Well, I decided that I would also post a little bit of history about stamps. Mine, I think, is more factually accurate than Stephanie's, but who knows? I'm no stampologist.
Well, back in the late 1700s, in a little ole country called America, some real cool dudes (aka the founding fathers) were sitting around the table drinking Hennessey or some other top shit. Anyway, George Washington, the duke of America A#1, was out of town doing some models or something, and Benjamin Franklin, who it's apparently all about, was like "Man, I need to tell George something before he gets back, but not immediately." So there was no need to invent the telephone. Not until years later, when some dude wanted to breathe heavily in a girl's ear, but her ear was with the rest of her body three blocks away and he couldn't wait until the next fortnight's makeout party to do it. That man's name was John Telephone, inventor of the telephone, and later, mustard gas. That's a real crazy story, though, and I'll save it for when the week's topic is mustard gas (hint hint). Anyway, John Hancock had the brilliant idea that they should invent a service that would carry Benny F's note to Georgio, and give that note to him, maybe even telling him who it was from or something so he didn't get all crazy banging those models and contemplating who must have sent him the note. They called this invention the "United States Postal Service," not to be confused with the two man band of a similar name that would be invented by Franklin's descendant two hundred and some odd years later and have a pretty decent album. But there was one problem. People started using the mail for all sorts of bad stuff, because it was free, and whenever something's free, motherfuckers always abuse it. Like when those machines at the grocery store spit out coupons, people always pull a million out and let them fall on the floor, because they think it's funny. Well, how funny would you think it was if I came to your house and dumped all your spoons on the floor? Somebody's got to clean that shit up. Buck up. Anyway, people were mailing porno pics of Betsy Ross (well, naked stick figures and embroideries of Betsy Ross, since photography wasn't invented either), and they were mailing practical jokes, like "Is your ice box running? Then thouth better go catch it!" I don't really know if ice boxes were invented. What am I, a professor of such garbage? Anyway, to remedy these problems, they decided that mailing crap should cost money, and that stamps needed to be invented. So many year passed and people would mail each other letters like "Dear Mabel, World War I has started," or "Dear Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK was just killed, so now guess who's the president? (Flip over for answer)". Also, in the 60s some lothario named Thomas Pynchon wrote a book about a post office conspiracy. Sounds boring? Well, it was really po-mo, as the literature and writing students say, but fuck those dudes. Pynchon later faded into obscurity. Then, in the 90s the Internets was invented. I know it wasn't really invented in the 90s, but the 90s is when I first got it, so that's when it became important. So people no longer needed the post office and stamps, and all the postal employees started whining and moaning and shooting people and crying. Wah wah, motherfuckers. Sorry technology happens and shit. You should use John Telephone's other invention, the Shutthefuckupatron. That oughtta keep you quiet. Also, all the people mentioned in this story are now dead. The End.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Lick It -N- Stick It
WARNING!: You may learn something from this post, and yes, it will hurt.
Saddled with the ever-so-interesting task of blogging about stamps, (C'mon Jen, stamps?) I decided to do a little research into the history of stamps.
The first stamp was issued May 6, 1840 in Britain. Before then, it was up to the receiver of the letter to pay, but as postal service was expensive, many refused letters. Many people actually developed codes to put on the outside of the letter, so that the reciever could just scan the code and refuse the letter, but still get the message.
Other important dates in stamp history:
1857 - First perforated U.S. stamps appear (had to cut them apart before that)
1869 - First U.S. pictorial stamps (something depicted other than a dead person)
1893 - First U.S. commemorative stamps are issued (Columbus' voyage to America)
1940 - Booker T. Washington first African-American honored on a stamp
1962 - First U.S. Christmas stamp
1974 - First U.S self-adhesive stamp issued
1992 - (18 yrs later!) Full-scale production of self-adhesive stamps
1998 - U.S. issues first semi-postal (postage stamps used to raise funds for charity)
In case you're wondering how they pick images used on stamps (like the silver coffeepot), never fear - I have a brief explanation about that too.
Originally the Postmaster General decided what should go on stamps. Then Congress had to stick their nose in, and started passing legislation REQUIRING certain subjects be honored. In 1957 the PG created a committee to review the ideas of the entire public. The Citizen's Stamp Advisory Committee (a group of 12 to 15 appointed people) considers about 50,000 ideas each year. (Does that seem like a ridiculously high number to anyone else?) The Committee then recommends 35 new subjects, and the PG makes the final decision and blah, blah blah.
There are rules however, such as:
1. No living person can be depicted on a U.S stamp except former presidents.
2. An individual cannot be commemorated until 10 years after their death. (This is supposedly to allow the person's accomplishments to be viewed in the appropriate historical perspective. So if you invented a pill that saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and then you die, if in 9.75 years we're fucked economically because of said pill - no stamp for you!)
3. The exception to rule #2 are presidents, who have a stamp issued on the first anniversary of their death.
What if you don't like the crap the PG and CSAC pick out? You can make your own online! Here's a couple links:
Zazzle.com
Cafepress.com
And in case you need guidance as to what images to pus on your own stamps, here's a little good idea/bad idea.
Good Idea: Make stamps portraying Dexter, the new fictional serial killer series on Showtime. ( I get to read the book it was based on, Darkly Dreaming Dexter, tomorrow!)
Bad Idea: Make stamps portraying real serial killers. (Unless they're for hate mail, then it might be ok)
Good Idea: Make stamps of famous (tasteful) classical nude paintings.
Bad Idea : Make stamps from pictures you took of your girlfriend/boyfriend nude.
Good Idea: Making stamps of groups/causes you support i.e. American Cancer Society, PETA, etc.
Bad Idea: Making stamps of hate groups/terrorrist organizations you support. (The Nazis got enough attention 60 years ago -they don't need any help from you.) Also under this category - any stamps depicting anything to do with biohazards, bio warfare, and anthrax.
Saddled with the ever-so-interesting task of blogging about stamps, (C'mon Jen, stamps?) I decided to do a little research into the history of stamps.
The first stamp was issued May 6, 1840 in Britain. Before then, it was up to the receiver of the letter to pay, but as postal service was expensive, many refused letters. Many people actually developed codes to put on the outside of the letter, so that the reciever could just scan the code and refuse the letter, but still get the message.
Other important dates in stamp history:
1857 - First perforated U.S. stamps appear (had to cut them apart before that)
1869 - First U.S. pictorial stamps (something depicted other than a dead person)
1893 - First U.S. commemorative stamps are issued (Columbus' voyage to America)
1940 - Booker T. Washington first African-American honored on a stamp
1962 - First U.S. Christmas stamp
1974 - First U.S self-adhesive stamp issued
1992 - (18 yrs later!) Full-scale production of self-adhesive stamps
1998 - U.S. issues first semi-postal (postage stamps used to raise funds for charity)
In case you're wondering how they pick images used on stamps (like the silver coffeepot), never fear - I have a brief explanation about that too.
Originally the Postmaster General decided what should go on stamps. Then Congress had to stick their nose in, and started passing legislation REQUIRING certain subjects be honored. In 1957 the PG created a committee to review the ideas of the entire public. The Citizen's Stamp Advisory Committee (a group of 12 to 15 appointed people) considers about 50,000 ideas each year. (Does that seem like a ridiculously high number to anyone else?) The Committee then recommends 35 new subjects, and the PG makes the final decision and blah, blah blah.
There are rules however, such as:
1. No living person can be depicted on a U.S stamp except former presidents.
2. An individual cannot be commemorated until 10 years after their death. (This is supposedly to allow the person's accomplishments to be viewed in the appropriate historical perspective. So if you invented a pill that saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and then you die, if in 9.75 years we're fucked economically because of said pill - no stamp for you!)
3. The exception to rule #2 are presidents, who have a stamp issued on the first anniversary of their death.
What if you don't like the crap the PG and CSAC pick out? You can make your own online! Here's a couple links:
Zazzle.com
Cafepress.com
And in case you need guidance as to what images to pus on your own stamps, here's a little good idea/bad idea.
Good Idea: Make stamps portraying Dexter, the new fictional serial killer series on Showtime. ( I get to read the book it was based on, Darkly Dreaming Dexter, tomorrow!)
Bad Idea: Make stamps portraying real serial killers. (Unless they're for hate mail, then it might be ok)
Good Idea: Make stamps of famous (tasteful) classical nude paintings.
Bad Idea : Make stamps from pictures you took of your girlfriend/boyfriend nude.
Good Idea: Making stamps of groups/causes you support i.e. American Cancer Society, PETA, etc.
Bad Idea: Making stamps of hate groups/terrorrist organizations you support. (The Nazis got enough attention 60 years ago -they don't need any help from you.) Also under this category - any stamps depicting anything to do with biohazards, bio warfare, and anthrax.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
I have to write about stamps?
Hmmm…. It would appear that Nick forgot that he was Mr. Tuesday this week. Well, never fear, Jane is here to give all of you her well-formulated opinions on stamps. Er, wait. Slight problem. See, I don’t really have any opinions one way or the other when it comes to stamps. In my world, postage exists in order to enable various items to get from point A to point B. I don’t care what my postage looks like, so long as my items make it to their destination. Periodically I see people in the post office back home, pouring over the stamp choices as though they were trying to come up with a name for their first child or something. Granted, if at all possible I will avoid religious stamps around Christmastime, but that choice usually takes about three seconds.
“Madonna with child, or Frosty the Snowman?” “Frosty.”
Now, being that I’m a creative type, I can expand this topic just a wee bit for you to have something worth reading. You might think that since I’m living in South Korea and all, I would take this opportunity to expound somewhat on South Korean postage, or the Korean postal system, but unfortunately I can do no such thing. See, despite the fact that I’ve been here for nearly five months (has it been that long?), I have yet to visit a post office even once. When I first arrived back in August I requested mailing addresses from friends. I bought gifts for some of you. I have even gone so far as to tell some of you to be on the lookout for a little something-something in the mail. Well, I guess this is your wake-up call: stop holding your breath, people. And to those of you who might be under some sort of mistaken belief that your Christmas presents are in the process of crossing the Pacific right now, well that goes for you too. Exhale, people; packages aren’t coming.
I wish I had a decent excuse for the fact that I haven’t been to the post office since coming to Korea, but the truth is, I love sleeping. Because of the location of the nearest Post Office, I’d have to shave about an hour off my nightly rest in order to make it there before work. Let’s just say that I am NOT a morning person. There have been a few days when I have planned to get up early and send these various items on their way… but alas, it simply hasn’t happened. The way I’m going, you may all have to wait until I get back in the States.
I can, however, tell you about the last time I was in a Russian post office (last May or June). I was inside the Central Post Office of the city of Vladimir. Had I desired to do so, I could have purchased laundry detergent. I could have purchased cigarettes. I could have purchased a lot of random things of the sort which one would not expect to find in a Post Office. I could not, however, have purchased stamps. They were out.
Okay, so this post is totally random, and I’m going to stop writing now.
“Madonna with child, or Frosty the Snowman?” “Frosty.”
Now, being that I’m a creative type, I can expand this topic just a wee bit for you to have something worth reading. You might think that since I’m living in South Korea and all, I would take this opportunity to expound somewhat on South Korean postage, or the Korean postal system, but unfortunately I can do no such thing. See, despite the fact that I’ve been here for nearly five months (has it been that long?), I have yet to visit a post office even once. When I first arrived back in August I requested mailing addresses from friends. I bought gifts for some of you. I have even gone so far as to tell some of you to be on the lookout for a little something-something in the mail. Well, I guess this is your wake-up call: stop holding your breath, people. And to those of you who might be under some sort of mistaken belief that your Christmas presents are in the process of crossing the Pacific right now, well that goes for you too. Exhale, people; packages aren’t coming.
I wish I had a decent excuse for the fact that I haven’t been to the post office since coming to Korea, but the truth is, I love sleeping. Because of the location of the nearest Post Office, I’d have to shave about an hour off my nightly rest in order to make it there before work. Let’s just say that I am NOT a morning person. There have been a few days when I have planned to get up early and send these various items on their way… but alas, it simply hasn’t happened. The way I’m going, you may all have to wait until I get back in the States.
I can, however, tell you about the last time I was in a Russian post office (last May or June). I was inside the Central Post Office of the city of Vladimir. Had I desired to do so, I could have purchased laundry detergent. I could have purchased cigarettes. I could have purchased a lot of random things of the sort which one would not expect to find in a Post Office. I could not, however, have purchased stamps. They were out.
Okay, so this post is totally random, and I’m going to stop writing now.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Topic 2!
After stuffing myself with turkey, ham, potatoes, corn, gravy, biscuits, pie, crackers, and lord even knows what else, I’m hardly mentally agile enough to complete a decent blog today. I should be on the couch dozing through Pirates of the Caribbean right now. But! I said I would find a topic for this week, so I shall.
Obviously, I should pick a topic dealing something with the new year, especially after the preceding posts from Nick. Resolutions or predictions or a look back on last year or something. But I’m not going to do that, mostly because I didn’t think of that last week when I was deciding on a topic. We can do that next week.
This week’s topic (which I admittedly stole from my friend David's blog) is stamps.
Here is a list of the expected commemorative stamps for 2007 as announced by the US Postal Service. I think USPS stamps should celebrate things truly American (and that includes honoring other cultures/countries since we all came from somewhere else) as well as things benign enough for people all over this diverse country to buy and use. Here are some highlights from the extensive list:
Ella Fitzgerald
International Polar Year
James Stewart
Marvel Comic Book Heroes
Louis Comfort Tiffany
The Art of Disney: Magic
Jury Duty
Silver Coffeepot
Silly as it sounds, I’m all for having entertainers represent our country, especially since politicians do such a terrible job. Sure, Ella was probably on coke or heroine, and I don’t know of any Jimmy Stewart scandals, but I’m sure there must be one or two. But c’mon… even Bing Crosby beat his wife and kids, but we still hear his voice and think of Christmas. What's more Christmas-y than listening to White Christmas while remembering why you moved away from home? Let Angelina Jolie and Shirley Temple represent me—not anyone in the current administration please. I hold superheroes in this same regard.
I did a quick google search on International Polar Year (IPY for those in the know) and found this. This seems to be a project for researchers to gather more information about global warming! It’s official: global warming has become common sense enough for the post office to print a stamp about it. Now we just need those idiots in the GOP (who, for whatever bullshit reason, pretend that this isn’t happening or is no big deal) to simply mail a letter overseas and realize that the rest of the world, including most Americans, see this as a major problem.
A silver coffeepot? This is the one that really threw me off. I mean, that’s really non-offensive, but… why? I’m going to have to see this one to voice an opinion.
Obviously, I should pick a topic dealing something with the new year, especially after the preceding posts from Nick. Resolutions or predictions or a look back on last year or something. But I’m not going to do that, mostly because I didn’t think of that last week when I was deciding on a topic. We can do that next week.
This week’s topic (which I admittedly stole from my friend David's blog) is stamps.
Here is a list of the expected commemorative stamps for 2007 as announced by the US Postal Service. I think USPS stamps should celebrate things truly American (and that includes honoring other cultures/countries since we all came from somewhere else) as well as things benign enough for people all over this diverse country to buy and use. Here are some highlights from the extensive list:
Ella Fitzgerald
International Polar Year
James Stewart
Marvel Comic Book Heroes
Louis Comfort Tiffany
The Art of Disney: Magic
Jury Duty
Silver Coffeepot
Silly as it sounds, I’m all for having entertainers represent our country, especially since politicians do such a terrible job. Sure, Ella was probably on coke or heroine, and I don’t know of any Jimmy Stewart scandals, but I’m sure there must be one or two. But c’mon… even Bing Crosby beat his wife and kids, but we still hear his voice and think of Christmas. What's more Christmas-y than listening to White Christmas while remembering why you moved away from home? Let Angelina Jolie and Shirley Temple represent me—not anyone in the current administration please. I hold superheroes in this same regard.
I did a quick google search on International Polar Year (IPY for those in the know) and found this. This seems to be a project for researchers to gather more information about global warming! It’s official: global warming has become common sense enough for the post office to print a stamp about it. Now we just need those idiots in the GOP (who, for whatever bullshit reason, pretend that this isn’t happening or is no big deal) to simply mail a letter overseas and realize that the rest of the world, including most Americans, see this as a major problem.
A silver coffeepot? This is the one that really threw me off. I mean, that’s really non-offensive, but… why? I’m going to have to see this one to voice an opinion.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Twenty-Oh-Eight
2006 saw the death knell of the Reagan conservative movement. Though most news sources and blogs are trying to concentrate only on 2007 and the new Democratic 110th Congress and claiming that it's too early to talk about 2008, I am looking forward to 2008. As much as 2006 was an historic midterm election, 2008 will be an equally or possibly even more historic election. The GOP will be defending about twice as many senate seats than the Democrats, which means the Dems will more than likely see their hold on the Senate strengthen greatly. The 2008 presidential election will see the first totally wide-open election since the 50s, as there is no incumbent (president or vice president) running on the ticket. Though most pundits and bloggers etc. are claiming they have no list of favorites yet for 2008, I would bet that they actually do. I certainly do. Though most likely my list of favorites will change as the potential candidates campaign or decide not to run, and with all of the news that will be made, as of now here is my list of favorite Democratic candidates for president in 2008.
Al Gore: My #1 dream candidate. Though he claims he will not run, I still harbor hope that he will decide to do so. It's possible, as the other candidates will begin running early and will already be getting attacked, a strong enough Draft Al Gore movement and the pull of being able to do more good might be enough to pull him in. Though he "lost" in 2000, he doesn't have the stigma of a loser since he did in fact win the popular vote, and many if not most in this country think he actually won the election. Gore has also become extremely popular, and has been giving amazing speeches and showing up on all of the late night talk shows; not the almost robotic candidate we saw in 2000. And here is where Al Gore could totally rip the Democratic field wide open: He has done a great job of making it known he will not likely be running; he hasn't been lining up staff, he hasn't been making the trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, he hasn't been putting money into a possibly campaign war chest (though he obviously has no shortage of money). So the spotlight is on the other candidates who are doing those things and likely lining up to run, most notably Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. These three (and likely even more) will announce one way or another probably in January, and will then become even larger targets than they already are now. However, a candidate does not have to announce that early; they do so to line up money, delegates, etc. Al Gore could wait another year and let the press and the pundits tear into these candidates, and even more, let these candidates tear into each other. Al Gore could enter the field in late '07 and, having been untouched and likely continuing to be popular (not to mention probably with an Academy Award on his nightstand) would tear the field wide open. I will be keeping Al Gore in my number one spot until it would be too late for him to enter the game; I might like other candidates, but I'm holding out for him.
Obama: I like Obama. I would tend to think he is inexperienced, and that he sometimes does seem like someone who just has great charisma and makes great speeches, but I think he has something to offer. Though we haven't elected someone from the Senate since Kennedy, Obama is being compared to a Kennedy, and has about as much experience as Lincoln did when he was elected president from the same state. I definitely like him, and I definitely think he is electable. I am hoping he doesn't fall into the Harold Ford trap of campaigning too much on his religious beliefs; other than that, I think he's a solid favorite.
Clinton: I like Hillary, and I think she would be a good president. I would love to have a woman president and a woman Speaker of the House; that would be an amazing sight at the State of the Union. Obama has a leg up on Hillary for one of the hottest issues right now, Iraq: Obama was against the unpopular war from the start, while Hillary voted for it and hasn't really ever shown any regret for that vote. She's also married to arguably the most talented politician alive right now, and many (including myself) would not mind having him back in the White House. Though she is not my favorite, I would have no problem voting for her, and she is definitely in the top tier.
John Edwards: Very charming, smart, and has some great views on economics, the middle class, and labor. Already has experience with campaigning for vice president in 2004, and didn't get nearly as touched as Kerry did (though he did give arguably a poor showing at the vice presidential debates in '04, these were not memorable, and I personally thought he did just fine). I would say that Edwards is tied for my second place spot with Obama and Hillary. I do lean for Edwards lately, though. I think he will be a great candidate and I would happily vote for him.
That would likely be the top tier, with some other candidates emerging. Should John Warner (former governor of Virginia) enter the race, I'd immediately put him in the top tier; I personally wish he hadn't have bowed out, though there are rumors that he may change his mind. Vilsack, though no one outside of Iowa has heard of him, would be at the top of my list in the second tier; I hadn't heard of him either, but have watched some of his speeches and TV appearances and looked at some of his stances, and he could be a dark horse candidate- it might not be a bad year for dark horses, since Obama and Hillary may end up cancelling each other out; this is why I think Edwards might end up on top. Rounding up the list would be Richardson of NM and possibly John Kerry, who I personally like but think he has no chance. Kucinich and the rest are not serious threats to those in the top tier.
I think that, if the Dems can prove in the next year or so that they can get things done, the 2008 election will be theirs to lose. If the GOP is smart, they will run either McCain or Rudy; those are their most formidable candidates. I think Rudy might be too far to the left for the GOP base, and I think McCain is running right fast enough to get the nomination. We would be lucky if they end up running psychopaths like Brownback, Huckabee or Romney. I think 2007 will be a great year, and I think the Dems will prove themselves worthy of the power they have been given. I only hope that they don't take too much of the responsibility for the Iraq War: the President still has the final say, and if the Dems get too involved, they will get tarnished with the unpopular war. Also, the Democrats need to stop trying to court the white southern redneck vote. They aren't going to vote Democrat. The GOP is now a southern party; they took over the South, and now the South has taken over the GOP. I say we let them have it; you can't be all things to all people, and the South isn't giving it to the Dems no matter what. We have the Northeast, which is impenetrably blue, the midwest is quickly trending blue, and the west is pretty solidly blue. We can get the 270 electoral votes we need from those areas. I'm all for a 50-state strategy where we are ready for the pick-ups we might get from scandals etc., but if you look at the numbers, we aren't winning in the South. Let the GOP have the South, I say, and we'll win without them; our policies will still do them good regardless.
Al Gore: My #1 dream candidate. Though he claims he will not run, I still harbor hope that he will decide to do so. It's possible, as the other candidates will begin running early and will already be getting attacked, a strong enough Draft Al Gore movement and the pull of being able to do more good might be enough to pull him in. Though he "lost" in 2000, he doesn't have the stigma of a loser since he did in fact win the popular vote, and many if not most in this country think he actually won the election. Gore has also become extremely popular, and has been giving amazing speeches and showing up on all of the late night talk shows; not the almost robotic candidate we saw in 2000. And here is where Al Gore could totally rip the Democratic field wide open: He has done a great job of making it known he will not likely be running; he hasn't been lining up staff, he hasn't been making the trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, he hasn't been putting money into a possibly campaign war chest (though he obviously has no shortage of money). So the spotlight is on the other candidates who are doing those things and likely lining up to run, most notably Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. These three (and likely even more) will announce one way or another probably in January, and will then become even larger targets than they already are now. However, a candidate does not have to announce that early; they do so to line up money, delegates, etc. Al Gore could wait another year and let the press and the pundits tear into these candidates, and even more, let these candidates tear into each other. Al Gore could enter the field in late '07 and, having been untouched and likely continuing to be popular (not to mention probably with an Academy Award on his nightstand) would tear the field wide open. I will be keeping Al Gore in my number one spot until it would be too late for him to enter the game; I might like other candidates, but I'm holding out for him.
Obama: I like Obama. I would tend to think he is inexperienced, and that he sometimes does seem like someone who just has great charisma and makes great speeches, but I think he has something to offer. Though we haven't elected someone from the Senate since Kennedy, Obama is being compared to a Kennedy, and has about as much experience as Lincoln did when he was elected president from the same state. I definitely like him, and I definitely think he is electable. I am hoping he doesn't fall into the Harold Ford trap of campaigning too much on his religious beliefs; other than that, I think he's a solid favorite.
Clinton: I like Hillary, and I think she would be a good president. I would love to have a woman president and a woman Speaker of the House; that would be an amazing sight at the State of the Union. Obama has a leg up on Hillary for one of the hottest issues right now, Iraq: Obama was against the unpopular war from the start, while Hillary voted for it and hasn't really ever shown any regret for that vote. She's also married to arguably the most talented politician alive right now, and many (including myself) would not mind having him back in the White House. Though she is not my favorite, I would have no problem voting for her, and she is definitely in the top tier.
John Edwards: Very charming, smart, and has some great views on economics, the middle class, and labor. Already has experience with campaigning for vice president in 2004, and didn't get nearly as touched as Kerry did (though he did give arguably a poor showing at the vice presidential debates in '04, these were not memorable, and I personally thought he did just fine). I would say that Edwards is tied for my second place spot with Obama and Hillary. I do lean for Edwards lately, though. I think he will be a great candidate and I would happily vote for him.
That would likely be the top tier, with some other candidates emerging. Should John Warner (former governor of Virginia) enter the race, I'd immediately put him in the top tier; I personally wish he hadn't have bowed out, though there are rumors that he may change his mind. Vilsack, though no one outside of Iowa has heard of him, would be at the top of my list in the second tier; I hadn't heard of him either, but have watched some of his speeches and TV appearances and looked at some of his stances, and he could be a dark horse candidate- it might not be a bad year for dark horses, since Obama and Hillary may end up cancelling each other out; this is why I think Edwards might end up on top. Rounding up the list would be Richardson of NM and possibly John Kerry, who I personally like but think he has no chance. Kucinich and the rest are not serious threats to those in the top tier.
I think that, if the Dems can prove in the next year or so that they can get things done, the 2008 election will be theirs to lose. If the GOP is smart, they will run either McCain or Rudy; those are their most formidable candidates. I think Rudy might be too far to the left for the GOP base, and I think McCain is running right fast enough to get the nomination. We would be lucky if they end up running psychopaths like Brownback, Huckabee or Romney. I think 2007 will be a great year, and I think the Dems will prove themselves worthy of the power they have been given. I only hope that they don't take too much of the responsibility for the Iraq War: the President still has the final say, and if the Dems get too involved, they will get tarnished with the unpopular war. Also, the Democrats need to stop trying to court the white southern redneck vote. They aren't going to vote Democrat. The GOP is now a southern party; they took over the South, and now the South has taken over the GOP. I say we let them have it; you can't be all things to all people, and the South isn't giving it to the Dems no matter what. We have the Northeast, which is impenetrably blue, the midwest is quickly trending blue, and the west is pretty solidly blue. We can get the 270 electoral votes we need from those areas. I'm all for a 50-state strategy where we are ready for the pick-ups we might get from scandals etc., but if you look at the numbers, we aren't winning in the South. Let the GOP have the South, I say, and we'll win without them; our policies will still do them good regardless.
Twenty-Oh-Six
2006 is about to come to a close; I am inclined to say good riddance. I guess 2006 was not a totally terrible year for me personally, but I am most definintely looking forward to 2007 with hopes that it will be a better year. 2006 saw the conservative/Republican "revolution" in its last moments, which is what gives me hope for this country in 2007. As we all do our requisite looking back at the close of a year, I thought I might pick a few of my favorite things of 2006, with hopes that you all will join in with yours.
Best Movie: The Departed
Best TV Show: Lost (Though not a show that is new in 2006, the last half of the second season and the first half of the third were amazing, and no new show in 2006 has come close to topping it in my opinion)
Best Album: Morph the Cat by Donald Fagen
Favorite Book: tie: FUBAR by Sam Seder & Steve Sherrill and Crashing the Gate by Moulitsas and Armstrong
Best Moment: Election night and the day after
Best Personal Moment: My big promotion
Worst Personal Moment: Getting screwed at the car dealership (though I did get them back)
My Choice for Person(s) of the Year: Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer
These choices, of course, are my favorites and not objective judgments of what is actually "the best" of 2006. I'm sure there are more categories that I am not thinking of right now; all in all, I think 2006 was a good year, with possibly not the best start but with a promising ending. And as far as "resolutions" for the next year, I have only a few: save up enough money in the next year to make moving out of Florida in early 2008 possible; lose 10 pounds; and start exercising again three times a week.
Best Movie: The Departed
Best TV Show: Lost (Though not a show that is new in 2006, the last half of the second season and the first half of the third were amazing, and no new show in 2006 has come close to topping it in my opinion)
Best Album: Morph the Cat by Donald Fagen
Favorite Book: tie: FUBAR by Sam Seder & Steve Sherrill and Crashing the Gate by Moulitsas and Armstrong
Best Moment: Election night and the day after
Best Personal Moment: My big promotion
Worst Personal Moment: Getting screwed at the car dealership (though I did get them back)
My Choice for Person(s) of the Year: Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer
These choices, of course, are my favorites and not objective judgments of what is actually "the best" of 2006. I'm sure there are more categories that I am not thinking of right now; all in all, I think 2006 was a good year, with possibly not the best start but with a promising ending. And as far as "resolutions" for the next year, I have only a few: save up enough money in the next year to make moving out of Florida in early 2008 possible; lose 10 pounds; and start exercising again three times a week.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
You're So Vain
You probably think Time Magazine's Person of the Year is you... oh wait. But what can I say that hasn't been done in the other 4 posts? We're really going to have to rotate days we post because I don't think I can pull something like this out of my ass every week (if I could I'm sure there's a club in Tijuana that would pay for an act like that). Or we just need to make the topic a little more broad.
I agree, it's a complete cop-out. I can only imagine the scenario (and in this scenario both characters work for Time, and DB 1 and 2 stand for Douchebag 1 and 2, respectively):
DB 1: "Damn...there's absoulutely NO ONE that has done anything extraordinary this year!"
DB2: "What in the hell are we going to do?"
DB1: "Ha ha ha - why don't we make you Person of the Year!"
DB2: "Hee hee hee - why don't we make YOU Person of the Year!"
DB1: (ding! {lightblub})
Stupid. But they did it, and rather than continue to point out the sheer buffoonery (yes, buffoonery) in making such a decision, I've decided to embrace it. So, as all of us are Person of the Year, and they usually do some type of bio, I thought I'd let you know a little bit more about us.
Actually this is first part is just an excuse to use this library book I found. It surveyed 10 billion people to see what they thought of when they heard people's names (So really this is a getting to know what other people think of us). Here are the results for ours:
Glenn - is described as either a friendly, simple, down-to-earth middle class guy or a bold, innovative, wealthy intellectual. (Not too bad - neither description fits exactly, but take something from each, and it's pretty good.)
Jen (Im assuming Jennifer, but if not this is the closest one) - people think Jennifer is a perfect name for a cute, blonde cheerleader who is popular and sweet. (Jen, you'll have to defend yourself on this one, since I don't know you)
Nick - most people picture Nick as a strong, swarthy gangster. Some, though, see Nick as a clever , suave good guy. (Strong, swarthy gangster huh? Right...)
Jane - people think of Jane as plain. The name calls to mind the common, dependable, garden-variety girl-next-door. (Nothing could be further from the truth! Jane being plain that is - she's anything but.)
Stephanie - most people think Stephanie is a thin, pretty, feminine woman who is sophisticated and self-centered - a model perhaps. Some think Stephanie is very kind. (Ummm...where do people come up with this stuff?)
Ok now for the real stuff. I was reading another blog, paintingchef.com, and she did Six Weird Things You Don't Know About Me. They were really good and really psychotic. I can't think of 6 things right now, so I'll just post one, and hopefully my co-bloggers will post weird things about themselves as well. I figure this is way more interesting than telling you my favorite color, food, or way to serve potatoes.
So here it goes: I don't know why, but I count all the buttons on whatever remote control I'm holding. It's this crazy obsessive-compulsive thing, I'm sure, but I touch every single button and count them - and I'll do it over and over until I force myself to put it down. It's not something that really distracts from whatever I'm watching, it's more like a nervous tic or something for my hands to do. It's weird, but I can't help it.
I'm absolutely exhausted and I have a long day of moving tomorrow, er well I guess later today now. I'm sure I've skewed the topic way off, but give me a break - I'm the last to post this week.
I agree, it's a complete cop-out. I can only imagine the scenario (and in this scenario both characters work for Time, and DB 1 and 2 stand for Douchebag 1 and 2, respectively):
DB 1: "Damn...there's absoulutely NO ONE that has done anything extraordinary this year!"
DB2: "What in the hell are we going to do?"
DB1: "Ha ha ha - why don't we make you Person of the Year!"
DB2: "Hee hee hee - why don't we make YOU Person of the Year!"
DB1: (ding! {lightblub})
Stupid. But they did it, and rather than continue to point out the sheer buffoonery (yes, buffoonery) in making such a decision, I've decided to embrace it. So, as all of us are Person of the Year, and they usually do some type of bio, I thought I'd let you know a little bit more about us.
Actually this is first part is just an excuse to use this library book I found. It surveyed 10 billion people to see what they thought of when they heard people's names (So really this is a getting to know what other people think of us). Here are the results for ours:
Glenn - is described as either a friendly, simple, down-to-earth middle class guy or a bold, innovative, wealthy intellectual. (Not too bad - neither description fits exactly, but take something from each, and it's pretty good.)
Jen (Im assuming Jennifer, but if not this is the closest one) - people think Jennifer is a perfect name for a cute, blonde cheerleader who is popular and sweet. (Jen, you'll have to defend yourself on this one, since I don't know you)
Nick - most people picture Nick as a strong, swarthy gangster. Some, though, see Nick as a clever , suave good guy. (Strong, swarthy gangster huh? Right...)
Jane - people think of Jane as plain. The name calls to mind the common, dependable, garden-variety girl-next-door. (Nothing could be further from the truth! Jane being plain that is - she's anything but.)
Stephanie - most people think Stephanie is a thin, pretty, feminine woman who is sophisticated and self-centered - a model perhaps. Some think Stephanie is very kind. (Ummm...where do people come up with this stuff?)
Ok now for the real stuff. I was reading another blog, paintingchef.com, and she did Six Weird Things You Don't Know About Me. They were really good and really psychotic. I can't think of 6 things right now, so I'll just post one, and hopefully my co-bloggers will post weird things about themselves as well. I figure this is way more interesting than telling you my favorite color, food, or way to serve potatoes.
So here it goes: I don't know why, but I count all the buttons on whatever remote control I'm holding. It's this crazy obsessive-compulsive thing, I'm sure, but I touch every single button and count them - and I'll do it over and over until I force myself to put it down. It's not something that really distracts from whatever I'm watching, it's more like a nervous tic or something for my hands to do. It's weird, but I can't help it.
I'm absolutely exhausted and I have a long day of moving tomorrow, er well I guess later today now. I'm sure I've skewed the topic way off, but give me a break - I'm the last to post this week.
You're not worthy.
Now, it’s not like I particularly need TIME to tell me who to worship as the most important person of the past 365 days, although the magazine’s yearly foray into this who’s who nonsense is usually somewhat interesting. But their choice of “You”? Please.
No offense, but You are a bunch of blithering morons. I have extremely little faith in the intelligence of the masses, and TIME goes and awards them (er, You) with the title of Person of the Year? While that utterly fatuous article in TIME did gain a few meager points in my book by referring to Kim Jong Il as a tin-pot dictator (I do, after all, live in South Korea) the rest of the article was fairly asinine. Take this for example: Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, they included that gem in the article explaining why we (You) were chosen. Thank you, TIME, for honoring those who not only can’t spell, but who haven’t yet mastered spell-check. Thank you for honoring the obscene hatemongers of the world. And above all, TIME, thank you for lumping me in with them, with You.
The internet has truly changed the world, but so did radio, and television. The difference with the internet is that in recent years, interactive sites have become more user-friendly, making it simple for the most dim-witted among You to gain access to that medium. Think of the incredibly moronic things which You have seen and heard on television and radio. Now think about the fact that getting on TV/radio is difficult. Yes, the most horrific things which You have seen and heard on those media were moderated. In theory, we have been shielded from the worst.
No offense, but You are a bunch of blithering morons. I have extremely little faith in the intelligence of the masses, and TIME goes and awards them (er, You) with the title of Person of the Year? While that utterly fatuous article in TIME did gain a few meager points in my book by referring to Kim Jong Il as a tin-pot dictator (I do, after all, live in South Korea) the rest of the article was fairly asinine. Take this for example: Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, they included that gem in the article explaining why we (You) were chosen. Thank you, TIME, for honoring those who not only can’t spell, but who haven’t yet mastered spell-check. Thank you for honoring the obscene hatemongers of the world. And above all, TIME, thank you for lumping me in with them, with You.
The internet has truly changed the world, but so did radio, and television. The difference with the internet is that in recent years, interactive sites have become more user-friendly, making it simple for the most dim-witted among You to gain access to that medium. Think of the incredibly moronic things which You have seen and heard on television and radio. Now think about the fact that getting on TV/radio is difficult. Yes, the most horrific things which You have seen and heard on those media were moderated. In theory, we have been shielded from the worst.
Now, the glorious thing about the internet is that there is no moderation. Granted, this lack of moderation means that the lowest of the low have the ability to contribute. But I have free will and common sense, and I can avoid the lowest of the low in the virtual word, just as I do in the real one. I love the unmoderated virtual world of the internet. I love the fact that I can broadcast anything I want... and I’ve been taking advantage of this ability since 1997, when I first acquired a computer with a modem. I have my own website (and have since 1997, actually), I can code HTML and Java (although to be honest, I’m lazy and usually use Dreamweaver), I’ve done web design for businesses, I blog on three separate blogs (including this one), and I run two online stores. And yes, TIME, I do in fact have the obligatory MySpace and YouTube accounts, which apparently make me cool in Your book. I freely admit that I consider myself superior to the vast majority of internet users with their tackily glittery PimpMySpace profiles and their inability to produce anything of substance. But even those of us who use the internet to create are hardly worthy of the designation of Person of the Year. At the very least, TIME, you could have honored those who have created sites such as YouTube and MySpace, if you truly felt they were worthy. (Although just imagine Tom standing alone as Person of the Year...) But this selection of You? Why bother? You’re obviously not worthy.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Freestyle Dumping
Time's Person of the Year is You (Me, whatever). I'm lucky; I had a subscription to Time because it was given to me extremely cheap (under $10) and am most fortunate that it ran out right before this issue came out. Over the 12 months that I received Time, I grew to hate it. Sure, this cover was so obviously a cop out. So I guess the question we're supposed to consider here is, why? To me, the obvious choices would have been The Democrats (or at least the leaders of the DNC, DCCC & DSCC), or maybe even Baker & Hamilton (though it's pretty obvious by now that the Iraq Study Group Report is going to do very little; the lead-up to it got a lot of press). I mean, isn't the Person of the Year supposed to be someone who got a lot of attention or someone who made a huge difference? Sure, "You" do things to make a difference in the internet (like using Google to search for porn, or by demanding newer and stranger role-playing situations for said porn) but with that "You" means a lot of shitty people who either made no difference or who actually worked the take the country backwards get in the door. I heard a whole lot about Suri Cruise this year, why wasn't she/he/it person of the year? Or how about K-Fed? Paris Hilton? Brittney Spears' exposed vagina?
Honestly, the small conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Time didn't want to pick the Democrats or any one Democrat, or maybe even Baker/Hamilton (who the Bushies and neocons aren't hugely fond of apparently). Or maybe just a total lack of imagination. Why am I person of the year? The internet? YouTube? Listen, I am all for YouTube; I think it is the next step in the democratization of the internet and it could possibly serve to keep those in public life more accountable for what they say (though it is just as likely to spawn new generations of better liars), but has anyone actually just browsed YouTube? For every single one video of something like the "macaca incident" that makes a difference, there's millions of videos of people just playing video games, or running around naked, or taking a dump, or any other number of shithead things. At any rate, the internet has been around for quite a while; it has always been powered by "people." Is Time just now catching on to this? Obviously they are referring to massively distributed collaboation, and the fact that people with cell phone cameras are catching very important video, or posting very important information on blogs (not blogs like this one) that then sometimes make their way into the evening shout shows, but those are relatively few enterprising and activist people. The internet is full of millions more people who only want to see those Brittney Spears vagnia pictures, or pictures of Suri Cruise, or of Pauly Shore being punched by a redneck, or whatever.
I have very little to say that wasn't already covered; great job with this topic, Glenn. But obviously the Time choice was a cop out. But what do we care? Time is like that. Compare the two post-election covers from 1992 and 2006. In 1992, the Republicans had their "revolution," and took over the Congress from the Democrats, who had held on to power for about 40 years. On the cover of Time, we see an elephant running over and stomping a little donkey whose (if I remember correctly) eyes are popping out for extra special effect. In 2006, when Democrats took the Republicans out of office after only 12 years, and won more seats than the GOP had in 1992, Time showcased a sedate cover that shows a big red dot and a big blue dot slightly converging with the overlapping parts colored purple, with a headline saying "The Center is the New Place to Be," repeating the bullshit meme that the Dems only won because their candidates were so conservative (don't get me started on that; almost nothing makes me more mad than that total bullshit claim). That says all you need to know about Time Magazine.
I would write more, but I must wrap Christmas presents, and I want to leave enough room for those who must post after me to actually have something to say. Or totally abandon the subject at hand and just write about whatever.
Honestly, the small conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Time didn't want to pick the Democrats or any one Democrat, or maybe even Baker/Hamilton (who the Bushies and neocons aren't hugely fond of apparently). Or maybe just a total lack of imagination. Why am I person of the year? The internet? YouTube? Listen, I am all for YouTube; I think it is the next step in the democratization of the internet and it could possibly serve to keep those in public life more accountable for what they say (though it is just as likely to spawn new generations of better liars), but has anyone actually just browsed YouTube? For every single one video of something like the "macaca incident" that makes a difference, there's millions of videos of people just playing video games, or running around naked, or taking a dump, or any other number of shithead things. At any rate, the internet has been around for quite a while; it has always been powered by "people." Is Time just now catching on to this? Obviously they are referring to massively distributed collaboation, and the fact that people with cell phone cameras are catching very important video, or posting very important information on blogs (not blogs like this one) that then sometimes make their way into the evening shout shows, but those are relatively few enterprising and activist people. The internet is full of millions more people who only want to see those Brittney Spears vagnia pictures, or pictures of Suri Cruise, or of Pauly Shore being punched by a redneck, or whatever.
I have very little to say that wasn't already covered; great job with this topic, Glenn. But obviously the Time choice was a cop out. But what do we care? Time is like that. Compare the two post-election covers from 1992 and 2006. In 1992, the Republicans had their "revolution," and took over the Congress from the Democrats, who had held on to power for about 40 years. On the cover of Time, we see an elephant running over and stomping a little donkey whose (if I remember correctly) eyes are popping out for extra special effect. In 2006, when Democrats took the Republicans out of office after only 12 years, and won more seats than the GOP had in 1992, Time showcased a sedate cover that shows a big red dot and a big blue dot slightly converging with the overlapping parts colored purple, with a headline saying "The Center is the New Place to Be," repeating the bullshit meme that the Dems only won because their candidates were so conservative (don't get me started on that; almost nothing makes me more mad than that total bullshit claim). That says all you need to know about Time Magazine.
I would write more, but I must wrap Christmas presents, and I want to leave enough room for those who must post after me to actually have something to say. Or totally abandon the subject at hand and just write about whatever.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Person of the Year wasn't Me.
Before I begin, let me give myself 2 justifications. 1. I'm new to the whole blogger thing. I'm a MySpace gal so far, and I'm just hoping there's a spellcheck on Blogger. 2. I had yet another happy hour this evening after work, at which I told my self I would only stay for 1 drink. After 3, I'm home, quite buzzed and watching Without a Trace while I blog. I'm a multi-tasker.
Thanks to some extra Delta SkyMiles (that were still not enough to actually travel anywhere), I've been getting Time magazine for several months now. Not that I've read many of them; I also get the Atlantic Monthly and the Economist from the same offer and hardly look at either. However, I keep hearing about this Time cover-- I'm the person of the Year?!-- but, no, I did not receive this issue. Are they trying to tell me something? I'm probably taking that too personally. A local friend blamed it on the "corrupt DC postal service, someone probably stole it," which is what I was thinking anyway since my mail is very sporadic. Once, they didn't pick up my departing mail for 3 or 4 days and when I called to complain the distribution manager who answered the phone told me, "Look, if you don't got any mail comin' in, he ain't gonna check it." "oh?" I responded, "I guess that's just the way you do things?" "yep." And how do you argue with that? So I'm going to read the article right now. Give me a second... I'm also eating dinner.
Ok, so, I haven't started reading yet, but it's awesome that the chrysler ad before the article begins, "You may not be the person of the year..." Oops. that was a waste of a couple gazillion dollars.
Who will leave a happy hour early after 3 drinks on a Tuesday to go home and fulfill her obligation to her brand new Blogsupergroup!? Me! I'm a winner! According to Time anyway.
Time? Are you listening? Good. Because that was a total cop-out. As the monstery-guy in 'Avenue Q' explains in song, "The internet is for porn." Also, I've been copyediting at work for 2 days now (I have other work, but this had been higher priority) and caught a typo in the last paragraph. There may be more, but I only caught the one. Can You?
So, I agree that the internet is fucking awesome. I can easily keep in touch with my non-DC friends who I love dearly, and that would be a lot harder if I only had to rely on free long-distance through cell phones. I can share photos and random thoughts and read about other people all over the world. and I email constantly. Also, it makes my job easier. in fact, it provides me with a job, since the project I work on within my company is a Web site (http://www.llis.gov/... you can't see it, you're not a member. And, no, I cannot give you membership, you're not an emergency responder).
Also, I participate in groups like Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, and NARAL-ProChoice, which I don't think would do very well without the internet. So I get emails about 3 times a day in my 'fake' email account asking for money from these groups. I don't mind-- I contribute about once a year. I just read what's gong on the rest of the year. If there's a petition or something, I'll sign that.
Democracy? At least the illusion of democracy, which, after voting for several years in Florida, I’ve learned to appreciate. When I sign an online petition I have full faith (not confidence) that it is delivered to and taken seriously by whatever Congress-person matters for that issue. I do understand, though, that I voted for none of them, because this year my highest profile election participation was DC School Board President. So maybe that’s what the internet provides—a voice for those of us who don’t legally have one (even though we pay the highest taxes in the country, thanks to Congress having full control of our city financials). And it probably works out to more of a voice than I had in Red-State-Florida, home of Jeb Bush, Mark Foley, Katherine Harris and the 2000 “Hanging Chads” election.
Clearly more important than some vague, faith-based concept of ‘democracy,’ though, is the vast capitalist orgy the internet provides. Catch the baby and win a Razor? Catch the baby and give Rupert whats-his-douche 50 more dollars. Shop for jewelry (click here to win free!), for music (get 5 songs for $5!), for entertainment systems (PS3’s on eBay!), for books (people still read?), for vibrators (who needs books?), for bigger penises (be a better man!), for hair implants (be a better man!), for hair removal (be a better woman!), for weight loss (be less of a person!), for anything your little mind could imagine. And, since the terrorists win when America is unable to sell penis pills and overpriced airline tickets, ergo the internet obviously promotes world peace. Ergo.
That and porn. there’s something for everyone. And what’s more democratic than that?
Also, shockingly, they found the pretty missing girl at the end of Without a Trace. And watch My Boys on TBS because it's freaking hilarious.
BLOG SUPERGROUP! Yeah!
Thanks to some extra Delta SkyMiles (that were still not enough to actually travel anywhere), I've been getting Time magazine for several months now. Not that I've read many of them; I also get the Atlantic Monthly and the Economist from the same offer and hardly look at either. However, I keep hearing about this Time cover-- I'm the person of the Year?!-- but, no, I did not receive this issue. Are they trying to tell me something? I'm probably taking that too personally. A local friend blamed it on the "corrupt DC postal service, someone probably stole it," which is what I was thinking anyway since my mail is very sporadic. Once, they didn't pick up my departing mail for 3 or 4 days and when I called to complain the distribution manager who answered the phone told me, "Look, if you don't got any mail comin' in, he ain't gonna check it." "oh?" I responded, "I guess that's just the way you do things?" "yep." And how do you argue with that? So I'm going to read the article right now. Give me a second... I'm also eating dinner.
Ok, so, I haven't started reading yet, but it's awesome that the chrysler ad before the article begins, "You may not be the person of the year..." Oops. that was a waste of a couple gazillion dollars.
Who will leave a happy hour early after 3 drinks on a Tuesday to go home and fulfill her obligation to her brand new Blogsupergroup!? Me! I'm a winner! According to Time anyway.
Time? Are you listening? Good. Because that was a total cop-out. As the monstery-guy in 'Avenue Q' explains in song, "The internet is for porn." Also, I've been copyediting at work for 2 days now (I have other work, but this had been higher priority) and caught a typo in the last paragraph. There may be more, but I only caught the one. Can You?
So, I agree that the internet is fucking awesome. I can easily keep in touch with my non-DC friends who I love dearly, and that would be a lot harder if I only had to rely on free long-distance through cell phones. I can share photos and random thoughts and read about other people all over the world. and I email constantly. Also, it makes my job easier. in fact, it provides me with a job, since the project I work on within my company is a Web site (http://www.llis.gov/... you can't see it, you're not a member. And, no, I cannot give you membership, you're not an emergency responder).
Also, I participate in groups like Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, and NARAL-ProChoice, which I don't think would do very well without the internet. So I get emails about 3 times a day in my 'fake' email account asking for money from these groups. I don't mind-- I contribute about once a year. I just read what's gong on the rest of the year. If there's a petition or something, I'll sign that.
Democracy? At least the illusion of democracy, which, after voting for several years in Florida, I’ve learned to appreciate. When I sign an online petition I have full faith (not confidence) that it is delivered to and taken seriously by whatever Congress-person matters for that issue. I do understand, though, that I voted for none of them, because this year my highest profile election participation was DC School Board President. So maybe that’s what the internet provides—a voice for those of us who don’t legally have one (even though we pay the highest taxes in the country, thanks to Congress having full control of our city financials). And it probably works out to more of a voice than I had in Red-State-Florida, home of Jeb Bush, Mark Foley, Katherine Harris and the 2000 “Hanging Chads” election.
Clearly more important than some vague, faith-based concept of ‘democracy,’ though, is the vast capitalist orgy the internet provides. Catch the baby and win a Razor? Catch the baby and give Rupert whats-his-douche 50 more dollars. Shop for jewelry (click here to win free!), for music (get 5 songs for $5!), for entertainment systems (PS3’s on eBay!), for books (people still read?), for vibrators (who needs books?), for bigger penises (be a better man!), for hair implants (be a better man!), for hair removal (be a better woman!), for weight loss (be less of a person!), for anything your little mind could imagine. And, since the terrorists win when America is unable to sell penis pills and overpriced airline tickets, ergo the internet obviously promotes world peace. Ergo.
That and porn. there’s something for everyone. And what’s more democratic than that?
Also, shockingly, they found the pretty missing girl at the end of Without a Trace. And watch My Boys on TBS because it's freaking hilarious.
BLOG SUPERGROUP! Yeah!
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Topic For The Week 1
Welcome to the inaugural week of Blog Supergroup! Basically, each week there will be a new topic, on which each of the five members will write a post. Everybody on this blog has a different writing style, so it should be interesting. For instance, my writing style is "dumb."
So I just got done driving 14 hours to Illinois, and was thinking a good topic for the week would be "Road Trips." It would be funny, or maybe somebody could write an intelligent post about America and cars. But then yesterday Time Magazine picked "you" as person of the year, so I couldn't pass that up. So this week's topic is Time Magazine's person of the year for 2006.
I guess I should explain. Time Magazine (http://www.time.com) picked "you" as person of the year for 2006 because with massive online communities such as myspace (sucks), youtube (sucks unless you want streaming video of shut in playing Halo or cat walking on ceiling [ok, doesn't suck after all]), and the ever present blogosphere (word sucks, I guess blogs are awesome), you have created a worldwide digital democracy. And then they say some newage crap like "welcome to your world" or something. I don't know. I got bored summarizing the article. You can read it by clicking the fancy pants link I put up there.
But do all of these things really add up to some kind of great worldwide "digital democracy" as the article claims? Even though we have the spectre of net neutrality's abolition hanging over us, and even though I can't visit any website without a banner ads telling me to catch the baby and win a razor phone, I sort of think it is some kind of zany, terrible democracy. Here's some reasons why I think that, told in non-serious joke format, because I drove for fourteen hours today and can't think seriously. Though I guess that applies when I haven't driven fourteen hours, also.
1 - 7 million percent of the internet is still porn - Most people in the world, according to a recent survey, like looking at pictures of naked people. Now this is a very vague and general sort of taste that doesn't really demonstrate democracy at its most digitalness, but when you break down the numbers further, you'll find that 6 million percent of the porn is divided into crazy fetish subdivisions. I have never visited a porn site in my life, but reliable sources have told me that on said sites are advertisements for all sorts of zany porn sites, like people who dress up in big Casper the Ghost outfits and have sex with each other, or people who cover themselves in mustard and have sex with each other, or people who talk about having sex with each other while eating ham sandwiches. They never actually have sex, but they're in their underwear, and they take the bread off the sandwiches in the end, so that's like the sandwich is naked. Anyway, if this isn't a sign of democracy in action, I don't know what is.
2 - Equal Representation of All Issues - For instance, the liberals have political blogs that dismantle the actions of the Bush administration and Republican party, and the conservatives have the Ku Klux Klan website or godhatesfags.com or something.
3 - Wikipedia - Ahh, finally! All these stuffy fascist encyclopedias have dedicated so much time to "facts" and "science." Well, that's not what people want, and finally there's an open source encyclopedia that allows the people to pick what's important. And according to length, "Sonic the Hedgehog" is more important than the "Moon Landing." Well, the people have spoken. Also, it's great to read an article on say, "whales," and then come to a line like "Whales appeared in the motion picture Star Trek IV." Fuck that hoity toity academic bullshit! Democracy! Also, "Star Trek" is more important than "Democracy."
Well, three is all I got right now. I'm pretty tired. I'll try to think of more throughout the week, and comment on everybody else's posts, or add some throughout the week. So keep checking back! Jen is posting next, on Tuesday.
BLOG SUPERGROUP, YEAH!
So I just got done driving 14 hours to Illinois, and was thinking a good topic for the week would be "Road Trips." It would be funny, or maybe somebody could write an intelligent post about America and cars. But then yesterday Time Magazine picked "you" as person of the year, so I couldn't pass that up. So this week's topic is Time Magazine's person of the year for 2006.
I guess I should explain. Time Magazine (http://www.time.com) picked "you" as person of the year for 2006 because with massive online communities such as myspace (sucks), youtube (sucks unless you want streaming video of shut in playing Halo or cat walking on ceiling [ok, doesn't suck after all]), and the ever present blogosphere (word sucks, I guess blogs are awesome), you have created a worldwide digital democracy. And then they say some newage crap like "welcome to your world" or something. I don't know. I got bored summarizing the article. You can read it by clicking the fancy pants link I put up there.
But do all of these things really add up to some kind of great worldwide "digital democracy" as the article claims? Even though we have the spectre of net neutrality's abolition hanging over us, and even though I can't visit any website without a banner ads telling me to catch the baby and win a razor phone, I sort of think it is some kind of zany, terrible democracy. Here's some reasons why I think that, told in non-serious joke format, because I drove for fourteen hours today and can't think seriously. Though I guess that applies when I haven't driven fourteen hours, also.
1 - 7 million percent of the internet is still porn - Most people in the world, according to a recent survey, like looking at pictures of naked people. Now this is a very vague and general sort of taste that doesn't really demonstrate democracy at its most digitalness, but when you break down the numbers further, you'll find that 6 million percent of the porn is divided into crazy fetish subdivisions. I have never visited a porn site in my life, but reliable sources have told me that on said sites are advertisements for all sorts of zany porn sites, like people who dress up in big Casper the Ghost outfits and have sex with each other, or people who cover themselves in mustard and have sex with each other, or people who talk about having sex with each other while eating ham sandwiches. They never actually have sex, but they're in their underwear, and they take the bread off the sandwiches in the end, so that's like the sandwich is naked. Anyway, if this isn't a sign of democracy in action, I don't know what is.
2 - Equal Representation of All Issues - For instance, the liberals have political blogs that dismantle the actions of the Bush administration and Republican party, and the conservatives have the Ku Klux Klan website or godhatesfags.com or something.
3 - Wikipedia - Ahh, finally! All these stuffy fascist encyclopedias have dedicated so much time to "facts" and "science." Well, that's not what people want, and finally there's an open source encyclopedia that allows the people to pick what's important. And according to length, "Sonic the Hedgehog" is more important than the "Moon Landing." Well, the people have spoken. Also, it's great to read an article on say, "whales," and then come to a line like "Whales appeared in the motion picture Star Trek IV." Fuck that hoity toity academic bullshit! Democracy! Also, "Star Trek" is more important than "Democracy."
Well, three is all I got right now. I'm pretty tired. I'll try to think of more throughout the week, and comment on everybody else's posts, or add some throughout the week. So keep checking back! Jen is posting next, on Tuesday.
BLOG SUPERGROUP, YEAH!
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Got a topic suggestion for us?
If you have any topics that you would like BlogSupergroup to address, please leave your suggestions in the comments section of this post!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
