Time to dust off the old blog for something important.

Time to dust off the old blog. For sometime now, I've been thinking about the possible ways to salvage certain aspects of the American way of life. I've come the awful conclusion, that it just isn't going to happen. I respect many of my friends who believe in becoming more politically active, or just speaking their mind on issues at hand. Here's the problem. We are a society that is the decline. I'll say it again, American society is in decline. It's from some "liberal nonsense" as being described by conservatives, and it's not some "backward thinking" by what liberals are saying.

The simple point is this. Most of our society is aging, and as baby boomers pass onto their twilight years, like every aging generation, they become increasingly concerned about their mark in the world. Like some existentialist child, they take their last gasps to try and imprint on our society, the values they once had in their 20's and pass along their knowledge. The problem is, their arguments, line of reasoning, it's all flawed. Most people aging have already lost touch with the actual society as a whole.

Compound this with a younger generation that is more concerned about "the situation" on Jersey Shore, and what some debutant is doing, than doing what is right. They are not learning or finding employment themselves. Most coddled youngsters don't even think they need a job, and much less doing one that's feasible or helpful in anyway.

There are 3 things that I think need to happen. I will focus on one topic over the next few days. As most people can guess, I'm some what of an anarchist. In the sense that I think the old system has be destroyed, rather than heap more and more and more on a problem. Build something from the ground up. That's the way to go. Here's the most pressing situation on our society today:

Education Reform

Ever since my father was in school, it's been pretty much a rule that kids should be in school. However, that system is over worked, and the time has come to just overhaul it. Here's the main point #1.

• If a student doesn't want to be in school, don't require them to be in school.

Many people will probably agree with this to some extent. The problem is that I'm realistic. No one will want to go along with this proposal because what does it do? It puts responsibility back on parents for how their kids behave and act. Thus, naturally causing them (parents) to do more work, which they do not want to do. It's a self-perpetuating exercise in ego-centrism and futility. The people with most of the responsibility for the drain, don't want to fix it themselves, and just want the problem to go away.

Let's use this for example. You have a 10 year old boy who's decided that he doesn't like his parents forcing him to go to school. What does that student do while in class? They act up, they don't learn. They cause others to not learn. They take education for granted. What are the impacts of making this kid still go to school?

1. Over blown class sizes. One less desk, means more money divided up per student for someone else to get a better education. This will cause no one to get lost in the system.



2. People don't want to BE a teacher. Teaching is a lost profession. Rarely are there any good ones left. Mostly, it's just people who can put up with the most shit, and don't necessarily excel at anything. I don't have a very high opinion of most teachers. Most honestly feel like it's an over glorified baby sitting job. However, I know a really smart guy. This guy took a job teaching Junior High, and he didn't last the term. I thought that it might be an isolated case. However, I've only recently learned that several people I'm familiar with have had similar experiences over the last year. All of which, had to deal with really bad students. Students who didn't focus, and just plain didn't want to be there. If we had smart, and good people WANT to be teachers, this wouldn't be a problem.



3. The child may learn even more destructive behaviors by people in his same socio-economic background, or even habits that may not improve his development anyway. Such as bullying/gang activity, drugs, and other destructive behaviors.

What I would propose is a more rigid example that educators and parents follow. For example, a 3 strikes policy. If a kid gets tossed out of class 3 times within a semester, that kid will then either A) be forced to get a new course, or B) Be suspended from school for a whole 6 months and those credits will not be counted. Some of you might say that it's harsh. However, let's look at impact.

Anyone Junior High age and below can tell you, being suspended sucks. The only times that I've been suspended, I had no social interaction. All my friends were off at school, and I was utterly bored. Imagine if this transpired for 6 months, an eternity for a young mind. This puts some pressure back on the parents to make life at home as dull as possible and to recognize the teaching opportunity. The child has to have every fun thing in their possession taken away and realize the consequences for what they've done. You have to make that child's life a living hell during that time. If you have anyone who doesn't appreciate their education, this will probably correct it pretty quick.

Now, for anyone in High School, this is probably not going to work. Many students have been in the system for so long, that yes...they will miss the social interaction. However, they've usually been accustomed to most of the non-interactive joys of life such as reading, or just lounging in the park, and a parents' control over that is going to be somewhat limited. However, again...this puts all the pressure back on the parent to correct. A teacher cannot discipline a child nearly as good as a dedicated parent can.

The problem is that I know every one of my friends with kids is now saying, "Terence he just doesn't understand what it is to be a parent." For the most part you're right, I don't. Which makes it far more easier to see when a system is broken, and what needs to be done to fix it. I can be dispassionate and not involved in those consequences. How it affects me doesn't enter into the equation.

The problem with every education reform put up by the left or right boils down to one thing... Throwing more money at the problem. Whether that be involved in taking money from some schools and giving to others in the form of vouchers, or just raising the taxes that schools get on education. It's simply disguising the problem. Some kids just don't want to learn. The system was broken when I was going through it several years ago. If you've got a child, and education reform isn't at the top of your list of "problems that need fixing", then I just don't know what to say.

The new stage of consciousness.

Look around you. We've had the web around in wide spread usage for almost 10 years now. How has life changed? Let's fast forward the clock about 30 years. Most of the people I know will be in their 60's and 70's. How much will the Net be in your life? I imagine some people while bed ridden, the web will be their only form of communication. You're stuck in your home or an assisted living facility, all permanently plugged into a computer, where you are keeping your mind active, learning and communicating with peers. Is that the future for us?


Almost all of us do updates on Facebook, or Twitter. Social networking is connecting most of us faster, and faster. However, is that a good thing? I am a little bit of an idealist. I believe that ultimately the net can be used to do some real good in the world. For every crappy pop idol that is fake and horrible, there is a young man struggling with sexuality in a very intolerant and isolated community and the web is where they find their safety valve. The web and networking has a way of relating things to people and communicating with these people. Which ultimately is good. If through the web, we can get news out of countries with fascist control over the media, it's a good thing in my book.

However, there is the bad. Pornography is at an all time high because of the web. There are people who are intolerant and dangerous finding each other. Also, there's the nerdcore crowd. This is something that I fight on a daily basis. I've had some pretty strong feelings that I have voiced about nerds in the past. Because, they take things to the extreme. For example, when World of Warcraft was at it's peak with 12 million plus members, the nerds that I knew would sometimes not bathe before coming into work. Their personal relationships would suffer and they couldn't communicate with others not existing in that world. Note, this is the extreme of people who play WoW.

Also, there is a huge amount of negativity that comes from the web and the nerdcores as a whole. Because of the level at which information is accumulated and gathered, many people who are frequent users get pulled into this sense that you know everything and that you have the answers, and quite frankly people believe what the read on the Internet way too much. Because of this public forum, they think they are all appointed masters of particular subjects, and overrate their own opinion and think that people need to hear it. Such things as conversational tact and common courtesy are thrown out the window. In short, they lose complete objectivity with the world.

I used to spend quite a bit of time on the web while at work, I would view news stories and read posting by people on the web, and what I determined is that it is a magnifier of the chasm that exists in society. Anyone to harp and be critical can easily get on something, rip it and belittle it, and detach themselves, because it's an "on-line identity". I review my actions thoughts and feelings for the past couple of months, and decided that this ego trap, that is the web is responsible for quite a bit of the unhappiness and contention that I feel. So, I've limited my usage, and I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing. The jury is still out on that.

To anyone reading this article, or post on Facebook, How do you feel? Has the web become it's own society? Is it good or bad? What do you think that outlook is for the future of the web? Personally, I think that society is changing because the web, and we should talk and open dialogues about what we should post or say on the web? Give your thoughts and opinions...I'd love to hear them.

Fear and loathing...

Alright, I've been away for a while, but decided to bust out the old blog again to talk, and get my outlet. There's an amazing psychological paradigm that warrants some attention. That is, how much that even sub-cultures, can even be detested by the participants. Let me put it this way.
I once had a friend who was really into martial arts. This one time he told me, "You know Terence, I like martial arts, but usually hate all the guys that DO martial arts." This brought about quite the conversation topic. This then brings into conversation that we shouldn't define everything by a sub-culture. Even that definitions by and large are almost useless.

Now, anyone who has taken psychology knows that stereotypes are actually how we organize psychological information. However, we should never define people by such definitions.
Just as my friend feels about martial arts, I feel about nerds and the Internet culture. I know about computers and all that stuff, but I really hate almost all of the people involved in it. It comes about because of this. While I'm just bored and commenting on stuff on Facebook. A friend of busts out and calls me a nerd. Honestly, I was offended. Mostly, it's because of this. The following is a link off Digg (A popular Internet filter/social networking site).



http://digg.com/other_sports/Allison_Stokke_the_Hottest_Athlete_Google_it?OTC-wsli

Now, the average person who follows Digg is pretty much what I call, "nerdcore". They're the stereotypical nerd. The person who's got no social skills, plays Dungeons and Dragons, and gets no women. The sad, VERY sad thing, is that the article in question is talking about a young athlete who when she was in High School, a picture was taken of her and it was posted on the web. She was then hounded, which Internet sensations usually are, to the point where she lives in relative isolation. She even spoke with her father, who is a lawyer to see if they could get the publicity to stop. Now, take a look at the comments. After even linking the article talking about her own problems with Internet nerdom, the nerds are only talking about how hot she is. The first page of comments is just about her looks, and masturbation references, and the whole 9 yards.

So, when someone calls me a "nerd", I do take offense because it reminds me of these same assholes commenting on this poor girls looks, while she detests those said people. When it boils down to it, I'm not a nerd. If I had my choice, I'd not spend any time at a computer. I always spend the bulk of my time watching sports or doing social things, playing poker, etc. Also, I work with nerds, and all of their conversation topics, their tendencies, and their mannerisms bug me.

The ugly truth is that no one wants to spend time with a nerd as well. I have a good looking friend that I work with, and the nerds won't leave her alone. Those nerds who's got the backbone are awkward and unfunny people. According to her, "The attention is flattering, but too much."

There in lies the conundrum. There has to be a little bit of self loathing for certain people within a sub-culture. Also, everyone is in some kind of sub-culture, whether that be religion, sexual orientation, or hobbies. Everyone is with in one. Does everyone have to like it? I think not.

Myself and a friend were recently talking about the “economic outlook” of the country. He was told to scale back his hours to a more part time schedule. Then, I took a look at my own department at work. Seventy percent of my department was all hired in the last 2 months and they are mostly part timers. With our own experiences we came to a few conclusions. That the problem probably isn’t as bad as we probably perceive it is. Also, that corporate America is using it as a scapegoat to downsize their work force and maximize their profits.

It all boils down to this. Companies LOVE part time employees now days. Mainly because they don’t give them benefits, which saves them a ton of money against their bottom line. Secondly, if you are in a field with a high attrition rate, you haven’t lost that much impact time if you have to fire an employee. So, where does this leave us as a nation? As my friend and I summed it up with one statement, “Rich people are douches.”

Lately, the more I read and learn about certain circumstances, and since yesterday was earth day, about pollutants and big hitting polluters, I’ve grown more left in my opinion. I’m entirely convinced that big business has to go. Nothing was more evident than when the head of division at my work, was talking about one of my co-workers. While introducing him to one of his management cohorts he said and I quote “This is Richard. He’s a real asset.” Just by the mere management lingo, I was appalled. If I ever had someone call me “an asset”, I’d probably tell them to go to hell. When you call something “an asset”, it denotes some sort of control and ownership. The mere arrogance that Corporate America views it’s employees as such is probably going to be the downfall of our way of life.

Gone are the days of company softball games, and treating them as they should be treated, as people. When the concept of corporate conglomerates appeared in the 50’s. The overall owners still had a sense of public support and wanted to give the image that they cared about their employees. Much of that was cast by the wayside during the 80’s, and the invention the market corporate sharks depicted in the movies like Wall Street. Now, we’re left with our current fiscal situation.

By now, I consider myself an independent. I’m neither liberal, nor conservative. I do believe in fiscal responsibility, and I believe we demonstrated that in the 90’s. I believe in small government, and gun rights. I believe in environmentalism and high penalties for companies who are not responsible. I believe that Americans have to completely rethink the basis of their lives. We cannot just continue doing the same old, same old. I read a great article on Reuters, that I actually agree with. You can view it here. It basically states that Conservatives are pissed, but can’t do anything. The article recognized that the polar sides of the political parties no longer represent most of America. 90% of our politicians are not in touch with their own constituents any longer.

Stop the insanity!

I’m throwing this out there right now. The word, BOYCOTT. While perusing through my daily view of Reuters, I came across an article talking about royalty remakes and franchises. Check out the article here. Now, it doesn’t tell us something that we already don’t know. However, what’s good about it is the way some producers are actually commenting on it, and the quotes.

After reading this business model outlook from the producers of these movies, I’ve decided that I will have a ground rule set out. I will not watch any more sequels or remakes unless a name brand director is attached to it. Otherwise, it’s gonna wait till video. It’s not retro-active though. I will see the 2^nd Transformers movie, and maybe the 3^rd depending on who’s attached as writer and director. Also, any subsequent Batman sequels with the Nolan’s involvement on get a free pass. However, if any of these movies change either writers or directors, I probably won’t see them in the theaters. I also will probably not see GI Joe in the theaters as well.

My ultimate favorites are these quoted projects:

“Neil Moritz, who produced "Furious," is developing a new version of the 1990 sci-fi hit "Total Recall" as well as relaunching "XXX," which first hit the screen just seven years ago. "Lara Croft" is getting a new treatment from Dan Lin and Warner Bros. just eight years after the Angelina Jolie original. Fox already is eyeing a relaunch of its "Fantastic Four" franchise; the two entries were hits just a few years ago. And at the recent ShoWest exhibitors' conference, Sony said it will bring back "Men in Black" for another escapade.”

So, they’re going to relaunch movies that are just as fine now as when they were first made? Huh. Now, we know why our economy is crumbling. Money crunchers and accountants have no creativity what so ever. Instead they like investments they speak as sure fire. In their opinion, why should we re-invent the wheel? We really need to take a stand so that they know they can’t put one over on us Americans.

Why the hell would anyone remake XXX? That was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. Plus, it has a dose of Vin Diesel crying. Vin Diesel should be ashamed of being in that movie. I’m ashamed for seeing it in the theater because a buddy of mine “just likes action movies”. Plus, I think Rob Cohen is now the devil. He's had a hand in almost every movie that I hate.

It’s time to boycott the relaunch movement. Who’s on board with me?

Effective use of enemies.

This last week finished the run on one of the shows I’ve been watching. The Gundam 00 plot puts forth an interesting notion to me. Just a quick synopsis for y’all, Gundam 00 is about a group of people who go try and stop all the conflict on the Earth. They do this by coming up with a vastly superior weapon, than most of the militaries in the world. Then, they set out to resolve conflict anywhere. However, they don’t pick sides. So, let’s say the IRA and UK are fighting over whatever it is they’ve been fighting hundreds of years for. Then move on to a resolve problems against both sides in the Middle East. They would swoop in and pretty much destroy both sides. This causes the world to unite against them, countries are united and borders dissolved, so in a way they reach their goals.

Are these the type of guys we should do away with?

What has occupied my mind as of late, is can this type of model actually be applied to the real world? For example, if we went in Sri Lanka and just took out all the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lanka forces, what would the result of that conflict be? In the end, you give the people something to hate other than themselves. Humankind will always have someone to hate, someone that they want to do harm to. They’ll always feel that some group has slighted them, or has done something to their ancestors that they just can’t forgive. However, if you give them something to fear or hate, other than their own minor petty conflict, what would the result be? Human beings always get united when facing adversity. Is it so absurd to think that the only reason we have conflict, is because we don’t have things to hate?

If we were able to implement some sort of campaign against conflict, it would also prevent Genocide. I don’t need to say that a fast acting completely intervention force, would be great to resolve all these conflicts. I know that many of that are reading this now might be thinking, well that’s what the US is doing. The problem is that it’s not effective. The US is an established entity. You’re giving others a physical target that they can strike against, and cause terrorism. However, if the organization wasn’t affiliated with any physical location or government it can move and be a focus of hatred, but with no way of countering.

Gundam 00, pictured above, one of the best shows the last 2 years, in my opinion

Now, some might argue, that in essence I’m saying fight terrorism, with terrorism. Which is one of the things that Gundam 00, talks about during the series. The characters are of the opinion that they are sinners and will be punished, once they accomplish their goals and unite the world to a common goal.
In my mind, I really think that this could be one way to get rid of some of the conflict in the world. It just makes sense to me. In fact, if we could stop genocides and injustices across the world and unite it’s people, no price would be too high for me. Even if it meant giving up a portion of my way of life, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Economical woes!

California cash to cover through June. According this Reuters article, California does have enough cash to cover it’s fiscal year, through June. However, in the article, they state that they already have massive budget short falls for the coming year. This is just one of the several things that I have been reading up on as far as fiscal responsibility goes. Also, compare this with a recent Frontline report (which can be viewed here). Now, the tone of the overall piece is very Anti-Bush, but if you look past that at the actual information, there is a very good hidden gem of knowledge, that of fiscal responsibility.

The basic information in the Frontline report is accurate. We had budget surpluses going into the Bush presidency. The, we ended up spending more in the last 8 years. Most of that is for entitlement programs. Entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Perscription Drug benefits), are going to end up costing more than we generate. As the coming generation ages, they’ll end up using these benefits. I do think that the current estimates are based on the use of those entitlement programs for people who are already currently using them, ie those people in their 70’s and 80’s. I actually have faith that many of the people whom I know in their 50’s, family & friends etc., are really knowledgeable with their money, and have saved. I have a great amount of pride in the way that they’ve been so responsible, and don’t want to use these entitlement programs. I’ll talk about them in later posts.

The presidency under George W Bush spent more money, while taking in less, than most republican presidents. Now, I’m not one to point fingers and say it’s one person’s problem, more than another. Under Bill Clinton, corporations and other entities had some very “creative accounting”. The Enron scandal happened during the Clinton years and under his watch. However, we are spending more and more, and borrowing on credit. I don’t bust out the religious stuff here too often, but for years my religious leaders have been giving out one piece of advice, “Get out of debt”. When I look at the cost projections by what Frontline states, it hits home even more.

We, as American’s, have been spending more, and more, and more over the past couple of years. We are living outside our means. It’s absolutely absurd for a man to spend five thousand dollars on two utility vehicles, or a boat that they only use once or twice a year. A person shouldn’t need to take a trip to Brazil one year, and Africa the next. If you are going to dedicate that much to travel, you’re whole life should be based on that, at the sacrifice of everything else. Many people, from the past generations, only took a “trip” once every 5 years. Also, how many jobs have been created based on this practice? How many guys are working selling SUV’s, or boats, or working in Casinos, or the vacation industry? Because, automatically those jobs SHOULD shrink, because of how un-needed they are.

One thing I agree with Barrack Obama, on that we have problems and we need to pay to change them. I think back to the nature of equivalent exchange. To gain something, something of equal or greater value must be used. The nature and concept of credit, is an affront and abomination of this. We need to change the nature of our thinking. This means giving up some of our comforts for things in the long term.