Life: My Mom and Monopoly

Apart from a few blemishes, my childhood was pleasant. My memories are of seemingly endless baseball and football games, adventurous bike rides to the card shop, three-night-long sleepovers, unfinished board games, uncontrollable smiles, and yearly trips to cedar point. I had fun.

But only because my mother is a parenting genius.

Understand this, beneath all the smiles and great memories there was a national-spelling-bee childhood desperately trying to emerge. Besides sports, nearly all my doings were academically stimulating.

My favorite activity was building with K’nex. I had more books than I can presently count and I never played video games. My mother and I wrestled with board games religiously, but only ones with strategy or money transaction (Risk, Chess, Boggle, Scrabble, Careers, Life, and Monopoly).

At the time I did not realize that my house was a disguised boot camp for school. Only recently have I truly asked my mother about my childhood. She plainly admits to regularly introducing me to games and activities that would force me to think critically or learn (experience) mature concepts and ideas. Without rendering me socially inept by a constant bombardment of forced work books and flashcards, my mom still got what she wanted, an academically minded son who is socially capable. Bravo.

Even so, I have no hard feelings because my younger years were amazing. I’m positive that when I introduce my preschool aged son to Monopoly, I will invariably say, “now son, why don’t you be the banker.” And why not, at least he’ll have a heads up.

Life: A Collegiate Dilemma

With a year of observation notched softly in my mind, I can now more accurately assess the validity of one of my many past decisions: the choice to never drink. Although I’m still holding strong, surprisingly, I have recently contemplated reneging on my stance.



I’ve held and still do hold a firm belief that if I were to embark on this mind altering journey I would, in fact, have fun. I would like it. And for that very reason I have resigned myself to hallowed conversations and legal entertainment, rather than drunken exchanges and illegal amusements.

It does seem almost intrinsically counterintuitive to choose not to partake in an activity because it will be fun. It does. But think for a moment; with my future hanging in the balance somewhere between focus and dedication, why would I risk entirety for the sake of partiality, temporary enjoyment at the expense of future success, or imaginary fixations for authentic relationships?

And without rushing to any rash conclusions I offer a prerequisite for this aforementioned argument. When partaking in a particular activity that gives me pleasure I, in most instances, choose to figuratively throw myself into the activity. I fear therefore, that the frequency of my drinking would be somewhere between alcoholism and too often. Not desired.

Even so, I’ve continuously witnessed peer after peer not fall into this figurative slope, enjoying their altered being for a weekend and then almost immediately fall back in line for Monday’s lecture. My competitive spirit rings loudly, “if they can do it, why can’t I?”



More likely than not, I could. Therefore, why not? And although "why not" is a convenient and lazy argument, my peers have continuously used it to justify countless weekend extravaganzas. Yet I still offer…Why not?

Because, even if there is a nil chance, I am not willing to take the risk of losing my own logic (dedication for school) at the expense of a temporary high.

The decision stands.

Life: I Climbed a Mountain in Oregon

I felt holy. And not the church camp sort, contrarily, a real sense of calm. There is something about standing on top of the world that creates perspective.

Maybe it’s the height?

As anticipated, while visiting my sister in Oregon, I scaled an authentic mountain. The trek was a drag in that my muscles still ache but the view was well worth the pain.


In retrospect, I find it interesting that I had only been above the clouds in a plane. Historically, a hike is more common than a plane ride but technology has inevitably shadowed reality.

Although it would exercise my poetic abilities, I will no further attempt to describe the event, for inexorably my experience will conjure emotions not uniformly shared by others. I therefore offer a common discussion.

I’ve been careful not to solidify any thoughts concerning god; I am agnostic…

I can no more easily accept a bang of sorts than a god who sat on his romp for a timeless time twiddling his omnipotent thumbs until one day he decided to create us. Not to mention he created billions of useless planets and a multitude of unloved life for mere fun.

At the top of the mountain, I felt insignificant. This could have pulled at my proverbial heart strings in either direction, spiritually, or intellectually, thus, creating the epiphany (realization) I so desire. But predictably this journey to perspective did much of the opposite.

Rather than solidifying any beliefs, my thoughts bounced from, “look at this world, there must be a god,” to, “look at this world; it makes sense in itself.”

Regardless, I’m still climbing.

Poem: What if?

What if poems weren’t just for picking up girls?
What if poems changed the world?

What if? What if this, what if that,
What if we constantly asked ourselves, what if and why?
What if we questioned everything?

What if we never cried? Because
We were too afraid that if we did cry,
We’d just be wasting our time.

What if a little boy, on his own, could become a man?
What if we wouldn’t stand for injustice?

What if someone’s character
Was the only obstacle between hope and success? Not
Who your parents are and where you were born?

What if contemplation replaced frustration?
What if motivation paved the way for articulation?

What if we knew how and when we were going to die?
Would we try and stop the inevitable?
Would we be satisfied with our lives?

Life: Real Creationism

I was sitting in Borders’ esteemed café sulking in the realization that, minus the square rimmed glasses and receding hair line, I have become the stereotypical intellectual who sits at coffee shops all day reading the works of histories thinkers, applying general philosophies to the most insignificant of issues for no reason except boredom. Lame, I know. But at the first sight of a fellow wanderer who worked at the store but was obviously not busy, I immediately struck up a conversation.

“So you like it here? I bet you get a ton of discounts.”

“Yea, it’s a pretty nice gig. They have worker appreciation days where the discounts just pile up and since I’m a full time employee (been here two years), every two months I get a $30 gift card.”

“Not bad, just not bad.”

I realize it was a pathetically surface level conversation, but indeed, normal enough. More importantly, I thought.



This kid is about my age; why is he a full time employee at Borders? He must be drawn to books if he works at a Borders and the guy, at first glance, seems to be academically interested. Why isn’t he going to college? Will he work here for the rest of his life?

My first consideration (memory) made me smile. Mr. Hathaway, after either discussing or seeing unmotivated students, would invariably say, “Heck, someone has to pump my gas.” Touché Mr. Hathaway…touché. But still, at some more concerned level, this is actually very troubling. And it’s not the first time I have been bugged by someone’s complacency.

Almost weekly I hear about a fellow high school alumnus going on academic probation, dropping out, quitting their job, or never going to college. Honestly, I cannot comprehend this mentality, this lack of ambition.

More classes, more books, more time, experiencing more, more smiles, and more of a future; ambition often drives my actions and my personality; I constantly want more. With it (ambition), being such a vital part of my life, it is almost inconceivable that someone would be happy working at Borders’ for the rest of their life.

But again, I am not being reasonable. He probably doesn’t. No one wants to drop out of college or wants to work for $7.00/hr the rest of their life. But at the expense of sounding like a Republican, I often resort to, “why don’t they work harder?”

Reality. Many people want to work for $7.00/hr as long as they are happy. Complacency can result in much happiness and of course, and isn’t that what we all strive for? For many, happiness doesn’t hinge on the balance between individual success and societal consciousness, but rather, on striving for the least amount of stress and responsibility. And that is not a bad thing.

Ambition then, is a variable.

Reality. I frequently attribute my personality to myself but let’s be honest, people’s lives are drastically affected by how they were raised. My whole life I was not only told that I was the best, but that I would be doing a disservice to myself and my family if I did not reach the highest heights possible. My life was a giant catalyst for future ambition, be it genetics or parenting. And who’s to say that if I were raised in a different home I would not be any different than Mr. Borders?

We think we are in control, assuming we have created our present and our inevitable future. In many ways we have, but more than not, our ambitions are created by circumstances outside of our control.

Judge less. Look deeper. Understand more.

Politics: Flattening America

On a recent trip to Borders I ran across a book that argues for the abolishment of the IRS and the inevitable implementation of a national sales tax. I’ve always found humor in moral conservatives who want all the money they can get (opposite of Jesus’s teachings). But today I was struck more forcefully. Instead of being hidden on the back shelves of the current issues section (where I could laugh at it in private), this particular one was on display near the front aisle. Must be a best seller? Depressing.




I find it necessary to lend insights upon this much heated debate. My conclusion: a flat tax is, in the language of the Christian Right, immoral.

Supporters of a flat tax argue that if they want to give their money away to charity they should be allowed to on their own terms, and not have to support governmentally funded programs like Welfare and Medicaid (or even worse: stem cell research. Oh No!). Why should a wealthier individual be forced to pay a higher percentage of their taxes than a less fortunate person does? Well, the problem lies in the fact that many wealthy Americans don’t believe that the lower class is less fortunate at all, rather, they are too lazy to work or get a good education and thus, want governmental hand outs (because of course if such accuser was educated by an inner city school in the slums they wouldn’t need any help). And conversely, the CEO’s of the world are just hard working Americans earning an honest buck who are at the mercy of the government (Ivy League dad had nothing to do with it). Now maybe I’m being a little exaggeratory, but the point stands.

At the current rate, the highest tax bracket pays 38.6% of their income to taxes. This means that someone who makes one million dollars right now would have to pay $386,000 a year to taxes. If a flat tax was implemented, specifically one similar to H.R. 25, there would be a 30% tax on all goods and service. Now put this into perspective, that same millionaire would now only pay 30% of what he spent. Let’s act like the millionaire splurges a little. He goes on vacation, buys a new house, buys a new car, and makes a college payment for his son or daughter. Roughly, he spends $400,000 this year. This means that now, this same millionaire has to pay $120,000 in taxes. As one can see, if a flat tax was put into place, this millionaire would only be paying 12% of his/ her income to taxes.

Conversely, someone who makes $25,000 a year would right now have to pay 15% of his income or in dollars, $3,750. Now, assume that this person supports a family, living pay check to pay check and spends all of his earned money on basic survival. With a flat tax he would now be paying $7,500 dollars a year in taxes.

One can see what would happen if the tax system was changed to a flat tax. The rich would significantly pay a smaller percentage of their income than the least fortunate of our country. A flat tax (sales tax) seems fair on the surface because everyone pays the same percent of what they buy, but many conservatives don’t understand that the lowest bracket has to use their entire income to make purchases for everyday survival while the rich need pay a much smaller percentage of their income for the same. This is not fair at all. If someone thinks that a millionaire should only pay 12% of his income while a person making $25,000 a year should be paying 30% they have their priorities, their morals, and certainly their ethical standards all out-of-whack. There is no reasonably logical or ethical justification for putting more of the tax burden on the lower class.

Now the dissenting opinions will predictably disagree, uttering that they have the common good in mind, referencing supply side economics (trickle down).

The main problem with the trickle down theory is that it depends on the generosity of the elite, and with many of them supporting a flat tax, which would only line their pockets more; one can see that the wealthiest American’s charity will only go so far. If a business owner gets a refund check in the mail, due to President W. Bush’s tax cuts will he necessarily invest that money into his company? What is stopping that business owner from taking the check and investing it in his own personal savings account, or going on a vacation for that matter? Nothing, so much of the time, especially in an economic recession, understandably, that is exactly what happens.

And yes I know what you are thinking. “But won’t a business owner make more money in the long run if he reinvests in his company? Therefore, the trickle down theory doesn’t depend upon charity, but good business.” And predictably, you will then argue, “see I have the best interests of the people in mind too, but instead of giving the poor a crutch like the liberals want to do, a sales tax will give them a job to support themselves.” Bravo Mr. conservative, Bravo. I am glad you don’t only have the fullness of your pockets as motivation and to some extent, I understand your argument.

But it still stands that the government would collect significantly less money with a sales tax than otherwise. And the reality is that thousands of programs and schools are under funded, not to mention the millions without health care. If we want to actually improve the state of affairs for our citizens it is going to take more money than that which would be brought in by a flat tax. Yes, the trickle down theory’s ideal good business motivated job creation sounds pretty but more $7.00/hr jobs to decrease unemployment statistics won’t: produce quality health care for those who need it, make public school educations equal, give inner city children tempting alternatives than the streets, etc.

Many flat tax supporters are great people who have great morals and an incisive need to help others but they have simply fallen into the flat tax trap. People hear the words “equal percent” and automatically assume such a system is fairer. Yes, it is nice to get a refund check at the end of the year but with the decrepit nature of inner-city public schools and the millions without health care, maybe we should reevaluate our priorities. It is a choice, your $500 check, or millions of Americans. To me, it’s an easy choice.

Note: There are no versus in the bible mentioning gay marriage, but hundreds mention poverty.

Life: Motivation

During a brief interlude from coloring Mr. T (tall teeth) one of my classmates innocently inquired, “Are you dumb?”

I whispered back confused, “Well…no, I don’t think so. Why do you ask?”

“I told my mom that you were Mexican and she said that you must be dumb.”

I cried that night but remembering my mother’s voice I quickly calmed...

“Jonathon, you not only represent your family and yourself, you represent every Mexican American in this country. Believe me, you can break down barriers, you can be someone, and I know you will.”

Politics: Stereotypes

I’m often quick to rhetorically lambaste anyone who even sneezes of a stereotype. I simply don’t put up with such talk. But contradictorily, I am one of the first to stereotype political groups (namely Democrats and Republicans). My justification is something like, “ideology is a choice unlike race, and therefore it is OK to judge people based on their choices, just not on something they cannot help.” This, at some level, is true. I may justifiably judge someone on their individual choices (political beliefs), but where my logic fails is in grouping a broad spectrum of ideologies into two categories. For one, many of the generalities are contradictory to individual issue party stances.

The RNC is not strictly for reducing the size of the government. It supports strengthening governmental control within a social setting (gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment, border control) and almost always supports increased military power (increased budget, war, and decreased privacy rights).

The DNC is not strictly for increasing the size of the government. It hardly ever supports legislation to take away full freedom of American citizens (gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment, privacy rights) and mostly supports decreased military power (decreased budget, diplomacy, and protection of privacy rights).

Republicans are not all rich, greedy, and selfish. Many support decreased taxes because they feel it is the best policy to eventually help the poor (trickle down theory) or they are the poor (small business) and need every cent they can get.

Democrats are not saintly philanthropists who want to help every American regardless of their circumstances. Many are for increased welfare restrictions (me) and decreased unemployment for preventable firings.

In general (ironic), Republicans and Democrats are not that different. They both want what is best for people but on many occasions have drastically different interpretations on what is actually best, or even more often, what policies will most successfully improve our wellbeing.

I will continue to argue my political views to death, but instead of making snap judgments at the mere smell of the word Republican or conservative, I will ask questions on specific issues and motivations. Maybe we can come to some common middle ground, hopefully a little left of center.

Poem: Home

I’ve decided to write the perfect poem
But perfection isn’t wrapped up in a tone

Therefore, I may be alone
In my interpretation of what is the perfect poem

But that’s OK
Because I am imperfect

I see more than my family could believe
My parent’s grief in dealing with each other goes away
When they speak of their love for me

Every time my grandpa plays the guitar
I feel like music, love, and pride are tangible things,
Like I can touch them

My grandma’s poetic lines never rhyme and
Surely won’t be found in any quote books.
She acts out her advice through example, and I watch



I watch while all my aunts’ tears
Dry up through cheers and happiness
And continue for years at the hand of everyday life

Right now, my Uncles’ minds are spinning fast
Fueled by love for their families
Hopefully they’ll never slow down

Every night before I go to bed I pray
But not on one knee
I prey on the motivation that my family has given to me

I’ll be the Cesar Chavez of equality
And the Johnny-Apple-Seed of political clarity
I’ll collaborate for more sincerity
And maliciously fight for the ceasing of every stereotype

It can be done,
Through laughter and a good cry,
By never letting my goals subside,
By letting their histories affect mine,
And by finally releasing a few poetic lines about
Why I am here right now

Pride

I decided to write the perfect poem
But perfection wasn’t wrapped up in my tone
Therefore, I still may be alone
In my interpretation of what is the perfect poem

But at least I know one thing for certain,
Perfection starts at home

Life: Boys and Girls

I have offered innumerable hypotheses on the social relationships between boys and girls, many of which have evolved or in some rare cases, contradicted earlier beliefs. Thus, it is now pertinent, and will ultimately be satisfying, to more carefully solidify a theory.

As many of you avid readers have already assumed, I am not speaking of such lesser questions like, “is there a god?” or, “are we truly free?” or even, “what is the meaning of life?” No, no, no…I speak of a much more grandiose question, “can boys and girls be just friends?”

Note: I’m going to hell.

Coming off the coat tails of a two and a half year relationship, on the surface, I may not seem to be a reliable source to answer (discuss) such an important question. I am. If I were ugly, stupid, or mean (hopefully I am not), then I would recognize any hesitation to read further (due to my hypothetical lack of friends), but with increasing experience and a good dose of logic, I am confident in my upcoming assessment.

The complexity of this discussion will soon become evident. For each relationship is different; different histories, circumstances, and proximities make for a wide range of friendships. But still, I hold true that nearly all boy-girl friendships are superficial in that one of the participants wants more, even if subconsciously.



Now girls, don’t get all excited. I am not saying that because I am friends with you I want you to bear my children. But what I am saying is that you want me.

Kidding

In all seriousness, for me (and all guys, if you don’t agree you are lying) there are two categories for girls, ones that you would date, and ones that you wouldn’t. At the most basic level, I look for two things in a girl: emotional and physical attractiveness (as do most unless you are some fetish weirdo).

Note: Emotional attractiveness is different for each person. For example, I would look for intelligence, sincerity, ambition, and spontaneity. Whereas most girls look for ass-hole-ishness.

Kidding

The not-so-amazing thing is, all of my friends share one or more of these characteristics (physical or emotional attractiveness), and I to them. Therefore, what I am looking for in a future mate, my friends at least partially have. This would place them in the would date category.

Now this is where it gets tricky. I would date them, but only in a hypothetical world where history and circumstance does not exist. So, this is what I meant when saying that “one participant wants more.” This “wanting more” could be, “he/she is so nice, I just wish he/she was more attractive (you think I’m a jerk but be honest, you’ve thought it),” or oppositely, “he/she is so hot and funny, I just wish he/she didn’t consistently cheat on his/her significant other,” or, “if only we met this year and didn’t have all this history.”

I would argue that every participant in an opposite sex friendship yearns to be with or more often would yearn to be with their friend more intimately except for a few missing pieces or even one piece (be it history, physical attractiveness, personality, circumstance, or sadly, often ambition and confidence).

Thus, we want more, not more from our friendships, but more of our friendships. Gosh darn you friends, why aren’t you perfect and why didn’t we meet in the perfect circumstance!

That’s life.

Note: I use parentheses entirely too often

Politics: Interpretations

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America

-Barack Obama

Barack Obama was the lonely no-named Democratic candidate for the Illinois Senate seat before he took the stage on July 14, 2004 as the key note speaker at the Democratic National Convention. Not many could attest to his oratorical skills or his hopeful message for a brighter America. He brought the entire convention to their feet, instantaneously becoming a political celebrity. Barack Obama rode his celebrity all the way to a 39 point landslide victory over opponent Alan Keys for the Illinois senate seat.

Even Fox News has given him much deserved praise. A Fox News article wrote, “The limelight continues to seek out Obama, who became a political star after a rousing keynote address at the Democratic National Convention.” The most interesting aspect of that night, though, must be the fact that Fox, ABC, and NBC didn’t cover Barack’s speech until after it was delivered. Barack Obama’s key note address was only on cable, leaving out millions of Americans who were left choosing between “Last Comic Standing” on NBC, “Extreme Makeover” on ABC, or “Trading Spouses” on Fox.

How can three major networks choose reality television over what could easily be remembered as one of the most prolific and powerful orations of our time? Is it because media sources are biased and didn’t want to cover a great democratic speech? Or was it because of ratings; more people would watch “Trading Spouses” than would the Democratic National Convention? Does the media, in fact, pick sides in political coverage? Yes, both for political and monetary reasons, and they do it by unequally distributing coverage and inconsistently interpreting political events.

To look at these questions in a practical matter, one can compare how political figures in similar situations are covered differently depending on their political affiliations. A great example of how media can unequally distribute coverage and accountability is found while comparing President Clinton’s impeachment with Bill O’Reilly’s law suit.

Andrea Mackris, a former producer for Fox News, sued Bill O’Reilly, the host of a Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor,” for sexual harassment in 2004. It was alleged that Mackris taped O’Reilly because their were many detailed statements from O’Reilly such as when O’Reilly spoke of wanting to take Mackris on a Caribbean vacation, “Well, if I took you down there then I’d want to take a shower with you right away, that would be the first thing I’d do.

O’Reilly is labeled a conservative who often spouts morality on his show, so he received expected press coverage, much of it being negative. He called himself an “object of media scorn” and told his viewers, “Some of the media hammered me relentlessly because, as you know, I am a huge target, as is Fox News. . . “ For all that media hammering, O’Reilly seemed unaffected.

O’Reilly and Mackris settled out of court for an undisclosed amount and business went on as usual for Bill O’Reilly and Fox News. In fact, O’Reilly’s show was already the most watched news program on cable television, but after the sexual harassment charges, his ratings jumped by a third. How could this happen?

Well for one, Fox News stopped covering the case after O’Reilly settled and the next day the network broadcast O’Reilly saying, “This brutal ordeal is now officially over, and I will never speak of it again.”

He didn’t. And neither did anyone else.

The last written article on a major news web site was October 29th in the Washington Post, only one day after the settlement. This scandal was a flash in the pan story, wiped under the table after settlement, and kept hush-hush among all the media networks. But what would happen if a major political figure was in a similar situation? Would the media be as generous in their coverage, or lack there of?

Bill Clinton was impeached and tried for lying under oath about having sexual relations with Monaca Lewinski in 1999. Granted, he was the President of the United States so everything he did was under the watchful eye of the public and especially the media, but the level of the media’s coverage was unprecedented. An excerpt from Bill Clinton’s Biography describes it best...

The next seven months found the American public consumed by the Lewinsky affair, following every nuance of the investigation by Starr and debating the merits of the case. Nothing like this had so captured the attention of the American public since Watergate and Nixon's resignation from office.



It seems ridiculous to compare the coverage of Bill O’Reilly to that of the Bill Clinton impeachment does it not? Bill Clinton was the President of the United States, the leader of the free world. Bill O’Reilly is a news anchor and a TV host. But do not underestimate the power of Bill O’Reilly and Fox News. Rupert Merdock, the owner of Fox News, has a total audience of 4.7 billion people, 75% of the world’s population. If Fox News and its owner choose to affect the public’s perception of an event and a political ideology by covering or not covering certain stories, they can.

The media is very calculating in how it chooses to cover a story for specific reasons. If a media source covers a political scandal (like that of Bill O’Reilly and Bill Clinton) frequently, then the public will believe that it “must be important because it is on the news all the time.” Therefore, the more a scandal is covered, the more people are likely to be in an uproar about it. So the more the media covers a scandal, the more they want people to be upset about it.

It becomes hard to have faith in the media when it seems to be so unequivocally biased in how much coverage they allocate to “political scandals” depending on who committed the alleged crime. But the media can’t only affect the public’s perception of a story by unequally distributing coverage; they can also interpret an event as character representative or as an idiosyncrasy, which results in completely different political outcomes. This interpretation bias can be shown by comparing Howard Dean’s infamous “yea” speech to the current American President’s “Bushisms.”

Whether one calls it a passionate speech or a mistake, after losing the Iowa caucus Howard Dean gave a speech that seemingly ruined his run at the Presidency in 2004. Dean was the frontrunner in almost every pole, set to get the Democratic Nomination for President. He raised most of his money through small donations by young adults, and he was speaking to many of those supporting youths on that fateful night after the Iowa caucus. He got significantly heated, his face turned red, his tie was loosened, and his speech got louder: all signs of passionate oratory. But no one in the media thought of this speech as motivation or passion, they ran the clip of a man screaming “yeaaaa” over and over. Throughout the 2004 Presidential race Howard Dean had been stereotyped as the rowdy candidate who doesn’t respect authority (namely President Bush’s) and is ultimately, unpresidential. This impassioned outburst was interpreted as one of a madman. The media continuously implied he “looked crazy” and that the yell was “representative of his character.”

Pat Buchanan, a former Republican presidential candidate, said "Dean's Iowa defeat was a real setback to him, but his post-game commentary was a disaster. That tape will be on every national talk show, I don't think it's survivable. It wasn’t. The next primary was to be held in New Hampshire. Before the infamous speech, Dean’s favorability ratings were at 59% and just 39 % three days after the speech. It is impossible to speculate causation, but it is hard to believe that Howard Dean’s presidential popularity was not negatively affected by how the media portrayed it as the speech of a madman rather then that of an impassioned orator.

Due to how the media interpreted one word, “yea,” Howard Dean’s popularity sunk. But while “yea” was supposedly character defining, the media oppositely portrays President Bush’s complete desecration of the English language as funny and idiosyncratic.

In Washington, D.C., on Nov. 4, 2004 President Bush was quoted saying, "I always jest to people, the Oval Office is the kind of place where people stand outside, they're getting ready to come in and tell me what for, and they walk in and get overwhelmed by the atmosphere. And they say 'man, you're looking pretty.”

No, he didn’t really say that…did he?

Unfortunately, yes. This incoherent rambling more resembles that of a schizophrenic than of the President of the United States. “Bushisms,” as these grammatical failures are so eloquently named, are quoted almost daily and fill numerous books. But how is it that the President of the United States’ continuous babbling is considered a funny quirk while one impassioned yell is deemed unpresidential? Isn’t intelligence something to be admired? Shouldn’t the President of the United States be able to articulate his thoughts without the aid of a speech writer? Many media analysts don’t think so.

Referring to President Bush and speaking to his viewers, Bill O’Reilly once said, “if you think the guy is a dummy, he’s not.” Obviously Mr. O’Reilly doesn’t feel that English and Reading should be sections on the ACT, a test to measure likely success at college and overall intelligence.

So why aren’t “Bushisms” seen as a sign of a lack of intelligence by the media? One answer is because the media chooses how to interpret certain character flaws, deciding whether they should be interpreted as character defining or insignificant.

As one can see, the media doesn’t have to come out and say it is for one party or another to affect public opinion; the media can support one ideology over another by unequally distributing coverage and by inconsistently interpreting political events. But does that mean that the media is solely to blame for how the public perceives a certain politician? No. Bill Clinton’s scandal was plastered all over the TV, but his ratings still went up because America gave him the benefit of the doubt. Howard Dean’s passionate speech was shown over and over by the media, but it wasn’t the media who voted against Dean in the primaries, it was the people. And President Bush’s speaking abilities were not considered unintelligent on November 2, when he was elected to serve as the President for a second term. Ultimately, regardless of how the media covers a politician, negatively or positively, the people have the ultimate decision whether to take what the media is giving them (biased or not) and make their own judgments.

Depending on the political prowess of each figure, depending on the times, and depending on which news source one looks at- it is easy to see that political figures’ fortunes are affected by the media. But it is important to note that these affects aren’t necessarily manifestations of the press, or because of the press. The press is a business, just like any other, that wants to make profits. Would Fox News keep Bill O’Reilly on the air if America cried bias and stopped watching in protest? Of course they wouldn’t. The major media networks want to give America the juiciest story possible because that is what viewers want. So does that put the blame on viewers? Yes, partly, but it is also worth noting that the press has a lot of money invested in the right, so the media, then, regardless of ratings, still has a monetary stake in Republican success.

NBC is owned by General Electric Co., the 13th largest donor to the Bush Campaign in 2004. ABC is owned by Walt Disney Inc., the 23rd largest donor to the Bush Campaign in 2004. Fox is owned by The News Corporation Lmt., the 12th largest donor to the Bush Campaign in 2004. And not to be outdone, the “Clinton News Network,” as it is sometimes referred to as, went against its “normal” bias this year. CNN is owned by AOL- Time Warner Inc., the 8th largest donor to the Bush Campaign in 2004. It does not take a pessimist to question whether every major news network should so furiously support one candidate; does monetary support imply subjective coverage? Not necessarily, but it sure raises a few eye brows and would certainly give another reason for bias.

Is there any hope in the American public or in the media moguls to change their bias coverage? Sadly, not really, so that leaves America with one hope, the politicians themselves. Politicians consistently run on the platform of positive change and now it is time for them to actually come through in the clutch.

Barack Obama gave an impassioned speech that was at worst, memorable. Although the speech may not have been covered live, it was still ultimately covered positively by all media sources. Therefore, if politicians would do like Barack Obama, and portray themselves as beacons of hope on all accords and in all settings, then Americans wouldn’t be in such an uproar about media bias and more importantly, the media wouldn’t have any scandals to clench their filthy little teeth into. Now, that is not to say that the politicians are at fault, but if anyone can change a politicians’ success, it is the politicians themselves.

Life: the N word

My summer roommate discovered my affection for political correctness and thus, found it humorous to use derogatory words to gain a rise out of me. Although I recognized his tactics, his mere whisper of stereotypes still enraged me, let alone his flippant usage of derogatory and hateful words. He would still insist though, “if my black friends may say it, then why can’t I? I don’t mean it to be hateful.”

I’ve always been confused as to the merit of a policy for races to “change the meaning” of historically inane words by using them. I could offer my insights but honestly, my direct experience with such words has been inconsequential enough to deem me a worthy commenter.

Therefore, although I initially intended to be selfish in that I would not post writings from different authors. Due to the circumstances I am adjusting my original policy. This is one of the best essays I could find of the N word and through analogy, all derogatory terms.


Saul Williams on the N word

my most recent theory is connected to what happens when someone is bit by a venomous snake. the venom is to be instantly sucked out through the mouth and spit out. similarily, the word nigger was used in a venomous way in the past and present day usage of it may be black americas way of spitting out the venom of hatred and oppression by sucking it out of their hearts and minds and spitting it out ie: saying it. which is to say, that it may be part of the healing process. that's one way to look at it. ofcourse we can also say that it is simply internalized self-hatred. however, it is also becoming rare in the black community to hear the word used with negative intention. where do i stand? good question.

when i use it it is for specific purposes, however, that doesn't necessarily mean heightened. i use it to make a point, to make a connection, to make a joke... as a child i was not allowed to use it. yet remember hearing men use the word in ways that just sounded very "cool" to my ear. it was richard pryor that is probably responsible for making the word almost sexy. when he openly decided to stop using it (primarily because of a letter he recieved from maya angelou) it was major news. many comedians attribute that moment as being the time when richard pryor stopped being funny. hmmm. weird.

when i was in germany, once, a black german asked me to speak to american rappers about using the word. he felt that we should stop because he was being called nigga by white boys in europe who thought it was the cool thing to say: hip hop fans.they didn't know the history of it, but he did.he felt angered by it and tried to explain to his friends why they shouldn't use it, but then became more confused when at a wutang concert, one of the cats on stage said, "i love y'all. y'all my niggas".



i think that the history of the word "nigger" in america from the beginning to now, "nigga" is surreal. as surreal as michael jackson. the way it is most commonly used is now as the highest compliment "you're my nigga" (wasn't that in a curb your enthusiasm episode?). yet, the history of it is far from forgotten. a person who uses the word everyday will still freeze dead in their tracks if they heard someone say it with the "er" pronounced.

personally, i have gone from having stopped saying it, to saying it, and then ofcourse, to saving it for special occassions. i think that we will eventually stop using the word all together, yet we may be 2 or 3 generations away from that. there's a song on my new album called "african student movement". the song is a musical sequel to the poem "sha clack clack" and is meant to instigate dialogue about the word nigga/er and our usage of it.it's a powerful word. i find i am only offended when i hear people of color use it in a derogatory manner, such as "stop acting like a ...". however, i don't deem the mere usage of it derogatory. i acknowledge it's history, just as i do ours and know that we are a growing people. and perhaps, just as a person is inoculated against a disease by having it put in it's system, we are participating is some unspeakable circular healing process. consciousness is evolving, as is our ability to articulate it. the healing process can and must include dialogue. thus, this question is a good question. i don't have the answer. only theories. you are right in knowing that when i use it in a poem or song it is for you to acknowledge where and how i'm using it. but i never use it in one way. sometimes it's the lauren hill approach

"and even with all my logic and my theoriesi add a "motherfu&#er" so you ignorant niggas hear me"

and sometimes it's to instigate discussion about the word itself. as a lover of language, i am amazed by the layers of meaning and power held within this word. there are other words that have long interesting histories that are connected to african americans like "yo" and "okay", but they are practically disconnected from their history. most people don't know or care where these words came from. the history of the word "nigger" probably didn't have derogatory beginning. shit, it just might be the hidden name of God.seriously, we have the river niger and many other etymological ties that can lead us to the origin of the word which probably predates colonialism. so, the usage of it, i think, is probably beyond our rational knowledge. the choice to use it or not is individual. as for whites using it. i would say NO. as much as i can theorize reasons why blacks may use it, i can think of no good reason why a white should. but who knows. at the end of the day. it's a word. perhaps the most powerful word in american colloquial english. and a word with that much power has a destiny beyond our rational reasoning.

Politics: The Ideal Justice

Machiavelli wrote, “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand or more perilous to conduct…than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”

Because of its decisions, the United States Supreme Court creates this “new order of things” daily. Whether these judgments are publicly insignificant, as, disturbing the affluence of a corporation, or historically irreplaceable, such as limiting or expanding civil liberties, the Supreme Court intrinsically affects. So with the magnitude of the Supreme Courts’ decisions in full scope, the fundamental question is, how should Supreme Court Justices come to such significant decisions? Or more specifically, should Supreme Court Justices be affected by the winds of individual ideology and/or public opinion?

Firstly, temporary public opinion and long-term public opinion should be distinguished before any further argument ensues. Is there not some inherent difference between President Bush’s approval rating and opinions concerning racial equality? One, President Bush’s approval rating, consistently changes with current events, while the other, cultural changes like demanding racial equality (civil rights movement), occur only a few times in a given century. Therefore, long-term public opinion can be illustrated by a slow progression of changing ideology with no change resulting from current events, while temporary public opinion can be illustrated by almost impulsive reactions with direct correlations to current events.

Throughout history, the Supreme Court has of course taken into consideration long-term public opinion when making its decisions. For example, arguably, the 1950s, 60s, and 70s authored the most influential changes in American ideology of the 20th century. Be it desegregation, woman’s rights, environmental crackdowns upon corporations, judicial rights, or civil rights, this time was a hot bed for long-term public opinion changes. And the Supreme Court paralleled these changes, by making some of the most important rulings in American History.

(Miranda v. Arizona, Brown v. Board of Ed., Abington v. Schempp)

And I argue that consistent with reality, long-term public opinion should absolutely be included in decision making. In the long run, American history would show itself to work towards equality and justice (in their most symbolic definitions). These cultural changes, like expanded suffrage and equal protection for all races and religions, are inevitable and healthy. And as such, Justices should keep cultural changes in mind when writing decisions.

Therefore, the more logical question then is, should the Supreme Court let temporary public opinion affect its decisions? I will use Terri Schiavo as my fulcrum.

The Supreme Court consistently denied Terri Schiavo’s parents’ appeals to hear their case. Judging by the number of protesters outside the hospital where she was, temporary public opinion would have had the justices hear the case, but holding their grounds, the Supreme Court did not budge, as they shouldn’t have.

Unlike Congress or the presidency, the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a "political" institution. And as such they had to answer the question…Is there a real issue at hand with Terri Schiavo that has real ideological consequences? Of course not. The courts ruled according to the law and the Constitution as it has recently been interpreted. There is no intrinsic injustice in the right-to-life v. right-to-death debate, so taking public opinion into consideration, would not serve the greater good (as did many cases in the mid 20th century) but only muddy future interpretational questions.

Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life terms for the specific reason that they should not be influenced by the winds of temporary public opinion. If the fore fathers wanted the Supreme Court to be held accountable to constituents (temporary public opinion), they would have made the justices elected. Justices have an obligation to the law, not to the people.

Then, in my most ideological conclusion, if Supreme Court Justices held to what they should do, all present and future debates over Supreme Court nominations would be nonsensical. Judges would recognize and tend to positive cultural changes but would not be affected by temporary hype. Now whether or not a specific nominee will actually do what he or she should is a whole different question, which will be inevitably be discussed in a different post.

Life: On Friendship

The appropriateness of this writing will inevitably vary between each of my relationships, and thus, the simplicity of my first post may seem overly impersonal and therefore frustrating. Bear with me.

I’ve come to many glaring conclusions that, whether because of fear or forced disbelief, have only recently come into view. In the past year, I have lost more friends than I have gained and ultimately, guarding some unexpected digression to the days of irresponsibility, this trend will continue. And even worse, I don’t mind.

Last night I received a drunken message from one of my best childhood friends. He repeatedly declared, “Michigan sucks, Michigan sucks, yea you heard me, Michigan sucks!” Although I must heartedly disagree, what struck me more fervently was that he concluded with, “and you can call me back at 330-…,” as if to somehow offer a spark for an eventually rekindled friendship. Now I’m sure the call was less a profound attempt to de-evolve to childhood and more a simple drunken prank call to the first person seen on his contacts list, but regardless, it made me think.

Idealistically, genuine friendships, just like true love, should stand the tests of time and proximity but of course they do not, or more bluntly, have not. Now that in college, I have seen communication between my friends and I become more and more infrequent and at the same rate have seen my care dissipate. At first I made every effort to keep in touch, and if faltering in doing so, I would naturally become discouraged over the thought of any loss. But through some, what was initially seen to be, unnatural transition, I now take less and less time to ponder over my lost friendships. And maybe lost is not appropriate but in any consequence, something has drastically changed.

And as is with most of life, the most plausible explanation is the most simple. After much thought I’ve concluded that I have lost the determination to keep friendships alive due to the ultimate filter.

Time

Not to sound cynical because many of my lost friendships acquired me great joy, but time has not destroyed any of my true friendships, only filtered my watery definition of friendship to a stricter one. Genuine friendships, like love, do in fact stand the tests of time and proximity.

It seems as though I do lose more friends than I gain but that does not detract from the validity of my friendships of the past and it certainly does not solidify any friendships of the present. Rather, it simply reasserts the truth that as I mature my definition of friendship tightens.