Hispanic immigrants and developing immigration and visitor worker programs that are easy to understand and take part in. But if the Republican voices are anything like they were for health care reform, they're going to want to build a wall and start an advanced drone bomber operation to "secure our borders". Either way, I can't say this legislation seems very interesting. I just hope it's effective.

It's going to be weird, not really talking about health care reform that much any more. I know, Rep. Alan Grayson has offered a Medicare Buy-In Option so that all citizens of the United States can buy into Medicare, but I don't think I'll have much to say unless something really goes wrong or, more surprisingly, it actually passes. But, you know, as much as I miss health care, I really look forward to talking about these other reforms in the future. It should be fun.

The Face of Hate

We stand on the precipice of the passage of one of the most influential pieces of social legislation passed in the United States since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society or even Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. President Barrack Obama's health care reform package is set to be voted on in the House of Representatives as soon as tomorrow and, through the legislative technique of deem and pass, will be on his desk to be signed in the next calendar week. President Obama even addressed the House Democratic Caucus today in a speech that quoted Abraham Lincoln and has been described as his "most emotional" to date. Progress, finally some progress, is within reach.

And there stand the Tea Party.

A mass protest outside the Capitol building brought out hundreds of Tea Party activists to demonstrate while the Democratic caucus arrived for the speech. But, behold, their cries and slogans of "Hands off my health care" were not ringing in the air today. They roared, an angry, unintelligible mass and from the crowd some new catchphrases sprang into the air. Representative John Lewis of Georgia, a civil rights hero most well known for his prominence in the Selma to Montgomery marches and his address at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, was called a nigger by several members of the crowd. (I unapologetically refuse to censor that word. Blocking out, hiding away from the two g's in the middle of it is just spineless and gives this term of hate more power.) And Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a staunch supporter of civil rights, though specifically lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual rights, and the second openly gay member of the House, was called a faggot by members of the crowd.

I actually cried when I read this story the first time. It reviled me so much to know that there were people so ignorant out there that they dismiss elected leaders on the basis of their race or sexuality that it was almost paralyzing. I just, the shock! knowing that hate was out there, so unashamed, so vulgar and unquestionably present. I don't know, for some reason, it didn't really, sink in? I suppose? I have no idea. It was just overwhelming. My disgust. My pity. My I don't even know what. I simply couldn't believe it.

And the Republican Party and conservative bodies like Fox News had glorified this movement as a body concerned with the representation of conservative political thought, of representing "common sense" fiscal responsibility and theology-based ethics and social standards! But today's event, it showed their true colors. When push came to shove, when the time for the Tea Party to dig in and hold back those last few representatives from passing the legislation came, it became evident that the Tea Party's position was not about health care at all, or at least for quite a few of its members. Instead of speaking out against government influence in private business, these "activists", if that's what you can call them, they chose to share some very select hate slurs.

When it was time to show what they represented, the Tea Party let the American body politic, and the American people, know that it wasn't the bill or any of the Democratic policies that they were so vehemently against, it was the niggers and faggots behind them.

I just hope they were listening.

A Lack of Will

Friday night, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee reported on MSNBC that the Bennet public option letter and individual statements released by individual senators, in the past and more recently, had achieved a following of 51 senators in the United States Senate that would vote in favor of a reconciliation bill that included a public option if the House passed it first.

http://whipcongress.com/

Dick Durbin, the Majority Whip and a senator from Illinois, who seemed dead set against the idea of a public option being passed through reconciliation just a few days earlier this week, released a statement that spun his initial statement into support for a House passed public option including reconciliation bill, and that he would aggressively whip for passage of such a bill. Finally, after such an excruciating year-long war of attrition, the progressive spirit had finally broken through! We were going to get our public option and, maybe in my lifetime, a single payer health care system!

Except.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/12/pelosi-public-option_n_496559.html

Nancy Pelosi, what the fuck?

There is absolutely nothing else I could force out of my mouth with the exception of my shock induced vomit and the few microcosms of hopes and dreams that still clung to my soul. Nancy Pelosi, one of the most liberal congressional members in the United States with seemingly undying support for a single payer health care system and the most control over the activities of the House of Representatives, is giving up on the public option because she thinks the political reality is against it? She's going to let some scraggily old foggies defeat the best chance our country has had at real health reform in a century, without even giving it an up or down vote? The most powerful woman and figure in the legislative branch of our government is going to just let this opportunity pass by? It's so difficult to put my absolute rage into words; I just want to scream!

Do you know why Speaker Pelosi won't move forward with the public option? Because she lacks the will. She does not have the will to fight for the people of the United States. And it's disturbing. There's such a lack of will to do anything of value in today's Congress that when somebody stands by their core values and doesn't let corporate interests and cash push them in their favor, they're labeled as mavericks and extremists, like Barney Frank (D-MA) and Alan Grayson (D-FL). It's because they don't feel up to it, they don't want to because it would be too difficult. The truth is that these men and women are public servants, and every American should expect them to have the will to work for them or, if they don't, vote them out. And with Speaker Pelosi's dramatic turnaround and departure, I have come to understand that we will not see real health reform until a Congress of men and women who all have the will are elected to power with a strong Speaker to lead them. Unfortunately, until then, we'll have to deal with band-aid solutions like national marketplaces and insurance mandates. And when it becomes apparent again one day that the private health insurance industry is taking the American people for a ride at the expense of their well-being and happiness, then I hope the people will make the right choice.

Back to you Madam Speaker.

Nancy Pelosi, I trusted you. The Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement trusted you. The American people trusted you, to always push for the interests and values of the people of this country. You've broken that trust and this is one of the single issues that it cannot be forgiven or forgotten. You have let down the American people at a time when they needed you to stand by your convictions the most. I hope you're satisfied with your safe win.

How About a Cup of Coffee?

It's no mystery that I am not a fan of the Tea Party. Their loud, extremist voice has dominated the media and sent the country into a spiral of lies and misdirection that states this small, although incredibly noisy, minority is the voice of the majority of Americans and will dominate the landscape of the 2010 and 2012 election cycles (nevermind the failure of the "Conservative Independent" Tea Party-backed candidate Doug Hoffman that lost a special election Congress seat to a Democrat, Bill Owens, in a district that had been Republican controlled since 1873.)

But now, I have my own extremist group to take a part in. It's called "The Coffee Party" and it bills itself as a reasonable alternative to the Tea Party. It, like the Tea Party, believes that the national government is indeed not representing the needs and views of the American people. But it believes that, given activism on the part of the people, the federal government can be molded to reflect the actual views of the people instead of the views of the corporations that buy and sell opinions on Capital Hill. Additionally, on an idealogical level, it tends to swing toward liberal views, such as recognizing the need for the government to reform the health care system. So, you're probably wondering, what's the extremist part of this? Well, instead of running around with signs with a Hitler mustache pasted on President Obama's face and flying airplanes into IRS buildings, this groups believes it can accomplish its goals by conducting civilized discourse (as in forums and idealogical conferences) on United States policy and taking part in peaceful demonstrations such as mass letter writings, phone calls, and marches to express liberal ideas. What the fuck, an intellectual political movement?

Because this is what talking to your government should involve. It's not about rallying hate-based riots and refusing to pay your taxes. No, the best way to get across to your government is to speak above their level, to maintain a level of civility and resolve that is not seen in the schizophrenic circus that is the American government today. And I think I'd like to be a part of that.

Thought of the Day: Wild Dreams of Clean Energy

A glorious day for the wonderful world of energy! Bloom Energy, an upstart energy company from Sunnyvale, California, unveiled it's new energy production unit on CBS' 60 Minutes on Sunday. The unit is a refrigerator sized "power plant in a box", which itself is filled with hundreds of cubes called "Bloom Boxes". The boxes are each equipped with a fuel cell that, when fed a variety of separate fuels on one side and oxygen on the other, produces a chemical reaction that produces electricity, but a fraction of the carbon emissions when fossil fuels are burned. And it is said that one to two of these smaller boxes could power an American home.

This sounds absolutely fantastic and Bloom Energy has been testing their initial models at big name corporations with locations in California, including Wal-Mart, Google, and eBay. eBay has stated that 15% of the power needed to run their computer intensive campus in San Jose is produced by five of the refrigerator sized boxes and has saved the company hundreds of thousands of dollars in energy costs. Google has also ordered several of the refrigerator sized units and has stated that their few boxes produces considerably more energy than their hundreds of solar panel units in a much smaller area. There have been a few problems with keeping the oxygen vacuum clean and a few bumps in the power process, but that is what the testing phase is for.

But leave it to conservative blogosphere to pick at an invention that has the potential to change our very society and the world. The clip from 60 Minutes is also included on this page.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/02/22/the-bloom-box-energy-breakthrough-or-silicon-valley-hype/

Is the author of this article seriously considering the weight of the fuel cell to be a determining factor of whether or not the Bloom Box is a legitimate breakthrough? The reason the weight of the energy cell is integral in automobile production is because the car has to move and car that weight, a power generator does not. The fact that the product hasn't been tested by a utility group, but has by business campuses doesn't prove anything about the effectiveness of the device, if anything it proves how applicable it is to modern business. And then the article cites the interviews lack of facts on how much natural gas the terminal would require. The thing is, most educated bloggers of the Wall Street Journal, the fuels that can be used for causing the chemical reaction in the fuel cells are not restricted to just natural gas. The only reason that Google used natural gas was because they had a pre-existing gas line, if the blogger had watched the full presentation, then they would have realized that biomass fuel, as used by eBay, solar power, and wind power can also be used to power. Granted, wind power might not be in the league of the household consumer, but biomass fuel and solar energy certainly is, especially as solar cells become cheaper and more efficient and as biomass fuel production becomes more efficient over the next five to ten years.

But don't just consider the nit picking problems that are potentially part of the device. What about the possibilities the device has to change our world. When they become cheaper, two refrigerator sized units could probably be installed in African and remote Asian villages and power the entire village with little need for a complex nation-wide infrastructure as seen in American. With an energy plan that requires only local infrastructure, the African continent can grow and develop with energy to provide modern medical facilities and food markets with power. In the western world on the other hand, next to automobile emissions, energy production is the highest contributor of greenhouse gases in the world. If all of the homes and businesses can be powered in the developed world at even half of the emissions as present today, imagine that impact it would have on humanity's carbon footprint and our ability as a species to curb global climate change. And if Bloom Energy is able to optimize this device in the future for vehicles, or even just cargo trains, ships, and tractor-trailers if the energy cell is to heavy for individual cars, the effect would be incredible.

Why does Bloom Energy have to be condemned for their project before it is even truly unveiled to the public? They will have enough problems navigating the bureaucracy of the nations energy politics and the interests of Big Energy; can't we just accept that they have something with real potential on their hands, support them, and hope that it achieves the goals they are capable of, instead of battering them down to appease our cynical spirits? For the sake of our planet, the human race, and the future of civilized society, can't we just hope, for once?

From Peaceful Demonstrations to Domestic Terrorism

In just over a year, the conservative voice has seen a dramatic shift.

What began as protests in Boston, with men and women in tri-point hats dumping tea into the Boston Harbor, against the Democratic stimulus package has culminated into what can only be described as the most destructive domestic terrorist attack since the attacks of the DC sniper.

If you watched the news last Thursday, you would have noted that an anti-government software engineer flew his single engine private plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. You would have also noted that he posted a 3000 word manifesto, exclaiming that the government had no right to tax the citizens of the United States and that the IRS had controlled his life.

Or maybe you didn't note that. Because the mainstream media has paid this event with little to no attention. Even my beloved Huffington Post has posted very few articles on the subject. I have seen no O'Reilly Factors or Crossfires concerning the dangers of conservative extremists. But when the son of a Nigerian bank fails to blow his underwear up on a plane headed to Detroit, it's a cause for weeks of analysis of Obama's national security policy and the extended searching of plane passengers en route from key "countries of interest", now including Niger, why aren't similar actions being taken against extremist in our own borders? When does the right to free-speech end and flying your airplane into a government building begin? How is Joe Stack any different from the nameless, faceless suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan?

When the Whiskey Rebellion broke out in 1794 (an outburst against taxes, coincidentally), George Washington did not stand for it and broke the insurrection. When the South seceded from the Union, Abraham Lincoln fought for the preservation of the Union. When the Seattle Race Riots broke out in 1886, Grover Cleveland declared martial law and sent U.S. military personnel into the city to break it up. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not stand for the Detroit Race Riot of 1943, he sent in military officers to end the conflict. When Anti-Vietnam War extremists started bombing buildings in protest of the ongoing war, Lyndon Johnson suppressed them. Obama must do something now to subdue these conservative extremists of today or there will be more to come.

And it is up to Obama to do something. Scott Brown said it best. In response to the attack in Austin, Sen. Brown simply stated, "No one likes paying taxes..." His non-chalante attitude says everything. And he's right. I mean, as long as the extremists are on your side, that's okay. I'm sure Osama bin Laden said the same thing. And Kim Jong-il. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And Saddam Hussein. And Idi Amin. And Joseph Stalin. And Mao Zedong. And Benito Mussolini. And Adolf Hitler. And Maximilian Robespierre. And...

Thought of the Day: When A Conservative Speaks

An angel gets its wings? I presume so, why else would they say the most obnoxious remarks on a regular basis, if not to provide angels with wings? Why would they say whatever comes to mind with no regard for the words they say, if not because every time they spoke, an angel is able to fly?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/18/cpac-speaker-mocks-obama_n_467299.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/idaho-tea-party-speaker-h_n_466261.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/05/tom-tancredo-obama-electe_n_450849.html

Here are just a few examples of Conservative jackassery. I just have one question: How do they get away with comments like these? I understand that people have a freedom of speech, however, there should be consequences given certain things being said. Comments made by the extreme right, from the big names of Fox News to the random old lady on McCain's campaign trail that claimed Obama "is an Arab", are so strewn with hate and racism and violence, I don't understand how they can be made on such a regular basis with no reprecusions. How can somebody get away with saying a Senator from Washington should be hanged for her political beliefs? I don't understand where our country's sense of civility went to. What happened to the proper debate and civilized governmental conversation that defined our country in 1776? It seems like the country that was founded then, on the principles of debate and reason, has been replaced by maniacs in the last half century, lunacy is the definition of our political conversation today, madness the tone of choice for the loudest speakers. And it's so out of control, I don't know of any way to fix it.

Only the Young Die Good

Only the good die young.

A phrase immortalized as reverant folk knowledge and convenient song lyrics. But is this true? Or is it the other way around?

In my humble opinion, only the young can die good. Consider, if you will, some characters to which this adage would apply to. Look at the spectrum of modern music: Kurt Cobain, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Keith Moon, and Dimebag Darrell. Did they die young because they were good, talented muscians? Or were they only good because they died young? Consider their peers, Perry Farrell, Mick Jagger, any member of Jefferson Airplane, Pete Townshend, and Lars Ulrich. Today, they may be alive, but they are just not the men they used to be, losing their talent and spirit with age. They will die old and a shadow of their former selves, where their counterparts have died and will never be remembered beyond their days of glory.

And political and cultural figures: Ghandi, John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Joan of Arc, Franz Ferdinand, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Harvey Milk. If these people had not died before their time, would they still be such treasured, fabled leaders? Would John F. Kennedy been tarnished by the quagmire of Vietnam? Would Abraham Lincoln been able to Reconstruct the Union after the devastating civil war? Would Frank Ferdinand been able to repair relations between the Serbs and Austria and avoided World War?

The simple answer is, somebody that dies young, remains young forever. They never grow old and lose their spirit, or their influence. They never lose their athletic ability, never lose their symbolism of the people they represent. They are worth more dead than alive because dieing in a blaze of glory is more memorable and meaningful than withering away and disappearing in the throughs of time.

Consider the countless men and women that die old, but because they faded into obscurity, their deaths aren't as meaningful. Charlie Wilson, Ronald Reagan, Walter Matthau, J.D. Salinger, countless upon countless others. And one day, everyone makes it there. With age, they lose their image, their shine, one day, every person falls from grace and fades in obscurity and dies. Or in death, they lose their life, but leave their memory in their place. Because only the young can die good.

Thought of the Day: Dick Cheney is a Wily One

Shocking turn of events: Dick Cheney refused to endorse a 2012 presidential run for Sarah Palin!

GASP!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/14/dick-cheney-on-sarah-pali_n_461870.html

Now why would such a kind, loving old man like Dick Cheney refuse to help out poor little Sarah Palin? Well duh, A.) Despite my personal feelings about his politics, he's not stupid and B.) He's got something up his sleeve.

Dick Cheney is a skilled politician. He holds an intrinsic understanding of the American body politic. Many people believed that Cheney did not run for president in 2008 because he was too old or lacked the will to hold the office. How naive. Good old Dick knew no matter what Republican got into the election, they were never going to win. Any Democrat, whether it be Clinton, or Edwards, or Biden, or Obama, was going to beat any Republican that ran against them. He understands the American political winds and how regularly they shift. So why in the world would he waste his time, his money, and his reputation on a doomed presidential campaign? Why wouldn't he hang back in the shadows for a while, let the bad feelings associated with his administration fade a little bit, build up his war chest, and try later when there's a greater opportunity and he has more resources at his disposal?

All of the politicians lining up to run in 2012 won't be saying nice things about each other any time soon. It's the same reason Newt Gingrich condemned Rudy Giuliani on the Daily Show last week for dragging his feet on restoring Ground Zero during his mayorship of New York City. Because they're planning on making a run for it in 2012.

And even if Cheney doesn't run in 2012, understanding that Obama has a substantial advantage over any Republican that would run against him, why would he want to associate himself with Sarah Palin and the unstable political movement she lords over? She is a nut, most Americans don't feel she is fit to sit in the Oval Office. Why would Dick Cheney align herself with a radical right-winged lunatic at the risk of losing independent votes in the long-run?

Indeed, Dick Cheney is a wily one. He's one of the few Republicans that can look past short term political advantage, and that, along with some moderate social views, will one day make him a formidable opponent for the Democratic Party.

The Importance of Love

Valentine's Day.

The holiday highlights the most essential traits that define people as "human". Love, above all other traits, is what makes a human a human. The ability to develop emotional ties with other people, to form relationships that last for lifetimes, to spiritually become one with another person is what define humanity.

But there is a much greater force that the word love defines that just a standard emotional connection to one other person. The great compassion for people that a person does not even know, that's what makes people human. The ability to see a homeless person, feel empathy toward their situation, and offer them a few dollars. The ability to see a completely foreign country demolished by natural disaster and desire to reach out and pick them up. The ability to recognize the needs of another and want to help them, this is what defines the human connection.

But the humans that make up America have become surprisingly jaded from this essential definition of humanity. The "I've got mine, jack" syndrome has seemingly dominated American philosophy since the inception of our country. Americans have always seemed to be able to look the other way as long as it wasn't directly harming them. The enslavement of African natives. The forced marching of Native Americans from their homeland. The exhaustive labor of children. The extermination of the Jews in Europe. The internment of Japanese Americans. The segregation of African Americans. The manipulation of the poor. The suppression of homosexuals. The needs of everyday Americans. As long as your well-being is secured, Americans have no interest in the plights of other people.

And it's disgusting.

But we can change. There are already glimmers of hope. The citizen's response to the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004 and the earthquake in Haiti in 2010 have shown that Americans can reach out and help people of completely foreign nationalities in need. The public support for public health insurance and freedom of expression for gay military members shows Americans can care about the needs of people domestically. There have been enough people pulled from crashed vehicles, pushed out of the way of moving cars, and led out of burning buildings to show that Americans do have the capacity to care, to feel, to love.

But we need to be louder. The voices of hate, the voices that say the people don't want the government to provide health care for everyone, that say we should have literacy and civics testing at election polls again, that Barrack Obama is the "affirmative action president", they are loud and proud. The voices that care and love their fellow Americans need to be out there and let our leaders, our peers, and the voices of hate know that we will not stand for their intolerance, that we will be heard and that will not let them take our country again.

Americans, let your love be heard.

Thought of the Day: Utah Hates Its Children

Okay, I just wanted to point out further evidence of the United States' disregard of the importance of education. In an effort to assuage the state deficit while not increasing taxes on citizens, Utah State Senator Chris Buttars proposed the elimination of the 12th grade from the Utah public education system.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-utah-school15-2010feb15,0,906102.story

This is one of the most absolute culminations of the Bible Belt idiocracy that I have ever seen. How can the state government even consider incentivizing students to shun the importance of their education? It's disgusting. It's dispicable. It's a crime against the future of our society, Utah, and the children that this directly affects. Do we really live in a country where the people are so dead set against raising their taxes that they would be willing to sacrifice the potential of their children's future? Is that really what our society has become? Americans, you sicken me.

Death and Taxes: Or Why Anyone That Says Otherwise Is A Fool

Death to the idealogues! Those Marxist, terrorist demons of the Democratic party! They wish to destroy the democracy our forefathers had envisioned with pipe-dreamed socialist programs, like socialized health care and strict business regulation.

But there are far worse pipe-dreams that have a voice far louder than those of liberal Democrats: the idea of small government and the elimination of taxes.

There is nothing more unrealistic that a people could ask of their government than to completely eliminate taxes. But that is just the mantra of the Tea Party movement. An ideal world where nobody has to pay taxes. But consider, for a minute, what this world would actually look like.

Consider the services that our government provides us, on a local, state, and national level. Our local governments plow our streets when it snows, collects our garbage, provides emergency service in the form of police, fire departments, and medical assistance, and provides and runs our public education systems. Our state governments maintain our roads and highways, establish higher learning facilities, welfare for our poor, and develop transportation and information infrastructure. Our national government provides single payer health care for our elderly and poor, assistance during times of natural disaster, a military force to protect us, and regulates our businesses to ensure the protection of consumers. And the American people expect these services from their government.

But in this world the Tea Party envisions where nobody pays taxes, how are these services that the people expect and demand to be paid for? How, in this land of small government and corporate oligarchies, will these basic services be covered? Well, obviously, the hard-working American people don't have time to just do these things, so they would have to hire somebody to do it. They would need consultants to develop school curriculum and private military companies to police our streets and laborers to plow our streets and so on and so forth. The corporate oligarchies that rule the land would provide all these services... at a price.

So, for a nominal fee, employees of private companies will come and take care of all of the services that our government currently takes care of. One would pay these fees monthly or perhaps on a yearly basis I suppose. Maybe one could I hire an accountant to help pay these bills and pay them all once a year by a given date.

That sounds an awful lot like taxes. Except without any hope for a "break", save for maybe a coupon.

When you consider the effects of eliminating taxes outside of the initial idea of, "Hey, I won't have to pay taxes anymore", it doesn't sound appealing. Anyone that takes the time to consider the math behind the consequences of eliminating taxes would realize the harsh reality of such a government. But isn't that the essence of what an idealogue is? One that is given to fanciful ideas or theories? There's no room for truth or rational thought for these demented idealists. Because if there was, they would know that as long as people rightfully expect their government to take care of these most basic services (and maybe more), taxes will be an unavoidable part of civilized society.

Because nothing in this world is certain but death and taxes. And anyone that says otherwise is the worst kind of idealogue. One with tea bags stapled to their hat.

The Crime of Intelligence

When did being intelligent become a crime in American politics?

A very loud part of the electorate today believes that intelligent people have no place in the office of the United States government. That they want somebody they can relate to, somebody that "you can sit down and drink a beer with." That somebody that is intelligent is an elitist and out of touch with the American people.

And the media panders to this idea. But it's not just the likes of Fox News with their "everyday man" news commentary in figures like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Consider all of the television you watch. How many programs are on television that don't have an explicit laugh track or a down and dirty super serious cop that takes his crime drama too seriously? How many television shows are out there with a plump host teaching how to cook or with somebody that has way too many children but has an extraordinary faith in Christianity? There are so few programs on television that promote intellectual thought and discourse and the one's that do make it on the air, they're not around for very long. And yes, I used the word discourse, it means to talk or converse.

But I think there's a deeper problem than just television. While listening to my 10 minutes of 98 Rock talk radio this morning, one of the hosts, Mickey, stated, "If you live within 200 miles of a coastline, then you are out of touch with the average American." And as ridiculous as that sounds, American politics sure seem to reflect that. The way politicians act, especially Republicans, you would think the Bible Belt's opinion is the only opinion that matters. The only opinion that matters comes from a group of people that value religious servitude and family ties more than intelligence? A group that rejects intelligent thought so thoroughly that intelligent design is included in the curriculum of some science classes?

This is truly a problem, the "dumbness" of American culture. The majority of Americans are so gullible and group-minded that the political process has become this short term swing back and forth in power on the whims of television ads to the point where the legislative process is at a stalemate because the American people have no idea what they want from their government. They want no taxes, yet they want social programs and people to come plow their snow and take their trash. They want a strong president, but not one that will put too much strength in the government. They want corporations to have unlimited freedom to conduct business as they please, but want the corporate heads on a platter if they screw over the American people. If Americans were remotely logical in their thinking, they would know that these are contradictory ideas.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." FDR knows the problem with America today, because it was the same problem with America in 1932 and it's always been America's problem. Americans do not value education, therefore our education system is one of the worst in the developed world and therefore, instead of intelligent conversation, you have a bunch of people spilling tea bags into the water in Boston and saying, "Take that President Obama, I don't like your stimulus package. This will show you."

And here's the funny part of the joke. The very politicians that would bring about education reform are too elitist and out of touch with "real America" to get elected. The guy that stands up and speaks eloquent, cohesive thoughts will always lose to the guy that stands up and says, "I drive a truck." It's an endless, self-destructive spiral that is far more difficult to stop than an economic downturn pushed forward by politicians and corporate enthusiasm.

Because, ultimately, stupid people are easier to manipulate into buying a product and re-electing politicians that work against their interest.

The Marching of the Whores

Let the corruption of politicians begin!

Over the past year, Comcast has been attempting to purchase NBC from General Electric, a move that would place Comcast in the possession of the third biggest name in public broadcasting. Such a move, under normal circumstances, would be shot down immediately. Such a purchase would limit consumers and force an unwanted television provider upon them if they wished to still get NBC. That's a move towards monopolization.

But these are not normal circumstances. Thanks to that lovely Supreme Court ruling a few weeks back, Comcast and NBC are fighting back with their most valuable and abundant resource: cold, hard cash. More than $474,000 in cash. All to members of the Congressional board members that will be determining whether or not the proposed merger falls within anti-trust law.

And I know. Just because $474,000 gets thrown a dozen congressional representatives' way for campaign contributions, that doesn't necessarily mean that these funds will corrupt those politicians into a decision that is not in the interest of the American people. But really. Anyone who does not believe $474,000 in bribery, or the knowledge that those funds can swing right over to their opponents in the event of opposition, is being naive.

The first steps of action are being taken by the politicians most concerned with the interests of the American people. Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts has already started the preliminary steps toward the only action broad enough to counter the measures taken by the Supreme Court: a constitutional amendment.

But a constitutional amendment is no small matter. Two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate must approve the constitutional amendment, and three-fourths of the states (a.k.a. 38 states) must ratify the amendment through either state legislative bodies or specially elected amendment conventions. So, in other words, this shit will not be happening any time soon.

My expressions haven't changed since last week about the corporate freedom to spend exorbitant amounts of money on campaign contributions. I just wanted to point out the first instance of corporate political prostitution. Better get used to it, we'll get to see so much more of it in the future.

Just pop some popcorn and watch the whores march.

Microscopic Politics: Why I Love Grassroots Action

Because I can take part in it.

Today, I mustered up the courage to call my congressional representative, Dutch Ruppersberger, and ask him to sign the Polis/Pingree letter demanding Harry Reid to pass the public health insurance option through the reconciliation legislation method.

I was nervous as all hell. I took the time to type out what I was going to say when I called his office and mentally prepared myself for several minutes before pushing the send button on my phone. The phone only rang one and a half times; that wasn't enough time.

"Good evening, Representative Ruppersberger's office, how can I help you?"

For a moment, I thought I'd dropped my script and panicked. Breathless, I quickly looked down and saw the sheet of 8 and a half by 11 still lazing over in my hand. I forced out a syllable and when I started I couldn't stop.

"Good evening, my name is Christopher Warman and I am a resident of Essex, MD. Last week, Representatives Jared Polis and Chellie Pingree announced a letter to Senator Harry Reid, asking him to pass the public option through reconciliation. Over 80 other representatives co-signed it.

"I'm calling today as a resident of Essex, a citizen of Maryland, and a proud American looking to push our country forward and achieve an important social milestone. I want our country to become the America its citizens need. I'm calling to ask Representative Ruppersberger to sign the Polis/Pingree letter asking Harry Reid to pass the public option through reconciliation."

She allowed me to speak completely and answered shortly after my short speech.

"Thank you very much for your call today Mr. Warman. Representative Ruppersberger will receive a transcript of this conversation tomorrow morning. Thank you for sharing your opinion directly today and we'll be glad to hear from you again in the future on issues that matter to you."

And that was it.

It doesn't seem like much now that I've written it.

But I feel so empowered! For months I have been continuously bitching about the actions of Senator Joe Lieberman and the Republican minority in the Senate. I've been enraged about the feet-dragging on the Congressional Legislative process and the ridiculous lengths our leaders have been going to try and get any resemblance of health care reform passed. And when people stood up and shouted at public officials at the health care town halls over the past summer, I stood up and yelled at my television.

I realized, though, that I was taking very little action to push political leaders my direction. Maybe it was time if I got out there and got somethine done.

And now I've done it, and it's fantastic and I want to do more. Why not write a letter to Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin, asking them to support the passing of a public option through reconciliation? Why not participate in an Organization for America handout of information pamphlets on financial regulation reform? Why not join a protest outside of the Capitol Building if repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell hits a congressional bump?

There's no reason why not. Let my voice be heard!

Homework 01.26.09

Exercise 1.1

    Last semester, I wrote a paper for IDIS 101 that was supposed to be an investigation of an on-campus service. I decided to write my paper on the Simulation and Digital Entertainment program. I acquired my sources from the required text, Internet, and interview source, and commenced to write my paper. Prof. Johnson had told us to have fun with it and make it like a narrative. So, I went ahead and had a lot of fun with it. I made it into this quest for knowledge that I had undertaken to find out what exactly the SDE program was all about, making my interview with Sandy Lin, the advisor for the program, into a sort of police interrogation, my 20 minute Internet search into an all-night research for information on the subject, and my final discovery of a course description book into a discovery that resolved my burning questions on the subject. I found out that I really enjoyed expanding the relatively short research phase of the project and describing minute parts of my experience with a variety of adjectives. I also found out that I really enjoy writing narrative essays, despite my uneasiness about writing them. I wrote it fluently from my mind too, I didn't really stop to worry about grammar or spelling and did a few experimental twists of my words; lots of fragments and onomatopoeic expressions. And it paid off for me. Despite my professors disbelief of Sandy Lin's refusal to offer information beyond what was already released in documents that can be found at UB Major luncheons, she seemed to understand what I was writing about and approved of it. It was a surprisingly revealing project for me.

Ignorance is a mindset

So, I was just considering the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to contribute unlimited amounts of funds to political campaigns. I think a majority of people are upset about this decision and too much has already been said on the subject. So, for the sake of diversification, I will refrain from using the phrases "United Corporate States of America", "a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations", and "this presidency brought to you by Wal-Mart". Instead, I just have a single question. What gives corporate entities the right to demand recognition as "people"? I understand the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that corporations shall not have its first amendment rights infringed upon. But I believe this refers to the employees of the organization and not to the entity itself. Corporate entities are simply not people.

Corporations are not people. The corporations themselves are not held to the same moral standards as a person is. Whereas people are expected to be socially responsible and mindful of the needs of others, corporations, as a whole, are only concerned with profit. Corporations are not required or even expected to benefit the community they profit from aside from offering employment opportunities. And even for these employment opportunities, they are not required or expected to care for their employees beyond the absolute minimum of payment and insurance for full-time employees. They are not required or expected to care for their customers beyond the absolute minimum of offering a facility for business and conducting that business in a timely manner. In fact, a majority of corporations have a complete disregard for the social needs of people, creating urban sprawl that consumes communities, cheat their employees out of benefits and payment whenever possible, and offer their products and services with known health risks for their consumers. On the other hand, people are expected to care for one another. We are expected to live up to our contracts fully, to care for the needs of others, and to embrace and carry our communities for the sake of other people.

Corporations are not people. They are not expected to care for the environment outside of the most basic of principles set by the EPA and United States law. They produce their products and complete their services in the most fiscally efficient manner, which usually involves the least environmentally mindful processes possible. Corporations often waste valuable natural resources simply for the sake of their convenience. People are required to care for the environment. We have extensive fines for littering, cannot water plants on our property during droughts, and recycle our waste.

And likewise, people are not corporations. If people were held to the same standard as corporations, there would be few laws to govern us and even fewer willing to enforce them. We could spend, consume, and waste recklessly without any mind to the consequences of our actions or any sort of punishment. If people were corporations, we would not need earth to live on or people to live with, just capital to sustain our consuming and waste. If people were corporations, there would be no people, because the very thing that defines a person is the willingness to see past ourselves and live for the good of everybody and not simply ourselves, and corporations have no such emotions or thoughts or inclinations. They have no souls, no consciousness, no connection to the world apart from the cold fiscal ties of business.

That's just it then. Corporations are vehicles for profit and business, but nothing more. They have no interest in the good of the people or the planet. Corporations are only self-interested in making profit. And granted, many people are self-interested and money-driven as well. The difference between those people and corporations is that corporations have billions of dollars in funds to influence public policy. And public policy is not meant to serve the interests of a few; it's meant to benefit the American people as a whole. That is what is wrong with that ruling. The very integrity and purpose of our government has been dissolved, and now in its place is just another avenue for the vehicles of profit.