Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Too Long To Be a Myface Status Update

Shirley feels like it's becoming increasingly difficult to recognize this once (way back in 2015 for example) wonderful country, because of the Supreme Court permitting the exclusion of immigrants based on religion, the government caging children they stole from non-violent parents, and the government turning away asylum seekers.  Oh, I guess the latter isn't new though, since FDR did the same thing to Jews during the Holocaust.  But it's still rather un-American.  Btw, if we're going to ban all the Muslims because many terrorists are Muslim, then shouldn't we ban all the white Christians because many mass shooters are white Christians?  And as long as we're on this digression regarding inconsistency, why are extremist conservatives so angry about government employees such as Sarah Huckabee Sanders being turned away from businesses, when those same extremist conservatives think it's proper for businesses to turn away a gay couple who want a cake for their wedding?  Since this Myface (Facebook) status update is so long, should it have been a blog post instead?  Yes, yes it should.  And so it is.

#MAGALIWI2015 (Hashtag Make America Great Again Like It Was In 2015)

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

In Defense of Trump Supporters and Why They're Wrong

Before I get to the Trump supporters, I must write about the petition that is attempting to stop Trump and why I signed it.  I am politically opposed to Donald Trump, and I have grown to like Hillary Clinton, to the extent that I can like a politician, that is.  But those things have nothing to do with why I signed the Change Dot Org petition.  I signed it because Donald Trump is dangerous; he is a threat to everything that makes America great.  Did you see what I did there?  I turned his motto against him.  I go girl.

The petition is asking the electors to not vote for Trump even if they're "supposed" to since the whole point of the Electoral College is to keep the people from voting for someone who is unfit for the presidency.  Since Hillary won the popular vote anyway, going "against" what the electors are "supposed" to do wouldn't actually oppose the will of the people.  I think the other point of the Electoral College is to help the smaller states be more represented, but I feel like that is less important than the popular vote and the understanding that Trump is dangerous.  I don't know if the petition will actually make a difference, but I signed it anyway, because it's something I can do.  I did hesitate before signing because of things like democracy and the peaceful transition of power, but decided to do it for the reasons I just stated.

I want to be clear regarding my reasons for signing the petition: it isn't because I disagree with Trump politically, even though I do.  This isn't about politics.  It's because he is dangerous.  I would never have signed such a petition against George W. Bush, for example, even though Al Gore won the popular vote and even though I knew (and was proven correct) that W would start wars, run the country into the ground economically, and stifle stem cell research.  Those are political things; he was not a danger to the very fabric of what America stands for. 

As I understand it, the main purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent a demagogue from becoming president.  I have to admit, I had to look up the definition of demagogue to gain a clearer and better understanding of what the eff that means.  Alarmingly, both Google's and Webster's definitions of demagogue seem to be providing frighteningly precise descriptions of Donald Trump's behavior.  The Google definition is clearer: "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."

And now, onto the actual purpose of this post: my defense of Trump supporters.  Before I defend them, I shall offend them.

There are many (two that I know of anyway) people who feel that many Trump supporters are some form of piece of crap, or deplorable, as Hillary more eloquently put it.  I don't think she was wrong to make that statement, since the things she was describing are unquestionably deplorable, and she was obviously not talking about all Trump supporters.  This deplorable sect of supporters seem to be racist, homophobic, white supremacists, opposed to religious freedom, etc, etc, etc.  I am quite sure that there is at least a portion of Trump supporters that fit these categories of pieces of crap, evidenced by the fact that the KKK support Trump, since the KKK is obviously composed of pieces of crap as described here.  For the record, I don't think the pieces of crap are limited to the KKK, based on things I've heard from non-KKK Trump supporters.  However, I am quite sure that these categories do not apply to all Trump supporters; in fact, I personally know at least one who is none of those deplorable things.  But even the non-deplorable among them have chosen to elect a distributor of deplorable; I saw on Myface (Facebook) a post that stated that all Trump supporters might not be racist, but racism wasn't a deal-breaker for them.  That sums it up nicely, I think.  So now that I have offended the Trump supporters, I shall, at long last, defend them.

I will not be defending the deplorable portion of Trump supporters, i.e. the racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc.  I will be defending the ones who are not deplorable, for whom deplorable things about Trump were not a deal-breaker.

As crazy as it sounds, I think there are people who wanted to vote for someone who holds their political views.  Some of those people, mostly Republicans probably, only saw one political option, and it wasn't Hillary Clinton.  To be honest, while I understand the political opposition to Hillary by Republicans, it strikes me as odd since she seems moderate to me, and therefore potentially appealing to both parties.  But then again, I also think the same thing of President Obama and John McCain, both of whom are opposed by the other party.  Perhaps this is reflective of people's inability to compromise on anything.  But I digress.

Those Republicans were left with one awful candidate who claims to hold their Republican views, and I think they felt like they couldn't bear to vote for someone on the Democratic side, even though she is moderate.  Oh, I guess the above paragraph wasn't actually a digression after all.  They couldn't bear to compromise their political views, even if it meant electing a dangerous demagogue.

I had trouble empathizing with these voters, until I really imagined myself in their position (I'm normally better at empathy than that, I think).  I imagined a scenario in which an alleged Democratic version of Trump (so Trump from a few years ago then) but with the current state of crazies would run against a Republican whom I find vile as a person (because it seems there are people who hate Hillary as a person as well as a politician) and whose political views are contrary to mine.  So Ted Cruz.  I imagined a Democratic but still just as dangerous version of Trump running against Ted Cruz.  What would I do?  I disagree with Cruz on probably everything, and I don't like anything about him at all.  But he's not a danger to our beloved country the way Trump is.  Cruz wouldn't start a nuclear war because someone hurt his feelings on Twitter.  He wouldn't scapegoat entire races of people the way Hitler did.  He wouldn't attack journalistic freedom.  I would like to believe that I would be able to look past the politics, since this really isn't about politics, and vote for the person who is least evil and least dangerous for our country and its people.  I think I would be able to do that, as hard as it would be to vote for Ted Cruz, because ever since I was little, I understood that politics is always a choice of bad and worse, and we must vote for the lesser of the evils.  In my scenario, Ted Cruz is clearly the lesser of evils when compared to Trump.  While I believe I would ultimately make the right choice and cast the sane vote for Ted Cruz, it would be an incredibly hard decision to make and it would hurt my soul to cast that vote.  So I understand the non-deplorable Trump supporters; it probably would have been too hard for them to vote for Hillary.


And now, I shall get to the part about why the Trump supporters I just defended are wrong.  I do understand how hard their decision was, but they made the wrong one.  They should have been stronger; they should have made the difficult decision to vote against their views that are merely political, and vote for the person who is not a danger to our beloved country and beautiful Earth.  They made the wrong decision.  Now we must all suffer the consequences.  This isn't about politics.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

More Economics from a Dummy

The following has existed as an unpublished draft for more than a year with the second half added a few months ago.  Most of it is probably not relevant anymore.  Enjoy!

As I explained previously, I know just about nothing about economics and my interest in it is nearly non-existent as well, to the extent that I would rather learn about the cell biology of how grass grows or the quantum physics of how paint dries than about economics. However, I have been thinking a little bit about some of the things I put forth in my economic theory, and I think I need to add to it. Like most sequels, this is not as good as the first one.

Fun with Flat Taxes

One of the disjointed parts of my theory involved a flat tax for all. Recently, flat taxes have been the topic of ridicule via the ridicule of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. I learned about that plant from a chart someone posted on Facebook, and some googling I did later (though I apparently didn't save the links I learned from). It seems that Herman Cain would charge a 9% income tax for people and corporations, and a 9% national sales tax to either replace or add to state taxes. I’m not clear on the latter because I’m not clear on the difference between the apples and oranges he keeps talking about in the clips of debates I’ve seen on The Daily Show and/or Colbert Report (like this one). Herman Cain would also remove all tax deductions. Based on other clips of things I’ve seen on The Daily Colbert (here's one), it seems that Rick Perry also has a flat tax plan where he would charge 20% taxes for all while keeping tax deductions in place.  (Herman Cain and Rick Perry were Republican candidates who lost the primaries for the 2012 presidential election.  These now-obscure references are partially what render this blog posting no longer relevant.)

Obviously, Herman Cain and Rick Perry got these ideas from my blog, because there is simply no other possible explanation of how one could think of a flat tax or simplifying the overly complicated tax code. I spoke of a flat tax, as part of my three-disjointed-pronged economic plan that could easily make me president, and they took that idea and added some stuff that I do not approve of and never intended for. Please note: I am not crazy (at least in this respect), nor am I serious about having any part in Herman Cain’s or Rick Perry’s plan making.

Lots of people (well, at least one person) feel that Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is a terrible idea, and I agree for the reasons those people state. Someone at the Huffington Post explained that it would end up taxing lower income people a bit more than they are currently taxed, and it would drastically reduce taxes for corporations and the very wealthy by a lot. I haven’t googled Rick Perry’s plan, but it seems like it might be an improvement on Cain’s plan.  Clearly, that’s quite an endorsement, since it is coming from my uneconomical brain via my blog-typing fingers, I mean digits (because digits are economically related!).

While Herman Cain’s flat tax plan is clearly not fair and good, I still believe that my flat tax plan could be fair and good. My plan is extremely vague, which leaves it open to suggestions from people who know about the economics. If you don’t feel like going back and reading about my plan, I will re-state it and de-Cain it here: We should pick some percentage, and charge that percentage of tax to all people. I don’t know what that percentage would be, but I would want it to be a fair one for all. Furthermore, this would only apply to taxable people, and says nothing about how to tax corporations. Despite what the Supreme Court says, I cannot include corporations in the semantics of “People”; my brain simply won’t allow it. Thus, how to tax corporations is another thing that is left vague in my tax plan for people smarter and more knowledgeable than I to handle when I become president. I’m kidding of course -- I still won’t run for president. Anyhoo, my tax plan would not have anything to do with sales tax, since I would never have thought of changing the way sales tax is, and after reading the Huff-Po article, it’s clear that it would be wrong to give the power of sales tax to the Federal Government. Regarding Herman Cain’s removal of all tax deductions, I think I would leave that vague also, because I think some deductions are good, so long as they don’t allow people to screw over the government via loopholes and abuses and such. Yes, I think that is sufficiently vague to ensure success.


Speculators are Evil! Eeeeeeviiiiiil!


One of the other disjointed portions of my theory states that commodities trading is wrong and should be eradicated. Later, it occurred to me that there is a precedent for my proposed illegalization of commodities trading: insider trading! Like insider trading, commodities trading hurts the whole economy while benefiting a few traders. I assume that is why insider trading is illegal, and so, commodities trading should be too.


Political Predictions

This does not in any way bring me to another disjointed, unrelated point.  This point is so unrelated, in fact, that it has very little to do with economics.  Jon Stewart delineated the bizarre doomsday-like predictions Republican presidential candidates make and have made in the past regarding the horrors that would befall this great land if Obama was/is (re)-elected.  He highlighted the bizarreness of these predictions by emphasizing that the previous predictions have not come to fruition.  This brought to my mind the predictions I made about what could happen if George W. Bush were elected president.  The difference, however, is that my predictions came true, except that W. was not actually elected (the first time anyway).

At the time of my correct predictions, this blog did not exist.  Instead, I had a verbal blog, i.e. I occasionally told people what my thoughts were.  Thus, I verbally pre-blogged (or “told”) at least one family member or friend (but probably more than one) that if George W. Bush became president, we would undoubtedly go to war, and the economy would suffer.  Obviously both things happened.

The economy thing could have happened anyway.  From what I barely understand, it seems that it is possible that the economy simply goes through cycles, and whoever is president at the time either gets credit for a strong economy, or is blamed for a bad economy.  However, I’m pretty sure President W. Bush caused all these economic problems we have now that I am trying to fix via this blog.  I know this because I heard during Mr. W. Bush’s campaign that he ran every business he had ever owned into the ground, so I naturally deduced that he would therefore run this country into the ground, since its economy is but a giant business (or so I assume).

I knew that Present W. Bush would bring us to war because he stated during his campaign that if anyone, in any way, attacked us or harmed us or whatever, we would go to war.  He said this in such a way that sounded to me as if he were looking to go to war, and would react to any trigger with war.  Clearly, that made me nervous.

So, to conclude, I was right, but I wasn’t making crazy predictions based on nothing; I was making accurate predictions based on things I heard during a presidential campaign.  Furthermore, I am a predicting genius!  But I sill won’t run for president!

Sunday, June 10, 2012

No Alternative to the Hunger Games

***SPOILER ALERT: The Hunger Games trilogy (novels, not the movie) is discussed below.***

WARNING: Please do not steal my words or thoughts without crediting/citing me. Thank you.

After reading The Hunger Games trilogy and discussing the end of it with a friend, I thought I might attempt to write an alternate ending. This friend was deeply disappointed with the actual ending, feeling that the tone of the trilogy had shifted, causing our strong and heroic Katniss Everdeen to wither into a sobbing, weak, and pathetic not-so-hero. While I felt this ending was fitting to the trilogy, I thought an alternate ending could fix the problem that my friend was having with it. However, I have come to the conclusion that the trilogy ended as it should have, and that it therefore should not be tampered with.

During my young adulthood, I disliked happy endings in fiction, for they rarely reflect reality and render otherwise moving tales stagnant. However, now in my old age (early 30’s), I have found myself craving happy endings, for fiction is an escape from harsh and painful reality. But the fact is, happy endings don’t have the effect of tragic ones; they don’t stay with you – they don’t forever change you as tragic endings can. “They lived happily ever after” is idealistic, optimistic, hopeful, happy, and unattainable. “They died tragically” and “They tragically fell from grace and heroism” can motivate human brains/minds to think, change, grow, and flourish.

The Hunger Games trilogy does not have a purely happy ending, nor does it have a purely tragic one. It is bittersweet – simultaneously deeply and painfully tragic, and deeply and genuinely blissful. Katniss lost so much throughout the books, yet she appeared to be unbreakable. However, with each struggle, she cracked, until the ultimate destruction of her spirit and fire, fueled by the murder of her little sister Prim, Prim was the source of her fire, the source of her Mockingjay wings, and the source of her drive to fight and to live. Without Prim, she could never be the Katniss that she had been – her flame was gone. However, her ability to survive and love remained, kindled by Peeta, "the boy with the bread." The rebellion was successful; because of Katniss, who had the good judgment (because this is fiction) to kill the evil President Coin, the country of Panem could live up to its name and nourish its people with the metaphoric bread of freedom. Katniss, Peeta, and their children could live happily ever after, with her tragically extinguished but happily though more weakly rekindled flame.

President Snow was never able to extinguish Katniss, "the girl that was on fire." When President Coin was introduced, her eyes were described as the color of slush, which led me to believe she was a watered down version of Snow. However, in the end it became clear that she was in fact, the waterlogged version of Snow – Snow made heavier with water, finally able to extinguish the girl that was on fire by extinguishing Prim, the source of Katniss’s flame. Snow attempted to destroy Katniss by hijacking Peeta, her biggest fan, and turning him into a weapon programmed to kill her, but Coin took this concept further. Not only did she (unsuccessfully) attempt to use the hijacked Peeta to kill Katniss once she was no longer useful to Coin, but she used Katniss’s best friend Gale’s idea in her murder of Prim, and she thus used two of the most important people in Katniss’s life as weapons against her. Where Snow’s evil plans failed, Coin’s psychopathically evil plan succeeded to the extent that she destroyed the fiery essence of Katniss. Unfortunately for Coin, however, Katniss remained intact long enough to rightfully kill Coin.

Coin did not hunger for freedom for all; she only hungered for power, as her monetary name suggests, since money is power. Her decision to have another Hunger Games with Capitol children as revenge demonstrates that she and Snow are two sides of the same coin, and clearly elucidates that she would perpetuate Snow’s tyranny, rendering the revolution utterly pointless since they would undoubtedly revert to their old, oppressive ways. Katniss agreed to this Hunger Games proposal, allegedly for Prim’s sake, but that didn’t make any sense, since Prim would certainly never want such a thing. I’m still somewhat unsure of whether Coin or Snow killed Prim and the Capitol children, but either way, killing more children simply couldn’t improve the situation. This was blind revenge gone too far. Katniss’s obsession with seeking vengeance on Snow had bloomed like Snow's rancid rose into something horrible. Driven by revenge, revenge on the innocent children of what might be the wrong people, Katniss had become her own enemy, the Capitol. She no longer saw who the real enemy was. Katniss came to her senses when she killed Coin, which is of course ironic since she was exonerated via insanity. She killed Coin partially as revenge for Prim’s murder since Coin was the most likely culprit; however since the culprit remains unclear, her true motivation was to defeat the real enemy: the oppressive Capitol that Coin presided over. Katniss realized that it didn’t matter who killed Prim, for revenge on her murderer would not provide a purpose to her death or all the others who died for the rebellion, but ending oppression and allowing for a true revolution would. Coin’s death marked the end of oppression, and the end of the Hunger Games. Obviously, Snow also had to die, even though his death alone would not have ended the oppressive era as Coin’s death did. Regardless of whether Snow killed Prim or not, he oppressed, killed, and pimped so many people for so long. He allowed the Hunger Games to go on. I’m glad he died, but I wish there had been a way for Katniss to do the honors. Come to think of it, perhaps she did cause his death. He died after Katniss killed Coin, either by choking on his bloody laughter or by the ensuing mob, both of which were caused by her assassination of Coin. Therefore, Katniss did kill Snow, albeit indirectly. Woohoo.

Regarding my uncertainty about who killed Prim via the two part exploding silver parachutes deployed from the Capitol hovercraft, I am leaning toward Coin and the rebels. I remain unsure, though, because if it really was Plutarch and Coin, one would think that rebel medics wouldn't go to help the injured children, and Capitol medics would, however, the reverse is true. I imagine Coin could have been willing to sacrifice some medics, particularly since Prim was among them, to make Snow look even more horrible, in case recklessly killing Capitol children wasn’t enough to drive a wedge between the Capitol citizens and Snow, and thus quickly ending the war. Snow claimed that he could not be behind the silver parachute murders because there would be no purpose for him to kill those children, however, if the real target was Katniss the Mockingjay, symbolic leader of the rebellion, there would certainly be sufficient purpose from his evil perspective, because Snow killing Katniss could have quickly ended the rebellion with the Capitol as victor, and he wanted to kill her anyway. Since the compassionate people who went to help the children injured by the first set of explosions were part of the target, and since Katniss and Prim are compassionate, Katniss (or Katniss via Prim) is clearly the intended target of the exploding silver parachutes, and therefore both Snow and Coin could be culpable since they both wanted Katniss dead or destroyed. The fact that the trap utilized the concept that Gale described suggests that it was Coin and the rebels, however, Gale thinks like the enemy to create his traps, which suggests that it could have been Snow. Snow’s amusement at Katniss’s assassination of Coin suggests that he was not the perpetrator, amused by the fair and just assassination of his enemy; however, it could also indicate his joy at successfully manipulating Katniss to wrongly believe that Coin was the culprit. The latter seems more in line with Snow’s character, particularly Snow’s hijacking of Peeta, and if that is the case, then the joke is on Snow, since Katniss killed Coin for the sake of the revolution and not (as much) for revenge. Despite all of my confusion and evidence on both sides, I think the book (or I suppose its author) expects us to believe that Coin killed Prim.

Getting back to the trilogy’s ending, Katniss’s “happily ever after” could only happen with Peeta. I don’t believe she was ever in love with Gale, though she obviously loved him dearly. Throughout the trilogy, she fell in love with Peeta while growing apart from Gale. Perhaps the shared experiences with Peeta and lack thereof with Gale contributed to this, as people sometimes do grow together and apart with shared and unshared life-changing experiences such as three Hunger Games, or three wars, but of which happened, since the Hunger Games are partially controlled wars. Gale’s unintentional hand in killing Prim sealed his separation from Katniss, because aside from the obvious (that Katniss always cared more about Prim than herself), it crystallized the fact that Gale lacks compassion, as demonstrated by his concept that was behind the trap that killed Prim, which takes advantage of human compassion. Peeta, on the other hand, is the essence of compassion. Through two Hunger Games and a revolutionary war, he managed to avoid intentionally killing anyone (unless I’m remembering wrong). Furthermore, Peeta brought Katniss back to life twice: after her father died and after Prim died. He gave her the bread that gave her the hope and therefore the ability to survive and he planted the primrose bushes to give her hope once again, that she could survive. Thus, Gale’s bomb concept killed Prim, whereas Peeta salvaged Prim’s spirit when he planted the primrose bushes for Katniss. Gale still had an essential role in her life, since he salvaged her family’s past and her bow and arrows. Peeta’s primrose bushes and Gale’s bow saving are what revived and rekindled Katniss and returned her to herself, at least to the extent that was possible.

Katniss never wanted children because she didn’t want them to fallow in her footsteps in the Hunger Games, but the Hunger Games no longer existed, so her children could play in the meadow of freedom and safety as the lullaby she sang to a dying Rue promised, and that was all Katniss ever wanted. Even this is marred with tragedy, in that the happy meadow lies above the mass grave of the fallen citizens of Katniss’s home, a place where I think a memorial garden might have been a nice gesture. In the end, Katniss is as happy as she could be, amidst the tragic circumstances.

If I were to write an alternate ending, Prim would have to not die, for without Prim, Katniss has to be transformed as she is at the end of the trilogy. But if Prim hadn’t died, Katniss would not have had the fuel to kill Coin, so perhaps in my alternate ending, Katniss could be fueled with the desire to make Prim’s death meaningful beyond Coin’s assassination and the successful end of the rebellion. I had incorrectly predicted while reading the trilogy that Katniss Everdeen, as her last name suggests (Everdeen = ever + dean = always leads), would become the leader of the new, post-rebellion country. (Apparently, I was only correct to the extent that she was the leader of the rebellion as the Mockingjay). Therefore, in my alternate ending that I’m not writing, Katniss would become the democratically elected president of Panem, where she would ensure that oppression would become a thing of the past. Of course, this does happen in the trilogy, except with President Paylor rather than President Everdeen, so my ending would simply maintain Katniss as the still-unbreakable hero.

My alternate ending would still be bittersweet. Even though I would still have Katniss and Peeta together with their kids, Katniss could never be happy as President. Presidents live in the spotlight, they perform for the camera, and some are puppets of other political leaders or movements. Her marriage to Peeta would be in the spotlight too, and even after her time as president ends, for the rest of her life, she and her family would remain highlighted in the public eye, always performing for the cameras. She would never feel that her love or her life were real, because there would always be an element of performance, of fakeness. In the real ending, there are no cameras, and there is no spotlight – there is no reality show. There is only reality. She believes her life is how it would have been if there had been no Hunger Games, and if she were president, she could never have that luxury. And that is why the end cannot be altered. It is perfect, because Katniss is happy, even if relatively flameless, weak, and irreversibly broken. Furthermore, she did give Prim’s death meaning beyond the end of oppression in that she lived a happy and free life; her life is not only free from oppression, but it is free of the puppet strings wielded by people in power.

As I wrote this blog posting, the true meaning of Katniss Everdeen’s last name materialized in my brain. Aside from indicating her role as leader of the rebellion, it also signifies the role her father played throughout her life, since her last name came from her father, as last names often do. Her father, in his life and after his death, has educated and guided her through every struggle she has faced. He would always be with her.

This strengthens my belief that the book ended as it should, given that we make a few assumptions about Katniss’s family’s future. In the end, Katniss states that she does still have her fire, fueled now by the hope that Peeta brings and by the desire to give meaning and purpose to the deaths of Prim and all the others who died for the freedom of Panem. Their is evidence for Katniss's new fire; she returned to her hunting ways and I choose to assume that she is proud of her part in history, though she is plagued by PTSD. I incorrectly predicted sometime during the first book that what we are reading is Katniss telling her children about her experiences long after the successful rebellion. I was correct in my predictions that there would be a rebellion, that it would be successful, and that she would have children since the only reason she insisted that she didn’t want children was because of the Hunger Games. It is still possible that Katniss could tell her children of her experiences and the crucial part she and their father played in the revolution that gave them freedom, since the trilogy ends with the children still rather young. Thus, I choose to believe in a post-epilogue where she will tell her children, and that the books are that history lesson. I also choose to believe that she teaches her children to hunt as well, so her father’s teachings will be passed from generation to generation, forever guiding, forever educating, and forever leading.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Economics from a Dummy

**DISCLAIMER: If any of the following appears strange or offensive in any way, please assume that it is intended as exaggeration or hyperbole.**

Although I know almost nothing about economics, I shall present my economic theory here. Thusly, it shall, quite literally, be an idiot’s guide to economics, in that I am the idiot.

My Lack of Credentials

I was forced to take an economics course in high school – a whole semester of a course! I was told at some point in my life that I should love economics, for it is a social science infused with math, and these are two things I have been known to enjoy, excluding of course, my K-12 (minus 8th and 11th grades) difficulties with actual social studies courses. However, not only do I not love economics, I rather detest it. I find it painfully boring, and I find myself unable to grasp most economic concepts. It’s very possible that the former is causing the latter; in fact, I would argue that it most certainly is, as evidenced by my love of hardcore neuroscience and hardcore physics despite my inability to grasp things in those fields of knowledge. This is evidence because my lack of understanding with interest feels entirely different from my lack of understanding without interest. Furthermore, even when I do understand something in economics, I am still intensely bored by it, and I think it might be impossible for me to have any real interest in it.

Anyway, the point is, I don’t understand much of anything that involves economics, and I think I got a B or less in that economics class I was forced to take. Thus, I am by no means, an expert or qualified in any way to postulate any kind of economic theory or even thought.

My Theory (or Quasi-Theory, or really Non-Theory)

My Non-Theory has three nearly unrelated parts.

Part One: It’s All a Gamble

Something suddenly occurred to me today that I am quite sure no other human on Earth has ever realized before. In fact, I am so sure of this, that I am not even going to Google to confirm my statement.

It occurred to me that the whole stock market is nothing but institutionalized, society-encouraged, legal gambling. One is expected to invest money in something with the hope that that money will grow, but it’s very possible that the money will shrink significantly. One is expected to continue gambling that money, and decide at what point the stock should be sold, which is also a gamble. One is then expected to continue this never-ending loop of buying and selling stocks, and thus, the gambling never ends.

One of the few things I remember from that economics course that was forced upon me in high school was the claims of the importance of investing, particularly in the stock market. I believe it was a guest speaker that explained that it is best to start early, and that our parents would likely help us. Clearly, these stock-pushers wanted to get the kids started young on their new legal gambling addictions, and clearly they wanted to get as many of us involved in it as possible, while we were young and impressionable, by having an authority figure that we were to inherently trust to tell us of all the wonderful things that might happen if we invest early. This very clearly indicates the degree to which our society encourages stock market gambling.

Since I couldn’t help myself, I did Google, but I will just pretend that this wasn’t the first Google result of many that indicates that the stock market being a form of gambling is a commonly held belief.

Part Two: Commodity Stocks will be our Downfall

Some time ago (I don’t know how long ago, hence the use of  “some time ago”), I saw a video on the interwebs that explained commodity stock trading. I don’t know what that video was, and I am far too lazy to find it for you. As you should expect if you read the beginning of this blog posting, I failed to understand the bulk of what the video explained. However, I did understand one thing (that might or might not have been explicated in the video): The commodity stock trade will be our downfall.

The man in the video and people that I have seen on the TV after I saw the video explained that commodities are things like oil, sugar, coffee, and most importantly, cocoa. From what I gather, it seems that Wall Street people make presumably psychic speculations about the future of these commodities and then pretend to trade them via the stock market. Their pretend trading causes real things to happen to the prices of these commodities in our real economy, and I am therefore quite sure, will inevitably cause real problems and our real downfall as a society that once had a real economy.

The gambling of the commodity portion of the stock market is far worse than the normal stock market gambling. It’s a game involving imaginary trades that result in real changes that affect real people and real chocolate. I therefore suggest, with my complete and utter lack of credentials and nearly complete lack of economic understanding, that we abolish the commodity stock trade, and that alone will fix our economy. I’m sure of it – as sure as I am of the originality and pure novelty of Part One of my Fabulous Non-Theory of Economics.

Ultimately, I felt bad that I didn’t look for the video that first taught me about commodities, so I tried to find it, but I could not. While unsuccessfully searching for it, I saw several snippets that seem to agree with me in that commodity speculation is damaging, and I won't pretend those don't exist. Here are some French people talking about the need for regulation of it. This suggests that I might have understood this better than I thought I did. I go girl!

Part Three: Simple Taxes for Simple and Also Not Simple Folk

A few months or a few years ago, I had a brilliant thought. Instead of arguing about different groups of people being taxed different amounts, and instead of having horribly confusing tax laws and forms, why not have a simplified theory on taxation. Since I’m playing fast and loose with my misuse of the word “theory,” I figured I should continue with that trend. Anyway, my simplified taxation non-theory is as follows:

Pick a percentage, and require all the people to pay that particular percentage of their net (or would it be gross? I'm not entirely sure what these things mean) income to the government as their sole taxes. That way, the wealthier people will end up paying higher taxes, the poorer people will pay lower taxes, and no one will complain because it will be 100% fair. Perhaps a few tweaks here and there would be necessary, but I think this could work really well.

For someone who knows nearly nothing about economics, I sure am smart, with my brilliant ideas! But I won’t run for president, and you can’t make me.

Monday, June 6, 2011

Poor Weiner

Well, it seems another politician has another sex scandal. Often funny and friend of Jon Stewart Congressman Anthony Weiner admitted that he sent a picture of his weiner in his undies to a woman on the Twitter. He says he meant it as a part of a joke, and that he has done other inappropriate things on the interwebs and the phone, both before and after marrying his wife. He also says he has never met any of these women in person, clearly implying that the hyper-flirtation only happened from very long distances.

I think that as far as political sex scandals go, this is really quite ethical, assuming that Congressman Weiner is not still lying. It’s really nothing compared to Eliot Spitzer and his adulterous use of hookers, or Bill Clinton and the jobs he had his interns doing while he was married. As Congressman Winkie, I mean Weiner (sorry, I had to) said, he didn’t break any laws, and he will cooperate fully with an ethics investigation insuring he didn’t break any House rules. He also didn’t make his wife stand there with him while he confessed as some Eliot Spitzers did. He mentioned that his wife understandably thinks he’s an idiot, but is not divorcing his dumb a**.

I’m comfortable making these statements about Congressman Weiner’s relative morality, assuming that he is not still lying, because, like David Letterman, he took full responsibility for his immoral actions; he made a point to state that the woman who was the recipient of his bulging photo is not responsible for this at all, and should never have been dragged into this mini-scandal. His apologies, his remorse, his shame, and his tears seemed sincere to me. Of course, he could be a good actor, or I could be an idiot who feels bad when boys (or anyone) cry and take responsibility for their actions. Conversely, as much as I love Bill Clinton for his politics, his intelligence, and the nice things he does for the world, he is a good example of a disgusting immoral sex-crazed adulterer who tried desperately not to take responsibility for his actions.

Anthony Weiner didn’t admit to his tweet until, I assume, he realized his past inappropriateness was going to be disinterred. According to the NY Times blog, he made his announcement after another bout of inappropriate internet behavior from a month ago was revealed. Nonetheless, less than two weeks of lies followed by a full confession is really rather impressive for a politician.

If you’re sensing that I hold politicians to much, much lower moral standards than I hold normal humans to, you're absolutely right. Thanks to people like Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, and probably millions more, I have learned to assume that all politicians are either evil in some power-hungry way, or are whores. Perhaps the hunger for power facilitates the slutty behavior, since the slutty behavior might simply be another way to gain or use their power. I don’t know if this hunger for power is a pre-existing condition for politicians, or if it’s something that happens after a person has been in politics and the power they are inherently given morally corrupts him…or her I suppose, but we never seem to hear about female politicians being adulterous sluts. Perhaps the direction of the power-politics causality depends on the individual.

Anyway, the point of all this is that while Anthony Weiner’s wife is absolutely correct in saying her husband is dumb, and while he clearly does have some moral issues, if he is not lying, it’s really nothing compared to the real sex scandals out there, and in my mind, it does not and should not affect his ability to do his job well, and to do good things for the world. If the far-more-sexually-immoral Bill Clinton could do it, then the much-more-moral-because-he-accepts-responsibility Anthony Weiner can definitely do it. I’m glad he is not resigning.

(Note: I added the link to Jon Stewart's coverage of this scandal after I published this blog posting.)

UPDATE June 14, 2011
Here's someone else who doesn't want Anthony Weiner to resign, and who also feels bad for the remorseful virtual adulterer.

UPDATE July 14, 2011


On June 16, Anthony Weiner unfortunately resigned.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Is Gaga Self-Censored?

***WARNING: The following contains foul language, though it does not contain language about fowl. Viewer discretion is advised.***

Born This Way (Special Edition) [+Digital Booklet]I initially became irritated upon hearing the bleeps in the amazing Lady Gaga song “Government Hooker” from the amazing album Born This Way, because I am not a fan of censorship on things that I buy. This had happened before, when the word “bitch” was censored on the allegedly explicit version of “Bad Romance” from The Fame Monster that I bought. Clearly, that drove me crazy, as I searched desperately for a truly explicit version (I eventually found one somewhere, but I don’t remember where). As I heard the bleeps at the end of “Government Hooker” on Born This Way, I thought I had another annoying search for foul language on my hands.

However, I have decided that this time, the censorship might have been intentional. In “Bad Romance,” the word “b*tch” was altered to sound like “bit,” thus creating a clean version of the song that sounded clean and not too edited. However, in “Government Hooker,” the words “f*ck “and “f*cking” are covered with actual beeps that are disruptive to the song and don’t blend in the way the “b*tch,” altering does. If one doesn’t pay attention to the lyrics of “Bad Romance,” the censorship goes unnoticed; however, there is no doubt at all about whether there is censorship in “Government Hooker.” The censorship of the expletive is clearly explicated in the latter song.

Because of the apparent intentionality, I realized the censorship, particularly of the word “f*ck” fits perfectly within the song’s meaning. The song seems to have several complex meanings, according to this website, but one meaning (that at the time that I am writing this) is not mentioned there explicitly. The song seems to be about government hypocrisy. The government (via the FCC) censors the word “f*ck” as symbolized in the song with the bleeps, yet so many politicians are often found f*cking hookers and mistresses (“I wanna f*ck government hooker”). The hypocrisy continues, as so often, the government figuratively f*cks the people it represents as well as the people it doesn’t represent (“Stop f*cking me government hooker”).

Gaga, nice work, adding at least one layer of thought to your fantastic music. This is yet another of many reasons for why I heart Lady Gaga.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

It’s a Conspiracy!

The TV once told me that people like conspiracies because they are more interesting than reality is. I agree with the TV (I think it was the History channel), and I think there’s more to it than that. I learned many a year ago in an anthropology class that people like to find patterns since it's what our brains were built (by aliens I presume) to do, because without patterns, things like sensory stimuli such as lights and sounds wouldn't make any sense and thus couldn’t become objects and words that we perceive. I think, as this thing from CNN sort of suggests, conspiracies also add more meaning to coincidences, which, again, makes thing more interesting.

With all of that being said, I think one thing is clear: Conspiracies are all just one big conspiracy to distract us from the truth: the TV talks to me and aliens built us for their amusement. Isn’t that more fun than reality?

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Disliked Worlds Collide

Two links have been sitting in a Word document for almost a month, waiting patiently to be turned into a blog posting. Sadly, those two links were forgotten until now, and now they have lost much if not all of their relevance. However, since I’ve been known to post out-dated things, perhaps it is not too late for these links to shine in one of my joyous blog postings. If you read to the end (before and including the update), you might get a relevant and timely surprise!

If this article is not lying, and I don’t believe it is, then The Tonight Show with Jay Leno falsely portrayed the audience response to Sarah Palin when she was a guest on the show. They replaced the audience's silence and sounds of dismay with canned laughter.

It is rather unfortunate that I’m not terribly surprised that Jay Leno and his people would commit such a vile act of falsely representing an audience’s reaction to create the illusion of comedy, love, and admiration in a vacuum of such things to aid a politician. I expect two types of people above most others to be ethical: comedians and scientists. Did you think I was going to say “politicians”? Really? Why would you think such a bizarre thing? I’ve learned not to expect politicians to have ethics or souls; that way, I avoid a lot of disappointment. Anyhoo, Leno’s (or whoever’s decision it was to edit the audience – since Leno’s name is on The Tonight Show, I will hold him responsible) ethical indiscretion is, in my admittedly strange view, on par with those scientists who screwed with the climate change data a few months ago. Scientists and comedians are people we should be able to trust; when either lies, it truly is a sad day.

Fortunately, in a world of lying Lenos, there are also truth-keepers in the form of satirists. Here, Jon Stewart talks about Palin’s Leno appearance, particularly about her crazy claims that Fox News is "fair and balanced."

As if the evil editing to make Sarah Palin appear more loved or less disliked weren’t enough, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno continues to commit evil acts of duplicitous editing today. The "I’m with Coco/Conan O’Brien" Myface (Facebook) fan page posted this article a few days ago, that tells of a brave and heroic Slash wearing an "I’m with Coco" pin that made a forcibly brief appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. It’s not surprising at all that Leno and his people cannot handle dissent. Somehow, if something like that were to happen on pretty much any other talk show, the host would go ahead and make jokes about it, because that’s what funny hosts do. Unfortunately, Jay Leno continues to not be the funny talk show host that I know he could be. Of course, the other talk show hosts I allude to would probably not find themselves in such situations, for most if not all of them would not have done what Leno did.

UPDATE April 11, 2010

These disliked worlds collided s’more on SNL; The Tonight Show with Jay Leno will be featured on The Sarah Palin Network.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Double Standards

Tiger Woods and his wife (Elin Nordegren) have provided a real-life alleged example demonstrating the point that I made in a previous blog posting, when the former appeared to have been scratched and beaten with a golf club by the latter before and/or after an alleged car accident, allegedly resulting from an alleged argument between them regarding Woods’ alleged adulterous affairs. The alleged domestic violence portion of all this was denied by Tiger Woods, and dropped quickly by the Florida Highway Patrol, according to this article from The Examiner.

Ironically, Chris Brown (of all people) actually made a nice point (see the Examiner link above) regarding the double standard in our society that I delineate in my discussion of Pink’s lyrics in the above-mentioned blog posting. Our society seems to be significantly less harsh on female perpetrators of domestic violence than male ones. If this situation were reversed, would an investigation of Tiger Woods’ hypothetical alleged violence toward his wife end so quickly? Would the world be so focused on Elin Nordegren’s hypothetical alleged affairs, or would the world be unwaveringly focused on the domestic violence?

Regarding Woods’ affairs, as I’ve said regarding David Letterman’s affairs, it isn’t our business. It is unquestionably wrong, but it is not our business. If Elin Nordegren did assault Woods, that is the real issue. As immoral and despicable as adultery is, assault, even for the sake of vengeance, is far more immoral and criminal. The infidelity of a celebrity is not our business, particularly when that celebrity has spent his public life protecting his and his family’s privacy. If his wife did assault him, he is a victim; if he were a woman, more people might recognize that, and perhaps the investigation into whether domestic violence occurred might have at least appeared more thorough, or might have taken longer than four days to be completed.

If the situation were reversed, the investigation would not have ended so quickly, and people wouldn’t be so focused on the wife’s hypothetical alleged affairs. The world would be making proclamations of “so what if she had affairs, that doesn’t excuse violence against her.” The same should be true in this alleged situation.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

The Deadly Effects on Humans of Sarah Palin’s Book

While watching this segment from last night’s Daily Show, I realized that the adorable young children to whom John Oliver read excerpts from Sarah Palin’s book (Going Rogue) have clearly been watching David Letterman’s series, “Things More Fun than Reading the Sarah Palin Memoir.”

The children’s examples of things that would be more fun than hearing a reading of Going Rogue closely parallel those of The Late Show with David Letterman. I believe my jocularity regarding the young children’s viewing of The Late Show is obvious. However, the analogous reactions formed by the young children and David Letterman and his writing staff indicates a potentially universal human reaction to Sarah Palin’s memoir – a reaction involving a preference for violent destruction, physical torture, and even suicide over being exposed to the intensely boring torture of Going Rogue.

This clearly elucidates the very obvious fact that Sarah Palin is evil and perhaps even dangerous to all humans, but particularly to young children. Won’t someone please think of the children?! Sarah Palin’s perilous evil is even recognized by the Mayans, who, according to David Letterman, states that their calendar does predict that "the world will end in 2012, but not from floods, earthquakes, or fires,” but rather from the threat of a Sarah Palin presidency.

This brings me to another segment from last night’s Daily Show. Simply put, I agree almost whole-heartedly with Jon Stewart. He presents the belief of the conservative media that we non-conservatives hate Sarah Palin because she is pretty, she hunts, and she’s Alaskan. That is clearly not the case at all. I actually want to like her because she is pretty. I know, that’s wrong, it’s anti-feminist, etc, but it’s just how I feel. Also, she looks a bit like my mother, whom I love like my own mother (probably because she is my own mother), so that’s actually another reason I want to like Sarah Palin. I don’t particularly like her hunting, it seems wrong, especially when she hunts from a helicopter. But I can’t really hate someone who eats what they hunt, for as a non-vegetarian, I’m one step away from doing that as well, though I could never kill anything directly…I mean, except for spiders and some other insects. Regarding her Alaskan origins, I certainly don’t hate her because she lives in Alaska – that’s ridiculous. The only reason I might hate Alaskans is that they elected Sarah Palin governor. Other than that, I don’t have any problem with Alaskans. I mean, it’s not like they’re New Jerseyans. Anyway, I can forgive the Alaskans for electing her since she resigned as their governor so she could write her memoirs.

So, no, I don’t hate her for those superficial reasons as conservative news people from the land of Fox News might like to believe. Rather, I hate her for, as Jon Stewart says, her emptiness, her non-substantiveness, “the nothing…a conservative boiler plate mad-lib…delivered as though it were the hard-earned wisdom of a life well lived…It’s…the boasting about [her] straight-shootin’, when [she’s] not straight shootin’, [she’s] just a talking point machine.”

But I also hate her on those occasions where she does have some degree of substance. I hate her for her overly conservative political beliefs. I have no problem at all with people believing things that differ from what I believe, of course, but I do have a problem with people who feel they should impose those beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, on the rest of the world. That is precisely what Sarah Palin wants to do. Things like forcing her pro-life perspective on women who should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies and abstinence-only sex education – these are some of the reasons I hate Sarah Palin.

Another reason I hate Sarah Palin is discussed in this segment from last night’s Colbert Report. In Going Rogue, Sarah Palin does not take responsibility for anything; she blames others for anything that goes wrong. Additionally, Going Rogue is factually flawed, and she can’t even accept responsibility for that; it’s not her fault, it’s the fault of the fact-checkers who dare to bring her false facts to light.

I hope that reading this blog has been more fun than reading Sarah Palin’s book.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Evolving Perceptions of Lady Gaga

My hatred of Lady Gaga (whose real name is Stefani Germanotta) was immediate, from the moment she entered my consciousness. She is just a wannabe Christina Aguilera (whom I love, and whose talent is unquestionable; if there was ever any doubt regarding Christina’s talent, her impromptu a cappella performance of “Beautiful” on Saturday Night Live very clearly elucidates her talent), I thought, as I’m sure many people did. So, as I mention in my previous blog posting, I hated Lady Gaga for what I thought was: an obvious lack of originality. I thought she was a derivative and therefore fake pop singer who, beyond her lack, of originality, appeared to lack talent. Another Paris Hilton-like pop quasi-singer, manufactured to sound decent.

I was informed at some point that according to Perez Hilton, Lady Gaga is, in fact, original. Apparently, he provides evidence that Lady Gaga’s fashion precedes Christina’s, so, assuming he is correct (which I do), Lady Gaga is original and therefore is not fake. Yet I continued to hate her, despite the elimination of my perception of her as a wannabe Christina.

Her music itself didn’t anger me quite so much; I kind of like “Just Dance,” though I couldn’t listen to the whole song since it just got annoying. I did (and continue to) like “Poker Face,” but I hated (and continue to hate) “LoveGame.” I also continued to hate her.

My hatred began to change when I saw the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, where Lady Gaga performed “Paparazzi.” Until then, I hadn’t heard the song at all; I occasionally reside under a rock where I somehow manage to (usually inadvertently) avoid any exposure to new music or celebrity and newsly goings on. As I watched the very dramatic performance, I found myself…enjoying it…a lot. This came as quite a shock to me. The song was fantastic. More notably, it became clear that she actually does sing, and her voice is kind of good and unique in that its distinctiveness makes the Lady-Gaga-ness unmistakably recognizable. In addition to her singing talent, I noticed she plays the piano as well. I had seen her perform “Poker Face” on American Idol where it was evident that she actually sings and also plays the piano, but somehow her talent didn’t strike me then; my hatred at the time was too strong because I hadn’t yet learned of her originality and so I still thought she was a wannabe Christina at the time. But at the VMAs, the song and her talent struck me, and I began to realize that she is not only original in her fashions, but she seems to have some real talent too. My hatred was dissolving, and I was beginning to like her.

My hatred further dissolved as I watched her further demonstrate her talent on SNL, where in her second performance of a medley of her songs, she appeared to improvise on the piano and with the singing. I was impressed. I didn’t see the whole episode at the time, so I had missed her talent-displaying performance of "Paparazzi" as well as her rather funny appearance in this funny sketch. Apparently she has comedic talent as well as musical talent.

Then, a few weeks ago, I heard somewhere (probably on MTV or VH1) that Lady Gaga had spoken and performed at a Human Rights Campaign dinner, and then participated in the National Equality March on the mall in Washington DC, and that she had stated that it was the most important thing she has ever done in her career. Upon hearing this, very much to my surprise, I thought to myself “I love Lady Gaga, she is awesome.” I am a huge fan of equality and of not discriminating, and also of GLBT people and their rights, so it truly warmed my heart to hear that Lady Gaga shares my love for the gays. My perception of Lady Gaga was fully transformed. My initial hate-filled perceptions were based on misconceptions. She is a talented performer, and a kind-hearted person.

Since antipathy had turned to admiration and fanliness (if it hasn’t become obvious, I like to make up words), I became interested in how far her talent goes. Apparently, before releasing her own album (for which she wrote most of the music and lyrics), she had been writing songs for other singers. More interestingly, her talent seems to be quite a natural one; she learned to play the piano by ear when she was four years old, and has been writing music since she was 13. She is vastly more talented than I had thought, and is the antithesis of the Paris-Hilton-esque quasi-singer that I thought she was.

Since I now love her, I find that I like her music more than I had. However, I still hate “LoveGame,” both the song and the video, but that could just be because I’m not much of a fan of pornography.

UPDATE December 24, 2009
Since writing this blog posting, my love for Lady Gaga has grown. Since then, I've seen her in a few interviews on the TV, where she appears to be a genuinely kind and sweet human being who loves her fans and always remains true to herself. Additionally, "Bad Romance" in particular and The Fame Monster as a whole are fantastically good. Shockingly, "LoveGame" has grown on me, and now I kind of like the song, though I continue to not like the video.

I heart Lady Gaga.

UPDATE February 1, 2010
As if I didn’t already love Lady Gaga enough, she just keeps making me love her more. She kindly donated proceeds from a concert and from merchandise to Haiti earthquake relief efforts. I know a lot of celebrities do things like that, and I love every one of them.

Lady Gaga’s sweet, genuine kindness pours from her in interviews, including Oprah’s interview, where Gaga said about her fans, “I want them to free themselves, and I want them to be proud of who they are. I want them to celebrate all the things they don't like about themselves the way that I did, and to be truly happy from the inside.” She said something similar to that (somewhere, possibly also on Oprah) about the meaning behind “Bad Romance.” She explained that the song is about loving someone for everything he or she is, for all the good, all the bad, and all the things the person doesn’t like about him or herself. She spoke as though these are the things she wants, and, therefore, she read my mind…I think that might just be what every human wants, and she captures that perfectly.

If you missed her amazing performance with Elton John at the 52nd Grammy Awards last night, you should watch it right now – it’s fantastic. I was very happy to learn that she won two Grammys last night (during the un-televised portion) for “Poker Face” and The Fame. I love her so much.

I think a big part of what makes me love Lady Gaga is that she seems to have always felt like a freak and an outsider, and she makes such an effort to keep other people from feeling that way, or from feeling bad about being a freak or an outsider. I imagine most people (myself definitely included) have felt like freaks and like outsiders in some way, and Lady Gaga makes us realize we’re not alone. She is a wonderful human being.

UPDATE: May 23, 2011
The TV, or more specifically, the Fuse, has explained that what I called pornographic in the LoveGame video was an homage to Michael Jackson's "Bad" video.  I guess that makes it less gross, but still...ew.  In Gaga's defense, I think it's gross in the "Bad" video too.  I suppose I'm just too prudish.

Fox News Creates Britney Controversy (EXPLICIT LANGUAGE)

(Originally written as an email on March 29, 2009)

The following contains explicit and/or suggestive language, references to illegal drugs, and may contain animated nudity. Viewer discretion is advised.

I think this is funny....You know that Britney Spears song "If U Seek Amy"? I learned yesterday from the VH1 Top 20 and from Fox News that it's meant to be "IF u see ka(y) me" --> "F * C K Me." (That’s right -- I’m censoring the explicit language even though I warned you about it.)

It's rather funny that Fox News brought my attention to this, because I certainly wouldn't have noticed and when they did bring it to my attention, I had to think about it to get it. The people on Fox News didn't notice it either until it was brought to their attention, and they also had to think about it to get it.

If it takes these presumably intelligent adults on the TV and a slowly sharp-witted linguistics major like myself so much effort and attention-bringing to get it, why would they think innocent kids will get it? They actually say on there that kids are more savvy and will get it...I feel like that's not true, I think the innocent kids and innocent teens wouldn't get it, but the slutty teenagers who are already screwing each other or the kids who are already familiar with the cursed and evil f-word might get it, maybe.

I think it's pretty stupid for them to bring so much attention to it, since they're defeating their own purpose really. Furthermore, I think it's stupid to complain about this song's cryptically and barely verbalized explicit language rather than its slutty messages -- I mean, if they're going to complain about something.

Also, if they are complaining about the slutty messages, then they should complain about countless other things too -- things that are a lot more explicit than that -- because those are a lot less cryptic. It's also funny how they don't even mention what I think is an explicit drug reference, where Britney sings, "Is she smoking up outside?" Doesn't "smoking up" refer specifically to smoking the weed? In my day it did. That seems a lot more wrong to me.

Regarding my not getting of the F-*-C-K Me thing, I did actually sense that there was something sexual in the phrase "if you seek Amy," I just couldn't figure out what it was. I definitely noticed the weird/wrong grammar of "All of the boys and all of the girls are begging to if you seek Amy."

It really is pretty funny, once you get what she's saying, particularly the whole big section where she says "If you seek Amy tonight" repeatedly.

Anyhoo, I really don’t think kids would get it, and if they do get what the word is, I think there are far worse things they could hear. Regardless, I think it’s a great song.

While on the topic of music and lyrics, but otherwise completely unrelated, I think that Katy Perry and the man from Hinder should marry each other....They both sing about still being in love with an ex when they're with someone new ("Thinking of You" and "Lips of an Angel").

I hope you're not disappointed in the lack of animated nudity...I said this "may" contain it, like the disclaimers all the fox cartoons had for a while after that whole brouhaha Janet Jackson’s booby caused.

(On April 16, 2009, I wrote another related email)

Omfg! I f'ing heard “If U Seek Amy” on the (FM/terrestrial) radio, and they f'ing bleeped the "If U Seek Amy" part!!! Holy mother-f'ing sh*t, how the f are they bleeping the cryptically encoded cursing, but not bleeping the very obvious and clear drug reference, "Is she smoking up outside"?! That is so f'ing f'd up!

So it's wrong to publicly broadcast a barely understandable curse word, but it's perfectly okay to make smoking weed sound cool? I mean, the whole song is overtly and non-cryptically about how awesome Amy is, and the song suggests that Amy smokes weed, so obviously it's really cool to smoke the marijuana. You know that's how stupid kids (and stupid adults) will think. (Yes, I am suggesting that people who think it’s cool to do drugs are stupid.)

Furthermore, how the h*ll is it okay for that Christina wannabe Lady Gaga to sing (in "Just Dance") all about being so drunk on red wine that she doesn't know where she is or how her shirt got turned inside out? So the FCC apparently thinks it's good to encourage stupid kids to smoke the weed and get drunk enough to be date raped, right? But it's not okay to creatively and cryptically spell a profane word, so cryptically in fact, that reasonably intelligent adults don't get it even when it's brought to our attention, because even then we have to really think about it to get it. Britney is essentially censoring herself; it’s excessive for the radio to further censor her. Ironically, bleeping it really just draws attention to the profanity; it draws as much attention as Fox News complaining about it does.

Grr, this makes me so angry. I should smoke weed and get drunk and then tell people to if you seek Amy, because that's what the radio told me to do, and Britney, Amy, and Wannabe Christina are cool and I want to be just like them.

F*ck!

[It should be noted: I have never, nor will I ever part-take in any illegal drug use.]

[Please see my next blog posting about Lady Gaga and why I was wrong about her regarding my statements implying that she is a wannabe Christina Aguilera.]