OpiateOfTheMassesDefinition

OpiateOfTheMassesEvaluation

OpiateOfTheMassesCausal

 

1/12/06

Alright it should have gone here, sorry JackoBlog, maybe someone can clean that up for me. I'm not sure if I'm doing this write but I'm gonna type some stuff and take a shot. This is outrageously complicated. This is OpiateOfTheMasses and I'm gonna tell you a little bit about what "grinds my gears." It's so ridiculous that the common voter today is taught to think that they should vote for a democrat or republican when really you're not voting for the candidate, but merely for the fortune 500 companys' policies which will be the ones that go to legislature due to the millions and billions of dollars that those companies donated to the puppet's campaign. So next time you think a candidate is a nice guy or has good points, think about the ones he's not talking about, the ones that allow Hummers to have ridiculously high emissions and nature reserves in Alaska to be drilled in to which ultimately have lead to a smog over the Southern California area so thick you can't see 500 ft. Be smart, vote Nader

 

1/17/05

There were many ideas that Dr. King brought up in his letter that are still applicable to situations and injustices we suffer in the States today. As in this excerpt: "To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority," Dr. King made me think of the very serious issue of age discrimination here in the states. The absurdity of the drinking age being 21 is indescribable, but I'll give it a shot. The fact that the people that wrote this legislature thought that once a person transcends that age they are enlightened with some knowledge, some mantra that allows them to more responsibly consume alcohol than they could have at the age of 18 is laughable. There are people out there who shouldn't drink period, I being one, but that is quickly learned with a couple experimentations in the art of drinking even if the person is too stubborn to comply with his own realization. But the people out there who can use alcohol without it endangering their wellbeing should be allowed to drink period and should not have to fear some pencil pushing cop who is out to hit them with a $350 fine and 3 month license suspension. Educate those people who consistently pass out on benches or get in bar fights, don't slap them with a license suspension. I'm not even going to start on the issue of the minimum draft age being 18, but the fact that there is even a drinking age shows a lack of trust in the people. I think that the scenario and conditions under which the French Revolution started annointed those law makers with a sense of trust in the common man that is the root of all the laws and legislature passed in that country. Here in America we are a culture of fear, one that feels mistrust in his American brothers, distrust in the governing bodies, and the sense that many freedoms need to be oppressed so that the common man feels a sense of a Big Brother always being in the midst, to maintain the status quo, and make certain that Capitalism and all of its idiosyncracies and injustices are maintained. This country is a lost cause in a time when all those within are taught to think opposite, to be chauvinistic. To think of the potential its forefathers envisioned and what it has become is shameful and depressing.

 

 

 

1/18/06 RESPONSE TO PERSONAL NARRATIVE! ( from SnapKrackelPop )

I enjoyed my High school life, but nothing tops my senior year. The last year at Horseheads High we took a senior trip to Washington D.C. Before we left everyone was worried about the "educational" trip and how fun it was going to be. We stayed in a very expensive hotel with a king sized bed! While we ended up going on four educational tours, the trip was very interesting and one of the funnest trips I've been on. Not only did we go on tours but we went to plays and had parties too. Also my senior year I worked at a pet store. I love animals and this was an exciting thing for me. Before working there I wanted to be a vet. After I worked there and came to Penn State University I realized how much school that would involve (eight years!). Right now I am in the DUS program and trying to find something to do with animals that doesn't take quite so much schooling. Hopefully I will find something close to my dream and start my career before I'm 26.

 

1/19/06

My first blog wasn't much of a personal narrative so I'll write a little somtin somtin right here. My name is Steve Fiehler, son of Paul, son of Paul. Sometimes I think I might have a case of dual personalities. Anytime I'm in a room with multiple people I can carry conversations and I do a pretty good job of being a people person. I don't do much besides going to class, partying, and watching Lakers games but I definitely enjoy my time alone. It's weird because I definitely could be considered a loner because most of the time I eat alone simply because I like to read something when I'm eating and I don't want to feel the need to have to talk to someone. It's like I pick and choose when I like being around people and friends. Like in classes I feel no need to sit next to a friend, I'd rather sit in a seat with no one on either side. But outside of class I'd rather be talking to them and hanging out with them. I don't usually sit in my room all day and waste time, I'm usually somewhere or in someone else's room. Like I feel I'm pretty articulate, it's just my moods change, like if I'm alone I'm fine, if I'm around people I'm fine. I guess that sounds like indifference, maybe it is. I like to end this with a quote from the late great Mitch Hedberg who said "I want to be a race car passenger: just a guy who bugs the driver. 'Say man, can I turn on the radio? You should slow down. Why do we gotta keep going in circles? Can I put my feet out the window? Man, you really like Tide...'"

 

1/24/06

In the USA Today snapshot about how much people spend on their pets it claims Americans spend $40 billion a year on their pets and I'm assuming that doesn't even include livestock or thoroughbred horses. That does sound pretty absurd. Actually, I love my dog and I would put no price on extending his life or making him happier but it brings up the thought of what if we put this money towards feeding all the starving people in the world. It seems kind of ridiculous that some people spend thousands on their dogs like those sickening sluts on E! and VH1 when thousands of kids die every day from not being able to eat enough food. Now people could blame this on those women having the babies not using birth control when they should be or the men not using contraceptives, irregardless, those kids are on the planet and if a chihuahua can have a diamond choker, than some starving, emaciated kid in India or Africa or wherever deserves some food. Now here are a few claims:

 

1. The amount of money spent on pets each year by Americans proove that we do not give a shit about the rest of the world.

2. Having animals or a family pet around the house makes the common American happier.

3. The U.S. government should stop spending trillions of dollars each year killing people but rather providing them with food, health care, and education.

4. Instead of building one more missile to drop on unsuspecting Pakistani's who were thought to be high ranking Al Qaeda members the U.S. government should have paid for my college education

 

1/24/06

In response to FDR's speech to congress advocating the support of those nations fighting the Germans and the other non-democratic countries I think he did an excellent job in giving the skeptical American congress good reason why we should be worried about what was going on in Europe. Once again many Americans felt that this was Europe's war and felt that we should not get involved but FDR let them know that if we did not act soon then it would hit them where it hurts, their pocket books. He said that no dictator lead country is going to reason with a free nation or even allow fair and free trade. Also FDR warned of a possible invasion by the Germans through Mexico due to all the anti-American sentiment in Latin America and he made a good point in saying that we should not wait for them to decide where and when to attack us, but rather not give them the option.

 

Response to Declaration of Human Rights

 

After the embarrassing aftermath of world war 2 and Hitler's final plan, the United Nations had to gain back respect by issuing a list of unalienable rights that would solidify their future take no crap stance. What is interesting to me is how they member nations said little to nothing when practically every article stated within was trampled on during America's Jim Crow days. Under the Declaration of Human Rights it called for a revolution against America and implied that it should be aided by those countries who abide by the Declaration. It disgusts me how politics and economical purposes would keep nations that had just been through the holocaust from crying out "injustice!"

 

1/29/06

George Bush's address to congress was a brilliant method to capitalize on people's anger and dispair. By being stern in his address to the terrorists and those nations who harbor them, Bush made sure that the threat of excessive force of whatever nature necessary was and has been a route that our nation is unafraid to take. Since it was the first attack made on American soil by a foreign enemy since the war of 1812, it was an event that altered the American people's attitude towards our country being an invincible one to one of vulnerability. The administration had to give a stirring speech that gave the people a feeling of pride in that we were going to go out and kill ever mother&*!$@# responsible for the attacks and they did just that.

 

2/1/06

I relate most with the Oxford English Dictionary's definition that it is a means of intimidation to strike fear into people. The terrorists that organize the attacks and other forms of terrorism I feel are a very insecure people and they feel that their conservative nature has kept them from being a part of this new world of technology and human rights, and to spite those people who they see a part of this vast world of consumerism and capitalism they attack at random to strike fear in our hearts. It is really foolish though that they are putting their resources into killing those people who pose no threat to them. They should put their resources into bringing their fellow extremist muslims (they shouldn't even be considered muslims) out of poverty and into the 21st century. But I think another definitive aspect of terrorism is to spread propaganda through fear and intimidation such as their trying to tell us that we are not safe and our world is not flawless when no one really thinks it is unless they are chauvinistic airheads like the majority of Southern Claifornia.

 

2/2/06

The USA Today article "Don't Blame Downloads" for the fall in CD purchases shown light on the state of music today. I feel that the quality of music today is so horrible that maybe two or three CD's in the past two years deserve my $15. There is no excuse for the songs today such as "milkshake" or "Yeah!" These songs are contributing to the downfall of society as we know it. What happened to the mellow genius songs of Pink Floyd or the grooviness of Creedence Clearwater Revival. No songs within the last decade could hold a candle to the great songs of the 70's generation besides Tupac if you appreciate rap. Oasis had some good ones but besides that anyone buying a recently released CD should feel ashamed unless it's Tupac. Alright enough said

 

2/5/06

Proposal for Definition Paper

 

In this world of mass media and advertisement we live in today knowledge is rationed by the government. I think most people rarely think about what they do not know rather than what they think they do. The free will we think we possess is really not that free at all for we are directed towards decisions, especially in what to buy, by the government and those who benefit from the taxes. For example with prescription drugs there are many ways to obtain certain anti-depressants or numerous hypertension medicines without paying $200 a refill but the government does not really want you to know how. They benefit from the taxes paid on the purcahse and the companies rake in billions of dollars a year in profit. Now why does one man or a board of a select few men deserve to make that kind of money because of our own ignorance. There are many generic drugs out there that could accomplish the same thing that drugs such as adderal and lipitor can. I feel that the control the government holds over us is significant and although people do not associate the country we live in today as a controling one, I'm going to set out to define why the United States government has control over us and why control is an appropriate word. There are borderline cases where the term may not be appropriate, but I will make light of those while focusing on the many reasons why our market is a very much controled one and why we are told what we're told and overall how and why decisions are made by the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government. Also there are many reasons why those who are in power really have no interest in the "people's" best interest at all, but rather those people who paid for their campaign (ex. the Abermovf scandal). I just think people should be more educated about the decisions they make by a wider variety of legitimiate sources besides Fox News (the enemy) and other media companies who have what should be if it's not unconstitutional relationships with the government and its members.

 

Works Cited

 

Glassner, Barry. The Culture of Fear, Basic Books, New York, NY, 1999.

 

Chomsky, Noam. Media Control, Seven Stories Press, New York, NY, 2001.

 

"Media Control," Chomsky, Noam. http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9103-media-control.html March 17, 1991

 

Moore, Michael. Stupid White Men, Penguin Books Ltd, New York, NY, 2002.

 

"Facts of Fahrenheit," Moore, Michael. http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16, 2002.

 

"Barry Glassner: Putting fears in perspective," http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/11/02/glassner/ 11/2/01.

 

2/9/06 Definition Paper rough draft

 

“One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free, an alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing of their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy, but it's important to understand that it is the prevailing conception” (Chomsky 5). This unfortunate scenario has easily slipped past the public’s minds through planned pieces of propaganda and strict regulation of what is known and how many unnecessary things are covered by the media to distract them from pertinent issues. Such pertinent issues are how unnecessary the majority of our recent military conquests have been, how exactly the people benefit from them, and what factors are involved in the decision making process of congressmen/congresswomen and the president. Overall despite voter’s ability to pick the lesser of two evils in every election, whoever is voted into office is influenced by many other factors in every decision they make. One of the least important of the factors is what matters most to those who voted for them. This is how control is exerted over this country’s entire population.

 

Since the Wilson administration was able to turn a pacifist population into a war-mongering, German hating, crazed killing machine leading up to World War 1, the government has been able to whip the population into whatever state is necessary for the situation at hand (Chomsky 24). After that followed the Red Scare which lead to the Korean and Vietnam wars. All of these wars were carefully thought out and the right time was picked for when to join them. The government made sure that enrollment in the military and patriotic feelings were at a high and that the people felt like the government could do no wrong. And now after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Bush administration was able to channel that anger into the war against Iraq which really had nothing to do with the attacks nor did they pose any immediate threat.

 

What has been the most prevailing issue in all of the military outings besides World War 2 over the past century is how exactly they did not benefit the American people. What we do not realize is how much more the people would have benefited from the trillions of dollars spent on killing people if they were spent on educating people, feeding the needy, and housing the homeless. If the government focused more on domestic issues maybe America would not have the highest murder rate in the world. Hundreds of kids die each day from guns. This country is definitely not all it can be.

 

Another very pertinent issue is exactly how people in elected positions’ multi-million dollar campaigns are funded. This is what brings up one very important issue of control. The control that the fortune 500 companies exert over the congresspeople and the president is very significant due to the millions of dollars they donated to their campaigns. So in the case that a bill comes to Bush’s desk regarding whether or not to enact stricter full emission policies on all cars in America, a bill which would greatly hurt Hummers and all the other SUV’s, do you think he will pass it if General Motors donated $50 million to his campaign? The answer is no. Therefore he is not helping the voters who voted for them by polluting the air they breathe and therefore the democratic process is completed stepped on. This is just one example of the atrocities this country deals with daily.

 

In conclusion the democracy we think we live in is hardly one at all. The capitalistic nature of every executive in this country leads them all to think maximize profits at all costs. Another big problem is the military decisions made that do not protect us as a country nor do they benefit our people. They are costly and deadly to thousands of innocent people not to mention the soldiers who are killed who really had no choice but to join the military or a local gang to feed themselves.

 

2/13/06 Definition paper final copy

 

People, although very intelligent, have minds that are very easily distracted and easily influenced/convinced. In the case of America, the population has been taught and force fed the idea that they live in a supreme democracy and everyone enjoys freedom since they are able to practice whatever religion they want, say what they want, read what they want, etc. But is it really freedom or democracy when things you think you know and many things you read, at least those things that are released in mass, have been kept narrowly and rigidly controlled? The American public has been so indoctrinated in what should be a democracy that they want to believe that is what they live in and that all other forms of government are inferior (“Media Control"). Everyone knows the ideals of democracy: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, everyone allowed to equally participate in governmental procedures etc., but propaganda by means of governmental cooperation of the mass media, a pacifist culture, and the parading of enemies has lead to a diversion from these democratic ideals causing a lean towards a totalitarian government.

 

One of the first well planned propaganda campaigns in American history came at the turn of the 19th century. The American population prior to the campaign was pacifist and wanted nothing to do with a European war, until the Creel Commission stepped in. Within six months Woodrow Wilson’s organization was able to turn the entire population into hysteric, war manic, German hating, world savers that all wanted to join World War 1 and fight the nasty Hun’s (“Media Control"). The U.S.’s participation would lead to a stronger alliance with European allies and would protect many American banks’ financial interests in the region of which the government was very well aware. This propaganda, although consciously unnoticed by the people, was able to convince the people against their prior convictions that going to war was the right thing to do. In this case just as physical force and intimidation is to a totalitarian government, propaganda is to democracy (Chomsky). There are many ways that the decision makers can control the “bewildered herd” that does not involve violence. How can democracy exist if people are taught what to believe?

 

The main role that the majority of Americans play in democracy is that of spectator. The common American stands on the sidelines watching everything happen with little concern as long as his/her football team is winning or if Paris Hilton cut a fart in public. As long as there is enough needless information to distract people from what decisions are being made then they are easily directed and therefore deserving of the term “bewildered herd” (Glassner). In the case that the educated masses sense fishy business, that is where propaganda comes in and whips the population into an agreeable force that is made that way through the mass media reporting whatever the government deems appropriate and necessary. For example, in May of 1987, all the members of the Human Rights Group of El Salvador had been killed or imprisoned by the American government to make way for a more American cooperative El Salvador. Those members imprisoned were subjected to a variety of torture methods including electrocution. A 160 page report including a video tape showing the people testifying in prison about their torture was smuggled out of the prison and distributed by an international interfaith task force. The national press refused to cover it, and the TV stations refused to run it (Chomsky). With this practical state ownership of the media, everything we hear and know is strictly controlled and therefore most major violations of human rights and democratic ideals by the U.S. goes unnoticed and unreported resulting in a content cooperative “bewildered herd.”

 

Another very effective means of diverting American’s attention from what may be wrong with the government or other domestic affairs is the rallying of the population against a common enemy. This was practiced by Hitler in the 1930’s when he whipped the German population into a fear of Jews and Gypsies. He made the people believe that they had to crush them to defend themselves. The U.S. has their ways as well. Since the Red Scare lost its appeal the government has found some new monster every half decade or so that the people have to defend themselves against (“Media Control”). First it was the narco-traffickers and Saddam Hussein, then it was Osama bin Laden and then it was diverted back to Saddam Hussein for some unexplainable reason. All threats are blown drastically out of proportion (“Barry Glassner: Putting fears in perspective"). As long as there is someone to rally against, then American morale can always be raised when the people are saved again at the last moment like when we captured Saddam and made sure that he would never use weapons of mass destruction against the states that he never had, or when Pablo Escobar was killed and America’s cocaine problem would finally be solved (Moore). Once again in another way the idea of a true democracy is laughed at by those in control and the American people fall farther out of touch with reality.

 

What everyone hopes democracy to be, a society in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in managing their own affairs and the means of information are open and free, has become the tint on the windows shielding America from viewing the real world in which we live. Through distractions and propaganda, the government has been able to maintain a jingoist state for a century. A true democracy with all the ideals that the word embodies could begin to take shape if the mindset of Americans changed into realizing that the government should stop focusing on what is wrong with the rest of the world and spend its efforts on improving America itself (“Facts of Fahrenheit”). If America is not a democracy it is wrong to believe that it is. If one wants to live in a democracy then wheels would have to be put in motion moving America towards a less controlled environment.

 

Response to Declaration of Independence

 

Thomas Jefferson is one of the most adept master of the english language of all time. His usage of terms in clearly explaining why a way of living is unacceptable is compelling and focused. When he brought up why when submiting to unfair rules, decisions of despotism made that were forced upon the public, the people need to stand up to the tyranny it made me think of the country in which we live today. What if the mothers whose sons are enlisted in the military would see no difference in their lives if we invaded Iraq or not and felt that they did not want their sons to be sent there to die, why are there opinions not as valid or significant as those members of congress whose sons are attending boarding schools, summer camps, or Ivy League universities and have no idea what it feels like to be in the soldier's shoes. How about from now on if congress and George W. Bush think it's so important to invade Iraq or deploy troops in Afghanistan then they can send their family members to war.

 

Evaluation Paper Proposal

 

I think that there is very little debate today over who is the best actor in the world. When it comes to criteria for being an amazing actor I think the main categories are ability to evoke emotion, adaptability, and the actor or actress's selection of roles that he or she chooses to portray. I feel the best actor alive today is Russell Crowe. I've seen hundreds of movies and every time I see one of his I am immediately sucked into the film and I relate to and am enamored by every move his character makes and every word he speaks. Certainly there may have been better single performances by actors such as Al Pacino in Scarface, but I feel consistency is a very big factor in the selection. Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, and Cinderella Man I feel are enough to substantiate my claim of Russell Crowe being the best, but the fact that he never did a movie simply for the paycheck a la Nicolas Cage, and that everytime he plays a role he puts his whole heart and soul into it makes me respect the man, not only admire him.

 

"Russell Crowe (1)" www.imdb.com/name/nm0000128/

 

"Biography" www.russellcroweheaven.com

 

"Filmography" www.the-crowes-perch.com

 

"Russell Exposed" www.maximumcrowe.net

 

"Russell Crowe" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Crowe

 

"Russell Crowe" www.allperson.com/allperson/legend/0000000924.asp

 

Response to Andrew Sullivan's "My America"

 

Sullivan made a very good point in that although America has been one of the countries who struggled most with human rights violations is now the country who strives most to achieve equality among people. This feeling of equality, of self content, of not feeling inferior to anybody based on external characteristics, was shown in the child riding the bike not feeling intimidated by a 55 year old journalist. Sometimes I fall victim myself to focusing on wrongs of the past whereas Sullivan said one of the American ideals is to focus on the present and what lies in the future. What is great about America is just as Sullivan said, when meeting people it is seldom that you are more judged on what you've done or where you've been in the past, but rather how you are impressing upon them in the present.

 

Evaluation Paper

 

There is so much talent out there in the acting world today that some people may find it hard to pinpoint that actor who best exemplifies the ideal actor qualities and abilities. There have been so many amazing single performances such as Pacino in Scarface and many others, but I feel what best solidifies an actor’s reputation is consistency in his performances. I feel that the main qualities that measure an actor are ability to evoke emotion, adaptability, and the actor’s selection of roles that he or she chooses to portray, and in every one of these areas, Russell Crowe has consistency been at the top of his class.

 

An actor, just like an artist, prides himself in his ability to evoke a specific emotion in a viewer through his performance. The movies I enjoy most are those that send tingles up my spine and tears from my eyes. No actor has been able to make me feel the identical emotion that his character was feeling in a specific scene like Russell Crowe. For example the scene in Gladiator where he single handedly defeats every opponent in the arena and then throws his sword into the stands challenging the people and the slave owners to tell him he’s not good enough or that they are not entertained made me feel the pride that Maximus felt at that moment ("Russell Crowe (1)"). Another example of him being able to completely control a viewer’s emotions is the scene in Cinderella Man where James Braddock, a once proud boxer, goes into the boxing commissioner’s meeting during the depression asking them for spare change so that he could turn his heat back on and get his kids back ("Filmography"). The fact that this man was doing everything he could and yet it wasn’t enough was forced into the viewer’s mind resulting in such a sad and pitiful feeling for this man in his state of helplessness that any emotionally aware person would feel like crying. In every one of his movies, time and time again, he continues to amaze me with such powerful performances that after the movie I immediately check the internet to see what he’s coming out with next.

 

The adaptability that actors show through various roles is not always something that they are born with. Often times the ability to go from one character to another comes from hours of hard work, years of researching the character and the zeitgeist of the era in which they live, and even months of immersing themselves into that character’s lifestyle. In A Beautiful Mind, Crowe was able to portray a troubled math genius so well that the movie received best picture at the Oscars and the only reason he got snubbed from receiving his second best actor award (received one in 2001 for Gladiator) in a row was because the Academy wanted to make Denzel Washington the first black man to win best actor since Sidney Poitier ("Russell Exposed"). That may sound a little bias, but I honestly think his performance in A Beautiful Mind was one of the best of all time. What is most outstanding is that the two characters that he could have won best actor for were at completely different ends of the spectrum. Maximus in Gladiator was a proud, tactful, righteous Roman general who fought adversity to raise himself through the ranks of slavery whereas in A Beautiful Mind, he played John Nash, a brilliant Harvard mathematician who dealt with bouts of schizophrenia all the while coming up with brilliant theories, and each role he played equally beautifully. These performances all required hard work and dedication by Crowe whose work ethic is rumored to be scarily focused. For the movie Romper Stomper in 1992 about a group of neo-nazi sympathizers, Crowe spent the months leading up to the filming hanging around with the group of people who were in the Nazi group with him personifying the skin head attitude while trying to understand what would make someone think that way (“Russell Crowe”). Crowe has always dedicated all his efforts into personifying his characters as accurately and effectively as possible.

 

Unfortunately today many highly esteemed actors are no longer choosing roles for the thrill of a new challenge but rather for the amount of the paycheck. In my opinion this is witnessed in every role Nicolas Cage has played in the past ten years and most recently in the case of Robert DeNiro in Hide and Seek. I went to this movie with my girlfriend expecting her to at least be scared but instead I ended up sitting through an hour and a half of me having to apologize to her and explain that I figured the movie couldn’t be that bad because it had DeNiro in it. I couldn’t believe that it was honestly one of the ten worst movies I had ever seen. It was up there with Galaxy Quest with Tim Allen. Russell Crowe has shown no such lack of judgment in his career meticulously selecting the roles he portrays and each time nailing them with the utmost professionalism. I think this quality in actors is more an indicator of the actor’s self respect rather than his ability as an actor. I think even if the movie is not that great, an actor can still give a standout performance such as in Proof of Life with Russell Crowe. The movie was average, but Russell Crowe still gave a compelling emotional performance capped off by the last ten minutes in which Crowe makes the two hours spent watching the film worth every minute ("Biography").

 

Today many actors are blinded by the bright lights of flash bulbs and perverted by the astronomical sums of money paid to them for doing a single movie to make sensible decisions and focus on giving a standout performance. Russell Crowe has been head and shoulders above the rest in consistently putting his heart and all his effort into giving each role he plays the respect, accuracy, and effectiveness it deserves. His ability to pry into the viewers heart and give knock out performances in any role imaginable cement his role as one of the best if not the best actor on the planet. Hopefully other actors can learn from his example and the state of filmmaking and acting may steadily improve, if not, at least we still have Russell Crowe movies to look forward to.

 

Response to Rwanda Conflict

 

What is most disturbing about this tragedy besides the murder of hundreds of thousands of tutsis is the fact that the U.N. refused to send immediate aid to the area under the grounds of what did they have to gain from saving these people. They knew that financially the Rwandans could not benefit them in any way, they could not be organized and used for their labor, so what difference did it make to the rest of the world if they were saved or not. In the Declaration of Human Rights things like this were outlawed. The creators of this Declaration should have showed some integrity and moved into the area and stopped the conflict from escalating any further.

 

Political Leanings in politics

 

Occasionally I find my self too entrenched in one way of thinking when it comes to political debates. I think this is partly due to my extreme personality where I find myself pouring passion into things before I feel like I've taken a look at everything else. The checklist on what to look for in politically biased papers was enlightening because I think a lot of my papers tend to be so forceful and so leaning one way that it might turn a person of unlike ideals completely off. I think in future papers I will tend to think of what might a conservative be thinking, why, and how can I help him or her relate to or see what I believe.

 

Causal Paper Proposal

 

There has been much effort devoted towards the personification of America as being a free country where opportunity is limitless and there is no fear of being persecuted or targeted fordoing anything short of extremely illegal. With the passing of the Patriot Act, the possibility of this ideal America ever becoming reality has been lost. The Patriot Act, which enables the U.S. government to do practically anything it wants under the prenotion that it is for the protection against terroris, to any citizen or noncitizen, is a lugey in the face of the Declaration of Independence and Human Rights. This act or more like license to spy, arrest, and violate, has caused the non-chauvinistic American people to be fearful and distrustful of their government, and more likely to consider conformity due to pressure from the right. Who knows, maybe if Nixon had the Patriot Act, they could have found grounds for Watergate to be legal.

 

www.slate.com/id/2087984/ "A Guide to the Patriot Act"

 

www.lifeandliberty.gov "Examining the Facts"

 

www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/default.html "The USA Patriot Act"

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act "USA Patriot Act"

 

www.veteransforpeace.org/Opposition_to_USA_111503.htm "Opposition to USA Patriot Act Swells"

 

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/patriot.act/ "Patriot Act's fate remains uncertain"

 

www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8092 "Violations of Civil Liberties are an American Tradition"

 

Causal Paper

 

George Orwell was able to brilliantly capture how the human mind reacts to excessive amounts of control in his book 1984. The mind has an innate yearning for freedom and to carve its own path through the terrain no matter what lies ahead. With the passing of the Patriot act, the government is bringing us closer to a world, like in 1984, where they have the ability to know what we are doing, who we are talking to, and where we are at any time. The Patriot act was passed in 2001 in the wake of the attacks on 9/11 to ensure the government's ability to combat terrorism (“The USA Patriot Act”). It passed by a margin of 3:1 in the house during a state of panic and paranoia most likely causing the members to barely read the article; for if they had they would have hopefully recognized numerous breechings of the bill of rights and it would have been a red flag to them to not pass it for the sake of keeping the executive branch from going “big brother” on the people (“A Guide to the Patriot Act”). The passing of the Patriot act has caused the non-chauvinistic American people to grow distrustful and fearful of the government, and become less likely to enjoy freedom of speech and opinion.

 

Every sensible American knows to take the rhetoric of politicians with a grain of salt, but with the Patriot act it’s a whole new ball game. Under the Patriot act, any law enforcement official is allowed to obtain any legal documents or any available information about anyone as long as it is under the pretext of aiding the fight against terrorism. This means that they can tap anyone’s phone, obtain any medical information, and know anything there possibly is to know about anyone as long as it is deemed a battle in the fight against terrorism (“USA Patriot Act”). An unbiased judge is not even allowed to question the need for such a warrant and the only information people are allowed to see is how many of these warrants were granted, which is not much help unless that number is zero (“Opposition to Patriot Act Swells”). How can people trust the government if they show so much distrust in the people? Why should the people believe that the government's motives for going to war and sending our sons and daughters to their deaths is a noble cause if they won’t allow us to speak freely? The passing of the Patriot act in 2001 ushered in a new era of a war of trust, freedom of information, and the ability to form one’s own opinion between the government and the people, a war who’s end is nowhere in sight.

 

There is the idea that if one is not doing anything wrong then he/she is in no danger of wrongful prosecution due to the Patriot act, unfortunately this is not always the case. An anti-war group found wiretappings on phones they used and audio bugs under the seats of chairs in the building in which they gathered (“Violations of Civil Liberties are an American Tradition”). The government issued a statement stating they were investigating an individual who was suspected of terrorist activities but who is to say they were not simply combating opposition using whatever means necessary? The less naysayers for the government the better. This kind of activity promotes fear in the observant wary American people. Not only are the people expected to abide by the law, but are expected to walk the line of conformity as well. How can people be so sure when forming new opinions or brainstorming ideas in a group meeting on how to combat unconstitutional decisions made by the government that they aren’t being listened to? Those people could have their phones tapped and be arrested for the simplest thing. If people are not free in what they say, then who is to say that they are free in their own minds?

 

What is most disturbing about this act is what it could lead to. It could eventually be used to formulate consensus opinions and to promote those supported by the governemt moreso than others. In the 1960’s there was a big campaign against communism and all they needed was some subjective evidence to blacklist a suspected communist. Now with the government having the means necessary to acquire as much objective evidence as possible on anyone, who is to say people will not begin to be targeted for opposing political activities ("Patriot act's fate remains uncertain"). With the idea that people are watching you or that your activities could possibly be monitored, the subconscious mind at a young age might begin to conform to what is expected and eventually people might live in a world full of chauvinistic, brainwashed, idiots who could not formulate any opinions outside of what they see in the headlines. They would never look between the cracks or never read between the lines and the possible human rights violations are limitless. The government could fuse religion and state, pass laws straight out of the Bible, treat homosexuals as second class citizens (they already do), and anything else as long as they have their thumb on the nonconforming public and they ability to do anything they want to anyone they want. In the case of the government attempting to obtain search records from google.com, how could the sharing of information possibly be free and uncensored if the government is able to know exactly what you read. Not that it is that important to be able to know how to make a pipe bomb, but if someone wanted to know how to, in no way should that information be kept from them, because if the people allow the government to say no to that, then what’s next (“Violations of Civil Liberties are an American Tradition”)? People need to adhere to strong principles or their trust will be taken advantage of. There should never be a way for the government to wrongfully target, silence, or discredit any whistle blower.

 

The passing of the Patriot act has caused a great shift in the principles under which the country is based. The people have sacrificed many freedoms to aid the “fight against terror” (“Examining the facts”). Unfortunately this “fight against terror” was merely the shield hiding the true motive for this act which is to grant law enforcement any means necessary to get the convictions they seek. This act has resulted in many convictions due to information being gathered in unjust ways and has caused the wary American public to be fearful of a government that is beginning to resemble that from 1984. Not only is the act a step backward for human liberty, but is in blatant violation of the Declaration of Human Rights established by the United Nations in 1948, and the fourth Amendment to the U.S. constitution.

 

Response to Communist Manifesto

 

There is a strong underlying argument throughout the piece of right and wrong. A question I find myself asking when reading it is in times when millions go hungry, should a few people be allowed to gorge merely because they took advantage of the opportunities put right before their nose? But what plagues the idea of communism is that there would be no incentive to go to any lengths to better oneself. There would be an ubiquitous feeling of content or lack of motivation. This is against our human nature which leads me to believe that communism is not a viable system and that people need the sense of anything is possible in order to promote a healthy, developing civilization even at the cost of varying levels of poverty.

 

Layman definition of stigmergy

 

Stigmergy is the observable cumulative efforts of a colony of animals and how the individual's efforts work together to produce a common goal. For example in an ant colony when building a nest each individual's actions may effect the next individual's action but they all still have a sense of what to do to get done what needs to be done.

 

Response to A Modest Proposal

 

The eerie part of Swift's proposal is that it seems to make total sense. If we lived in a world devoid of morals, compassion, and emotion then eating your young child would be a viable option if you began to grow hungry. I suppose it's not much worse than an abortion, although some humans like to distance themselves from the realm of other animals, therefore I think most would be reluctant to feast upon their infant child. Although the way bears maintain their populations or stay alive is by eating the cubs if they cannot find enough food otherwise although this is a practice mostly reserved for the older male bears. Luckily today we are free from 18th century contraints and are able to mostly provide food for the majority of our population although there is still and imbalance which could be given parity with a few Infant de la roche cho's.

 

 

Proposal argument proposal

 

A common fault of out nation today is extrinsic focus. The government and people today are so focused on what is wrong with the rest of the world that they seldom take a look at what is wrong with our own country. One argument Bush makes is that our economy is prosperous enough that we should be able to achieve many objectives, but I think that when what should be our main objectives (i.e. curbing drug abuse, educating the underprivileged, providing affordable health care) are not being accomplished, we need to take resources devoted to what should be secondary objectives (i.e. spying on our own people, the war in Iraq, making bombs to drop on innocent people) and send them in the right direction. I think a realistic start to achieving these objectives would be to elect a sensible Democratic president and from there lobby for increased domestic spending.

 

http://costofwar.com/numbers.html "The Calculator"

 

http://www.griefdenied.com/overview.html "Vietnam War"

 

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1415147 "Setting the Wrong Priorities: An Analysis of the President's 2007 Budget"

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=40540 "Funding For, And Societal Impact Of, Cancer Research To Be Discussed During AACR Press Briefing, US"

 

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html?src=gu "Budget Office—U.S. Department of Education"

 

http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/prep/higher/competitiveness.html "Increasing America's Competitiveness"

 

Proposal paper (aka best paper ever)

 

From Vietnam to Iraq 1 and 2, the American government’s budget priorities have been too focused on foreign affairs during a time in which our nation’s kids are growing progressively stupider, rates of preventable diseases are skyrocketing for which 46 million Americans cannot afford to pay for, and a growing number of Americans are unable to pay for their energy needs. According to Bush, the economy is prosperous enough that it should be able to afford many budget objectives, well if that were the case, why is he proposing to cut spending in areas that all Americans highly prioritize such as healthcare, science and technology, and education. What the president needs to be proposing is decreasing the spending on foreign wars and foreign aid while increasing spending in those areas that the American people hold dear.

 

In a time when many other industrialized nations are able to provide their citizens with affordable healthcare, 46 million Americans go without health insurance while Bush is proposing to cut an additional $36 billion from Medicare (“Setting the Wrong Priorities"). If our economy is so prosperous, why can’t we provide the funds to help our people survive? In addition to that, the president is also proposing a $276 million cut in the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s budget and a $39 million cut in the National Cancer Institute’s budget (“Funding For...”). All the while Bush finds it necessary to allocate an additional $270 million in a close minded conservative brainwashing Abstinence only education campaign. Now I don’t know where the president got the idea that teenagers aren’t having sex these days or that they might choose not to, but once again someone provided him with some misinformation and there are going to be a lot of kids not getting free STD testing and condoms. I’m not sure how this benefits the country but if someone can figure that out I’d appreciate them letting me know. For some reason though there is still a spare $315 billion to put into ousting Sadaam Hussein who unless we captured was going to attack our country at any second which probably would have been pretty difficult when national defense spending has reached an all time high of $540 billion (“Setting the Wrong Priorities,” “The Calculator"). Maybe we could have afforded this personal vendetta of Bush’s if the Republican administration of the late 60’s had not spent $140 billion on the Vietnam War which would be equal to approximately $700 billion today according to the Consumer Price Index (“Vietnam War").

 

As if the federal budget/deficit change from $250 billion in 2000 to -$400 billion in 2005 was not indicator enough that something was wrong in Bush’s approach to everything, he decided to further support America’s “addiction to oil” by proposing for the sixth time to drill for it in the Alaskan Nature Preserve (“Setting the Wrong Priorities"). If the funds that were spent on acquiring this reserve worth maybe 15 years of oil were spent on energy conservation education or the funding for a more renewable energy resource, America could become a more energy independent nation. Today Brazil is nearly completely self sufficient with its energy needs. It provides for itself through its booming sugar cane crop which is efficiently converted to ethanol to be used for fuel. Although these bio fuels do not get the “mileage” of gasoline, they burn cleaner and are a step in the right direction for switching over to a different fuel source. Not only is the proposition for acquiring and consuming more oil detrimental to America’s economy, it will inevitably lead to a higher rate of lung disease and various health concerns for this generations children. Southern California is covered in an ubiquitous smog that contributes to a variety of health defects, if more and more gas is consumed that smog will begin to spread over the entire country (I know about the smog because I’ve been to L.A., it made me want to gag). Unless someone with some solid conservational views takes office, this country is headed down a self destructive path down which it will continue to accelerate.

 

President Bush proposed a lot of very nice sympathetic programs to expand the capabilities of the department of education, but how will these new programs such as “No child left behind” be funded if its budget is cut by $2.1 billion? Although the education department has an annual budget of nearly $90 billion, the president’s plan to “increase America’s competitiveness” in the high end job market will not be accomplished if the funding is decreased (“Budget Office—U.S. Department of Education,” “Increasing America's Competitiveness"). With an increasing number of high tech jobs going to people overseas, Americans need to take charge by going to college and graduating. But how will these same Americans who can barely afford health care afford 4-year colleges? If the $315 billion that was spent on the Iraq war was devoted entirely to sending kids to college, the government could have entirely funded 2.6 million kids’ 4-year college degrees. Now it may be said that these same kids would not fully take advantage of the opportunity given to them and it would not prove to be $315 billion well spent, but if there were strict guidelines as to minimum GPA’s and attendance, it could be nearly ensured that the right students would be receiving this money. And besides, why not spend it on trying to educate people rather than killing them?

 

America has the potential to be the greatest civilization in the history of mankind bar none, but if the helms of this nation continue to fail into ignorant, selfish, profit minded hands, then we will continue to accelerate down a path of self destruction. As everyone knows, Bush’s idea of unlimited resources do not exist, therefore most of those that we do have need to be devoted to domestic priorities such as healthcare, science and technology, and education for the benefit of this nation’s wellbeing. Not only do the people of this country need to redirect the motion/focus of its leaders, but the longer we wait the more dim the prospect looks.