Not so fast. Do not make up your mind about this article yet. Read it patiently; evaluate its merits as well as its demerits. When that is done, make up your mind.
How many times have you been told to make up your mind about something immediately and take action breathlessly or else catastrophe will ensue? How often must you make up your mind without carefully weighing both sides? More pertinently, how often are you told that one side is the only right one, a particular view the only correct view, and any other idea heresy?
The practice of modern politics is the art and game of rhetoric, of persuasion. It is not in the interest of persuaders to present both sides of an issue, and any who represent both sides are only presenting that which is convenient, or that which will appeal to your trust of that source.
The target of modern politics is you. If the practice of politics these days is a game and you are its target, then they are trying to play you. Politicians have forsaken the painstaking practice of dialectic for the simpler and more to-the-point rhetoric. This is not limited to politics, however. It has permeated classrooms, churches, and the clumsily named “blogosphere,” and threatens to present you with nothing but a continual flow of propaganda, in essence, to make your decisions for you. And all you have to do is sign on the dotted line.
Al Gore wants you to believe that the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting, but according to recent reports, ice loss is more likely due to solar radiation and water vaporization. You would not know that if you only listened to him. Scientist Richard Dawkins would have you believe that the fossil record presents a smooth transition to higher-level organisms, but Dawkins cannot respond to the discovery of the Cambrian fossil bed - a giant reservoir of fossils that have no apparent predecessors and about which even Dawkins himself remarked, “It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” He chooses not to mention those fossils because they undermine his argument. Michael Moore promotes the British National Health Service in his newest propaganda documentary, “Sicko,” but fails to inform viewers of the almost one-year wait for some basic procedures, the low quality of treatment, staffing shortages, and the conversion of many Britons to private insurance and private healthcare.
Al Gore, Richard Dawkins, and Michael Moore are all asking the same thing of you, just in different ways. Al Gore wants you to lay down your modern lifestyle for a return to Gaia worship. Richard Dawkins wants you to convert to his world view. Michael Moore wants you to trust your health to the state. They are different in words only. They, and all modern masters of rhetoric, are assaulting your autonomy with their propaganda, asking you to sign yourself over in the name of calamity, hopelessness, and unfairness. Their target is not the older population. They are targeting the future, the youth, trusting in their naïveté and idealism to advance their agendas with no questions asked.
The point of this article is not to incite cynicism about politics. It is not even to inform you that politicians intentionally misrepresent their cases. The point is to caution you that rhetoric is how information is presented in today’s world, and if the whole truth is what you seek, then you need to do your own research, dig deeper, and once you have heard both sides and weighed them, carefully make your decision. Question alarm and drastic calls for action. Dispel uncertainty with curiosity. Do what the modern masters of rhetoric absolutely do not want you to do - think for yourself.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
"Who Will Stand For This?"
Most funding for public education in America comes from the states, but the legislation and guidance for how to allocate those funds comes from the federal government. Currently, this influence is embodied in the mandates, impossible accountability goals, and all-important high-stakes standardized testing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Strong guidance from the executive and legislative branches of the federal government is necessary to bring about the school and community reforms needed to begin to pull American public schools out of the uninspired quagmire that they are in. Our next president must address this dire American need.
I combed the office and presidential committee website of Republicans Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback. My goal was to determine the candidates’ stances on education, and my findings were unsatisfying. McCain had not a word about education on his presidential committee website, and the other three offered what I felt were cursory, superficial suggestions on what Giuliani rightly identifies as “one of the greatest civil rights issues of our time.”
No Republican candidate recognized the empty promises and counterproductive, draconian mandates of the NCLB.
My attention turns to the Democrats, and reviews of the positions on education of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich.
Both Obama’s Senate and presidential committee websites make zero mention of NCLB. Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, former Congressman and U.S. Secretary of Energy, does not list education among the seven issues on his presidential committee website. Hillary Clinton’s Senate website contains 4,200 words and 11 links dedicated to the issue of education. Former Senator Edward’s presidential committee website interestingly lists “Strengthening Education” under the banner of “Eliminating Poverty.”
There is one dark horse presidential candidate who actually does speak on the crisis of high-stakes testing, Democrat Congressman from Ohio Dennis Kucinich: The current Administration wants to box our young people in with standardized tests… These days, American students are tested to an extent that is unprecedented in American history and unparalled anywhere in the world. Education must emphasize creative and critical thinking, not just test taking. I believe we can take our children and society in a new direction by challenging this notion that education should be so limited. We ought to be encouraging art, music, and creative writing in our schools. In doing so, we recognize and fuel the wide range of talents our children possess.
He couldn’t be more right in emphasizing creative and critical thinking over test taking. Unfortunately, most current polls have Kucinich’s support for the candidacy among Democrats at one percent – when he even appears on the poll.
Al Gore’s line on climate change fits just as snugly for public education: “It’s not a political issue, it’s a moral issue.” High-stakes testing is a high-stakes issue, and America’s children deserve action. High-stakes testing stunts our children’s growth and attacks the culture of learning that must exist in successful schools. I call on all of the candidates to recognize and attend to this critical issue. We must demand our political leaders to act. It is our job to find which candidate will step to the plate.
I combed the office and presidential committee website of Republicans Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback. My goal was to determine the candidates’ stances on education, and my findings were unsatisfying. McCain had not a word about education on his presidential committee website, and the other three offered what I felt were cursory, superficial suggestions on what Giuliani rightly identifies as “one of the greatest civil rights issues of our time.”
No Republican candidate recognized the empty promises and counterproductive, draconian mandates of the NCLB.
My attention turns to the Democrats, and reviews of the positions on education of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich.
Both Obama’s Senate and presidential committee websites make zero mention of NCLB. Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, former Congressman and U.S. Secretary of Energy, does not list education among the seven issues on his presidential committee website. Hillary Clinton’s Senate website contains 4,200 words and 11 links dedicated to the issue of education. Former Senator Edward’s presidential committee website interestingly lists “Strengthening Education” under the banner of “Eliminating Poverty.”
There is one dark horse presidential candidate who actually does speak on the crisis of high-stakes testing, Democrat Congressman from Ohio Dennis Kucinich: The current Administration wants to box our young people in with standardized tests… These days, American students are tested to an extent that is unprecedented in American history and unparalled anywhere in the world. Education must emphasize creative and critical thinking, not just test taking. I believe we can take our children and society in a new direction by challenging this notion that education should be so limited. We ought to be encouraging art, music, and creative writing in our schools. In doing so, we recognize and fuel the wide range of talents our children possess.
He couldn’t be more right in emphasizing creative and critical thinking over test taking. Unfortunately, most current polls have Kucinich’s support for the candidacy among Democrats at one percent – when he even appears on the poll.
Al Gore’s line on climate change fits just as snugly for public education: “It’s not a political issue, it’s a moral issue.” High-stakes testing is a high-stakes issue, and America’s children deserve action. High-stakes testing stunts our children’s growth and attacks the culture of learning that must exist in successful schools. I call on all of the candidates to recognize and attend to this critical issue. We must demand our political leaders to act. It is our job to find which candidate will step to the plate.
"Where Do I Begin?"
Without a doubt, the most difficult problem I encountered when beginning to write this column was how to focus on only one of literally hundreds of topics one could potentially use to easily show how George W. Bush has been the worst president we have ever had. While there is definitely no shortage of information displaying the countless bad decisions—most which have had devastating effects on our country—Bush is responsible for (i.e. going to war for false reasons, turning one of the nation’s largest surpluses into one of the nation’s biggest deficits, creating one of the largest waves of job losses since the Depression, enacting unprecedented legislation catering to the wealthy and corporate America that would even make the Reagan administration do a double take—including both tax cuts and rapidly depleting environmental standards, the list goes on…) I would like to focus my column on a group often excluded in American politics. For women- and especially young women that have just turned of voting age- it is more important than ever to get out there and make your voice heard. Since Bush took office in 2000, American women have begun to experience a perpetual decline in rights and it’s only getting worse.
One of Bush’s rollbacks on women’s rights that was implemented is the Unborn Victims Act. The Unborn Victims Act states that federal law enforcement will be able to bring charges for the harm of a fetus, as well as its mother, during a violent crime. It has also been carefully worded so the bill specifically grants individual, separate legal status to a fetus or embryo beginning at conception. I remember watching the bill being signed on the news as Bush and his collection of post-middle aged men applauded each other with religious zeal for their noble humanitarian effort on the part of women across the country. Obviously, everyone agrees on the need to protect pregnant women but, within a legal context, it becomes glaringly obvious that this law is only the latest element of the religious right’s concerted effort to slowly chip away at Roe vs. Wade (the very foundation of women’s reproductive rights) as anyone who kills a pregnant woman during a violent crime will most likely be going to jail for life anyway.
The act was vehemently promoted by Bush and several other religious anti-abortion organizations- including the National Right to Life Organization. And, in order to solicit support from those not solely concerned with creating a backdoor for the “moral majority” to women’s rights, the Bush administration took advantage of the tragic, yet sensationalist-laden Laci Peterson case by dubbing it the ‘Laci and Conner’s Law’.
Another piece of legislation was signed by Bush less than six months after passing the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 (PBABA), thus unveiling a carefully constructed agenda on the part of the steadily encroaching religious right and the drunk driving, semi-literate, corporate lap-dog who has deemed himself “appointed by God” to the American presidency (which might make sense since he wasn’t elected by the people) to disseminate women’s rights across the board.
I know many of you feel powerless and I know that many of you feel as your vote/voice doesn’t count but just remember that you make up the largest percentage of the voting public in America, and if we can all organize and motivate each other just enough to get out there and we can do something about the outrageous decisions happening in the office and in the court.
One of Bush’s rollbacks on women’s rights that was implemented is the Unborn Victims Act. The Unborn Victims Act states that federal law enforcement will be able to bring charges for the harm of a fetus, as well as its mother, during a violent crime. It has also been carefully worded so the bill specifically grants individual, separate legal status to a fetus or embryo beginning at conception. I remember watching the bill being signed on the news as Bush and his collection of post-middle aged men applauded each other with religious zeal for their noble humanitarian effort on the part of women across the country. Obviously, everyone agrees on the need to protect pregnant women but, within a legal context, it becomes glaringly obvious that this law is only the latest element of the religious right’s concerted effort to slowly chip away at Roe vs. Wade (the very foundation of women’s reproductive rights) as anyone who kills a pregnant woman during a violent crime will most likely be going to jail for life anyway.
The act was vehemently promoted by Bush and several other religious anti-abortion organizations- including the National Right to Life Organization. And, in order to solicit support from those not solely concerned with creating a backdoor for the “moral majority” to women’s rights, the Bush administration took advantage of the tragic, yet sensationalist-laden Laci Peterson case by dubbing it the ‘Laci and Conner’s Law’.
Another piece of legislation was signed by Bush less than six months after passing the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 (PBABA), thus unveiling a carefully constructed agenda on the part of the steadily encroaching religious right and the drunk driving, semi-literate, corporate lap-dog who has deemed himself “appointed by God” to the American presidency (which might make sense since he wasn’t elected by the people) to disseminate women’s rights across the board.
I know many of you feel powerless and I know that many of you feel as your vote/voice doesn’t count but just remember that you make up the largest percentage of the voting public in America, and if we can all organize and motivate each other just enough to get out there and we can do something about the outrageous decisions happening in the office and in the court.
"Where Are You Looking?"
This is a way of trying to define something that can never be defined by anyone except for the individual themselves:
PUNK
A) Music movement started in the 70's with multiple reasons and causes. There was an American and British "punk" movement. Proto-punk bands such as Iggy Pop and the Stooges, The Motor City 5, and The Velvet Underground were influential in setting the stage for taking the risks bands like The Ramones, The Dictators, The New York Dolls, and Blondie did.
The British movement supposedly was started by one of the following: The economic disaster that occurred in the mid seventies, and the youth's lack of patience with the British Government. A movement made out of boredom by Johnny Rotten, lead singer of the Sex Pistols.
This Movement caused the creation for most genres of music today, it's even represented in the roots of such types as hip hop, rap, pop, modern rock, goth, electro, and two-tone. It did not create these genres, BUT it certainly kicked down the door for them.
B) Culture started in the 70's by the same music movement. The point of the culture was like the music, be yourself and disregard the angry emotions it may stir up. No longer a real culture, only a burned image with the values behind it lost, you can see it in stores such as Hot Topic. People no longer understand it was always about being yourself and not being anyone's shadow!
C) Modern Movement, characterized by some bands that have actually kept the movement alive, some by giving off the image, and pop-punk bands that are, regardless of what people want to say, in way of The Ramones and even The Misfits. Pop Punk is a very melodic form of punk, it's not “pop" because it's popular, it's "pop" because of the style of playing. Bands that try to sell an image alone with no true love for the music are the ones made fun of the most, with little or no time together before being popularized by mainstream TV. These are the same bands that promote a pre-made image that's ready to sell to a pre-teen to early adult demographic. For the most part it works, and this entire culture has been referred to as " Mallcore" or " mallxcore," because these are the same people that have never heard of The Ramones, The Clash, or Sex Pistols but think they're punk because they shop at Hot Topic and listen to MTV's Flavor Of The Week " band." Feel free to laugh at these people, most people who know what the music is about do.
The Current culture is in a sad state because it's focused on replicating the 70's instead of being itself. There are a few who understand it and refuse to subscribe to the image mold.
D) Music Structure. Many like to characterize this genre with power chords only and simple drum beats. These "people" are complete and utter idiots and should be regarded as IMBECILS. They more than likely know nothing about music in the first place, or are just that type of idiot that doesn't understand other types of music can be good, and that music, like other things, is all about opinion. Punk has had it's fair share of complicated guitar solos, insane drumming performances, all while keeping a melody, which most " jam bands" sorely lack, along with talent and lyrical prowess. Many of the early punk bands did utilize simple chords and beats, but like all types of music, it branched out and has many styles, from simple to complex, traditional to exotic, it all has to do with where you're looking.
PUNK
A) Music movement started in the 70's with multiple reasons and causes. There was an American and British "punk" movement. Proto-punk bands such as Iggy Pop and the Stooges, The Motor City 5, and The Velvet Underground were influential in setting the stage for taking the risks bands like The Ramones, The Dictators, The New York Dolls, and Blondie did.
The British movement supposedly was started by one of the following: The economic disaster that occurred in the mid seventies, and the youth's lack of patience with the British Government. A movement made out of boredom by Johnny Rotten, lead singer of the Sex Pistols.
This Movement caused the creation for most genres of music today, it's even represented in the roots of such types as hip hop, rap, pop, modern rock, goth, electro, and two-tone. It did not create these genres, BUT it certainly kicked down the door for them.
B) Culture started in the 70's by the same music movement. The point of the culture was like the music, be yourself and disregard the angry emotions it may stir up. No longer a real culture, only a burned image with the values behind it lost, you can see it in stores such as Hot Topic. People no longer understand it was always about being yourself and not being anyone's shadow!
C) Modern Movement, characterized by some bands that have actually kept the movement alive, some by giving off the image, and pop-punk bands that are, regardless of what people want to say, in way of The Ramones and even The Misfits. Pop Punk is a very melodic form of punk, it's not “pop" because it's popular, it's "pop" because of the style of playing. Bands that try to sell an image alone with no true love for the music are the ones made fun of the most, with little or no time together before being popularized by mainstream TV. These are the same bands that promote a pre-made image that's ready to sell to a pre-teen to early adult demographic. For the most part it works, and this entire culture has been referred to as " Mallcore" or " mallxcore," because these are the same people that have never heard of The Ramones, The Clash, or Sex Pistols but think they're punk because they shop at Hot Topic and listen to MTV's Flavor Of The Week " band." Feel free to laugh at these people, most people who know what the music is about do.
The Current culture is in a sad state because it's focused on replicating the 70's instead of being itself. There are a few who understand it and refuse to subscribe to the image mold.
D) Music Structure. Many like to characterize this genre with power chords only and simple drum beats. These "people" are complete and utter idiots and should be regarded as IMBECILS. They more than likely know nothing about music in the first place, or are just that type of idiot that doesn't understand other types of music can be good, and that music, like other things, is all about opinion. Punk has had it's fair share of complicated guitar solos, insane drumming performances, all while keeping a melody, which most " jam bands" sorely lack, along with talent and lyrical prowess. Many of the early punk bands did utilize simple chords and beats, but like all types of music, it branched out and has many styles, from simple to complex, traditional to exotic, it all has to do with where you're looking.
"Voting Matters"
I'm here because voting matters. Why else would our circus animal in the White House go so far out of his way to steal the last election?
But even when the national races smell like a stage managed cartoon contest between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dumber, local elections are where it is at. Mayor, city council, county commissioners, school boards, sheriffs, state legislators- these are the people who decide in our back yards how to spend our tax money collected by Washington and the states. Should we build a homeless shelter or a golf course? Computers for poor kids or pollute science classes with the Bible?
So few people vote in local elections, that when good candidates run and we show up, there's a very good chance of winning. If we don't show up Bushcroft bozos and Christian-Coalition-types run things instead.
Paying attention and showing up to vote is also crucial because of ballot initiatives. Where would rent control, medical marijuana, living wage laws, etc.., be unless people like us show up? We are lucky we have the right to ballot initiatives. Canada & Europe don't. My favorite is the sheer joy of voting down sports stadiums.
I'm all for insurrection in the street. But it doesn't accomplish much without insurrection at the ballot box. So why not use it?
Being patriotic doesn't mean blindly following a criminal president into illegal and dangerous wars. It means doing our part to take our country back from corrupt corporate puppets that get into office because we sit on our butt and let them.
But even when the national races smell like a stage managed cartoon contest between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dumber, local elections are where it is at. Mayor, city council, county commissioners, school boards, sheriffs, state legislators- these are the people who decide in our back yards how to spend our tax money collected by Washington and the states. Should we build a homeless shelter or a golf course? Computers for poor kids or pollute science classes with the Bible?
So few people vote in local elections, that when good candidates run and we show up, there's a very good chance of winning. If we don't show up Bushcroft bozos and Christian-Coalition-types run things instead.
Paying attention and showing up to vote is also crucial because of ballot initiatives. Where would rent control, medical marijuana, living wage laws, etc.., be unless people like us show up? We are lucky we have the right to ballot initiatives. Canada & Europe don't. My favorite is the sheer joy of voting down sports stadiums.
I'm all for insurrection in the street. But it doesn't accomplish much without insurrection at the ballot box. So why not use it?
Being patriotic doesn't mean blindly following a criminal president into illegal and dangerous wars. It means doing our part to take our country back from corrupt corporate puppets that get into office because we sit on our butt and let them.
"Risking Lives To Save Lives"
Something tragic happened on the day of September 11, 2001 that would affect us for years to come. It’s still affecting us at this time, possibly more than ever. The families of military men and woman are affected the most right now. In case you haven’t figured out what I’m talking about, I’m speaking of the war in Iraq and the idea of sending over more than 20,000 troops overseas.
Coming from someone who grew up in a military family, a grandfather who served in his younger years, a brother in the Army, a cousin in the Air Force, an uncle in the Army, and another brother who served in the Marines that I lost overseas in 2003, I am not happy with George W. Bush’s proposal at all. Not only am I upset about the fact that it could be my family sent over, I’m upset that my friends could go overseas as well.
When this war first started in 2002 I supported it for the most part. Now in retrospect, I believe it was my anger that supported it, not my intellect. I was so enraged about what had happened on September 11, 2001, I was willing to support anything at that moment. When my brother got shipped off in 2002 my views slowly started changing. I think mainly due to fear at that point. But I stuck to my initial views of supporting it. When I lost my brother in 2003 I had no clue what to think anymore. Eventually I came to realize that, in my opinion, we have been over in Iraq for way to long.
Is risking American lives to save foreign lives worth it? That is the million dollar question I keep asking myself. Don’t get me wrong, I am proud that our country uses its resources to help other countries, but there is a time when enough is enough. One country can only do so much. We have been fighting in this war for over five years now, that’s longer than many of us expected. So overall, I don’t believe that sending more than 20,000 troops to Iraq is the wisest decision, but it may be a decision we have to make.
Coming from someone who grew up in a military family, a grandfather who served in his younger years, a brother in the Army, a cousin in the Air Force, an uncle in the Army, and another brother who served in the Marines that I lost overseas in 2003, I am not happy with George W. Bush’s proposal at all. Not only am I upset about the fact that it could be my family sent over, I’m upset that my friends could go overseas as well.
When this war first started in 2002 I supported it for the most part. Now in retrospect, I believe it was my anger that supported it, not my intellect. I was so enraged about what had happened on September 11, 2001, I was willing to support anything at that moment. When my brother got shipped off in 2002 my views slowly started changing. I think mainly due to fear at that point. But I stuck to my initial views of supporting it. When I lost my brother in 2003 I had no clue what to think anymore. Eventually I came to realize that, in my opinion, we have been over in Iraq for way to long.
Is risking American lives to save foreign lives worth it? That is the million dollar question I keep asking myself. Don’t get me wrong, I am proud that our country uses its resources to help other countries, but there is a time when enough is enough. One country can only do so much. We have been fighting in this war for over five years now, that’s longer than many of us expected. So overall, I don’t believe that sending more than 20,000 troops to Iraq is the wisest decision, but it may be a decision we have to make.
"The Importance Of Politics In A Younger Generation"
Without revolutions the United States would still belong to the British. Without individual revolutions, politics would not be an important factor in our government. Where there are people there are differences of opinions, and what would government be without disagreements? Would we even need government?
Every election season, politics proves an important factor when determining the nation’s leaders. This shows that politics has a strong influence on the opinions of citizens, including long-term issues and current affairs. Young people today think little about politics and how politics affects them.
I assumed for a long time that politics was over my head. To me there was no point to politics and no reason to try and understand them. As I learn more about its importance to the health of our country I find it is important to be aware of political issues. Also, I have begun to develop my own beliefs about politics and the government, including its leaders, judicial system, and the military.
Young people often overlook the significance of understanding the relevance of politics in their lives. Being a young adult myself, I know I sure did. Young adults do not know what they’re missing when they assume politics is not as essential to them as it is to our older generation. Younger people tend not to care for politics for a few reasons. First and foremost a word cherished by so many Americans is taxes. My age group can’t realize the impact of taxes because a lot of younger people don’t work and don’t pay taxes – an issue which greatly affects politics. Today’s generation is being raised to praise the dollar, taxes is something that will have a huge impact on our future as we grow older. Second, politics is sculpted around our leaders – the president, the senators, and the governors – not young adults.
So politics, though it affects teens and young people, is shaped by adults. The average young adult is not interested in the terms of the budget summary nearly as much as football season. Plainly put, politics is on a different level of intelligence and interest than what we are used to.
When choosing between the Braves and the Yankees on ESPN and the electoral debate on CSPAN, I know which one I would choose. If a young adult was asked the following day if he or she watched the baseball game and responded with, “No, but did you hear what Bush said when asked about the budget cuts?” calls for oxygen would echo through the halls. Basically, it’s normal for a young adult to not care about politics, even though I believe we should. Up until a few years ago, if I were asked to define politics I would have been forced to respond with, “Some government stuff?”
Now that I know something about politics, I realize that it is important to have at least some understanding of what is happening in our current society. Politics is vital to our society since it is present issues that affect us all. Strong political parties are necessary for a healthy government. Thomas Jefferson believed that, “The duty of an upright administration is to pursue its course steadily… and to cherish the good principles of both parties.” This shows that it takes more than one political party to make a well balanced government. Having at least two ensures the exclusion of the weaknesses of each, and uses both parties’ strengths for one prosperous government.
In the United States, political parties have guided us through times of hardship to triumph; however politics can become a liability if the parties’ only focus on what they think is important. In this case two groups of politicians with a narrow path toward individual goals may exclude the needs of the nation. As long as there is free speech there will be multiple political parties. They are necessary to the strength of our government. Our founding fathers proved it could work, and it has thus far.
For our political system to flourish, older adults must realize that younger people must be educated about politics: why it exists, why it is important, and what our generation can do. Soon enough, it will be our turn to lead.
Every election season, politics proves an important factor when determining the nation’s leaders. This shows that politics has a strong influence on the opinions of citizens, including long-term issues and current affairs. Young people today think little about politics and how politics affects them.
I assumed for a long time that politics was over my head. To me there was no point to politics and no reason to try and understand them. As I learn more about its importance to the health of our country I find it is important to be aware of political issues. Also, I have begun to develop my own beliefs about politics and the government, including its leaders, judicial system, and the military.
Young people often overlook the significance of understanding the relevance of politics in their lives. Being a young adult myself, I know I sure did. Young adults do not know what they’re missing when they assume politics is not as essential to them as it is to our older generation. Younger people tend not to care for politics for a few reasons. First and foremost a word cherished by so many Americans is taxes. My age group can’t realize the impact of taxes because a lot of younger people don’t work and don’t pay taxes – an issue which greatly affects politics. Today’s generation is being raised to praise the dollar, taxes is something that will have a huge impact on our future as we grow older. Second, politics is sculpted around our leaders – the president, the senators, and the governors – not young adults.
So politics, though it affects teens and young people, is shaped by adults. The average young adult is not interested in the terms of the budget summary nearly as much as football season. Plainly put, politics is on a different level of intelligence and interest than what we are used to.
When choosing between the Braves and the Yankees on ESPN and the electoral debate on CSPAN, I know which one I would choose. If a young adult was asked the following day if he or she watched the baseball game and responded with, “No, but did you hear what Bush said when asked about the budget cuts?” calls for oxygen would echo through the halls. Basically, it’s normal for a young adult to not care about politics, even though I believe we should. Up until a few years ago, if I were asked to define politics I would have been forced to respond with, “Some government stuff?”
Now that I know something about politics, I realize that it is important to have at least some understanding of what is happening in our current society. Politics is vital to our society since it is present issues that affect us all. Strong political parties are necessary for a healthy government. Thomas Jefferson believed that, “The duty of an upright administration is to pursue its course steadily… and to cherish the good principles of both parties.” This shows that it takes more than one political party to make a well balanced government. Having at least two ensures the exclusion of the weaknesses of each, and uses both parties’ strengths for one prosperous government.
In the United States, political parties have guided us through times of hardship to triumph; however politics can become a liability if the parties’ only focus on what they think is important. In this case two groups of politicians with a narrow path toward individual goals may exclude the needs of the nation. As long as there is free speech there will be multiple political parties. They are necessary to the strength of our government. Our founding fathers proved it could work, and it has thus far.
For our political system to flourish, older adults must realize that younger people must be educated about politics: why it exists, why it is important, and what our generation can do. Soon enough, it will be our turn to lead.
"Sick Of It All"
“Mistakes of this magnitude should not be tolerated by the American people.”
The events of the last few years have formed divisions that never before existed. Attitudes that used to be moderate and accepting of other cultures have been swayed to the far right, showing little tolerance for anything foreign. This isn't just true for American society, but for societies across the globe, and herein lays the biggest danger to all of us. Americans from all walks of life have picked up a "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" mentality, which directly mirrors the vehemence we feel from terrorist organizations. Question is, is it within our power to stop the slaughter on both sides?
There are many that agree that the Bush Administration's foreign policy has played directly into the hands of those whose influence they've tried to subvert. Islamic fundamentalism now reaches further into the Islamic world, solely because of American aggression and unilateral military action. Desperate, frustrated, impoverished people from the third world are keen to strike at what is looked at the ultimate source of wealth and control on the planet, the United States, just as we Americans feel driven to strike at our own government when it acts in a way that shames us. I've felt shamed by Bush and his imperialist ways, and feel badly for him, because he truly thinks that American culture can save the world. If only it was such a simple place.
All societies have basic laws they live by, which uphold morality and punish base human barbarism. All moderates in all societies must recognize these similarities if there's hope of peace, yet governments are still corrupt, greedy and bloodthirsty. Now we see an administration bent on revenge. What purpose that revenge serves remains a mystery, and the people who support American military action don't seem to argue against it. Someone has to pay for 9/11, right?
I think many of the countries of the world would benefit from a healthy dose of democracy, but democracy can't flourish in areas where education is poor and ethnic and religious hatreds are ripe. Those issues need to be resolved before an effective transition to democracy can take place. The only institutions addressing social concerns in many Islamic countries are the fundamentalist organizations that provide support for people in need. Bush cannot hope to downplay their influence and instill democratic ideals through the use of military force. The quagmire in Iraq now serves as an example of Bush's simple planning. Now, the only option is to follow the examples set in post WWII Germany and Japan: commit far more military personnel for security, and engineering personnel for rebuilding of the infrastructure.
Mistakes of this magnitude should not be tolerated by the American people. I'm angry at the fact that we lost thousands of innocents on 9/11, and would love to see those responsible suffer for their crimes, but the schoolyard bully reaction Bush uses is just too simplistic to work in such a complex world. This man lies to deceive us, only uses fear to control us, and will ultimately make us more enemies than friends.
The events of the last few years have formed divisions that never before existed. Attitudes that used to be moderate and accepting of other cultures have been swayed to the far right, showing little tolerance for anything foreign. This isn't just true for American society, but for societies across the globe, and herein lays the biggest danger to all of us. Americans from all walks of life have picked up a "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" mentality, which directly mirrors the vehemence we feel from terrorist organizations. Question is, is it within our power to stop the slaughter on both sides?
There are many that agree that the Bush Administration's foreign policy has played directly into the hands of those whose influence they've tried to subvert. Islamic fundamentalism now reaches further into the Islamic world, solely because of American aggression and unilateral military action. Desperate, frustrated, impoverished people from the third world are keen to strike at what is looked at the ultimate source of wealth and control on the planet, the United States, just as we Americans feel driven to strike at our own government when it acts in a way that shames us. I've felt shamed by Bush and his imperialist ways, and feel badly for him, because he truly thinks that American culture can save the world. If only it was such a simple place.
All societies have basic laws they live by, which uphold morality and punish base human barbarism. All moderates in all societies must recognize these similarities if there's hope of peace, yet governments are still corrupt, greedy and bloodthirsty. Now we see an administration bent on revenge. What purpose that revenge serves remains a mystery, and the people who support American military action don't seem to argue against it. Someone has to pay for 9/11, right?
I think many of the countries of the world would benefit from a healthy dose of democracy, but democracy can't flourish in areas where education is poor and ethnic and religious hatreds are ripe. Those issues need to be resolved before an effective transition to democracy can take place. The only institutions addressing social concerns in many Islamic countries are the fundamentalist organizations that provide support for people in need. Bush cannot hope to downplay their influence and instill democratic ideals through the use of military force. The quagmire in Iraq now serves as an example of Bush's simple planning. Now, the only option is to follow the examples set in post WWII Germany and Japan: commit far more military personnel for security, and engineering personnel for rebuilding of the infrastructure.
Mistakes of this magnitude should not be tolerated by the American people. I'm angry at the fact that we lost thousands of innocents on 9/11, and would love to see those responsible suffer for their crimes, but the schoolyard bully reaction Bush uses is just too simplistic to work in such a complex world. This man lies to deceive us, only uses fear to control us, and will ultimately make us more enemies than friends.
"Rebel"
Rebel! Far too much value is placed on peace, stability, and compliance when the surest path to greatness can only be found through rebellion. For rebellion underlies the most directed forces of nature and the most powerful forces for change. Rebel to capture a fraction of the potency and energy that rebellion can set free!
Rebel! The natural world thrives on rebellion. Electrons must rebel against the nuclear forces that hold them back in order to release themselves and the energies of fission and fusion. Snakes must rebel against the very skin that envelops them in order to shed those constrictive prisons and grow. Rebel to break free like the forces of the cosmos!
Rebel! Remember that nations must experience rebellions before they are transformed to the higher states of freedom, democracy, and union. Of course, there are the obvious revolutions - American, French, Russian. Yet, too, there are the internal rebellions that allow the character of a people to rise to a higher moral state - rebellions ignited by Jesus, by Lincoln, by Ghandi, by Dr. King. Rebel to rise from the prisons of the static status quo to levels never before imagined!
Rebel! Each new concept has been a rebellion against an older one. Heliocentrism was a rebellion against geocentrism. Renaissance humanism was a rebellion against medieval stagnation. Laissez-faire economics was a rebellion against constrictive mercantilism. Rebelling against the accepted norm is necessary to enter new universes of discovery!
You may say: “These are grand examples of rebellions - rebellions that have changed the world or followed nature’s greatest laws. How can I rebel - I, in my limited, humble existence? I will be hated; I will get in trouble; I will be shunned. I will not - fill in the blank - get good grades, get into college, get a recommendation, be popular ...” and on and on and on. “After all,” you may say, “is it not better to take the traditional path, do what is expected, reap the rewards of being a cooperative soul, a team player, the person everyone gets along with?”
The answer is, unequivocally ... no!
Authorities do not like rebels. They try to put them down. They use verbal weapons: “You’re so young and inexperienced ... you don’t understand how the world works ... you’re being unrealistic.” These words are deadly to rebels. They stir up fear; they deflate; they undermine; they make you question your motives and your beliefs; they attack your soul!
Rebel! Follow the rules of engagement and respect, but continue to rebel!
Your ideas are vital, even when they question the status quo and the rules that have existed for ages unchanged. When your beliefs and principles well up inside you until you feel about to burst, break free. Rebel! What others think about you is not as important as what you think of yourself. Rebel! You will change a world ... if only your own.
Rebel! The natural world thrives on rebellion. Electrons must rebel against the nuclear forces that hold them back in order to release themselves and the energies of fission and fusion. Snakes must rebel against the very skin that envelops them in order to shed those constrictive prisons and grow. Rebel to break free like the forces of the cosmos!
Rebel! Remember that nations must experience rebellions before they are transformed to the higher states of freedom, democracy, and union. Of course, there are the obvious revolutions - American, French, Russian. Yet, too, there are the internal rebellions that allow the character of a people to rise to a higher moral state - rebellions ignited by Jesus, by Lincoln, by Ghandi, by Dr. King. Rebel to rise from the prisons of the static status quo to levels never before imagined!
Rebel! Each new concept has been a rebellion against an older one. Heliocentrism was a rebellion against geocentrism. Renaissance humanism was a rebellion against medieval stagnation. Laissez-faire economics was a rebellion against constrictive mercantilism. Rebelling against the accepted norm is necessary to enter new universes of discovery!
You may say: “These are grand examples of rebellions - rebellions that have changed the world or followed nature’s greatest laws. How can I rebel - I, in my limited, humble existence? I will be hated; I will get in trouble; I will be shunned. I will not - fill in the blank - get good grades, get into college, get a recommendation, be popular ...” and on and on and on. “After all,” you may say, “is it not better to take the traditional path, do what is expected, reap the rewards of being a cooperative soul, a team player, the person everyone gets along with?”
The answer is, unequivocally ... no!
Authorities do not like rebels. They try to put them down. They use verbal weapons: “You’re so young and inexperienced ... you don’t understand how the world works ... you’re being unrealistic.” These words are deadly to rebels. They stir up fear; they deflate; they undermine; they make you question your motives and your beliefs; they attack your soul!
Rebel! Follow the rules of engagement and respect, but continue to rebel!
Your ideas are vital, even when they question the status quo and the rules that have existed for ages unchanged. When your beliefs and principles well up inside you until you feel about to burst, break free. Rebel! What others think about you is not as important as what you think of yourself. Rebel! You will change a world ... if only your own.
"One American To Rule Them All"
It seems like we just can't get rid of George W. Bush. He just keeps hanging around like a bad case of herpes. Some of us know of Bush from the 9-11 attacks, the war in Iraq, and his alleged connections with the 527 group SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth. Some of us know Bush from the No Child Left Behind policy, the controversial Patriot Act, and "tax cuts". Honestly, most of us just know him because he is our current president with speaking difficulties. Now I would be lying if I said I was a fan of George W. Bush. I highly expect to get some hateful comments, but meh, not the first time. In my opinion, Bush seems to increase in power and stupidity. Sometimes I wonder if America would be better off with a monkey in charge. George W. Bush is proof anyone in America can become successful. I'm pretty sure alot of you are wondering why I have such a dislike for Bush. Basically, it comes down to personal opinion and the fact that this is my editorial, so I have some freedom in what I say.
His father’s oil money kept him from service in 'Nam. Daddy also must have paid the school system to keep his son out of Special Ed. George W. Bush attended Yale University where he averaged only a 72 average, which is down from the 73 he had in high school. Bush is the reason I debate moving back to Canada.
Under George W. Bush, military spending has exceeded spending on education to such a degree that American children can no longer spell the word "a" correctly. Bush also screwed up by reacting poorly to Hurricane Katrina. Now let's give him the benefit of the doubt, he was on vacation. I'm still amazed on how he won when he froze like a dead dog in a debate against Kerry. I wonder if Bush is tremendously ignorant of reality. I should at least thank George for lowering our nations IQ level. I believe Bush is solely responsible for reviving the anarchy punk and hippie communities. Well my bash on Bush is done...for now.
His father’s oil money kept him from service in 'Nam. Daddy also must have paid the school system to keep his son out of Special Ed. George W. Bush attended Yale University where he averaged only a 72 average, which is down from the 73 he had in high school. Bush is the reason I debate moving back to Canada.
Under George W. Bush, military spending has exceeded spending on education to such a degree that American children can no longer spell the word "a" correctly. Bush also screwed up by reacting poorly to Hurricane Katrina. Now let's give him the benefit of the doubt, he was on vacation. I'm still amazed on how he won when he froze like a dead dog in a debate against Kerry. I wonder if Bush is tremendously ignorant of reality. I should at least thank George for lowering our nations IQ level. I believe Bush is solely responsible for reviving the anarchy punk and hippie communities. Well my bash on Bush is done...for now.
"Not A Laughing Matter"
Although laughter is the best medicine (which has even been clinically proven), the side effects, especially in terms of political humor, are ignored. Talk shows like “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report,” which seek to impart news in a witty way, will not result in nausea, heart disease, or drowsiness (unless you stay up to watch Conan), but they do create a mockery of current events that only serves to foster political ignorance.
Before the last presidential election, a national survey revealed daunting results about the average American’s lack of political knowledge. Seventy-five percent of citizens (who met the voting requirements) knew almost nothing about the Patriot Act (which had been in existence for over three years at that point) and were unable to name their congressperson. What is even more startling is that a similar percentage of voters could not explain the difference between the three branches of the government. Last August, a follow-up questionnaire had similar disappointing results. For instance, a substantial 46 percent thought Hezbollah was America’s ally.
However, last weekend as I was watching Comedy Central, I began to question my own political knowledge. In the last few weeks, I realized I had spent a great deal of time watching “The Daily Show” (and other satirical news-related comedies), and virtually no time watching the news - without Jon Stewart. I don’t believe I would have done as poorly on the survey, but I am ashamed to admit that I received most of my information from the Comedy Partners LLC.
The problem isn’t that political facts are hard to attain. In fact, the opposite is true. With myriad newspapers and magazines, over 10 C-Span channels, and especially the advent of YouTube (which posts hundreds of clippings daily), it is more improbable not to hear about current events. However, research has confirmed that as accessibility to news has increased, the typical American’s political knowledge has decreased dramatically.
One example of this phenomenon is that indifference to politics has increased. With over 300 million Americans (and each person accounting for only a fraction of a percent of the popular vote even in the most significant election), it can be understood that people would not bother becoming educated about the issues. However, since voting for the president has been a reality since 1789, it’s not likely to be responsible for the widespread political illiteracy.
Instead, what has changed is the number of people who watch political humor. Another off-putting statistic is that 29 percent of Americans under 30 claimed they regularly learned of presidential campaign news on “Saturday Night Live.” In addition, Newsday recently published that among the top 20 people whom readers felt influenced the upcoming campaign most; respondents included Jon Stewart and Sean Hannity.
Since these comedians and their shows are geared toward engaging audiences - unlike straightforward news programs, which are laced with details rather than drollery - they are extremely exaggerated and overwhelmingly vituperative. After all, insults make news interesting! However, as CNN analyst Jeff Greenfield so appropriately stated, “In politics, humor is like nitroglycerin - powerful but dangerous.” Humor can make or break (think Ronald Reagan) a career. But most of all, it is what molds the majority of the public’s opinion, especially with so many Americans acquiring news from comedic programs. Thus, when Jon Stewart pokes fun at Congress or when Stephen Colbert “wags his finger” at President Bush, millions of impressionable viewers begin to disparage the government and regard it as worthless. The transmission of these negative opinions leads to lackadaisical attitudes about politics.
Before the last presidential election, a national survey revealed daunting results about the average American’s lack of political knowledge. Seventy-five percent of citizens (who met the voting requirements) knew almost nothing about the Patriot Act (which had been in existence for over three years at that point) and were unable to name their congressperson. What is even more startling is that a similar percentage of voters could not explain the difference between the three branches of the government. Last August, a follow-up questionnaire had similar disappointing results. For instance, a substantial 46 percent thought Hezbollah was America’s ally.
However, last weekend as I was watching Comedy Central, I began to question my own political knowledge. In the last few weeks, I realized I had spent a great deal of time watching “The Daily Show” (and other satirical news-related comedies), and virtually no time watching the news - without Jon Stewart. I don’t believe I would have done as poorly on the survey, but I am ashamed to admit that I received most of my information from the Comedy Partners LLC.
The problem isn’t that political facts are hard to attain. In fact, the opposite is true. With myriad newspapers and magazines, over 10 C-Span channels, and especially the advent of YouTube (which posts hundreds of clippings daily), it is more improbable not to hear about current events. However, research has confirmed that as accessibility to news has increased, the typical American’s political knowledge has decreased dramatically.
One example of this phenomenon is that indifference to politics has increased. With over 300 million Americans (and each person accounting for only a fraction of a percent of the popular vote even in the most significant election), it can be understood that people would not bother becoming educated about the issues. However, since voting for the president has been a reality since 1789, it’s not likely to be responsible for the widespread political illiteracy.
Instead, what has changed is the number of people who watch political humor. Another off-putting statistic is that 29 percent of Americans under 30 claimed they regularly learned of presidential campaign news on “Saturday Night Live.” In addition, Newsday recently published that among the top 20 people whom readers felt influenced the upcoming campaign most; respondents included Jon Stewart and Sean Hannity.
Since these comedians and their shows are geared toward engaging audiences - unlike straightforward news programs, which are laced with details rather than drollery - they are extremely exaggerated and overwhelmingly vituperative. After all, insults make news interesting! However, as CNN analyst Jeff Greenfield so appropriately stated, “In politics, humor is like nitroglycerin - powerful but dangerous.” Humor can make or break (think Ronald Reagan) a career. But most of all, it is what molds the majority of the public’s opinion, especially with so many Americans acquiring news from comedic programs. Thus, when Jon Stewart pokes fun at Congress or when Stephen Colbert “wags his finger” at President Bush, millions of impressionable viewers begin to disparage the government and regard it as worthless. The transmission of these negative opinions leads to lackadaisical attitudes about politics.
"New Age Of Politics"
Generally, politicians are seen as suit-and-tie, press-conference-on-CNN type people. However, now politicians are trying to be more current with our American culture by using none other than … the Internet. Is this new strategy good, or is it completely ineffective? The reality is that advertising and media sources are beginning to shift from print and television to the Internet. Therefore, a politician’s use of the World Wide Web is not only the most effective way to reach voters; it is the method of the future.
With the 2008 presidential election, alternative media sources are becoming more popular in politics. Candidates were using blogs, YouTube, and online chats to try to persuade voters. There are, of course, the official campaign websites, which usually provide information about the candidates’ views, right at the voter’s fingertips. Additionally, candidates including Barack Obama were creating informational pages on social networking websites like MySpace. Obama’s page includes his views on campaign issues, videos of his speeches, and a listing of his 314,000 “friends.”
There are many other ways that candidates are trying to connect to voters. Last summer, CNN and YouTube hosted an unprecedented Democratic debate. The candidates answered questions posted by people from all over the world through YouTube. In November, the Republican candidates had a similar debate.
Using the Internet, as these candidates have been, creates a more approachable and personal environment. Since the majority of Americans have access to the Internet, why pay the extra $1.25 to buy the print version of The New York Times? Learning from these political candidate-endorsed websites is cheaper – for you and the politicians. This is also creating a personal environment, because the politicians can connect to a greater number of voters than they might at a rally in Iowa. Voters who ask questions and then watch the response via video message can gauge the candidate’s concern.
Although politicians are trying to use the Internet as a way to connect to more citizens, some skepticism exists about how influential and persuasive these websites actually are. According to the Current Population Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2004, 72 percent of people 55 and older voted, while a mere 47 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds voted. Generally, the typical Internet user is not between 65 and 74 years old since studies show that only 41 percent of this age group uses the Internet. Therefore, many think that politicians cannot target their most reliable voters via the Internet. Although this may seem true, 82 percent of young voters use the Internet, so politicians are essentially targeting this age group through a very familiar media source. Because of this, politicians’ new market strategy should increase voter turnout.
The advantages of adapting to the ever-changing American culture outweigh the disadvantages. The use of the Internet by politicians is not just about being hip or up-to-date. It is about supporting advances in society and being able to take advantage of the choices technology offers us. Due to a decreasing level of attention to TV commercials, politicians need to adapt and create a healthy transition to the Internet, which will inevitably influence our society.
With the 2008 presidential election, alternative media sources are becoming more popular in politics. Candidates were using blogs, YouTube, and online chats to try to persuade voters. There are, of course, the official campaign websites, which usually provide information about the candidates’ views, right at the voter’s fingertips. Additionally, candidates including Barack Obama were creating informational pages on social networking websites like MySpace. Obama’s page includes his views on campaign issues, videos of his speeches, and a listing of his 314,000 “friends.”
There are many other ways that candidates are trying to connect to voters. Last summer, CNN and YouTube hosted an unprecedented Democratic debate. The candidates answered questions posted by people from all over the world through YouTube. In November, the Republican candidates had a similar debate.
Using the Internet, as these candidates have been, creates a more approachable and personal environment. Since the majority of Americans have access to the Internet, why pay the extra $1.25 to buy the print version of The New York Times? Learning from these political candidate-endorsed websites is cheaper – for you and the politicians. This is also creating a personal environment, because the politicians can connect to a greater number of voters than they might at a rally in Iowa. Voters who ask questions and then watch the response via video message can gauge the candidate’s concern.
Although politicians are trying to use the Internet as a way to connect to more citizens, some skepticism exists about how influential and persuasive these websites actually are. According to the Current Population Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2004, 72 percent of people 55 and older voted, while a mere 47 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds voted. Generally, the typical Internet user is not between 65 and 74 years old since studies show that only 41 percent of this age group uses the Internet. Therefore, many think that politicians cannot target their most reliable voters via the Internet. Although this may seem true, 82 percent of young voters use the Internet, so politicians are essentially targeting this age group through a very familiar media source. Because of this, politicians’ new market strategy should increase voter turnout.
The advantages of adapting to the ever-changing American culture outweigh the disadvantages. The use of the Internet by politicians is not just about being hip or up-to-date. It is about supporting advances in society and being able to take advantage of the choices technology offers us. Due to a decreasing level of attention to TV commercials, politicians need to adapt and create a healthy transition to the Internet, which will inevitably influence our society.
"Keep It Real"
Music is a powerful thing. It evokes feelings and has the power to bring people together. Music is also a way for people to express themselves and share ideas, whether through poetic lyrics or throbbing anthems. But today, artists are not known for their music, but for how extravagant their outfits are and how many times their wealthy relatives can get them out of jail. And thus music is lost.
Pop and rap music has evolved into a shallow, image-obsessed industry that conforms to what the public wants to hear and see, eliminating the focus on the actual music. Mainstream music is no longer composed of emotion, but instead themes of money, sex, and fame. Pop and rap performers are notorious for their run-ins with police, their latest diet, or their most recent affair. Photos and rumors fly while the music is ignored.
Not all musical groups or soloists begin like this. Many of these artists are original and talented, but they may feel the stress of being underappreciated and turn to the money side for support. Often their songs are written by experts who know what is appealing to a certain age group, and the musicians’ faces are plastered on as many magazine covers as possible. Soon their supposedly new and improved songs can be heard blasting out of car windows. But these songs are empty shells, devoid of creativity and the original thirst of the artist to make an impact or convey a message.
Countless pop and rap songs today fit into a very slim mold – not just the music, but those who perform it. Some female musicians struggle with eating disorders because of the increased attention of the media and the public on their looks instead of their musical talent. Most popular songs follow the same pattern – singable, with a catchy beat and a flashy band.
These songs teach listeners that what’s on the outside is important, and money matters. These messages are also shown through music videos containing sexual themes, as well as people wearing “grills” and other decorations meant to show their wealth. Many rap videos promote the “gangsta” image, encouraging people to act tough, embrace violence, and swear. These videos can propagate false views of African-Americans.
MTV is not helping. It has become increasingly racy and plays only what the public wants to hear. And unfortunately, the majority seems interested in sickly sweet, generic pop or stereotypical bleeped-out rap. Kids and teens everywhere are swimming in these songs, which are often degrading to women and minorities, and inappropriate.
None of this is to say that all pop and rap music today fits this mold. Artists like Sublime and Jurassic 5 produce rap without the silly extras – just great rhythm and pulsing lyrics. A lot of high-quality pop music exists as well. Although some talented musicians thrive, the entire music industry has devolved into something that’s almost unrecognizable.
Music is no longer just for pleasure, but instead is a huge part of the economy. It is valued for its power to influence people everywhere. Not only does the music business make money from songs, but lots of useless products carry rap and pop stars’ names and faces.
Why do most teenagers and young adults exclusively listen to pop and rap music when so many other genres exist? Maybe it’s because everywhere we look, we are bombarded with the same music: on the radio, on TV, on the computer. At school, pop and rap are discussed religiously. Perhaps they have never listened to anything else. Or maybe peer pressure is part of it. Another reason some people listen to popular music is because it is easy listening, with no abnormalities, since anything unique is considered weird.
There is no solution to the “pop problem.” It’s called popular for a reason – many people enjoy it. People who like pop and rap music are the same as people who like rock and punk music – they are just fond of a particular genre of music. It’s not a heinous crime, and there’s no easy way to sway their views.
Still, many artists are ruined because of the increased focus on money and image. My suggestion is not to buy into music like this when you can explore something new. Expand your horizons. Dig up your parents’ old records and CDs. You never know what you might find.
Pop and rap music has evolved into a shallow, image-obsessed industry that conforms to what the public wants to hear and see, eliminating the focus on the actual music. Mainstream music is no longer composed of emotion, but instead themes of money, sex, and fame. Pop and rap performers are notorious for their run-ins with police, their latest diet, or their most recent affair. Photos and rumors fly while the music is ignored.
Not all musical groups or soloists begin like this. Many of these artists are original and talented, but they may feel the stress of being underappreciated and turn to the money side for support. Often their songs are written by experts who know what is appealing to a certain age group, and the musicians’ faces are plastered on as many magazine covers as possible. Soon their supposedly new and improved songs can be heard blasting out of car windows. But these songs are empty shells, devoid of creativity and the original thirst of the artist to make an impact or convey a message.
Countless pop and rap songs today fit into a very slim mold – not just the music, but those who perform it. Some female musicians struggle with eating disorders because of the increased attention of the media and the public on their looks instead of their musical talent. Most popular songs follow the same pattern – singable, with a catchy beat and a flashy band.
These songs teach listeners that what’s on the outside is important, and money matters. These messages are also shown through music videos containing sexual themes, as well as people wearing “grills” and other decorations meant to show their wealth. Many rap videos promote the “gangsta” image, encouraging people to act tough, embrace violence, and swear. These videos can propagate false views of African-Americans.
MTV is not helping. It has become increasingly racy and plays only what the public wants to hear. And unfortunately, the majority seems interested in sickly sweet, generic pop or stereotypical bleeped-out rap. Kids and teens everywhere are swimming in these songs, which are often degrading to women and minorities, and inappropriate.
None of this is to say that all pop and rap music today fits this mold. Artists like Sublime and Jurassic 5 produce rap without the silly extras – just great rhythm and pulsing lyrics. A lot of high-quality pop music exists as well. Although some talented musicians thrive, the entire music industry has devolved into something that’s almost unrecognizable.
Music is no longer just for pleasure, but instead is a huge part of the economy. It is valued for its power to influence people everywhere. Not only does the music business make money from songs, but lots of useless products carry rap and pop stars’ names and faces.
Why do most teenagers and young adults exclusively listen to pop and rap music when so many other genres exist? Maybe it’s because everywhere we look, we are bombarded with the same music: on the radio, on TV, on the computer. At school, pop and rap are discussed religiously. Perhaps they have never listened to anything else. Or maybe peer pressure is part of it. Another reason some people listen to popular music is because it is easy listening, with no abnormalities, since anything unique is considered weird.
There is no solution to the “pop problem.” It’s called popular for a reason – many people enjoy it. People who like pop and rap music are the same as people who like rock and punk music – they are just fond of a particular genre of music. It’s not a heinous crime, and there’s no easy way to sway their views.
Still, many artists are ruined because of the increased focus on money and image. My suggestion is not to buy into music like this when you can explore something new. Expand your horizons. Dig up your parents’ old records and CDs. You never know what you might find.
"It Is A Dismal Time"
If you are someone who is at all concerned with peace for our country, the destruction of the environment or the civil liberties we are supposedly guaranteed by the constitution, your sensibilities are being attacked from all sides. In the flag-waving, red, white, and blue tidal wave of patriotic fervor that has grown in the wake of 9/11, anyone who dares question the motives of the right-wing conservative agenda will be ridiculed with the same vicious persecution this country suffered through during the McCarthy era. If you tune in to any of the top-rated Fox TV news shows such as Hannity and Colmes or The O'Reilly Factor, you will undoubtedly witness an array of venomous tirades of conservative propaganda that will make you wonder if you aren't actually watching a rerun of a bad Saturday Night Live episode. Any person appearing on one of these shows urging restraint against American aggressions overseas or warning of the backlash that will undoubtedly occur will be labeled traitors and communists, if they are allowed to speak at all against the bullying arrogance of the nouveau patriotic for Nielsen ratings.
The president and his staff have now been given carte blanche to carry out dangerous, short-sighted policies that threaten catastrophe for peace and political stability in the world. Don't believe me? North Korea issued a statement that they were actively restarting their nuclear program. What the networks didn't tell you was that in their official statement the North Korean government blamed the U.S designation of the DPRK (North Korea) as the "axis of evil" as one of the main causes for their actions. This is a concrete example where the president's own lack of diplomatic skill in foreign affairs has directly resulted in the escalation of the nuclear arms race. Former President Jimmy Carter said that the damage from that statement alone could take decades to reverse.
Throughout history whenever there has been a dominant world power there has always been shadowy forces conspiring to topple it and they have invariably succeeded. We are the latest on top of the totem pole and there are more and more people around the world aiming to knock us off. The current political regime in this country chooses to confront conflicts with aggression rather than diplomacy, and attack the results instead of the causes. When you then factor in the increasingly negative economic news, and the reports from leading scientists that the damage we are doing to the environment is ten times worse than even they imagined, the outlook for our country with warmongering oil executives in office is, without exaggeration, extremely dim.
The important thing to remember is that white house officials and policy makers are concerned with two things that are crucial to their survival and the implementation of their policies; the American voters and what they call, "the street", or in other words, the potential adverse response from pissed off people who might suddenly decide they'd heard enough and either (a) vote them out of office, or (b) coalesce into a group with numbers large enough to stage effective protests, boycotts, and demonstrations. They can do whatever they want if we remain mildly content and apathetic.
In the 60's this idea was brought to the forefront when our country grew tired of seeing their sons being brought home in body bags on T.V., and took to the streets and capitals and voiced their anger and resentment at white house policy that was playing political power games with human lives. Decades later, the principal architects of the Vietnam war readily admit that they made grave mistakes in their decisions to keep the war going. The negative response of the American people to the conflict definitely figured into their decision to finally put an end to it. Unfortunately, with the "me generation" of the 70's, the hedonistic 80's and the apathetic 90's, we have been lulled into a false sense of security and powerlessness that now threatens our very survival. In other words, there has never been a better or more crucial time for you to put some action behind your words and use your voting power.
In the last election I heard a lot of people saying they felt their vote didn't count. When you see how unbelievably close the election was, that position is absolutely ludicrous. It's my opinion that if all the whining, apathetic people who were too lazy to go to the polls would have voted, we would not be in the position we find ourselves in today. Not voting is an unforgivable insult to the millions of people who have no voice at all in the fate of their country.
Conservative right wing republicans vote religiously and now enjoy an undue influence over the laws, policy, and politics in our country. Clarence Darrow said, "Sympathy is the child of Imagination". In other words, people who are artistic and imaginative, like most people in the punk rock scene I hope, usually are more concerned with peace and progress for our planet. When our people realize the power they have to really effect change in this country, and therefore, the rest of the world, and exercise their American right to vote and dissent, the warmongers will be out of office sooner rather than later.
The president and his staff have now been given carte blanche to carry out dangerous, short-sighted policies that threaten catastrophe for peace and political stability in the world. Don't believe me? North Korea issued a statement that they were actively restarting their nuclear program. What the networks didn't tell you was that in their official statement the North Korean government blamed the U.S designation of the DPRK (North Korea) as the "axis of evil" as one of the main causes for their actions. This is a concrete example where the president's own lack of diplomatic skill in foreign affairs has directly resulted in the escalation of the nuclear arms race. Former President Jimmy Carter said that the damage from that statement alone could take decades to reverse.
Throughout history whenever there has been a dominant world power there has always been shadowy forces conspiring to topple it and they have invariably succeeded. We are the latest on top of the totem pole and there are more and more people around the world aiming to knock us off. The current political regime in this country chooses to confront conflicts with aggression rather than diplomacy, and attack the results instead of the causes. When you then factor in the increasingly negative economic news, and the reports from leading scientists that the damage we are doing to the environment is ten times worse than even they imagined, the outlook for our country with warmongering oil executives in office is, without exaggeration, extremely dim.
The important thing to remember is that white house officials and policy makers are concerned with two things that are crucial to their survival and the implementation of their policies; the American voters and what they call, "the street", or in other words, the potential adverse response from pissed off people who might suddenly decide they'd heard enough and either (a) vote them out of office, or (b) coalesce into a group with numbers large enough to stage effective protests, boycotts, and demonstrations. They can do whatever they want if we remain mildly content and apathetic.
In the 60's this idea was brought to the forefront when our country grew tired of seeing their sons being brought home in body bags on T.V., and took to the streets and capitals and voiced their anger and resentment at white house policy that was playing political power games with human lives. Decades later, the principal architects of the Vietnam war readily admit that they made grave mistakes in their decisions to keep the war going. The negative response of the American people to the conflict definitely figured into their decision to finally put an end to it. Unfortunately, with the "me generation" of the 70's, the hedonistic 80's and the apathetic 90's, we have been lulled into a false sense of security and powerlessness that now threatens our very survival. In other words, there has never been a better or more crucial time for you to put some action behind your words and use your voting power.
In the last election I heard a lot of people saying they felt their vote didn't count. When you see how unbelievably close the election was, that position is absolutely ludicrous. It's my opinion that if all the whining, apathetic people who were too lazy to go to the polls would have voted, we would not be in the position we find ourselves in today. Not voting is an unforgivable insult to the millions of people who have no voice at all in the fate of their country.
Conservative right wing republicans vote religiously and now enjoy an undue influence over the laws, policy, and politics in our country. Clarence Darrow said, "Sympathy is the child of Imagination". In other words, people who are artistic and imaginative, like most people in the punk rock scene I hope, usually are more concerned with peace and progress for our planet. When our people realize the power they have to really effect change in this country, and therefore, the rest of the world, and exercise their American right to vote and dissent, the warmongers will be out of office sooner rather than later.
"George W. Bush Is A Gangser"
When I first sat down and started thinking about what I was going to write I remembered something that I heard while watching a speech on T.V. by Aaron McGruder, the creator of the comic strip “The Boondocks.” Mcgruder’s speech was called “Free Speech in a Time of War” and he made the observation that whenever George W. Bush or any of his cronies are asked legitimate questions that they don’t want to answer they pull the gangster routine and tell us all: “mind your business.” Did candidate Bush use cocaine and then happily send thousands who did likewise to prison while he was the Tough on Drugs Governor of Texas? His answer: “mind your business.” What got discussed during Dick Cheney’s Energy Commission meetings, and can Congress see the notes? Cheney’s answer: “mind your business.” Is the United States applying the Geneva Convention’s rules regarding the treatment of POW’s to alleged Al Qaeda fighters held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? Rumsfeld’s answer: “mind your business.”
When a street gangster tells you to mind your business, I imagine that you duck your head down instantaneously, hoping all the while that you don’t get shot for your impertinence. I’ve never actually had a street gangster tell me to mind my business, but I have a pretty good imagination and I’ve seen enough Mafia movies to know how the system works. McGruder then went on to make the best point I’ve heard in quite a while. “The Bush Regime has already pulled off the ultimate scam, they stole the election. Not only did they steal the election, the actual winner (and can you find a sorrier excuse for a Democrat than Al Gore?) rolled over and played dead, and so did the Democratic Party. So now, the Bush Regime is emboldened. They know that there is no one, at least in the mainstream, who dares oppose them. They are on the ultimate power trip. They know all they have to do is tell us all to mind our business, and most people will do just that.”
We have, quite simply, a gangster in the White House. We have gangsters running the entire Executive Branch of our government, except that it isn’t a government that is any way, shape or form responsive to We the People. As the Bush Regime has so amply demonstrated in seven years, they don’t give a damn about us. They don’t care what we think, what we want, who we are or what we care about. If they did, they wouldn’t be where they are right now. They wouldn’t be ready to send even more troops into Iraq and kill even more innocent people than the U.N. Sanctions and bombings already have. They wouldn’t have exploited the genuine tragedy of the World Trade Center disaster to undermine our Civil Liberties and warmonger in the most detestable fashion. They wouldn’t be chomping at the bit to take military action that will further destabilize the Middle East, a region that is notoriously unstable even in the best of times. Israel, Pakistan and India, all allies of the United States in the Middle East, have nukes. It’s not such a stretch to foresee a scenario where the region gets even more destabilized because of the Bush Regime’s military action. What if someone in one of the countries is crazy enough to actually use those nukes? Where the hell are we going to be then?
This is why it is more important than ever that anyone who has even the slightest inkling that there is something rotten going on must take a stand. We must make our voices heard. We must organize. We must demonstrate. We must support one another. We must focus on the similarities we share with other activists to achieve the larger goal of making this world a peaceful place, rather than getting bogged down and defeated by infighting over whose agenda is more important or who is more punk. When you choose the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil. Don’t get me wrong – these people must be voted out of office. But I want to encourage you to look beyond the two dominant parties when you vote, and think about who will really represent and fight for what you believe in.
American involvement in the Vietnam War ended, not because President Nixon had a change of heart, or because the military decided to throw in the towel, but because enough of the American people, despite overwhelming amounts of propaganda to the contrary, made it politically unfeasible for the government to continue fighting it. It didn’t happen overnight, and it didn’t happen without sacrifice, but ultimately the American people prevailed and the war ended. That war ended because enough of the American people had the courage of their convictions to be activists, to demonstrate, to do something instead of waiting for someone else to do it. Now we need to do the same. It won’t be any easier, or any less daunting than their task was. In some ways it might even be more difficult. But it won’t get done unless we get off our couches and make it happen. So what are we waiting for? Let’s get up and do something.
When a street gangster tells you to mind your business, I imagine that you duck your head down instantaneously, hoping all the while that you don’t get shot for your impertinence. I’ve never actually had a street gangster tell me to mind my business, but I have a pretty good imagination and I’ve seen enough Mafia movies to know how the system works. McGruder then went on to make the best point I’ve heard in quite a while. “The Bush Regime has already pulled off the ultimate scam, they stole the election. Not only did they steal the election, the actual winner (and can you find a sorrier excuse for a Democrat than Al Gore?) rolled over and played dead, and so did the Democratic Party. So now, the Bush Regime is emboldened. They know that there is no one, at least in the mainstream, who dares oppose them. They are on the ultimate power trip. They know all they have to do is tell us all to mind our business, and most people will do just that.”
We have, quite simply, a gangster in the White House. We have gangsters running the entire Executive Branch of our government, except that it isn’t a government that is any way, shape or form responsive to We the People. As the Bush Regime has so amply demonstrated in seven years, they don’t give a damn about us. They don’t care what we think, what we want, who we are or what we care about. If they did, they wouldn’t be where they are right now. They wouldn’t be ready to send even more troops into Iraq and kill even more innocent people than the U.N. Sanctions and bombings already have. They wouldn’t have exploited the genuine tragedy of the World Trade Center disaster to undermine our Civil Liberties and warmonger in the most detestable fashion. They wouldn’t be chomping at the bit to take military action that will further destabilize the Middle East, a region that is notoriously unstable even in the best of times. Israel, Pakistan and India, all allies of the United States in the Middle East, have nukes. It’s not such a stretch to foresee a scenario where the region gets even more destabilized because of the Bush Regime’s military action. What if someone in one of the countries is crazy enough to actually use those nukes? Where the hell are we going to be then?
This is why it is more important than ever that anyone who has even the slightest inkling that there is something rotten going on must take a stand. We must make our voices heard. We must organize. We must demonstrate. We must support one another. We must focus on the similarities we share with other activists to achieve the larger goal of making this world a peaceful place, rather than getting bogged down and defeated by infighting over whose agenda is more important or who is more punk. When you choose the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil. Don’t get me wrong – these people must be voted out of office. But I want to encourage you to look beyond the two dominant parties when you vote, and think about who will really represent and fight for what you believe in.
American involvement in the Vietnam War ended, not because President Nixon had a change of heart, or because the military decided to throw in the towel, but because enough of the American people, despite overwhelming amounts of propaganda to the contrary, made it politically unfeasible for the government to continue fighting it. It didn’t happen overnight, and it didn’t happen without sacrifice, but ultimately the American people prevailed and the war ended. That war ended because enough of the American people had the courage of their convictions to be activists, to demonstrate, to do something instead of waiting for someone else to do it. Now we need to do the same. It won’t be any easier, or any less daunting than their task was. In some ways it might even be more difficult. But it won’t get done unless we get off our couches and make it happen. So what are we waiting for? Let’s get up and do something.
"Freedom Of Speech"
In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools and that administrators had to provide constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. However, in the 1986 case Bethel v. Fraser, it was ruled that educators were not violating students’ First Amendment right by censoring the content of their speech or writing. So are we, as students, protected by the First Amendment or not? Should we be able to write about a controversial topic as freely as any adult? I believe we should. The First Amendment applies to everyone, and under the First Amendment, we have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to assemble peacefully and petition the government. Freedom, by definition, means the right to do as you please without restriction. Freedom of speech “within reason” is no longer freedom of speech.
Students should have the same rights as adults do because censorship limits creativity. It restricts not only how we write something, but also what we can write about. Students are discouraged from exploring and debating important topics simply because an issue may be deemed “too controversial.” This limitation applies to what a student chooses to write about in an essay, draw in a picture, or even display on a T-shirt. There should not be constraints on how students can creatively express themselves. Creativity in itself is the free form of ideas.
What’s even more disappointing than this prejudice is that most young people aren’t aware of the restrictions they live under. Censorship sets unclear boundaries about what is okay and what is inappropriate. We all know the basics: we aren’t allowed to use profanities, and create images or essays that touch on drug use, violence, gangs or sex - however lightly. But did you know that you can be suspended for what your teacher or principal considers unnecessary expression of your religion or sexual orientation?
In 2002, Natalie Young of Queens, New York was held at the principal’s office for three hours because she was wearing a shirt that proclaimed “Barbie Is A Lesbian.” Her principal refused to let Natalie leave until she changed. The shirt was in no way disrespectful or offensive, and it followed the school’s dress code. “Schools cannot legally engage in this type of selective, content-based suppression of speech,” Young’s lawyer fumed. “If she had worn a ‘Barbie Supports the Troops in the War in Iraq’ T-shirt, she would have been called a patriot.” How can we know if we’re crossing the line if we don’t know where it begins?
Censorship in schools violates students’ First Amendment right; it limits creativity, and it stems from a law that leaves a good deal of gray area and room for misinterpretation. This makes the power to censor easy to abuse. If you are still thirsting for more justification, I’ll leave you with this: as declared in the Tinker v. Des Moines case, “Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school-house gates.” And that ruling, in itself, should be explanation enough.
Students should have the same rights as adults do because censorship limits creativity. It restricts not only how we write something, but also what we can write about. Students are discouraged from exploring and debating important topics simply because an issue may be deemed “too controversial.” This limitation applies to what a student chooses to write about in an essay, draw in a picture, or even display on a T-shirt. There should not be constraints on how students can creatively express themselves. Creativity in itself is the free form of ideas.
What’s even more disappointing than this prejudice is that most young people aren’t aware of the restrictions they live under. Censorship sets unclear boundaries about what is okay and what is inappropriate. We all know the basics: we aren’t allowed to use profanities, and create images or essays that touch on drug use, violence, gangs or sex - however lightly. But did you know that you can be suspended for what your teacher or principal considers unnecessary expression of your religion or sexual orientation?
In 2002, Natalie Young of Queens, New York was held at the principal’s office for three hours because she was wearing a shirt that proclaimed “Barbie Is A Lesbian.” Her principal refused to let Natalie leave until she changed. The shirt was in no way disrespectful or offensive, and it followed the school’s dress code. “Schools cannot legally engage in this type of selective, content-based suppression of speech,” Young’s lawyer fumed. “If she had worn a ‘Barbie Supports the Troops in the War in Iraq’ T-shirt, she would have been called a patriot.” How can we know if we’re crossing the line if we don’t know where it begins?
Censorship in schools violates students’ First Amendment right; it limits creativity, and it stems from a law that leaves a good deal of gray area and room for misinterpretation. This makes the power to censor easy to abuse. If you are still thirsting for more justification, I’ll leave you with this: as declared in the Tinker v. Des Moines case, “Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school-house gates.” And that ruling, in itself, should be explanation enough.
"Bring The War Home"
In the face of the upcoming election, it is easy to become overwhelmed with the barrage of information, facts, and statistics coming at us from every angle. The newspaper, television, radio… constantly screaming for your attention, and in the end, sometimes it feels like our heads are going to explode. People are asking themselves… “Who is telling the truth? Where is a place I can trust to get facts and formulate my opinions?” It is truly frightening to sink your teeth into such a giant spectacle that is the current state of American Politics.
Let’s be honest… Politics are BORING. As students, parents, and believers… we are fast-paced beings, always looking for something fun and exciting to divert our attention from the everyday doldrums and depression in the world around us. At the same time, we feel an undeniable responsibility that calls us to action when we know something is terribly wrong. Call it a sixth-sense, a gut instinct… a voice in the back of your head that sounds when things don’t make sense and don’t add up. It begs us to verbalize why we feel that way, but sometimes we just can’t find the words, we just follow the feeling. Is this sense a curse? What is causing us as to have such an overwhelming feeling that something is wrong, especially over the last four years?
A while ago, I had the opportunity to see one of the last theater presentations of a documentary called “The Weather Underground” in New York City. It was a series of stories, interviews, etc., with actual members of the infamous Weathermen Underground, a radical group of politically-charged hippies in the 1960’s who took the peaceful protest strategies of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to new heights. With stunts, scams, and sometimes violence, they caused a ruckus that gained the public’s attention, as well as the attention of the FBI during the Vietnam War. One concept that really stuck with me was the slogan “Bring the War Home!” The idea was that if they could get people to associate the war with real war images and actually visualize what was going on so far away… people would react against it. It’s easy to justify acts of war when you’re not looking at images of blood, death, and destruction. But having it right in front of the public eye gave the war a more true and ugly face.
It dawned on me that the hi-tech media and information overload we’re all facing is in its own way causing that same phenomenon. Everywhere we look, we see horrific images of war, scandal, and hypocrisy. It is the reason why we all feel fed up, lied to, and sick and tired of being manipulated. It is the reason we know trickery, scare-tactics, and government propaganda when it is used to change public opinion and cover up acts we don’t agree with being carried out in our name.
In the end, I see friends, myself, people all around that are intimidated by American Politics and the voting process. They are afraid to stand up and speak out because they don’t feel “political” or book smart. My advice is to follow your gut feeling, listen to the voice inside you, and put trust in the lie detector inside your heart!
Let’s be honest… Politics are BORING. As students, parents, and believers… we are fast-paced beings, always looking for something fun and exciting to divert our attention from the everyday doldrums and depression in the world around us. At the same time, we feel an undeniable responsibility that calls us to action when we know something is terribly wrong. Call it a sixth-sense, a gut instinct… a voice in the back of your head that sounds when things don’t make sense and don’t add up. It begs us to verbalize why we feel that way, but sometimes we just can’t find the words, we just follow the feeling. Is this sense a curse? What is causing us as to have such an overwhelming feeling that something is wrong, especially over the last four years?
A while ago, I had the opportunity to see one of the last theater presentations of a documentary called “The Weather Underground” in New York City. It was a series of stories, interviews, etc., with actual members of the infamous Weathermen Underground, a radical group of politically-charged hippies in the 1960’s who took the peaceful protest strategies of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to new heights. With stunts, scams, and sometimes violence, they caused a ruckus that gained the public’s attention, as well as the attention of the FBI during the Vietnam War. One concept that really stuck with me was the slogan “Bring the War Home!” The idea was that if they could get people to associate the war with real war images and actually visualize what was going on so far away… people would react against it. It’s easy to justify acts of war when you’re not looking at images of blood, death, and destruction. But having it right in front of the public eye gave the war a more true and ugly face.
It dawned on me that the hi-tech media and information overload we’re all facing is in its own way causing that same phenomenon. Everywhere we look, we see horrific images of war, scandal, and hypocrisy. It is the reason why we all feel fed up, lied to, and sick and tired of being manipulated. It is the reason we know trickery, scare-tactics, and government propaganda when it is used to change public opinion and cover up acts we don’t agree with being carried out in our name.
In the end, I see friends, myself, people all around that are intimidated by American Politics and the voting process. They are afraid to stand up and speak out because they don’t feel “political” or book smart. My advice is to follow your gut feeling, listen to the voice inside you, and put trust in the lie detector inside your heart!
"A Way Of Life"
Skateboarding is a misunderstood art form/sport that is often criticized by the "mainstream" who do not grasp the concept. This is mainly due to the fact that there are no uniforms, rules, time, etc. to clearly define the activity. Most people do not even understand how skaters "ollie" their decks, and true to human nature they criticize what they cannot comprehend.
It is without a doubt far more skillful, creative and extreme than any team sport i can think of - and can only be compared to a select few of other sports/art forms such as surfing, snowboarding, even BMX.
Anyone can perform the most basic requirement of football - i.e. kicking a ball (or catching one).
Yet only a small minority of people will ever manage to perform the most basic requirement of skateboarding. i.e. the "ollie". (Tip: it’s all about physics)
Due to the sports misconception, the real riders are mostly those who feel ill-at-ease with our conservative society, and feel the need to express themselves accordingly. This can admittedly result in the use of public property that is different to its intended purpose..
However, the greedy corporate fat cats have realized that there is potential cash in bottling this so-called teen-angst. As a result we have a whole pop-culture full of posers, companies, music groups and even shredders whose prime interest is gaining publicity, money and mainstream approval.
The soul riders are those individuals you will see milling around street corners, in dark crevices of the cityscape, wary of beefed-up security, all battle-scarred and torn, yet somewhat proud of our victimized counter-culture..
...Skateboarding is NOT: Tony Hawk games, World Industry clothing, Avril Lavigne, and/or drug-using space-cadets.
...Skateboarding IS: the underground, the art form, the family, the expression, the knocks and falls, the persistence, the reward...
It is without a doubt far more skillful, creative and extreme than any team sport i can think of - and can only be compared to a select few of other sports/art forms such as surfing, snowboarding, even BMX.
Anyone can perform the most basic requirement of football - i.e. kicking a ball (or catching one).
Yet only a small minority of people will ever manage to perform the most basic requirement of skateboarding. i.e. the "ollie". (Tip: it’s all about physics)
Due to the sports misconception, the real riders are mostly those who feel ill-at-ease with our conservative society, and feel the need to express themselves accordingly. This can admittedly result in the use of public property that is different to its intended purpose..
However, the greedy corporate fat cats have realized that there is potential cash in bottling this so-called teen-angst. As a result we have a whole pop-culture full of posers, companies, music groups and even shredders whose prime interest is gaining publicity, money and mainstream approval.
The soul riders are those individuals you will see milling around street corners, in dark crevices of the cityscape, wary of beefed-up security, all battle-scarred and torn, yet somewhat proud of our victimized counter-culture..
...Skateboarding is NOT: Tony Hawk games, World Industry clothing, Avril Lavigne, and/or drug-using space-cadets.
...Skateboarding IS: the underground, the art form, the family, the expression, the knocks and falls, the persistence, the reward...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)