sean’s blog

Fun.

This article would undoubtedly drive tons of Americans insane. The ever-present threat of terrorism keeps hundreds of people up late at night. And something that an American wrote, a home-grown American, caused those towelheads to feel joy. It’s truly an outrage. If we pull out of Iraq, it means we’re loser, and the terrorists have won. We cannot let the terrorists. We must oppose them with every fiber in our perfect American bodies.

Seriously, though. Pulling out of Iraq would make Islam a “giant.” That’s like, crazy. Honestly. Pulling out of Iraq would be a wise thing to do, but it couldn’t all just come at once.

New giant of the world.

? That is absolutely silly. How would pulling out of Iraq make Islam a giant? It wouldn’t. America RULES.

Filed by fastnerveaction at 9:45 am under Iraq
No Comments

America has a lot of problems, domestic and blah blah overseas!!! But today the focus lies squarely on the shoulders of domestic problems. One of these main biggo problems is:

Poverty. View this chart as well:

As you can see, there are many poor people in our country. What is the deal with this? Why don’t they get jobs? Why don’t they work harder at their jobs if they aren’t being paid enough? It all lies in their hands. There may be lots of problems involving starving children in America, because their parents don’t make enough money, but is it the government’s job to help their people? No. We live in a democracy. People need to help themselves.

All this hubbub about people needing money is all just a bunch of fluff. Is it a real problem, or is it just a way for greedy people to get money?!?!

Filed by fastnerveaction at 8:49 am under Domestic Issues
No Comments

If one were to make the statement “The conflict in Iraq reminds me heavily of the conflict in Vietnam,” they would be correct. View this link: New York Times: Flashback to the 60’s: A Sinking Sensation of Parallels Between Iraq and Vietnam . By the title, one can gather that the article details the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam. Professor Jeff Record likes to think:

“The issue of creating a legitimate government in Iraq, and the domestic political sustainability of our policy in Iraq, are the two major areas of interface with our experience in Vietnam, where we failed. That doesn’t mean we’re necessarily doomed to failure.”

It doesn’t necessarily mean we’re doomed to failure, yes, this is true. No one can make the claim that we are DEFINITELY going to succeed/fail in Iraq, but judging from this single similarity, it isn’t a stretch to say “There is a chance, a large chance, that we are doomed to failure.” But, of course, Jeff doesn’t want to say that, because that is a negative, albeit realistic, statement. In addition, it is a direct follow-up to the statement made about Vietnam, and would make much more sense than “We’re not necessarily doomed.” The situation in Iraq is JUST like in Vietnam, even the main problems are the same, and we failed in Vietnam. So, the natural connection would be “we will fail in Iraq.” But, that’s NEGATIVE, and we don’t want our great nation’s people to be WORRIED about the situation in Iraq. Think optimistically, not realistically, America.

This positive tilt reminded me of the class discussion on the media that we had on Monday, the twenty-seventh of November, two thousand and six. It reminded me of how blunt and to-the-point the jolly ol’ British were in their reportings of the Thanksgiving Massacre. The British probably would have said that due to it’s similarities to Vietnam, the situation in Iraq looks grim. The Middle-Eastern reporters would have probably used words like orgy and tit-for-tat to explain how the situation in Iraq will turn out. But here in America, we just say:

“We’re not necessarily doomed for failure, you guys!”

Filed by fastnerveaction at 9:13 pm under Vietnam
2 Comments

If a person was watching television in the 1950s and was ZAP warped to modern times, and sat down in front of a television, and forced to watch modern TV shows, they would be offended. They would cry at the mere thought of a show about a gay guy. They would bite their nails when hearing the title “Sex and the City.” They would watch UPN, and wonder how there were so many “negro” television programs. Wonder…in disgust.

Now, take the hip, generation X television viewer of today. They will snicker at the thought of a show about a gay guy. They’ll high five their buddies when hearing the title “Sex and the City.” They watch UPN, and laugh at the wacky exploits of people of a different skin color from them.

People have changed. Society has changed. Television hasn’t been allowed to GET to a point where it was too offensive, because television has evolved with society. If something was too offensive, it got shot down by some group.

Filed by fastnerveaction at 11:34 pm under Popular Culture
1 Comment

Let’s be honest with each other. How many black people would ACTUALLY be watching Ozzie and Harriet? It was a sitcom, for god’s sake. Everyone says that Ozzie and Harriet was offensive, because black people weren’t represented. Excuse me? Who was bothered by this? The white middle class? In the 1950s, what white person would take offense at their being no representation of a race that they didn’t care much for? Okay, there were people who were saying “Hey, this isn’t a clear representation of society!” But what version of SOCIETY were the shows portraying? The average show was set in the home, the home of a white family. During the 1950s, how many white families were friends with black families?

The problem here doesn’t lie within the producers of the programs. These shows did an absolutely perfect job of replicating white family life, in terms of diversity. The makers of the TV shows didn’t put any black people in the white homes, because in 1950s America, there were no black people in white homes! The shows didn’t remove any aspects of life, in terms of race, from the homes. All the removed were the more unsavory aspects of suburb life, such as alcoholism.

Who wants to watch a show about an abusive, alcoholic father, anyway? That’s just depressing.

Filed by fastnerveaction at 10:57 pm under Popular Culture
Comments Off

Well, history is largely, largely responsible for the wealth gap. For 246 years, slavery existed. Obviously, slavery made it rather hard for black people to get any money. When they were slaves, they weren’t paid, you see! Because they weren’t being paid, there was no way for them to accumulate wealth. All the white people all around them were acumulating wealth all over the place, and the blacks could do no more than hang their heads and cry. Even when slavery was abolished, blacks were still oppressed by whites, and the little wealth that they accumulated was rather insignifigant. History, and whites’ treatment of blacks in general, really did a number on blacks, and their ability to make money.

Contemporary society. What has contemporary society done to keep the black man down? Well, like it or not, racism is still rather prevalent in modern society. Lots of people are still racist. Granted, not many people are still openly racist, but every day, blacks are denied job positions they deserved, and every day, a white mother will grab hold of her child’s hand when a black man walks by.

For the most part, ghettos, and areas of poverty, etc. are inhabited by minorities. Blacks are a minority. In these neighborhoods, a good education is hard to come by, so children growing up in these neighborhoods are already at a disadvantage. What can be changed? Well, if our government focused on improving the quality of schools in the ghettos, children growing up in ghettos would have a better education, and a better life. Then, their children would grow up having a better life, and generation after generation, the gap would become smaller and smaller and smaller.

Filed by fastnerveaction at 10:01 pm under The Intersection of Race and Class
Comments Off

Was the more homogeneous content of the 1950s preferable to the more diverse and “risque” content of today?

Well, when asking this question, it is important to know what timeframe you are viewing the question from: the 1950s, or the 2000s. If the question was asked in the 1950s, quite obviously, the answer would be the former. If asked in modern times, the answer would most likely be “WILL AND GRACE, DAMN YOU.” Or, modern television is better. People just aren’t interested in everyday interactions between people, such as conversations about moving into an apartment, like in Ozzy & Harriet. To liven up their boring life, they need to hear about/view crazy, sexual interactions; things that most certainly DON’T happen in their life. If someone was having crazy sexual interactions in theireverday life, would they really be watching a show where 60% of the punchlines are “You slept with WHO?!” It’s unlikely. They would have their own friends saying “You slept with WHO?!” to them on a daily basis. Because, the things that happen in modern day sitcoms, like “Sex and the City” (Just look at the title, for Pete’s sake) actually happen in real life!

Ahhh, in that way, sitcoms have not changed. They’re still as fake as ever. They’re just fake in more interesting ways. Why doesn’t anyone in “Friends” have a job? How can they maintain dormancy in relatively nice apartments, where all they do is hang out in a coffee shop? (And have wacky exploits.) And, they still have laugh tracks. Who in god’s name really needs a laugh track? What purpose do they serve? Do they instruct people when to laugh? Have people really become so dependent on television that they need it to remind them WHEN TO LAUGH?

I realize this doesn’t say much for TV viewers, but the answer to your question essentially is yes–the purpose of a laugh track is to tell the audience when it’s time to laugh.

Apparently so.

Filed by fastnerveaction at 7:28 pm under Popular Culture
Comments Off

Really, how HAS the G.I. Bill been doing lately? When we last checked on it, it was helping people get their lives together after returning home from WWII. It was making Jewish people exceedingly prosperous, and it was sort of leaving out black people.

Now, in 2006, what’s it up to? Well, it’s about time you learn how to use your G.I. bill.

It’s pretty nice of the military to teach their troops how to recieve the benefits they truly do deserve. I don’t know why, but I always assumed that the military would try and hold back as much of the benefits as they possibly could, just so they could save some money. Why did I think this way? Well, our country isn’t really doing so good with the national debt and all, so I didn’t think that Googling “The G.I. Bill” would bring up thorough instructions on how to reap the benefits of being a soldier.

$8,550,151,178,670.84 (When I clicked it.)

But this isn’t supposed to be about the national debt, this is supposed to be about the G.I. Bill. well, now it’s the Montogomery G.I. Bill.

Individuals who serve a continuous period of at least three years of active duty, even though they were initially obligated to serve less, will be paid the maximum benefit.

Three years. That’s pretty good. And what exactly is the “maximum benefit”?

Full-time payment in the military=$1,075 a month=$12,900 a year. Is that really enough to support yourself? You’re being fed and everything during this timespan, so you are getting $12,900 a year that will most likely not be used by you. So, when you leave service with the maximum benefit, you’ll have $38,700 to use towards getting your life back to “normal.”

Pretty good, I must say.

Filed by fastnerveaction at 7:06 pm under American Service Men And Women
Comments Off

Andrew writes:

Most of those that were stranded in New Orleans did not possess cars or the ability to leave.

He is, of course, referring to New Orleans. So, the only way to leave is by car? Were the citizens of New Orleans unable to walk? Of course, there are the elderly, the disabled, etc., but I am not referring to them. Their situation was understandable. But, able-bodied persons, what about them? I know that people have a very, very strong bond to their home, and that leaving is easier said then done. I know if a natural disaster was headed towards my home, I would be pretty sad about having to leave. But, if I was told “IF YOU DON’T LEAVE, YOU MAY DIE.” I would choke down my tears, pack a bag, and get the hell out of my house. No car? Walk. If walking was the only way for me to survive, so be it.

“But where would they walk to?” Well, perhaps ANYWHERE OTHER THAN WHERE THE MASSIVE HURRICANE IS. It doesn’t matter if they have no specific place that they’re heading! As long as they are not close to the hurricane, which will most likely kill them, they will be fine for the time being. Think about it: Would you rather just sit in your home, and die? Or walk for a long time, and have to organize a new place to live? I know, it’s hard to find a new place to live. But at least you’ll be able to have a place to LIVE, as opposed to being dead.

Filed by fastnerveaction at 8:14 pm under Hurricane Katrina
14 Comments

Yeah, Bush loves Jazz.

The preamble of the Constitution states that it is the job of the government to “promote the general welfare” of the people. As of right now, Bush seems to be helping the people of Katrina by listening to their so-called “Jazz” music. As you can see in the above “Googlefight,” Bush most certainly does not love Jazz. But do you know what Bush does love? Country.

All the President’s Tunes - On His iPod

His selection, Levy said, “tells you that the President knows a thing or two about country music and is serious about his love of country music”.

Now that we have all the sillies out…

What did Bush, or the government, really, do to “promote the general welfare” of, in this case, the Hurricane Katrina victims? Well, of the 60,000 people trapped in New Orleans, the Coast Guard rescued over 33,500. That’s over half. That’s pretty good. Also, in September, 2005, Congress authorized a total of $62.3 billion in aid for victims. That’s a lot of money. That’s pretty good.

What could they could have done better? Well, they could have planned a little bit more. And Ray Nagin could have said “Evacuate the city, please.” earlier than 19 hours before the hurricane hit.

While in the process of writing this post, me and Charlie had a little discussion. As you can see, below, Charlie blamed the people of New Orleans; it was their own fault. As I said below, I agree with him, to an extent. One could easily say “MAN, THOSE PEOPLE WERE STUPID AND IT’S THEIR OWN DAMN FAULT THAT THEY DIDN’T LEAVE. IT IS SOLELY THEIR FAULT.” But, it’s not that simple. In this letter to the editor of the New York Times, John Comings, director of the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy, states:

Before the storm, almost 50 percent of the city’s working-age adults had low literacy and math skills or lacked a high school diploma.

You could combat my “They don’t watch the news!” argument with “Well, they can read a newspaper, can’t they?” Well, according to this article, almost 50 percent of the city’s adults couldn’t read the newspaper. So are the people really so responsible?

Well, you could take it a step further, and proclaim “They should have paid attention in school.”

In that case, then it is their fault.

Filed by fastnerveaction at 8:10 am under Hurricane Katrina
9 Comments