Posted Sunday October 25, 2009
at 3:41pm in Oddball
When I was young, I really liked conspiracy theories. I found them fascinating because of their sense of intrigue of finding the undeniable truth which was contrary to what was officially accepted. As I got older, and more mature, I found the same theories to be just that. They were just theories that had less evidence that one often comes to believe. Most of the evidence is either a bunch of lies that are made to look good by putting the traces of evidence in documents which most can not obtain, or they take the real evidence out of context. Now, at the age of 23, I have found that a lot of the people who truly believe in things such as “Loose Change,” the New World Order and George W. Bush, the New World Order and Barack Obama, FDR and Pearl Harbor, or even the belief that reptiles have taken the shape of human leaders, and are controlling the world, are what I like to call “the people of the interwebs.” Now I am not saying that being on the internet is bad. I personally love the internet and can not go a day without it. I am not saying that the people who visit forums, like many “interweb people do,” are bad either, it can be a great place to gain information. However, there is a small amount of these people who pretty much believe anything and everything they hear or see on the internet and believe it without questioning anything. An example of this can be seen with the “Loose Change” video. There was another video created that debunks most, if not all, the claims of “Loose Change” but when it comes to the counter video, people just say “but it isn’t true.”
Now why am I making this post about “interweb people?” It doesn’t reflect the majority’s belief!? Maybe that is true, but look at the society around you. More and more of everyday life is becoming a part of the internet. One can work from home while connected to the internet and access his work computer. More and more people are joining social networking websites. Lastly, more and more news media outlets are using these networks to connect with the public. That isn’t even talking about how physical newspapers are dying and being forced to change to the internet. What I am saying is that more people that can think rationally are going to be exposed to the people of the intewebs, and possibly convinced by there overwhelming amount of online support.
When one investigates any of these theories they find some evidence for each of these theories, but not enough to have a complete convergence of evidence. I mean, there are holocaust deniers and they have evidence to back them up (to a certain degree). Just because they have a small amount of evidence doesn’t make them correct. Many however, become convinced by the overwhelming support that the interweb people get from other interweb people. I have seen it myself at certain forums which I often visit. Most of the people live in Southern California, but if you went off of there perception of the world you would think that 9/11 was justified, however it was an inside job, and that the United States, namely conservatives and republicans, are the most vile people inhabiting the Earth.
Clearly some people need to wake up, smell the coffee, and get outside more. Not every conspiracy theory is correct, or even has proper evidence attached to its argument. In my opinion, I believe it is just the psychosis of people trying to come to grips with the tragic events of what can happen in the world, and they have no part of their brain asking the proper questions, or looking at the proper sources.
I am not sure if you have heard of this guy, most people probably do not watch Fox News so I am on the assumption you don’t. He is a realitvley new analyst with fox news, however, he has become one of their most controversial hosts. I do not want to talk about Fox News in general, it is my belief that they get too much criticism from other media outlets who don’t receive just criticism themselves. I do think the Fox News channel leans quite a bit to the right. Glenn Beck on the other hand takes things to an entire different level.
Many have said that Glenn Beck is one of the new voices of American Conservatism. I for one, hope that is not the case. I have found him to be a bit crazy. I chose that term, crazy, on purpose. Why? Recently, a man who I often disagree with, James Carville, called him just that. Now, I am not saying that Beck doesn’t mean well, or even once in a while makes a good point, but he seems to represent the radical side of Fox News. I do not have a source, but I have seen Beck sitting down on a Fox News program where it also included other common Fox personalities. Just who those other anchors were, I can not remember. However, I do remember seeing two to three other individuals. Beck had said something so outlandish that the other three common Fox News personalities paused and looked at Beck in disbelief. I can remember one saying something to the effect of “I don’t think that is true.”
I honestly think, that deep down inside of Glenn Beck that he doesn’t believe what comes out of his own mouth. However, he does things for ratings. He seems to be emerging as one of the greater Fox News personalities and thus he must remain controversial. Whether that calls for pretending to throw a live frog into boiling water, screaming at radio callers, or fake crying mulitple times, there is a large portion of the show which is an act. It is pure entertainment value.
I don’t mean to target only conservative shows, as I think all news stations, whether they are local or national, are biased and do not represent the entire truth, no matter how objective they try to be. It is impossible to completely objective no matter what side you take. But Beck is definitively one of the more flamboyant, theatrical, and biased individuals in the world of national news, the conservative Al Franken if you will.
I consider myself to be quite conservative, however I think some of the things Beck has said is just overly exaggerated. The items he talks about may contain a hint of truth, but he does not represent my views as a conservative. I for one do not believe Obama is going to kill me, pour gasoline on me, or that anyone should act militarily upon our own country. I don’t agree with the new administration’s policies, so I have written emails to officials expressing my concerns. I do not want Beck in any shape or form stating the he represents the political views of right-minded. But Beck, and his producers, understand one thing, and that is entertainment. They will do anything to get a few more viewers from a show. Since that is the case, he will only keep adding fuel to the fire, sort to speak.
Posted Saturday October 10, 2009
at 9:30am in News, Politics
Man, oh man, where to start? Barack Obama, the President of the United States was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday October 9, 2009. Yes, you read that correctly, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, I know you are curious as well as baffled. So someone explain to me what President Barack Obama has done to be worthy of such a prize? This man is the President of the United States, and is the head of the U.S. Military. A military often is not in existence for duties of peace. At least they are not known for that. They might ensure peace, but their actions are most famous for killing. But does war and peace have the same ideals? I do not think so. Not in the way people like to think anyway. According to the Los Angeles Times the award was given as for a few reasons. Janet Hook and Mark Silva of the LA Times writes:
The award committee cited Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” and said that he had given the world “hope for a better future.”
The committee commended Obama’s push for nuclear disarmament, his outreach to the Muslim world and his turn from the unilateralism that guided George W. Bush, although the former president was not named.
How has he done any of this? I don’t see Iran backing down from their nuclear ambitions. I don’t see Russia doing it either. Least of all, do I see a better tomorrow on the horizon. I see one that is economically unclear, and terrifying to think about. The Washington Post is quick to point out that the award is often given with criticism from others. People such as Theodore Roosevelt and Yasser Arifat have also won the award.
If that isn’t a knee slapper, then the following should be. As I eluded to earlier, you do know that the President is in charge of the US military, so is it fitting that President Obama had a meeting with his war council after he accepted the award!? They were discussing the troop levels in Afghanistan and whether the US should give more soldiers to the cause. Don’t believe it? Check out this Kansas City Star article on it!
I think this is really a shame. I mean there are people who are quite peaceful individuals, and they deserve such a title. There are people who roam this Earth looking at the bigger picture and how they can help humanity. They do not dwell upon how the military has to fight to ensure peace, or how people sometimes have to do violent things to survive. They are the ones who deserve it. In fact, I’ve got an idea! How about giving one postmoderumly to Mahatma Ghandi? Seriously, he never won one. I don’t care if the award was only supposed to go to a living person or not, he would have been a better choice that Obama.
Then again, it is interesting to note that Alfred Nobel, the man which the award is named after did invent dynamite, which isn’t a very peaceful thing in itself. I just think the whole idea of awarding this title to our President is a bit insane. He is not deserving of it. He hasn’t done anything to acquire it, other than fascinating media beings around the world. They treat him as some sort of messiah, and personally, I just don’t get it.
Posted Monday October 5, 2009
at 11:34am in Video Games
I don’t like to post videos often. I try hard to keep this blog devoted to politics, and modern world events. The problems is that too much just catches my eye. Today I wanted to share with you, the new Modern Warfare Trailer that was released. I have been waiting for this game for a long time, and now it is just about a month away from release. There was a new trailer released yesterday, and man, oh man is it freaking awesome. Check it out!
This semester I will be spending a lot of time with historical works on both sides of the spectrum regarding religion and science. I am taking a Senior Research Seminar on the crusades as well as taking a course on History of Science. Recently, I got some time to thumb through a book that I did not get to finish over the summer in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. As I was thumbing through the work, a block of text seemed to jump out at me. The quote was from the great Thomas Jefferson. He was quoted as saying “A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution.”1 My topic today is related to this very quote. Should theology be taught in public schools?
On one hand, you have those who say that people should ban theological studies. Children would not be required to say “under God” during the Pledge of Allegiance. Furthermore they wouldn’t be required to have a class on Christianity, or the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or even Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh for that matter. I do not think it is the right of a Government body to tell a student, you must learn this, and not that. However, I don’t think it is right for a public institution to force a child to learn their laws and rules if that child believes in science.
You also have to flip the coin on this question. What about a pious child learning evolution? How about a pious child learning about the Big Bang Theory? These are also interesting questions, because if a child is a believer of some religion, then should they be force fed facts about human evolution? Indeed it should. Unfortunately for them, I think the answer to this question is not laid in society’s ideals of what is right or wrong, rather than the U.S. Constitution.
This debate comes down to the question of the separation of church and state. Schools, at least public ones, are run by the local government. For example, high schools in the city of Los Angeles are run by the LAUSD, or the Los Angeles Unified School District. This nation is one that recognizes the separation of church and state. No where in the United States Constitution does it say that the citizens of the U.S. should subscribe to any particular religion. In fact, the first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …” By teaching the laws or rules of any particular religion would violate the Bill of Rights. In my opinion, it could be good to learn some of the rules and laws of any religion. There are good things to be had within those respective documents. However it is also wrong to make a “non-believer” to learn of it too. At least modern science has many of its discoveries rooted in facts.
If a child wants to go and learn about Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism, or any other religion then can take a particular course at a specific institution. Many people do this in colleges today. There should be no class at the public level of education (high school or middle school) that would allow for these to be taught. There are certain historical times where a basic portion of religion must be taught to have a proper understanding of the times. The crusades and the Salem Witch Trials would be one time where it would be acceptable to squeak in some religion. However, it would be for an understanding, not a chance to preach the lives and teaching of some prophet.
Ultimately Jefferson was correct, as it would infringe on the rights of man.
Notes
1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: First Mariner Press, 2008), 100.
When I was young, I really liked conspiracy theories. I found them fascinating because of their sense of intrigue of finding the undeniable truth which was contrary to what was officially accepted. As I got older, and more mature, I found the same theories to be just that. They were just theories that had less evidence that one often comes to believe. Most of the evidence is either a bunch of lies that are made to look good by putting the traces of evidence in documents which most can not obtain, or they take the real evidence out of context. Now, at the age of 23, I have found that a lot of the people who truly believe in things such as “Loose Change,” the New World Order and George W. Bush, the New World Order and Barack Obama, FDR and Pearl Harbor, or even the belief that reptiles have taken the shape of human leaders, and are controlling the world, are what I like to call “the people of the interwebs.” Now I am not saying that being on the internet is bad. I personally love the internet and can not go a day without it. I am not saying that the people who visit forums, like many “interweb people do,” are bad either, it can be a great place to gain information. However, there is a small amount of these people who pretty much believe anything and everything they hear or see on the internet and believe it without questioning anything. An example of this can be seen with the “Loose Change” video. There was another video created that debunks most, if not all, the claims of “Loose Change” but when it comes to the counter video, people just say “but it isn’t true.”
I am not sure if you have heard of this guy, most people probably do not watch Fox News so I am on the assumption you don’t. He is a realitvley new analyst with fox news, however, he has become one of their most controversial hosts. I do not want to talk about Fox News in general, it is my belief that they get too much criticism from other media outlets who don’t receive just criticism themselves. I do think the Fox News channel leans quite a bit to the right. Glenn Beck on the other hand takes things to an entire different level.
Man, oh man, where to start? Barack Obama, the President of the United States was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday October 9, 2009. Yes, you read that correctly, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, I know you are curious as well as baffled. So someone explain to me what President Barack Obama has done to be worthy of such a prize? This man is the President of the United States, and is the head of the U.S. Military. A military often is not in existence for duties of peace. At least they are not known for that. They might ensure peace, but their actions are most famous for killing. But does war and peace have the same ideals? I do not think so. Not in the way people like to think anyway. According to the
