The American Report Card

I was recently prompted by a message board on myspace (of all places) for a group of impressionable young minds seeking truth, honor and justice in the world in which they lived. A single post, laden with the concept that Congress was attempting to force political bloggers to register with the government and would be jailing those who refused. A terrible blow to civil rights, correct?

It would be if it were at all true.

The post listed the bill in question as S. 1, and specifically cited section 220 as the culprit that would do away with the free speech flowing from so many parents' basements. The problem is that when an intelligent human looks up the bill online - readily available since all bills of Congress are public record - he or she would notice that the bill says nothing of the sort. In fact, it deals with grass roots campaigning and registering those group who lobby directly for a candidate.

The point, the government still doesn't care about stifling the voice of the citizen.

But that didn't stop over twenty people from posting their disgust with our government within only a few hours of the post popping up like a pimple on the ass of common sense. This type of thing happens on a daily basis though, and the worst part about it is the lack of understanding the belies our governmental system.

It's easy to criticize the government - the people making the policies and doing the work. It's almost just as easy to forget that we are the government. The creation of this nation was undertaken by people who believed that the people should make policies for themselves. Does it get sticky when there's 300 million of us? Sure, and direct representation is nearly impossible. In the end though, whenever a television pundit, political color commentator or pimple-faced teenager with a Nader 2000 sticker on his backpack decides to stick it to The Man, it would do them well to remember that the person who could be doing more to make the country a better place is the one taking time to virtually bitch about a phantom bill.

Reading is hard! Going online to learn about Congressional bills is tough! Being informed is impossible what with my work/school/masturbation schedule!

Go ahead and take every criticism of the government and apply it to yourselves. See if you make the grade. If you do, kudos. If you don't, feel free to post on here and bitch because I've just caught word that Senate bill 289238 is being voted on today and will effectively place all citizens into prison indefinitely to be beaten by large, anthropomorphic lamps who won' t stop singing show tunes.

I can't figure out if the idiocy or the prospect of show tunes is more frightening.

The Founding Fathers were idiots.

So you either celebrated on Tuesday or Wednesday. If you started on Tuesday night, you started late and don't mind popping the first top around 1am. If you waited til Wednesday, you're over-cautious and were probably genuinely afraid that the Democrats might lose the Senate. If you're the latter, you also don't understand politics.

It's been really popular to bash Republicans since President Bush took office. It's the easier thing to choose when coming up with counter-policy or studying political climates are your other options. At the end of it all, humans are lazy creatures. Without having to chase down our dinner everyday, we've suffered the horror of sitting at the top of the food chain. Instead of doing earnest research about anything in politics, we rely on campaign ads the same way we rely on commercials to tell us the truth about their products. And if the race isn't deemed "important" by the news media, we close our eyes and choose.

But that's actually not the problem.

A nation of idiots - the word that was originally used to describe uninformed voters - is not that bad. In fact, we really have no choice but to be uninformed. After years of being lazy, we now don't have the option to educate ourselves properly on the issues. And even the most intelligent voter is gambling - campaign promises often go unfulfilled.

Which brings me to the point about the Founding Fathers. For all their apotheosis, they were actually fairly stupid. We tend to revel in the genius of the democracy they invented while shoving its failures under the rug. Their biggest failure is to blame for the current (and past) political climate.

They assumed that power wouldn't be attractive.

That's right. For all their paranoia about strong central leadership, they attempted to make the jobs of governance as terrible as possible to create a vetting process that would make power-hungry men shy away. Low paying, difficult travel schedules, achingly boring meetings. They thought of everything - except that after you dress up power in rags, it's still power.

I think they overlooked this possibility because they were pompous, loudspeaking, power-hungry asses themselves. They were the kids in high school on the debate team that would argue anything at the drop of the hat. They were the well-to-do, respected men who fought to depose the very government where they made their riches. They weren't oppressed - for all the belly-aching of taxation, they were paying fewer taxes than English citizens in the UK. The one thing that these men couldn't have, is power. And they wanted it.

So today, since they didn't think about power being attractive, politicians run - and make no mistake of it - for themselves. Being in government at that level is great. They take a pay cut usually and make up for it in contacts. They earn prestige and air time on the news. Most of all, they make the decisions that run our lives.

Government attracts the sleaziest of our world - the people that hide it behind designer suits. We gasp when news like Mark Foley's and Tom Delay's comes out, never realizing that there are far worse people sitting in the chairs of power in DC. It's just a matter of being caught.

So why don't you understand politics if you partied on Wednesday? Because it doesn't matter who is running the government. Both parties are full of egoists running for power instead of constituents. Instead of diverting attention away from important issues with gay bashing and flag burning, we'll hear about environmentalism and animal rights. Plus, the Senate is split right down the middle, a position of stalemate, not power. The Democrats didn't take the Senate. They tied - assuming that the independents vote with Democrats, they still won't have a hard enough majority to do much.

I'll just sit here twiddling my thumbs until people get fed up with Democrats again and beg for Republicans instead of realizing that their all on the same team.

Two ways of looking at Israel's war

The thinking-person's way: Appearances are deceiving. Israel has a right to defend itself from attackers, and Hezbollah has certainly attacked their military force. It may seem as though Israel is overstepping its boundaries by invading another country's space, but the situation is complex. A rush to judgment is the last thing that political pundits need to do. It would only further exacerbate an already complicated situation. Hezbollah exists inside Lebanon - a group without a true country. This war is a new brand of war, one without borders, without official declarations. It is unfortunate that Lebanon has been caught in the middle of violent action, but it cannot be avoided if Israel is to accurately defend itself. Naysayers of this situation are only oversimplifying it. Israel is not at war with Lebanon, and the Lebanese would do well for themselves to sit back and allow the war to take place within their border. Not to do so would mean harboring a known and unflinchingly deadly terrorist organization.

The idiotic way: Israel has crossed over the Lebanese border without permission, launching a minor-scale military attack which has ripped apart the landscape and taken the lives of Lebanese citizens.

As stated by the authors of "Age of Propoganda", a textbook on persuasion, man is a rationalizing animal. Out of the two ways of seeing Israel's latest rationalized war, I'm starting to wonder which one is the dumb one.

Ethical Water?

Walking into a Starbucks the other day I noticed that they were selling a different kind of bottled water. Ethos Water boasts that buying a bottle helps save thirsty children in far off places. It's a snazzy campaign built on, like many these days are, the concept that consumerism can be ethical. Why buy that Everest bottle when purchasing an Ethos water will also save the lives of children?

The truth is, clichedly, a little bit harder to swallow. Oddly enough, it's printed right there on the bottle and on the front page of their chic, Flash webpage.

They, technically Starbucks, donates a whopping five cents to the cause - their goal being to donate $10 million within the next five years. And to be honest, $10 million is a decent goal. Unfortunately for anyone with a taste for cynicism, donating 5 cents of every bottle purchased (less than 4% of the price) is the equivalent of giving a homeless man a nickel, punching him in the throat, and shouting from the street corners about your genorocity.

Here's a little math: How much water does Ethos have to sell to reach their goal? At 5 cents per bottle, that's 200 million bottles over the next 5 years (40 million per year). And just how much money will Ethos be making if they reach this heartwarming goal?

The price at my local Starbuck's was $1.49. Remove the 5 selflessly donated cents and about 40 cents for production cost, and the total comes to $1.04. Multiplied by 200 million bottles, and Ethos is making $192,307,692 over the next five years in order to lovingly donate $10 million to the poor children of the world's water needs.

But a business needs to run, right? True. But the problem isn't with keeping the business afloat in order to serve the needs of the lower classes and underdeveloped countries. There are plenty of non-profit organizations out there like Water Partners who actually work to get underdeveloped countries the water they need without all of the grandstanding that Ethos does.

Ethos is a business using a marketing technique that has recently become highly effective. Tell a guilt-ridden middle-class that they can do their part to save the world just by purcashing something hip at their local Starbucks beanery. It feels good to donate to a cause, right? Trust me. It does. And that's the reason that marketing like this is so effective. It creates an environment for the consumer to feel good about something they would have already done.

So if it came down to buying Ethos or any other bottled water, shouldn't you just buy Ethos since it's on par with the rest AND donates the money?

Don't pull out your wallet just yet.

Like I said earlier, Ethos was $1.49 at the local Starbucks (prices may vary), and, with most things in economics, if you went to the supermarket and bought a 6 or 24 pack of bottled water, you'd be saving enough money per bottle to donate 10 cents to any water cause of your choice.

You'd be doing twice as much as Ethos is.

If you're actually interested in doing so, check out these sources.

Alien Confusion Test

If you needed to confuse an alien or a cultural anthropoligst from a way-out, foriegn land, all you would really have to do is explain the concept behind the United States alongside its execution of it.
The basic tenets do not match the reality. Freedom is redefined as the government sees fit. Rationalizations are made. Loop holes created.

I imagine a conversation would go a lot like this:

Me: So that's about it. Everyone is free to do as they please without hurting anyone else or infringing on their freedoms. We can say whatever we want, print whatever we want, be whatever we want.

Alien: So you don't have laws?

Me: Of course we do. They stand as a framework for punishing those who hurt or infringe on others' freedoms.

Alien: Sounds ideal. Can we stop for a second? We've been touring your nation's capitol for quite some time, and I really need to urinate. I'll just run to those bushes and be right back.

Me: No, wait. You can't urinate in public. It's against the law. Peeing in public is forbidden.

Alien: But I'm not hurting anyone or infringing on their rights.

Me: Well, technically no. But the public does need to be protected by such vile things.

Alien: Okay. That does seem reasonable. Most probably do not want to see me urinate, so I suppose I can follow your logic.

(After a short bathroom break)

Alien: That was refreshing.

Me: Good, and I have some friends I'd like you to meet. Alien, this is Gary and Steve. They're life partners.

Alien: I don't understand.

Me: Well, they are homosexuals. They are attracted to the same gender. Do you understand that?

Alien: Yes, of course. But why are they called 'life partners'.

Steve: Because we've made a promise to be together for the rest of lives.

Alien: Aha! So you are married. I already know this word.

Gary: Well, not quite. It's not legal for us to get married.

Alien: Why not?

Me: Because the public needs to protect the original definition of the word "marriage".

Alien: So they're marrying would hurt someone else?

Steve: I don't think so. In fact, hypothetically after making vows with the preacher we could go be hermits and never even see anyone else for the rest of our lives. We wouldn't be able to hurt anyone.

Alien: So you must be infringing on other peoples' rights.

Me: They aren't really to be honest. But it's complicated. The meaning of "marriage" is sacred, and people need the comfort of knowing it will stay the same.

Alien: So the word is more important than a group of people's well-being.

Me: Exactly. Now you're starting to understand.

Alien: I am sorry to hear that, though. It must be tough, Gary and Steve, not being able to get formally married. Maybe this will cheer you up. I've brought this smoking leaf from my home planet, and it makes you feel great no matter what mood you're in.

Me: Whoa! Hold on there, Alien. That's marijuana. I recognize the smell from college, and that's illegal to smoke here in the United States.

Alien: So sorry! I guess I still don't understand freedom.

Me: Well, smoking that marijuana would be bad for the general public.

Alien: How? If I smoke it, will people get hurt?

Me: No. But you will. And we can't have you hurting yourself.

Alien: So laws exist to stop people from activities which harm others or themselves?

Me: Hmm. Not exactly. You can go home and cut yourself with a knife and not get arrested. You could also smoke cigarettes which have been linked to lung cancer or drink alcohol which could kill you if you had too much, and the law couldn't touch you.

Alien: So some substances are legal to use and others aren't?

Me: Exactly.

Alien: And this list is decided by your grand democratic apparatus of course. One man, one vote. All people own the land and decide its fate. That sort of thing?

Me: Actually, the illegality of substances is usually decided by a few people with internal government positions.

Alien: Oh, I see.

Me: Good. I'm glad you finally understand.

Alien: I think I've got it now! You are completely free to do whatever you want as long as that something does not harm someone else, infringe upon their freedoms, edge near changing the meaning of a word or violate a previously agreed-upon list of activities which harm yourself dictated by a small group of leaders in your government to save you from yourself.

Me: It's a bit more complicated than that, but I think you're finally beginning to understand what true freedom is.

Some American pragmatists describe the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a prophetic document. A blue print that we will always struggle toward. If a practice is out of line with the words of those documents, it will eventually fall out of social favor, cause an identity crisis of sorts and be done away with by vote or by popular law. The most famous example is the abolishment of slavery. How could a nation claim it was a free one while all these men, women and children were in bondage? The answer was simple. The two are mutually exclusive. One had to go, and the country chose to keep freedom.

I can only hope that the pragmatists are right, and that we are inching closer and closer to true freedom - a country where people's love comes before the sanctity of a word, where people can do with their bodies as they please, where we can live without complications and simply live free.

Burn 'em While you got 'em

With the Senate's near-miss proposal to criminalize flag burning, every American should reconsider who they are voting for in the upcoming elections. As much as I support the strong-willed Republicans in current Congressional seats, the fact that they can't even pass a little Constitutional Amendment that has widespread public support shows a severe lack in their fortitude.

I need my Congresspeople to dictate my life with more conviction.

In fact, our leaders couldn't even ban this despicable and hurtful act by getting a law passed. Since our representatives will only fight half-heartedly for such a noble bill, the public's only hope is that the resolve of its elected officials will be strengthened by the helpless cries of women and children in the night being unneccesarily victimized by flagburning.

That's right. Every 16 seconds, two women, four infants and a three-month old kitten die because of flag burning.

How you ask?

No matter where you live, you cannot walk outside without seeing hundreds of Americans rioting in the streets and burning Old Glory without abandon. Go ahead. Try it. Go outside right now.

See?

The skies are polluted with the burnt remnants of the Stars and Stripes, clogging the lungs of the innocent, law-abiding citizens who don't succumb to the ubiquitous social pressure to set our flag ablaze. When these poor people inhale the deadly, poisonous fumes billowing from the constantly burning fields of red,white and blue fabric, they contract Lung Cancer within minutes.

Bottom line? We need stronger leaders to keep us safe from the mobbing hordes of unpatriotic flag-burners infiltrating our lungs with black death. As a voter, you have three options: sit back and do nothing, avoiding voting at all costs, or contact your legislator and tell them you demand that your freedom of speech be limited to protect the good name of the nation.

I urge you to consider the third option after toying around with the idea of the first two and taking a nap. Rise up citizens of America.

Now is the time to use your voice to stifle it.