Reducto Absurdum

Politics For Breakfast: Noam Chomsky on John Dewey, interviewed May 28, 2003, Stony Brook University:

Sun, 27 May 2012 00:25:05 -0400

Politics For Breakfast: Noam Chomsky on John Dewey, interviewed May 28, 2003, Stony Brook University::

Interviewer: We only have just a minute left, unfortunately, but one of the quotes that you refer to is John Dewey in your miseducation book and I’ll just read it: “The ultimate aim of production is not production of goods, but the production of free human beings associated with one another on…

The Cult of Limbaugh

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:37:00 -0400

There is a crisis in our country today which threatens to harm the single largest group—women. If anything has been learned from radio pundit Rush Limbaugh’s recent verbal assault on woman, it is that this nation’s media is fervently against female advancement. It seems as if Mr. Limbaugh cannot accept the fact that women, in today’s society, have every right to view themselves as equals to men. Instead, the hypocritical, ill-informed pundit believes that men are somehow above women—as if men get the final word on what is right and what is wrong. The crux of this matter, of course, is something much larger than just a media incident involving a prescription drug addict and his widely popular radio show—predicated upon barbarism and ignorance ; rather, the essential problem is the media’s double-standard. Somehow, this nation’s most powerful news channels, radio stations, and newspapers have deemed it appropriate for a promiscuous man to be congratulated and crowned a hero, but a woman of the same persuasion called a “slut”.

It is not difficult to understand the clear sexism that exists in our media today, despite the apparent pledge to protect woman’s rights by many networks. Woman are chiefly used as eye-candy on many news networks, Fox News being the prime example, where many of the week-end news anchors are former Miss America Pageant winners. Such examples of using woman as mere objects to attract viewers is by far the most immediate problem in today’s media. Rather than being challenged to degrade woman in the most crude ways possible—such as Mr. Limbaugh has done—the media should be urged to showcase the ability and achievement of woman. Much like the films of director Pedro Almodovar, the media should portray woman as strong, independent, capable people who have the ability to do great things. Indeed, some may write such as challenge off as silly, unimportant, or “feminist”, but those people are simply following in Limbaugh’s footsteps. Too often the term “feminist” is used to describe radicals, fanatics who make it seem as if woman are out to get men. A closer examination of the real problems—the verbal abuse and objectification of women—will yield a much wiser view on the status of woman.

Indeed, the problem of the media’s double-standard and its unrelenting objectification of woman is deeply ingrained into American culture. A recent statistic from Time tells us that woman only earned 77 cents on the male dollar as recent as 2008(See “Why Do Woman Still Earn Less than Men”).This great disparity reflects a very tangible example of the inequality between men and woman. While I refuse to agree with the extremist demands of some of today’s radical feminists, I do believe that the United States must address this issue with great care. Radicals have soured what is in reality a good principle : the empowerment of woman. But the media, largely controlled by men—names like Ailes, Turner, and Murdoch—continues to wage a war against the female population. If the United States truly wishes to be the greatest nation in the world, it must start by rethinking the way in which it views one of its most extraordinary majorities. It is time to not only revel at the great “founding fathers” of this nation, but also their female counterparts who were largely unacknowledged.

Steven P. Rodriguez

April 2012

"Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even..."

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:30:11 -0500

“Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat. He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid: and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed—love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.”

- William Faulkner, Nobel Prize for Literature Speech

Why Applying to College Sucks

Tue, 01 Nov 2011 00:10:13 -0400

As winter creeps upon us(Snow in October?), I finally feel a great sense of relief. A process that took me a great number of weeks has finally ended: I have officially applied to college. Indeed, many people still feel anxious, nervous, and just plain sick even after their apps have been submitted. They will sit, waiting for that letter to arrive telling that they have gotten in to the school of their dreams. Or, more likely, they will pace around in circles until they feel sick, repeatedly going through mental scenarios in their head, trying to figure out the much feared “worst case scenario”. Normally, it goes something like this:

“There’s no way I’m getting in. I’m not even that smart. There’s no point.”

A few moments later

“Well, it’s ok. I can just got to community college if I don’t get in…those schools let everyone in. I’ll just transfer after I go there for a year or two. Everything will be fine.”

So, it’s not hard to see how silly all of these thoughts are when they are written out like I have done above. The thoughts that creep around in our head are usually pretty insane—like super nutty. But we fail to question them when we are in a state of complete panic. It’s as if the logical part of our minds just shut themselves down in the face of what we consider to be a “major crisis”. Whatever the case may be, this type of thinking is dangerous. I can say through both personal experience, and through direction observation of my close friends, that getting stressed out only leads to the inevitable nervous breakdown. In one of my previous scribbling here on the site, I believe I talked about how we always seem to be teetering on the edge of a nervous breakdown. In some ways, this can be a great tool for motivation, but it can manifest into something very debilitating when you take it to the extreme. I survived the college application process through exploring my own personal philosophy, reading books about people having similar apprehensions, and a good amount of unadulterated panic attacks. It was not until after I submitted my apps that I developed the foresight to see just how silly I had been acting. Emotions are strange things sometimes.

Now that I’ve applied, I sometimes ask myself, “What’s next?”. It’s a valid question. After all, there is a very distinct possibility that I won’t get into my top choice school, or even my second choice school. What happens then? Well, I’ve come to realize that these questions accomplish nothing besides make me want to pie myself in the face. The only thing that I can do is believe that not getting into a top choice school is not the end of the world, as it were. Being sucked into the mass hysteria that seems to define any high school senior is silly and without purpose. I like to think of the opening lines of howl when I picture the madness of my peers: “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked”. In this case, the madness is applying to college. All of this seems to leads us to one other question: What causes all of this hysteria around applying to college?

If I were to answer this question honestly, I’m afraid I would get a lot of flak for not being politically correct. My honest answer—which I will be so bold as to put down in writing—is that smug, anal retentive parents make this process hell. While they are not the sole cause of this stress, parents who want to relive their childhood vicariously through their children are the chief source of problems. Many of us would like to believe that such is not the case, but I’m afraid it is the truth. Parents want their children to be better than their friend’s children. It’s pure competition. Wars are going on in Suburbia—a form of warfare in which parents try to inflate their ego through the academic success of their offspring. (This all sounds rather cynical, but I’m afraid you must admit that there is at least some truth in it.)

` To be fair, there are also a number of other factors that contribute to the mass hysteria that surrounds applying to college. For instance, many students feel the need to elevate their peer’s level of stress by incessantly talking about every aspect of college. Every social function becomes a place to talk about the common app, tuition, prestige, or SAT scores. One starts to feel sick after this constant discussion which, in reality, is anxiety couched in egomania. It’s almost as if some terrible sickness begins to spread, catching nearly every student applying to college. But indeed, we manage to deal with it. To be polite and genial it is necessary to listen to everyone moan and groan about their college application process. We are expected to empathize and be nothing but polite. It’s a tough life we all live—the horror of applying to college. The abominable first-world problems we all must face every single day. When will this madness end?

We know we have lost it when we begin to think like this.

The Catharsis of Writing

Tue, 02 Aug 2011 01:25:00 -0400

There were many times over these past few weeks when I realized I hadn’t written anything in quite some time. I suppose being too wrapped up in my own personal affairs and “busy” lifestyle had me give up on writing for a while. Yet, each period in which I have ceased this activity has been filled with mostly bleak days without that wonderful satisfaction one gets after completing a paragraph, or finishing a lengthy diatribe. The rhythm of sentences, commas, semicolons, and all other elements of grammar/punctuation—not to discount the personal favorite em dash—had become a pleasant memory, but were no longer part of the daily routine. For the first time in my life, I began to understand what it felt like to come home from work too tired to write about the miserable day. I had forgotten how cathartic this medium truly is; writing seems to be as human as eating, breathing, sleeping, and all other biological functions. I’m not sure if this is true for all people, but I’ve found that writing allows be to get a better perspective on just about everything. And yes, this is just about the most pretentious essay ever written on this tumblr. It’s a smug satisfaction I suppose.

Even thought I have probably damaged my credibility with the flowery and highly idealistic prose above, I still believe that writing—in the simplest sense—helps us get over the fact that life often sucks. Words provide a direct channel for us to communicate our emotions. The written word allows this process to be even more intimate and direct. At the moment, I am in the midst of many things, some troubling, and some unbelievably wonderful. The challenge seems to be balancing these two sets of things out; thinking about what sucks when you should be having fun does not fare well. So, with this short message, I return to this tumblr once more for an ongoing experiment: A quest to see whether or not writing can actually improve one’s daily life. Natalie Goldberg seems to think so…

Surviving "Hell Week"

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 09:03:00 -0400

I don’t think I ever really knew what it was like to be “busy” until this past week. Typically, I would hear this term, think for a moment, and then assume that whoever was saying that they were “so busy”, was probably just exaggerating. I still stand by this belief for some people who like to moan about having a lot of work, but more and more I’m starting to realize that people really are “busy”. For a Junior in high school, most of the year is filled with testing ad infinitum: SAT’s during the spring, AP exams in May, and for some SAT II’s in June. I typically don’t think it very fair to compare our academic plight to any historical group, but I would say that students today have it rough—although we have food, shelter, and don’t need to wait on bread lines. Indeed, I often need to stop for a few moments to realize how well-off the greater North Jersey area is.

Nonetheless, I am one of those unexceptional students who does not deal with a large amount of work well. The panic mechanism tends to kick in, the Apocalypse seems near, and everything becomes murky and uncertain. There is an infantile instinct that exists which causes me to forget everything I have been taught over my long academic, and instead intellectually curl up into the fetal position. This is why I tend to write extremely mediocre essays on any sort of standardized exam. When it comes to mathematics, I seem to forget some of the most basic principles ; the calculator becomes my brain while my bean rests in a vegetable-like state. Yet, I will then proceed to go home and do some scribbling of my own which tends to be infinitely better than the one I composed on the exam. It is for the reasons presented above that I dread any sort of standardized exam. They lack character, and feel terribly Orwellian in nature. In fact, the word “standardized” seems to be almost offensive on its own. But, I do take some solace in the fact that in the grand scheme of things, the ability to actually write meaningful pieces, and not automaton cookie-cutter essays, will help me tremendously.

But honest, I don’t like to complain about too much work.

The chief reason I feel terrible complaining about work is that it makes me feel weak and terribly inept . I am surrounded—in most situations— by an exceptional group of very hard working individuals who have enough honor to be jovial even when they are on the verge of collapse due to a heavy work load. In general, I try to hold myself to a higher standard whenever possible. This seems to be a good policy, as it has helped me advance over the years. I find that some of the finest work is produced when people have way too much on their plates. This goes against the myth that seems to exist in our heads which says that if we had more free time, then we would be able to finally do X, or write Y. Stress can, in some cases, be a great creative influence. At other times it can be the catalyst to a nervous break down. You know that you’re doing good work when 1) you’re on the verge of a nervous breakdown, and 2) you’re scared that you are about to fail miserably. Not very comforting, but it’s the god’s honest truth.

So, I suppose this little piece marks my return to writing for a while. The notion that the written word, and the composition of it, allows for a cathartic experience is very true. I feel infinitely better now that I was able to sit down and string some words together.Natalie Goldberg is correct in her book Writing Down The Bones when she says that it is necessary to write everyday—no matter how crumby the composition comes out to be. Just as a small aside, I highly recommend that anyone reading this run out and buy a copy of Writing Down The Bones. It is one of the best books on writing in existence, with exception to Stephen King’s excellent On Writing.

And as one last note, I must take a moment to thank Merlin Mann of 43 Folders for giving an excellent talk on being scared shitless. My week would have been hell without his humor and reassurance:

“Scared Shitless”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk0hSeQ5s_k

So I guess this is what happens when you get a really mediocre...

Sun, 03 Apr 2011 07:22:35 -0400

So I guess this is what happens when you get a really mediocre SAT score.

Photo

Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:46:32 -0400

A Tale of Ignorance & Deceit: Thoughts and Commentary on the Board's Decision to Terminate the University Program

Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:47:00 -0500

A little less than a week ago, the local Board of Education decided that three specialized programs—IT, Communications, and Theatre Arts—were no longer worth keeping around. *They justified this decision by asserting that the enrollment numbers in the programs did not sufficiently meet what the the Board considered acceptable. Students currently enrolled in the programs have been assured that they will be able to finish out what they initially signed up for, but there will be no incoming class. The University Programs for Theatre Arts & Communications + IT are being decommissioned.

In the paragraph above, I gave the facts regarding the situation. Now, I will try to give some perspective and attempt to show how this unwise decision by the Board of Education will ultimately be detrimental to the district’s reputation, the students, as well as teachers. All throughout this analysis I will intersperse some important past history regarding the program as well as the progression of the Board’s decision. The first problem with this entire situation is that it very clearly breaks a promise made by the Board to the students and teachers of the University Program:

In an open letter to the University Program community, Castor and board members Belsky, Sadie Quinlan and President Wayne Peterson indicated that it will revive its proposal should the targeted programs fail to meet specific benchmarks by Aug. 15, 2011: 18 incoming students enrolled in any of the programs or 60 total students in each program, including the members of the Class of 2015.

(“Enrollment Crucial to Future of University Programs”, Wyckoff Patch, Sept. 28, 2010)

The quote above—concerning the Aug. 15 deadline—appeared in an open letter posted on the RHS website, which was presumedly written to appease opponents of the Board. I must now pause and give credit to my good friend Brendan Neal, whose keen eyes were the first to catch this vitally important “breech of contract”, as he has phrased it. Whether this is a legitimate, binding legal contract is something for a lawyer to decide, but what seems clear is that the Board looks quite bad breaking their initial promise. Parents and students ought to be outraged that Board members would be so quick to break a very simple commitment. More and more, it seems like the Board had their decision made months in advance—as if the open letter was nothing more than a phony PR document. It is difficult to have respect for a body that cannot even stick to commitments agreed upon in a highly publicized “open letter”. Looking at the actual language of the letter, it seems very clear that the Board tried to manipulate parents by making it seem as if the entire controversy was a mere misunderstanding:

The Committee members believe that it is unfortunate that our recommendation has been misunderstood by some members of the UP community. Our recommendation does not derive from any disregard for the value of the three programs in question nor from any sense that these programs are less important than the other three UP programs, Science, Medicine & Research; Engineering & Design; and International Studies & Business. Rather, our recommendation emanates solely from our responsibilities to the District community as a whole. We understand that one of the primary roles of the Board is to make choices among competing interests. This requires that we evaluate these interests for the best outcome for the entire community.

(Board of Education “Open Letter” )

A simple and acceptable level of semantical interpretation shows that the Board wants to make it seem as if they are the victim in this situation. The Board claims that their decision does not mean to disrespect the programs themselves, but simply tries to ensure that the needs of all students are met. I find it hard to believe this when the Board presented no solution to remedy the program’s to low enrollment numbers, but rather decided that the only option was to end it. If the body did in fact care about the programs themselves, it only seems logical that they would meet with teachers, parents, and students to figure out how enrollment numbers could be increased. But once again, the Board runs the school much like a Board of Investors in a large corporation. To a person like Ira Belsky, students are emotionless automatons who have only one purpose: to earn high scores on state standardized tests.

From a more personal perspective, the termination of the Theatre Arts & Communications University Program at Ramapo is not only insulting to students, parents, and teachers—as they are beginning to feel increasingly marginalized—but also to the work of a passionate and dedicated man named Harry K. Berkheiser. I did not have the honor of meeting Mr. Berkheiser before he passed away some years ago, but I have heard countless stories and pleasant tales about the man. All of these memories discuss how passionate and dedicated the man was. He was the true mastermind behind the incredibly unique Theatre Arts & Communications University Program. It was thanks to his work that Ramapo became known throughout the region for its unmatched program. In fact, if it was not for Mr. Berkheiser’s work, it seems safe to say that many Ramapo alumni who graduated from the University Program would have never gotten the jobs they currently have. Indeed, many graduates of the Communications University Program eagerly correspond with past teachers, highlighting the importance of the skills acquired from their time as students. Yet, the Board seems to disregard the work of this compassionate man. They would much rather write it off as too costly, and affectively stomp all over his legacy. For this, Board members should feel awful.

Another disturbing element of the Board’s decision to terminate the program’s is the very clear lack of planning as to how the programs will be slowly dismantled. Superintendent Dr. C. Lauren Schoen has been less the helpful in answering even the most basic of questions. It is almost disturbing to think that the Board would end the programs without establishing a clear plan of future action. When asked about the particulars of the presumed open UP electives, Schoen simply responded with a typical “Well, that’s a good question. I’ll look into that.”, type response. Let me make it clear that such a response is in no way appropriate given the circumstances. Teachers, parents, and students should be getting highly detailed information as to how the programs will proceed. So far, the only thing that is certain is that current UP students will be able to finish their program as promised ; however, other details are still up in the air. In a very general sense, the Board neglected their due diligence by failing to outline a plan as to how things should proceed. At this point, I certainly hope the reader is asking him or herself one very important question: What is the point of a “Board of Education” when it fails to fulfill even the most basic of obligations? This question has been baffling me since I attended the much publicized September 27 meeting of the Board some months ago. At the meeting, numerous parents and students(myself included) spoke out against the Board’s rash decision. Yet, member’s like Ira Belsky simply sat with blank expressions, fidgeting with pens and paper, wondering if he could shut opposers up by ignoring them. It is very disturbing to think that our schools are managed by executives who only comprehend entries on a spreadsheet, and have no understanding of students. In a sense, they have become so desensitized and bored by their humdrum life, that they can no longer respond to emotional stimulus. All of this is highly disturbing to someone who cares.

Additionally, the Board had failed to investigate the possible consequences of opening up the former University Program as ordinary electives.With thousands of dollars worth of specialized equipment, it seems logical to assume that students without proper training would cause considerable damage by mere accident, or perhaps due to horseplay. Members of the Communications University Program were required to undergo extensive training regarding safe operation of the equipment. Even with this training, equipment would occasionally get damaged due to an accident. Untrained students wandering into the Television studio, or into the Editing Suite, are bound to have many more accidents. Logic tells us that the number of accidents—and in turn damage—occurring will increase considerably with students who lack the proper pre-requisites. Furthermore, the high standards of excellency and rigor that made the program so well respected will decline. Open electives inevitably tend to attract a less dedicated crowd. Some students might see “Broadcasting Studies” on a list of electives and choose it because they expect it to be very little work—a quick and easy “A”. The overall sense of community that has been so essential to the Theatre Arts & Communications programs at Ramapo will most certainly be destroyed. Arbitrarily scheduled elective classes will not allow for a “family” feel that has been essential to the operation of the programs. The very notation of a cumulative curriculum—one that builds on each year’s experience—will be terminated in favor of a non-linear series of electives. All of these reasons highlight the negative implications of dismantling the Communications & Theatre Arts University Programs, but the Board has never once voiced any concern about the issues outlined above.

Throughout this entire process, it seems that the students have gotten the short end of the stick. Speaking for my fellow classmates, I can affirm that we have be repeatedly ignored by the Board of Education. At no point were students asked, or even confronted, regarding their opinion of the Board’s decision. Information was hidden from students in an attempt to hamper any chance of mass opposition. Indeed, the Board was clever in how they executed the diabolical process. This is why the September 27 meeting was such a breath of fresh air ; students joined together to oppose the Board, despite their efforts to quiet any such opposition. Even Ira Belsky must acknowledge the extreme dedication showcased by students who voiced their opinions to the Board. Granted, many of these suggestions and opinions were flat out ignored, as students preached to deaf ears, but they were nonetheless honorable. I would go so far as to say that the Board should send a personalized letter out to students who fought to oppose the Board’s decision. After all, one of the main goals of the public school system is to turn students into outstanding members of their communities—to be informed and responsible individuals. From what I can gather, the passionate opposition among students demonstrated all of these qualities. But it is a pity that Ira Belsky, Wayne Peterson, Jane Castor, Jeff Brown, Dr. Lynn Budd, Thomas Bunting, Robert Gebhard, Elizabeth Pierce,and Sadie Quinlan simply do not care. They are happy with their Excel spreadsheets and would much rather go on assuming that students are mere widgets without any capacity for emotion or contrarian thought. Perhaps it is time that we review the actions of the Board and elect passionate people who actually care, rather than numb, depressing executives.

* At no point did the Board of Education produce a document that set guidelines for minimum enrollment numbers. Therefore, one can assume that the numbers were decided upon after the fact, as a way of adding to the Board’s crusade.

A Practical Appreciation of Theatre

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:53:00 -0500

A lot of people I talk to squawk at the fact that I enjoy theatre. It’s not an uncommon thing to encounter someone who views theatre as a meaningless, and perhaps boring endeavor. Most people of my ilk—those who act or assist in production—take great offense to harsh views like these. Indeed, it is very understandable that an actor—a person who takes the craft very seriously—would be put off by statements bashing their art. However, many simply fight with the unappreciative ignoramus, rather than try to reason with them. I suppose that I am somewhat of a recovering “theatre ignoramus” ; that is, I understand what drives people to regard theatre as a waistless activity. Also, I still struggle to regard myself as a competent actor, which is why I view myself as an outsider looking in, rather than a skilled participant.

Having acted in 3 high school theatre productions, I learned to appreciate the arts, and gained valuable understanding as to how a production operates. What seems to be the most overlooked aspect of theatre is the incredible camaraderie. During the course of a production, an actor will inevitably become very good friends with fellow actors. In fact, these friendships made during productions will many a times develop into romantic relationships. Yet, all of this is not considered by those who ignorantly say that theatre is meaningless and stupid. I must take a moment of acknowledge an oversight of my own, which deals with a similar sort of ignorance in regards to sports. For nearly my entire life, I have viewed sports as the byproduct of unhealthy levels of testosterone. This belief, I agree, is very silly. It was not until very recently, however, that I realized that sports were also an amazing place for comradeship. Just as in theatre, sports also allow for a sort of “family” feeling with fellow teammates. Without such strong relationships, teams sports would surely crumble. Unity is something shared by both theatre and sports. Finally realizing this key similarity is what allowed me to realize that sports people and theatre people are not so different. So, the next time someone comes up to you and says “Theatre is gay!” or “Theatre is pointless”, do not retort with a equally as hurtful comment, but instead take a moment to educate the person. Tell them about the simalarity between sports and theatre. That is all.

The NPR Debacle: Rep. Lamborn and Cantor Promote Their Own Agenda Through H.R. 68 & 69

Sat, 08 Jan 2011 16:22:00 -0500

In Washington, a slimy Republican representative named Doug Lamborn from Colorado is using legislation to push his own partisan agenda. United States House of Representatives bill H.R.68 “To amend the communications Act of 1934 to Prohibit Federal Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 2013” is a dishonest attempt to cripple one of the country’s most sane news organizations, National Public Radio. To understand the severity of this, it is important to note that NPR is partially funded from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as from the U.S. Government indirectly. Yet another piece of legislation— as if H.R.68. were not bad enough—is being proposed by the same Doug Lamborn. A complimentary bill, H.R. 69 aims to “prohibit Federal funding to certain public radio programming…” In other words, this second bill targets NPR directly.

Perhaps the worst element of all of this is the hidden agenda behind these two crippling pieces of legislation. Let me explain: A few months back, Juan Williams, a long time NPR news analyst, was abruptly fired from NPR after saying some rather insensitive comments about Muslims. One could debate ad nauseam whether NPR’s chief executive Ellen Weiss should have given Williams the boot (the author of this piece thinks termination was a bad choice), but that is a moot point. I must make it clear that the linking of this controversial firing and Representative Lamborn’s anti-NPR legislation is a conjecture, but very likely. My chief bone of contention with these two pieces of legislation is that they are justified with the tired and somewhat disingenuous Republican claim to reduce the deficit. This is clear through a report in 5280, a Denver-based magazine:

Lamborn claims the proposal is not political, but rather about reining in the nation’s $14 trillion debt: “We simply cannot afford to subsidize NPR, or any other organization that is not doing an essential government service. The government must learn to live within its means”

(http://www.5280.com/blogs/2011/01/07/doug-lamborns-effort-de-fund-public-radio-and-tv-resurfaces)

To further support my argument that Lamborn’s legislation is nothing more than a vehicle to promote his own personal agenda—to kill the last remaining bastion of sane news analysis and commentary—I will present extracts from a transcript of a U.S. House of Representatives session that took place on November 18, 2010, which was broadcast on C-SPAN. The two pieces of legislation, in a House with a Republican majority, fall under an idiotic program called “YouCut”. Representative Eric Cantor (R) of Virginia took the House floor and launched into speech about how Americans have spoken “decisively and sent an undeniable message to Washington to end wasteful spending.” To truly appreciate the stupidity of this dunce, one needs to look at the screen shot below. In the House session, Representative Cantor insisted on carrying around a terribly idiotic poster, as if he was presenting at a 6^th grade science fair. The poster is decorated in a highly patriotic style with Uncle Sam’s iconic face serving as the logo. This alone should be enough to make any intelligent viewer realize how silly this Republican YouCut program has become.

Unlike Lamborn, who claims that that the two pieces of legislation (H.R. 68 & 69) are not being proposed to promote any personal agenda or in spite of NPR’s firing of Juan Williams, Cantor seems to be much more direct. As the transcript below shows, he does in fact link this legislation directly to NPR’s supposed bias, apparently revealed after the termination of Williams from the organization:

This week’s winning item, Madam Speaker, is a proposal developed by the gentleman from Colorado, Representative Doug Lamborn. This proposal would eliminate taxpayer funding for National Public Radio. When executives at NPR decided to unfairly terminate Juan Williams for expressing his opinion and to then disparage him afterwards, the bias of the organization was exposed.

(Rep. Eric Cantor, Nov. 18, 2010)

So it seems that Cantor has now changed the argument. * Initially, he claimed that citizens had “mandated” Washington to end the reckless spending, but it seems he is more concerned with the firing of Williams than anything else. Maybe it would help to examine the YouCut website, which is where you can find Cantor’s mug in a very satisfying video explaining the program. The program is described in a VERY exciting manner: “YouCut – a first-of-its-kind project - is designed to defeat the permissive culture of runaway spending in Congress. It allows you to vote, both online and on your cell phone, on spending cuts that you want to see the House enact.” That all sounds fantastic, but let us now examine YouCut’s logic (or lack thereof) for the anti-NPR legislation. In a very poor effort to show that NPR is highly biased, YouCut says the following:

NPR receives a significant amount of funding from private individuals and organizations through donations and sponsorships. For example in 2008, NPR listed over 32 separate private donors and sponsors who provided financial support in excess of half-a-million dollars that year. NPR officials have indicated that taxpayer funding makes up only a small portion of their overall budget. Therefore eliminating taxpayer support should not materially affect NPR’s ability to operate while at the same time saving taxpayers millions of dollars annually.

The supposed claim that these private donors are somehow controlling NPR in some grand William Randolph Hearst-esque scheme is shaky. But I will use YouCut’s logic in order to disprove its own assertion. If the issue is NPR relying on private funding and organizations that may or may not be threatening the overall objectivity of the content, then wouldn’t it make sense to increase the amount of funding NPR receives from the Federal Government? With the loss of this government money, NPR will need to reach out to even more private corporations that may not be the most politically neutral. An increase in funding, perhaps in a more BBC-like style, would ultimately allow NPR to be almost completely free of any possible bias. Another important fact to realize is that the organization is very dependent on its listeners who donate. In other words, if NPR were biased to the extent that Representative Cantor claims, wouldn’t the listeners who donate to hear objective content be up in arms? A good portion of NPR’s budget, upwards of 30 percent, comes from donations, albeit many of them from very wealthy individuals; however, one cannot discount the power of the everyday NPR listener, who may only donate a few dollars a year. The listeners of the public radio station are the true bosses. Listeners are very vocal, and will speak up if NPR was heading in a biased direction.

I suppose the bottom line is that this NPR debacle is just one example of politicians in Washington using our country’s legislative facilities to push their own personal agenda. It is not hard to imagine that there are many more instances of this kind of trickery that many of us will probably never hear about. As Roger Ebert so aptly characterized NPR on his blog, it is truly a “clear-thinking oasis”. I’ll leave you with a short extract from his post on NPR, which I encourage you to read:

NPR brings fresh air into my mind, and not just with Terry Gross’s show. The hosts seem calm and civilized. Their questions are good ones. You never catch them being clever for the sake of being clever. It’s not happy talk. It’s in good taste. NPR obviously makes a lot of effort to bring in guests that are appropriate to the subject; a lot of pre-production goes on. There’s no catering to prejudice. No agenda.

(Roger Ebert, “Midnight at the oasis”, Roger Ebert’s Journal, Nov. 19,2010)

* Since the resignation of former chief executive Ellen Weiss, NPR has publicly acknowledged that their decision to fire Juan Williams was wrong. The organization has since responded with a major overview of their ethics policies.

The Devolution of Privacy

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:43:00 -0500

The idea that all humans are entitled to privacy (defined in a variety of ways) seems to be an axiomatic truth accepted by nearly all institutions and societies. The definition, seemingly simple, is actually quite complex. Each person seems to have his or her own definition as to what constitutes privacy. We have seen the definition itself evolve over the years. In the United States, privacy was first pithily defined as “the right to be left alone” by Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis in 1890. Most nations around the world now recognize privacy as a human right, which is apparent in article 12 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

(Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12)

Given the history and complexity of privacy, I think it would be very interesting to see a scholarly analysis tracing the various generational movements in privacy. It seems fair to say that that over the years—since the wide-spread use of digital information systems—privacy has become less and less of a reality. During the early 20^th century, as well as earlier points in history, privacy was something with substance. People would have physical documents, letters, or some sort of hard copy of data that could be literally protected. The same went for their personal privacy—their right to solitude. These were all things that were much harder to intrude upon chiefly because they would require some sort of physical exertion. If the government wanted to read through your mail they would need to either intercept it through the postal system, or literally come to your mailbox and steal it. And if they wanted to spy on you, they would need an FBI agent. Modern times have made the violation of privacy a trivial act. The U.S. Government does not need to spy on you by following you around as you get your coffee at the local Starbucks; they simply snoop on your internet activity, phone activity, or any other sort of digital communication. It is a much more subtle and affective way of violating a basic human right. The U.S. PATRIOT Act is the clearest example of this new way of undermining the right to privacy. We must live in an awfully perverse world when the violation of a basic human right is considered an act of patriotism.

All of this leads to the main point I wanted to make; that is, the children of this generation (myself included), do not value privacy on the same level as previous generations. Let me simplify: Privacy is dead. Modern technology ultimately led to this destruction of privacy. Facebook would be the finest example of people simply giving up privacy for instant social stimulation. Indeed, this may prove to be a wonderful thing for the next 5 years, but privacy will eventually be missed. I can present innumerable examples of how Facebook could potentially be used against people of the United States, or any country for that matter, but I think I will save that for a future essay. What’s even more frightening is the increasing trend towards the complete documentation of one’s life. Social services such as Foursquare and Facebook make the violation of a person’s right to privacy an absolute breeze for the United States Government. Instead of having to spend months researching and tracking a person, agents can simply track a given person’s activity on Foursquare, and study their communication on Facebook. That being said, I do not want to come off as a hater of social networking. In fact, I maintain a presence on both Facebook and Twitter, but I do often wish that I were not on these two sites. It all boils down to the notion that we must be aware. Simply be aware that privacy is delicate and can be taken away rather quickly in this age. I am partly afraid that my generation will not ever truly understand what privacy is, and how valuable a right it is. That is why I urge all people to guard their privacy as best they can.

Al Franken's Views on Net Neutrality

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:15:00 -0500

Al Franken, the former comedian and now U.S senator, wrote a piece for the Huffington Post about the issue of Net Neutrality, calling it “…the most important free speech issue of our time..” Reading through the article, I started to realize just how correct Mr. Franken is. He is clearly not part of the “Good Old Boys” club in Washington, which gives me much more respect for his opinions. Franken is one of the few minds in the senate that is actually speaking out against the draft Order, which is set to be revealed tomorrow. The senator from Minnesota claims that the draft Order would effectively allow large corporations and media conglomerates to control many aspects of the internet. One of the most clear examples Franken cites is Comcast’s recent decision to impose monthly fees on the company that provides netflix with content delivery services for their hugely popular instant queue service. If these new regulations go into effect, Franken worries—quite strongly—that the internet as we know it may change. Comcast—and other monolith corporations—may start to force customers to use their On Demand service; it would be legal for them to block netflix. All of this is extremely troubling. If you are not concerned, you surely ought to be. The basic freedoms that the internet has granted us, more than any other method of publication, as well as the way it has revolutionized content consumption, may be at risk. The internet is the last bastion of true and genuine free speech. We cannot rely on the presses for that basic rights granted to us by our U.S. Constitution. The internet is the world’s finest example of giving everyone a voice—that’s the beauty of it. It is as grassroots as can be, and we must protect this wonderful tool that allows logical thought to promulgate. Please, join the fight to keep the internet neutral.

Link to Al Franken’s article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/the-most-important-free-s_b_798984.html

What would happen if Wikipedia went away?

Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:41:09 -0500

Earlier tonight, I decided to pose a question to my followers on twitter. The question was this : What would happen if Wikipedia went away? I thought of this question chiefly because of the recent aggressive donation campaign launched by Wikipedia. The image of Jimmy Wales’ mug graces each and every page. How wonderful. In any event, my friend who goes by cynicalbrit94 on twitter provided some very interesting responses. I’m publishing them here in a slightly more readable format.

——————————————————————————————————-

Original Question: In the midst of Wikipedia’s very aggressive donation campaign, I pose a question to everyone: What would life be like without wikipedia?

Cynicalbrit94’s response:

Slightly less informative for those who hate research.

My follow up response: Would you say there would be less misinformation out there? Would the paid electronic encyclopedia come back?

Cynicalbrit94’s second response:

1) Less people would think they understand shit that everybody else know they do not understand.

2) Wikipedia is the ultimate example of freedom of information. Without it things would be a bit more foggy for everyone.

3) If wikipedia was to go away now, the paid encyclopedia would not come back in a hugely successful way. People are used to the wikipedia system which allows them to obtain information freely and easily. I think people will research before they pay

I thought these responses were quite interesting, and I agree with them. Just a think piece.

Fellini

Thu, 25 Nov 2010 20:41:00 -0500

As of late, I have been watching many Fellini movies. I suppose I got interested in Fellini after I had exhausted my interest in Stanley Kubrick some months back. My first experience with the Italian director occurred after I watched the film 8 1/2, which I discovered through one of Roger Ebert’s reviews. Centered around the semi-autobiographical story of a struggling director, this film incorporates numerous dream sequences and has a very distinct, “Fellini feel” to it. One thing I have noticed after watching a few foreign films is that the subtitles often take away from my ability to notice the visual elements of the film. Although, I did not miss major plot elements, but in general I noticed that I was not able to pick up on the nuances that play such a large role in many of Fellini’s films ; however, I suppose that it will simply take some getting used to. In the past I have said that watching films critically is a skill—this still proves true. Active viewing is a cognitive and emotional exercise.

The accessibility of Fellini’s work on Netflix instant is part of the reason I plan to watch as many as his films as I can. Much like books, the more films I watch, the better I get at interpreting some of the more subtle, yet meaningful elements of the plot. So, for any of you reading this, I urge you to watch Fellini’s 8 1/2. You shall enjoy it.

** It’s funny: A friend of mine had been raving about the musical “Nine” for months. I never cared to look into it, but just the other day I decided to Google it. To my delight, the musical is based off of the film 8 1/2. Let me tell you, when I made this connection I felt tremendously excited, but at the same time stupid for not knowing earlier.

Wallace Shawn reads a fantastic speech written by Howard Zinn,...

Tue, 02 Nov 2010 19:35:00 -0400

Wallace Shawn reads a fantastic speech written by Howard Zinn, titled ”The Problem is Civil Obedience”.

Thoughts on the Tea Party

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:22:00 -0400

Just a few days ago, the local chapter of JSA at my high school decided to run a semi-informal debate about the Tea Party. Out of the 5 or so students present, only one(quite grudgingly) volunteered to defend this “grassroots” movement. Opposition to the party—somewhere close to what one might call “bashing”—seemed to arouse much more of a response from the other students. It seemed that there was no shortage of arguments that could highlight the overall illogicality of this political movement. More than anything, each of us—myself included—got quite a chuckle out of some of the core beliefs of the Tea party. These beliefs are painfully general, and seem to be somewhat incoherent. They include: fiscal responsibility, a constitutionally limited government, and free markets.

The chief reason these “core values” puzzle me is because they are obvious ; that is to say, nearly every American already agrees with these notions. Is there any politician currently in office who openly advocates for ”Fiscal irresponsibility”, or who disagrees with a government limited by our most sacred text, the United States Constitution? Most would agree that the Tea party is more or less a distraction. As a fellow who has personally attended one of these meetings, I can say a few things ; that is, most Tea party members are good Americans, but are sorely misinformed and unaware of basic facts. I do not agree with the policy of simply bashing the Tea Party. We must respect members for making the effort to improve America, even though their solutions for the troubles our nation faces are potentially more damaging than the issues themselves.

One of the most disingenuous claims the Tea Party makes is the notion that they are a “grassroots” organization. This term “grassroots”, is a favorite of many scheming organizations that aim to appeal to those Americans who view big corporations as evil. The solution is to make the public perceive the organization in such a way that they never feel as if it is large and monolithic. Trouble is, the Tea Party is far from grassroots, as there has been well-publicized evidence linking millions of dollars in donations from the Koch Brothers to the Tea Party(See: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer). Granted, multi-million dollar donations are a common feature of any political organization, i.e. George Soros’ contributions to the far-left.

In the end, the Tea Party mostly serves mere distraction. Candidates who run on the Tea Party ballot typically go on to betray the party, simply grabbing votes and giving nothing in return to supporters. All of this goes along with the increasing trend of loud, annoying, and utterly distracting organizations in America. Modern times have created a near-perfect formula for media attention which simply involves shouting loudly and having Fox News talk about you. This is the new order of things.

Criminalization of the Modern Day Student

Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:42:00 -0400

It is truly a sad day when many have become so grossly complacent and gleeful when it comes to getting unjustly flogged. Students in these times do not seem to mind having many of their fundamental rights taken away, and only seem casually concerned about being treated as if they were pedophiles locked up in a maximum security prison. After all, this is what the modern high school has turned into; a super high security prison with education added on as an extra-special bonus.

The aim of this piece is more focused, however, on the recent decision by the school to stick its nose in activities students engage in outside of school. This school now has the power to penalize a student for doing something outside of school, whether it is in their home, at the local hang out, or what have you, which could result in the barring of a student from school activities and clubs. To an even greater extent, the Board of Education extended the rule to not only ban students from participation in various sports and activities, but also to impose a long term suspension on a student who is thought to be engaged in drug-related activities on or off school grounds. So it seems that the trap is perfectly set and students must now walk carefully or the mousetrap will swiftly catch them. Nowadays, the student is seen as the criminal, while the Board of Education acts as the Gestapo prepared to take care of any one who gets out of line.

The logic of such rules regarding participation in extracurricular activities is flawed in ways that ought to truly depress anyone who cares about their child. Perhaps the best way to illustrate my point is to present a scenario and information about the average high school student. Take the hypothetical situation of a student attending a party, which involves the consumption of alcohol by minors—a scene that has been an integral part of the high school experience since time immemorial. Let’s use the name “Jeremiah” to further develop this hypothetical situation; Jeremiah attends this party, unaware of the illegal acts going on, and some of his friends, lacking foresight, decide to take incriminating photos and post them on the social network facebook. While Jeremiah did not actually partake in any of these illegal acts, he does end up appearing in a number of photos with people who are. A few weeks later, the administration gets a hold of some of these pictures, one way or another, and sees that Jeremiah, typically thought to be a “good boy”, next to a crowd of people drinking alcoholic beverages. He is called into a meeting with the principal, the images are shown, and he is then barred from participating in the sports and activities which define his life. Such a situation is not far fetched, and one could make the assertion that many good-natured students could end up being unjustly penalized for an offense they never actually committed.

Now is that crucial time when parents and students need to wake up from their cozy slumber. It’s time to decriminalize the modern day student and treat the children of this generation with a bit more respect. Criminalization only leads to lunacy and major developmental problems that could potentially jeopardize a child’s future. None of the information presented in this piece should have made the reader feel warm and fuzzy inside. After reading this, it is my sincere hope that you are now out of the comatose state, which you have been in while this mess has unfolded. Join together and turn the focus of our schools back to proper education and development, not flagellation of innocent students.

—Steven P. Rodriguez

P.G. Wodehouse

Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:35:00 -0400

It’s often fun to think back to the person who first turned you on to a life long passion. Most people cite their parents as the source of common hobbies like baseball or soccer, but sometimes we stumble upon things on our own ; a sort of serendipitous experience that blossoms into one of the most fantastic human emotions—passion. In my case, this life long passion was started after I read my very first book by English author P.G. Wodehouse (pronounced “wood house”), who penned some 90 books, as well as a number of short stories and plays. Reading his work today, Wodehouse’s unique voice is as witty and humorous as ever. The comical hijinks of Bertram Wooster, one part of Wodehouse’s duo Jeeves and Wooster, are still incredibly funny and relevant to the much evolved modern sense of humor. Great comedy does not go out of date, or out of print for that matter—a large number of Wodehouse’s books are still available in print. Among them, his Jeeves and Wooster stories and novels are by far the most popular, The Code of The Woosters particularly, followed by his novels and short stories set at Blandings Castle. It is a body of work that is so vast, so widespread, and so prodigious, that no other author to my knowledge (not even Stephen King), has come anywhere near the level of output and quality that Mr. Pelham Greenville Wodehouse managed to achieve in his lifetime.

Wodehouse’s incredible life spanned some 93 years, beginning on the 15 of October, 1881, and coming to an end on February 14, 1975. I would consider such longevity an achievement by its own merit, but Wodehouse’s career as an author produced 70 some-odd years of wonderful writing. He was a man who very seldom felt the need to kick his feet up and relax, and much preferred an exhaustive daily routine which focused on his life’s passion, writing. In a way, Wodehouse wrote in order to escape the realities of the world he lived in. This was especially the case during the late 1930’s when World War Two was raging, and Wodehouse immersed himself in his Jeeves novels, producing one of his finest works, The Code of The Woosters (1938). Here and there, he would mention some topical world issues, such as when Bertie describes Roderick Spode in Code of The Woosters with “His gaze was keen and piercing. I don’t know if you have ever seen those pictures in the papers of Dictators with tilted chins and blazing eyes, inflaming the populace with their fiery words on the occasion of opening a new skittle alley, but that was what he reminded me of.” This sort of mention was about as far into matters as Wodehouse cared to delve, and in general he decided to avoid the true evils of the world. For him, the worlds he created were the perfect place to spend his time, where there were no Fascists trying to take over the planet, but just the adventures of Bertie Wooster.

When I try and introduce the works of P.G. Wodehouse to people I know, the first words out of my mouth are “Do you remember that Jeeves character from the search engine?”, and most will pause for a moment and remember that funny looking butler from askjeeves. Granted, this is a poor way to introduce the world of Wodehouse to the average person, but it at least gives you something to work with. I then go on further to explain that the character Jeeves is actually part of a very large catalogue of Jeeves and Wooster stories written by and English fellow with kind of a funny name, P.G. Wodehouse. By this point, most stop paying attention because most do not enjoy talking about books that are not written by either J.K. Rowling or Stephenie Meyer. This is a sad state of affairs on its own, but that is not what this piece is about. The concept of the duo is really quite simple ; Bertie Wooster is a rich, careless English playboy who is kept in check by his venerable butler Jeeves while he participates in a number of hilarious adventures and misunderstandings. Simple, yes, but incredibly versatile and durable at the same time. This explains why Wodehouse was able to write so many short stories and novels using these iconic characters, while at the same time delivering a fresh, brilliant story every time. Even some of Wodehouse’s worst work (which there is very little of), is better than many other failed attempts at humor in the 20th century.

Nearly ever person I’ve ever talked to about writing seems to share the same obsession in finding out what an author’s routine is like. We like to think that there is some method to all of this, and that sheer genius and creativity is not the only factor. Many wonder what secret sauce, or what magical pen and stationary combination an author used that made his or her words so beautiful and affective. The wise eventually learn that there is not secret, and that the only method proven to work time and time again is to write as much as possible. Wodehouse followed this method to an extreme. Still, there were things that Wodehouse did that certainly set him apart from other authors. Take his time consuming process of drafting a “scenario”, consisting of a careful roadmap for the eventual novel, which he’d often create before he wrote even a single word of what would become the final draft. This allowed Wodehouse to produce novels that had many seemingly unrelated and insignificant events all come together at the conclusion of a work. It’s this sort of magic thing that happens in a Wodehouse novel,thanks to an incredibly well-thought out plot.

The affect of Wodehouse’s wittily crafted comedic prose can be seen in many of Britain’s finest authors and entertainers. Douglas Adams, who penned the hilarious Hitchhiker’s Guide series, was profoundly influenced by Wodehouse, one time saying “What Wodehouse writes is pure word music…he is the greatest musician of the English language, and exploring variations of familiar material is what musicians do all day.” Actor Stephen Fry, who once played Wodehouse’s character Jeeves on the BBC television program Jeeves and Wooster has said “…one of the gorgeous privileges of reading P.G. Wodehouse is that he makes us feel better about ourselves because we derive a sense of personal satisfaction from the laughter mutually created.” It seems then, with such a profound impact on literature in this century— as well as his own—that Mr. Pelham Greenville Wodehouse has very deservingly earned his spot in the great pantheon of literary achievement and excellence. Thanks for all of those laughs, Plum.

—Steven P. Rodriguez

Posterity?

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:23:33 -0400

It could just be my failure to understand the importance of others in terms of posterity, but do we ever stop and ask ourselves if we spend too much time creating nifty archives? Sure, my stuff that I post here should indeed be lost, in fact, it should be magically deleted one day. Others should not have to endure the pain of my hastily crafted prose. But what about people like Dave Winer? I know of no other person on the web who keeps an archive like he does. The man is the most important figure in terms of a multitude of web standards, and is the father of the blog in my eyes. He’s an incredible inspiration to someone like me. Scripting News is one of the finest blogs on the web, and I enjoy his musings very much ; however, is it really that important that Winer makes an archive of the links he posts on twitter? I’m not sure, just putting it out there.