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.