Wordle.net.

I put in this blog in wordle.net. It gives you a "word cloud," which basically means it gives you systematic typographical art.

I love typography-- its brilliant. But that bears no relation to this site, which is probably why I never discuss it here. In any case, I'd be interested in what other people get when they put in their sites as well!

Alright, I was tagged!

I have been tagged by Idiot's Stew of http://idiotsstew.blogspot.com/ The tag requests that I post 8 random facts/habits about myself and tag 8 others in the process as soon as this is posted.

So here we go. Eight random things, and none that have to do with politics, philosophy, or anything I normally write about:

1.) I wear a watch, but still take out my phone when people ask me the time.

2.) I am a registered bone marrow donor as of today.
3.) One of my major pet peeves is when people come into my room without knocking.
4.) On my wall, I have a fabric from Marimekko.
5.) I shoot digitally with an Olympus Evolt 510 and a Nikon Coolpix
6.) I speak primarily English, but know a considerable amount of French and a little Arabic and Spanish. More Arabic than Spanish.
7.) I'm not a carrier of the Sickle Cell Trait
8.) My children include my Black 1st Generation 30GB Zune and my Toshiba Special Edition Satellite Laptop.


I don't really know who to tag, but if you want to do it, go ahead and say I tagged you...

Optimism

Alright, in the election aftermath, I've decided that the best thing to do is proceed with optimism. I think that we're heading in the right way.

What I DO want to do is be critical of the world around me. What I DON'T want to do is be a complete downer. It's not productive.

I'm really through with politics for the week.

In other news, I was shown this little blurb from another friend online. In Defense of the Elite 


Aside from the title (I'm not sure how much defending the elite need considering their position as well, the elite), I think is somewhat interesting blurb (I wouldn't necessarily call it an article)-- there definitely is a difference in the words 'elite' and 'elitist'. Using them interchangeably is not only ignorant but irresponsible.


In fact, I'd be even more interested in reading an article by someone who isn't even a part of the 'elite'. Of course, the way things are, there are few people who aren't part of the 'elite' who are in a position to write a response to the discussion.


Hm, I'm definitely not part of the 'elite,' but I'm not far enough away from it for my opinion to really be as valuable.


But really-- how much do the Elite need defending? Toward whom is this passage aimed? If I were being overly critical, I say its a little defensive, and not simply defending. But I do recognize that the distinction needs to be made between the words. I just harbor an bitterness toward the 'elite' to begin with, I think.

My President is Black

So, Barack is our President Elect (projected, and probably correct).

What this means to me:

• That the youth can indeed have an impact (bodes well for the future).
  
• That various demographics can indeed come together under a common theme.
• People of the United States do indeed want change. Well, a lot of the delegates, that is. 

What this doesn't mean to me:

• That race relations have been perfected. We have a black president, obviously racism is a thing of the past <-- untrue, and the fact that some people think this demonstrates the exact opposite to me.
  
• That there are no more 'excuses' for underachievement-- I've heard this one. People say that because Barack Obama has succeeded, that this simultaneously nulls any argument that it is impossible for some people to do well in this established institution. I wouldn't say that its IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to succeed, but it can certainly be much harder. Barack Obama's story doesn't speak for everyone. His situation isn't the same for me, or anyone else, and just because he can succeed doesn't mean everyone can. That's ignorant, and its usually an argument rich people make to rationalize why they're rich and others aren't.
  

This is a brief post, but honestly, I woke up at 4am to vote, I'm exhausted. I just REALLY want to get an  international point of view.

Voting! Part One

So, this was my first experience voting. My mother is not American, so I'm really one of the first on her side to vote in an American election. Exciting, right?

What did I do... I woke up at 4am and waked to the polls with some other girls from my dorm (Some students decided to camp out in front of the polling places-- thats how long the lines were over here.

While I was waiting in line (polls opened at 7am-- pretty close to on time as well), I thought about some of the people back on campus who couldn't vote, for the dumbest reasons too, and some of the stuff we learned in our voter education class.

Of all the things people have told me, what hit me the hardest was that we should be wary of people trying to take away our vote for different reasons. That we should recheck our polling place, and recheck our forms of ID and definitely re check the clothes we wear (beyond that of general Obama and McCain wear which we all generally knew not to put on for voting).

Few things, in my opinion, are more offensive than someone trying to take away my vote. For me to be a disenfranchised American, who has done NOTHING wrong (in that I mean history breaking the law or something similar), and not be able to choose who leads my country, and thus, my family, is frightening in the least.

To me, telling me I can't vote is similar to saying, that while I'm a citizen, I'm not human enough to be allowed to vote, or for my vote to matter. That's a little dramatic, but then there's, "I don't care about your opinion," and that ones of the most dangerous statements one can make. Even worse is the, "Your opinion doesn't exactly mesh with what I want. And what I want is what is obviously best for everyone." Not that that isn't a common sentiment-- most people think that what they want is whats for the common good. And some people even take it far enough to presume others don't even KNOW whats best for them.

That's a little dicey, really. That is, if you're not a parent or guardian.

But taking away someone's vote is almost saying that. Or there are the situations where its a matter of intelligence and thinking that because someone isn't as formally educated, that they can't possibly understand politics.

If that is true, its because people make it that way, the media and the elitist. Not because politics is inherently hard to understand ( I'm going to come back to that in a later post, I think, because I definitely have a problem with this).

In any case. For the Election Day proceedings, I'll be posting more than once today. We're having a school-wide lock-in, where we can sleep in cafeteria building, and we've put up projection screens which are broadcasting different channels. Its really awesome. So I'll be around, as a member of the Student Government Association that is organizing this.

For me, at least, I figured that it was at least somewhat important that students knew what the goings-on were once they casted their ballot, you know? Its a lot of these peoples' first elections. With this in mind, I thought it was even MORE important.

Tonight, feel free to post with any of your voting experiences, happy or sad. I'm off to the polls at 4 (after our school rally) to hand out water bottles and snack bars for the people in long lines. Its an SSGA initiative that we're attempting. Completely unbiased (it has to be, considering you can't campaign at polls), we plan to hand out various foods to people in those multi-hour long lines-- all of which will be stamped with Your local Student Government Association thanks you for voting!" 

the Media...

I'm sure that by now, everyone has seen the New York Times' endorsement of Barack Obama.

I can't quite remember a time when the media was ever unbiased. But at least it used to be somewhat subtle.

When did it become alright for the media to be so openly biased? Shouldn't we expect them to give us the truth-- the facts despite whatever their opinions are? There is some amount of human error in this, as it is quite hard for people in general to keep their opinions and beliefs out of their commentary. But to go out of the way to endorse a candidate and his party platform?

It doesn't matter who the candidate/party is, I simply don't believe that news writers should be putting themselves out there politically.

Obviously people will lean toward reading whatever news has a bias toward their party. But doesn't this only contribute to the collective ignorance of the readership (I'm thinking particular of news papers, but it definitely applies to broadcast journalism, and other types)?

More than anything, its the impudence that infuriates me. People will read this endorsement and not think that it is as all untoward. This same gall is what makes me angry at politicians and CEOs.

People in power get away with so much; not because they're slick about it, but because the public doesn't call them out on their wrongdoings. And thats what gets me angry.

The Matrix?

In philosophy class, we're reading the book, Meditations on First Philosophy, by Rene Descartes. 

The premise of this is Descartes throwing aside all his previous learned assumptions and questioning them as he develops new beliefs. An interesting idea, no? Although, very time consuming, I'd assume. 

He starts all of this with the possibility that he is simply dreaming-- yes, like the Matrix. I never saw the whole trilogy, but I remember the idea that the reality we lived in was a complete simulation similar to the idea Descartes presents.

I don't mean to shake stuff up for no reason, but what if this was true? What if it all was a dream? Our philosophy TA asked us this question in her presentation for us to discuss (our class is about 9 people, which makes for amazing discussion). My answer? 

It doesn't matter. 

What would we do if it was in fact, all a dream? Wake up? Untrue. In fact, we wouldn't know it was a dream until we woke up. 

On a different (and slightly more selfish note), I personally need to be able to believe that this answer doesn't matter, or that this isn't a dream (which we couldn't really prove anyway). I need this because on a day to day basis, I have to motivate myself to keep going, and to keep living my life-- everyone does. People wouldn't take out the trash if they believed the trash didn't actually exist anyway. They wouldn't work for money if it was a contrived concept to buy contrived items like food, clothes, and mortgage. 

A larger scale paints a completely different picture. Everything we have learned is based on one obvious concept-- that we exist. That the atoms we split, the papers we write, the stock we trade are all actual things. Existence is the given in every proof we make. 

This is a rather short and to the point entry. Just something I thought to get off of my chest, I suppose. Others might have been thinking, Well, why wouldn't you want to know if the world you live in is actually some intricate simulation? 

So that there was my explanation. You couldn't do anything about it anyway, so why fret? Which isn't necessarily a transferable concept. I base this on the assumption that most things are not hopeless. This is one situation in which there is ACTUALLY nothing that can be done, which is rare. 

Anyway, opinions? Feel free to take this in another direction.

CNN and Obama

Alright, so we all know that the news is biased. FOX leans right, CNN leans left and so forth. Its nothing new, right? 

Well, last night, I was watcing CNN (I seem to be compelled to watch the news all the time. Its as if I'm afraid that something will happen if I leave the television and I won't catch it until AFTER everyone else has...), and they were doing a segment on how much race shouldn't matter and still does. Especially in this election. 

They portrayed it as the big elephant in the roomthat no one wants to discuss. Like no one really wants to point out Barack Obama is black. 

Please. I refuse to believe that race is the elephant in the room. Its not something that people tip toe around. Not really. 

And of course, after saying that race is something that shouldn't matter, CNN did something that rather pissed me off-- did a segment on African Americans that aren't voting for Barack Obama. Picked up three black males and had them discuss why they aren't voting for another one of their own. 

To me, it seemed rather contradictory. Why do a whole hour on race as a non-factor, and then imply that its uncommon for black citizens not to vote for black politicians? Why not ask some white voters why they aren't voting for John McCain? Ask some hispanics why they vote at all? Well, that's taking it rather far, but I do think that it succeeded in perpetuating exactly what they claimed to be against. If race is a non-factor, why expect African-Americans to vote for him, right? 

Its another thing that says that race isn't dead. There's a better way to phrase that, but you know what I mean. As an African American, I am extremely proud of the fact that there is an African American role model for young boys. But whether or not I vote for him has absolutely nothing to do with that. I'm sure its a large factor for a good amount of Black people. 

But politician is a race that superceeds skin color. At this point, I doubt that any illusions of racial obligation will necessarily mean that any president will institute 'CHANGE' to the degree that I need to be able to pay the 30,000 dollars a year for college. 

Post Debate Recap

As many of you have said, I can't say that learned anything particularly know from the debate last night. In all honesty, by the end, my room mate was making me flip back and forth during HOUSE, and I probably learned more from that show than I did from the debate. 

There isn't even much to say about it. It was bland. No passion, barely civil, and bereft of any new information. I was waiting for something to happen, and nothing did. The best part of the debate was the Israel question, when McCain kind of broke the rules to personally engage the questioner and thank him for his service (Nice gesture, but who didn't see that one coming?). 

I was kind of lost though. Isn't the whole point of the Town Hall setting to engage the people in the meetings? Break the rules. Why was there only one person who was personally engaged by a candidate? If you're going to stand there by your chair and answer the questions, then how is this different from any other debate? 

What got on my nerves the most was the personal aspect to the debate. As IB said in a comment on my last post,  "The bickering and counter-bickering over the issues was tiresome." It seemed as though all they did was bicker. 

I don't know why I would believe Obama's account of McCain's voting record any more than I would believe McCain's account of his OWN damn voting record. It goes both ways because they're both biased. You're worse than a common fool if you think that when John McCain gives you a synopsis of Barack Obama's . It was as if they regressed to that "I've gotta get the last word in" thought process. 

All in all, I don't what to say. There's really no eloquent way to say that the debate was a waste of time. It just made me angry at both candidates for their pettiness and avoidance of the questions. Brokaw wasn't bad though. I was surprised by how old he looked-- maybe its because I'm so used to seeing him every night, and now that I don't, it took me by surprise. He asked one really worthwhile question I liked-- the one about their military philosophy. Again, it was answered by glittering generalities I won't bother recounting. 

I'm done. Discussing this debate was a waste of time because the debate itself was a waste of time.

Second Post in a Day?

This is uncommon, I swear it.

I just thought it was necessary to get my expectations out there BEFORE the debate tonight really got underway. 

...

I have no expectations, get it? (It was a joke. Again, laughter is encouraged.)

Alright, time to be serious.

Doubtless, the questions will have a lot about the main issues-- the economy, immigration, and the like. Especially the economy-- but thats what I thought last time, and there still wasn't any discussion of the economy. Obama was asked what he would cut, and of course he responded that he would make sure healthcare was accessible for everyone. Very nice sentiment; but it still does not answer the question.

Who thinks any questions will be answered? 

Under the rules of the debate (town hall style), its actually really easy to avoid answering the question. One of the main rules is that the camera can not go back to the questioner after they ask their respective question. 

So, that includes no followups. And Brokaw can't exactly continue to press for a more in depth answer. This makes it the ideal situation for the candidates. 

The catch is that Brokaw has control over all the questions that are asked. He literally has hundreds of questions that have been submitted to him. If he decides that he wants to bombard Senators Obama and McCain with economy questions, its completely up to him...we'll see, I suppose. I have a lot of faith in Tom Brokaw-- he's a pro. He could pull something out of his hat. I would like, no SIMPLY ADORE, nothing more than to see choose a question neither of them are prepared for.

On the preshow here on CNN (is it wrong that I love Anderson Cooper? My best friend says I lose 'cool points' for it), they just discussed the improbability of any philosophical stuff. 

How depressed am I? How can you ACTUALLY judge a person well enough to vote for them if you don't know what their philosophy is? You can instill the word hope, and you can press the word change, but at the end of the day, if I dont know what you life by, I dont know who you are. 

Okay, thats it. Its an abrupt cut off, but its going to have to do, or I'll keep going forever.

PS. THANK YOU to everyone who has been commenting. The support means a lot-- I'll get back to good posting after this debate, I promise! 

"The less you know, the more you believe." Bono.

This quote came up on my email as the "Quote of the Day"

I was thinking about it for a second, trying to get over the fact that it was Bono first. And then I realized how true it is.

How much is my capacity to believe (people, ideas, and the like) inversely related to my learning? It's sad really, because ideally, the more you learn, the more you believe.  That’s if you find out that the things you are learning are true. This quote implies that the more you learn, the more you learn in PARTICULAR relates to how much your naiveté has been taken advantage of—how much you’ve been lied to.

Let’s keep in mind that I attach part of the word belief with hope in general. And I hate using that word, since it’s almost been coined in this election by the candidates. But I use the word hope how it’s supposed to be used. Without partisan influence. I mean it in the purest sense—how much optimism one has for not only their future, but their family’s future. The generations one will be a stranger to, but will pray for their wellbeing anyway.

How much does one’s optimism fade as they learn? In this way, and really every way, this quote is the exact inverse of say, “Ignorance is Bliss.”

People don’t WANT to learn, which is why the more you learn, the less you believe (this is assuming that whole if p then q thing from high school math. If you do learn, then you don’t believe).  It’s a cycle, wherein if more people did make the effort, then those higher ups (I’m pointing the finger) would be caught in their lies and wouldn’t be able to make a fool out of their constituents.

At this point, I feel like someone, well, more than just someone, more like somepeople, have to take the initiative. Ignorance isn’t alright, and the less ignorance there is, (watch me struggle to finish this sentence in a way that WON’T sound corny.) the less likely we as a collective group of citizens (no matter your country) are to be taken advantage of.

Debates?

Oh, don't you wish politicians would answer the questions? 

Its as if they've got something to hide.

That was a joke, you should laugh (or cry).

Sitting, Waiting, Watching

I figure there's no better time to post another entry than before the Presidental Candidate's debates in Oxford, Mississippi. 

People are wondering what will be the topic of the night. I think people are hoping for the economy as opposed to what the debate was supposed to be about-- foreign policy. 

I'm not sure WHAT I want their topic of the night to be. In today's economic climate, I suppose discussing this is just as good as anything. But I'm afraid that there would be nothing more than a back and forth on the Wall Street Bailout. 

On my part, I'm still trying to figure out why the government is even able to direct this large a taxpaid sum toward Wall Street. 

Side Note: The question posed to be voted on Lou Dobbs Tonight is more or less "Do you think that its time to tell President Bush and Congress to shut up and declare NO BAILOUT?"

It meshes with this topic, so I choose to include that in this entry despite the obvious bias in the question itself. Obviously, I say yes. And if the time comes when they DO give Wall Street the money, make no mistake, I will treat it as an investment and claim my portion of the country. Is that even posible? It must be-- its not as though there's been a situation wherein there have had to be parameters set for this sort of thing. 

Back to what I was saying before. The lines between Communism and our supposed Free Market Capitalism are really blurring for me with this proposed bill. Wouldn't it be interfering with the Free Market if President Bush were to give money to Wall Street. 

As I watch the news, and see that there are a bunch of Dems who have recieved money from Wall Street, I can see how this would almost be like a payback to the Wall Street companies that contributing to their campaigns. But that has nothing to do with me, and the taxes my family pays, so why don't they  contribute their own money to Wall Street?

Its baffling to me. If anything shows how far our government is in the hands of the Big Business, its this. And the fact that no one has brought THAT up on a wider scale is frightening to me. 

This just makes another in a long line of things that are complete saddening when I think about whatever Hope we're supposed to have for our government and the future. So many people (not necessarily myself--I'm not being paid, let alone to be endorsing anyone on my own personal blog here.) are hoping for their particular candidate to revolutionize the American government so that it benefits the common man, the middle class man. If the government is this far into the pocket of big business, what can we do, except have a complete overhaul. Aren't they putting too much 'hope' into one man's ability to 'change?'

I don't know. I'll write back after the debate, I suppose. Maybe, maybe not.

First Post

This blog was more or less made in the spirit of anger. 

With November 4th getting closer, I can only continue to feel hopeless, as in neither candidate really encompasses what is I'm looking for. 

Discussing this with friends helped for a while, but its not as though they really hold quite as large an investment in politics. 

To whoever is there, whoever is reading, my name is Zero, and I'm a college freshman without a government. These will be my rants, my comments, and so forth, all of which will detail my issues, my feelings, and most importantly, my solutions.

Thank you