Well, being 26, I am in my late mid-twenties. In May, when I turn 27, I will be in my early late-twenties. This is something I've developed in order to make things sound a little more palatable as I get older.
Certainly in my life there have been things that have made me feel old. Like seeing Full House on Nick at Nite, having my younger brother and younger sister get married before me, or seeing Halloween 4 on American Movie Classics. Well, just kidding about that one. Everybody knows AMC is the worst channel in history. I mean, come on. They show fucking American Pie on that channel.
But probably what consistently reminds me of my age is teaching my college freshman. I mean, it wasn't so long ago that I myself was a college freshman, skipping lots of math classes and staying up until 4 every night with my roommate for absolutely no good reason other than we could. (We were pretty big losers, so we didn't have a lot of friends). This semester, though, I'm teaching Maus, Watchmen, and Dark Knight Returns, all written in the mid to late 80s. I find that I'm constantly having to explain the general political climate of the time, and how that might affect their reading of these works, because most of them were alive for only two years of the 80s, tops. I mean, we talk about the Reagan administration a little bit, and to be fair I wasn't actually in America for that, but I pretty much have to educate them from scratch. Their general knowledge of Reagan is that he single handedly broke the Berlin wall with his fists and destroyed the Soviet Bloc with one wink. Just kidding of course. They have no idea what the Berlin wall or Soviet Bloc are.
But do I feel old? I mean, I'm older than these kids, certainly. And I don't really ever get carded anymore, unless I go to a bar where college students go. And I have a couple of grey hairs. And I'm not really in shape. (Though some may argue that I wasn't ever in shape to begin with, and some may be right). And I'm in a stuffy graduate program. And I have two cats. And I pretty much always use metamusil and viagra. And I complain that things were better before all these whippersnappers were running around. And I go to Shoneys at 4:30 for dinner every Sunday. And I have to buy pre-chewed food. And my grandkids never call, the goddamned little ingrates. And I have a healthy collection of 78s, that don't quite hold up to the quality of phonographic cylinders. And I drive in a very annoying manner to young folk.
But on the other hand, my ideal day is probably spent reading comic books and playing video games. Also, my apartment is decorated in action figures and movie posters. So maybe I'm old in some ways, and young in the important ways.
PS - I don't need viagra, just to clarify. That was a joke. I was being facetious. I am one hundred percent fine in the special area. No viagra for me, thanks. Honest.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
"I'm 37, I'm not old"
Well I was trying to think of something really bizarre to write about, and one of the kids from my church suggested bedsheets. Definitely weird, but after skiing all weekend, I don't think I could muster enough creativity to write my own post about bedsheets, so consider yourselves safe for now.
I've actually been thinking a lot about age lately - maybe this is from being around people at least 7-8 yrs younger than I this weekend. I was thinking about how much age is perceived differently, not only as you get older, but in society in general. For example, turning 30 used to be a big deal. There are all sorts of scenes in sitcoms and movies where people are agonizing over being the big 3-0. I don't know about the rest of you, but who cares? 30 isn't old, and yet these people act as if it's the end of the world (of course it's funnier that way). Maybe when I get closer to 30 I'll feel differently, but I don't think so - I've never thought of that age as old, except maybe when I was 5.
However, maybe I was just mature about aging when I was younger. I actually had 2 kids at the library basically tell me I was old the other day. These two guys (about 13-14) were hitting on some girls, and in general giving me grief. One of them said "I bet you had a lot of guys chasing after you when you were young" (a poor attempt to suck up). I said "What do you mean 'when I was young'?" His friend hit him and said, "She's still young". The first one goes "What are you, 21?". "No, a little older than that.", "24?", "No a little older.", "29?!". OK - big jump there from 24 to 29, but the fact that his first guess was 21 is a little disheartening. I mean, I guess it's a compliment if I look 4 yrs younger than I am, but it's disheartening because he was implying that 21 was old.
I used to think 50 was pretty old too, but now that my parents and friends' parents are hitting that age, it's not that way anymore. I mean, it still sounds old - but when I look at the people I know who are that age, it doesn't match the image that was conjured in my mind when I was younger.
Part of this is probably my perception of age changing as I get older, but I think society as a whole is changing. People are getting married and having kids later. If this were 20 yrs ago, all of us on this blog would probably be married and maybe have kids, but as it is none of us are. Maybe it's because life spans keep getting longer. I mean, back when people only lived to be about 40, they were married with kids at 13. Maybe we're getting smarter - we're waiting to get married and have kids once were more responsible and financially stable. Or maybe we're just more selfish - waiting to live out our single lives as long as we can before settling.
Of course there are still plenty of people who get married and have kids right out of high school. One of which is my new coworker, with whom I went to school. She was telling me about her husband and kids, and she asked if I had any. I replied no, but I know I had a look of utter shock and horror at the question. (That's something I really should work on) I tried to cover, but it just didn't work. I can't imagine having any children right now, much less having any when I was 18. (I could have a 7 yr old right now!)
As much as I hate people 10 yrs younger than me thinking I'm old, I guess I do the same to them - that is think that they're really young - just kids. It's funny hanging out with my Sr. High youth @ church - we like a lot of the same movies and music and they're really cool. However a song will play - like the Undone Sweater song by Weezer, and I'll stop and think "Wow - they were like 6 when this song came out - weird."
So I guess this week's topic is age - how you perceive it, how society perceives it, how you think people a certain age should act - that type of stuff.
Oh and props to Laurie for giving us a shoutout via bulletin on myspace.
I've actually been thinking a lot about age lately - maybe this is from being around people at least 7-8 yrs younger than I this weekend. I was thinking about how much age is perceived differently, not only as you get older, but in society in general. For example, turning 30 used to be a big deal. There are all sorts of scenes in sitcoms and movies where people are agonizing over being the big 3-0. I don't know about the rest of you, but who cares? 30 isn't old, and yet these people act as if it's the end of the world (of course it's funnier that way). Maybe when I get closer to 30 I'll feel differently, but I don't think so - I've never thought of that age as old, except maybe when I was 5.
However, maybe I was just mature about aging when I was younger. I actually had 2 kids at the library basically tell me I was old the other day. These two guys (about 13-14) were hitting on some girls, and in general giving me grief. One of them said "I bet you had a lot of guys chasing after you when you were young" (a poor attempt to suck up). I said "What do you mean 'when I was young'?" His friend hit him and said, "She's still young". The first one goes "What are you, 21?". "No, a little older than that.", "24?", "No a little older.", "29?!". OK - big jump there from 24 to 29, but the fact that his first guess was 21 is a little disheartening. I mean, I guess it's a compliment if I look 4 yrs younger than I am, but it's disheartening because he was implying that 21 was old.
I used to think 50 was pretty old too, but now that my parents and friends' parents are hitting that age, it's not that way anymore. I mean, it still sounds old - but when I look at the people I know who are that age, it doesn't match the image that was conjured in my mind when I was younger.
Part of this is probably my perception of age changing as I get older, but I think society as a whole is changing. People are getting married and having kids later. If this were 20 yrs ago, all of us on this blog would probably be married and maybe have kids, but as it is none of us are. Maybe it's because life spans keep getting longer. I mean, back when people only lived to be about 40, they were married with kids at 13. Maybe we're getting smarter - we're waiting to get married and have kids once were more responsible and financially stable. Or maybe we're just more selfish - waiting to live out our single lives as long as we can before settling.
Of course there are still plenty of people who get married and have kids right out of high school. One of which is my new coworker, with whom I went to school. She was telling me about her husband and kids, and she asked if I had any. I replied no, but I know I had a look of utter shock and horror at the question. (That's something I really should work on) I tried to cover, but it just didn't work. I can't imagine having any children right now, much less having any when I was 18. (I could have a 7 yr old right now!)
As much as I hate people 10 yrs younger than me thinking I'm old, I guess I do the same to them - that is think that they're really young - just kids. It's funny hanging out with my Sr. High youth @ church - we like a lot of the same movies and music and they're really cool. However a song will play - like the Undone Sweater song by Weezer, and I'll stop and think "Wow - they were like 6 when this song came out - weird."
So I guess this week's topic is age - how you perceive it, how society perceives it, how you think people a certain age should act - that type of stuff.
Oh and props to Laurie for giving us a shoutout via bulletin on myspace.
Lastly...
...another follow-up to my post, since the Iraq War came up. I was against the war when it started. I remember the "countdown" that Bush had for Saddam Hussein. I remember that night watching TV at work when the "countdown" ran out, and I remember watching when the bombs started dropping. At the time, I lived in a rural area, and most people were very much behind this war. I remember being home from work and watching, live on TV, the tanks riding into Baghdad. I was against it, and I remember hearing Howard Dean at the time speaking out against it, and saying what he thought would happen; and it happened just as he said. I remember before the war started, seeing how many Democrats voted for it. I remember some of the rationalizing about it: that in the moment, in the political climate that existed, and with the BS intelligence that Bush and Co. were pushing (and remember, Congress doesn't have access to their own intelligence like the White House does, of course), it, in hindsight, does make a slight bit of sense that many Dems might vote for the war. But even then, I didn't understand it. Now, personally, I am not a big follower of foreign policy; I try to stay up on Iraq and the Middle East, but mostly, I'm more interested in domestic policy. But, Iraq is the biggest policy fuckup, both foreign or domestic, that has happened surely in my lifetime, if not in competition for all-time fuckup. Not only has is completely screwed up the US with regards to other countries and our standing on the world stage, it's screwed up our domestic policy, both by massive and unnecessary spending and by directing our attention away from things that need to be addressed here at home. So I do think that the war is a strike against our Dem candidates, those that voted for it. But I do think that Edwards is on the right track: he's denounced the war, he's said it was a mistake and he was wrong to vote for it. I'm loathe to "promote" someone who made such a massive mistake, but one does have to somewhat take the politics of the time into account. Obama, of course, was not in the Senate, but did come out strong against the war at the time. Clinton voted for it and won't even talk about her vote; she also furthers the Right Wing rhetoric that the Republic Party pushes, likely in an attempt to triangulate her position with more conservative folks (it won't work).
Here is a good blog post that speaks to exactly how I feel about the war. I think that we need to get out of there. Yes, we should take some "responsibility" for what we've done. But we've lost more Americans to the Iraq War fuckup than we did in 9/11, which was and still is used as justification for being there. There are PLENTY of plans out there that Dems have put forth to get us out of Iraq. It's already a civil war, and it's going to get worse with or without us standing in the way and getting killed. I know people over there. I'm tired of seeing people come home in caskets, or come home wounded or mentally fucked-up and not getting the help they deserve. To hear the GOP talk about supporting the troops, and talking about how even debating an exit from Iraq is damaging to the troops, and then not trying to raise taxes even a cent, or even repealing some of Bush's fat tax cuts for the richest among us, to help pay for the war, and get life-saving armor over there to the troops- it's disgusting, and it makes me, honestly, wish I could get locked into a room with some of these fucking assholes. The new Bush budget cuts more veterans benefits, and cuts completely any new research and development into traumatic brain injuries, which is something that is common among Iraq War casualties. The troops don't have the armor and protection they need- the army couldn't even get helmet liners to the troops that could save lives and the troops brains; a private citizen started a campaign to get these to the troops, and ended up finally shaming the army into providing them after regular people sent large sums of their own personal money to get these liners over to the troops. How dare these yellow, scum-sucking, posturing two-faced bottom feeing fuckers even BEGIN to talk about supporting the troops? This war needs to end. There are plans to remove us from Iraq; re-deployment to other areas to continue to help train and protect the borders. A "soft-partition" of Iraq into three different areas (which is, de facto, what is already happening anyway- remember, Iraq was never actually a country, it was cobbled together from different more tribal areas and held together by a dictator). Biden has one of the best plans; unfortunately, he's not the best talker, and our high and mighty news media thinks that someone misspeaking is more fucking important than actually having a good plan and getting something done. This whole situation is fucked, and continuing down the same path, because "we must take responsibility," or because we are too proud to "lose," or whatever; it's morally repugnant and wrong. These soldiers deserve better, and so do the future generations which are undoubtedly going to live in the aftermath of these blunders.
Here is a good blog post that speaks to exactly how I feel about the war. I think that we need to get out of there. Yes, we should take some "responsibility" for what we've done. But we've lost more Americans to the Iraq War fuckup than we did in 9/11, which was and still is used as justification for being there. There are PLENTY of plans out there that Dems have put forth to get us out of Iraq. It's already a civil war, and it's going to get worse with or without us standing in the way and getting killed. I know people over there. I'm tired of seeing people come home in caskets, or come home wounded or mentally fucked-up and not getting the help they deserve. To hear the GOP talk about supporting the troops, and talking about how even debating an exit from Iraq is damaging to the troops, and then not trying to raise taxes even a cent, or even repealing some of Bush's fat tax cuts for the richest among us, to help pay for the war, and get life-saving armor over there to the troops- it's disgusting, and it makes me, honestly, wish I could get locked into a room with some of these fucking assholes. The new Bush budget cuts more veterans benefits, and cuts completely any new research and development into traumatic brain injuries, which is something that is common among Iraq War casualties. The troops don't have the armor and protection they need- the army couldn't even get helmet liners to the troops that could save lives and the troops brains; a private citizen started a campaign to get these to the troops, and ended up finally shaming the army into providing them after regular people sent large sums of their own personal money to get these liners over to the troops. How dare these yellow, scum-sucking, posturing two-faced bottom feeing fuckers even BEGIN to talk about supporting the troops? This war needs to end. There are plans to remove us from Iraq; re-deployment to other areas to continue to help train and protect the borders. A "soft-partition" of Iraq into three different areas (which is, de facto, what is already happening anyway- remember, Iraq was never actually a country, it was cobbled together from different more tribal areas and held together by a dictator). Biden has one of the best plans; unfortunately, he's not the best talker, and our high and mighty news media thinks that someone misspeaking is more fucking important than actually having a good plan and getting something done. This whole situation is fucked, and continuing down the same path, because "we must take responsibility," or because we are too proud to "lose," or whatever; it's morally repugnant and wrong. These soldiers deserve better, and so do the future generations which are undoubtedly going to live in the aftermath of these blunders.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
No way, eh! Radiation has made me an enemy of civilization!
Well, I had a good long post ready on Friday, and then Blogger crapped out on me; not expecting Blogger to do that, I didn't copy my text, and I lost the post. I haven't been in the mood to re-post it; needless to say, it's basically more of the same stuff that I have written previously and in the comments to everyone else's posts. On the subject of Obama, I think he certainly can win. This question of "electability" is one that seems strange to me: "can he/she win" seems to be something the media comes up with; they asked the same thing about Bill Clinton. Any of the three top tier candidates in the Democratic field could most certainly win. Even Hillary Clinton.
As for me personally, Obama is my favorite candidate right now (of those that are running). I'd count the top tier candidates as Obama, Edwards and Clinton, and I prefer them in that order. I'm not the biggest fan of Clinton; I'd maybe even prefer a couple of the second tiered candidates to her (Richardson, Dodd, possibly Vilsack). I feel that way about Hillary for a few reasons. First, she represents a part of the Democratic party that I think should be purged: the more "Republican-lite, DLC wing." I remember, I think in 2003 or 2004, when Howard Dean said he represented "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"; that's what he meant. There are two parts of the party, and as much as I like Bill Clinton, and as much as I do actually like Hillary Clinton, I don't think she would be the best President. The second thing is her calculating and triangulating: it seriously troubles me. She seems to take no strong, principled stands on things, until, of course, her stand has been fully tested and when her handlers think it is politically sound to say. I've been much more impressed with Obama's ideas, which seem to be actually saying something, and with his quick and effective replies to attacks. (There's an anecdote about seeing Hillary speak in one of these comments threads that details her sort of hollow rhetoric; contrast that with Obama's speeches, which are truly inspiring and linger long after they are over). Hillary's stance on the war is particularly troubling; she is obviously against it now, and she speaks out against it, but she also adopts some of the Right's bullshit rhetoric (such as equating 9/11 with Iraq), and she will just not say that she was wrong to vote for the war. This seems to clearly be to not completely alienate those who might still be for the war. This is a huge mistake; those people are not likely to vote for Hillary in the first place; and as she tries unsuccessfully to pander to them, she is turning off those who would actually vote for her, as they move to one of the other two candidates. The Iraq War, which is one of the biggest policy blunders probably in history, was a mistake; for some reason, in DC, we seem to allow people to fail upwards; do we really want to PROMOTE someone who was so wrong? Edwards, of course, squeaks by because he has consistently said he was wrong and it was a mistake; Obama was not in the US Senate at the time, but has the virtue of having come out strongly against the war from his podium as a state senator. (I can somewhat excuse Democrats who voted for the war; it was somewhat close to 9/11, the country wanted something to be done and had fallen for the president's bullshit intelligence and was seeming to somewhat rally around Bush, etc.- it was a political decision, and very few seemed to see what a blunder this would be; Howard Dean was someone who seemed to see exactly what was going to happen, as did Obama.) So I am not for Hillary; but, if she is the nominee, I will vote for her with no problem.
One way or another, I think Obama will be on the ticket. Edwards has made it clear he isn't running for Vice President and didn't care for it the first time; he could change his mind. But I think, if Obama doesn't get the presidential nod, he'll be on the ticket as VP, and then in four or eight years, he will be the prohibitive favorite. I would, personally, love to see Gore come in, and have a Gore/Obama ticket. Out of those already in the game, I'd be into an Edwards/Obama ticket, or possibly an Obama/Clinton ticket as a second choice. I will also predict something now: barring a catastrophic mistake on the part of the congressional Democrats, if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008, I predict Democratic leadership for quite a while- I might even say a generation (again, barring any real big fuckups). The GOP ran Washington and this country into the ground for the past 12 years, and the country is trending Democratic; with the Dem field this exciting (and the GOP field decidedly not exciting), if a Dem wins, I predict a Democratic era for a while.
Speaking of the GOP field, it's very interesting; the Democratic field is extremely exciting and is seriously getting people pumped up, while the GOP field is problematic to Republicans and conservatives. The situation seems to be that an extremely socially conservative candidate couldn't win the general election, but a more moderate Republican can't get through the GOP primary. Their top tiered candidates are not seeming to move people- I have read many blogs and articles that seem to have conservatives not very happy with their choices, and I've seen this on television as well. Who've they got? Mccain, who the conservative base does not seem to trust- no matter how much he runs to the HARD right, and no matter how much he completely lies and flip-flops through this campaign season. Giuliani, who absolutely doesn't have the experience to be president; he is really a candidate who is even out there because of one day- and as soon as this thing gets rolling, we're going to see all of the real dirt on him, and the incompetence of much of his mayorship that got brushed under the rug when 9/11 happened. Besides that, I also think that his positions on things will scare away much of the GOP base. And then we have Romney, who is a Mormon; I'm sorry, but that's going to kill him in this race. I'm not saying that's right, but I don't think a Mormon will get through the GOP primary. And then the other candidates, such as Duncan Hunter, or Mike Huckabee, are just not well known enough that even if they do have more conservative credentials that might get them through the GOP primary, I don't see them breaking the wave that is Obama, or any of the other nationally well-known Dem candidates. So it's really unfortunate for the Republic party, and really fortunate for those who would like to see the Dems take back the WH and solidify their hold on Congress in '08 (the GOP has many more Senate seats up for grabs in 08 than the Dems do, so it seems likely that the Dems will strengthen their razor-thin hold on the Senate).
And lastly, for someone who said they thought they could see themselves voting Mccain, here's a couple of links that you (and everyone) should take a look at. Yes, it's from a left-wing website, but the content speaks for itself. Mccain is a liar and, in my opinion, a dangerous candidate. This image of him from the 2000 primaries as a "maverick" and a moderate is increasingly false. His Iraq War bullshit is also troubling.
That's pretty much what I said the first time in the post that Blogger ate; except the first time it was probably not as riddled with mistakes and was less stream-of-consciousness, but hey, it's late.
As for me personally, Obama is my favorite candidate right now (of those that are running). I'd count the top tier candidates as Obama, Edwards and Clinton, and I prefer them in that order. I'm not the biggest fan of Clinton; I'd maybe even prefer a couple of the second tiered candidates to her (Richardson, Dodd, possibly Vilsack). I feel that way about Hillary for a few reasons. First, she represents a part of the Democratic party that I think should be purged: the more "Republican-lite, DLC wing." I remember, I think in 2003 or 2004, when Howard Dean said he represented "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"; that's what he meant. There are two parts of the party, and as much as I like Bill Clinton, and as much as I do actually like Hillary Clinton, I don't think she would be the best President. The second thing is her calculating and triangulating: it seriously troubles me. She seems to take no strong, principled stands on things, until, of course, her stand has been fully tested and when her handlers think it is politically sound to say. I've been much more impressed with Obama's ideas, which seem to be actually saying something, and with his quick and effective replies to attacks. (There's an anecdote about seeing Hillary speak in one of these comments threads that details her sort of hollow rhetoric; contrast that with Obama's speeches, which are truly inspiring and linger long after they are over). Hillary's stance on the war is particularly troubling; she is obviously against it now, and she speaks out against it, but she also adopts some of the Right's bullshit rhetoric (such as equating 9/11 with Iraq), and she will just not say that she was wrong to vote for the war. This seems to clearly be to not completely alienate those who might still be for the war. This is a huge mistake; those people are not likely to vote for Hillary in the first place; and as she tries unsuccessfully to pander to them, she is turning off those who would actually vote for her, as they move to one of the other two candidates. The Iraq War, which is one of the biggest policy blunders probably in history, was a mistake; for some reason, in DC, we seem to allow people to fail upwards; do we really want to PROMOTE someone who was so wrong? Edwards, of course, squeaks by because he has consistently said he was wrong and it was a mistake; Obama was not in the US Senate at the time, but has the virtue of having come out strongly against the war from his podium as a state senator. (I can somewhat excuse Democrats who voted for the war; it was somewhat close to 9/11, the country wanted something to be done and had fallen for the president's bullshit intelligence and was seeming to somewhat rally around Bush, etc.- it was a political decision, and very few seemed to see what a blunder this would be; Howard Dean was someone who seemed to see exactly what was going to happen, as did Obama.) So I am not for Hillary; but, if she is the nominee, I will vote for her with no problem.
One way or another, I think Obama will be on the ticket. Edwards has made it clear he isn't running for Vice President and didn't care for it the first time; he could change his mind. But I think, if Obama doesn't get the presidential nod, he'll be on the ticket as VP, and then in four or eight years, he will be the prohibitive favorite. I would, personally, love to see Gore come in, and have a Gore/Obama ticket. Out of those already in the game, I'd be into an Edwards/Obama ticket, or possibly an Obama/Clinton ticket as a second choice. I will also predict something now: barring a catastrophic mistake on the part of the congressional Democrats, if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008, I predict Democratic leadership for quite a while- I might even say a generation (again, barring any real big fuckups). The GOP ran Washington and this country into the ground for the past 12 years, and the country is trending Democratic; with the Dem field this exciting (and the GOP field decidedly not exciting), if a Dem wins, I predict a Democratic era for a while.
Speaking of the GOP field, it's very interesting; the Democratic field is extremely exciting and is seriously getting people pumped up, while the GOP field is problematic to Republicans and conservatives. The situation seems to be that an extremely socially conservative candidate couldn't win the general election, but a more moderate Republican can't get through the GOP primary. Their top tiered candidates are not seeming to move people- I have read many blogs and articles that seem to have conservatives not very happy with their choices, and I've seen this on television as well. Who've they got? Mccain, who the conservative base does not seem to trust- no matter how much he runs to the HARD right, and no matter how much he completely lies and flip-flops through this campaign season. Giuliani, who absolutely doesn't have the experience to be president; he is really a candidate who is even out there because of one day- and as soon as this thing gets rolling, we're going to see all of the real dirt on him, and the incompetence of much of his mayorship that got brushed under the rug when 9/11 happened. Besides that, I also think that his positions on things will scare away much of the GOP base. And then we have Romney, who is a Mormon; I'm sorry, but that's going to kill him in this race. I'm not saying that's right, but I don't think a Mormon will get through the GOP primary. And then the other candidates, such as Duncan Hunter, or Mike Huckabee, are just not well known enough that even if they do have more conservative credentials that might get them through the GOP primary, I don't see them breaking the wave that is Obama, or any of the other nationally well-known Dem candidates. So it's really unfortunate for the Republic party, and really fortunate for those who would like to see the Dems take back the WH and solidify their hold on Congress in '08 (the GOP has many more Senate seats up for grabs in 08 than the Dems do, so it seems likely that the Dems will strengthen their razor-thin hold on the Senate).
And lastly, for someone who said they thought they could see themselves voting Mccain, here's a couple of links that you (and everyone) should take a look at. Yes, it's from a left-wing website, but the content speaks for itself. Mccain is a liar and, in my opinion, a dangerous candidate. This image of him from the 2000 primaries as a "maverick" and a moderate is increasingly false. His Iraq War bullshit is also troubling.
That's pretty much what I said the first time in the post that Blogger ate; except the first time it was probably not as riddled with mistakes and was less stream-of-consciousness, but hey, it's late.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
My.President.Com
the lefty side of Washington has recently become one big Obama love-in. As my neighbor put it last week, "it's all Barack, all the time here." In fact, I haven't heard a negative thing about him in weeks, which is saying a lot in a city like this.
That said, I confess I haven't been too eager to follow all the hype and the plethora of other contestants. For one thing, I've been AWFULLY pre-occupied with the Anna Nicole Smith stories (this alone could make for a very long blog series from me), and for another, the full election is still a full 21 months off. I can't make a decision right now, knowing I'll have nearly 2 years to gather more information and to change my mind. Even the DC primary is a full year away.
One of my best friends recently signed up on My.BarackObama.com to support his campaign, so I decided to check out the site. I highly recommend this, as it made it abundantly clear that Obama is running the better campaign. The Web site is packed full of information and easy to use, and it even has a password-protected MySpace-style personalize-able section to encourage participation from people who normally wouldn't bother. He offers tons of professional information about himself-- past speeches, press releases, bills, etc.-- and a (obviously highly flattering) bio. I read his recent Springfield speech, since I had neglected to actually listen to the whole thing when he gave it, and, I have to admit, I got a little misty-eyed! I think he's certainly the first politician who knows how to talk to our generation-- who knows what we really want, why we've become cynical, what we want to believe is possible, and how to reassure us that despite whatever we've seen so far it really IS possible. He comes across as intelligent and straight-forward. His Web site also included a list of important issues, what he thought was wrong with them, and how he would fix them. Right there! In print! "here's how I would fix the county and the world" Hillary couldn't even answer a question in a recent interview about whether she thought Obama had enough experience for office. She couldn't even offer her own opinion, and for that, she lost major points in my book. To quote a recent headline in reference to Obama, "somebody stop him before he gets more experience!"
I think Obama's big problem will not be that he's black (or not black enough) or inexperienced, but that he is doing such a great job at courting the young, newly influential idealists that make up so much of our generation. Unfortunately, most of us don't vote. This makes me want to rail and kick and scream, but it is the truth. For many of us, our first presidential election was Bush-Gore 2000, where it became abundantly clear that our single votes didn't matter so much. On the other hand, maybe the lesson was that they DID matter and all those people who would have voted Democratic if they had ever bothered to register were actually the ones who made the vote too close to call in a timely manner and therefore dependant on a panel of judges. Or maybe it was all Katherine Harris's fault, who does well in fulfilling her role as the perfect Snidely-Whiplash-or-Cruella-DeVil-style villain.
My conclusion, then, is two-fold. First, Hillary, you have to get off your duff and start running a creative and innovative campaign. We've been fooled enough times now to not fall for the same bullshit anymore. Stop "playing it safe" and actually put some real opinions out there so you don't force us to vote for a person rather than for issues (because you'll loose). and Second, my friends, my generation, you must register to vote, and you must exercise that right whenever you can. I was always big on voting in Florida, and, since I've moved and had to forfeit most of my representation and voting rights, it's become even more important to me. Look... it takes just a few minutes, and you can do it here: http://www.declareyourself.org/index.php (just try to get past the graphics obviously meant to encourage “young, hip, urban voters”). Thank you and god speed.
That said, I confess I haven't been too eager to follow all the hype and the plethora of other contestants. For one thing, I've been AWFULLY pre-occupied with the Anna Nicole Smith stories (this alone could make for a very long blog series from me), and for another, the full election is still a full 21 months off. I can't make a decision right now, knowing I'll have nearly 2 years to gather more information and to change my mind. Even the DC primary is a full year away.
One of my best friends recently signed up on My.BarackObama.com to support his campaign, so I decided to check out the site. I highly recommend this, as it made it abundantly clear that Obama is running the better campaign. The Web site is packed full of information and easy to use, and it even has a password-protected MySpace-style personalize-able section to encourage participation from people who normally wouldn't bother. He offers tons of professional information about himself-- past speeches, press releases, bills, etc.-- and a (obviously highly flattering) bio. I read his recent Springfield speech, since I had neglected to actually listen to the whole thing when he gave it, and, I have to admit, I got a little misty-eyed! I think he's certainly the first politician who knows how to talk to our generation-- who knows what we really want, why we've become cynical, what we want to believe is possible, and how to reassure us that despite whatever we've seen so far it really IS possible. He comes across as intelligent and straight-forward. His Web site also included a list of important issues, what he thought was wrong with them, and how he would fix them. Right there! In print! "here's how I would fix the county and the world" Hillary couldn't even answer a question in a recent interview about whether she thought Obama had enough experience for office. She couldn't even offer her own opinion, and for that, she lost major points in my book. To quote a recent headline in reference to Obama, "somebody stop him before he gets more experience!"
I think Obama's big problem will not be that he's black (or not black enough) or inexperienced, but that he is doing such a great job at courting the young, newly influential idealists that make up so much of our generation. Unfortunately, most of us don't vote. This makes me want to rail and kick and scream, but it is the truth. For many of us, our first presidential election was Bush-Gore 2000, where it became abundantly clear that our single votes didn't matter so much. On the other hand, maybe the lesson was that they DID matter and all those people who would have voted Democratic if they had ever bothered to register were actually the ones who made the vote too close to call in a timely manner and therefore dependant on a panel of judges. Or maybe it was all Katherine Harris's fault, who does well in fulfilling her role as the perfect Snidely-Whiplash-or-Cruella-DeVil-style villain.
My conclusion, then, is two-fold. First, Hillary, you have to get off your duff and start running a creative and innovative campaign. We've been fooled enough times now to not fall for the same bullshit anymore. Stop "playing it safe" and actually put some real opinions out there so you don't force us to vote for a person rather than for issues (because you'll loose). and Second, my friends, my generation, you must register to vote, and you must exercise that right whenever you can. I was always big on voting in Florida, and, since I've moved and had to forfeit most of my representation and voting rights, it's become even more important to me. Look... it takes just a few minutes, and you can do it here: http://www.declareyourself.org/index.php (just try to get past the graphics obviously meant to encourage “young, hip, urban voters”). Thank you and god speed.
The children are our future, I'm told
Well, as you all may know, I can't vote. Therefore, I don't watch or care about politics. Just kidding. I care. I'm a pretty left-wing person. Probably more left wing than most of my cobloggers here, even. (Sorry, Nick, but it's true). So I would definitely vote for whatever Democrat they put up against the republicans. Probably I would want that to be Barack Obama, because every time he speaks he sounds so intelligent and eloquent, unlike our president who sounds like a garbage truck crunching up a half ton of dirty diapers. Also, I agree with what he says that sounds so intelligent, too.
Anyway, this wasn't a make out with Barack topic, it was a race/sex matter in election topic. Which is strange, because I actually posed this question to my college freshmen students a couple of weeks ago as our daily debate topic. So here's some of what they said. (PS - I believe the issues are way more important than the race or sex of the candidate, for what that's worth. Which is approximately zero (0) votes)
- It would be nice if Obama were nominated, since "colored people" (student's term) have been through so much over the years, and it would be like an apology.
- Nobody will vote for Obama or Clinton because only old people vote, and they are racist and sexist. (I basically think this one might be true. Maybe I'm cynical.)
- Obama wouldn't make a good president because he would just want to help black people. Or conversely, he would make a good president because he would be able to help black people.
- Clinton would make a bad president because women are more emotional, and in a time of war she might not be able to send troops to their deaths because she would feel bad for them.
- Clinton would make a bad president because women get PMS and if she's really angry she might invade some country.
- Clinton would make a bad president because the rest of the world would view America as weak if there were a woman in charge (I had to point out that many world powers have had female leaders. Including Canada, by the way)
- Obama would make a good president because it would show the world that a black man would make a good leader (Again, I had to point out that numerous countries have black leaders, and in fact the secretary general of the United Nations is black)
- Clinton won't be elected because people will worry that she'll have a scandal to get back at her husband
Anyway, those are the highlights of the discussion. Had I known we'd have such a similar topic in here so soon, I would have taken notes.
Anyway, this wasn't a make out with Barack topic, it was a race/sex matter in election topic. Which is strange, because I actually posed this question to my college freshmen students a couple of weeks ago as our daily debate topic. So here's some of what they said. (PS - I believe the issues are way more important than the race or sex of the candidate, for what that's worth. Which is approximately zero (0) votes)
- It would be nice if Obama were nominated, since "colored people" (student's term) have been through so much over the years, and it would be like an apology.
- Nobody will vote for Obama or Clinton because only old people vote, and they are racist and sexist. (I basically think this one might be true. Maybe I'm cynical.)
- Obama wouldn't make a good president because he would just want to help black people. Or conversely, he would make a good president because he would be able to help black people.
- Clinton would make a bad president because women are more emotional, and in a time of war she might not be able to send troops to their deaths because she would feel bad for them.
- Clinton would make a bad president because women get PMS and if she's really angry she might invade some country.
- Clinton would make a bad president because the rest of the world would view America as weak if there were a woman in charge (I had to point out that many world powers have had female leaders. Including Canada, by the way)
- Obama would make a good president because it would show the world that a black man would make a good leader (Again, I had to point out that numerous countries have black leaders, and in fact the secretary general of the United Nations is black)
- Clinton won't be elected because people will worry that she'll have a scandal to get back at her husband
Anyway, those are the highlights of the discussion. Had I known we'd have such a similar topic in here so soon, I would have taken notes.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
For Glenn
I hate to break in on our topic of discussion this week (and break my long-standing tradition of my blog post titles), but I had to post a few things specifically with Glenn in mind to read (though everyone should read them): Read these three articles about your favorite show, 24. I thought you'd find them interesting.
I now return you to our regularly scheduled topic.
I now return you to our regularly scheduled topic.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Weighing The Options
I hate to admit it, but I haven't been keeping up with the candidates lately, and I had to do a bit of research before writing this (As it's Mon afternoon, and I have to post this on Tues, it hasn't given me much time). However, after watching a few videos and reading a few articles, I think I've cobbled enough info together to write a reasonable enough post.
Hope. That's the main tenet in Obama's speeches, and one that will help power his campaign. I hate to say it, but I think one of the main reasons the Democratic candidates have lost over the last couple of years is that they didn't inspire a passion in people. Both Gore and Kerry came across as robots, and though Dean came off looking like a lunatic in his famous little scream speech, at least there was a passion coming through. There have been early criticisms that it's just fluff, and with the exception of his proposed bill to bring troops home, he hasn't laid out plans for his other platforms such as health care. I don't think he HAS to lay out all his plans just yet. His idealism is inspiring, and using that should help him gain a lot of support (but I agree, he'll have to eventually).
As far as electability goes, there are some issues. The biggest one is race, and it's this topic that might be a little backwards than one would initially think. I was watching the Colbert Report this morning, and there was a woman on who was saying that Obama didn't have a lot of support from the black community because he isn't their definition of black. He isn't descended from slaves (West African slaves specifically), and thus didn't have the same upbringing and challenges that most in the black community have had. He has a white mother, and was apparently raised around her parents, thus having a predominantly white upbringing. This is great for attracting white votes - he has the skin color, but the upbringing (some would say personality) of a white person. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had the opposite problem, they had black support, but alienated the white votes. Recent polls show that Obama only has 20% of the black vote, meanwhile Clinton is in the lead in black polls, getting at least 60% I think.
Speaking of Hillary, she has a bit of an edge, mainly just with name recognition. Through her 8 years as first lady, and now her time in the senate, there's not a person in the U.S. who hasn't heard of her. Of course that can also be her pitfall. There are people out there who think she's Satan incarnate, and I highly doubt that Obama or Edwards has generated that kind of hatred against them. She also has Bill though, and there are tons of people who would vote her in just to have him back in the White House in some form. Unfortunately, I think that she doesn't have as much of a chance because she's a woman. Black men got the right to vote before women did, and I don't see the election of president being much different.
I supported Edwards in the 2004 election. Mainly it was because my roommate Lindsey was working for his campaign, and needed the help, but I also thought he had the charisma to win. Sadly, he was a bit of a one-trick pony (son of a mill worker), but he did secure the nomination for vice president. I think it was a ploy to win the southern votes, but it backfired because (if memory serves me correctly) before the nomination Kerry was farther ahead in the polls than he was. It seems he's learned a lot since then, but some of the stigma from the last campaign may still be attached. It's the same thing Al Gore will have to face - they've already lost one election, why bet on them a second time? (Gore though has the advantage of technically having won his election, and if he runs again, the people might have enough momentum this time to make sure there's no doubt if he wins).
Another hot topic is experience. While I'm sure it's nice to have, is it always necessary? Right now we have a president who already has served one term AND has a father who served - plenty of experience right? Look how fucked over we are. While I think experience can be important in making decisions, that's what advisers are for. I haven't seen it yet, but I would have to laugh if Edwards ever criticizes Obama for using the "Washington outsider" play, as it was the one he used in the last election.
As far as Obama's Christianity, it can't hurt right? OK, well actually I suppose it could. It will be a key tool in attracting the conservative religious votes, but he can't overplay it and lose the people who aren't religious. Of course, if he ends up being the Democratic nominee, then that won't be as much of a worry, because I think the non-religious would vote for him regardless, just to get a Democrat in office.
As of right now, I'm still not throwing my support towards any particular candidate - I still need to find out more.
Hope. That's the main tenet in Obama's speeches, and one that will help power his campaign. I hate to say it, but I think one of the main reasons the Democratic candidates have lost over the last couple of years is that they didn't inspire a passion in people. Both Gore and Kerry came across as robots, and though Dean came off looking like a lunatic in his famous little scream speech, at least there was a passion coming through. There have been early criticisms that it's just fluff, and with the exception of his proposed bill to bring troops home, he hasn't laid out plans for his other platforms such as health care. I don't think he HAS to lay out all his plans just yet. His idealism is inspiring, and using that should help him gain a lot of support (but I agree, he'll have to eventually).
As far as electability goes, there are some issues. The biggest one is race, and it's this topic that might be a little backwards than one would initially think. I was watching the Colbert Report this morning, and there was a woman on who was saying that Obama didn't have a lot of support from the black community because he isn't their definition of black. He isn't descended from slaves (West African slaves specifically), and thus didn't have the same upbringing and challenges that most in the black community have had. He has a white mother, and was apparently raised around her parents, thus having a predominantly white upbringing. This is great for attracting white votes - he has the skin color, but the upbringing (some would say personality) of a white person. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had the opposite problem, they had black support, but alienated the white votes. Recent polls show that Obama only has 20% of the black vote, meanwhile Clinton is in the lead in black polls, getting at least 60% I think.
Speaking of Hillary, she has a bit of an edge, mainly just with name recognition. Through her 8 years as first lady, and now her time in the senate, there's not a person in the U.S. who hasn't heard of her. Of course that can also be her pitfall. There are people out there who think she's Satan incarnate, and I highly doubt that Obama or Edwards has generated that kind of hatred against them. She also has Bill though, and there are tons of people who would vote her in just to have him back in the White House in some form. Unfortunately, I think that she doesn't have as much of a chance because she's a woman. Black men got the right to vote before women did, and I don't see the election of president being much different.
I supported Edwards in the 2004 election. Mainly it was because my roommate Lindsey was working for his campaign, and needed the help, but I also thought he had the charisma to win. Sadly, he was a bit of a one-trick pony (son of a mill worker), but he did secure the nomination for vice president. I think it was a ploy to win the southern votes, but it backfired because (if memory serves me correctly) before the nomination Kerry was farther ahead in the polls than he was. It seems he's learned a lot since then, but some of the stigma from the last campaign may still be attached. It's the same thing Al Gore will have to face - they've already lost one election, why bet on them a second time? (Gore though has the advantage of technically having won his election, and if he runs again, the people might have enough momentum this time to make sure there's no doubt if he wins).
Another hot topic is experience. While I'm sure it's nice to have, is it always necessary? Right now we have a president who already has served one term AND has a father who served - plenty of experience right? Look how fucked over we are. While I think experience can be important in making decisions, that's what advisers are for. I haven't seen it yet, but I would have to laugh if Edwards ever criticizes Obama for using the "Washington outsider" play, as it was the one he used in the last election.
As far as Obama's Christianity, it can't hurt right? OK, well actually I suppose it could. It will be a key tool in attracting the conservative religious votes, but he can't overplay it and lose the people who aren't religious. Of course, if he ends up being the Democratic nominee, then that won't be as much of a worry, because I think the non-religious would vote for him regardless, just to get a Democrat in office.
As of right now, I'm still not throwing my support towards any particular candidate - I still need to find out more.
I'm voting for Barack Obama, but can he win?
Even though it’s not yet 2008, politicians have begun to announce their respective candidacies for the presidency. It’s still quite early in the race; at this point we have no way of knowing who will join the race, who will bow out, what skeletons will emerge from which closets… and we certainly have no way of knowing just who the Democratic nominee will be. However, ever since the 2004 Democratic Convention, when I watched Barack Obama’s keynote speech (and found myself wishing that he – not Kerry – were the Democratic nominee), I’ve been hoping that he’d run in 2008. With Obama’s recent announcement that he is indeed throwing his hat into the ring for 2008, I’ve decided to support him.
Now, as much as I was blown away by his keynote speech at the convention (you can watch it here, or you can download it for free from i-tunes), I’m not going to back a candidate solely on the basis of his oratory skill. (If nothing else, Reagan was an exceptional speaker, and we all know that I never would have voted for the man. You know, had I not been all of two and six when he was running.) I did some research into the Democratic Big 3: Obama, Hillary and John Edwards. They all have very similar records/views when it comes to the issues I care about, specifically things like Roe v. Wade, contraception, stem cell research, etc. HOWEVER: Both Edwards and Hillary both gave into Bush’s obviously bullshit request to authorize the invasion of Iraq. That makes Obama the only candidate of the three who is untainted by the choice to send our troops into the desert. Granted, Obama wasn’t a Senator at the time, although he says that he wouldn’t have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Of course, he has the benefit of making this statement after the fact, knowing what we know now. I was vehemently opposed to the invasion of Iraq back before this whole mess began, and I would like to think that there’s a politician or two out there who share my views. I would like to believe that Obama would be one of them.
Another thing I like about Obama is his Christianity and his willingness to court the Christian vote is an asset. Now, coming from me, this probably sounds mighty strange, as I am not religious whatsoever. However, as much as I would love it if the world would suddenly decide to share my point of view in this matter, I acknowledge that will never happen. Americans are a pretty religious bunch. Too long have the Republicans courted the religious vote, portraying the Democratic Party as a bunch of godless heathens, hell bent on destroying America. I think it’s about time the Democrats stopped shying away from religion; doing so simply allows Karl Rove, et al, to swoop in and snag Republican votes. (Somebody PLEASE remind the Religious Right that “turning the other cheek” is really not the same as bombing the shit out of one’s enemies.) However, even though Obama is a committed Christian, he also believes strongly in the separation of Church and State. Best of both worlds.
So those are some of the reasons why I’m supporting Barack Obama. But can he win? I don’t know. I hope so, but I just don’t know. I wonder if America is ready for a “black” candidate. (I put that in quotes because, as my father pointed out, if his mother is white and his father is black, isn’t he just as much a “white” candidate as a black one? But let’s face it, most people are going to take one look at this fellow’s skin color and label him “black.”) I myself am not so sure that America is ready for Obama, just as I’m not too sure that America is ready for Hillary either. Strategically, a vote for Edwards would be safer, but I very much prefer Obama over Edwards. I’ve talked about this electability issue with Nick before. His idea is that as long as the Democrats don’t waste too much time and money campaigning in the South, and instead focus on more “winnable” states, both Obama and Hillary stand a chance. I am not so sure either that the Democrats would essentially give up the South, or that the rest of America contains fewer bigots than the South.
This week’s discussion: What are your thoughts on Obama, Hillary and Edwards? Obama’s Christianity? The likelihood of a female or a person of color being elected President of the United States?
Now, as much as I was blown away by his keynote speech at the convention (you can watch it here, or you can download it for free from i-tunes), I’m not going to back a candidate solely on the basis of his oratory skill. (If nothing else, Reagan was an exceptional speaker, and we all know that I never would have voted for the man. You know, had I not been all of two and six when he was running.) I did some research into the Democratic Big 3: Obama, Hillary and John Edwards. They all have very similar records/views when it comes to the issues I care about, specifically things like Roe v. Wade, contraception, stem cell research, etc. HOWEVER: Both Edwards and Hillary both gave into Bush’s obviously bullshit request to authorize the invasion of Iraq. That makes Obama the only candidate of the three who is untainted by the choice to send our troops into the desert. Granted, Obama wasn’t a Senator at the time, although he says that he wouldn’t have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Of course, he has the benefit of making this statement after the fact, knowing what we know now. I was vehemently opposed to the invasion of Iraq back before this whole mess began, and I would like to think that there’s a politician or two out there who share my views. I would like to believe that Obama would be one of them.
Another thing I like about Obama is his Christianity and his willingness to court the Christian vote is an asset. Now, coming from me, this probably sounds mighty strange, as I am not religious whatsoever. However, as much as I would love it if the world would suddenly decide to share my point of view in this matter, I acknowledge that will never happen. Americans are a pretty religious bunch. Too long have the Republicans courted the religious vote, portraying the Democratic Party as a bunch of godless heathens, hell bent on destroying America. I think it’s about time the Democrats stopped shying away from religion; doing so simply allows Karl Rove, et al, to swoop in and snag Republican votes. (Somebody PLEASE remind the Religious Right that “turning the other cheek” is really not the same as bombing the shit out of one’s enemies.) However, even though Obama is a committed Christian, he also believes strongly in the separation of Church and State. Best of both worlds.
So those are some of the reasons why I’m supporting Barack Obama. But can he win? I don’t know. I hope so, but I just don’t know. I wonder if America is ready for a “black” candidate. (I put that in quotes because, as my father pointed out, if his mother is white and his father is black, isn’t he just as much a “white” candidate as a black one? But let’s face it, most people are going to take one look at this fellow’s skin color and label him “black.”) I myself am not so sure that America is ready for Obama, just as I’m not too sure that America is ready for Hillary either. Strategically, a vote for Edwards would be safer, but I very much prefer Obama over Edwards. I’ve talked about this electability issue with Nick before. His idea is that as long as the Democrats don’t waste too much time and money campaigning in the South, and instead focus on more “winnable” states, both Obama and Hillary stand a chance. I am not so sure either that the Democrats would essentially give up the South, or that the rest of America contains fewer bigots than the South.
This week’s discussion: What are your thoughts on Obama, Hillary and Edwards? Obama’s Christianity? The likelihood of a female or a person of color being elected President of the United States?
Saturday, February 10, 2007
It could always be worse
I think that a good Constitution requires foresight and a bit of humility from its writers. It can't simply satisfy the poilitcal climate of the present, but it has to last and survive through societal changes for hundreds of years. Humility enters when the writers recognize that a Constitution that only allows for one group of rulers, no matter how currently democratically minded or self-righteous, will never last. Does the US Constitution provide answers to every question that arises today? Certainly not. But, it has served us pretty well, and we have been able to amend those parts that have become grossly outdated.
Obviously, not all Constitutions can claim this. I include the example below not as the worst example (I'm sure there are probably some pretty horrible ones in parts of Africa), but simply as the first I found. There are some ideas in here that I'm inclined to agree whole-heartedly with. But, as a Constitution, it seems to have some fundamental problems. All emphasis is mine.
Adopted by the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets
[pulled from http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/index.htm]
July 10, 1918
The declaration of rights of the labouring and exploited people (approved by the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918), together with the Constitution of the Soviet Republic, approved by the fifth congress, constitutes a single fundamental law of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
This fundamental law becomes effective upon the publication of the same in its entirety in the 'Izvestia of the All-Russian General Executive Committee.' It must be published by all organs of the Soviet Government and must be posted in a prominet place in every soviet institution.
The fifth congress instructs the People's Commissariat of Education to introduce in all schools and educational instituitions of the Russian Republic the study and explanation of the basic principles of this Constitution.
Article One
CHAPTER ONE
1. Russia is declared to be a republic of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. All the central and local power belongs to these soviets.
2. The Russian Soviet Republic is organized on the basis of a free union of free nations, as a federation of soviet national republics.
CHAPTER TWO
3. Bearing in mind as its fundamental problem the abolition of the exploitation of men by men, the entire abolition of the division of the people into classes, the suppression of exploiters, the establishment of a socialist society, and the victory of socialism in all lands, the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies further resolves:
(a) For the purpose of attaining the socialization of land, all private property in land is abolished, and the entire land is declared to be national property and is to be apportioned among agriculturists without compensation of the former owners, to the measure of each one's ability to till it.
(b) All forests, treasures of the earth, and waters of general public utility, all equipment whether animate or inanimate, model farms and agricultural enterprises, are declared to be national property.
(c) As a first step toward complete transfer of ownership to the Soviet Republic of all factories, mills, mines, railways, and other means of production and transportation, the soviet law for the control of workmen and the establishment of a Supreme Soviet of National Economy is hereby confirmed so as to insure the power of the workers over the exploiters.
(d) With reference to international banking and finance, the Third Congress of Soviets is discussing the soviet decree regarding the annulment of loans made by the Government of the Czar, by landowners and the bourgeoisie, and it trust that the Soviet Government will firmly follow this course until the final victory of the international workers' revolt against the oppression of capital.
(e) The transfer of all banks to the ownership of the Workers' and Peasants' Government, as one of the conditions of the liberation of the toiling masses from the yoke of capital, is confirmed.
(f) Universal obligation to work is introduced for the purpose of eliminating the parasitic strata of society and organizing the economic life of the country.
(g) For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that a Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed.
CHAPTER THREE
4. Expressing its fixed resolve to liberate mankind from the grip of capital and imperialism, which flooded the earth with blood in its present most criminal of all wars, the Third Congress of Soviets fully agrees with the Soviet Government in its policy of abrogating secret treaties, of organizing on a wide scale the fraternization of the workers and peasants of the belligerent armies, and of making all efforts to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.
5. It is also to this end that the Third Congress of Soviets insists upon putting an end to the barbarous policy of the bourgeois civilization which enables the exploiters of a few chosen nations to enslave hundreds of millions of the working population of Asia, of the colonies, and of small countries generally.
6. The Third Congress of Soviets hails the policy of the Council of People's Commissars in proclaiming the full independence of Finland, in withdrawing troops from Persia, and in proclaiming the right of Armenia to self-determination.
CHAPTER FOUR
7. The Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies believes that now, during the progress of the decisive battle between the proletariat and its exploiters, the exploiters should not hold a position in any branch of the Soviet Government. The power must belong entirely to the toiling masses and to their plenipotentiary representitives- the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies.
8. In its effort to create a league-- free and voluntary, and for that reason all the more complete and secure-- of the working classes of all the peoples of Russia, the Third Congress of Soviets merely establishes the fundamental principles of the Federation of Russian Soviet Republics, leaving to the workers and peasants of every people to decide the following question at their plenary sessions of their soviets, namely, whether or not they desire to participate, and on what basis, in the Federal government and other Federal soviet institutions.
Article Two
GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIALIST FEDERATED SOVIET REPUBLIC
CHAPTER FIVE
9. The fundamental problem of the constitution of the Russian Socialist federated Soviet Republic involves, in view of the present transition period, the establishment of a dictatorship of the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry in the form of a powerful All-Russian soviet authority, for the purpose of abolishing the exploitation of men by men and introduction of socialism, in which their will be neither a division into classes nor a state of autocracy.
10. The Russian Republic is a free socialist society of all the working people of Russia. The entire power, within the boundaries of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, belongs to all the working people of Russia, united in urban and rural soviets.
11. The soviets of those regions which differentiate themselves by a special form of existence and national character may unite in autonomous regional unions, ruled by the local congress of the soviets and their executive organs.
These autonomous regional unions participate in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic upon a Federal basis.
12. The supreme power of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic belongs to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, and, in periods between the convocation of the congress, to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
13. For the purpose of securing to the workers real freedom of conscience, the church is to be separated from the state and the school from the church, and the right of religious and anti-religous propaganda is accorded to every citizen.
14. For the purpose of securing freedom of expression to the toiling masses, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic abolishes all dependence of the Press upon capital, and turns over to the working people and the poorest peasantry all technical and material means for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books, etc., and guarantees their free circulation throughout the country.
15. For the purpose of enabling the workers to hold free meetings, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic offers to the working class and to the poorest peasantry furnished halls, and takes care of their heating and lighting appliances.
16. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, having crushed the economic and political power of the propertied classes, and having thus abolished all obstacles which interfered with the freedom of organization and action of the workers and peasants, offers assistance, material and other, to the workers and the poorest peasantry in their effort to unite and organize.
17. For the purpose of guaranteeing to the workers real access to knowledge, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic sets itself the task of furnishing full and general free education to the workers and the poorest peasantry.
18. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic considers work the duty of every citizen of the Republic, and proclaims as its motto: 'He shall not eat who does not work.'
19. For the purpose of defending the victory of the great peasants' and workers' revolution, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic recognizes the duty of all citizens of the Republic to come to the defense of their socialist fatherland, and it therefore introduces universal military training. The honor of defending the revolution with arms is accorded only to the workers, and the non-working elements are charged with the performance of other military duties.
20. In consequence of the solidarity of the workers of all nations, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic grants all political rights of Russian citizens to foreigners who live in the territory of the Russian Republic and are engaged in work and who belong to the working class. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic also recognizes the right of local soviets to grant citizenship to such foreigners without complicated formality.
21. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic offers shelter to all foreigners who seek refuge from political or religious persecution.
22. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, recognizing the equal rights of all citizens, irrespective of their racial or national connections, proclaims all privileges on this ground, as well as oppression of national minorities, to be contrary to the fundamental laws of the Republic.
23. Being guided by the interests of the working class as a whole, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic deprives all individuals and groups of rights which could be utilized by them to the detriment of the socialist revolution.
Article Three
ORGANIZATION OF THE SOVIET POWER
A. Organization of Central Power
CHAPTER SIX
THE ALL-RUSSIAN CONGRESS OF SOVIETS OF WORKERS', PEASANTS', COSSACKS', AND RED ARMY DEPUTIES
24. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets is the supreme power of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
25. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets is composed of representatives of urban soviets (one delegate for 25,000 voters), and of representatives of the provincial (gubernia) congresses of soviets (one delegate for 125,000 inhabitants).
Note 1: In case the provincial congress is not called before the All-Russian Congress is convoked, delegates for the latter are sent directly from the county (uyezd) congress.
Note 2: In case the regional (oblast) congress is convoked indirectly, previous to the convocation of the All-Russian Congress, delegates for the latter may be sent by the regional congress.
26. The All-Russian Congress is convoked by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee at least twice a year.
27. A special The All-Russian Congress is convoked by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee upon its own initiative, or upon the request of local soviets having not less than one-third of the entire population of the Republic.
28. The All-Russian Congress elects an All-Russian Central Executive Committee of not more than 200 members.
29. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee is entirely responsible to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets.
30. In the periods between the convocation of the congresses, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee is the supreme power of the Republic.
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE ALL-RUSSIAN CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
31. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee is the supreme legislative, executive and controlling organ of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
32. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee directs in a general way the activity of the Workers' and Peasants' Government and of all organs of the soviet authority in the country, and it coordinates and regulates the operation of the Soviet constitution and of the resolutions of the All-Russian congresses and of the central organs of the soviet power.
33. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee considers and enacts all measures and proposals introduced by the Soviet of People's Commissars or by the various departments, and it also issues its own decrees and regulations.
34. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee convokes the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, at which time the Executive Committee reports on its activity and on general questions.
35. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee forms a Council of People's Commissars for the purpose of general management of the affairs of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, and it also forms departments (People's Commissariats) for the purpose of conducting various branches.
36. The members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee work in the various departments (People's Commissariats) or execute special orders of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS
37. The Council of People's Commissars is entrusted with the general management of the affairs of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
38. For the accomplishment of this task the Council of People's Commissars issues decrees, resolutions, orders, and, in general, takes all steps necessary for the proper and rapid conduct of governmental affairs.
39. The Council of People's Commissars notifies immediately the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of all it's orders and resolutions.
40. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee has the right to revoke or suspend all orders and resolutions of the Council of People's Commissars.
41. All orders and resolutions of the Council of People's Commissars of great political significance are referred for consideration and final approval to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
Note: Measures requiring immediate execution may be enacted directly by the Council of People's Commisariats.
42. The members of the Council of People's Commissars stand at the head of the various People's Commissariats.
43. There are seventeen [sic] People's Commissars: (a) Foreign Affairs; (b) Army; (c) Navy; (d) Interior; (e) Justice; (f) Labor; (g) Social Welfare; (h) Education; (i) Post and Telegraph; (j) National Affairs; (k) Finances; (l) Ways of Communication; (m) Agriculture; (n) Commerce and Industry; (o) National Supplies; (p) State Control; (q) Supreme Soviet of National Economy; (r) Public Health.
44. Every commissar has a collegium (committee) of which he is the president, and the members of which are appointed by the Council of People's Commissars.
45. A People's Commissar has the individual right to decide on all questions under the jurisdiction of his commissariat, and he is to report on his decision to the collegium. If the collegium does not agree with the commissar on some decisions, the former may, without stopping the execution of the decision, complain of it to the executive members of the Council of People's Commissars or to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
Individual members of the collegium have this right also.
46. The Council of People's Commissars is entirely responsible to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
47. The People's Commissars and the collegia of the People's Commissariats are entirely responsible to the Council of People's Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
48. The title of People's Commissar belongs only to the members of the Council of People's Commissars, which is in charge of general affairs of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, and it cannot be used by any other representative of the Soviet power, either central of local.
CHAPTER NINE
AFFAIRS IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ALL-RUSSIAN CONGRESS AND THE ALL-RUSSIAN CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
49. The All-Russian Congress and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee deal with the questions of state, such as:
(a) Ratification and amendment of the Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(b) General direction of the entire interior and foreign policy of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(c) Establishing and changing boundaries, also ceding territory belonging to the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(d) Establishing boundaries for regional soviet unions belonging to the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, also settling disputes among them;
(e) Admission of new members to the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, and recognition of the secession of any parts of it;
(f) The general administrative division of the territory of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic and the approval of regional unions;
(g) Establishing and changing weights, measures, and money denominations in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(h) Foreign relations, declaration of war, and ratification of peace treaties;
(i) Making loans, signing commercial treaties and financial agreements;
(j) Working out a basis and a general plan for the national economy and for its various branches in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(k) Approval of the budget of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(l) Levying taxes and establishing the duties of citizens to the state;
(m) Establishing the bases for the organization of armed forces;
(n) State legislation, judicial organization and procedure, civil and criminal legislation, etc.;
(o) Appointment and dismissal of the individual People's Commissars or the entire council, also approval of the president of the Council of People's Commissars;
(p) Granting and cancelling Russian citizenship and fixing rights of foreigners;
(q) The right to declare individual and general amnesty.
50. Besides the above-mentioned questions, the All-Russian Congress and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee have charge of all other affairs which, according to their decision, require their attention.
51. The following questions are solely under the jurisdiction of the All-Russian Congress:
(a) Ratification and amendment of the fundamental principles of the Soviet Constitution;
(b) Ratification of peace treaties.
52. The decision of questions indicated in paragraphs (c) and (h) of Section 49 may be made by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee only in cases it is impossible to convoke the Congress.
B. Organization of Local Soviets
CHAPTER TEN
THE CONGRESSES OF THE SOVIETS
53. Congresses of Soviets are composed as follows:
(a) Regional: of representatives of the urban and county soviets, one representative for 25,000 inhabitants of the county, and one representative for 5,000 voters of the cities- but not more than 500 representatives for the entire region- or of representatives of the provincial congresses, chosen on the same basis, if such a congress meets before the regional congress.
(b) Provincial (gubernia): of representatives of urban and rural (volost) soviets, one representative for 10,000 inhabitants from the rural districts, and one representative for 2,000 voters in the city; altogether not more than 200 representatives for the entire province. In case the county congress meets before the provincial, election takes place on the same basis, but by the county congress instead of the rural.
(c) County: of representatives of rural soviets, one delegate for each 1,000 inhabitants, but not more than 300 delegates for the entire county.
(d) Rural (volost): of representatives of all village soviets in the volost, one delegate for ten members of the soviet.
Note 1: Representatives of urban soviets which have a population of not more than 10,000 persons participate in the county congress; village soviets of districts of less than 10,000 inhabitants unite for the purpose of electing delegates to the county congress.
Note 2: Rural soviets of less than ten members send one delegate to the rural (volost) congress.
54. Congresses of the soviets are convoked by the respective executive committees upon their own initiative, or upon request of local soviets comprising not less than one-third of the entire population of the given district. In any case they are convoked at least twice a year for regions, every three months for provinces and counties, and once a month for rural districts.
55. Every congress of soviets (regional, provincial, county, or rural) elects its executive organ- an executive committee the membership of which shall not exceed (a) for regions and provinces, twenty-five; (b) for a county, twenty; (c) for a rural district, ten. The executive committee is responsible to the congress which elected it.
56. In the boundaries of the respective territories the congress is the supreme power; during intervals between the convocations of the congress, the executive committee is the supreme power.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE SOVIET DEPUTIES
57. Soviets of Deputies are formed
(a) In cities, one deputy for each 1,000 inhabitants; the total to be not less than fifty and not more than 1,000 members.
(b) All other settlements (towns, villages, hamlets, etc.) of less than 10,000 inhabitants, one deputy for each 100 inhabitants; the total to be not less than three and not more than fifty deputies for each settlement.
Term of the deputy, three months.
Note: In small rural sections, whenever possible, all questions shall be decided at general meeting of voters.
58. The Soviet of Deputies elects an executive committee to deal with current affairs; not more than five members for rural districts, one for every fifty members of the soviets of cities, but not more than fifteen and not less than three in the aggregate (Petrograd and Moscow not more than forty). The executive committee is entirely responsible to the soviet which elected it.
59. The Soviet of Deputies is convoked by the executive committee upon its own initiative, or upon the request of not less than one-half of the membership of the soviet; in any case at least once a week in cities, and twice a week in rural sections.
60. Within its jurisdiction the soviet, and in cases mentioned in Section 57, NOTE, the meeting of the voters is the supreme power in the given district.
CHAPTER TWELVE
JURISDICTION OF THE LOCAL ORGANS OF THE SOVIETS
61. Regional, provincial, county, and rural organs of the soviet power and also the Soviets of Deputies have to perform the following duties:
(a) Carry out all orders of the respective higher organs of the soviet power;
(b) Take all steps for raising the cultural and economic standard of the given territory;
(c) Decide all questions of local importance within their respective territories;
(d) Coordinate all soviet activity in their respective territories.
62. The congresses of soviets and their executive committees have the right to control the activity of the local soviets (i.e., the regional congress controls all soviets of the respective region; the provincial, of the respective province, with the exception of the urban soviets, etc.); and the regional and provincial congresses and their executive committees have in addition the right to overrule the decisions of the soviets of their districts, giving notice in important cases to the central soviet authority.
63. For the purpose of performing their duties, the local soviets, rural and urban and the executive committees form sections respectively.
Article Four
THE RIGHT TO VOTE
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
64. The right to vote and to be elected to the soviets is enjoyed by the following citizens of both sexes, [Jen's note: American women's suffrage supporter posted fliers with drawings of miserable-looking women in burlap sack-dresses to point out that Soviet women could vote and Americans could not.] irrespective of religion, nationality, domicile, etc., of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, who shall have completed their eighteenth year by the day of election:
(a) All who have acquired the means of livelihood through labor that is productive and useful to society, and also persons engaged in housekeeping which enables the former to do productive work, i.e., laborers and employees of all classes who are employed in industry, trade, agriculture, etc., and peasants and Cossack agricultural laborers who employ no help for the purpose of making profits.
(b) Soldiers of the army and navy of the soviets.
(c) Citizens of the two preceding categories who have in any degree lost their capacity to work.
NOTE 1: Local soviets may, upon approval of the central power, lower the age standard mentioned herein.
NOTE 2: Non-citizens mentioned in Section 20 (Article Two, Chapter 5) have the right to vote.
65. The following persons enjoy neither the right to vote nor the right to be voted for, even though they belong to one of the categories enumerated above, namely:
(a) Persons who employ hired labor in order to obtain form it an increase in profits;
(b) Persons who have an income without doing any work, such as interest from capital, receipts from property, etc.;
(c) Private merchants, trade and commercial brokers;
(d) Monks and clergy of all denominations;
(e) Employees and agents of the former police, the gendarme corps, and the Okhrana (Czar's secret service), also members of the former reigning dynasty;
(f) Persons who have in legal form been declared demented or mentally deficient, and also persons under guardianship;
(g) Persons who have been deprived by a soviet of their rights of citizenship because of selfish or dishonorable offenses, for the period fixed by the sentence.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
ELECTIONS
66. Elections are conducted according to custom on days fixed by the local soviets.
67. Election takes place in the presence of an election committee and the representation of the local soviet.
68. In case the representative of the soviet cannot for valid causes be present, the chairman of the election committee takes his place, and in case the latter is absent, the chairman of the election meeting replaces him.
69. Minutes of the proceedings and result of elections are to be compiled and signed by the members of the election committee and the representative of the soviet.
70. Detailed instructions regarding the election proceedings and the participation in them of professional and other workers' organizations are to be issued by the local soviets, according to the instructions of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
THE CHECKING AND CANCELLATION OF ELECTIONS AND RECALL OF THE DEPUTISM
71. The respective soviets receive all the records of the proceedings of the election.
72. The soviet appoints a commission to verify the election.
73. This commission reports the results to the soviet.
74. The soviet decides the question when there is doubt as to which candidate or another cannot be determined.
76. If an election was irregularly carried on in its entirety, it may be declared void by a higher soviet authority.
77. The highest authority in relation to questions of elections is the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
78. Voters who have sent a deputy to the soviet have the right to recall him, and to have a new election, according to general provisions.
Article Five
THE BUDGET
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
79. The financial policy of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic in the present transition period of dictatorship of the proletariat facilitates the fundamental purpose of expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the preparation of conditions necessary for the equality of all citizens of Russia in the production and distribution of wealth. To this end it sets forth as its task the supplying of the organs of the soviet power with all necessary funds for local and state needs of the Soviet Republic, without regard to private property rights.
80. The state expenditure and income of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic are combined in the state budget.
81. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets or the All-Russian Central Executive Committee determine what matters of income and taxation shall go to the state budget and what shall go to the local soviets; they also set the limits of taxes.
82. The soviets levy taxes only for the local needs. The state needs are covered by the funds of the state treasury.
83. No expenditures out of the state treasury not set forth in the budget of income and expense shall be made without a special order of the central power.
84. The local soviets shall receive credits from the proper People's Commissars out of the state treasury, for the purpose of making expenditures for general state needs.
85. All credits allotted to the soviets from the state treasury, and also credits approved for local needs, must be expended according to the estimates, and cannot be used for any other purposes without a special order of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Soviet of People's Commissars.
86. Local soviets draw up semi-annual and annual estimates of income and expenditure for local needs. The estimates of urban and rural soviets participating in county congresses, and also the estimates of the county organs of the soviet power, are to be approved by provincial and regional congresses or by their executive committees; the estimates of the urban, provincial, and regional organs of the soviets are to be approved by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars.
87. The soviets may ask for additional credits from the respective People's Commissariats for expenditures not set forth in the estimate, or where the allotted sum is insufficient.
88. In case of an insufficiency of local funds for local needs, the necessary subsidy may be obtained from the state treasury by applying to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee or the Council of People's Commissars.
Article Six
THE COAT OF ARMS AND FLAG OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIALIST FEDERATED SOVIET REPUBLIC
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
89. The coat of arms of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic consists of a red background on which a golden scythe and a hammer are placed (crosswise, handles downward) in sun-rays and surrounded by a wreath, inscribed:
Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic
Workers of the World, Unite!
90. The commercial, naval, and army flag of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic consists of a red cloth, in the left corner of which (on top, near the pole) are in golden characters the letters R.S.F.S.R., or the inscription: Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
Chairman of the fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets and of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee- J. Sverdlov.
Executive Officers, All-Russian Central Executive Committee-T.I. Teodorovitch, F.A. Rosin, A.P. Rosenholx, A.C. Mitrofanov, K.G. Maximov.
Secretary of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee- V.A. Avamessov.
Obviously, not all Constitutions can claim this. I include the example below not as the worst example (I'm sure there are probably some pretty horrible ones in parts of Africa), but simply as the first I found. There are some ideas in here that I'm inclined to agree whole-heartedly with. But, as a Constitution, it seems to have some fundamental problems. All emphasis is mine.
Adopted by the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets
[pulled from http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/index.htm]
July 10, 1918
The declaration of rights of the labouring and exploited people (approved by the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918), together with the Constitution of the Soviet Republic, approved by the fifth congress, constitutes a single fundamental law of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
This fundamental law becomes effective upon the publication of the same in its entirety in the 'Izvestia of the All-Russian General Executive Committee.' It must be published by all organs of the Soviet Government and must be posted in a prominet place in every soviet institution.
The fifth congress instructs the People's Commissariat of Education to introduce in all schools and educational instituitions of the Russian Republic the study and explanation of the basic principles of this Constitution.
Article One
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF THE LABORING AND EXPLOITED PEOPLE
CHAPTER ONE
1. Russia is declared to be a republic of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. All the central and local power belongs to these soviets.
2. The Russian Soviet Republic is organized on the basis of a free union of free nations, as a federation of soviet national republics.
CHAPTER TWO
3. Bearing in mind as its fundamental problem the abolition of the exploitation of men by men, the entire abolition of the division of the people into classes, the suppression of exploiters, the establishment of a socialist society, and the victory of socialism in all lands, the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies further resolves:
(a) For the purpose of attaining the socialization of land, all private property in land is abolished, and the entire land is declared to be national property and is to be apportioned among agriculturists without compensation of the former owners, to the measure of each one's ability to till it.
(b) All forests, treasures of the earth, and waters of general public utility, all equipment whether animate or inanimate, model farms and agricultural enterprises, are declared to be national property.
(c) As a first step toward complete transfer of ownership to the Soviet Republic of all factories, mills, mines, railways, and other means of production and transportation, the soviet law for the control of workmen and the establishment of a Supreme Soviet of National Economy is hereby confirmed so as to insure the power of the workers over the exploiters.
(d) With reference to international banking and finance, the Third Congress of Soviets is discussing the soviet decree regarding the annulment of loans made by the Government of the Czar, by landowners and the bourgeoisie, and it trust that the Soviet Government will firmly follow this course until the final victory of the international workers' revolt against the oppression of capital.
(e) The transfer of all banks to the ownership of the Workers' and Peasants' Government, as one of the conditions of the liberation of the toiling masses from the yoke of capital, is confirmed.
(f) Universal obligation to work is introduced for the purpose of eliminating the parasitic strata of society and organizing the economic life of the country.
(g) For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that a Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed.
CHAPTER THREE
4. Expressing its fixed resolve to liberate mankind from the grip of capital and imperialism, which flooded the earth with blood in its present most criminal of all wars, the Third Congress of Soviets fully agrees with the Soviet Government in its policy of abrogating secret treaties, of organizing on a wide scale the fraternization of the workers and peasants of the belligerent armies, and of making all efforts to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.
5. It is also to this end that the Third Congress of Soviets insists upon putting an end to the barbarous policy of the bourgeois civilization which enables the exploiters of a few chosen nations to enslave hundreds of millions of the working population of Asia, of the colonies, and of small countries generally.
6. The Third Congress of Soviets hails the policy of the Council of People's Commissars in proclaiming the full independence of Finland, in withdrawing troops from Persia, and in proclaiming the right of Armenia to self-determination.
CHAPTER FOUR
7. The Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies believes that now, during the progress of the decisive battle between the proletariat and its exploiters, the exploiters should not hold a position in any branch of the Soviet Government. The power must belong entirely to the toiling masses and to their plenipotentiary representitives- the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies.
8. In its effort to create a league-- free and voluntary, and for that reason all the more complete and secure-- of the working classes of all the peoples of Russia, the Third Congress of Soviets merely establishes the fundamental principles of the Federation of Russian Soviet Republics, leaving to the workers and peasants of every people to decide the following question at their plenary sessions of their soviets, namely, whether or not they desire to participate, and on what basis, in the Federal government and other Federal soviet institutions.
Article Two
GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIALIST FEDERATED SOVIET REPUBLIC
CHAPTER FIVE
9. The fundamental problem of the constitution of the Russian Socialist federated Soviet Republic involves, in view of the present transition period, the establishment of a dictatorship of the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry in the form of a powerful All-Russian soviet authority, for the purpose of abolishing the exploitation of men by men and introduction of socialism, in which their will be neither a division into classes nor a state of autocracy.
10. The Russian Republic is a free socialist society of all the working people of Russia. The entire power, within the boundaries of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, belongs to all the working people of Russia, united in urban and rural soviets.
11. The soviets of those regions which differentiate themselves by a special form of existence and national character may unite in autonomous regional unions, ruled by the local congress of the soviets and their executive organs.
These autonomous regional unions participate in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic upon a Federal basis.
12. The supreme power of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic belongs to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, and, in periods between the convocation of the congress, to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
13. For the purpose of securing to the workers real freedom of conscience, the church is to be separated from the state and the school from the church, and the right of religious and anti-religous propaganda is accorded to every citizen.
14. For the purpose of securing freedom of expression to the toiling masses, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic abolishes all dependence of the Press upon capital, and turns over to the working people and the poorest peasantry all technical and material means for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books, etc., and guarantees their free circulation throughout the country.
15. For the purpose of enabling the workers to hold free meetings, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic offers to the working class and to the poorest peasantry furnished halls, and takes care of their heating and lighting appliances.
16. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, having crushed the economic and political power of the propertied classes, and having thus abolished all obstacles which interfered with the freedom of organization and action of the workers and peasants, offers assistance, material and other, to the workers and the poorest peasantry in their effort to unite and organize.
17. For the purpose of guaranteeing to the workers real access to knowledge, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic sets itself the task of furnishing full and general free education to the workers and the poorest peasantry.
18. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic considers work the duty of every citizen of the Republic, and proclaims as its motto: 'He shall not eat who does not work.'
19. For the purpose of defending the victory of the great peasants' and workers' revolution, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic recognizes the duty of all citizens of the Republic to come to the defense of their socialist fatherland, and it therefore introduces universal military training. The honor of defending the revolution with arms is accorded only to the workers, and the non-working elements are charged with the performance of other military duties.
20. In consequence of the solidarity of the workers of all nations, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic grants all political rights of Russian citizens to foreigners who live in the territory of the Russian Republic and are engaged in work and who belong to the working class. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic also recognizes the right of local soviets to grant citizenship to such foreigners without complicated formality.
21. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic offers shelter to all foreigners who seek refuge from political or religious persecution.
22. The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, recognizing the equal rights of all citizens, irrespective of their racial or national connections, proclaims all privileges on this ground, as well as oppression of national minorities, to be contrary to the fundamental laws of the Republic.
23. Being guided by the interests of the working class as a whole, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic deprives all individuals and groups of rights which could be utilized by them to the detriment of the socialist revolution.
Article Three
ORGANIZATION OF THE SOVIET POWER
A. Organization of Central Power
CHAPTER SIX
THE ALL-RUSSIAN CONGRESS OF SOVIETS OF WORKERS', PEASANTS', COSSACKS', AND RED ARMY DEPUTIES
24. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets is the supreme power of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
25. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets is composed of representatives of urban soviets (one delegate for 25,000 voters), and of representatives of the provincial (gubernia) congresses of soviets (one delegate for 125,000 inhabitants).
Note 1: In case the provincial congress is not called before the All-Russian Congress is convoked, delegates for the latter are sent directly from the county (uyezd) congress.
Note 2: In case the regional (oblast) congress is convoked indirectly, previous to the convocation of the All-Russian Congress, delegates for the latter may be sent by the regional congress.
26. The All-Russian Congress is convoked by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee at least twice a year.
27. A special The All-Russian Congress is convoked by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee upon its own initiative, or upon the request of local soviets having not less than one-third of the entire population of the Republic.
28. The All-Russian Congress elects an All-Russian Central Executive Committee of not more than 200 members.
29. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee is entirely responsible to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets.
30. In the periods between the convocation of the congresses, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee is the supreme power of the Republic.
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE ALL-RUSSIAN CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
31. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee is the supreme legislative, executive and controlling organ of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
32. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee directs in a general way the activity of the Workers' and Peasants' Government and of all organs of the soviet authority in the country, and it coordinates and regulates the operation of the Soviet constitution and of the resolutions of the All-Russian congresses and of the central organs of the soviet power.
33. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee considers and enacts all measures and proposals introduced by the Soviet of People's Commissars or by the various departments, and it also issues its own decrees and regulations.
34. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee convokes the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, at which time the Executive Committee reports on its activity and on general questions.
35. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee forms a Council of People's Commissars for the purpose of general management of the affairs of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, and it also forms departments (People's Commissariats) for the purpose of conducting various branches.
36. The members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee work in the various departments (People's Commissariats) or execute special orders of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS
37. The Council of People's Commissars is entrusted with the general management of the affairs of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
38. For the accomplishment of this task the Council of People's Commissars issues decrees, resolutions, orders, and, in general, takes all steps necessary for the proper and rapid conduct of governmental affairs.
39. The Council of People's Commissars notifies immediately the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of all it's orders and resolutions.
40. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee has the right to revoke or suspend all orders and resolutions of the Council of People's Commissars.
41. All orders and resolutions of the Council of People's Commissars of great political significance are referred for consideration and final approval to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
Note: Measures requiring immediate execution may be enacted directly by the Council of People's Commisariats.
42. The members of the Council of People's Commissars stand at the head of the various People's Commissariats.
43. There are seventeen [sic] People's Commissars: (a) Foreign Affairs; (b) Army; (c) Navy; (d) Interior; (e) Justice; (f) Labor; (g) Social Welfare; (h) Education; (i) Post and Telegraph; (j) National Affairs; (k) Finances; (l) Ways of Communication; (m) Agriculture; (n) Commerce and Industry; (o) National Supplies; (p) State Control; (q) Supreme Soviet of National Economy; (r) Public Health.
44. Every commissar has a collegium (committee) of which he is the president, and the members of which are appointed by the Council of People's Commissars.
45. A People's Commissar has the individual right to decide on all questions under the jurisdiction of his commissariat, and he is to report on his decision to the collegium. If the collegium does not agree with the commissar on some decisions, the former may, without stopping the execution of the decision, complain of it to the executive members of the Council of People's Commissars or to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
Individual members of the collegium have this right also.
46. The Council of People's Commissars is entirely responsible to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
47. The People's Commissars and the collegia of the People's Commissariats are entirely responsible to the Council of People's Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
48. The title of People's Commissar belongs only to the members of the Council of People's Commissars, which is in charge of general affairs of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, and it cannot be used by any other representative of the Soviet power, either central of local.
CHAPTER NINE
AFFAIRS IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ALL-RUSSIAN CONGRESS AND THE ALL-RUSSIAN CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
49. The All-Russian Congress and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee deal with the questions of state, such as:
(a) Ratification and amendment of the Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(b) General direction of the entire interior and foreign policy of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(c) Establishing and changing boundaries, also ceding territory belonging to the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(d) Establishing boundaries for regional soviet unions belonging to the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, also settling disputes among them;
(e) Admission of new members to the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, and recognition of the secession of any parts of it;
(f) The general administrative division of the territory of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic and the approval of regional unions;
(g) Establishing and changing weights, measures, and money denominations in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(h) Foreign relations, declaration of war, and ratification of peace treaties;
(i) Making loans, signing commercial treaties and financial agreements;
(j) Working out a basis and a general plan for the national economy and for its various branches in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(k) Approval of the budget of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic;
(l) Levying taxes and establishing the duties of citizens to the state;
(m) Establishing the bases for the organization of armed forces;
(n) State legislation, judicial organization and procedure, civil and criminal legislation, etc.;
(o) Appointment and dismissal of the individual People's Commissars or the entire council, also approval of the president of the Council of People's Commissars;
(p) Granting and cancelling Russian citizenship and fixing rights of foreigners;
(q) The right to declare individual and general amnesty.
50. Besides the above-mentioned questions, the All-Russian Congress and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee have charge of all other affairs which, according to their decision, require their attention.
51. The following questions are solely under the jurisdiction of the All-Russian Congress:
(a) Ratification and amendment of the fundamental principles of the Soviet Constitution;
(b) Ratification of peace treaties.
52. The decision of questions indicated in paragraphs (c) and (h) of Section 49 may be made by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee only in cases it is impossible to convoke the Congress.
B. Organization of Local Soviets
CHAPTER TEN
THE CONGRESSES OF THE SOVIETS
53. Congresses of Soviets are composed as follows:
(a) Regional: of representatives of the urban and county soviets, one representative for 25,000 inhabitants of the county, and one representative for 5,000 voters of the cities- but not more than 500 representatives for the entire region- or of representatives of the provincial congresses, chosen on the same basis, if such a congress meets before the regional congress.
(b) Provincial (gubernia): of representatives of urban and rural (volost) soviets, one representative for 10,000 inhabitants from the rural districts, and one representative for 2,000 voters in the city; altogether not more than 200 representatives for the entire province. In case the county congress meets before the provincial, election takes place on the same basis, but by the county congress instead of the rural.
(c) County: of representatives of rural soviets, one delegate for each 1,000 inhabitants, but not more than 300 delegates for the entire county.
(d) Rural (volost): of representatives of all village soviets in the volost, one delegate for ten members of the soviet.
Note 1: Representatives of urban soviets which have a population of not more than 10,000 persons participate in the county congress; village soviets of districts of less than 10,000 inhabitants unite for the purpose of electing delegates to the county congress.
Note 2: Rural soviets of less than ten members send one delegate to the rural (volost) congress.
54. Congresses of the soviets are convoked by the respective executive committees upon their own initiative, or upon request of local soviets comprising not less than one-third of the entire population of the given district. In any case they are convoked at least twice a year for regions, every three months for provinces and counties, and once a month for rural districts.
55. Every congress of soviets (regional, provincial, county, or rural) elects its executive organ- an executive committee the membership of which shall not exceed (a) for regions and provinces, twenty-five; (b) for a county, twenty; (c) for a rural district, ten. The executive committee is responsible to the congress which elected it.
56. In the boundaries of the respective territories the congress is the supreme power; during intervals between the convocations of the congress, the executive committee is the supreme power.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE SOVIET DEPUTIES
57. Soviets of Deputies are formed
(a) In cities, one deputy for each 1,000 inhabitants; the total to be not less than fifty and not more than 1,000 members.
(b) All other settlements (towns, villages, hamlets, etc.) of less than 10,000 inhabitants, one deputy for each 100 inhabitants; the total to be not less than three and not more than fifty deputies for each settlement.
Term of the deputy, three months.
Note: In small rural sections, whenever possible, all questions shall be decided at general meeting of voters.
58. The Soviet of Deputies elects an executive committee to deal with current affairs; not more than five members for rural districts, one for every fifty members of the soviets of cities, but not more than fifteen and not less than three in the aggregate (Petrograd and Moscow not more than forty). The executive committee is entirely responsible to the soviet which elected it.
59. The Soviet of Deputies is convoked by the executive committee upon its own initiative, or upon the request of not less than one-half of the membership of the soviet; in any case at least once a week in cities, and twice a week in rural sections.
60. Within its jurisdiction the soviet, and in cases mentioned in Section 57, NOTE, the meeting of the voters is the supreme power in the given district.
CHAPTER TWELVE
JURISDICTION OF THE LOCAL ORGANS OF THE SOVIETS
61. Regional, provincial, county, and rural organs of the soviet power and also the Soviets of Deputies have to perform the following duties:
(a) Carry out all orders of the respective higher organs of the soviet power;
(b) Take all steps for raising the cultural and economic standard of the given territory;
(c) Decide all questions of local importance within their respective territories;
(d) Coordinate all soviet activity in their respective territories.
62. The congresses of soviets and their executive committees have the right to control the activity of the local soviets (i.e., the regional congress controls all soviets of the respective region; the provincial, of the respective province, with the exception of the urban soviets, etc.); and the regional and provincial congresses and their executive committees have in addition the right to overrule the decisions of the soviets of their districts, giving notice in important cases to the central soviet authority.
63. For the purpose of performing their duties, the local soviets, rural and urban and the executive committees form sections respectively.
Article Four
THE RIGHT TO VOTE
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
64. The right to vote and to be elected to the soviets is enjoyed by the following citizens of both sexes, [Jen's note: American women's suffrage supporter posted fliers with drawings of miserable-looking women in burlap sack-dresses to point out that Soviet women could vote and Americans could not.] irrespective of religion, nationality, domicile, etc., of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, who shall have completed their eighteenth year by the day of election:
(a) All who have acquired the means of livelihood through labor that is productive and useful to society, and also persons engaged in housekeeping which enables the former to do productive work, i.e., laborers and employees of all classes who are employed in industry, trade, agriculture, etc., and peasants and Cossack agricultural laborers who employ no help for the purpose of making profits.
(b) Soldiers of the army and navy of the soviets.
(c) Citizens of the two preceding categories who have in any degree lost their capacity to work.
NOTE 1: Local soviets may, upon approval of the central power, lower the age standard mentioned herein.
NOTE 2: Non-citizens mentioned in Section 20 (Article Two, Chapter 5) have the right to vote.
65. The following persons enjoy neither the right to vote nor the right to be voted for, even though they belong to one of the categories enumerated above, namely:
(a) Persons who employ hired labor in order to obtain form it an increase in profits;
(b) Persons who have an income without doing any work, such as interest from capital, receipts from property, etc.;
(c) Private merchants, trade and commercial brokers;
(d) Monks and clergy of all denominations;
(e) Employees and agents of the former police, the gendarme corps, and the Okhrana (Czar's secret service), also members of the former reigning dynasty;
(f) Persons who have in legal form been declared demented or mentally deficient, and also persons under guardianship;
(g) Persons who have been deprived by a soviet of their rights of citizenship because of selfish or dishonorable offenses, for the period fixed by the sentence.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
ELECTIONS
66. Elections are conducted according to custom on days fixed by the local soviets.
67. Election takes place in the presence of an election committee and the representation of the local soviet.
68. In case the representative of the soviet cannot for valid causes be present, the chairman of the election committee takes his place, and in case the latter is absent, the chairman of the election meeting replaces him.
69. Minutes of the proceedings and result of elections are to be compiled and signed by the members of the election committee and the representative of the soviet.
70. Detailed instructions regarding the election proceedings and the participation in them of professional and other workers' organizations are to be issued by the local soviets, according to the instructions of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
THE CHECKING AND CANCELLATION OF ELECTIONS AND RECALL OF THE DEPUTISM
71. The respective soviets receive all the records of the proceedings of the election.
72. The soviet appoints a commission to verify the election.
73. This commission reports the results to the soviet.
74. The soviet decides the question when there is doubt as to which candidate or another cannot be determined.
76. If an election was irregularly carried on in its entirety, it may be declared void by a higher soviet authority.
77. The highest authority in relation to questions of elections is the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
78. Voters who have sent a deputy to the soviet have the right to recall him, and to have a new election, according to general provisions.
Article Five
THE BUDGET
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
79. The financial policy of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic in the present transition period of dictatorship of the proletariat facilitates the fundamental purpose of expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the preparation of conditions necessary for the equality of all citizens of Russia in the production and distribution of wealth. To this end it sets forth as its task the supplying of the organs of the soviet power with all necessary funds for local and state needs of the Soviet Republic, without regard to private property rights.
80. The state expenditure and income of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic are combined in the state budget.
81. The All-Russian Congress of Soviets or the All-Russian Central Executive Committee determine what matters of income and taxation shall go to the state budget and what shall go to the local soviets; they also set the limits of taxes.
82. The soviets levy taxes only for the local needs. The state needs are covered by the funds of the state treasury.
83. No expenditures out of the state treasury not set forth in the budget of income and expense shall be made without a special order of the central power.
84. The local soviets shall receive credits from the proper People's Commissars out of the state treasury, for the purpose of making expenditures for general state needs.
85. All credits allotted to the soviets from the state treasury, and also credits approved for local needs, must be expended according to the estimates, and cannot be used for any other purposes without a special order of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Soviet of People's Commissars.
86. Local soviets draw up semi-annual and annual estimates of income and expenditure for local needs. The estimates of urban and rural soviets participating in county congresses, and also the estimates of the county organs of the soviet power, are to be approved by provincial and regional congresses or by their executive committees; the estimates of the urban, provincial, and regional organs of the soviets are to be approved by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars.
87. The soviets may ask for additional credits from the respective People's Commissariats for expenditures not set forth in the estimate, or where the allotted sum is insufficient.
88. In case of an insufficiency of local funds for local needs, the necessary subsidy may be obtained from the state treasury by applying to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee or the Council of People's Commissars.
Article Six
THE COAT OF ARMS AND FLAG OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIALIST FEDERATED SOVIET REPUBLIC
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
89. The coat of arms of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic consists of a red background on which a golden scythe and a hammer are placed (crosswise, handles downward) in sun-rays and surrounded by a wreath, inscribed:
Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic
Workers of the World, Unite!
90. The commercial, naval, and army flag of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic consists of a red cloth, in the left corner of which (on top, near the pole) are in golden characters the letters R.S.F.S.R., or the inscription: Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
Chairman of the fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets and of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee- J. Sverdlov.
Executive Officers, All-Russian Central Executive Committee-T.I. Teodorovitch, F.A. Rosin, A.P. Rosenholx, A.C. Mitrofanov, K.G. Maximov.
Secretary of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee- V.A. Avamessov.
Friday, February 09, 2007
The head of Cartoon Network resigns!
The head of the Cartoon Network resigned Friday after a marketing stunt that caused a security scare in Boston. Blinking electronic devices had been planted around Boston to promote Aqua Teen Hunger Force, but when authorities got a series of 911 calls about the suspicious devices on Jan. 31, they called out the bomb squads and shut down bridges and highways for fear they could be explosives. A few hours later, Cartoon Network's corporate parent acknowledged it was part of a marketing move.
The announcement of Jim Samples resignation was made in an internal memo sent to Cartoon Network staff members. In the statement, Samples said he regrets what had happened. "It's my hope that my decision allows us to put this chapter behind us and get back to our mission of delivering unrivaled original animated entertainment for consumers of all ages," Samples said. He said he felt "compelled to step down, effective immediately, in recognition of the gravity of the situation that occurred under my watch." [article]
Why The Terrorists Have Already Won
I always feel like the end of the week is the worst time for me to post. I'm exhausted, and everybody has already said everything about the topics. Anyway, I decided to talk about the Aqua Teen Hunger Force thing, in a sense, because I like that show. Juice! (Anybody see that episode?) Also, I don't know anything about the constitution, and pretty much agree with Nick that while I would like to see it periodically amended, I would pretty much not want to see it amended in this political climate.
Anyway, I thought I'd try to compile the ten reasons I think the terrorists have already won, apart from the fact that a cartoon advertising campaign now plummets a city into trembling fear. I guess that's a pretty big reason.
10 - 99% of nation's bumper stickers now tied up in patriotism industry, sending Honor Student Beating Up industry into disrepair.
9 - Nation won't admit World Trade Center starring Nicholas Cage is a piece of crap, because they are worried they will be called anti-american and killed by a barage of french new wave dvds launched at their skulls.
8 - They're counting cards.
7 - Somebody might say something about the logistics of fighting a faceless, nationless enemy, but really I think it boils down to the existence of that MTV show "My Super Sweet Sixteen." I know I pretty much gave up on America the first time I saw that. Man, those dumb rich people! In every episode, I just want the camerman to walk on screen and punch those girls in the fucking eyeball. Regular people do not have the Black Eye Peas play at their birthday, except through the tape deck. While they eat cake by themselves and watch Star Trek. And maybe cry a little bit.
6 - Took tips from those who won the drug war. That is, meth heads. Therefore, all the terrorists are in redneck basements, the last place the government would ever think to look. After all, isn't the rebel flag more patriotic than the regular stars and bars? In a twisted sort of way?
5 - Crash won best picture last year. I can't prove it, but I'm sure the terrorists had something to do with that. Did I ever tell you guys I hate that fucking movie?
4 - *THIS REASON DELETED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY*
3 - Endless, endless television specials explaining why we're the greatest generation now that we've had a pearl harbor of our own.
2 - Magic. Let's pump another trillion dollars into fighting them!
1 - The name "Terrorists" is much cooler than "United States." What a boring name. "What shall we call our country? We're a bunch of states, and we're united. Hmmm." Maybe if we change our name to "Indestructibleland" or "Youdon'twanttofuckwiththisopia" then we'd start to get the upper hand. Just a thought. You know, New South Glennshaheenmark is free.
Well, those weren't as funny as I would have liked. It's late!
Anyway, I thought I'd try to compile the ten reasons I think the terrorists have already won, apart from the fact that a cartoon advertising campaign now plummets a city into trembling fear. I guess that's a pretty big reason.
10 - 99% of nation's bumper stickers now tied up in patriotism industry, sending Honor Student Beating Up industry into disrepair.
9 - Nation won't admit World Trade Center starring Nicholas Cage is a piece of crap, because they are worried they will be called anti-american and killed by a barage of french new wave dvds launched at their skulls.
8 - They're counting cards.
7 - Somebody might say something about the logistics of fighting a faceless, nationless enemy, but really I think it boils down to the existence of that MTV show "My Super Sweet Sixteen." I know I pretty much gave up on America the first time I saw that. Man, those dumb rich people! In every episode, I just want the camerman to walk on screen and punch those girls in the fucking eyeball. Regular people do not have the Black Eye Peas play at their birthday, except through the tape deck. While they eat cake by themselves and watch Star Trek. And maybe cry a little bit.
6 - Took tips from those who won the drug war. That is, meth heads. Therefore, all the terrorists are in redneck basements, the last place the government would ever think to look. After all, isn't the rebel flag more patriotic than the regular stars and bars? In a twisted sort of way?
5 - Crash won best picture last year. I can't prove it, but I'm sure the terrorists had something to do with that. Did I ever tell you guys I hate that fucking movie?
4 - *THIS REASON DELETED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY*
3 - Endless, endless television specials explaining why we're the greatest generation now that we've had a pearl harbor of our own.
2 - Magic. Let's pump another trillion dollars into fighting them!
1 - The name "Terrorists" is much cooler than "United States." What a boring name. "What shall we call our country? We're a bunch of states, and we're united. Hmmm." Maybe if we change our name to "Indestructibleland" or "Youdon'twanttofuckwiththisopia" then we'd start to get the upper hand. Just a thought. You know, New South Glennshaheenmark is free.
Well, those weren't as funny as I would have liked. It's late!
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Pimp Your Bomb
Is this topic to get back at us for last week's?
Just kidding - kinda. You know I always think that I'm interested and somewhat up on politics until I talk to you Nick, where I discover I know nothing. I'm not quite sure where to begin this blog - you talked about a lot of stuff.
I suppose that yes, the Constitution does bear some scrutiny. Our discussion on gun control, and consequently the right to bear arms, is a perfect example. Does the original meaning of that amendment still stand? Or should we clarify it? Or do we just pass a bunch of laws?
I disagree with you however about the Senate. We have the House of Representatives if you want representation by population. You argue that Wyoming and North Dakota don't take into consideration or could block laws concerning the needs/interests of California. However, if California were to have representation by population, who's to say they wouldn't block laws concerning the needs/interests of Wyoming and North Dakota? That's why we have the two houses - to make sure there's fair representation both ways. I'm not confusing what you were saying am I?
As far as midnight add-ons, while I don't think it's fair, the senators and house members can vote no if they don't like what's been added on. On the other hand, sometimes you have to compromise to get what you want. I'm sure not all of these last minute tack-ons are part of nefarious plots, so I'd be dubious to restrict them if some good has come out of them.
On the point of electoral colleges - again, ambivalent. If we did away with them and only had popular vote, well Al Gore would have been elected in 2000. (But then would he have written and filmed An Inconvenient Truth ?) However have there been any good presidents elected by the electoral college and not the popular vote? I suppose I could look that up - here's a link in fact.
The ATHF bomb scare in Boston is ridiculous. Jen said she saw it in New York, and one could argue that they would have more reason to freak out than anyone. I mean seriously, is that the new thing to do? Pimp Your Bomb. Why have a normal bomb with ugly wires, when you can pimp it out with an glowing obscure cartoon character? Osama Bin Laden would come to the cave of an unsuspecting Al-Qaeda member - "Yo, this bomb is whack! We're gonna Pimp Your Bomb, son!". A team of specialists meets and discusses the ways to trick it out. Huge LCD TVs, phat sound system - the works. MTV is probably trying to buy the rights as we speak.
I think it would defeat the purpose. If I were a terrorist, and I wanted to actually do damage, the last thing I would want to do would be to draw attention to the bomb. I guess if you were only a half-hearted terrorist, you would do such a thing with the hopes that your plot would be foiled.
I actually hadn't heard about it until you brought it up, Nick. I don't recall seeing on nytimes.com, but sometimes I just skim through the headlines. It was a stupid ad campaign. I mean, if the Boston emergency services hadn't freaked out, would anyone who didn't already watch the show have gotten the point? But that wasn't the case, and now the show has gotten more press than they could hope for. Congratulations to those PR people.
Just kidding - kinda. You know I always think that I'm interested and somewhat up on politics until I talk to you Nick, where I discover I know nothing. I'm not quite sure where to begin this blog - you talked about a lot of stuff.
I suppose that yes, the Constitution does bear some scrutiny. Our discussion on gun control, and consequently the right to bear arms, is a perfect example. Does the original meaning of that amendment still stand? Or should we clarify it? Or do we just pass a bunch of laws?
I disagree with you however about the Senate. We have the House of Representatives if you want representation by population. You argue that Wyoming and North Dakota don't take into consideration or could block laws concerning the needs/interests of California. However, if California were to have representation by population, who's to say they wouldn't block laws concerning the needs/interests of Wyoming and North Dakota? That's why we have the two houses - to make sure there's fair representation both ways. I'm not confusing what you were saying am I?
As far as midnight add-ons, while I don't think it's fair, the senators and house members can vote no if they don't like what's been added on. On the other hand, sometimes you have to compromise to get what you want. I'm sure not all of these last minute tack-ons are part of nefarious plots, so I'd be dubious to restrict them if some good has come out of them.
On the point of electoral colleges - again, ambivalent. If we did away with them and only had popular vote, well Al Gore would have been elected in 2000. (But then would he have written and filmed An Inconvenient Truth ?) However have there been any good presidents elected by the electoral college and not the popular vote? I suppose I could look that up - here's a link in fact.
The ATHF bomb scare in Boston is ridiculous. Jen said she saw it in New York, and one could argue that they would have more reason to freak out than anyone. I mean seriously, is that the new thing to do? Pimp Your Bomb. Why have a normal bomb with ugly wires, when you can pimp it out with an glowing obscure cartoon character? Osama Bin Laden would come to the cave of an unsuspecting Al-Qaeda member - "Yo, this bomb is whack! We're gonna Pimp Your Bomb, son!". A team of specialists meets and discusses the ways to trick it out. Huge LCD TVs, phat sound system - the works. MTV is probably trying to buy the rights as we speak.
I think it would defeat the purpose. If I were a terrorist, and I wanted to actually do damage, the last thing I would want to do would be to draw attention to the bomb. I guess if you were only a half-hearted terrorist, you would do such a thing with the hopes that your plot would be foiled.
I actually hadn't heard about it until you brought it up, Nick. I don't recall seeing on nytimes.com, but sometimes I just skim through the headlines. It was a stupid ad campaign. I mean, if the Boston emergency services hadn't freaked out, would anyone who didn't already watch the show have gotten the point? But that wasn't the case, and now the show has gotten more press than they could hope for. Congratulations to those PR people.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
The terrorists are winning! (Or is it the Mooninites?)
You'd think that as a PolySci major I'd be all over this constitution debate... but, um... honestly, I'm gonna go with Aqua Teen Hunger Force. See, yesterday morning I sat at my computer eating breakfast and reading through Nick's post about the Constitution, formulating my responses as I went along... and then suddenly I was thrown off. This was the sentence that did it: However, this uproar over the Aqua Teen Hunger Force "guerrilla advertising" campaign is a huge black mark. Huh? See, I live overseas. I get my news from my customized Google News homepage, which I've set up to be pretty focused on international affairs, specifically those pertaining to Russia and Korea. While I do know what Aqua Teen Hunger Force is (courtesy of my most recent ex), the rest of that sentence - indeed the rest of the paragraph - made little sense to me. So of course, I had to google it and find out what the hell our buddy Nick was going on about.
For those of you who, like me, were clueless as to this whole nonsense, let me give you the run-down. The Adult Swim folks over at Cartoon Network hired a marketing agency, who in turn hired two dudes in their twenties to do some "guerrilla advertising" - neon, glowy thingies in the shape of the Aqua Teen Hunger Force character Ignignokt (a Mooninite - as in he lives on the Moon) were placed all over a whole bunch of cities, including Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. The idea was that people would see these random Ignignokt images and think, "Hey, I wanna go watch Aqua Teen Hunger Force." Or something. I can't imagine that in a sensible society the proliferation of this visually unappealing Mooninite would have done much to boost ratings. But apparently some of us no longer live in a sensible society.
For those of you who, like me, were clueless as to this whole nonsense, let me give you the run-down. The Adult Swim folks over at Cartoon Network hired a marketing agency, who in turn hired two dudes in their twenties to do some "guerrilla advertising" - neon, glowy thingies in the shape of the Aqua Teen Hunger Force character Ignignokt (a Mooninite - as in he lives on the Moon) were placed all over a whole bunch of cities, including Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. The idea was that people would see these random Ignignokt images and think, "Hey, I wanna go watch Aqua Teen Hunger Force." Or something. I can't imagine that in a sensible society the proliferation of this visually unappealing Mooninite would have done much to boost ratings. But apparently some of us no longer live in a sensible society.
One of the devices that shut down Boston
While Ignignokt popped up all over the place, the Bostonians were the ones to panic, frantically calling 911, while the local police force all but shut the city down. Apparently, the mayor of Boston said, "It is outrageous, in a post 9/11 world, that a company would use this type of marketing scheme." Well, mayor, the terrorists have just won. He's essentially saying that through September 10, 2001 this form of advertising would have been acceptable. Annoying and unsightly, perhaps, but acceptable. He's admitted that because of 9/11 he and the residents of the city now automatically view glowing cartoon characters as threats.
You can't let your lives be ruled by fear, people.
As an aside, this has turned into a marketing coup for Cartoon Network, even with the two million dollar fine Turner Broadcasting has agreed to pay:
In one sweeping and inexpensive maneuver, Aqua Teen Hunger Force jumped to the top of search engines, blogs and news aggregators, in addition to garnering coverage from just about every major media source. Millions of people, who probably thought Adult Swim meant skinny dipping, may now tune into the Cartoon Network just to see what all the fuss is about. Compared to the estimated $2.6 million it will cost for thirty seconds of publicity during Sunday's Super Bowl, this phony bomb scare certainly got a lot more bang for the buck! [article here]
You can't let your lives be ruled by fear, people.
As an aside, this has turned into a marketing coup for Cartoon Network, even with the two million dollar fine Turner Broadcasting has agreed to pay:
In one sweeping and inexpensive maneuver, Aqua Teen Hunger Force jumped to the top of search engines, blogs and news aggregators, in addition to garnering coverage from just about every major media source. Millions of people, who probably thought Adult Swim meant skinny dipping, may now tune into the Cartoon Network just to see what all the fuss is about. Compared to the estimated $2.6 million it will cost for thirty seconds of publicity during Sunday's Super Bowl, this phony bomb scare certainly got a lot more bang for the buck! [article here]
Monday, February 05, 2007
This Is What Happens, Larry
(Updated)
I'm going to write about two things that I think are interesting, since I like to give some different "topics" that we could all write about. The first one is the United States Constitution.
Most people in this country hold the Constitution in highest esteem and revile it, many to the point of thinking that the Constitution is more or less perfect in every way. I have to confess to feeling this way much of the time, being a political junkie and a public affairs student. But upon scrutiny, there are several things that are undemocratic about our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson proposed that the Constitution should be scrutinized in a Constitutional Convention as often as every twenty years. But since that convention in 1787, the Constitution has not not been subject to such scrutiny (at least not by the American people; one could argue that the handful of amendments to the Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution could be a sort of scrutiny). So the question is this: Should the Constitution be subject to a new Constitutional Convention, with the goal of, at the very least, subjecting it to serious scrutiny and even possibly changing some things? And if so, what things do you think could use evaluation? I have a few ideas.
One of the things I am most interested in would be the apportionment of the Senate. The Senate is a decidedly undemocratic institution. In the news, we hear quite often about people being upset with Congress for adding things to bill at the 11th hour and many times in ways that avoid scrutiny and debate; however, due to the nature of the Senate, sometimes this is necessary, and I, for one, would not advocate passing any sort of bill restricting this sort of behavior. The reason being, the way the Senate is apportioned, people in a state like Wyoming, with a population of 515,004, and a state like North Dakota, with a population of 642,200, have as much power in the Senate as a state like California, with a population of 33,871,648 - and, obviously, things that a state like California, with it's large urban areas and population, would need, can get blocked by states like Wyoming or North Dakota, who have vastly different interests and needs that California. Which is why it becomes necessary for a state like California to attach things in the dark of night, otherwise many things just wouldn't get passed. Obviously the Senate apportionment was set for a reason, as part of the Connecticut Compromise, and otherwise the Constitution might not have ever passed the Convention, let alone get ratified; however, chattel slavery was also a compromise in the Constitution, because had the Founders included language harsh to slavery, the Constitution wouldn't have stood a chance. So possibly we could take a look at Senate apportionment.
Some other ones would be: Lifetime tenure for Supreme Court Justices. Does it make sense that Supreme Court Justices are given life tenure, and remain on the bench no matter how old they get, failing health, etc. However, it would fuck up the Supreme Court should if we changed things in certain ways; SCOTUS nominees already get politicized during their Senate confirmation hearings, so we obviously wouldn't want to make it any more political. But should we impose some sort of forced retirement age? Would that be fair, given that some people at 80 and even 90 are still sharp and lucid? Or should we make it a fixed period of time, say, 10 years? 20 years? The Supreme Court is one of the major reasons to vote for a President, or at the very least a Congress, that is friendly to your beliefs. Anyone that Bush, for example, puts on the bench will be legislating long, long after Bush is gone.
How about abolishing the electoral college? Do we really need that anymore? And what about making it easier to amend the Constitution? (Do you really see, in our current political climate, and using our current framework, any amendment EVER passing? I don't.) How about constituting some sort of vote of "no confidence" for our chief executive? As it stands now, there's no chance of impeaching someone like Bush, who I think most of us here on this blog would agree is incompetent, and I would personally argue is the President MOST deserving of impeachment; but Bush has something like 700 days or more left in office, and we just have to wait him out- as a lame duck, who knows what kind of damage he and Cheney will cause. Some might argue that we should do away with presidential term limits- if the electorate wants, for example, Bill Clinton to be elected again, why shouldn't we get it? (Not saying that I personally would want that, that's just an example.) I'm sure you all can come up with other things. Or, maybe you think that, with our current political climate, that the Constitution shouldn't be messed with; it might come out of a new Convention much, much worse.
Now, I'm not saying that I personally advocate these things; for example, I wouldn't be convinced we should get rid of term limits; I might not mind Bill Clinton running again, but I sure as hell wouldn't want the chance of a third term for Bush. And there's strong arguments for and against all of these things, and I haven't done a shitload of research on all of this (electoral college, for example).
The second thing I wanted to mention was this bullshit last week in Boston. Now, I have a bias towards Boston; I'm planning on moving there next year, I love New England and hold that area in high esteem, being the birthplace of America, not to mention being a liberal haven. However, this uproar over the Aqua Teen Hunger Force "guerrilla advertising" campaign is a huge black mark. These ads were places in cities all over, in places like Texas, and no one gave a shit. Now, someone supposedly saw this on an overpass and wanted it checked out, and I think that is appropriate; everything should always be checked out and caution should always be taken. But these things were so obviously not bombs. And then Boston officials shut the entire city down, crippling its highways and train systems, and then had these two poor kids arrested and held big angry press conferences; this was obviously to cover their asses, since they looked like buffoons getting so upset about cartoon advertising. So one question would be, do you agree? Or do you think that their response was warranted? I would say that maybe these guys were wrong for putting these things up, and maybe should have alerted Boston officials firsthand. However, these things were little plastic things with lite-brite lights on them. So maybe the most these guys could be charged with would be the equivalent of illegal flyering (if there is such a thing). But the main thing I'd like to discuss is: Do you think that this reaction, beyond just being a sort-of faux outrage brought on by the Boston officials embarrassment, is a reaction to the kind of relentless fearmongering that has been going on in our society? With our current President and his administration pushing fear on us, as well as our news shows, TV shows like 24 which are held up as being "realistic," etc., is it any wonder that people freak out and shut an entire city down? What could we do about this, and do you see it getting better or worse in the future?
Update: This Boston Herald article shows some proof that the guys that planted these light boards were actually watching and filming the Boston police and officials response; surveillance video shows them on the scene with a video camera. This would seem to show that these guys had some expectation of a response, or at the very least were getting some enjoyment out of the frenzied and fearful reaction, which would seem to change the idea that these guys were totally innocent and unaware of what might happen as a result of these things being placed around the city. One op-ed writer has also pointed out that Boston might have more of an excuse for their overblown reaction when compared to the other several major cities these ads were placed in, because of Boston's link to 9/11. Does this new information change in any way your opinion of what happened?
I'm going to write about two things that I think are interesting, since I like to give some different "topics" that we could all write about. The first one is the United States Constitution.
Most people in this country hold the Constitution in highest esteem and revile it, many to the point of thinking that the Constitution is more or less perfect in every way. I have to confess to feeling this way much of the time, being a political junkie and a public affairs student. But upon scrutiny, there are several things that are undemocratic about our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson proposed that the Constitution should be scrutinized in a Constitutional Convention as often as every twenty years. But since that convention in 1787, the Constitution has not not been subject to such scrutiny (at least not by the American people; one could argue that the handful of amendments to the Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution could be a sort of scrutiny). So the question is this: Should the Constitution be subject to a new Constitutional Convention, with the goal of, at the very least, subjecting it to serious scrutiny and even possibly changing some things? And if so, what things do you think could use evaluation? I have a few ideas.
One of the things I am most interested in would be the apportionment of the Senate. The Senate is a decidedly undemocratic institution. In the news, we hear quite often about people being upset with Congress for adding things to bill at the 11th hour and many times in ways that avoid scrutiny and debate; however, due to the nature of the Senate, sometimes this is necessary, and I, for one, would not advocate passing any sort of bill restricting this sort of behavior. The reason being, the way the Senate is apportioned, people in a state like Wyoming, with a population of 515,004, and a state like North Dakota, with a population of 642,200, have as much power in the Senate as a state like California, with a population of 33,871,648 - and, obviously, things that a state like California, with it's large urban areas and population, would need, can get blocked by states like Wyoming or North Dakota, who have vastly different interests and needs that California. Which is why it becomes necessary for a state like California to attach things in the dark of night, otherwise many things just wouldn't get passed. Obviously the Senate apportionment was set for a reason, as part of the Connecticut Compromise, and otherwise the Constitution might not have ever passed the Convention, let alone get ratified; however, chattel slavery was also a compromise in the Constitution, because had the Founders included language harsh to slavery, the Constitution wouldn't have stood a chance. So possibly we could take a look at Senate apportionment.
Some other ones would be: Lifetime tenure for Supreme Court Justices. Does it make sense that Supreme Court Justices are given life tenure, and remain on the bench no matter how old they get, failing health, etc. However, it would fuck up the Supreme Court should if we changed things in certain ways; SCOTUS nominees already get politicized during their Senate confirmation hearings, so we obviously wouldn't want to make it any more political. But should we impose some sort of forced retirement age? Would that be fair, given that some people at 80 and even 90 are still sharp and lucid? Or should we make it a fixed period of time, say, 10 years? 20 years? The Supreme Court is one of the major reasons to vote for a President, or at the very least a Congress, that is friendly to your beliefs. Anyone that Bush, for example, puts on the bench will be legislating long, long after Bush is gone.
How about abolishing the electoral college? Do we really need that anymore? And what about making it easier to amend the Constitution? (Do you really see, in our current political climate, and using our current framework, any amendment EVER passing? I don't.) How about constituting some sort of vote of "no confidence" for our chief executive? As it stands now, there's no chance of impeaching someone like Bush, who I think most of us here on this blog would agree is incompetent, and I would personally argue is the President MOST deserving of impeachment; but Bush has something like 700 days or more left in office, and we just have to wait him out- as a lame duck, who knows what kind of damage he and Cheney will cause. Some might argue that we should do away with presidential term limits- if the electorate wants, for example, Bill Clinton to be elected again, why shouldn't we get it? (Not saying that I personally would want that, that's just an example.) I'm sure you all can come up with other things. Or, maybe you think that, with our current political climate, that the Constitution shouldn't be messed with; it might come out of a new Convention much, much worse.
Now, I'm not saying that I personally advocate these things; for example, I wouldn't be convinced we should get rid of term limits; I might not mind Bill Clinton running again, but I sure as hell wouldn't want the chance of a third term for Bush. And there's strong arguments for and against all of these things, and I haven't done a shitload of research on all of this (electoral college, for example).
The second thing I wanted to mention was this bullshit last week in Boston. Now, I have a bias towards Boston; I'm planning on moving there next year, I love New England and hold that area in high esteem, being the birthplace of America, not to mention being a liberal haven. However, this uproar over the Aqua Teen Hunger Force "guerrilla advertising" campaign is a huge black mark. These ads were places in cities all over, in places like Texas, and no one gave a shit. Now, someone supposedly saw this on an overpass and wanted it checked out, and I think that is appropriate; everything should always be checked out and caution should always be taken. But these things were so obviously not bombs. And then Boston officials shut the entire city down, crippling its highways and train systems, and then had these two poor kids arrested and held big angry press conferences; this was obviously to cover their asses, since they looked like buffoons getting so upset about cartoon advertising. So one question would be, do you agree? Or do you think that their response was warranted? I would say that maybe these guys were wrong for putting these things up, and maybe should have alerted Boston officials firsthand. However, these things were little plastic things with lite-brite lights on them. So maybe the most these guys could be charged with would be the equivalent of illegal flyering (if there is such a thing). But the main thing I'd like to discuss is: Do you think that this reaction, beyond just being a sort-of faux outrage brought on by the Boston officials embarrassment, is a reaction to the kind of relentless fearmongering that has been going on in our society? With our current President and his administration pushing fear on us, as well as our news shows, TV shows like 24 which are held up as being "realistic," etc., is it any wonder that people freak out and shut an entire city down? What could we do about this, and do you see it getting better or worse in the future?
Update: This Boston Herald article shows some proof that the guys that planted these light boards were actually watching and filming the Boston police and officials response; surveillance video shows them on the scene with a video camera. This would seem to show that these guys had some expectation of a response, or at the very least were getting some enjoyment out of the frenzied and fearful reaction, which would seem to change the idea that these guys were totally innocent and unaware of what might happen as a result of these things being placed around the city. One op-ed writer has also pointed out that Boston might have more of an excuse for their overblown reaction when compared to the other several major cities these ads were placed in, because of Boston's link to 9/11. Does this new information change in any way your opinion of what happened?
Saturday, February 03, 2007
The future through the eyes of the past
Sorry for missing my day - this past week was the final week of Hell Month at work, and by the time my "day" rolled around, I was feeling pretty burnt out. Anyway, for readers who might not have been following along this week, the challenge was to view this image, and to then concoct a story behind it. I'm embarrassed to say that despite my love of sci-fi and the fact that I once co-founded an alien/space-related cult, I could come up with nothing nearly as interesting as the things my bloggers-in-crime posted below. So instead I've decided to tell you what first popped into my head when I saw that cover.
In 2000, I was living in St. Petersburg, Russia. I had gone to Russia on a student visa, but in order to stay for the summer I needed to change to a business visa. In order to do this, one must leave the country. So, I took the train up to Finland, where I spent three days in Helsinki getting a new Russian visa. Helsinki is an expensive place - especially to someone who'd just spent five months in the inexpensive paradise that St. Petersburg was back in 2000. I was also shelling out a large chunk of cash to have my visa expedited. The point is, I was poor. Somehow (I must have an instinct for this or something) I found my way to a section of Helsinki full of thrift stores and used book stores. In one of the former, I found a lime green skirt. In one of the latter, I found a stack of sci-fi paperbacks from the twenties and thirties. In English. And really cheap. As I was always on the hunt for English-language reading material, I snapped them up.
I wish I still had those books (I left them in Russia due to lack of room in my suitcases), as they provided a fascinating glimpse into how people in the early part of the twentieth century expected the future to turn out. One of the books held a collection of short stories, one of which was set in the future, and centered around the conflict which had arisen between people who preferred wheels (cars) and those who preferred feet. In one scene, a man whose legs had shrunk to useless flippers tried to run down a grandmother who dared to cross the street on foot. The grandmother, in turn, dropped her bag of groceries, whipped out a large handgun, and blasted away at the approaching windshield. Both driver and grandmother were killed. The tale definitely implied that the advent of the automobile would bring about the end of civilization. Can you imagine?
Friday, February 02, 2007
Next Time...
Jen, I submit to you that next time you want to do a post using a picture to inspire stories, you use this one:
Yay! An Ekphrastic Exercise
Well, I decided to write a poem off of the picture. It's a little rough, but I might clean it up and hand it out to workshop class next week. Sorry I haven't written any comments yet. I decided not to read anybody's stuff until I posted, as Jen suggested. So here you go, everybody!
A Thrilling Publication
There will be women with loosely fitting
clothes. Big hairdos. Men with guns. They
won't be afraid to use them. Radiation suits.
Things we'll never see in our humdrum
lives. The hero will perhaps be shot. But he
will live. The heroine could remove the bullet.
With the hero's direction. Or perhaps she
is a nurse. Somehow caught up in this terrible
plot. Or she's the one behind it all. Maybe
she gets shot at the very last second. In
the heart. To save the hero. She has a change
of heart. Suddenly, she believes in God
and country. The American way. We're
all capable of being forgiven at the last
second if we surrender ourselves to our guilt.
If we announce it. From the tallest rooftop.
We love to see the guilty embrace our ways.
Embrace their punishment. The serial killer
sobs in the televised murder trial. He begs
for the chair. And prays for the families.
The crooked politician cites lines from
Ecclesiastes. To our great comfort. The high
school date rapist dies a hero in Iraq. Parades.
In the book, a Soviet spy has stolen enough
Plutonium to blow the eastern seaboard
to kingdom come. In the end, it turns out
the radiation kills him before he can leave
the country. The G-Men find him dead
and disfigured. No face for mother or God
to recognize. No great speech excuses his
actions. The main detective goes home, alone,
to a frozen dinner. He cries to himself as he
watches the evening news. Somehow, there's
been a switch. When we put the book down,
our small room has become a little smaller.
A Thrilling Publication
There will be women with loosely fitting
clothes. Big hairdos. Men with guns. They
won't be afraid to use them. Radiation suits.
Things we'll never see in our humdrum
lives. The hero will perhaps be shot. But he
will live. The heroine could remove the bullet.
With the hero's direction. Or perhaps she
is a nurse. Somehow caught up in this terrible
plot. Or she's the one behind it all. Maybe
she gets shot at the very last second. In
the heart. To save the hero. She has a change
of heart. Suddenly, she believes in God
and country. The American way. We're
all capable of being forgiven at the last
second if we surrender ourselves to our guilt.
If we announce it. From the tallest rooftop.
We love to see the guilty embrace our ways.
Embrace their punishment. The serial killer
sobs in the televised murder trial. He begs
for the chair. And prays for the families.
The crooked politician cites lines from
Ecclesiastes. To our great comfort. The high
school date rapist dies a hero in Iraq. Parades.
In the book, a Soviet spy has stolen enough
Plutonium to blow the eastern seaboard
to kingdom come. In the end, it turns out
the radiation kills him before he can leave
the country. The G-Men find him dead
and disfigured. No face for mother or God
to recognize. No great speech excuses his
actions. The main detective goes home, alone,
to a frozen dinner. He cries to himself as he
watches the evening news. Somehow, there's
been a switch. When we put the book down,
our small room has become a little smaller.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
DIY Pulp Magazine
The year is 2050. The British government, still upset after 90 years about their lack of involvement in the original space race, now has the upper hand. Our plot picks up with their government working on a top-secret experiment to make colonization on the moon possible. The machine breaks down components in the rock to make oxygen, and uses any ice found in the process for water. The invention is being closely guarded, for now that they (finally) have the technology, they fear it being stolen by other countries.
The invention, 02H20 is being housed in an abandoned airfield. To be sure that it is kept secret, a machine is on the premises that emits waves in a 2-mile radius, making anyone within that radius violently ill (That's what that thing is in the upper left corner behind the title). The scientists and other workers all wear suits to block out the rays, but in case a brave (and iron-stomached) soul wanders in, there are guards with guns stationed about.
Our G-Man Detective is actually an American spy (though he does a terrible job - what with running around in uniform and all). Determined to be on top of everything (and deplete its resources first), the U.S. has found about about this secret invention and sent the G-Man, John Scarsdale, to get the information.
Finding the location wasn't very hard - thousands of people getting sick within a certain area? What those limeys didn't bet on was our man John having a metal plate in his head from injuries in previous service. Walking onto the premises unaffected by the waves, John comes upon a guard unawares (he was having afternoon tea). They tussle, and both draw guns, but as handguns were banned by the British government in 1997 (a law they apparently never repealed or amended in 53 yrs), the guard's is a decoy, and he is quickly overthrown. However rather than draw more attention to the area with gunshots, Scarsdale forces all the scientists to remove their headgear, causing them all to flee, vomiting all the way to safety. He grabs the plans (which were conveniently left on a table) and flees, ensuring victory for the US!
...Or did he? The British were more clever than he expected. That site was just a decoy and the British still hold all the cards - as well as a grudge now...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
